ML20133B443
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:__. L... _ .-~ N ]L-w)t ~N* UNITED STATES .[.h j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON,0.C. 20555 q
- g
%,..... /j f g OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN The Honorable Edward il. Markey, Chairman Subcommittee on Oversight and Inves.tigations Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States liouse of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This is a preliminary response to your letter of March 13,198a, reoarding deficiencies and errors in the Mississippi Power and Light Cc.?.;any lMP&L) license application for the Grand Gulf Station. We will provide you detailed comments on your cuestions at a later date. NRC is aware of the significance of the matters discussed in ycur letter and is devoting special attention and resources to assure the safety of plant cperations at Grand Gulf. In this regard, it should be noted that since the onset of low-power cperations the plant has c:erated for less than the eQuiva-lent of one Effective Full Power Day. The scFeduled 29 cay test precram was cocpleted in G days at pcwer levels up to 4.% of fu'.1-ccwer
- erations.
The test program was carried out in a safe, orderly manner with geed results. Only 3 unplanned scrams, all incensequential, occurre? durino this ceriod. This is .iudged to be much less than typical for other facilities tnat have been through this phase of startup. The NRC has ensured at each step in the low-power license of Grand r.ulf that it is safely operated. The NRC has prohibited c:eration at tires where signifi-cant safety ct,sstions retained and wiii continue to prohibit c:eratiun t.t any time safety so dictates. While at the present time, MPIL is the holder of a low-power license, the NRC is prepared to take all necessary stecs to ensure that the plant will not operate even at low pcvier, until Eli a;;repriate safety issues, including Technical Specifications, are resolved. iuistantial resources are assigned Fy l?RC and PFEL to assu e itsntificaticn and cor cc+ ion of problems, full ccraliarte with regu'.r.tcry rs:v re ents and 4 a 5--+ c*.'.cr.ir.g the cW i'l ceri.tions of ti': f a cii H;- i ;.iidt 3 ?: td in your letter are being addressec in the ongoing reviews. Some of our actions taken to date include: 1. Confirmation of Action Letter in Octcber 1982, issued to the licensee to resolve certain deficiencies in the surveillance procedures and Technical Specificaticos prior tc ;rcessding with further low pcwer testing. 2. Special training assessments in February and '.cre-ber 1983 to assure licensed operators were full:. cualifiec'. 8507200297 850515 PDR FDIA BELL 84-459 PDR.
The Honorable Edward J. Markey 3. Operational readiness inspections in August and September 1983 for the performance of the low-power tests. 4. Transamerica Delaval Diesel Generator Task Force formed in January 1984 to evaluate the reliability of the diesels on a generic basis, including.the units at Grand Gulf. 5. Additional staff and contractor assistance support in a i review of the Technical Specifications in several specific. areas to determine if they are in conformance with the L licensee's Final Safety Analysis Report and our Safety Evaluation Report. tiPF.L has also undertaken extensive efforts in the above areas in recognition of the fact that some of the deficiencies may need immediate resolution for con-tinued operations. Others may need resolution prior to proceeding beyond the activities permitted under the low-power license, in summary, we are confident that the efforts and actions previously performed and currently underway are sufficiently comorehensive and res;:orsive such that ooeration of the plant is not ir.imical +.0 the health ar.d safety C the public. Sincerely, Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman
- NOTE:
SEE PP.EVIOUS WHITE FOR CONCURRENCE GCunningham OL:LB 54 LA:D!.:LR 54 OELD DL:LB 54 AD:L:DL ,,-d fD'. 'CStahle/hmc
- "Durcan
- El.ce sar
- TNovak P'."Eisenhut 2 T '?d
~/~~/.4 3/12*B4 if_~'54 2/ P?/F.
- 4/;./34
,c .T . ~ ~ - DD:GP D! RR FD0 OCA .N'UJuircks i N. EGCase HP ton f 4/ 84 4/ /ga 4/.;/g4 4/ /p4 4 .',. 1 .,s t i s1 *(\\*
f. . q:. q . ~ + . m 'o UNITED STATES ~ 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o g a WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 %,...../ Docket No. 50-416 Mr. J. P. McGaughy Vice President Nuclear Production Mississippi Power and Light Company P.O. Box 1640 l Jackson, Mississippi 39205
Dear Mr. McGaughy:
Subject:
Certification of Grand Gulf Technical Specifications and As-Built Plant In our letter to Mr. Richard dated February 24, 1984, we requested the following certifications: 1. that the Technical Specifications, considering the pending proposed changes identified by your staff and the NRC, to the best of your knowledge accurately reflect the plant, the FSgRpEgnalyses,and 2. that the as-built plant continues to be in conformance with the FSAR as amended and supporting documents. In your letter of March 18, 1984, regarding the Technical Specification review, you state, in the discussion of the consistency of the as-built plant with the FSAR, that "the primary focus of the Review Program is to verify the accuracy of the Technical Specifications. Nevertheless, the FSAR, as it relates to the Technical Specifications, will also be reviewed." In response to a question at the Commission Briefing on February 29, 1984, Mr. Richard replied /affirmably when asked if the current review would 'i check the plant against the FSAR. There appears to bet ::- li;t in regard .j. to this matter.
- "'e canGseek # A4/4/
Thus, to clarify the situation, we re-emphasize that you should respond to j both items (1) and (2) above and provide the certification requested. I 1 i l M/
aw
-ry, t v+-g- ---+--e---.- w----..i.- >--w--y
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact the Project Manager, at (301) 492-8358. Sincerely, Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing I cc: See next page i, i n , n n -o m <w s, ~., -
W. "* N /i ( MPL INFORMATION REGARDING GRAND GULF Os icwel TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES TT",' "mED IN V O pff MARCH)4,1984 MEETING Sources of Tech Spec Items No. of Items 1. Items identified by MP&L at the 1/24/84 meeting 61 with NRC is io cm4 Co-^=+<[econdproofandreview 2. NRC Woci_ed-Rs ~d' 37 given to MP&L informally in onsite meeting with p m. A "e##=r,-1/2.4/84 3 3. Items formally submitted to NRC prior to 1/?a/84 43 (received 6 in Amend. 12) f! QJ0 TOTAL lal ' 5,7,E,7, 4. Identi d infonnally 1 5. NRC I&E, @ 2/24/84. I&E inspection 3/14/84 11 q 6. Additional proof and review comments not previously 11 .
- Q A w hi M.cG-(Items from rer: L :' MP&L review of '
Item 2 above) 7. RSMt Plant Safety Review Committee review of 141 2 Subtotal above 4n<.4 2./I$~/2 9 8. MP&L Review Team established to review LC0's/ ACTIONS 39 g ' - " " " " " ' (Antjo yac.Q y 9 44 MP&L Ouality Assurance question 1
- 10. iCT';t:R, ati, J'4AR)-Licensing Committment Tracking 10 Letters, and FSAR (4 C TS 5%l%4 System (LCTS)re dwM/ d W
Mye ) Instrumentation Review per \\pec Ce, y ;r.t-Pavi a 11. P'*- ,..mi t. 10 Instrumentet!cr 'egic Tech Tne+r M ay on>for consistant "cCC iruces:hinet on-sith "C Stemravdew _ GwW h A'$$0hh / eta.
h b w f ~ y. m juc.sf nt jt:#s. 'a c-bN p
- 12. Miscellaneous Technical Su ort identified items, off, 14 Ip.:!=ril-y 1 ng-term issu s and commitments'/,sMi,enbb.
- for updates o Tech Spec,juc T 5tartup test results, future changes for Em p. Fuel, analysis "ECC. y aximum Extended Operational DomainLQ b7 v-1# c"1+ eview efforts nte7na' /' p/ T'"L'ch-S[s,i reggen ile 92 + - 'fied ~ pr -[ ' fort n ~ " ~ ~ 9 ec f s aao uj ~ 9( JTt/V ' M<eWy ids-dhb / x W ~gh ' fv/u/ k Yd y pa.L ~ ~aan+: 5- & Mw4 NEY;f6i ,y -w ~ ' '
LICENSEE INFORMATI0 REGARDING GRAND GULF TECH" ccc " n g Q A MARCH 14, 1984 MEETING rfJh*% IVs 1. Problems Needing Resolution - Short Term 'T /A. Safety Significant Item which would require plant shutdown, prohibit plant startup, or require other plant actions to g reestablish safe operating conditions.
- B.
Existing Tech Spec is non-conservative with respect to FSAR or supporting documents (e.g. approved design specs, SER, etc.). MP&L requires NRC concurrence and/or resolution prior to next / 2_, criticality. /*C. Existing Tech Spec is non-conservative with respect to FSAR or supporting documents (e.g. approved design specs, SER, etc.). MP&L requires NRC concurrence and/or resolution prior to exceeding 5% Thermal Power. y 2. Problems / Enhancements Needing Resolution -Long Term A. Existing condition could result in unnecessary challenges to y safety systems or plant transients or is required to enhance plant safety. 13e'B. Errors or confusing items in Technical Specifications which will not result in non-conservative operation with a reasonable dependence on administrative controls / plant knowledge / operational practices; licensing commitments which require a Tech Spec /M change; items determined by MP&L to be important. / C. Could restrict power level or mode changes. [ }6D. Typographical Errors and Enhancement / Concerns which do not W. fall into a higher priority 46 E. Problems with, or enhancements to Tech Spec sections other than 3/4 (e.g. Administrative Controls, Bases, etc.) 2.C-J F. Over-conservative Tech Specs for which changes are cost-justified 7 The factors used ot distinguish priorities 18 and IC are operational mode requirements (generally Mode 2 requirements are associated with priority 18 and Mode 1 with priority IC), fission product inventory considerations (generally priority 1B do not involve dealing with high fission product inventories while priority IC which is associated with higher power levels may involve dealing with high fission produce inventories), and relative safety significance of svstamt 54 Om + du cQt (m fg f 3 t&d 1% /q
.u.. d 2 )? G. Design changes which require Tech Spec changes (' [ prH. Pending design / analysis (e.g. Maximum Extended Operating Domain, Exxon Fuel, Single Recirc Loop Operation, etc.) c/ A I. Others g 3. Tech Spec change not justified (response requi d) 22 A. Item is generic and not included in STS / z_.
- t AY $W bM w = w _ u < y w. c w/ M. a y g Af 7
m\\ x y 13s"^d ir. An a d E5 F12 ff, y A / .a~f fL g _f M( 2 y c,
.~., z;. ~. ~~ e Q ' ' o% J( i / LICENSEE INFORMATION REGARDING GRAND GULF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE PRIORITIES (RECEIVEDINMARCH 14, 1984 MEETING)
- No. of a
Items ll 1. Problems Needing Resolution - Short Term A. Safety Significant Item which would require plant 0 j shutdown, prohibit plant startup, or require other plant actions to reestablish safe operating conditions.
- B.
Existing Tech Spec is non-conservative with respect 12 to FSAR or supporting documents (e.g. approved design specs,SER,etc.). MPAL requires NRC concurrence and/ or resolution prior to next criticality.
- C, Existing Tech Spec is non-conservative with respect to 15 FSAR or supportin specs, SER, etc.)g-documents (e.g. approved design MP&L requires NRC concurrence and/
or resolution prior to exceeding 5% Thermal Power. 2. Problems / Enhancements Needing Resolution -Long Term A. Existing condition could result in unnecessary challenges 4** to safety systems or plant transients or is required to enhance plant safety. B.- Errors or confusing items in Technical Specifications 138 which will not result in non-conservative operation with a reasonable dependence on administrative controls / plant knowledge / operational practices; licensing commitments which require a Tech Spec change; items determined by MPAL to be important. C. Could restrict power level or mode changes. 5 D. Typographical Errors and Enhancement / Concerns which do not 76 i y fall into a higher priority Thefactorsusedphdistinguishpriorities1 Band 1Careoperational mode requirements (generally Mode 2 reouirements are associated with priority IB and Mode I with priority IC),' fission product inventory considerations (generally priority IB do not involve dealing with high fission product inventories while priority IC which is associated with higher power levels may involve dealing with high fission produce inventories), and relative safety significance of systems One of these could become 18 and 3 could become IC Rev 2, 3/12/84 J l /25-
. E. Problems with, or enhancements to Tech Spec sections other 26 than 3/4 (e.g.AdministrativeControls, Bases,etc.) F. Over-conservative Tech Specs for which changes are cost-7 justified G. Design changes which require Tech Spec changes 11 Pending design / analysis (e.g. Maximum Extended Operatin 9 H. Domain Exxon Fuel, Single Recirc Loop Operation, etc.)g I. Others 0 3. Tech Spec change not justified (response required) A. Item is generic and not included in STS 12 B. Others 25 The following items were acted on since start of listing 2 Withdrawn 6 Issued in Amendment 12 12 i +=--+
^ [ // STATUS OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW 240 Total problem areas in Techncial Specifications (T.S.) identified by MP&L from its ongoing review of T.S. by March 9, 1984, when comprehensive review was started. 101 additional problem areas in T.S. identified by MP&L from its compre-hensive review by TSC (April 4, 1984 Meeting) 16 more problem areas from Instrument Review of minimum operable channels received April 10, 1984. 53 problems developed into proposed T.S. changes ar.d license amendments requested via letters. 6 granted in Amendment 12 14 Safety evaluation completed 33 Under review 23 problem areas considered by MP&L to be required prior to exceeding 5% power. 14 before next criticality 9 before exceeding 5% power Staff Review Results of NRR review given to MP&L April 4 & 5, 1984. Most comments have been considered, but there are several not yet in the comprehensive review. MP&L identified where & how comments are considered in tabulation received April 10,1984. Staff survey of ?.48 initial draft MP&L problem sheets indicated the follow-ing. Problem areas to be considered before exceeding 5% power. AS8 - 17 CSB - 4 ICSB - 46 RSB - 8 TOTAL
- 75. These problem areas identified to MP&L in April 5,1984 Meeting.
