ML20132C052
Text
F
~ - - - - - -
- - + - - - - - - -
- - - ~ ' ' "
p 4
$2 Krog o
UNITED STATES
- g. gN(g
!\\
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A: p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k,%
p]R g y G84 MEMORANDUM FOR:
D. R. Muller, Assistant Director for Radiation Protection, DSI W. V. Johnston, Assistant Director
..j for Materials, Chemical and Environmental Engineer, DE 1
J. P. Knight, Assistant Director for Components & Structure Engineering, DE R. W. Houston, Assistant Director for Reactor Safety, DSI L. S. Rubenstein, Assistant Director for Core & Plant Systems, DSI W. T. Russell, Deputy Director Division of Human Factor Safety FROM:
Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing i
SUBJECT:
GRAND GULF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVIEW The review of Grand Gulf Technical Specifications required for operation under the current low-power license was completed April 18, 1984, with the issuance of an order incorporating necessary technical specification changes into the license.
The plan for review of changes to Grand Gulf technical specifications needed for a full power license follows:
n g
I.
DSI, DE and HFEB should:
3 1.
Complete the review of MP&L technical specification problem I
sheets (TSPS) - both those for which the resolution proposed by MPL is technical specification changes (342 - 372) and those for which the MP&L proposed resolution is an FSAR change (815 - 832) (Enclosure 1). Determine from this review, pro-
'j blem sheet numbers for which the staff believes technical specification changes and/or FSAR changes are needed for a full power license amendment.
If any design changes are i!
believed needed, these should also be identified.
I l
l I
A B445.L5c/48@ MPP pf,
- ._ f
._.n-2___-
.c._.i~
~~~
i
~2.
Review the MP&L response to the NRR recomme,dations for technical specification changes resulting from its review of Grand Gulf technical specifications in the fall of 1983 (Enclosure 2) and also those resulting from its review of Grand Gulf technical specifications, as amended through Amendment 12 (Enclosure 3).
Also review MP&L response to those changes recommended by EG&G (Enclosure 4).
i j
Determine in this review:
a
- )j (a) for recommendations in which a problem sheet is referenced, whether the MP&L proposed problem resolution adequately resolves the NRC concern (b) for recommendations in which no problem sheet is referenced whether the NRC concern is adequately alleviated by the response.
Any results should be presented at a meeting with MP&L on April 27, 1984 and provided by memo to Division of Licensing by May 4, 1984.
II. Region II has agreed to:
.1.
Complete the review of MP&L TSPS problem sheets (Enclosure 1) and determine problem sheet numbers for which the staff believes technical specification changes and/or FSAR changes are needed-for a full power license.
If any equipment modifications are believed needed these should also be identified.
2.
Review the MP&L response to review and inspection connents (Enclosure 5) to determine whether:
(a) -for recommendations in which a problem sheet is referenced, whether the MP&L proposed problem resolution adequately resolves the NRC concern l
(b) for recommendations -in which no problem sheet is referenced, j
whether the NRC concern is adequately alleviated by the J1 response.
- Aj Any results should be presented at a meeting with MP&L on April 27, 1984 and j
provided by memo to Division of Licensing by May 4,1984.
l III. DL will provide the results of the NRR and Region II review described aboye to MP&L via letter. As significant portions of these reviews i]
become available, DL will provide letters to MP&L with results.
p:}
': k i
.a=
. IV.
A program is being developed to facilate this review.
It will consider MP&L transmitting by letter marked-up pages of the technical specifications showing proposed technical specification changes and marked-up pages in the FSAR showing proposed FSAR changes for MP&L problem areas and NRC concerns that are determined by NRC staff to be needed for a full power license amendment. Conference calls and meetings will be arranged with MPL to obtain technical information which is needed by NRC staff to 1
complete their review.
V.
DL will prepare the full power license amendment technical specification change package and associated safety evaluation, using input from technical branches. This will be part of the full power amendment provided for a Commission decision on authorization of full power operation.
The licensee has provided its final report on its review of Grand Gulf Technical Specifications by letter dated April 19, 1984. This report is being distributed to the branches and can be used to track resolution of T.S. changes.
Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
R. C. Lewis, Region II F. Miraglia a
i 1
1 l
.. g
- e-
~. my -
ENCLOSURE 1 MP&L TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEETS NOS. 342 - 372 AND NOS. 815 - 832 The problem sheets in this enclosure are assigned to branches as indicated below. However, branches should review other problem sheets if part of the problem falls within their responsibility.
Review Branch Problem Sheet No.
MTEB 815, 829 AEB 349, 822, 823, 832 METB 348, 358, 361, 368 ICSB 346, 347, 355, 356, 357, 359, 360, 362, 363, 364, 366, 367, 369, 370, 820, 832 RSB 344*, 345, 350, 828, 831 PSB 342, 343, 353, 362, 365 CPB 352, 354, 371, 821 CSB 366, 372, 818, 823, 824 CHEB 351, 827 ASB 816, 812, 821, 825, 826 SGEB 819 MEB 830
- 344 was derived from 233 and is resolved in the 4/18/84 Order.
,oe
,%,..-w.
.~... - -
.,y
~ - * * -
- ~~
-~'
^
6 I
b TECHNICAL SPECITICATION PROELEM SHEET Iten Number:
342 Priority:
2B
/
G.
A'. Zinke Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor
?
Tech Spec
Reference:
3.8.1.1 Actions a, b, d, e l
Tech Spec Page: 3/4 6-1 Problem
Title:
HPCS Diesel Generator Testing 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR SER, GE Design, Other):
The actions of Technical Specification 3.8.1.1 a, b, d, a require testing the HPCS diesel generator for 4.8.1.1.2.a.4 under certain conditions whether or not the HPCS system is operable. This results in situations where an emergency support system is tested when the system it supports does not meet its operability requirements.
2.
Safety Significance:
Nune.
(<..
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Revise Technical Specification 3.8.1.1.a. b, d, e (actions) to read "...
4.8.1.1.2.a.4*... Add footnotes
- to read *4.8.1.1.2.a.4 must be performed for diesel generator 13 caly when EPCS system is operable.
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
i Individual Notified Date Time I
3.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (Hov) t
/
Date Time cc:
J. E. Cross
\\
i R. F. Rogers I-Rev. 19, 4/5/84 y..
..E S S S$
.,_m..
'~^
4 4
7 TECHNICAL SPECITICATION PROBLEM SHEC Item, Number:
343 Priority:
2D GE Review
/4/3/84
,.)
j Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tach Spec
Reference:
3.3.3 Tech Spec Page:
Probles
Title:
Grand Gulf Technical Specification / Bkt/6 Standard Technical 4
Specification Inconsistenev 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, other):
The Bh1/6 Standard Technical Specification has requirenants for " Division 1, 2, and 3 Bus Power Monitor"; the Grand Gulf Technical Specification does not.
GE interprets the "3us Power Monitor" as the battery bus low voltage instrumentation.
2.
Safety Significance:
None. This instrument is for annunciation only and has no actuation function.
(g-Battery voltage is surveillanced weekly and =d=4a4=tratively monitored every 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />. The DC bus monitors are in service with setpoints of 109 volts; thus s
the only change here would be a change to the Technical Specification.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Add requirements to Grand Gulf Technical Specifications for Division 1, 2, md 3 bus power monitor to make consistant with Bht /6 Standard Technical Specification.
i 4
NRC Response to Item (3RR/IZ):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time
)
i
(
Rev. 19, 4/5/84 Pisd249.2.
_m.
(
Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECITICATION PROBLDi SHEET (CONT'D)
__. _,._ Item Number:
343 Priority:
2D 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (Hov)
/
Date Time cc:
J. E. Cross
- 1. F. Ecsers i
?
i i
(
s.
Rev. 19, 4/5/84
?lsd249.2.1
e e
s TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SEErr
,, _ _ Item Number:
344 Priority:
1B G. D. Pierce
/4/1/84 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor i
Tech Spec
Reference:
4.5.1.b Tech Spec Page: 3/4 5-4 Problem
Title:
ECCS operability Surveillance Requirements 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR SER, GE Design, Other):
The present specified total developed head (TDH) say not ensure GE design injection requirements. The flow versus TDH requirenants also may not ensure ISI requirements.
2.
Safety Significance:
Total developed head values presently required by Surveillance Requirement 4.5.1.b may make adequate operability determination questionable.
t
.N 3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Investigate the necessity of changing the TDH values in Technical Specificaiton 4.5.1.b and submit correct values, if required.
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/II):
NRC Notified:
/
l Individual Notified Date Time l,
5.
Dispoettion:
)
l-Items Closed: (How)
/
Data Time ec:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers c
Rev. 19, 4/5/St.
(
Plsd249.3 t
=.
L :.
2.
I TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBI.EM SHEET j
Item Number:
345 Priority:
23
/
Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor
'f Tech Spec
Reference:
3/4 3.8 Table 3.3.8-2
~,
Tech Spee Page: 3/4 3-99 j,
Problem
Title:
Incorrect Allowable Value ij 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SEE, GE Design, Other):
l Technical Specification Table 3.3.8-2, item 2.a lists the A11'vable value as o
'i less than or equal to 55.7 inches for the Reactor Vessel Water Level-High, Level 8 channel for the Feedwater System / Main Turbine Trip System trip function. GE design documentation specifies an allevable value of 54.1 inches for this trip function.
- 2. ' Safety Significance:
None. A recent evaluation indicates that the current value in the Table is acceptabis and has a negligible effect on FSAR accident analyses. The change will make this table consistent with GE design documentation.
t
{
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Perform an evaluation to determine the need to revise item 2.a in Table 3.3.8-2 to be less than or equal to 54.1 inches in the Allowable Value column and propose any necessary Technical Specification changes.
i
?
]
4.
NBC Response to Itaa (NR1/IE):
d NRC Notified:
/
d Individual Notified Date Time
~!
-i
.1 y
.q Inv. 21, 4/3/84 I
"i Pisd249.4
._. _. - ~.-..
~
~.
._ 1
-l l
Page 2 i
i TECHNICAL SPECI7ICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D)
_ Item Nu_mber:
345 Priority:-
23 5._ Disposition:
3
, Items Closed: (How)
/
Date Time taference: TSIT-84/0240, page 8 TSRI-84/0075 cc:
J. E. Cross
- 1. 7. Rogers U
Rev. 21, 4/8/84 Pisd249.5 y
-_m__,---m-
~
^~
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PkOBLEM SHEET
_, _ Item Number:
346 Priority:
2B Loeper
/4/5/84 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.3.7.8 Teca Spec Pages 3/4.3-75 Problem
Title:
Clorine Detection System 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spse, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
Technical Specification 3.3.7.8 requires two independent chlorine detection systems to be operable in all Operational Conditions. The GGNS design for the chlorine detection system includes a senser with output contacts providing signals to the control rocs emergency filtration system isolation logic. The specification should b a revised to replace " chlorine detection systems" with
" chlorine detsction c'.tannels" for consistency with the GGNS instrumentation definitions.
Action Statements (a) and (b) require at least one control room emergency filtration systes subsystem to be operating in the isolation mode when there are inoperable chlorine detection channel (s). The existing Action Statements permit a control roor. emergency filtration subsystem to remain in normal operation with its asacciated chlorine detection channel inoperable as long as I
the other control room emergency filtration subsystem is operating in the isolation mode. The Action Statements should be revised to preclude this possibility.
i l
2.
Safety Significance:
U None. Replacing "syst ss" with " channels" for the chlorine detection instrumentation is for clarification of terminology and does not affeer compliance with the intent of the Technical Specification.
As presently worded, Action Statements (a) and (b) may not be adequate to j
prevent chlorina from eccering'the control room acaosphere following an accidental chlorine release.
Rev. 21, 4/8/84 l
Msd249.6 i
Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D)
Item Number:
346 Priority:
2B 3.
Anticipated Raaolution:
Evaluate the-necessity of changing Technical Specification 3.3.7.8 to provide the proper terminology and provide consistency with the GCNS instrumentation channel definitions.
Evaluate Action Statements (a) and (b) with respect to the design intent of the control room emergency filtration subeystems and their associated chlorine detection channels. Propose appropriate Technical Specification changes as necessary.
