ML20132C046
Text
...
f m
UNITED STATE 3
//8 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{-
j WASHINGTON, D. C.,WT9 k..... p#
April 18,1984
~
fi
MEMORANDUM FOR: Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director y
Division of Licensing T'
FROM:
Roger J..Mattson, Director Division of Systems Integration
SUBJECT:
GRAND GULF 1 - INCONSISTENCIES IN FSAR VS AS-BUILT PLANT At your meeting with H. Denton yesterday, DSI was asked to determine if the inconsistencies identified by MP&L between the FSAR and the as-built plant were of such a nature that the proposed Order Restricting Conditions for Operation should not be issued. identifies four such inconsistencies which are within the DSI scope of responsibility. (Note: five items are listed; however, items #74 and 112 and duplicates).
As described in Enclosure 2, none of these items prec,lude issuance o,f the
~~
Order.
Roger J. Mattson, Director Division of Systems Integration-
Enclosures:
As stated-
~
cc: H. Denton E. Case T. Novak E. Adensam L. Kintner r
R. Vollmer
.i 4
S A
(74dsd44m9
.PP 1
W;
,. w.
...m
._.m i
l,'
Enclosura 1 f
l INCONSISTENCIES: FSAR vs. AS-BUILT PLANT Page 1 of 2.
NOTE TSPS #
PRIORITY SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE COMMENTS 52 073 28 Smoke detection is provided for subject areas.
a.~FSAR 9A.7.2.2.24 and 69 states that 102 28 Overall SER conclusions not impacted.
smoke detectors will be installed.
i 304 2D The as-built plant has these detectors l
installed. FSAR is not current.
i Purely editorial. Renaming of zones does not
- b. FSAR Figure 9A-22 does not correctly alter fire protection requirements or measures identify fire detection zones. The provided. Overall SER conclusions are not design documentation does identify the impacted.
zones correctly.
(Applies to diesel generatorbuildings.)
74 234 ICs0 3A The FSAR discussion should be expanded to clarify The FSAR 6.2.7.5 does not clearly reflect csa reference to narrow range instrument. The the suppression pool level clarification of the high and low water level instrumentation, i.e., which instrument i
alarm input should not alter overall conclusions provides high and low level alarms.
3 in the SER (7.5.2).
Narrow range instrumentation not described. Arrangement of sensors requires clarification, 85 131 2G Second column line is an editorial error. There FSAR Figure 9.5-4 incorrectly lists a can be only one location for a single hose second column line for a single hose station. Area is provided necessary fire station.
protection measures. No impact on SER overall conclusions.
94 809 Ps0 3B (Evaluation of item under: review.)
FSAR 7.1.2.c.22 does not fully describe methods used for providing thermal overload protection to M0V's.
112 234 3A The FSAR discussion should be expanded to clarify FSAR 6.2.7.5 does not clearly reflect San ns reference to narrow range instrument. The the suppression pool level 14 clarification of the high and low water level instrumentation, i.e., which instrument alarm input should not alter overall conclusions provides high and low level alarms.
in the SER (7.5.2).
Narrow range instrumentation not described. Arrangement of sensors requires clarification.
W3sd1 Rev. 3, 4/11/84
- L-J= J
,.w.a.
.u.,
~
..c
..., L
~
INCONS'ISTENCIES: FSAR vs. AS-BUILT PLANT.
Page 2 of 2 4 {;
\\;
NOTE TSPS #
PRIORITY SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE COMMENTS 154 819 3B By MP&L/Bechtel evaluation, the key issue is that FSAR Table 3.7-17 incorrectly describes' prompt readout of seismic information is provided certain seismic instrumentation. The in the control room.
The current design, with as-bgilt plant has response spectrum
- [
analyzers, meets this requirement. The SER analyzers not recorders.
overall conclusions Are not impacted.
l.
'i 155 818 eso 3B Barriers such as these are considered acceptable FSAR does not indicate that blind flanges j
I based on MP&L/Bechtel evaluation of BTP CSB 6-3.
and rupture discs are used in secondary
'l The omission of the discussion of the use of containment boundary (FSAR 6.2.3.2),
i blind flanges and rupture discs does not impact the overall SER conclusions (SER 6.2.2).
[58 306 c58 IB-Categories "a" through "f" include discrepancies Numerous corrections and citrifications f,
which are purely editorial, dealing with proposed to FSAR Table 6.2-44, information or changes to information which do
" Containment Isolation Valves." Tha l
not bear significantly on the overall acceptance items fall into the following categories:
of the plant's containment isolation provisions, a) Penetration sizes incorrect or not indicated in Table.
b) Divisional power supply incorrectly labeled.
c) Valves incorrectly labeled as inboard t
J or outboard.
d) Direction of flow in line incorrect.
\\
e) Footnotes no longer referenced in Table should be deleted.
f) Valve position under certain circumstances not expressed consistently throughout Table (e.g.,
" Closed' vs. " fail closed").
.(Justification for Category "g" changes under g) Isolation signals of some valves i
review) listed incorrectly.
1 Rev. 3, t/!1/M 8
.t.
INCONSISTENCIES: FSAR v. As-Built Plant Item 74 &
The FSAR 6.2.7.5 does not clearly reflect Item 112 the~ suppression pool level instrumentation, i.e., which instrume'nt provides high and low level alarms. Narrow range instru-mentation not described. Arrangement of sensors requires clarification.
t J
Comments:
The description of the problem as stated by MP&L is correct. The FSAR does need updating for this purpose. However, we have reviewed the current TS associated with suppression pool level instrumentation. The current TS match the as-built plant design. The LC0 and surveillance requirements associated with the i
instrumentation are correct and the values listed for the high and low level alarms are consistent with the initial conditions assumed in the accident analyses.
Item 94 FSAR 7.1.2.c.22 does not fully describe methods used for providing thermal overload protection to M0Vs.
~
Comments:
The correct reference should be FSAR 7.1.2.6.22.
While that portion of the FSAR does not fully describe the thermal overlaod protection being used at Grand Gulf, the thermal overload methods actually being used have been reviewed and evaluated by PSB and are in conformance with RG 1.106, " Thermal Overload Protection for Electric Motors on Motor-0perated Valves. The FSAR will nesd.to be updated.
Item 155 FSAR does not indicate that blind flanges and rupture discs are used in secondary containment boundary (FSAR 6.2.3.2)
Comments:
The use of blank flanges and rupture discs in the secondary containment boundary are consistent with the acceptance criteria of SRP 6.2.3, "SecondarynContainnent Functional Design." The FSAR will need to be updated.
. Item 306 Numerous corrections and clarifications proposed to FSAR Table '6.2-44
" Containment Isolation Valves." The items fall into seven categories shown as items a through g on Enclosure 1.
All of the items in this category are correct with respect to the TS and the as-built plant. During the period 08/83 through 10/83 CSB reviewd and evaluated all of the proposed changes. The TS have been modified to reflect CSB's evaluation.
The FSAR table will need to be updated.
y-e w
w---
,,, --,------,--,-