Staff survey of 357 problem areas + 101 + 16) indicated 23 additional pro-blem areas should be considered before restart. These identified to MP&L on April 10, 1984, for April 11, 1984, Meeting. /d E v v-e- r -r -r-m r a ww-
e.* 'O f% E. A.m L. /A p SW of 4 J42
- S a a g Wr i
m y r- $ vfM & Q /) ttG & w Al e d M n{n m ,,y b r M P 7. 4 s %a*r ~ w 3ag% c r p' a sm TJ &&d Wr a re y/c G '( p /s 6Zh f f a f~ r, r~p$5 'A %A &s L 9n2/ s wk 1 cu sw) y M & l z rp nu $ AMzi a '4 t I I /A5
- --4--
-y - +.
n4 -~- f h b b
- h. A,A k R W' s$
b S 83kk$k D a twa ema + c hw~us C
- m
. d b.w Y -3 NRA EE E. ER" 7- .%.<g y s4 4 4 Q. 1. w s t
- 9. e s %.
m o ha=E %%g 3 4 g-s 4 E. g E S' d .1 g 's A h i4 %sh 3 25 1 -} Gv % E E 'O sd,S vvvd .s if v s% > > x w. . >. > s@x xA'A>f 9 pea.d %?ns 4tnw nsin .s s a ,e 6 t ' 4 p,g, 'x,* t g n , y+g t w'd ,o xc q *g.g h, a 3 e Q f s w+ . ggg kh > q b gw e ss 4 4 s%: s l.0c p < m 3 a. T l ~~" i, 3 y) .C ~ s e x t{ gs 4
- . s s
ex-3.c ,f r e .J e
- v4.c 7A s-
- Rd 43 t.3R'i M.!
c g g / v e a >t b O H1 ,u cfu *je'i.' 4a
- 3
. f. m
- t. s:
e 2 $f ~c -! f r A.1., 8'i d' 'i . I ' t ^ < H -} N sd "4 t as s\\]a~5h $ 5 0 b $ g,5 b 5
- m y )U $ 'a b *-
a we w a ss k bQ 5 m t s u' e e p S 4 4 4. g 4 j q 4 '-t-JNm s%'N 'd "g 4 4 %- _,,,2 4 '* ' Y % Y # D "N o) s ?y'l d4 ? & k M i 4 4 ? M fEST n"..Q i M 9 % g~ taD 29ot%c cQ %9%QC i s;T4. b 4 ! y d. w M aa g $ r x d r W w kA444a w c a wc j gg) _ u3 ret E ~ .C h f k'lAneu &~ ~ ;; c t. %??t32 ,a ~ a oa> s ae .* e 4, ..# v m.m e m m w m m 1 g.,
- 2 w s.
w yb 4 D 'e '}. D- ..' ) 6 hD 4 a.su -
- u. e w u.
mu u .n w
e fn4Q.v p*1 r7 afw p q r a 1 sie r3 j a p ses6s v.4 2 e s x g e N. c
- asy vQ w.
<bs e ga e k% .k 'h ) kr 4 .am%* >~ 1 wa 33t ';; % w. >" 4% t h t anmn w> s t3 c22 M c.* S 'O q M - 4 g * $ };T *k h D % > hq A1 m a ae ~; ? 'y$- m 'th M i 0 N $ 5$m e es$@' w@@ts e e {s e - twS & =4 @ dERS S BS S A EE e h e s ~ s
- D o-
++t e gg e- > + A m a q=- =_ .l 'd. -i ' % *l 4D g]u s' '2 { it, R q. ~ -di 2 i w 3 s,4 j 2 a ~ v e 4 b $t.iki'.%db5y - ( sf. h d e, f h, I ih : t.. h, )s ]., c. 5 5 D E ww s q a j d *y ~2 j y i l ',$ 3 {f o 4' J. d * -h 3 . 4 @- 1 'k, d '7' d 'I d-(f.h$ s a n. 3 s I Q x S s:t v l { h,T E? ' ' q flv.;sy 1 1[ "62d~4 t,_a s .{
- g, e1 0
7 'a ] 4 8 k. 4 t s a u [t h@ @S C]@pt +.}$isjiyUk'T t u A c O pn '4 u g c a 5 M M iW %da 'e 2 W"M .j h.g kkhrdhn.hb[.$$4$4$ w an w-Pt 1 93&3 % e% h %w3w*Nt ges ea s -- e uou u% w.,. MM u -e J A) d5,Q Q R b\\ 4 % Ou o gt,, % r< t
- g. QQ g4 Q q o
-ew g t,,. s_ J g^ n T +n'g y e.. -E c e. a w y W s 4' d y\\ 6 ~ E E C u C".>$u$ "C5 m$ *d 5 c e m s -3 5 * $ m u m N 'm e 'CU~ n ~ Tm V r- 's - > U $,a ! K i, d V '^ uk Ls ctg"
=bc" 5-t E' >A 1[ h k& c h 5 3 .s N$ t $$s tw
- ->q at 33 m
l m a> a l-t a b. + +I A = ( d 4 s. w. u e
- ~
~ i b ,Q d - Q y w -f T h D Ad C =<v i o >m m a v W-gI QSQ >4 A A s'). 'N k kk g., s(
- o g.z - o,
w t-a a ~ D 'b-b kR CQk kk l,$$$$$ $ $ 6 k D5 I$$k-[$$A: h s Lf' < '? i o 24 Iv. s s u s ~c u d_ e e .S 3 M i h@ ld,. (k x [lLj'N 2 2 4 1 <ar 4 o j 4 @i r_ d fa i l d d c]' 'w' o rx d-g *4 q HY r t e w 0-u 4 d L 4 3 b 4 ay n i G)o$'wk." 3 ( g s y @s .j ds T t o x g ,E $ a_' >' ~ *w9 i,3 *1 M s 4 4 e d; 9 w ~ m w '3 N! 1. 1 l { z o q{ T1 f 3 3 =a d r Q e x i'. 3 x,-$W 9 o e m uas c a [3 '6 0 4 DQ 'l.1 C
- D 4d Q
C s.. a um Ai s. ( Qr d y 3 v> c A ss aoa .t. -A da A a I.o> m 4*.. 6 mn a c' b a e-
- t..
m 3 o 's Ar o .h{ t> s E 4 s e e-o p 3 q3 es mr eS m m y r 's-4 9se U 5 -r a L [. Is u 's ( d tu [ 'n 'n aW u a t,, 4 ,w... w,
. =. _.. _. s._ x h-b b& c x ,E' k%D k'tw k sst t kYk k $ k' i i%4 sti t; ob a D %w,,3 w w a a $A 4 2 ..e q w.2 g A b. AA
- 2+
'x h %+ N 4 2A k k wk n hd ira u s m s ,x l.id I 5 Du 4 1Y Ti d d['Q, 49 l3d 1 t w id IM 4 4
- u m
) t I j. v L) s -.s_$ 4#.) N I Qt t 4 sg d k i S 5 M j 4w t N N 'd ) t U b
- d. N
-.5 N < f g-5- i h< d L M k \\ l 4 i 4 M~3 _J A -S Qg &4I3 14 a v oqg Ps 7, nu o eoe 'h 4-\\ 0 t a e [.T... '$l 6 3 g y m .tu 1 % A% ( ( b m 3I . 9. 2 s vl; 4 b {'es 4 ,S ,3 b s x 3 .L .e4 t - ~, _ -n
,l e.- p' ' 44 JE < s I
- fff, I
/ 'L. MP&L PRIORITY 1 PROBLEM AREAS IN T.S. (PER TABLE DELIVERED BY S. HOBBS ON 4/9/84)
- \\
N f g N) - 5 Evaluation / Problem
- + " " "
Sheet Priority (a) Ltr Date A ._ [ i. pf A /C /QA No. Item $[3)r. Cx ' Je ASA001 ADS Value Operability Ib 03/20/84 y l$Q S A jA 005j RWCU Isolation Ib 03/20/8.4 ( I)/ Yf Up ~ cs5015: Suppression Pool level Ib p/7/hr c q'fijffy)' dS4016 Containment Pressure ' lb 9/7 / V4 3 Setpoints y/l3/iY,yyjgygg /($g033 .ESF tuation Instrumen-Ib t//7 fry ~ if /it/f y/ !C9/037, - '$nubber addition Ic 03/29/84 r///) 07.1 y /is.// Calibration frequency of Ic 12/14/83 tests ~'
- NIl, j
E l.- 6 on Con nment Spray Acuta-Ib 03/29/84 Y
- //A./$(j f(fd 054'
,. af /2./f y C9mp4eee Fjg 076 ECCS Response Times Ib Item 6 - 09/09/83 % rud 078 RCIC Initiation Ib 10/11/83 -]/36//9-C^ d ff /l 3//'Ir l r/d 103 MS Flow Min Op.' Channels Ib V/ ?/l(f ,0 y//tff, r}pid 139 Snubber List Change Ic 10/07/83 K pff /gC ((p$198 Radiation Monitor ic 03/29/84 X-),j213 ADS Instrumentation it 03/29/84 e RH & Containment Spray 1b > p yjot/) y tb) pf j g}p 233?dl). }ny, d4 262 - SBGT Radioactivity Monitor Ic e cf'/7/Pf M. ,1, 7/; 3/pgg/ cS)328$ O 03/29/84 t Chlorine Detectors Ic ' y/gj,y c gjf292 Containment Air Lock Ib y/ 7/M. fgf y c-3/3 293 Drywell Air Lock Ib 4 / 7 M'f' < 4 jgjf Containment Isolation ib cf /p/pp y.:. jgjyy <_,s/J 30.6 Valves Rdom Air Temperature Trips Ib // / /d / IV ? Y y f g J g 56308 329 Radiation Monitor Operat-Ic. 4 j # # ff. X 4/lT/
- fp ing Mode j7 p i,,ir y
" r' I-(a) Priority lb is designated by MPAL as needed prior to next criticality. Priority Ic is designated by MP&L as needed prior to exceeding 5% power. However, in order to avoid use of administrative procedures, MP&L is submitting the proposed changes for all Ic items to the staff by COB April 11,1984 1 233 %5 Qf fu 4.. % % f 1 s.1 4./ w syy, /als ~~ ~ _;
e ).D fa.furauscy Surssi r r&D v-ait.c Ck (<*d A ci A m l'f f a-Ar ec,- k. 4 It 'l t
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number: NT Priority: Im* / Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.5.1, Bases 3/4.5.1, Pases 3/4.5.2 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 5-1, B3/4 5-1, B3/4 5-2 Problem Titie: ' % ' i. 4 .. e, m. w 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): Technical Specification 3.5.1 presently requires seven ADS valves to be operable. Bases Section 3/4.5.1 erroneously states that AOS control seven SRVs and the safety analysis takes credit for six. Grand Gulf design controls eight safety relief valves..ine y grahv_._i.yy3raphtrarMrrroyArpage_83/1~* r s-L_7 2. Safety Significance: The present Technical Specification limit of seven operable ADS valves is ( nonconservative when compared to the present FSAR analysis assumptions. A confirmatory analysis for the limiting small break LOCA was performed that takes credit for seven, rather than eight, operable ADS valves. The results of this analysis will be included in FSAR Section 6.3.3.8. This seven valve analysis will support the Technical Specification changes described below. 3. Anticipated Resolution: Since seven operable ADS valves were assumed in the confirmatory analysis for the limiting small break LOCA, the anticipated resolution is to change the Technical Specification limit and Bases as follows: r @ FM IWoe Ine_nunuc, 4 AOS-nhes rytrired Luje operabledrom-seven-tog g This would justify allowing operation with one valve inoperable for up to 14 days (Action 3.5.1.e.1) _,,, w 1 ...1r_m t %u w.a uun nases m_78f.Lesu.mHtv mLD Lang ,,--r um minL =~' Inan mu conTT rmawrJ _sa by _snaDf3,10 .,__2.- wr w v 5 T ut-' 5eYEn_YRJyes. y Rev. 15, 3/29/84 Misd1
~ ^ '~ ^^ ~ - - ^ -~^^--~: Page 2 c TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D) Item Number 001 Priority 1B In addition, in the same Bases section, an editorial revision is necessary to correct a typographical error ("following" in the second paragraph on page B 3/4 5-1 is misspelled). i These changes were submitted in a letter (AECM-84/0173) to the NRC from Mr. L. F. Dale to Mr. H. R. Denton, dated March 20, 1984. 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time 5.- Disposition: Proposed Tech Spec Change forwarded to the Manager ( of Nuclear Safety and Compliance under Letter # PDTS 84/0028 Items Closed: (How) .i / Date Time cc: J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers i e4 Rev. 15, 3/29/84 Misd2 - - - ~ ~ 3 -
- 3; _
1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number: N Priority: ET / Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.2-1 and 4.3.2.1-1 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-12 l Problem
Title:
h 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): Table 3.3.2-1.4.h lists the minimum operable channels per trip system as "NA" for Reactor Water Cleanup (RWCU) isolation from a Standby Liquid Control System (SLCS) initiation. Item 4.h also specifies Action 27, which contains actions required when the minimum operable channels criterion is not met. Actions b and c of Technical Specification 3.3.2 requires taking those applicable actions in the Table 3.3.2-1 (Action 27) if there is less than the minimum required number of operable channels per trip system for one or both {, trip systems. Since for SLCS initiation the minimum number of operable channels per trip system is designated as "NA," Action 27 can not be taken. It should be noted that this situation also exists in the BWR/6 STS. 2. Safety Significance: None. A reasonable person with adequate knowledge of Technical Specifications would know to take the appropriate action. 3. Anticipated Resolution: Technical Specification changes to Tables 3.3.2-1 and 4.3.2.1-1 are being proposed to require the following: Mune minimum ocerable_cntands_ per._trja.sysr* fromM" keCM Rev. 15, 3/29/84 Misd8
( Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET MONT'Dj 5 Item Number 005 Priority 1B Ii e l ppp)dob 6 %c,ceau STest w A SM 'E~(*-'MG, Q c. Replace present Action 27 for the SLCS initiation function with new Action 30, which will require the affected SLCS pump to be declared WN These changes were submitted in a letter (AECM-84/0173) to t koYR.Y 7 F. Dale to Mr. H. R. Denton, dated March 20, 1984. 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / {" Individual Notified Date Time 5. Disposition: Proposed Tech Spec Change forwarded to the Manager of Nuclear Safety and Comoliance under letter # PDTS 84/0027 Items Closed: (How) / Date Time i cc: J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers Rev. 15, 3/29/84 Misd9
~~. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number: 021 Priority: 1C / Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.7.4-2 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 7-23 Problem
Title:
1. Problem De's'cription (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): Design Change Package 82/0546 installed a bypass line around the RCIC turbine steam shutoff valve to limit flow during automatic starts and thereby reducing the potential for turbine overspeed trips. This change included the installation of new snubber Q1E51G180R01 to the bypass line to provide support needed to meet system design requirements. This snubber should be added to Table 3.7.4-2, item j. 2. Safety Significance: '( Since the snubber has been installed in the plant, adding it to the Technical Specification will provide proper action statements and surveillance requirements to ensure operability of the snubber. 3. Anticipated Resolution: Add the new snubber to Technical Specification Table 3.7.4-2. 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / l Individual Notified Date Time 5. Disposition: Proposed Tech Spec Change forwarded to Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance under letter #PDTS 84/0027. Items Closed: (How) / Date Time cc: J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers Rev. 15, 3/29/84 Misd37
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET t Item Number: 037 Priority: IC / Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 4.3.2.1-1 i Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-20
- sj Problem
Title:
Riley Temperature Switches and Rosemont Trip Units 1 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): Technical Specification Table 4.3.2.1-1 for the isolation actuation instrumentation surveillance requirements contains two general discrepancies: a. Table 4.3.2.1-1(items 1.a,1.d,2.a.2.c,2.d,2.e,3.a,3.b,4.e,5.a, 5.b, 5.c, 5.k, 6.c, 6.d, and 6.e) currently requires a channel calibration every 18 months for the Rosemont trip units. This conflicts with Tables 4.3.1.1-1 and 4.3.3.1-1, which require a channel calibration at least once every 31 days for the Rosemont trip units. ' p' Table 4.3.2.1-1 (items 2.f, 2.g, 4.c, 4.d, 4.f, 4.g, 5.d, 5.e, 5.f, 5.g, b. 5.1, 5.j, 6.a, 6.b) currently requires a channel calibration every 18 months for the Riley temperature switches. However, the temperature I switch manufacturer (Riley) recommends a yearly frequency for temperature switch calibration. MP&L has submitted a Technical Specification change to require monthly calibration of the Rosemont trip units and yearly calibration of the Riley temperature switches. lj 2. Safety Significance: j None. The Rosemont trip units are presently being calibrated on a monthly basis. Present calibration information on the Riley temperature switches indicates acceptable drift within allowable limits. ,-b Rev. 15, 3/29/84 Misd66