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (How)
/
i Date Tina 1
i cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers l
l
\\
l I
Rev. 21, 4/8/84 i
.P Isd 2I.9. 7
?-
s TECHNICAL SPECIPICATION PROBLEM SEEET Item Number:
347 Priority:
23 NRC/NRR
/2-9-84 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3/4.1.4.3 (New Specification)
Tech Spec Page N/A New Specification)
Problem
Title:
Rod Pattern Control Systen Bvpass Switch Requirements 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, PSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
.In a letter from R. C. Lewis, Director of the Division of Project and Resident Programs to Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director of the Division of NRR Licensing dated Pebtuary 9, 1984, a proposed Technical Specification on the use of the individual control rod bypass switches was included for consideration. These bypass switches remove the constraints of the Rod Pattern Control System (RPCS) on control rod movements. The proposed new Technical Specification would state when the bypaar switches may be utilized and provide Surveillance Requirements accordingly. The proposed specification shoulc. be reviewed for incorporation into the GGNS Technical Specifications.
2.
Safety Significance:
None. The existing GGNS Technical Specifications address all areas of the proposed new specification. The proposed specification would consolidate the RPCS bypass switch requirements for clarification purposes.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Evaluate the proposed new Technical Speci' Vation on RPCS bypass switches to determine if a change to the GGNS Tec % e,ti Sp uifications is necessary.
Ites 1 of the proposed Technical Sp.cificacion 3.1.4.3 permits a misaligned control rod believed to be operable to be bypassed from RPCS constraints to allow it to be repositioned. This provision is less conservative than the existing GGNS Technical Specifications on RPCS bypass switches since there are Rev. 21, 4/8/84 Ptsd249.8
____._m.
j
-.: ~ :.
~
i e
f Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLDi SHEET (CONT'D)
Itas, Number:
347 Priority:
2B no requirements for compliance with established control rod movement I
sequances. This allowance, if implemented, would have to contain criteria for handling repositioning of misaligned control rods consistent with the control rod drop analysis.
The proposed Surveillance Requirement 4.1.4.3.a states that at SRO aust independently verify the position of a bypass switch each time its position is changed. The Surveillance Requirement, if implemented, should also provide verification of compliance to the Technical Specification condition permitting the bypass.
The proposed Surveillance Requirement 4.1.4.3.b specifies that the position of each bypass switch must be checked at least once per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in operational Conditions 1, 2, and 5.
This Surveillance Requirement, if impissented, could result in an unnecessary activity in Operational condition 5 when control rod movements would not affect reactivity - for example, when the entire core is unloaded.
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time Rev. 21, 4/8/84 i
Pisd249.9
Page 3 TECENICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D)
Item Number:
347 Priority:
2B 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (How)
I Date Time
Reference:
Memorandum from R. C. Lewis to D. G. Eisenhut, " Consents on Draft Appendix A Technical Specifications, Grand Gulf Unit 1, Docket No. 50-416" dated February 9, 1984.
ec:
J. E. Cross
- 1. F. Rogers j
Rev. 21, 4/8/84 J
Pisd249.9.1
.i j
-. -- - -. ~..
.m..
-,.---c--
--~----e
=--T*
- --~-T-'
.. ~ -..
p TECHNICAL SPECITICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number:
348 Priority:
2E Loeper
/4/5/84 Identified By Data Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.3.7.3-1 j
Tech' Spec Page: 3/4 3-43 Problem
Title:
Met Monitoring Instrumentation 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
Technical Specification Table 3.3.7.3-1 requires a =4"4="- of one operable instrument for each of the listed meteorological monitoring functions. Action Statement (a) requires a Special Report to the NRC if "one or more meteorological monitoring instrumentation channels" is ineperable for more than 7 days. The GGNS design includes 2 instrument channels for each meteorological monitoring parameter of Table 3.3.7.3-1.
The existing Action Statement (a) could require a Special Report to the 3RC fer a single inoperable instrument event though the mind== operable instruments requirement of Table 3.3.7.3-1 is satisfied. Action Statement (a) should be revised to delete this unnecessary reporting requirements.
2.
Safety Significance:
None.
The GGNS Technical Specification ensures adequate meteorological monitoring instrumentation response. The proposen change would only affect the reporting requirements of this specification.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Review Action Statement (a) with respect to the reporting requirement for i
inoperable instrument channels and evaluate the necessity of a Technical Specification change based on this review.
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time Rev. 21, 4/8/84
?1sd250
+
y-y 9
y
--w y-
e s
Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLE SHEET (CONT'D)
Item Number:
348 Priority:
2E
- t 5.
h sposition:
s Items Closed: (Hov)
/
Date Time ec:
J. E. Cross
- 1. F. Rogers t
'k
. I I
i 4
Rev. 21, 4/8/84 Pisd250.0.1
,-e---
w-m
- -p-
-g-e
-e,-.y,.--,
- e -g
---,+-r-y 7---
y w
7-4 P
- - - - -- i g
t TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM Ites Number:
l 349 Loeper Priority:
/4/5/84
_ 2D Identified By Tech Spec
Reference:
Data Table 3.3. 7.1_1 Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec Page: 3/4.3-58 Problem
Title:
_ Action Statement 75 Requirements 1.
Probles Description (Tech Spec Technical Specification Table 3 3 7 1 1 l, PSAR, SEE, GE Design instrumentation requirements.
i sts the radiation monitoring are inoperable fuel handling area ventilAction Statement 75 aust Operational Conditions 1, 2, 3 ation exhause radiation monitor en there handled.
fuel handling area pool sweep exhau tactio g
en when there are inoperable fuel in the spent fuel storage poolradiation acnitor(s) with irradiated s
one standby gas treatment system train taction Statement 75(b) requires there are two inoperable monitet o be in operation within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> when east As indicated by note (d), a high radis for either of the abo items.
these instrumentation monitors will ation trip signal by either of fuel handling area ventilation systemalso isolate the auxiliary building reviewed to determine if the appropriate Action Statement 75 should be s.
secondary containment integrity.
action should include establishing 2.
Safety Significance:
The existing GGNS Technical Specific isolation of the fuel handling area ventilation may not be adequate to l
ation systems.
3.
}
Anticipated Resolution:
Evaluate the fuel handling area ventil requirements in Technical Specification T blation system radiation moni Statement 75 should include establi hi e 3.3.7.1-1 to determine if Action a
- }
Propose Technical Specification chan ng secondary containment integrity.
s of this review.
ges as appropriate based upon the results i
Rev. 21, 4/8/84 Ptsd252
,,.mei mewi e @ N
",,-,.--e,,
w.---is,----
-.a.--.,_+.,,-,.-ms
,,-m
,g.m,v.
,g,w,q
,-we.e ye--,.
,c.-e----,e---c.
--,---e-
+-
,w--
,w--w--
,---e,,-
e w
w
e Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D)
Item. Number:
349 Priority:
2D l
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
t 1
NRC Notified:
/
4 Individual Notified Date Time 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (Hov)
/
Date Time ec:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers I!
i 5
Rev. 21, 4/8/84
- . Lm....
- -..t.-
.-p;e m,rd e.
w.-
e..
....,-.-....~.;..
TECHNICAL SPECI71 CATION PROBLD4 SHEET Item Number:
350 Priority:
2B Looper
/4/4/84 Identified By Data Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.2-1 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-13. 3-14 1
Problem
Title:
Action Statement 28 Requirements i
j 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SIR, GE Design, Other):
l Technical Specification Table 3.3.2-1 lists the isolation actuation instrumentation requirements associated with plant systems. Action Statement 28 must be taken if the RRR system isolation actuation channels are inoperable in operational Conditions 1, 2, or 3.
Action Statement 28 requires the affected system isolation valves (Group 3) to be locked closed within one hour. The hJR shutdown cooling inboard isolation valve (E12-7009) is located inside the drywell and could not be locked closed with the reactor at power.
RER shutdown cooling return valves E12-F053 A & B are also affected by the RER system isolation signals, but are not part of the Group 3 valves because they are not containment isolation valves. The application of Action Statement 28 to these valves is not clear.
Action Statement 28 should be revised to re' solve the above conflicts.
2.
Safety Significance:
None. The existing Technical Specification would cause the plant to shutdown j
from power to implement Action Statement 28. The proposed change represents
'j enhancement to plant operations. The design intent of Action Statement 28 can be satisfied without its application to the RER shutdown cooling inboard isolation valve by locking the remainder of the Group 3 isolation valvss closed and closing the shutdown cooling inboard isolation valve in accordance with Technical Specification 3.6.4(b).
i Rev. 21, 4/8/84 l
1 ptsd254
+-w+-
g----
6 y
,,.7,..--9 p - -.,,rm.,.,,,.y-wp e.,, -
.,--e
-.,,,.,w ya y.
w--,w.
_wgw,,-+.e r.w+-t vi www-s-----pe,-ggywe+--.
Cam wm--
. - =.
e Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D) i i
Item Number:
350 Priority:
2B 3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Evalusta the applicability of Action Statement 28 to the RER shutdown cooling i
inboard isclation valve I12-7009 to determine if an exception to the locking requirement is justified. Propose appropriate Technical Specification changes as necessary based upon the results of this review.
Evaluate the applicability of Action Statenant 28 to the RHR shutdown cooling return valves E12-F053 A & B to deter: tine if a Technical Specification change is required to ensure the appropriate action is taken for these valves.
Propose Technical Specification changes as necessary based upon the results of this review.
4.
NRC Response to Ites (NRE/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (How)
/
Date Time cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers 1
Rev. 21, 4/8/84 P14d255 e
w wme-,-
w e
=
w
-eerv.we-----e~r--mev--ww-.y-ewsg*-,-y,,-e-g,-,wyy-'-a-
-e'---w-i-*eif--'e-s----'--w--y-----
-wv-'-'--
-*-*==-"*a
-+ee*-"Ff-
T't---w----'Tm"'9-*tY'-
- ^
g 3
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLIM SHEET Ites Number:
351 Priority:
2D S. Loeper
/4/5/84 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.3.7.9, Table 3.3.7.9-1 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-76, 3/4 3-77 i.
Problem
Title:
Fire Detection Instrumentation 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SIR, GZ Design, other):
The applicability statement for Technical Specification 3.3.7.9 is " h never equipment protected by the fire detection instrument is required to be OPERABLE." However, some fire detection instrunents listed in Table 3.3.7.9-1 4
do not protect equipment which is required to be operable per Technical Specifications (a.g., co:xputer room).
Also, note (1) states that zones apply only to smoka detectors. Action Statement a. which describes zones with respect to inoperable insertuaants may be construed to imply that Action Statement a. is not applicable to inoperable heat and flame detectors. In addition, the zone designation for the heat detectors in items f.1 and f.2 is "N/A."
2 2.
Safety Significance:
None. Specifying fire detection instrumentation for equipment that is not required to be operable per other specifications is conservative. Note (1) stating that zones apply only to snake detectors is to clarify that the smoke detection loop may consist of detectors, in series, or more than one roca within a zone and, therefore, would require inspection of the complace zone.
The heat and flama detectors are within the listed rocas only and requiring inspection of the complete zone, as now required, may be over-conservative; however, a change to Note (1) should be considered for clarification.
Rev. 21, 4/8/84 Plsd256
.-,,-.-,,-ywh---.
, -.--.-----,-..--.p.w-a-,--
,e,--.-.,i
.~w
-.,,,-con-,
w=
m--
---.-----,,g---y v-e--,yw-ge---
y-
w-
-~
ea
---,i-
t L....*
Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEIT (CONT'D)
_It,em Number:
351 Priority:
2D 3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Proposed changes to Technical Specification Table 3.3.7.9-1 and Technical Specification 3.3.7.9 were submitted to the NRC by letter (Item 1 of AECM-83/0565) from L. F. Dale to H. R. Denton, dated September 9, 1983. These changes included deleting Note (1) and added clarification to Action Statement
- a. by revising the format for zone and room designations in Table 3.3.7.9-1.