,w.,,.. -,.4.,4--.%,. .4 -.4+4.... -r - - - - - - - - - - - - - +. - - 4 Page 2 ( i - TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D) Item Number 037 Priority IC
- 3.. Anticipated Resolution:
Mississippi Power & Light Company submitted the changes required to Table 4.3.2.1-1 to resolve this item in a letter to H. R. Denton from J. P. McGaughy, dated December 14, 1983 (AECM-83/0792). 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time i [' 5. Disposition: 4 j f,, Items' Closed: (How) (.9 l1 / .l_ Date Time 1 cc: J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers i 4 Si. i i i .'r i .i 1 i f'? 1 -(. 1 Rev. 15, 3/29/84 i .i M1 sos 7
- -s*N***=We a
-+eNWs =e est9. e W^
- M*'"'
_ _~^
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number:.M Priority: @ NRC (I&C plus NRR) / Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.8-1 . Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-98 Problem
Title:
"+-w . wr* N vm** % l. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): Table 3.3.8-1 presently requires a minimum of one operable channel per trip system for the actuation instrumentation of the containment spray system. At present, it is unclear whether this will provide adequate redundancy for the actuation instrumentation. The containment spray timers are initiated on the receipt of a LOCA signal. This LOCA signal is initiated by instrument channels consiste.ng of two Reactor Water Level 1 and two High Drywell Pressure channels. In order to ensure that the timers are started, it may be necessary to require a minimum of two operable channels per trip system for the Reactor (,, Water Level 1 channels and the High Drywell Pressure Channels. In addition, the present Action Statement 3.3.8.b.1, which requires that a containment spray system timer be placed in the tripped ccndition with less than the minimum number of operable channels, is inappropriate. The timers must not be placed in tne tripped condition, as this may cause immediate initiation of containment spray with a LOCA signal in conjunction with high containment and drywell pressure, which would violate minimum core cooling requirements for LPCI. 2. Safety Significance: With less than the appropriate minimum operable channels, the redundancy of the containment spray system could be degraded below a level appropriate for single-failure design. Rev. 17, 4/1/84 Misd96
Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET ftDN'r'm Item Number 054 Priority IB With respect to Action Statement 3.3.8.b.1, placing a timer in the tripped condition may cause imediate initiation of containment spray with a LOCA signal in conjunction with high containment and drywell pressure, which would violate minimum core cooling requirements for LPCI. 3. Anticipated Resolution: U ni ..sy m.. so.. v_ ue tenning the 2AaruucyJ U g g gc3J 5pggi{jcaLiUf [l hitilb,l i s vuiviU ons_TUr vpuraLT0ne ctivn 5t_a2cyy3cy,; g u Sv. ciliance. ~ .7][equirementig Included in this review would be a determination of which instruments are required, minimum operable channel requirements, and adequacy of current Action Statements. s_/ 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time 5. Disposition: Items Closed: (How) i I j Date Time -l cc: J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers I io Rev. 17, 4/1/84 Misd97 . - - -... - ~
i TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number: M Priority: Loc n J / Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.3-3, Items 2.a and 2.b Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-30 Problem
Title:
..-~ 5 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): The low pressure coolant injection (LPCI) mode of Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System is noted in Table 3.3.3-3 as having a response time of 45 seconds for pumps A and B. In order to be consistent with the accident analysis assumptions as noted in FSAR Table 6.3-1 and 6.3-2, the correct response time may be 40 seconds for all pumps. NOTE: The GGNS Technical Specifications are identical to,the Standard Technical Specifica_tions. n -QA +1 M, ' }%3-[__ a,[ ' *:j-4 n % g f>*y g K ~ 2. Safety Significance: '" (" There is a potential that the 45 second response time snown in Table 3.3.3-3 may be inconsistent with the response time used in the accident analysis. 3. Anticipated Resolution: Perform an eialuation of the response times (considering the allowable time for the pump start time delays in Table 3.3.3-2, items A.I.c and B.1.c) for pumps A and B for the LPCI mode of the RHR system with respect to the accident analysis assumptions. The response times are to be consistent with Technical l Specification Definition 1.12. The corresponding Technical Specification changes are to be incorporated, as necessary, following completion of the l evaluation. This change was submitted to the NRC in a letter (AECM-83/0565) from Mr. L. F. Dale to Mr. Harold Denton, dated September 9,1983. 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time / e Rev. 18, 4/2/84 e Misd135
..........L.'~....-.. . -. ~.... - ..-..=..- - -.=u---.. Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D) Item Number 076 Priority 1B 5. Disposition: ~1 Items Closed: (How) / Date Time cc: J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers t Rev. 18, 4/2/84 Misd136
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number: D783 Priority: EiB9.7 / Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.5-1.a Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-45 Problem
Title:
".. = 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): Presently, Table 3.3.5-1, Item a requires only two channels to be operable per trip system for the reactor vessel water level actuation instrumentation in the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) System. However, the Grand Gulf RCIC design for the low level actuation instrumentation consists of a single trip system containing four level channels, arranged in a one-out-of-two-twice logic. Therefore, the current Technical Specification requirement, which is based on two trip systems, is inappropriate. This problem does not involve system design from a hardware standpoint, but involves interpretation of the definitior, for channels and trip systems. 2. Safety Significance: Since the Grand Gulf design for RCIC initiation consists of only one trip system, the RCIC initiation from low reactor water level could be defeated if the Te'chnical Specification were misinterpreted to allow two of the four channels to be inoperable without placing them in the tripped condition. 3. Anticipated Resolution: This change was submitted to the NRC in a letter (AECM-83/0642) from Mr. J. P. McGaugby to Mr. Harold R. Denton, dated October 11, 1983. M - = i m A u=Ja p h y " m=~n m - h w um ,g-Qiii, -- JI g...wrlassaLWdtgrde'/_e I-l owe!ow. 3 eveitjsiiMttatton1tmetierActig av: Ort Iajle g.J.5-j waK1f!6dINJgtew une i.ripp tu )r /4ST4M.of ( 4 NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time Rev. 15, 3/29/84 Misd139 {
- __.2 _ _ ' El~T_E Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D) Item Number 078 Priority 18 5. Disposition: Items Closed: (How) / Date Time cc: J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers L. i 't v J. - Rev. 15, 3/29/84 Misd140 .., -.. - ~ . =,.. -... -.
~ TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number: 139 Priority: 1C / Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.7.4-2 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 7-16,through 3/4 7-25 Problem
Title:
Correcticas to Snubber Table 3.7.4-2 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): Technical Specification Table 3.7.4-2 does not accurately reflect plant design with respect to snubbers. The necessary corrections to the table include the following: a. Addition of snubbers that were inadvertently omitted from the table. b. Deletion of snubbers that have been voided, superceded, or incorrectly placed in the table. c. Additions of non-Q mechanical snubbers which were included in the stress analysis of Q-piping. d. Grouping of snubbers with the same number and location to prevent duplicate listings. e. Correction of typographical errors. 2. Safety Significance: The changes to Table 3.7.4-2 are administrative in nature and update the table to be consistent with plant design. The addition of the snubbers identified above will provide proper action statements and surveillance requirements to ensure operability of these snubbers. 3. Anticipated Resolution: Mississippi Power & Light Company submitted the proposed changes to correct this table in a letter to H. R. Denton from L. F. Dale, dated October 7,1983 (AECM-83/0641). 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time Rev. 15, 3/29/84 Misd242
4 i Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D) Item Number 139 Priority IC 5. Disposition: Items Closed: (How) / Date Time cc: J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers i 1
- -(:
Rev. 15, 3/29/84 Misd243
^ TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number: 198 Priority: 1C / Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.7.1-1, items 6, 7, 8, 9 j Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-56, 3-57, and 3-58 j Problem
Title:
Radiation Monitor ] 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): 4 The number of channels required to be operable for the instruments in items 6, 7, 8, and 9 is different, even though the system initiation logics are the same for each item. The affected items are: 6. Control Room Ventilation Radiation Monitor 7. Containment and Drywell Ventilation Exhaust Radiation Monitor 8. Fuel Handling Area Ventilation Exhaust Radiation Monitor 9. Fuel Handling Area Pool Sweep Exhaust Radiation Monitor Presently, item 6 requires two channels per trip system to be operable while, items 7, 8, and 9 require three channels operable without reference to trip systems. Design of the logic for all four items consists of two redundant trip systems, with either trip system requiring two-out-of-two channels to be tripped in order to initiate the trip function. The instruments in items 6, 7, 8, and 9 perform a secondary containment isolation function. In order to ensure operability, two instrument channels per trip system may be required to be operable. 2. Safety Significance: The present requirement of a minimum of three channels operable for items 7, 8, and 9 may be inconsistent with single-failure criteria for system-level initiation. a Rev. 16, 3/31/84 Misd343
. ~. -... -. . - ~ Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D) Item Number 198 Priority 1C 3. Anticipated Resolution: Review system design for single-failure criteria with regard to operability y requirements. Technical Specifications are proposed that will change the minimum operable channel requirement to 2/ trip system for the items 6, 7, 8, and 9 on Table 3.3.7.1-1. Present footnote "h" will also be added to item 6. 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time 5. Disposition: Proposed Tech Spec Change forwarded to the Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance under Letter #PDTS-84/0028 Items Closed: (How) d / Date Time cc: J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers .) i Rev. 16, 3/31/84 Misd344 4 t
s TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number: 213 Priority: 1C / Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.3.3-1 ] Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-25 ] Problem
Title:
Incorrect Representation of ADS Manual Initiation ] 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): Technical Specification Table 3.3.3-1 lists the minimum operable channels per trip system function as "1/ valve" for the manual initiation function of the Automatic Depressurization System (ADS) Trip System A and Trip System B (Table 3.3.3-1, itc'ms A.2.g and B.2.f, respectively). In addition, the corresponding action statement (Action 32) refers to an individual ADS valve. Grand Gulf has two ADS trip systems, each of which has two hand switches. Both hand switches (channels) for a trip system must be actuated to initiate a system-level trip. The "1/ valve" requirement presently listed refers to those j () hand switches that actuate'the individual ADS valves, not to those that actuate an ADS trip system. 1 2. Safety Significance: The FSAR takes credit for automatic actuation of the ADS for the small break LOCA analysis. Incorporation of the proper manual initiation function will . ensure that the minimum number of operable channels, corresponding action statements, and surveillance requirements are required.for the system-level manual initiation function. ils:; 3. Anticipated Resolution: Perform an evaluation of the ADS system-level manual initiation function to determine the minimum number of operable channels, corresponding action statements, and surveillance requirements. Incorporate the results of this ' evaluation into the GGNS Technical Specifications. f wp Rev. 16, 3/31/84 ( Plsd25 , -I
.. -. - -. - ~ -.. - -.. - - . -.. - ~ 4 Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D) t ^ Item Number 213 Priority IC .i
- l 4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): ~ a 4 f NRC Notified: /' Individual Notified Date Time
- t
] 5. Disposition: 4 Items Closed: (How) / 4 Date Time cc: J. E. Cross fl. k ) R. F. Rogers .o3 1 l 1 i O i 1 I
- l' b
Rev. 16, 3/31/84 Plsd26 -.x.