Investigate the necessity of changing the present and/or the proposed (as presented in the above referenced letter) 1echnical Specification 3.3.7.9 and Table 3.3.7.9-1 to clari.*y zone and roca designations, Action Statement a.,
Note (1), and requirements for fire detectf on instruments related to equipment that is not required to be operable.
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Noeified Date Time 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (Hov)
/
i
/
Date Time cc:
J. E. Cross
- 1. F. Rogers Rev. 21, 4/8/84 Ptsd257
e
+
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Ites Number:
352 Priority:
2D
. _,_,, Loeper
/4/5/84 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.3.7.10 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-81 Problem
Title:
Loose Part Detection System 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
The loose-part detection system consists of sixteen channels of which eight channels are active channels that provide alarm and indication functions. The remaining eight channels are passive channels at similar locations that are available for use if an active channel fails. The present Technical Specification 3/4.3.7.10 makes no distinction between active and passive channela.
(Note: TSAR designation for this system is loose-part monitor system.)
2.
Safety Significance:
L The distinction between active and passive channels is for clarification purposes.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
~
Review Technical Specification 3/4.3.7.10 requirements with respect to system design and evaluate the necessity of a Technical Specification change to provide the distinction between active and passive channels.
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified
/
Individual Notified Date Time Rev. 21, 4/8/84 pisd258
-i+r e*,
- m. &.
e4- ~.. ~
.e.
.-e..
o Page 2 TECHNICAL SPEC 17ICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D)
Ites Number:
352 Priority:
2D 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (How)
/
Date Time cc:
J. E. Cross
- 1. F. Rogers e
1 I
Rev. 21, 4/8/84 i
F1sd 250.3.1 i
-. ~ ~. -. _.
-==
~
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET i
Iten Number:
353 Priority:
2D
/
Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.8.1.1.b.2 and 3.8.1.2.b.2 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 8-1 and 9 i'
Problem
Title:
Diesel Generators fuel Storate Requirements 1.
Probles Description (Tech Spec, PSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
Technical Specifications 3.8.1.1.b.2 and 3.8.1.2.b.2 each require that the fuel storage system for each Diesel Generator 11 and 12 contain a minimum of 48,000 gallons. These specifications should be reworded to specify that 48,000 gallons is required for each "0PERABLE" diesel generator.
2.
Safety Significance:
None. This change would be for clarification purposes.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Investigate the necessity of adding the word "0PERABLI" in Technical Specifications 3.8.1.1.b.2 and 3.8.1.2.b.2 and propose any necessary Technical Specification changes.
{
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/II):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time i
I 1
h i
Rev. 21, 4/8/84 4
Pisd250.4
-i
a e
Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLD'. SHEET (CONT'D)
_ ___ Ites Number:
353 Priority:
2D 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (How)
/
Date Time
Reference:
Proof and Raview Counnent #5 from nemo frca R. C. Lewis to D. G.
Eisenhut dated February 9, 1984.
cc:
J. E. Cross
- 1. 7. Rogers Rev. 21, 4/8/84 Plsd250.4.1
i i
I TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET
_N. umber:
354 Priority:
2D Ites
- _ _ Steve Loeper
/ 4-4-84 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.6-2 Tech Spec Page 3/4 3-52 l
Problem
Title:
Control Rod Blocit Equation i
1.
Probles Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
Technical Specification Table 3.3.6-2 Item 2.a lists the trip setpoint for the flow biased neutron flux-upscale control rod block function as less than or equal to 0.66 W + 42 percent. Technical Specification 3.2.2 requires this trip setpoint to be less than or equal to (0.66 W + 42 percent)
- T where
'T' is a power distribution thermal limit adjustment factor. A footnote to Table 3.3.6-2 references Technical Specificatisu 3.3.2.
This footnote should be revised to clarify the applicability of the 'T' factor adjustment to the flow biased neutron flux-upscale control red block trip setpoints.
i 2.
Safety Significance:
None. The existing GGNS Technical Specifications are adequate to ensure proper application of the
'T' factor adjustments. The proposed change would clarify the footnote to Table 3.3.6-2 by providing additional information on the necessary adjustments.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Evaluate the flow biased neutron flux-upscale control rod block trip setpoints in Table 3.3.6-2 to determine if a clarification to the footnote reference to
}
the power distribution limit
'T' factor adjustaant of Technical Specification 3.2.2 is necessary. Propose a Technical Specification change if necessary.
r-l 4.
NRC Response to Ites (NRR/II):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time i
Rev. 21, 4/8/84 l
l Fisd262
a.
.=.;--.=-
T t
a e
Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D)
_ _Jtes Numbe_r:
354 Priority:
2D
- 5.,, Din osition:
Jtems Closed: (Hov)
/
i Data Time cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers
-t
\\
i I
3 Rev. 21, 4/8/84 Ptsd250.4.3 1
p--
e-.s
-e
,y+
e>..
,-,c.--.
.w
-_,,,.y,
---y.-..-_774 7--.,.
--4m-y-.
.-_cy,._..,
w--
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLDi SHEET item Number:
355 Priority:
2D Steve Loeper
/ 4-4-84 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 4.3.1.1-1 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-7 Problem
Title:
Surveillance Frequency Nomenclature 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec FSAR, SER GE Design, Other):
Technical Specification Table 4.3.1.1-1 lists the Surveillance Requirements for the reactor protection system instrumentatioc.
The surveillance frequencies for IRM neutron flux-high and APRM neutron flux-i high, setdown seem redundant. The present channel check frequencies for these items are prior to each reactor startup and once per twelve hours. Since Technical Specification 4.0.4 is applicable to this section, the startup requirement could be deleted without changing the testing frequency.
3 Note (c) to this table is similarly redundant and can be deleted without affecting the surveillance frequencies.
2.
Safety Significance:
i None. The existing GGNS Technical Specification Surveillance Raquirements are adequate to ensure proper reactor protection system instrument response. The proposed changes would provide clarification and consistency by eliminating redundancies.
1
]
3.
Anticipated Resolution Evaluate Table 4.3.1.1-1 with respect to the problem description and determine the necessity of Technical Specification changes to clarify the Surveillance Requirements.
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time Rev. 21, 4/8/84 i
Plsd264 l
-. 4. ~. :..- :
4 Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLDi SHEET (CONT'D)
Iten Numbey:
355 Priority:
2D l
5.
Disposition:
i Items Closed: (Hov)
/
Date Time ec:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers i
,1 i
4 Rev. 21, 4/8/84 4
?!sd250.5.1 ee
.w.*+=
-*w--,-
,-p,,wq-,,-
3-
-9
%-ww e-we-w-
=w---w---
--.-=-r
n m -we ww-
-ee1re-e w----
aw-
...-. ~ - -
TECHNICAL SPECITICATION PROBLIM SiiEET
_,,Ites Number:
356 Priority:
2D Steve Looper
/ 4-5-84 Identified By Date Responsibis Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 4.3.6-1 l
Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-53 i
1.j Problem
Title:
Rod Block Frequency Nomenclature j
1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec FSAR, SIR, GE Design, Other):
Technical Specification Table 4.3.6-1 lists the Surveillance Requirements for the control rod block instrumancation. The notes to this Table concein statements which should be reworded for clarification and consistency. These notes are:
Note b - this note requires a channel functional test of the applicable control rod block instrumentation once per week and within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> prior to startup otherwise. This requirement may be redundant and inconsistent with the Operational Condition 2 requirements.
Note c - this note is intended to require the rod pattern control system (RPCS) low power and intermediate rod withdrawal limiter setpoints to be functionally tested within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of their use. The present wording of this note should be clarified accordingly.
Note d - this note is intended to require the RPCS low power and intermediate rod withdrawal limiter setpoints to be functionally tested once per 31 days during power operation above the low power setpoint. The note should be revised to eliminate the "within a given power range" l
phrase since it may be misinterpreted.
j Note e - this note any not apply to the GGNS design in its present wording.
The BWR/6 design does not use a reactor manual control system (RMCS),
a having a RPCS instead.
,1 The number of notes on the RPCS low power and intermediate rod withdrawal limiter setpoints may impeda comprehension of their purpose. The Surveillance II Requirements for these setpoints should be clarified.
4 Rev. 21, 4/8/84 i
81sd266 v-w--g--v v----a 4,,-<-w,-
m.
,.ew--y---wwg--
--wy-m,yw, w-w w,-,-
,y,---m,-
m-
ww g-
---+--w----+-v-
---?
~
^
..u-2.
. 1 a
e J
Page 2 TECEICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D)
Ites_.N.. umber:
356 Priority:
2D j
l 2.
Safety Significance:
l None. The existing GGNS Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements are adequate to ensure proper control rod block instrumentation response. The proposed changes would provide clarification and consistency.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Table 4.3.6-1 will be evaluated and appropriate Technical Specification changes will be proposed, if necessary, to clarify the identified notes.
4.
NRC Response to Itas (SRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Kotified Date Time 5.
Disposition:
Items closed: (Hov)
/
Date Time cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers 1
i 1
Rev. 21, 4/8/84 Pisd267
'a-
+
v-p
.ysy-.,
y
.gvm
.,c%,w-g g..-.ym.-----.
p_-
m.m.
,-g w.-%w
,,p
.w
s
+
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SEEET I,tes, Number:
357 Priority:
2B Steve Loeper
/ 4-4-84 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.3.4.2 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-38 Problem
Title:
Thermal Power Evpass of RPT 1.
Probles Description (Tech Spec, PSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
Technical Specification 3.3.4.2 concerns the end-of-cycle recirculation pump trip (EOC-RPT) system instrumentation required in Operational Condition 1 at greater than or equal to 40 percent rated thermal power. Table 3.3.4.2-1 lists the minimum operable channel requirements for EOC-RPT instru=entation.
There is presently no requirement to calibrate / functionally test the EOC-RPT bypass instrumentation. Technical Specification 3.3.4.2 should be evaluated to determine if it is necessary to add calibration frequency, functional test frequency, and Action Statements for the EOC-RPT bypass circuitry.
2.
Safety significance:
Failure of the bypass circuitry could defeat the EPC-RPT logic.
3.
Anticipated Rasolution:
Evaluate the need for Technical Specifications on the EOC-RPT bypass circuitry and propose Technical Specification changes as appropriate.
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Data Time 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed (Hov)
/
Date Time ec:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers Rev. 21, 4/8/84 Plsd268
^
s s
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET
_Ites Number:
358 Priority:
2D j
Looper
/4/5/84 Identified By Data Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.7.12-1
. Tech Spec Page: 3/4.3-88 Probles Titile: Radioactive Caseous Effluent Monitoring Instrumentation 4
1.
Probles Description (Tech Spec, FSAR SER, GE Design, Other):
j Action Statement 123 of Technical Specification Table 3.3.7.12-1 for the Sampler Flow Rate Measuring Device requires that the flow rate be estimated at least once per eight hcurs. This action is taken when the number of operable l
channels is less than the minimum number of operable channels requirement in Table 3.3.7.12-1.
The current plant practice is to install auxiliary sampling equipment (which includes a flow rate indic.ator) to monitor the releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents in order to satisfy the action statement requirement. Action Statement 113 any need to be modified to I
address the current plant practice.
i Additionally, the installed plant panels which were made by different manufacturers provide several redundant indications with respect to the instrumentation requirements of Table 3.3.7.12-1.
The Technical Specification or Bases Section may need to be modified to address the panels made by different manufacturers with respect to verification of Technical Specification 3.3.7.12 requirements.
4 2.
Safety Significance None. This is an enhancement item since the changes identified would be for clarification purposes.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Review Action Statement 123 and current practices to determine if the Action Statement should be revised to reflect cubent practices.
I i
Rev. 21, 4/8/84
?!sd250.6
-y
-ry--ume-
-w---.
,+-.e-v,..
,.g, i
g-
9 4
Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECITICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D)
Ites Number:
358 Priority:
2D In addition, review the plant procedures related to the verification of Technical Specification 3.3.7.12 requirements. Confirm that changes to the Technical Specifications with respect to redundant indications from panels made by different manufacturers are unnecessary.
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time S.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (How)
/
Date Time cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers Rev. 21, 4/8/84 Pisd250.6.1
,en--
w---e v----
m--w arw#g-y
--4---.---------.----wg y%-
.9
,,,y.-%.....
-.,,--,-,,.yy,.,,,,-r--,,y y-,--,-----.-----.e,
r
- ~ ~
s l
9 TECHNICAL SPECITICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number:
359 Priority:
23 i
Looper
/4/5/84 j
Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.8-1 Tech Spec Page: 3/4.3-98 and 99 l
Problem
Title:
Probles Description (Tech Spec, PSAR, SIR, GE Design, other):
In Technical Specification Table 3.3.8-2, the seepoint for containment pressure-high of the containment spray system is less than or equal to 9 psig.
This value could allow the setpoint to be anywhere belov 9 psig.
Additionally, since Table 3.3.8-1 requires only one of the two containment j
pressure channels operable per trip system, the nonrequired channel could still be set below 9 psig, even if the required channel is set close to 9 psig. Both of these situations could result in containment spray being actuated at a containment pressure substantially below the setpoint, provided the accompanying initiation signals are present.
I 2.
Safety Significance:
None. Containment spray actuation at normal containment pressures has been analyzed and found acceptable. PSAR Section 6.5.2.2 states that containment spray may be initiated, ragardless of containment pressure, to suppress airborne radiation levels in a post-LOCA containment environment. Timers are also provided for the containment spray ind.tiation system instrumentation to assure that LPCI flow will be provided for at least a 10 minute period following a LOCA, thereby preventing premature LPCI diversion. Additionally plant surveillance / calibration procedures establish a band (upper and lower limits) for adjustment of the containment pressure-high setpoints.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Confirm that changes to the Technical Specifications to provide minimum value
,for the containment pressure-high setpoint are unnecessary.
Rev. 21, 4/8/84 Ptsd271 t
- - ~ _
,,y---
--n---.,-
p-<-
y
. - - -,,--w,-r.cg
.,_s
,4.--#--_,.,--
--. ~.,.,
- -,.,,,.,,--w.e-----
--me
..-,.,-w--,
............ _... ~. - -...-.
t Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLDi SHEET (CONT'D)
Ites Number:
359 Priority:
2B 4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
l NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Tina 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (How)
/
Date Time ec:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers 3
Rev. 21, 4/8/84 Pisd250.7.1
, asso eu.ws am wwwwa-+=
ev eme +%w sy w
-s==-
=
=
= * " ' -
- t
+
k1 TICENICAL SPECITICATION PROBLDi SEEET
.._. Ices Number:
360 Priority:
23
._ Loeper
/4/4/84 Identified 3y Date Responsible Supervisor
)
Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.5-1 C
4 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-45 Probles
Title:
Number of RCIC Trip Systems 1.
Probles Description (Tech Spec. FSAR, SER, CE Design, Other):
Technical Specification Table 3.3.5-1 provides requirements for the minimum OPERABLE channels per trip system for the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling i
(RCIC) System actuation instrumentation. Notes (b), (c) and (d) were added to l
the table to indicate that the logic for Functional Unit items b, c, d, and e made up one trip system. A similar note was not provided for Tunctional Unit item a because the current Technical Specification requirement was based on two trip systems. However, the Grand Gulf RCIC system design for the low level actuation instrumentation (Func.tional Unit item a) consists of a single trip systes containing four level channels, arranged in a one-out-of-two-twice logic. To reflect this, a Technical Specification change was submitted to the NEC in a letter (AECM-83/0642) from Mr. J. P. McGaughy to Mr. Harold R.
Denton, dated Occiber 11, 1983. The minimus OPERABLE channel requirement for l
the resctor vessel water level-low low, level 2 RCIC initiation function vsa modified to reflect one trip system instead of two.
Since all RCIC initiating functions in Table 3.3.5-1 reflect one trip system, notes (b), (c) and (d) are no longer required. The minimum OPERABLE channels per trip function for RCIC canual initiation should also be changed from f
"1/systes" to "1."
A note should then be added to the minimum CPERABLE channels per trip system column heading to clearly indicate that the Grand Gulf design for RCIC initiation consists of only one trip system.
2.
Safety Significance:
None. This propeaed Technical Specification change is for clarification purposes.
Rev. 21, 4/8/84 i
Plsd273
+
Tg--
e r
~--w-e-
-e
w---=,-r-----Mw-wev avp
-9W mm-r---w--u--g-w--*g y,o_-
-e---m7v vv ve-e-
-+--g--y y-
~-3--gy-e--t--M
-L-e+-
---w-w-w www-
~
_ _.. :. u..-
...a.
n._ _ :.._ _ _.
s Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D)
Iten Number:
360 Priority:
2B 1
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
j Review Table 3.3.5-1 to determine if clarification is required and propose any
+
necessary Technical Specification changes.
4.
NRC Response to Iten (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Nocified Date Time 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (How) i
/
Date Time cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers t
i 4
l*
l Rev. 21, 4/8/84 l
P!sd250.8.1
.-w p.p.&,w.-w.m-w_p.--
t TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET
{
Item Number 361 Priority:
2D Loeper
/4/$/84 Identified By Date Rcsponsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.7.11-1 and Table 4.3.7.11-1 Tech Spec Pages 3/4 3-83 and 85 Problem
Title:
Radioact.ve Liquid Effluent Monitors 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec PSAR, SER, CE Design, other):
The current wording in Table 3.3.7.11-1 and Table 4.3.7.11-1 implies that only the liquid radwasta effluent line gross radioactivity monitor provides automatic ternination of all effluent release. However, the other two devices listed in the tables (liquid radwaste affluent line and discharge canal flew Rate Measurement devices) also provide automatic termination of all effluent release. The circulation water blow down flow monitor is presently being used in place of the discharge canal flow monitor listed in the tables and should l
be included as an alternate indication.
1 2.
Safety Significance:
None. The present operability requirements are adequate as currently stated.
Any changes would provide clarificatin and provide consistency with operational practicas.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
l Evaluate the radioactive effluent monitoring instrumentation requirements and propose appropriate Technical Specification changes as necessary.
j4 f
4.
NRC Response to !tes (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Noeified Daea Time i
i Rev. 21, 4/8/84 i
l Pisd275
..+..#.
f..
I d
i Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBI.EM SHEET (CONT'D)
Ites Number 361 Priority:
2D
,, 5.
Dispositions Items Closed (How)
+
s
/
Date Time cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers a
4 J
t i
I i
A Rev. 21, 4/S/84 Fisd275.1
1 a
t TECHNICAL SPICIFICATION PROBLEM S*dEIT l
_, _ Item Number:
362 Priority:
2D i
Looper
/
Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.3.2 and 3.3.5 l
Tech Spec Pass: 3/4 3-9 and 3/4 3-44
}
Problem
Title:
RCIC Time Delay for Actuation and Isolation r
1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GR Design, Other):
{
Recent design changes have been made to the reactor core isolation cooling
]'
(RCIC) system to add two time delays. One time delay was added to the il actuation logic to prevent RCIC turbine trip on overspeed following the opening of steam admission valve E51-PO45. The second time delay was added to the isolation logic to prevent system isolation innediately fo11cving a loss of offsite power signal. Techni:a1 Specification 3.3.2 and 3.3.5 contain Surveillance Requirements for similar RCIC timers, but not for the timers installed for the new time delays 2.
Safety Significance:.
Ncne. Operability of the timers installed for the new time delays is
~
currently checked during the logic system functional tests required by Technical Specifications 4.3.2.2 and 4.3.5.2.
l
~
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Perform an evaluation of the additional time delays in the RCIC actuation logic and RCIC isolation logic and confirm that Technical Specificatien 1
changes are unnecessary.
,la j
4.
NRC Response to Ites (NRR/IR):
i
- i NRC Notified
/
3 Individual Notified Date Time i
1 J
Rev. 21. 4/8/84 i.
Ptsd:~5.2
,s=
-4,c.- gg.
y-gr,
g- -, -,
y y
,--m,--+y-=,.
a y
-- +-
w
---.--,i-----w-
,,,-my
..y.
,.w.-
7
_q
- - - - - -w--r--.--,
c,
^
~-
.. -. ~. -..
o I
Page 2 i
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D)
,, Item Nun,ber:
362 Priority:
2D i
5.
Disposition:
1i 1r:
Items Closed: (How) q a
.f
]
/
Date Time l
ec:
J. E. Cross
- 1. F. Rogers
.3 t
i i
t 3
- 4
?
?
.-la i
n
- )
a I
I l
4 l.
4 Rev. 21, 4/8/84 F1sd275.3 i
., - - +,
s TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET
,, Item, Number:
363 Priority:
2D Leeper
&/4/84/
Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.3.1.b and 3.3.2.c Tech Spec Page: 3/4.3-1 and 3/4.3-9 i
Problem
Title:
Unclear Action Statements k
1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, PSAR, SER, GE Design. Other):
Action Statement b of Technical Specification 3.3.1 and Action Statement c of Technical Specification 3.3.2 each reference a ** footnote that does not explicitly state the ir. tent of the Action Statements.
2.
Safety Significance:
None. This is an enhancement item for clarification purposes.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Evaluate the necessity of a Technical Specification change which would incorporate an acceptabic footnote such as the following:
The trip system need not be placed in the tripped condition if this would cause the Trip Punction to occur. h n a trip system can be placed in the tripped conditica without causing the Trip Function to occur, place the trip system with the most inoperable channels in the tripped condition; if both systems have the same nunber of inoperable channels, place either trip system in the tripped ccndition.
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time Rev. 21, 4/8/84 Plsd273.1
~
~-
~
- '~ -
L-..
e e
9 Page 2
~
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D)
Ites Number:
363 Priority:
2D
,,,5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (How)
/
Date Time
Reference:
P/L Item No. 212 cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers 4
Rev. 21, 4/8/84 Plsd275.5
-g 9.--
--,-my wy,e
-v*
e y
y,,-r
---w y
s-----
s e
TECHNICALSPECIyICATIdNPROBLEMSHEET Item Number:
364 Priority:
2B
_,, Looper
/4-4-84 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec Reference Table 3.3.3-1 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-27 i
Problem
Title:
Action 33 - HPCS Trip Systems 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SIR, GZ Design, Other):
i Technical Specification Table 3.3.3-1 provides requirements for the minimum CPERABLE channels per trip system for the emergency core cooling (ECCS) system actuation instrumentation. With the number of OPERABLE channels for Table 3.3.3-1, items a & b, less than required by the minimum CPERABLE channels per trip function requirement ACTION statement 33 vill be taken. This ACTION statement provides the appropriate response for "one" and "both" trip systems.
Because Table 3.3.3-1, items a and b, are part of one trip system, ACTION statement 33 incorrectly discusses two trip systems. ACTION 33 should refer to channels instead of trip systems to be consistent with the Grand Gulf design for high pressure core spray (HPCS) system trip functions.
Additionally, the minimum OPERABLE channels per trip function for HPCS manual initiation should be changed from "1/ system" to "1" sir.ca the Grand Gulf design for HPCS initiations consists of only one trip system.
2.
Safety Significance:
None. This Technical Specifiestion change would make the definitions of the terms " channel" and " trip system" consistent with the generic definition in l
At:achment 1 of letter AECM-84/0093.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Evaluate the necessity of a Technical Specification change to correct " trip systems" to " channels" in ACTION statement 33 of Table 3.3.3-1.
\\.
\\
\\
Rev. 21, 4/8/84 Pisd275.6 7.--9
s Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLE4 SHEET (CONT'D)
_ Iten Number:
364 Priority:
25 Review Technical Specification Table 3.3.3-1 to determine if the miniana OPERABLE channels per trip function for table ites c.1.f (HPCS system manual initiation) should be changed from "1/ system" to "1".
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRE/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time 5.
Disposi.cion:
Icess Closed: (How)
/
Date Time ec:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers Rev. 21, 4/8/84 P1sd275.7
.n
([
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number:
365 Priodity:
2D Imoell
/ 4/3/84 Identified By Date Responsibla Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
4.8.2.1.e, 4.8.2.1.f Tech Spec Page: 3/4 8-12 i
Prchles
Title:
Batter r Performance /Ser rice Test 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
FSAR Appendix 3A states that GGNS co= plies with Regulatory Guide 1.32, a.