.... u. ~ ~..... a.- . -. - - - z. = _. 4 m, TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET j Item Number: 285 Priority: IC 3 N. Paul Goel / 3/12/84 4 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
4.3.7.8 j Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-75 l. Problem
Title:
Chlorine Detectors Calibration Frequency 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): The bases for Technical Specification 3/4.3.7.8 states that the chlorine detection systems will be consistent with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.95, " Protection of Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Operators against ] an Accidental Chlorine Release," Revision 1, January 1977. This guide j, recommends a 6-month calibration frequency for the chlorine detectors. The nanufacturer of the chlorine detectors installed at Grand Gulf Nuclear Station recommends an interval of 12 months for calibration. The calibration frequency of the chlorine detectors in Technical Specification 4.3.7.8 is ...y currently 18 months. The inconsistency in calibration frequency of the 4 k# .l chlorine detectors needs to be resolved. IaD 2. Safety Significance: [ - None. The current Technical Specifications for the calibration frequency of ] the chlorine detectors may be less conservative than specified in Regulatory i' Guide 1.95. I e j. 3. Anticipated Resolution: i Technical Specification 4.3.7.8 will be reviewed and revised as appropriate to meet the intent of Regulatory Guide 1.95. d I 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / '] -Individual Notified Date Time i A b' & Rev. 18, 4/2/84 i 2 Plsd152 i ~~= ~~^ XD:f~ ::T": . ::T : ~ T ;: T ~ ^:. -. L.,:: "~ : r '. Q : ~.': r - - -
~. Page 2 c. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D) Item Number: 285 Priority: 1C 5. Disposition: 1 Items Closed: (How) ,f / Date Time cc: J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers ...D t-t ., j .{ 1 NOTE: The vendor may be contacted and could say that an 18 month (' - calibration frequency is acceptable. -4 Rev. 18, 4/2/84 Plsd153 ~...
i I~, -ro /3 E s unm-r-ecs r. wa. c C. /C J b4 ddE '>, ?.-<w,,46/ , f -3 s I + e
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number:.N Priority: s / Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Tables 2.2.1-1, 3.3.2-2, 3.3.3-2, 3.3.8-2 Tech Spec Page: 2-4, 3/4 3-15, 3-28, 3-99 Problem Title-1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): The drywell and containment high pressure trip setpoints and allowable values, as shown on applicable actuation instrument technical specification tables, do not take into account the fact that the barometric pressure can, at times, be less than the average ambient pressure of 14.7 psia. Thus, during periods of lower pressure, there is an increase in the incremental change needed to initiate a high pressure trip. 2. Safety Significance: A potential exists for being nonconservative when the ambient pressure drops s below 14.7 psia. The drywell and containment high pressure trip setpoints have been reduced accordingly, by administrative controls, to account for barometric pressure fluctuations. 3. Anticipated Resolution: Perfora analyses of appropriate engineering units for drywell and containment pressure, consiuer the effect of Darometric pressure on trip setpoints and allowable values consistent with the requirements of the safety analysis report, and establish an adequate margin against spurious trips. As a result of these analyses, appropriate changes will be recommended to Technical Specifications, FSAR, and other appropriate documents, if necessary. n== nrahi*= ananet tn ne ionir, p. im, _..p.aWint proc rem ena maV wha? 2-u re_ A AMe_ T.O T.Ild 1I 5Lpn ICA I,3nacificagyupa. j i Rev. 17, 4/1/84 h Misd25 F
c' 2:. o. _,._. Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D) Item Number 015 Priority IB ..[ 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time 5. Disposition: Items Closed: (How) / Date Time Reference TSRT-84/0447, page 16 and 17 cc: J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers t 1 Rev. 17, 4/1/84 j Misd26 ..w ;
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number: 7 016:7I Priority: M / Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.8-2 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-99 Problem
Title:
1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): ^- - nev_w w a- %.. ~.w aurav3 z y wnign m upy u ry u y m q p s _ _, g '. ', : .m,a rue Ilmits,froggespan. gr.gguaLio y.u psig;ana.aenithaer_.75 m &;ll-- 7Aps,1ggo;iess3ha1LQriegu_ allo L3LpngfancJess 3.han ar;fegua.lpew a3.U3:D51glespCGlinlhtodeflect the generic GE Design Specification Data Sheet No. 22A3139AK, Rev. 7, Table 4.5.2-1. 2. Safety Significance: The present GGNS Technical Specification limits are nonconservative when compared to the revised trip setpoint and allowable value limits contained in the generic GE data sheet. Containment spray actuation time could be longer using the present less than or equal to 9.0 psig trip setpoint. 3. Anticipated Resolution: eawars wq urang guif s.v.teir.=.* design-to-determine 4ther-theveVMEG -, n, mum ~ _, ;.w:: :::. gRpoint andiaTiowable.value.liditsWe~'applicabjeynd;3houlpbe p ramw ruo ra te og n to_ wCGGliTechn icaLggec i f Ra tj ohg a s ed o n th i s determination, evaluate the impact of the revision on other containment / drywell issues. 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time Rev. 15, 3/29/84 Misd27
... e. :t.. _ _ c_._ .c_ _. .. _..u_...._____ Page 2 m TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D) Item Number 016 Priority 1B i 5. Disposition: i Items Closed: (How) f / Date Time cc: J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers C) i J 'l y 4 9 J Rev. 15, 3/29/84 Misd28 ase==% m.- .w ho m> - ,n.,, e .-e-- a ss ,3 ,-eg. -e-
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET ^ Item Number: CU34iime Priority: pasmp / Identified By Date Responsible Supervitar Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.8-2 Tech Spec Page: 3/6 3-99 Problem
Title:
- ne., e -Wr;_,
1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): Calculations to predict containment spray timer drift indicate a possibility of exceeding allowable value limits as stated in the Technical Specifications, althouch our field surveillance history to date has not verified that this problem exists. Based on hardware characteristics, it is conceivable that the containment spray timers could exceed allowable values during the existing Tecanical Specification scheduled surveillance frequency (quarterly). 2. Safety Significance: y -- A small time excursion beyond allowable value limits due to timer drift could cause a small increase in contair, ment pressure under certain leak conditions. b pr.w m wp } gyg9511a-mm,ggg 3. Anticipated Resolution: Perform an evaluation of containment spray timer trip setpoints and allowable values to establish an adequate tolerance for calibration drift and to ensure containment spray initiation consistent with the safety analysis report, while i considering the effects of bypass leakage. ....4% @#DmDE.1AHLwa,.m gumm n aum N h - 9 % 2 D CathatT. O myy rwo aw muments - :J 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time Rev. 18, 4/2/84 Misd58
. _ -. _ _ _ _.. _. ~, _ _ _. _ _ _ _.. ( - Page 2 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONPROBLEMSHEET(CONT'D) j Item Number 033 Friority 1B j 5. Disposition: -i e ~.~i 'l ' f Items Closed: (How) / Date Time cc: J. E. Cross 1 R. F. Rogers n ..Ci i n o, t. L} J-i i 4 J t 'J Rev. 18, 4/2/84 d Misd59 m- ._ _,. _.. _. _... _., ~ -,.,..
._____.m._.__._ O TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Iten Number: 034 Priority: 1C / Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3/4.3 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-1 through 3/4 3-100 ,j Problem
Title:
Generic Instrumentation Problems 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): The NRC has suggested that a review of Technical Specification 3/4.3 be conducted. Included in this review would be: a. Definitions of channels,~ trip systems, and trip functions b. Action Statements c. Minimum operable channel requirements d. Single failure criteria 2. Safety, Significance: %.)) None. This review would be for enhancement purposes to provide for consistent terminology and operability requirements, such that the clarity of instrumentation specifications is increased. } 3. Anticipated Resolution: The formulation of consistent definitions of channels, trip systems, and trip functions has been performed and is currently being reviewed prior to its submittal'to the NRC. A review of Action Statements, minimum operable channels, LC0's, and single failure criteria 'for the instrumentation j specification will be performed.' .s e h 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / l-Individual Notified Date Time r -i N s Rev. 18, 4/2/84 4 Misd60
.. =...=. - ; l s -1 1 Page 2 TECHNICAL' SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D) Item Number: 034 Priority: IC j 5. Disposition: .3 i Items Closed: (How) / Date Time cc: J. E.-Cross R. F. Rogers s_-* 4. 25-y. 1 i ? .s.j
- 1
. -)
- 1..