Revision 2.
The Regulatory Guide position C.1.c states: "The battery service test described in IEEE Standard 450-1975 should be perfor ed in addition to the battery perfor=ance discharge test."
GCNS Technical Specificntion 4.8.2.1.e states:
"Onc~e per 60 conth interval, this performance discharge test may be performed in lieu of the battery -
service test."
These requirements seem to be in conflict.
~
f-b.
Regulatory Guides 1.32 and 1.129 refer to IEEE Standard 450-1975, which k~
states that a performance test of battery capacity should be made within the first two years of service. This test is not addressed in the Technical Specifications, c.
Surveillance Requirement.4.8.2.1.e requires a perfomance discharge test
~
once per 60 months to verify battery' capacity is at least 80 percent of tha manufacturer's rating. Rovaver, Surveillance Raquirecent 4.8.2.1.f requires annual performance discharge tests when battery capacity drops below 90 percent of manufacturer's rating.
2.
Safety Significance:
a.
None. Both the service test and the discharge test are perfor=ed according to IEEE Standard 450-1975. It is not necessary to perform the service test when the discharge test is required, since the discharge test is more severe and envelopes the service test requirements.
Rev. 24, 4/13/84 Pisd282.1
. ' - ~~.'. "-
t g.
q Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATICN PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D)
Item Nunber:
365 Priority:
2D b.
None. Present Technical Specifications are adequate. Present testing.
requirements include a pre-installation service test and a service test
" within 18 months of' installation.
c.
None. There.is no conflict. The requirements as presently stated in the Technical Specification is to perfors a performance test once every 60 months to verify battery capacity is at least 80 percent of rated. If the battery capacity drops belev 90 percent, hcuever, this test is perforned annually, again to verify battery capacity is at least 80 percent of rated.
i r
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
l-4 I
Evaluate to confirm that all regulatory requirements pertaining to battery g-testing are adequately addressed by the Technical Specifications.
i 4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
I NRC Notified:
/
i Individual Notif' ed Date Tine 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (How)
/
Date Time cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers Rev. 24, 4/13/84 Plsd282.2
~ - ~ Z __ _:
9
[C TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number:
366 Priority:
2D RPD
/3/31/84 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor l
Tech Spec
Reference:
3/4.3.8. Table 3.3.8-2 Tech Spec Page: 3/4' 3-97, 3/4 '3-99 B3/4 3-6
~
t i
Problem
Title:
Containment Spray System Resoonse Time 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
The present Technical Specification does not provide for a complete-
. containment spray system response time test. Presently, administrative controls are required to assure that the co=bination of instru=entation response times, Table 3.3.8-2, and the opening time for the E12-7028 valves does not exceed the 13 minute limit derived from FSAR 6.2.1.1.5.5.
An LCO and Surveillance could be developed in a similar fashion to the ECCS system response time testing presently in 4.3.3.3.
. (
2.
Safety Significance:
None. The total time for containment spray response can be administratively controlled, determined, and verified to be less than the required overall time by both:
1.
Perfor=ing the surveillance required by Table 3.3.8-2.
2.
Measuring valve opening time in accordance with ASME Section X.
l 3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Investigate and evaluate the need to add a requiremenr for c'ontainment spray system response time testing to the GGNS Technical Specification.
4.
NRC Response'to Item (NRR/II):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Nocified Daee Time r
Rev. 24, 4/13/84 Ptsd283
. ~.
i C
w Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEIT (CONT'D)
Item Number:
366 Priority:
2D 4
5.
Disposition:
.g*
Items Closed: (How)
I Date Ti=e ec:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers
) i i
3 l
1 9
Rev. 24, 4/13/84 Pisd283.0.1
(
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLDi SHEET Item Number:
367 Priority:
3B W. A. Russell
/ 3/20/84 Identified By Date Resp'onsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.3.7.5 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-70, 3-71
~
Problem
Title:
Action Statement Not Consistent with Table 1.
Problem Description.(Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design Other):
' Item 13, containment /dryvell area monitors, of Table 3.3.7.5-1 references Action 81. Action 81 addresses only operation with less than the " mini =um channels operable". The Action Statement for item 13 should address " Required number of channels," as well as the " mini =us channels operable"; therefore, Action 81 is inappropriata for item 13.
.2.
Safety Significance:
None. As long as the =4=4~~
operable channel requirement of Action 81 is
'j met, accident monitoring capability is provided.
\\
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Evaluate changing Actica Statement to Action 80 for item 13.
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/II):
NRC Notified:-
/
Individual Notifisd Date Time 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (How)
/
Date Time ec:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers Rev. 24, 4/13/84 Pisd283.1 ow
- . :.a
.. ~ - - -..
^
^
=
e TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBIE. S.n.
s Item Number: _368 Pricriry:
33 W. A. Russell
/ 3/20/84 Identified By.
Date Raspe:sible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.3.7.5 i
Tech. Spec Page: 3/4 3-70 Problem
Title:
Incorrect Nomenclature 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GI Design, Other):.
~
. Table 3.3.7.5-1 and 4.3.7.5-1, Items 13 through 18, should be revised to read
" radiation monitor" instead of " monitor".
2.
Safety Significance:
Resolved as part of Problem Sheet Item 329.
3.
AnticLpated Resolution:
Resolved as part of Problem Sheet Item 329.
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time 5.
Disposition: Refer to Problem Sheet Item 329.
Items Closed: (Hov)
I i
/
'l
~
Date Ti==
cc:
J. E. Cross
+ t R. F. Rogers
(
Rev. 24, 4/13/84 i
Pisd283.2
...,-....r-.
-.n.
~ - - -
,i,._.,----,,, - -.,
y
a,_,.._-
~
e-
. Q, TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLDi SHEET Ites Number:
369 Priority:
3B
=
W. A. Russell
/3/19/84 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.3.1 Tables 3.3.1-1 and 4.3.1.1-1 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-2, 3, 7, and 8 Problem
Title:
Applicable Operational Condition Inconsistencies f
S*
o Table 3.3.1-1 specifies applicable operational conditions for reactor i
j protection systen instrumentation and several items have footnotes describing i
exceptions to these operational conditions. Table 4.3.1.1-1 specifies
}
I Surveillance Requirements for the instrumentation listed in Table 3.3.1-1, but
_g does not contain the same footnotes for the affected items. This in effect I
requires Surveillance to be performed when the instru=entation is not required to be operable.
i
'; f" 2.
Safety Significance:
4s None. Current instrumentation Surveillance Requirements are more conservative a
than the operability requirements.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Evaluate to determine if ppropriate footnotes should be added to Table 4.3.1.1-1, to make it consistent with Tabl~e 3.3.1-1.
i i
4.
NRC Response.to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date -
Time g
n i
t I
i i
j i (-
Rev. 24, 4/13/84 l
f i
i I
'i Plsd283.3
__g
- .x g
9 fg Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PR03LEH SHEET (CCS~'D)
I Item Number:
369 Priority:
33 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (How)
/
Data
! ire cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers
/(.
d i
9 Rav. 24, 4/13/84 Pisd283.3.1
,-r,-
1
- - -,,,,, ;,._i,.
7,,l c
g 4
(
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLDi SHEET Item Nu=ber:
370 Priority:
3A W. A. Russell
/ 3/19/84 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
- 3. 3.1 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-1 Problem
Title:
RPS Trip Bynass Instruments Not Addressed fu Technical k'*
Specifiestion l1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, TSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
Instrumentation that provides for bypassing reactor protection systen (RPS) trip functions is not addressed in CGNS Technical Specifications or the B'a-6 Standard Technical Specifications. The BWR owners group should give cotisideration toward including this instru=entation in Technical
~
Specification.
2.
Safety Significance:
None. Instrumentation that provides RPS trips is included in the Technical
'- r k*
Specification.
3.
Anticipated Rosolution:
Evaluate incorporating any EWR onver's group resolutions.
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (Row)
/
Date Time 4
o
(-.
cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers Rev. 24, 4/13/84 l
Pisd283.4
. _ ~..
1
.-t y
-___,--,r__.,
-,,,,.,-,._.m-
-.s~
.a.__
s
(
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLE'. SEEIT Item Number:
371 Priority:
2D
- =
/ 3/16/84 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech-Spec
Reference:
3.1.3.4 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 1-10 Problem
Title:
Control Rod Drive Coupling 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec. FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
.s-The RWR/6 Standard Technical Specification 3.1.3.4 states "The provisions of Specification 3.0.4 are not applicable" at the end of the Action Stata=ents but the Grand Culf Technical Specification 3.1.3.4 does not contain this provision.
2.
Safety Significance:
None. The Grand Culf Technical Specification 3.1.3.4 is conservative as written by not allowing exception to the provisions of Technical Specification
,e 3.0.4
'l 3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Investigate the necessity of a Technical Specification change to add "The provisions of Technical Specification 3.0.4 are not applicable" to provide operational enhancement.
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
k Individual Nocified Daea Time Rev. 24, 4/13/84 P1sd283.4.1
=: -
..._...._.......y.....m,,._.
s e
-(,
Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D)
Item Number:
371 Priority:
2D 5.
Disposition:
.s-Items Closed: (Hov)
/
Date Time cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers
. ~ '
r sN f
l t,
i a
4 4
(
Rev. 24, 4/13/84 Die 47R1.4.2
..u.
...,a e
, ('
TECHNICAL S?ECI?! CATION' PRO 3LEM 5HEEE' si 1
Item Number:
372 Priority:
23 S. Loeper
/ 4/16/84 1
Identified By Data Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Tables 3.3.2-1 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-10 Problem
Title:
Manual Initiation of Yalve Groun 6A
'l Problem Description (Tech Spec, ?SAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
^
According to Isolation Actuacio.n Instrumentation Technical Specification Table 3.3.2-1, valve group 6A receives a closure signal froc =anual initiation (item 1.h) of pri=ary conta4n~ent isolation.
Eight valves in group 6A do not close from the manual initiation of pri=ary contain=ent isolation.
These valves
~~~
isolate chilled water to the drywell coolers (P44-?O70, P44-F069, P44-7053, t
P44-?076, P44-F074 and P44-7077) and the auxiliary building floor and I
equipment drain tanks line to 'the suppression pool (?45-F273 and P45-7274).
r 2.
Safety Significance:*
k The accident analysis does not take credit for the cannal initiation ihnetion for primary containment isolation. Automatic isolatten signals are assumed to provide the necessary isolation function.
Emergency and off-nor=al procedures for the plant do not take credit for the =anual initiation of pri=ary containmen't isolation.
Since the automacic isolation signals close all greup 6A valves, the subject problem description is not safety significant.
However, Technical Specification Table 3.3.2-1 is currently misleading and can lead to mininterpretation as to which valves recei e =anual initiation isolation signals._
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Evaluate the pro,blem to determine if a plant design change or Technical Specification change is required.
i 4.
NRC Respcase to Iten (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
(
Individual Notified Date Ti=e Rev. 25, 4/16/B4 1
F w
PP-C-r&y r-s7-9-u.*
t l
Page 2 7
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PR03LEM SEEIT (CONT'D)
Item Number:
372 Priority:
23 5.
Disposition:
~'
Items closed: (How)
/
Date Ti=e cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers
.f A
4 i
Rev. 25, 1/16/54 1
I t
~..,..,, _... _ _
7 i
s TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLDi SHEET _
T' Item Number:
815 Priority:
3B QA Review
/
Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3/4.4.4, FS AR Table 5.2.6 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 4-11, 3/4 4-12, 3/4 4-13 Problem Title. Reactor Coolant Chemistry i
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
1.
PSAR Table 5.2-6, sheet 2 of 2 requires (1) shutdown if pH is out of limits for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, and (2) in-line calibration for continuous conductivity monitored weekly and every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> if conductivity is greater than 1 micro These are inconsistent with the ACTION and Surveillance Raquirements NEO.
under Grand Gulf Technical Specification 3/4.4.4.
2.
Safety Significance:
Not applicable.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Update ISAR Table 5.2-6 to be consistant with Grand Gulf Technical Specifications.
4.