l ..g ,l .1 .4 . - t, t b Rev. 18, 4/2/84 3-Misd61 e .*_ eg w an.,*
- w m ven y +em*m er m *.*'
e v se se=*w v w e g +
==***d'** " c****'* -P
- W- "**'**?T%""*'W'"
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number: 038 Priority: 1C / Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 4.3.7.1-1, Item 5 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-59 Problem
Title:
Carbon Bed Vault Radiation Monitor Calibration Frequency 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): Table 4.3.7.1-1, Radiation Monitoring Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements, lists the calibration frequency for the carbon bed vault radiation monitor (item 5) as "R" (18 months). The vendor recommends a calibration frequency of 12 months. 2. Safety Significance: None. The surveillance program for Grand Gulf currently specifies an annual calibration frequency for the carbon bed vault radiation monitors, which is consistent with the FSAR and vendor recommendations, i 3. Anticipated Resolution: An evaluation should be performed to determine if a Technical Specification change should be submitted to change the carbon bed vault radiation monitor surveillance frequency to "A" (at least once per 366 days) to be consistent with vendor recommendations. 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time 5. Disposition: Items Closed: (How) j / Date Time cc: J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers Rev. 15, 3/29/84 Misd68
=:
- ----..=. - - - - -
A TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number: O Priority: M / Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.2-1, Item 2.d i Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-10 and 3/4 3-14a ] Problem
Title:
Main Steam Line Flow Minimum Operable Channels 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): j Present Item 2.d. Main Steam Line Flow-High, in Technical Specification Table i 3.3.2-1 requires, as a minimum, two channels OPERABLE per trip system. Note (g) applies to Item 2.d and requires two of four instruments in a channel be OPERABLE for the channel to be OPERABLE. Note (g) also requires each trip I system to have at least one instrument per main steam line (MSL) OPERABLE in order for the associated channels to be considered OPERABLE. Definitions for the terms " Channels," " Trip Systems," and " Trip Functions" for Q instrumentation in Table 3.3.2-1 were provided to the NRC in a letter q (AECM-83/0764) from Mr. L. F. Dale to Mr. H. R. Denton, dated December 15, 1983. These definitions for Group 1 isolation indicate that plant design for MSL flow-high includes two trip systems, each containing two channels for each of four steam lines, for a total of eight channels per trip system. In order to meet single failure criteria for each of the four main steam lines, all eight MSL flow-high instrument channels per trip system are. required to be OPERABLE. Note (g) is inconsistent with actual plant design, since, by the above definition, there is only one instrument per channel, t 2. Safety Significance: 1 It appears that the present requirement of two minimum OPERABLE channels per 1 trip system is insufficient to ensure the necessary instrumentation for the 0 MSL flow-high isolation initiation function for all four steam lines, since -i i l b Rev. 18, 4/2/84 Misd182
Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET 6 Item Number 103 Priority 18 this could allow, in the worst case, six channels (both channels per trip system for three steam lines) to be inoperable and not require entry into .j Action Statement 3.3.2.a or 3.3.2.b to ensure trip function initiation. Note j (g) is inappropriate, since there is only one instrument per channel, and is, therefore, confusing. 3. Anticipated Resolution: Investigate to determine if both channels per trip system for each steam line are required to be OPERABLE as a minimum and revise Table 3.3.2-1, if required, in,.iin.c v v un6,u yavea g geJ y,gc y "8* 3GhjQULniplumli2 bnnytE channeggguyred? TT6'1ffaleTET5n1 sis 9% ,,,,, __..ar af 2 FW 2 ';= - - - if 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time 5. Disposition: Items Closed: (How) j .i / ] Date Time cc: J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers t Rev. 18, 4/2/84 Misd183
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEri SHEET Item Number: O Priority: -3 4 & % / Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
4.5.1.b, 4.6.3.2.b Tech Spec Page: 3/4 5-4, 3/4 6-24 Problem
Title:
RHR Flows for Containment Spray Mode 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): 1 @@.emujrec Asurvewance jequ im.y,g m-ra tes, ur um ,anu m.o.f2shlareEnot ransisterit~.i/5urveillance Requirement 4.5.1.b, which is the flow test for low pressure coolant injection (LPCI), requires a flow of 7,450 gpm through the RHR heat exchanger to the suppression pool, while Surveillance Requirement 4.6.3.2.b, for the containment spray system, only requires a flow of 5,650 gpm. It appears that the containment spray flow rate of 5,650 gpm was taken from the design value of flow at the spray nozzles (see FSAR Figures 5.4-18 and 19 and FSAR Section 6.5.2.2). This flow value is lower than the LPCI value of 7,450 gpm since the RHR pump must overcome a greater head to deliver flow to the nozzles. Therefore, testing to confirm a flow rate of 7,450 gpm through the heat exchangers to the suppression pool will also be sufficient to demonstrate adequate flow at the spray nozzles. 2. Safety Significance: None. The requirements of 4.5.1.b and 4.6.3.2.b are both satisfied by the performance of the same surveillance procedure. This procedure verifies that a flow of 7,450 gpm is delivered through the heat exchangers to the suppression pool. 3. Anticipated Resolution: 1 erurv Mata,tes ced i(qte-ofg450 gpm_"thr0VggylHpheat yythangeg,to 5 a...Jshn,M9J.;&arriSEQadCtd7tWY6tf0Tfreir'florrate~of SGQS0;gpnrat-the rum _ _. _ ~ WNY norriesNArsumjlsuccessiu t.veMfEa'tjon, -
g
% 5.-T * ~ % s: w ance u ;anu a p Led?J Rev. 18, 4/2/84 Plsd61
c- . --.,...:2, =.-..- [. Page 2 ,s TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D) Item Number: 233 Priority: M lb 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time 5. Disposition: Items Closed: (How) / Date Time k-
Reference:
TSRT-84/0585, Page 22 cc: J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers I: i ,x 'Rev. 18, 4/2/84 Plsd62
. ~. _ /~ TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number: 262 Priority: 1C W. A. Russell /3/14/84 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.3.7.12 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-87 Problem
Title:
SBGT System Radioactivity Monitor Not Included 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): The Standby Gas Treatment System (SGTS) A and B exhaust radiation monitors, which are included in Technical Specification 3.3.7.5 for the accident monitoring instrumentation, also serve the secondary function of monitoring potential gaseous effluent releases during other SGTS operations (e.g., testing). These monitors are not presently included in the gascus effluent monitoring instrumentation tables (Technical Specification 3.3.7.12) and are not presently required to be operable whenever the SGTS is in operation, other than in Operational Casdition 1 and 2 for the accident monitoring instrumentation. y, 2. Safety Significance: None. There is only a significant radiological concern in Operational Conditions 1 and 2, however the effluent from the SBGT system should be monitored anyttme the SBGT system has the capability of acting as an effluent path. 3. Anticipated Resolution: Review and evaluate all uses of the SGTS and propose those additions or l revisions necessary to ensure that the intended functions of the SGTS exhaust monitors are adequately addressed in the Grand Gulf Technical Specifications. 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time i Rev. 16, 3/31/84 Plsd114 ~
u.. I-p '~ Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D) Item Number 262 Priority IC 5. Disposition: Items Closed: (How) / Date Time
Reference:
TSRT-84/0459, pages 10-15 and page'25 cc: J. - E. Cross R. F. Rogers l i Rev. 16, 3/31/84 i j. Fisd115
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number:.M. Priority: LIB aqr R. C. Clayton /3-19-84 R. Slovic Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
4.6.1.3.d.2 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 6-6 Problem
Title:
-~~'*
- Ve EMam *t-=MLv 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): Technical Specification 4.6.1.3.d.2 requires verifying seal air flask pressure to be greater than or equal to 60 psig. Technical Specification 4.6.1.3.d.3 requires verifying that the system pressure does not decay more than 2 psig from 90 psig within 48 hours. Based on this allowable pressure decay rate, B,nw seal' afr r rasM;cpuref ^_]amunansea _Qyy;otpuQof.,hju%GAeastN gua 'ihnu 1*hamiumumlequirea WWb]p;s_ ear;pressyr;(@his will @ duran=rm.urrint2hla seai; presglggtJeasgGgo g ith;n q q g g J 2. Safety Significance: None. This change will ensure sufficient seal air flask pressure to maintain inflatable seal pressure above the minimum required value. 3. Anticipated Resolution: J. 3 - - -n WMmqmgugqq,1rithA,Epsigkvalue AnjecWcairg SpeG+fjsat un 4.G.i.3.a i sg u,i,a,,ojCt.hange C ang to A G.;value.s Tisea;on3 tp i results of that evaluation, recommend appropriate changes to the Technical Specifications. 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time Rev. 18, 4/2/84 Plsd166
. -...=:..l .a .. J..
- l Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D)
Item Number: 292 Priority: IB 5. Disposition: - ^t ' d' Items Closed: (How) / Date Time cc: J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers .,. 3 (,.i ' t, Rev. 18, 4/2/84 Plsd167 ..--..-,...,-.- = - - -,
. -. _.. ~ TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number: N Priority: .h R. C. Clayton /3-19-84 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
4.6.2.3 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 6-16 Problem
Title:
~f: =AU M eye + " - ~ ~ 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): Technical Specification 4.6.2.3.d.2 requires verifying seal air flask pressure to be greater than or equal to 60 psig. Technical Specification 4.6.2.3.d.3 requires verifying that the system pressure does not decay more than 2 psig from 90 psig within 48 hours. Based on this allowable pressure decay rate, _aw=i;eir fiasx pre $UIg3Dgyld__be changed froELfiO;.psfftbg3tnrtMea, spy A m araDMGhJRinmun.reguireOnflatab.lA seaLptessureMhi s wilir ensure:n7 E -waWJntlat,ablLiqMCessura for atdeAst:30TdaysyfthN'TiPsUppy{/ 7 V, 2. Safety Significance: None. This change will ensure sufficient seal air flask pressure to maintain inflatable seal pressure above the minimum required value. 3. Anticipated Resolution: .m. iurm artevaMulopgaetermne + Gw 607f[g_.yAlue;.19,J ettmicRf . Specification-c623.Mpo0Td~bt[tJafgediandTto..what'Yajuey Based on the results of that evaluation, recommend appropriate changes to the Technical Specifications. 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time 1 Rev. 18, 4/2/84 Pisd168
..~ Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D) Item Number: 293 Priority: IB i 5. Dispo'sition: 1 / l d Items Closed: (How) i / Date Time 1 l l
Reference:
DCP 84/0032 cc: -J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers -ii, t.} l! I i r i^ t l lJ. l l i k 1' l Rev. 18, 4/2/84 Pisd169 ..n+..m,--.-,-.-, ~ .- - - - - - - ~. - -. - - r - *-
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number: M Priority: M Val Malafew /3-21-84 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.6.4-1 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 6-27 to 6-44 Problem
Title:
Containment and Drywell Isolation Valves -1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): Table 3.6.4-1 does not presently include combustable gas control system valves E61-F002A & B; F004A & B; and the upper containment pool drain system valve G41-F265. Also, valves G33-F001, F004, F250, and F251 (RWCU pump suction valves) apparently have a GE requirement (30 seconds) concerning valve isolation time used in the analyses of potential offsite releases. (']' MP&L, in a letter from Mr. L. F. Dale to Mr. H. R. Denton, dated August 29, 1983,(AECM-83/0492), requested the maximum isolation times for these valves i be changed from the present 30 seconds to 42 seconds. 2. Safety Significance: There is no safety significance concerning the valve omission, since valves E61-F002A & B and F004A & B are governed by the more restrictive requirements of Technical Specification 3/4.6.5. Valve G41-F265 is operated only during a refueling outage, and if inadvertently left open, the resultant leakage into j the drywell would be detected by the drywell leakage detection system. However, if the specified closing times for the RWC'l pump suction valves are not within the GE analytical limits, this may result in a radiological release following a RWCU pipe break in excess of previously analyzed releases. 1 Rev. 18, 4/2/84 Pisd193
Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D) Item Number: 306 Priority: IB , 3. Anticipated Resolution: Determine if valves 1E61-F002A & B, F004A & B and G41-F265 should be added to Table 3.6.4-1. A preliminary assessment indicates that valves 1E61-F002A & B, { F004A & B should not be included in this table since the valves do not provide an isolation function for the drywell. The isolation function for the drywell vacuum breaker lines is provided by motor-operated valves 1E61-F003A & B and F005A & B which are included in Table 3.6.4-1. Perform an evaluation to determine if the RWCU pump suction valve closure times are correct and submit appropriate changes, if required. j 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): 3- (~, NRC Notified: / i Individual Notified Date Time 5. Disposition: 4 Items Closed: (How) / i Date Time
- i 1
Reference:
TSRT-84/0595, Pages 21, 32, and 120 cc: J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers
- i n
i 1 Rev. 18, 4/2/84 j i Pisd194
.~. s l TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number: Priority: Bechtel / 3-18-84 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.2-2 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-17, 3/4 3-17a Problem
Title:
l 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): Technical Specification Table 3.3.2-2 lists the actuation instrumentation setpoints for various isolation trip functions. The settings for reactor water cleanup (RWCU) system equipment area temperature-high (item 4.c), reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) system equipment room ambient temperature-high (item 5.d), and residual heat removal (RHR) system equipment room ambient temperature-high and delta temperature-high (items 5.1, 5.j, 6.a, and 6.b) are not consistent with Bechtel calculations for these values. Except for the RWCU system setpoints, all of these setpoints are denoted as initial setpoints with the final setpoints to be determined from the startup test program. 2. Safety Significance: None. The proposed change to the RWCU system isolation setpoints involves a 4 F reduction in the setpoints. The existing setpoints would not adversely affect system isolation. The other setpoints are presently adequate since their final values will be determined from the startup test program. l 3. Anticipated Resolution: 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time Rev. 18, 4/2/84 Plsd196 ^ ~ ~ ~
_ ___ w c__ a.. _a__ a. _. - r -Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION. PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D) Item Number: '308-Priority: IB' t 1 t ]
- 5.. Disposition:
- .I ~
..ii '] Items Closed: (How) 0 1 / Date Time t
References:
TSRT-84/0774 .TSRT-84/0776 TSRT-84/0777 0b
- )
cc: J. E. Cross ') i R. F. Rogers .i .._ 4. .y ? l! i.;t .i .j .j. a 1 (?3 y v Lj Rev. 18, 4/2/84 d. Pisd197 3 s-__...._
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number: 329 Priority: IC Dave Noonan / 3/13/84 J. Catlin Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.3.7.5 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-69 and 3/4 3-70 Problem
Title:
Radiation Monitor Applicable Operating Conditions 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): The Grand Gulf Technical Specifications require post-accident radiation i monitors (items 13 through 18 of Table 3.3.7.5-1) to be OPERABLE in operating conditions 1 and 2. The Standard Technical Specifications require operability of these monitors in operating conditions 1, 2, and 3. Also FSAR Appendix 15A implies operation of these monitors in other than operational conditions 1 and 2. 2. Safety Significance: These monitors do not provide any automatic actuation of engineered safety '~ features, and are designed to f0lfill a monitoring function only. 3. Anticipated Resolution: Evaluate Grand Gulf radiation monitoring design versus accident monitoring requirements to determine if radiation monitors need to be required operable in operating conditions other than 1 and 2. Submit any appropriate Technical Specification changes. 4. NRC Response tc Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time Rev. 18, 4/2/84 Plsd228
....-'x..-..~... .G:. ~... n. .w.~..-... t 7 Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D) Item Number: 329 Priority: IC 1 5. Disposition: Items Closed: (How) / Date Time cc: J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers 4 Rev. 18, 4/2/84 Pisd229
vm-h= m.-- + g.' .g .L ,/-f, ,\\,,y,w 7590-01 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of I i MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY h Docket No. 50-416 MIDDLE SOUTH ENERGY, INC., AND ) SOUTH MISSISSIPPI ELECTRIC POWER l ASSOCIATION ll (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station) ) ORDER REQUIRING DIESEL GENERATOR INSPECTIONS (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) I. Mississippi Power & Light Company, Middle South Energy, Inc., and South Mississippi Electric Power Association (the licensee) are the holders of Facility Operating License No. NPF-13, which authorizes the operation of the Grand Culf Nuclear Station (the facility) at steady-state reactor power levels not in excess of 191 megawatts thermal. The facility consists of a boiling water reactor (BWR/6) with a Mark III containment located in Claiborne County, Mississippi. II. On August 12, 1983, the main crankshaft on one of the three emergency diesel generators (EDGs) manufactured by Transamerica Delaval, Inc. (TDI) at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station broke into two pieces during a load test. During the course of the evaluation of the failure, information related to the operating history of TDI engines has been identifed which calls into question the reliability of all TDI diesels. The operational problems associated with TDI diesels have significantly reduced the staff's level of confidence in the reliability of all TDI diesel generators.