NRC Response to Itts (NRR/IR):
/
NRC Notified:
Individual Notified Date Ti:na 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (How)
/
Date Time cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers Rev. 22, 4/9/84 1
Fisd297
L-
~.. -,
t R~
i p TECICTICAL S?ECIFICATION PROBLDi SEEIT 4
Item Nunber:
816 Priority:
3B I
i
/
Identified By Date Respo:sible Supervi Or Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.2-2; FSAR Table 7.3-10 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-15; FSAR Table 7.3-10 Problem
Title:
FSAR/ Main Steam Line Flow-High Instrunestation 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GI Design, Other):
FSAR Table 7.3-10 contains specifications for the contain=ent and reactor vessel isolation control instrumentation. The naxinu= allovable setpoint for the main steam line flow-high instru=entation is given as 133.5 psid. The trip setpoint for this instrumentation in Technical Specification Table
~
3.3.2-2 its 169 psid. A 169 psid signal corresponds to a nain stean line flow of 1407, which is the value used in t,he FSAR analysis for a =ain steas line break.
g-The range for the nain,staan lina ficv-high instru=ent giisn in TSAR Table a
t 7.3-10 is -15/0/150 psid. As discussed above, a trip setpoint of 169 psid would necessitate revising this instrunene range to accenodate the setpoint.
FSAR Table 7.3-10 should be revised to correct the nain stes= line flow-hish.
instrunentation valves.
2.
Safety Significance:
Not Applicable.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Revise FSAR Table 7.3-10 to correct the nain steam line flev-high instrumentation valves in the next annual TSAR update per 10 C7150.71(a)(4).
4.
NRC Response to Iten (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:-
/
Individual Notified Date Ti==
Rev. 23, 4/10/84 1
i F1sd298 n a
.n.,
,.~n,,
'" " ' * ' ~
-7
-e m
y,-
g
m--9--,-g
+y7.m em7-
+-. - - - + - - - - -
.m--.
w.
es---
. ~,.....
.~.-.-.
g i r "Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLDi SHEET (CONT'D) j Item Number:
816 Priority:
33 t
a; 1
5.
Disposition:
i 1
. 'a '
Items Closed: (Hov)
~
/
Date Time 3
cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers i
o
't.
t i
t i
4 4
j.
i' 1
?
1
~
Rev. 23, 4/10/84 Plsd299
._.i...._.
^
-~
^
2.. _:- 11..
?.
t 4(*.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEF. SHEET Ites Nu=ber:
817 Priority:
33
/
Identified By Data Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
N/A; FSAR Section 6.2.3.2 Tech Spec Page: N/A; FSAR Pages 6.2-52, 6.2-52a Problem
Title:
FSAR/ Standby Cas Treatment System Desirn Criteria 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SIR, GE Design, Other):
C
. PSAR Section 6.2.3.2 needs to. be revised to indicate that the Standby Cas Treatment System (SGTS) has sufficient capacity to overcone the additional inicakage (i.e., maintain secondary contain=ent negative pressure) fres a single 4 inch line penetration or failure of all non-Q lines 2 inches and smaller.
2.
Safety Significance:
Not applicable.
f N.
3.
Anticipa:ed Resolucica:
Evaluate FSAR Section 6.2.3.2 with respect to the need for indicating the i
capacity criterion of the SGTS and, if necessary, include appropriate changes in the next===1 FSAR update per 10 CTR 50.71(c)(4).
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
q Individual Notified Date Time j
S.
Disposition:
i'l,<
I Items Closed: (Hov)
,4 i
/
,i Date Ti=e 1
-t cc:
J. E. Cross
/
R. F. Rogers Rev. 23, 4/10/84 Plsd300
-m.a e
4 i
l f.
.h.
TECHNICAL SPECITICATION PROBLDi SEEET Item Number:
818 Priority:
3B I
~
/
~
Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
N/A; TSAR Section 6.2.3.2 Tech Spec Page: N/A; FSAR 6.2-50 through 53a
~
Problem
Title:
FSAR/ Secondary Contaic=ene Isolation
]
1.
Proble:s Description (Tech Spec, 75AR, SER, GE Design, Other):
Y' FSAR, Section 6.2.3.2 needs to be revised to indicate that blind flanges and ruptura discs are also used to isolate secondary contain=ent.
. 2.
Safety Significance:
Not applicable.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Ivaluate TSAR Section 6.2.3.2 with respect to the need for indicating that
(
blind flanges and ruptura discs are also used to isolace seco.da:7 con ain=ent
" 3-and, if necessary, include appropriate changes in the next annual ?SAR update per 10 CTR 50.71(e)(4).
l 4.
NRC Response to Iten (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/-
Individual Notified Date Time 5.
Disposition:
t Icess Closed: (Hov)-
/
}
Date Time 4
ec:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers J
i Rev. 23, 4/10/84 i
I Fisd301 f
--4--.+-
4
- c+--
-m y--
q
-rw-w
,y,-
w--
r--
w
-yv.y--m e-w 9P----
y--v-
- - ----- g
. ( ~- ~
- ~~
~
-- ^
~
_ ~.
t
~
\\
\\
s.
A
'\\
s N,
s (g.
TECHNICM. t?ECIFICATION PROBLEM SEEIT
\\
i-N+
\\
s
.s Iten Number: 4319 Priority:
33
+
w
^
V
/
~: v Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor
=
. s Tech Spec.
Reference:
N/A; FSAR_ Table 3.7-17 j
Tech Spec Page: N/A; M AR Table 3.7-17 Problem Titist, FSYA/Seis.tii fustrumentation Nomenclaure i
s s
1 1.
Pr.aden Descriptions (Tech Spac, FSAR, SIR, GE Design, other):
C s
FSAR Section 3.7 describeg the peismic design and seis=ic =enitoring for GGNS.
Section-3.7.4.2 disen.sses the ' location and descriptics of seismic =enitoring s,
instrc=entattart, which is consolidated in Table 3.7-17.
The response spectrun x
analy=ar identified in Section 3.7.4.2.5 is incorrectly labeled in Table 3.7-17 as a " Triaxial ilesponse',Spectrus Recorder."
2.
Safety Significance:
Not applicable.
g
% \\n.
y e.
i q
3.
Anticipated Resolutio n Evaluatie the need to relabel the response spectrum analy:er in Table 3.7-17 and,' if necessary, include the appropriate changes in the :: ext annual FSAR upd.ite per 10.CFR 50.71(e)(4).
.~
A.
NRC Response to Item (NRE/IE):
,s
"?
5 NRC Notified:
/
I
\\
Individt:.s1 Notified Data Time
$.. Disposition:.
2 h,
k
\\
.(Hov) ','
Itees Closed:
A s
s'
'~
h
/
s %
_'.-l Date Ti=a 1
s cc:
.f. E. Cross i
R. F. Rogers 3 }
j s
Rev. 23, 4/10/84 m
l Fisd302 L.
.. b...- -.
-._,_m._
~z.
~
t
("
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEiT n.
\\
c4 Iten Number.:
820 Priority:
3B
/
l Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor
.+j Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.2-2, Table 3.3.S-2; TSAR Table 7.4-1 Tech Spec Page: 3/43-17,3/43-47; FSAR Table 7.4-1
.l Problem
Title:
FSAR/RCIC Instrument Specifications
]
1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
FSAR Table 7.4-1 lists the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling instru=ent specifications. The values provided in this FSAR table are not censistent with the associated instru=ent specifications is the GGNS Technical Specifications.
The following inconsistencies have been identified between the FSAR Table 4
l 7.4-1 and Technical Spec'fication Table 3.3.2-2:
f Function FSAR Value CGMS-IS Value a) RCIC systa= steas supply graatst than or equal low pressure 65 psig to 60 psig j-b) RCIC turbine exhaust less than or equal to high pressure 25 psig 10 psig The following inconsistencies have been identified between the FSAR Table t
7.4-1 and Technical Specification Table 3.3.5-2:.
Function FSAR Value' CGNS-TS Value a) reactor vessel low water less than or equal greater than or equal level to -41.8" to -41.6" l
b) reactor vessel high water greater than or equal less than or equal to t
level to 54.9" 53.5" c) condensate storage tank:
l'2" greater than or equal level to 0" d) suppression pool level 5"
less than or equal to t
5,9n
(
Rev. 23, 4/10/84 Pisd303 i
~,.. _
v e.-
4
.,w
--w m.
m
.n.
t t o
f, Page 2 TECHNICAL S?ECITICATION PROBLE SHEET (CCS-'D)
Item Nur.ber:
820 Priority:
3B l
^
j 2.
Safety Significance:
l Not applicable.
.v 3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Evaluate-the RCIC instrunent specifications in FSAR. Tabla 7.4-1 to determine the correct values. Revise the table as necessary following this review and include the appropriate changes in the next annual TSAA update per 10 CTR 50.17(e)(4).
4., NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
f-Individual Notified Date Ti=a
, (
5.
D1sposition:
Items Closed: (How) l
/
~
Data Time ec:
J. E. Cross' P.. F. Rogers f
(
l Rev. 23, 4/10/84 Pisd304
. ~...
... ~,
~.
p r
(
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number:
821' Priority:
33 Impell
/4/3/84 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
. 3/4 1.3.3.. FSAR 4.6.3.1~.1.5'.d Tech Spec Page: 3/4 1-9 Problem
Title:
Control Rod Drive Accumulator Level 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
FSAR Section 4.6.3.1.1.5.d states that " Experience with control rod drive systems of the same type indicates that weekly verification of accumulator pressure and level is sufficient to assure operability of the accu =ulator portion of the control rod drive system." This is inconsistent with Surveillance 4.1.3.3.a. which only requires weekly verification of accumulator pressura. Plant design does not provide an indicator for accumulator level; however, a high level alarm is provided for leakage past the accumulator seals.
,.?
B 2.
Safety Significance:
None. When the high water level alarm is noted for an accumulator proper actions are taken to ensure accumulator operability.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
~
Revise FSAR to delete the implication of a weekly accumulator Surveillance test.
4 NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
i Individual Notified Date Time t
I
(.
Rev. 24, 4/13/84
- Ptsd312.1
_~
~.. _.
(><{
'Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PR03LDi SHEET (CC:C'D)
Item Number:
821 Priority:
3B 5.
Disposition:
.u-Items closed: (How)
I Date Ti=e cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers f
\\.
1 l
t 1
i l
I Rev. 24, 4/13/84
)
Pisd312.2
~.-- _ _--.~ __ __ _, -_ ___._.
t j'*
TECHNICAL SFICIFICATION PROBI.EM SHEET Item Number:
822 Priority:
33 i
Impell
/ 4/13/84 Identified By
'Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3/4.6.6.3; ISAR 6.2.3. 6.5.3 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 6-54 Problem
Title:
Standbv Gas Treatment Systen Flow Tese '
1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
.s-FSAR Appendi:c 3A states CGNS is in coupliance with Regulatory Guide 1.52 a.
Revision 1, but should reference Revision 2.
b.
Regulatory Guide 1.52 paragraph C.S.b describes an air flow distribution
-test, but this test is not included in Technical Specification 3/4.6.6.3.
GGNS FSAR erroneously states that the time for secondary containment c.
negative pressure to be achieved is 120 seconds instead of 101 seconds in paragraph 6.5.1.3.
FSAR paragraph 6.2.3.1.1.c should be revised to reflect the correct value of the 120 seconds d.
FSAR Section 6.5.3 states that long' term operation flow rate of the standby gas treatment system is 2300 cfm. However, Technical Specification 3/4.6.6.3 and the Surveillance Procedure state that long term flow rate is less than 4000 cfm.
2.
Safety Significance:
a.
None. This is a typographical error.-
b.
None. The referenced test is not required for normal operational
,j surveillances. The FSAR should be changed to reflect this, c.
The FSAR Section 6.2.3.1.1.c does not accurately reflect the standby gas treatment system paramater. However, this has no effect on plant operation or safety.
d.
None. Technical Specification and Surveillance Procedures are correct, and FSAR should be changed to reflect GGNS design requirements.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Perform an evaluation to determine what FSAR changes, if any, are required.
(
Rev. 24, 4/13/84 Pisd313
_ __ __ q
t Q
C Page 2
. t,.
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLDi SHEIT (CONT'D)
Item Number:
822 Priority:
3B l
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (How)
/
Date Time f-cc:
J. E. Cross
'U-R. F. Rogers t
i '
i t
i Rev. 24, 4/13/84 1
Pisd313.0.1
.l
- ~ - -, -. - _ -. - - _ _ - - -. - _ - _ - - -,--
1._
t f~
TECHNICAL SPECITICATION PROBLEM SHEET k
Item Nunber:
823 Priority:
33 1
Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.6.6.'2-1; FSAR Table 7.6-12 Tech Spec Page: '3/4 6-48 through 6-52; FSAR Table 7.6-12 Problem
Title:
FSAR/ Secondary Containmenc Ventilation System Automatic Isolation Dampers / Valves
,s.
1.
Problem Description (Tech S'pec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
The completeness of Technical Specification Table 3.6.6.2-1 cannot be verified by FSAR Table 7.6-12, auxiliary building isolation, since the specific isolation danpers are not listed in FSAR Table 7.6-12.
Additionally, FSAR Table 7.6-12 does not list the RHR "A" loop discharge to liquid radwaste valve (E12-7203) which is listed in Technical Specification Table 3.6.6.2-1.
./
4-2.
Safety Significance:
None. The Technical Specification requiracents can be verified by plant design documents other than the FSAR.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Evaluate the necessity of adding the isolation dampers and isolation valve E12-F203 to FSAR Table 7.6-12 and, if necessary, include the appropriate changes in the next annual FSAR update per 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4).
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notifie'd:
/
Individual Notified Date Time
~.
(
Rev. 24, 4/13/84 Plsd313.1 s
.m._...
e t
Page 2 TECiciICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEf SHEET (CONT'D)
/
Item Number:
823 Priority:
3B 1
5.
Disposition:
qj i
Items Closed: (Hov) a
/
Date Tice ec:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers s(
'A
~
t I
i
- ' 6 d
I i
Rev. 24, 4/13/84 4
Pisd314 i
s
,,4
~r
.e,-.w-
-+
--ew-r--r c
w
-,e
-m,--.------:,,----w,.,w.
r.
m e
r o
(
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PRO 3LEM SHEET Item Number:
824 Priority:
33 INEL Audit of Tech Specs
/
Identified By, Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Technical Specification Table 3.6.4-1: FSAR Table 6.2-44
' Tech Spec Page: 3'/4'6-33 through 44
~
Problem
Title:
Containment and Drvuell Isolation valves l'. Problen Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
Technical Specification Table 3.6.4-1, items 1.b through 4.b, lists several,
containment and drywell isolation valves that are not listed in FSAR Table -
6.2-44 (containment isolation valve infor: ration). However, sone of these valves are listed in FSAR Tables 7.6-12, 6.2-48, and 6.2-49.
2.
Safety Significance:
None. The Technical Specification requirements can be verified by plant design documents other than the TSAR.
..f 3.
Anticipated Resolution:-
Investigate the need to revise TSAR Table 6.2-44 and, if necessary, include appropriate changes in the next annual FSAR update per 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4).
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Tine 5.
Disposition:
1 Items Closed: (How)
+
.e
/
i l
Date Time l
cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers Rev. 24, 4/13/84
}
Plsd315
m r. _ _
.c.__ _ -
L
_ _ _ __.c -
I ~
a TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET w
Item Number:
825 Priority:
3B i
l i
}
Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.2-1; FSAR Section 5.4.6 l ~i Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-12 & 13; FSAR Pages 5.4-15 & -16 l}
Problem
Title:
PSAR/RCIC Isolation Instrumentation 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GF, Design. Other):
FSAR Section 5.4.6, reactor core isolation cooling system (RCIC), does not currently reflect that valve group 9 requires concurrent drywell high pressure and RCIC steam supply pressure-low signals to isolate. Ecuever, note (c) to e
Technical Specification Table 3.3.2-1, items 5.b and 5.= for the RCIC steam
{
supply pressure-low and dryvell pressure-high actuation signals of the RCIC isolation trip function states that " Valve Group 9 require concurrent dryvell f
high pressure and RCIC steam supply pressure-low signals to isolate".
q-2.
Safety significance:
A None. The note (m) in Table 3.3.2-1 adds explanatory information not I
necessary for safe operation of the isolation function. This infor=acion will only add' clarification to the FSAR.
~
~
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Evaluate the need to revise FSAR Section 5.4.6 and, if necessary, include j
appropriate changes in the next annual FSAR update per 10 CFR 50.71(a)(4).
1i
]
- 4..NRC Response to Item-(NRR/IE):
N NRC Notified:
/
~
I Individual Notified Date Time j
.}
i 4
- (
Rev. 24, 4/13/84 1
.:. Plsd314
c>
c 9
I Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D)
Item Number:
825 Priority:
33 5.
Disposition:
i
-.).
Items Closed: (Hov)
/
Date Time cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers
./*k 5
t i
k
(..
Rev. 24, 4/13/84 i
Pisd317-
a-
^
2.-. :
L;
^ ' ^
~
1 P
l i
i TECIDTICAL SPECI?! CATION ?ROBLEN SiiEIT 3
<3 Item Number:
826 Priority:
33 J. G. Cesare
/
Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor i
Tech Spec
Reference:
3/4.7.9: FSAR Section 9.1.3.4: SER Section 9.1.3 i
Tech Spec Page: 3/4 7-45; FSAR Pare 9.1-17: SER Page 9-4 l
Problem
Title:
SER/ Periodic Ooeration of Soare Fuel Pool Coolinz 'Pumo.
l.- Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SIR, GE Design, Other):
l Technical Specification 3.7.9 requires that the spent fuel storage pool be maintained at less than or equal to 150*F, but does not explicitly address operability requirements for system components.
Operability is discussed in Section 9.1.3.4 of the FSAR, which states that the " spare" system compenents (i.e., the pump, heat exchanger, and filter-deminerali::er) are operated
)
periedically to handle abnormal heat leads or to allev the normal components to be serviced.
Section 9.1.3 of the Safety Evaluation Report (SERY presently states that the
[
spare pump v111 be operated periodically in accordance with plant Technical N
Specifications. As stated above -the Technical Specifiestions do not
-explicitly, require.the spare pump to be operated periodically; therefore, the,,
SEf is not' densIisteite with respect to its 'r'eference to the 'Techni'esi Specifications. The SER may need to be revised to state that the spara pump vill be operated periodically in accordance with the FSAR.
]
2.
Safety Significance:
j'j Not applicable.
.i 3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Investigate the need to request a change to the SIR in an SER supplement to 4
correctly address the periodic operation of the spara fuel pool cooling pump.
'1 0:
,j 4
NRC Response to Item ("RR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date
,Ti=a j-
,j Rev. 25, 1/16/34
[
- t i.
~. -.
- t
t Page 2
/#1 TECENICAL SPECIFICATION PR03LEM SHEET (CONT'D)
,e Item Number:
826 Priority:
33 5.
Disposition:
e i
Items Closed: (How)
/
Date Time
Reference:
LCTS Ice::: Number 198 TSRT-84/0102 cc:
J. E. Cross t.
R. F. Rogers e
4 S
4 e
e C'
2av.
!, 1/16/3!.
... x..
3
- 2. ~
'~
.o-t 4
[
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PR03LD". S*dEIT f..
Item Number:
827 Priority:
3B Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3/4.7.6.1, FSAR 9.5.1.2.1 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 7-28 i
Problem
Title:
Firewater Storage Tank Automatic Level Makaus 1
1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
, s.
FSAR 9.5.1.2.1 states that automatic makeup to the storage tank occurs at 18"
\\
below the overflow pipe. The actual makeup point is 45" below the overflow pipe. FSAR also states the system is maintained at 125 psig vs. Technical Specification 120 psig.
2.
Safety Significance:
None. The actual makeup point provides adequate wa:er volume in the fire storage tanks. The water of 120 psig is adequate as only 118 psig is required
(
for maximum 2717 gym for sprinkler flow plus 1000 gym for hose. strains.
1 1
1 3.
Anticipated Resolution:
~9' Review.FSAR 9.'5.1.2.1'to'refIact the' proper level o'f 45".* 'R'avise';FSAR.
~
9.5.1.2.1 and 9.5.1.2.2.1 to reflect 120 psig.
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time i
5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (How)
I*
i
/
Date Ti=e j (
cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers Rev. 25,' 4/16/84
--ri-ew-
+-e4-a sy n--^--ye m,.
--,---agg-
-e-----e+eesc-+----,--,---,e-
--9g
-e----m--+ca
.rvwmet-g------ww---
Wet-my y-w-y-
- +=-**-og---e
= - -
m&P
4 6
i(,
TRCIOTICAL SFECIFICATIO t ?ROBLD'. SHEET Item Number:
828 Priority:
33 S. M. Feith
/
Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3/4.3.5; FSAR Section 7.4.1.1 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-44 through 3-49; FSAR Fages 7.4-3 & 7.4-5 Problem
Title:
FSAR/RCIC Actuation on Reactor Low '4ater Level 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
FSAR Sections 7.4.1.1.3.2 and 7.4.1.1.3.5 indicate that the reactor core isolatica cooling (RCIC) system is actuated by a reactor low-water level signal. This is different that the title for the functional unit in Technical Specification Tables 3.3.5-1, 3.3.5-2, and 4.3.5.1-1 which indicate that RCIC is actuated by the reactor vessel water level-low lov, Level 2 signal.
~~
2.
Safety Significance:
Not applicable.
(
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Review the discussions contained in FSAR Sections 7.4.1.1.3.2 and 7.4.1.1.3.5 with respect to the'need:to. indicate the title for the functional unit that; actuates RCIC.
If necessary, include the appropriate changes in the ner.t annual FSAR update per 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4).
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time j
I C
Rev. 25, 4/L6/84
[
l
.' u..
a e
Page 2 o
TECEIICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLDi SF.EET (CONT'D) a Item Number:
828 Priority: -
3B 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (How)
/
Date Ti=e
Reference:
TSRT-84/0903, Item 3 cc:
J. E. Cross Rev. 25, 4/16/84 9
e 0 **
e 4
e e
e f
6 m.
e
-,.-,www1--,--w-
=
,+t=
~
w
-w
'W'
- ' ' ' ' " ' * ^ " ^ ~ " ~ ~ ' ' ~ *
' ~~
t-(
TECHNICAL S?ECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Nc=ber:
829 Priority:
33 S. M. Feith
/ 4/4/84 I
Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3/4.4.4; FSAR Table 5.2-6 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 4-11, 4-12 and 4-13 Problem
Title:
FSAR/ Reactor Coolant System Chemistry Rec.uire=ents 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
FSAR Table 5.2-6 (Coolant Chemistry Requirements) requires that the s.
reactor be shutdown if the pH is out of limits for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. However, Technical Specification 3.4.4.a.2 allows the pH to be out of limits for up to 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> before taking action.
b.
FSAR Table 5.2-6 requites checking the continuous conductivity =enitor
~ ~ '
with an in-line flow cell once a week and perfor=ance of an in-line conductivity calibration every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> whenever the reactor coolant conductivity is 1.0 umho/cm at 25'C.
Technical Specification j'
Surveillance Requirement 4.4.4.d requires the performance of a channel check of the continuous conductivity monitor with an in-line flow cell at least once per 7 days and 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> whenever conductivity is greater than the linit in Technical Specification Table 3.4.4-1.
~2.
Safety Significance:
Not applicable.
3.
Anticipated. Resolution:
Evaluate the need to revise FSAR Table 5.2-6 and, if necessary, include appropriate changes in the next annual FSAR update per 10 CTR 50.71(e)(4).
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time
/*
l Rev. 25, 4/16/84
~
h
~
I 1
l
(
Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLF. SHEET (CONT'D) o Item Number:
829 Priority:
3B
]
5.
Disposition:
1 i
'I
?
Items Closed: (How)
/
Date Tina i
ec:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers i
e'
\\
i d
i e
i
(-
i Rev. 25, 4/16/84 i
9
===w=e,....
-.~-.w....