. III. As a result of the above, there is a question concerning the reliability of the TDI diesel generators installed at the Grand Gulf facility. While staff analysis (Attachment 1) indicates that the total loss of diesels at l; 5% power would not significantly increase the risk of low-power operation, 1 it is appropriate to have some assurance as to reliable onsite power. Therefore, in view of the staff's lack of confidence in the reliability of the TDI diesels at the Grand Gulf facility, a need for a more reliable source of onsite power exists. In addition, a high degree of reliability is required of the diesel generator for full-power operation. The public health, safety and interest requires that the diesel generator with the most hours logged be inspected prior to proceeding above 5% power and that while this diesel is disassembled, it be replaced by more reliable onsite power source. Hence, I have determined that the public health and safety interest requires that the technical specification of Grand Gulf facility be modified to require an operable gas turbine system in addition to one operable diesel generator. IV. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 1611, 1610, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Parts 2 and 50, it is hereby ordered, effective imediately, that: A. 1. The TDI diesel generator which has accumulated the most operating hours to date shall be disassembled for inspection in accordance with Attachment 2 which describes the components to be inspected and the inspections to be performed.
m U . 2. All defective parts found shall be replaced prior to declaring the engine operable. The engine block and engine base may be excepted if indications are non-critical. Non-critical indications are defined as not causing oil or water leakage; not propagating; or not adversely affecting cylinder liner or stud holes. 3. Preoperational testing must be performed on the inspected engine prior to declaring it operable. This phase of testing shall include the manufacturer's preoperational test recommendations and the following elements if in not already included in the manufacturcr's recomenda-tions. 10 modified starts to 40% load 2 fast starts to 70% load 124-hour run at 70% load A modified start is defined as a start including a prelube period as recomended by the manufacturer and a 3 to 5 minute loading to the specified load level and run for a minimum of one hour. The fast starts are " black starts" conducted from the control room on simulation of an ESF signal with the engine on ready standby status. The engine shall be loaded to 70% and run for 4 hours at this load on each fast start test. The 24-hour performance run is required to detect abnormal temperatures and/or temperature excursions that might indicate engine
v distress. Either a modified or quick start may be utilized. These 13 tests must be performed satisfactorily at the first 6ttempt, i.e., the 10 modified starts shall be performed successively with no failure. A failure is defined as an inability of the engine to start, or an abnormal condition during the respective run which would ultimately preclude the engine from continuing to operate. If these tests are not successfully completed initially, the NRC shall be notified within 24 hours. B. The licensees shall not operate the Grand Gulf plant under the terms of License No. NPF-13 unless such operation is in conformance with the revised technical specifications appended to this Order. C. The Director, Division of Licensing may terminate in writing any of the preceding conditions for good cause. V. Within 20 days of the date of this Order, the licensee may request a hearing on this Order. Any request for a hearing on this Order must be filed within 20 days of the date of the Order with the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555. A copy of the request shall also be sent to the Executive Legal Director at the same address. A request for a hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of Section IV of this Order. If tne licensee requests a hearing on this Order, the Commission will issue an order designating the time and place of hearing. If a hearing
. -... w. ....= - ~ -.. J 6-is held, the issue to be considered at such a hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this day of May, 1984. i 4 .-.o, 3.- w-w. 44... -,w.
~.:.w -. -a. /i 9- / i. - v.s -h Docket No. 50-416 pM f v.--- wp i ran. ? Mr. J. P. McGaughy M N ** [ /M d /W'M ' #( Vice PR'estdent 'f .A* T v- ^ '- M ',J" Nuclear Production Mississippi Power & Light Company [( ' L CLE %4 k 4M P.O. Box 1640 / b fu # Jackson, Mississippi 39205 /
Dear Mr. McGaughy:
SUBJECT:
NRC Staff Review and Processing of Grand Gulf Technical Specification ChangesforaFullPower(icenceAmendment. n The Mississippi Power & Light Company (MP&L) letter of April 19, 1984,providess the final MP&L report on Grand Gulf Technical Specification review programs. A total of 405 problems are identified in this report which were found during the past year and in a special MP&L Technical Specification Review Program begun in March of this year.! The resolution of the problems is being tracked at MP&L by assigning a Technical Specification Problem Sheet Number to each problem. In your report, you have concluded that the resolution,*ff most of the problems requires technical specification changes, but that some of the problems may be resolved by changes to the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) or by justifi-cation of existing Grand Gulf Technical Specifications on an engineering or operational basis. / i / The NRC staff is r'eviewing this report and the associated Technical Specification Problem Sheets., As discussed with you recently, the rtaff requires that all w Cs TechnicalSpecif'icationchangesneededforfullpoweroperation{as-determined-by", the MC staff, must-be made prior-to-exceeding-5% powey unless adequate justifi-fe'*<<o e= * ) cation is prov d{by MPSI. for deferring the change until after ful}hower operation ill meet with MP&L] representatives @ determine-is achieved.,jeThe NRC staff which-probl ems -should_be.res ol.ved_ by-changes -to-the-Tec hni cal-Speci fi ca ti ons-and ) / / v to dis' cuss draft proposed changes.. / '. ,.A.bjus v.f f ~ /k / -pi " 'l k'd - 7 't n> fif.4.a'(/ t
- rr' Q,
' '( /4,, p[/, n'y m w p. f s /l ~u w t v A $< j* Y k /* .,,, e. o /b H. ? AA.). / /:}c v
S P _ _. _ ~ ~]) Technical Specification changes will be implemented wMh the full. powe Aw . License Amendment is issued for Grand Gulf Unit 14o8 Tk M'f[d'[* 7,'M, r.....------- ,, 3 _,. $ ~'
- h MP&L is r:gnted to submit, by letter,gproposed changes to the technical w t n
specifications determined by the NRC staff to be required for full power operat on, For each change, MP&L is requested to provide a discussion of the \\Jf/[tcNg, A ustif fe the change and an assessment of significant hazards that could resu t from the change. y ' N.s
- 6) The NRC staff will review the MP&L proposed changes to the technical g
specifications and the associated analysis and will prepare a safety evaluation 1 IN X M M M MN p M N)t X1N M XIM IIX pMMM M XIIM M M M M X MMM M M MM NIX MIX 1N M X p MM pH M M M X M M M M ge X X of the proposed changes to accompany the full power license amendment. If the proposed change is unacceptable or atiditional information regarding the i 1 change is needed, the staff will request additonal information from MP&L by letter., ~. ~. -. _ - _y / i f 4 (Adv 7rfhe NRC staff's t* Li review of the Grand Gulf Technical Specification changes wi !4 be directed by Mr. Don Hoffman in the Standardization and Special Projects Branch, Division of LTcensing., Mr. Hp'ffman will meet with MP&L as necessary to determine K which changes are needed and to determine changes which would be acceptable to the A staff. ") f --. d s Alternately, telephone calls may be arranged direct [dly with MN. Hoffman to discuss changes to technical specifications which would be acceptable to the staff. ( 3 Regarding the schedule for completion of our review, and preparation of the full power license amendment and the associated safety evaluation, the NRR staff has assigned the necessary resources for the review. W/understandfromyourrepre- % L-sentatives that p marked-up draft of Grand Gulf Technical Specifications to show necessary ' changes will be available prim wr thu,, ext-scheduled MP&L-meeHng-with- @ the staff o7(May 4, 1984. The project management responsibility for preparation of the technical specifications for thelfull power licens ameqdment and associated safety evaluation is assigned t fm. to L. Kintner,p.e.dLicens ng Project Manager, DL., If there are any questions regardin q the processing of the license amendment, or evaluation of the MP&L letters providing ~ m p s. -4
,'*y. e discussions of safety significance and justification for the changes, you or your representatives sh6uld contact him. l-T. flovak a s ce b w p A \\ \\ h ~,. \\ n. fe h i e b s. c l 0 w e L e N bI w...
s+ .. : _. w La., 4 -- t .,e
- 1-
+ 1 3 7 ySA /-M T-I.'.x-c.f0ps u -. _,.,, L T, /Y)fj( d a c,ys, y 1 gk tL-j & A f x;snde ,0. /,,,u.d,-).up c.e-a .w m %) w 9f6 AQ dw Qyry, A Q.au mm ek-p. y Wep ; A~. a nu p w py 2.'- 4 g <: uA :[...,...e e,7not A % t / ~~ ]> &sA= % c? yN ;&s-o f.c cA,G A % l& a / p 7, g. pA Ma.s J
- 3) E,a. A-9 w (baeMPM, 6 u&,%p-4 : a
,p AAff, & abo ~ 19, ,s - p ~ w y 9... y a ~ w. L' ) 0,au 4 s L (( a d ) % l o., g>y.u9r.~ <, o;. j.b. s t m % <...... .a p t y p Q ;. 7..,A 1 y,, ..s f
- N b
t;f.)&so ~ ~ lA'IT% d r 1y>LK AS, & p y n 4 m n i y, x z y,. 7 bt h lQ. C)
- 2 J
f .g ,,,,se- .,y s, s,-., , +,,, ,w,ve, w -,,.. ~ ,,y vv.
,e...
-,m ,-y-- ,,, ~, - - -, ,m
~~ .x . _ 3.. Mr. J. P. McGaugby The project management responsibility for preparation of the technical speci-fications' for the full power license amendment and associated safety evaluation is assigned to L. Kintner, Licensing Project Manager, Division of Licensing (301-492-7038). If there are any questions regarding the processing of the license amendment, or evaluation of the MP&L letters providing discussions of safety significance'and justification for the changes, you or your represent-atives should contact him. Sincerely, .j .:s i Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director i .for Licensing. Division of Licensing Enclosure-As stated ,~ cc: See next page t i 1q i ~ i !o d l /5/ a
1,. - - - - r ~' i ENCLOSURE 1 Procedure for Review of MP&L Technical Specification Changes 4 ,1. MP&L will provide a marked-up copy of the current Technical Specifications indicating how they propose to implement the necessary changes. Written justification will be provided for omission of any identified problems. 3 2. The NRC staff will meet with MP&L representatives to discuss the proposed d changes and to advise them of acceptable technical specifications. This position of the NRC staff's review of the Grand _ Gulf Technical Specifica-i1 tion changes will be directed to Mr. Don Hoffman in the Standardization '] and Special Projects Branch, Division of Licensing. Mr. Hoffman will meet with MP&L as necessary to determine which changes are needed to determine changes which would be acceptable to the staff. Alternately, telephone calls may be arranged directly with Mr. Hoffman to discuss changes to technical specifications which would be acceptable to the staff. 3. The staff will also advise MP&L, in writing, their acceptance or denial of proposed omissions. 4 Once the staff and MP&L are agreed on the appropriate wording to implement the Technical Specification changes, MP&L will process these as they would any application for an amendment, including proper review by MP&L safety review group. 5. MP&L is then to submit, by letter, the proposed changes to the technical specifications determined by the NRC staff to be required for full power operation. For each change, MP&L is requested to provide a discussion of the change, a safety analysis justifying the change and an assessment of significant hazards that could result from the change. J 6. The NRC staff will review the MP&L proposed changes to the technical speci-fications and the associated analysis and will prepare a safety evaluation of the proposed changes to accompany the full power license amendment. If the proposed change is unacceptable or additional information regarding the change is needed, the staff will request additional information from MP&L by letter. 7. Technical Specification changes will be implemented when the full power license amendment is issued for Grand Gulf Unit 1 and the staff's safety i evaluation will be provided at that time. c /3A ,w- ,,,,,,,--.r- ,-,ww w-1vv ,-,w.rwr-,v -,v -,e-- v w t..M
t: Mr. J. P. McGaughy The project management responsibility for preparation of the technical speci-fications for the full power license amendment and associated safety evaluation is assigned to L. Kintner, Licensing Project Manager, Division of Licensing (301-492-7038). If there are any questions regarding the processing of the license amendment, or evaluation of the MP&L letters providing discussions of safety significance and justification for the changes, you or your represent-atives should contact him. Sincerely, Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc: - See next page DISTRIBUTION: Docket File NRC PDR L PDR PRC System NSIC LBf4 R/F MDuncan LKintner EJordan NGrace DHoffman, SSPB OELD ACRS (16) LB#4:DL LB#4:DL LKintner:kab EAdensam 05/ /84 05/ /84 J /33- _-_.,,y y c--,-r-, w
bcdh i ~ s MEMORANDUM FOR: Edson G. Case, Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- 1 FROM:
T. A. Rehm
- Assistant for Operations, EDO
.i 1
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO MARKEY QUESTIONS OF MARCH 13, 1984 ll t a d Udell called and asked for clarification of several of the questions in the n4m~wd q package. I have listed them in order of his interest. The first three are the critical ones. I think your staff probably has the answers, but I would rather get a partial answer down by the 13th than wait -- if he decides to have a hearing its best to have the information before him and defuse the issue. What I need then is a letter to Udell ' supplement %' or ' clarifying' - take your pick gesponse sent to him by EDO on June 3 for Dircks signature. Question IE: Specify what the safety significance is, i.e., if the plant had gone to operation with errors in Tech Specs and Surveil- ~ 7, s lance Procedures, what would have been the consequence? If we don't know, say so. ~o Question 3A&B: Since we said there were seme exemptions, but deferrals the question to be answered is, "If these tests had been performed rather than deferred would any of the errors have been dis-4 solved prior to criticality?" and, "what is the tech basis for I.' the deferrals". Question 9: Why is the less-than-100% review considered sufficient? (You-don't say). Indicate what errors have been identified (you pprv*0 said they were not signTficant - was there a list in the __ h.. m j enclosures?) y rs u A ~ 9-m m... j s7mitM - ya 9j Question 2: Udell asked for a more amplification on what was fi Aolated - maybe an explanation of what tech specs are in terms of {} b ' Q ig' g' enforceability and importance via.fegs. gf ~9 s. O 5 Question 7: Udell thinks Denton told him there were generic relationships between the diesel fire at Grand Gulf and problems at ',, 9> Shoreham. C1arify? i &49 up, . l. W A% ' ' .h' T. A. Rehm Assistant for Operations, ED0 e- (3/_ p, loo y h6M D' )\\)d I S d.lo' y /3M J
~ - - - - - ~ _ _ _. _. _ m ,Ac 1,, ~ S -( M w,,, n., f ;~;' ,~ 0 E '8 = La one >i W h~l,Wiu..r. JF lp 7 C*^^ W G ~ % Q e-f ) y T3 jaeatD On w m) U )
hV gw C hd( g u p qn.: g 3 g e g# I o -M.4 UC Q}' / MEMORANDUM FOR: Edson G. Case, Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i FROM: T. A. Rehm Assistant for Operations, ED0
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO MARKEY QUESTIONS OF MARCH 13, 1984 Udell called and asked for clarification of several of the questions in the nIe o~<el package. I have listed them in order of his interest. The first three are the critical ones. I think your staff probably has the answers, but I would rather get a partial answer down by the 13th than wait -- if he decides to have a hearing its best to have the information before him and defuse the issue. What I need then is a letter to Udell ' supplement 4ir ' or ' clarifying' - take your pick gesponse sent to him by EDO on June 3 for Dircks signature. Tuestion 1E: Specify what the safety significance is, i.e., if the plant had gone to operation with errors in Tech Specs and Surveil-g n e-lance Procedures, what would have been the consequence? If we g ;;r don't know, say so. Question 3A&B: Since we said there were SEEe exemptions, but deferrals, the question to be answered is, "If these tests had been performed g {f.g.I ' rather than deferred would any of the errors have been dis-gmJ sched prior to criticality?" and, "what is the tech basis for the deferrals". Question 9: Why is the less-than-100% review considered sufficient? (You 4 don'tsay). Indicate what errors have been identified (you said they were not sigiiiTTcant - was there a list in the gQ enclosures?) L Question 2: Udell asked for a more amplification on what was fi(olated - maybe an explanation of what tech specs are in terms of /[] b y /g' g/ enforceability and importance vie.fegs. Question 7: Udell thinks Denton told him there were generic relationships between the diesel fire at Grand Gulf and problems at Shoreham. C1arify? h_ ', g j v s t- ~ \\ T. A. Rehm Assistant for Operations, ED0 0 /3r -~~
dV S4a fm rr i;l_; d Sp' fuJ,4 F.fnK cu - A,m w p n yt fan t rA m f/a #gd 55fL,
- k. 'W I
,t., W,
- rA3
/, k
- p. ?W,
.., J. ,.,d
- . =.