T t-m-
e-g-
-e-w-g 7
---,,.ep, - - -, -.
r9w,--e.,-- -,,-.,
-y-,.,.-9,.
ny,,
y
--,,,-mm-yy,-,-y
,,-y,--
,,-3--g-e--ww-*
e-vwwmmw-
t
[
TECHNICAL SPECITICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number:
830 Priority:
33
/
Identified By
'Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.4.1.4; FSAR Section 5.3.3.6 Tech Spec Page:.3/4 4-4; FSAR Page 5.3-21 Problem
Title:
FSAR/Temnerature Difference 3erween Dcme and Botton Read-Diain
]
1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
FSAR Section 5.3.3.6 states that if the coolant temperature difference between
the dome and the bottom head drain exceeds 145*F, neither reactor power level nor recirculation pump flow shall be increased. This tenperature limic value is for BWR 4/5 plants and is incorrect for BWR/6 plants.
The correct value for 3WR/6 plants in 100*F as specified in Technical Specification 3.4.1.4.'
2.
Safety significance:
Not applicable.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Revise the temperature limic value identified in FSAR Sectica 5.3.3.6 in the next annual FSAR update per 10 C7R 50.71(a)(4).
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRP./II):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (Hov)
/
Date Time ec:
J. E. Cross
(
R. F. Rogers Rev. 25, 4/16/84
.. - - -. =
f I
(
TECHNICAL SPECITICATION PR03LIF. SEEET Item Number:
831 Priority:
33
/
s-Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.1-2: FSAR Table 7.2-5 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-6; FSAR Table 7.2,
f Problem
Title:
FSAR/RPS Response Times 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, CE Design, Other):
.s-FSAR Table 7.2-5, RPS time response (design), gives incorrect response times for the reactor vessel low water level, the reactor vessel high water level, the turbine stop valve closure, and the turbine control valve fast closure functions.
Technical Specification Table 3.3.1-2 identifies the correct response times which are in agreement with GE Design Specification 22A3771AE, as supplemented by letter number MTCE-82/077.
2.
Safety Significance:
(
Not applicable.
1 3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Review FSAR. Table 7.2-5 with respect to the response ti=es identified in Technical Specification Table 3.3.1-2 and, if necessary, include appropriate changes in the next annual FSAR update per 10 CTR 50.71(e)(4).
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
1 1
NRC Notified:
/
l Indivittual Notified Date Time 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (How)
/
Date Time
(
cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers Rev. 25, 4/16/84
.. _. ~. -..
- ~
[
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEIT i
Item Number:
832 Priority:
33 C. D. Stafford
/ 3/17/84 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.6.6.3: FSAR Section-7.3.1.1.8.2 i
Tech Spec Page: 3/4 6-53; FSAR Page 7.3-67 Problem
Title:
FSAR/ Incorrect Descriotion of SGTS Logic 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
v.
FSAR Section 7. 3.1.1. 8. 2 is incorrect in stating that any manual or automatic initiation signal starts both trains of the standby gas trea'ement system (SGTS).
The logic for the SGTS is divisional and vill only start its associated SGTS train.
The system design and Technical Specification 3.6.6.3 are consistant with divisional separation criteria.
~ ~ ~
2.
Safety Significance:
Not applicable.
i- (,
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Revise FSAR to reflect correct as-built configuration of the SGTS logic in the next annual FSAR update per 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4).
4.
NRC Response to Item (MRR/II):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time i
5.-
Disposition:
}
Items Closed: (Row) i
/
5 Date Tine ec:
J. E. Cross t
1 R. F. Rogers Rev. 25, 4/16/84 i
i
-= = > w g ee ee tw e =e e+
sw misvww.mm.,,
4
<=+--6.mp
,-e,o-
- w.
.p-aw-+
=.. p eas4 %
9-+-
4-,.*
ge
.,.e,c,e,+g+w
z..
. _ - -.. ~.
. a _.
r'
.. s' 6
ENCLOSURE 2 MP&L RESPONSE TO NRC CONCERNS WHICH WERE PROVIDED AS !!AND00TS BY i
NRC STAFF IN MEETING ON JANUARY 24, 1984 e i--l' e
k 1
.m i
?1.
),
..'4
)
'].
y.
1 e
i, 4
i 4
t
- + - -
+ % e e gew..,--wee.
.. m
< w. i,
i, a
%. w.
Irme__.____.___.____m_,___.m_.__.__,____.______m____
.m
.m.
G Gi T }
sv-Y/6 AEU
'"M #
/
f h N$o STATUS OF 1:RC CONCEid:S I.
NRC Proof & Revicu Comments informally presented to IIP &L on 1/24/84 at CCNS)ItS2.:.231:16 T A f-a
.~.m i a c r '--e 4 " '- ?.11; p m - ~ ~' t e-4h4I.
efe/gt e,
m A.,
Proof & Review - IE/NRR comments (Informal handout of IE/I:RR comments provided during, meeting of 1/24/84 at GG:S) 1.
Clarification of Spec 2.1.4 P/S 053 2.
Mat. Monitoring Instrumentation P/S - None GGNS design is described in FSAR 2.3.3; the design and Tech Spec meet the require =ents of Reg. Guide 1.23 3.
Containment Spray lfin. Op. Channels P/S 054 4.
Inop Conductivity Monitor P/S 055 5.
ECCS/ CST P/S 056 6.
4.0.2 Exemptions P/S 057 7.
Snubbers P/S 006 8.
Fire Suppression Action Statements See Chemical Engineering Branch Troof & Review Comments (Sec, G of this document) 9.
Spent Fuci Pool Teep P/S 058 4
- 10. Embankment Stability i
P/S 059
- 11. AC Sources "and/or" statements P/S 060
- 12. Thermal Overload Spec wording P/S 061 13.
Isolation Valve Ba'ses P/S Nono
!!P&L explained the basco durin-the 1/24/84 meeting.
Formal explanation is included in AEC:1-S3/0/.92 14 SBGT and Control Roce Filtration Eeaters P/S 062 Zisd1
'C
a
..w:
- ^ '
p s
15.
Composi:ica of ISEC P/S 063 16.
PSRC/SRC Alternates P/S 064, 065
[
17.
Personnel /ProcedureReviewRequirceents P/S None
.i CCNS Procedure 01-S-02-2 specifies requirements ij 18a. Tech Spec Consistency P/S 066
(
18b. ADS Accumulator Pressure Surveillance i
P/S 099 i
18c. RETS Recoc=endations
'See Rcdiological Assess:ent Branch Proof & Review Cer=ents (Sec. H of this document) 18d. NRC Staf f Proof and Review Co==ents i.,
- See CSB, CE3, !!ET3/RA3, RSS, ICSS, ASB, and ME3 ce==ytt breakdowns in this document t
lae. Typrographical Errors P/S - None No specific infor=stion was given to IT&L Q
4
'J c w 4 At w M A.A.~g GG v5 p d lm r c s 6 k - {3 Gn 4A<
.% s%.) J L
[.
Proof & Review - Auxiliary Systems Branch com=epts (!!amorendum fro:
l Parr to Thomas, 10/26/83) l l' !
1.
P/S 221 2.
Service Water System P/S 094
,q 3.
Control Roos Emergency Filtration System P/S None li Tech Spec change not necessary.
Tech Spec 3/4.7.8 already
!l contains surveillance requirements for control room air' temperature.
!. t l'
c f.
Proof & Review - Containment Systems Branch cerments (menorandum l!
f rom Houston to !!ovak, 11/31/83) 4 1.
IIRT Surveill'ance P/S 067 Z!sd3
r s
2.
Containment Purge P/S 06S 3.
Isolation Valve LLRT P/S 020 4.
Hydrogen Ignitor Surveillance P/S 069 j) f.
Proof & Review - Materials Engineering Branch comments (Memorandun i
from Liaw.to Thomas, 12/15/83)
\\
1.
Pressure / Temperature Limit Curves P/S 219 1
( /*.
Proof & Review - Reactor Systems Branch com=ents (Menorandus from Sheron to Thomas, 10/31/83) 1.
Isolation Actuation Instru=entation P/S 074 2.
ECCS Actuation Instrumentation P/S 075 3.
ECCS Response Time P/S 076 4.
APPJ! Setpoints P/S 215,
[L P.
Proof & Review - Chemical Engineering Branch comments (Mecorandus from Benaroya to Themas, 11/7/83)'
1.
Fire Suppression Action Statements P/S 070 2.
Fire Suppression Surveillance P/S 223 Cannot determine what the Branch coc=ent is about.
3.,
5.,
6.,
8.,
9., 10. - Reporting Requirecents P/S 071 4.
Sprinkler System No:zle Inspection P/S 072 7.
Halon Surveillance P/S 224 11.
Emergency Lightc/ Fire Extinguishers P/S 220
)
Zisd4
. a.-
~
~
~'b l.-
l' 12.
Fire Detection Instrumentation P/S 73 MP&L feels that format / change presented in the September 9, 1983, submittal is core appropriate for GGSS design than the NRC proposed changes.
g ' Af.
Proof & Review - Radiological Assessment Branch and Meteorology and Effluent Treatment Branch comments (Memorandum from Congel/Ga= mill to Thomas 11/4/83)
~
Category 1 1.
Radiological Effluent Dose Calculation P/S 089 2.
Total Dose P/S 090 3.,
4.,
RETS Clarification /Ocissions P/S 036 5.
Typo in RETS P/S 190 6.
"Cnesis" - Typo P/S 091 7.
Environmental Monitoring Comparison Prog.
P/S 092 8.
RETS, Figure Terminology P/S 225 9.
Illegible Figure P/S 225
- 10. ODCM Changes / Reporting P/S 036
- 11. Reporting Requirements P/S 093 Category 2
l l
l 1.
Solid Radwaste l
P/S 085 l
i 2.
Changes per Draft NUREG-0472 P/S 086 l
l 3.
Caseous Sampling P/S 087 l
4.
Reporting Requirements P/S 008 j/
zinds
e m
/ 77' u
,> u J
o.. t s
- ulf f ;;. t : < v
/
na..
s.
..c t/v_ /
CC D s [* qZ 1f L er a
4 bc c d tv-a
/)7c7: 6e,vcy TDr Dacm ccs
?n
(',, *:tri. l Ornim j t: 7? lr:-/. u, ~ c. c e'
'~C ' & (
./.. ) t (.
f,.
u
< i,., :,,
1 C
1L l L V L' f t 7 / C ow
~
rI o
(,
lD't ofsi.Crig
') t~ C-C t f" I t' ti '/ 0 *di bJ (
. r' l b '[h c 1 si L/
ti k.
- A
m, d_
s w, _ _...
.. _ a..
..r g ; __
4
'L~
e3:
p
( /j /j d
\\
g x.
4.
GRAND GttLF FULL POWER ISSUES 5/1/84 s
t, V
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ls #4+G5 PE - D [#l M M' 7
l-s v
o' EMERGENCY W idER
~
' 4,.
- t t
3 TDI DIESELS - T DI +4 % - %d/ "" Y7'
['
,s
.i,\\
% -(
-\\s
, ~
m..
m.
. i ONSITFJ/0TFSITE POWER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM - P5S,R Rn B; 2581 j
- p &
L E " V - f73*/N
~
SSER #5
- 4., 1
'j
- c. 2.206 PETITION - L6 #4 _
~..
.t-
.a 9 E.. y o - - -
S#
ALLEGATIONS -- R 3
n.
$.',p.
FOLLOWUP TO THE S' ALP, - Ps
- IC e
u y
Q p.. :-
,., 7 r f
'% p**
I s
T
,m.
a a
W qd 2 k'
\\'
L
}*
'}
l
\\,.,,
2 5(I
\\',,..'4 g
M
5
\\
,'x
.1 s
- s
.' ;b,
wg A
.(
4 emq i
s t,.'
(
3 w,g i
k\\
h
.[
\\
s-P s
1
_'w
.-g e
il b-1 N
's
,e w
l '.;,
)
N
\\ w l
\\N's l
,a f-e
- yy y
1, 3
- y :
w.'
.y s.k,s^,
1~-.,.....,,....,.,.._..._.
- -