i >%ft if/^ 4,. z,A> pu( _j_ .m 44 n s &~ & d S
- lsys, y n, Li ana du J.Jik 6 x
~ y{ m s ;= = ~ s,y a z, ~ bMb
- 2 ~~c%g%
% alt E b y bl Jp 3 c~& < tu*l af-c lFhue Jsg n srs) /% -y
s JWe y qoy( 6 f"pcAJL pycAn*? m / ' t. ~L - p ,.,-9 9 fv f m% fo a-G JLtk Msi'~i7Dke r usa ~t~ ;w_% &"J4'isn% Q;-% 9 f M ~ &p<L:~s zh7/>g,x x hufw 4 N $ & w,a, sliv/fY. 1 % am ' J/o AA T l [ VfW C'i'L f 3 a pi seAde ~av s' ~ des WSQ / S ] A & w-S c f.c. d d l [ m i (i f f u / A, A h a d e n & x wrstMfe ~ Mwfl2p ! s3 u< f w i Q 4 /V,19/V ' 'f ^ n y x 4 ~ ~, % u,x +c~p44,1 4 i nv, [ chat $. y/ w b'i /w? & Y /fw.hlj97. i Y w l Q W rll' L. ~ ~ MP'- f- f f n f ^ a I b $/u,k AEd n l godd ~ / t4 4 c A 6 e./ J,4 v i aed 144.1 cQ &rLJ 5 6 'Mf L W,g A rMm c a a &&f'p.-Am ay ws ct ha7p+'
- 46Ad, J
/alkk &yM h NFL or Eu< '3?'
_a 4.-e -_t = " = - - .p,_,ei, g j L 1 p.yZa* % p>>x a.JJe K, 9 Mg w Mw4st.M da < A A F d A/ 'n Try, '7 L p k ' f w LJ~le qiWa.s:a,dap n 4 f fc- ~ y % < M 1 A w m M F L & J k&&; do 4 6 tu s v u. w w W W.A<//u-se WWYwjk cawtwom-r~ a p .S4Q4 r cQtq M /~ l. FL M/L : a m waJE ,/ ,g}:3. "Am, ~ z, nu nv / T M./ Q n % " f r tbPJM a frK. 3 Yf 6 4 6 ausO, ^}=J HL T sE ~ e g,ot t: 4.Y wGN + h & a & Ha f /fM % weh x > Xp-J p a w ' a A r s A l A
- 1% d m pi at uwb a
= = = = = = - =-
== l
e. in 4w a 8 8 (^ ~ /'1vf M - M L G I ~ Yr> A M d ~t-v 4 4 a p ir n i, @ w/61 +1pL s r s en k WUP fSA k 1[ " kt , /L? n Q c 4 6 it &s ' hon wL u A n x r m nasa tu ht ' f4 55 FL c t /Vbf* l a - <c,#s-BM,/ Y?S e +wW l C su A /) I \\% ) A to l C-. A.u r d n.~ u; 9 % y+4 R - b \\. Aa 4% wm - 4 + % k rs 4 es n ie ns 4 ~ Lf % '*iN cd {d TS N d I b'l i nt"fas ? q sut p 7 c av ro 2-, .T1 et.TS cay Asph/ &y ph c4 b/w A '} um W % A.sVA c~( i _ _ _ f F 5 A fL ? C s u. k a d w y p H M ] r.
J 4
- p..
MP&L PRIORITY 1 PROBLEM AREAS IN T.S. (PER TABLE DELIVERED BY S. HOBBS ON 4/9/84) Evaluation Problem Status as Sheet of 4/5/84 No. Item Priority (a) Ltr Date Complete 001 ADS Value Operability Ib 03/20/84 005 RWCU Isolation Ib 03/20/84 015 Suppression Pool Level Ib 016 Containment Pressure' lb Setpoints 033 ESF Actuation Instrumen-Ib tation Ic 03/29/84 021 Snubber addition 037 Calibration frequency of Ic 12/14/83 tests 038 Radiation Monitor Calibra-ic tion 054 Containment Spray Acuta-Ib 03/29/84 tion Complete 076 ECCS Response Times Ib Item 6 - 09/09/83 Complete 078 RCIC Initiation Ib 10/11/83 103 MS Flow Min Op. Channels Ib 139 Snubber List Change Ic 10/07/83 198 Radiation Monitor Ic 03/29/84 213 ADS Instrumentation Ic 03/29/84 233 RHR & Containment Spray lb Flow .262 SBGT Radioactivity Monitor ic 285 Chlorine Detectors Ic 03/29/84 292 Containment Air Lock Ib 293 Drywell Air Lock Ib 306 Containment Isolation Ib Valves 308 Room Air Temperature Trips Ib 329 Radiation Monitor Operat-Ic ing Mode D (a) Priority lb is designated by MP&L as needed prior to next criticality. Priority Ic is designated by MP&L as needed prior to exceeding 5% power. However, in order to avoid use of administrative procedures, MP&L is submitting the proposed changes for all Ic items to the staff by COB April 11,1984.
e J d 4 d( Attachment Description 1 3/26/84 NRC Memorandum 2 Revised Matrix (Preliminary) 3 Matrix Footnotes (Reformatted with safety significance column which is not yet completed. When f[ completed, this item will address utility input to task 2 of the 3/26/84 NRC memo). 4 Matrix Footnotes sorted for FSAR discrepancies. This " / is responsive to the FSAR portion of List 1 (task la ) [,. of 3/26/8,4 NRC memo). S.afety significance column is incomplete. 5 yP $1 Matrix Footnotes sorted by SER discrepancies. This is responsive to the SER portion of List 1 (task la of 3/26/84 NRC me.,o). Safety significance column is incomplete. 6 Matrix Footnotes sorted by As-Built discrepancies. / This is responsive to List 2 (task Ib of 3/26/84 NRC memo). Safety significance column is incomplete. 7 Matrix Footnotes sorted by FSAR vs. As-Built discrepancies. This is responsive to List 3 (task Ic of 3/26/84 NRC memo). Safety significance column is COMPLETE. p.q s j a ~s e C 4 TS k & Ak f& ,&st i Mf M FSAR tWvti TS - m -y-9 g a-pge g e e i**"'%D "^v
y, S L%. seqyg1anav W, cg )0~y uv av nra "nj y y rs clop e-d,Mno j kN ., Q a-u -u,Lcdug'uf L,1 p~ l.p m, \\ L< sh ym ~. e.-- Gg~1Ofe@,cH Asr u A s~ o.-,x n. r 3;u 9 y - 1xxQ-9 d asc - jusy. ( y)VI L o Q-s'a #ef, 2 p b.,
- 61i, oo/
Ye<Yw WP A & f J w cl m Q c /y & dh/< M I y e c, s 4, bI %k f8, I 'Q YlM f w y Mm 3-e,i-ay g Lc3 tv /a u f n c m m gi n : ~ st i y
~~ l0 CHRONOLOGY OF GRAND GULF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION DEVELOPMENT PHASE I - BWR/5, Mr,Il STS SUBMITTAL USED AS POINT OF DEPARTUPE - APPLICANT SUBMITTED PROPOSED PLANT SPECIFIC TS ~ JUNE 1980 l PHASE II.- INITIAL STAFF REVIEW OF PROPOSED TS COMPLETED AUGUST 1980 - MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS TO RESOLVE DIFFEPENCES PHASE.III - PROOF AND P.EVIEW ISSUED - JANUARY 1982 - DIFFERENCES PESOLVED - MAPCH/ APRIL 1982 - OL, INCLUDING APPENDIX A TECH SPECS, ISSUED - JUNE 1982 06>,s. hhk f ^ 3Aeo/rf ~ i I
n A jfp / --- f f f f/ S. ds N E i ~ gg/fd h-EVOLUTION OF GGNS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS o 1977-78: BWR 6 STS REVIEW GROUP PREPARED BWR6 VERSION OF STS o 1979: NRC GUIDANCE TO MARK-UP LATEST NRC STS o 1979: MP&L PLANT OPERATING STAFF DEVELOPED INITIAL GGNS SPECIFIC TECH SPECS BASED ON LATEST NRC STS (BWR 3/4, MARK 1) o 1979-80: MP&L RECEIVED MULTIPLE FORMAL AND INFORMAL VERSIONS OF NRC STS BWR 3/4 MARK I BWR S MARK 11 o DECEMBER 1980: MP&L FORMALLY SUBMITTED INITIAL CGNS TECH SPECS FORMALLY (NOT REVIEWED BY NRC) o MAY 1981: NRC PROVIDED MP&L DRAFT GGNS TECH SPECS (ESSENTIALLY BWR S) TO MARK UP AND RESUBMIT JUNE 1981 ~. o JANUARY 1982: INFORMALLY RECEIVED PROOF AND REVIEW COPY o JUNE 1982: GGNS OL ISSUED o 1982-83: IDENTIFICATION OF DISCREPANCIES M/
+ CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO TECENICAL SPECIFICATION INCONSISTENCIES o FIRST OF KIND PRODUCT LINE AND NO STS o INFORMAL NRC/MP&L REVIEW PROCESS LACK OF PROCEDURAL CONTROL UNDER OA PROGRAM o VERSUS DESIGN CONTROL AND FSAR CONTROL o INSUFFICIENT MANAGEMENT ATTENTION 'I INSUFFICIENT REVIEW BY PLANT OPERATING STAFF, BECHTEL, AND o GE FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF PROOF AND REVIEW COPY NO FINAL REVIEW UNTIL APPENDlX A RECEIVED WITH OL o e e i e 9 ,.mw., ., ~ -. + - -~ - ^ ~ ' ' ' "'
~. -
- --~.
s' .o N N:: Pew M 3 8 8 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REQUESTER *S MAILING ADDRESS 4 is -s e) i N ACWoG2 79 STREET \\? FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL ! " ^ REQUEST DATE RETUR ORIG N AL TO VES NO MESSAGE TO N AME AND ORG ANIZ ATION FACSIMILE PHONE NUMBER VERIPIC ATION PHONE NUMBER D/s yLV vb.s Ls'-. pli' ~j <j c' 7 l STATE CITY AUTOMATIC NUMBER OP P AGES (emckweeme teamsuetvah anstowcTsons) l '*A ] YES ] No s MESSAGE FROM lTELEPHONENO. FACSIMILE PHONE NUMBER VERIFICATION TELEPHONE NUMBER NAME M6GM SPE ED (we To a usw.) LOW-SPE E D (M u sw.) C ' L 4 ' d.. D vg t lM Alb STOP su1LDING AUTOM ATIC AUTOM ATIC vEs vES ll NO NO PRECEDENCE l OVERNIGHT l l FOUR HOURS l l TWO HOURS l lONE HOUR l A f IMMEDI ATE 1.PECI A L INSTRUCTIONS 's TIME /DATE (Stampf R ECElV ED TR A NSMITTED < s [ Sawn g 'SO R.p x y.~ m,,, ,,. - ~ hI A UdlVin$[a* h f ? 'i " ' .l
- 2, '. r,.,.,,
_ A U311 inh'i :.,, Ma i4 >e&'- =Wsem -e &'=-w qg.q,. 3go y,, 9 g.,y y ,p_, g ,m,sengy ,v... ..,,-.,,.e,, .,-p g-a
I \\ ) r n r (Con't) I Technical Specification Changes and Reasons for Changes Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1 Technical Specification No. Page Change Reason for Change Table 3.3.7.12-1, 3/4 3-90 Add the standby gas treatment system to the Technical Reflect plant design and ensure consistency 3/4 3-91 Specification Tables for Radioactive gaseous effluent with the intent of 10 CFR EO Appendix A, Table 4.3.7.12-1 3/4 3-94 monitoring. Criterion 64 i Table 4.11.7.1.2-1 3/4 11-9 Add the standby gas treatment systein (SGTS) to T.S. Reflect plant design and ensure consistency Table 4.11.2.1.2-1 to provide for inclusion of measure-with the intent of 10 CFR 50 Appendix A, able SGTS exhaust contributions in the dose rate calcu-Criterion 64 lations, if the SGTS has been run. 4.3.7.8 3/4 3-75 Change the channel calibration frequency of the Chlorine Ensure the safety margin of the design com-detection system from 18 months to 6 months, mitted to in the FSAR. Table 3.3.2-2 3/4 3-16 Decrease the trip setpoints and allowable values for the Reflect plant design to ensure proper leak-3/4 3-17, 17a temperature-high functions for RWCU, RCIC, and RHR system age detection; thereby, ensuring safety leakage detection instrumentation. margins. Table 3.6.4-1 3/4 6-41 Add 5 valves to the T.S. Table for " Containment and Reflect plant design and thereby prevent Drywell isolation Valves." possible operator error. 3.3.75 3/4 3-69 Transfer and increase the operational conditions applic-Reflect plant design requirements thereby Table 3.3.7.5-1 3/4 3-70 able to each accident monitoring instrument from Table ensuring safety margins. 3.3.7.5-1. Table 3.3.7.5-1 3/4 3-70 Change Titles of Items 13 through 18 to indicate the Avoid possible operator error. 4.3.7.5-1 3/4 3-72 specific monitor type. Table 3.3.7.5-1 3/4 3-70 For item 7, change from Action Statement 80 to new Reflect plant design thereby ensuring proper 3/4 3-71 Action Statement 82. operator action. l
~ - l g/ . (Con't) I Technical Specification Changes and Reasons for Changes Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1 Technical Specification No. Page Change Reason for Change Table 4.3.2.1-1 3/4 3-21, 22 Change the channel calibration frequency for Riley Restore design margin by chanaing to manu-3/4 3-23, 23a Temperature Switches from 18 months to annual. facturer's recommended calibration frecuency. Table 4.3.2.1-1 3/4 3-20, Change the channel calibration frequency for accessible Restore design margin by changing to the 3.4 3-21 radiation monitors from 18 months to annual. calibration frequency stated in the FSAR and 4.3.2.1-1 3/4 3-59 recommended by the vendor. 4.3.7.5-1 3/4 3-72, 3/4 3-92 3/4 3-93 3/4 3-94 Table 3.3.7.1-1 3/4 3-56 Change required minimum operable channels from 3 to 2 Reflect plant design and safety analysis, per trip system for items 7, 8, & 9 of the table. thereby restoring safety margin assumed in the analysis. Table 3.3.7.1-1 3/4 3-56 Add note (h) to item 6 of Table. Clarifles system design and thereby avoids possible operator confusion ar.d minimizes the potential for human error. Table 3.3.7.1-1 3/4 3-58 Revises action statements 74 and 75 to reflect trip Reflect plant design better and provide system logic, consistency within the technical specifica-tions. Table 3.3.3-1 3/4 3-25 Change the minimum operable channel. for the ADS trip Reflect plant desion and thereby avoids Item A.2.g. system manual initiation function from 1 per valve to possible operator confusion and minimize the to 2 per system. potential for human error. Table 3.3.3-1 3/4 3-27 Change Action Statement 32, such that with less than the Reflect plant design and thereby avoid possible Action 32 required minimum operable channels per trip function, operator confusion and minimize the potential the associated ADS trip system is declared inoperable for human error, instead of the associated ADS valve.
t ) - - - - (Con't) I Technical Specification Changes and Reasons for Changes Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1 Technical Specification No. Page Change Reason for Change 4.5.1.b 3/4 5-4 Revised to increase total developed head values for the Reflect system design (injection) requirements Emergency Coro Cooling Systems pumps as follows: (Inservice testing of pumps to existing Spect-fication 4.0.5 is not conservative relative to New Head (psid) Previous Head (psid) system design requirements). LPCS pump 290 261 LPCI pumps A, B, & C 125 89 HPCS pump 445 182 Bases 3/4.5.1 B 3/4 5-1 Revised to add " Flow and total developed head values for Provide information for Specification 4.5.1.b and 3/4.5.2 B 3/4 5-2 surveillance testing include system losses to ensure (above) to avoid personnel confusion and design requirements are met." minimize potential for human error. 4.6.1.3.d.2, 3/4 6-6 Revised to require verification that the seal air flask Restore margin needed for actual air lock 4.6.2.3.d.2 3/4 6-16 pressure for the containment and drywell air locks is system design. (Existing allowable seal greater than or equal to "90" psig rather than "60" at? flask pressure is not conservative since
- psig, it did not provide for a 30 day leakage criteria after loss of air supply).
Change to include the 30 day leakage criteria in the To reflect system design requirements and minimum required seal air flask pressure for the drywell safety analysis by ensurina drywell air lock air lock door inflatable seal system. inflatable seal integrity for 30 days upon loss of seal air supply. Table 4.3.2.1-1 3/4 3-20 Change to add Footnote (c) requiring trip unit calibra-Ensure consistency within Technical Specifica-3/4 3-21, tion at least once per 31 days to all Rosemnnt trip tions and thereby avoid operator confusion and 3/4 3-22
- units, minimize the potential for human error.
3/4 3-23 3/4 3-23a i I
l i l . (Con't) 8 I Technical Specification Changes and Reasons for Changes f Grand Gulf Nuclear Station tinit 1 .l Technical Specification No. Page Change Reason for Change Table 3.3.3-3 3/4 3-30 Revised to change response time of LPCI pumps for the Restore margin to that assumed in safety injection mode of RHR system to " 40" seconds. analyses. If uncorrected, could pemit operation leading to unanalyzed events. (Existing pump response time of 45 seconds for pumps A and B is not conservative and is inconsistent with 40 seconds used in safety analysis providing basis for plant design.) Table 3.3.5-1 3/4 3-45, Minimum OPERABLE channels per trip system for Peactor Reflect actual system design. Pestore 3/4 3-46 Vessel Water Level-Low Low, Level 2 is changed from "2" safety margin used in safety analyses (ACTION to "4" minimum OPERABLE channels per trip system. Pre-50, as written, is not conservative since sent ACTION 50 is changed to reflect only one trip system trip system is fartner from actuation than rather than two. ACTION 50 is revised to allow up to is the case with the channel (s) in the tripped two of four channels to be placed in the tripped con-condition.) dition before RCIC must be declared inoperable. Table 3.3.2-1 3/4 3-10 The number of main steam line flow channels required to Reflect actual plant trip looic design and pro-3/4 3-14a be operable in each trip system is revised from "2" to vide margin necessary to meet single failure "8", and note (91 is deleted. criteria assumed in safety analyses. Also avoid use of tems (Channel, trip system, trip function) not consistent with MP&L usage, which could confuse operators and increase potential for human error. }
/' r .. - - - -. (Con't) I Technical Specification Changes and Pea.ons for Changes Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Urlt 1 Technical Specification No. Page Change Reason for Change Bases 3/4.3.8 R 3/4 3-6 Revised to refer to the analyzed minimum and maximum Provide safety limit information to plant staff time delays between the initiation of the accident and to miminize potential for human error and avoid containment spray initiation, which are 10 minutes and operation which could lead to unanalyzed con-13 minutes, respectively. ditions. Action Statement 3.3.8.a 3/4 3-96 Revised to require that, with nonconservative setpoints, Reflect actual system design and avoid operation the channel is declared inoperable and action is taken as with conditions leading to unanalyzed events recuired by Table 3.3.8-1. (Existing Specification permits tir.ers, if inoperable, to be placed in a tripped condition which could lead to premature LPCI flow diver-sion to the containment spray header.) Action Statement 3.3.8.b 3/4 3-96 Revised to require that with inoperable channels, the Reflect actual system design (presently indi-action required by Table 3.3.8-1 is to be taken, cates there are two, rather than one, trip systems per containment spray system) which, if uncorrected, could confuse plant operator and contribute to potential for human error. Reasons given for Action Statement 3.3.8.a (abovel also apply. Action Statement 3.3.8.c 3/4 3-96 Revised to transfer existing requirements to Table Promote consistency within Technical Specifica-3.3.8-1. tions to minimize operator confusion and potential for human error. Table 3.3.8-1 3/4 3-98, Revised to require two operable drywell pressure-high oevised to implement Action Statements 3.3.8.a. 3/4 3-98a and reactor vessel water level-low low low level 1 3.3.8.b. and 3.3.8.c (above) in a consistent channels for each containment spray trip system. Also manner so as to avoid operator confusion and revised to indicate the Action Statement corresponding minimize potential for human error. to each of the actuation instruments.
) r t , (Con't) -?- I Technical Specification Changes and Reasons for Changes Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit I f Technical t Specification No. Page Change Reason for Change Tables 2.2.1-1, 7-4 Drywell and containment pressure instrument setpoints Restore design margins associated with worst 3.3.2-2, 3.3.3-2 3/4 3-15, and allowables are reduced by 0.50 psi, case weather information (largest negative 3/4 3-16, barometric deviation from standard pressure) 3/4 3-17a, appropriate to site locale. Assure variations 3/4 3-28, in barometric pressure are accounted for when 3/4 3-99 calibrating drywell and containment pressure trip setpoints. Bases 2.2.1, B 2-8 Supplemented to reflect that negative barometric pressure Reflect as-built design infonnation necessary 3/4.3.2, 3/4.3.3, B 3/4 3-1, fluctuations are accounted for in the trip setpoints and because the drywell/ containment pressure and 3/4.3.8 B 3/4 3-2, allowable values specified for drywell or containment instrumentation does not automatically com-pressure-high. pensate for changes in barometric pressure, and which, if omitted, could contribute to operator confusion and to potential for human error. Item Ib of Table 3.3.8-? 3/4 3-99 Containment hich pressure trip setpoint is changed to Restore safety margins to those associated with " 7.84 psig" instead of " 9 psig", and the corresponding the safety analysis, allowable value is changed to " 8.34 psig" instead of " 9.2 psig". Item Id of Table 3.3.8-2 3/4-99 Revised to require that both containment spr&y system Restore margins assumed in safety analyses for timers have a trip setpoint of 10.85 + n..; minutes and the as-built plant (Present timer settings an allowable value of 10.26 - 0.000, + 1.18 minutes. In permit analytical limits for containment spray addition, the System B timer is footnoted to indicate initiation to be exceeded). Eliminate that the System B timer actually consists of two timers inconsistency between FSAR (Section 6.2.1.1.5.5) (E12-K0938 and El?-K116) and that the trip setpoints for and Technical Specification which could confuse E1?-K116 is not to exceed 10.00 seconds of the total plant staff and contribute to potential for 10.85 t 0.10 minutes, human error, f
~ / r I Technical Specification Changes and Reasons for Changes Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1 Technical Specification No. Page Change Reason for Change 3.5.1.a.3, 3/4 5-1 Chanced to require "eight" operable ADS valves instead Restore operating safety margins to those 3.5.1.b.2 of "At least 7". associated with initial conditions used in the safety analysis. Bases 3/4.5.1, B 3/4 5-2 Changed to indicate that the ADS controls "eight" Reflect as-built design and actual safety Bases 3/4.5.2 selected valves instead of "seven", and that the safety analysis. If uncorrected, could contribute analysis takes credit for "seven" of these valves instead to operator confusion and to potential for of "six". human error. Item 4h of Table 3.3.2-1 3/4 3-12 Changed to indicate "1" minimum operable channel per trip Peflect actual SLCS initiation of RWCU isolation 3/4 3-14 system, instead of "NA", for the SLCS initiation of RWCU function design which consists of I channel isolation function; per trip system and restore margin assumed in safety analysis. 3/4 3-14 Changed applicable operational condition to "5" instead Fliminate inconsistency within the Techncial of "3", and added footnote "#f" to require the SLCS Specifications which, if uncorrected, could initiation PWCU isolation function to be operable in could contribute to operator confusion and Operational Condition 5 only when control rods are to potential for human error, withdrawn, but not if removed per Tech. Spec. 3.9.10.1 or 3.9.10.P. Item 4h of Table 4.3.2.1-1 3/4 3-22, Changed applicable operational condition to "5" instead Eliminate inconsistency within the Technical 3/4 3-23a of "3", and added footnote "##" to require the SLCS Specifications which, if uncorrected, could initiation RWCU isolation function to he operable in contribute to operator confusion and to Operational Condition 5 only when control rods are potential for human error, withdrawn, but not if removed per Tech. Spec. 3.9.10.1. or 3.9.10.P. I, Technical Specification changes required for continued operation up to 51 power. 9
fn Wf L Y Y -S TABLE 1 Number of Sources of Tech Spec Problem Sheets TSPS Items ] 1. Items identified by MP&L at the 1/24/84 meeting with NRC 61 l i 2. NRC Proof and Review Comments given to MP&L .f 1/24/84 r,< <.-
- a e %. %-.
T. 37 ) 3. Items formally submitted to NRC prior to j 1/24/84 (received 6 in Amend. 12) 43 SUBTOTAL 141 4. Identified by NR'R 1 5. NRC I&E Exit (2/24/84) -- 11 6. Additional Proof and Review Comments not previously submitted 11 '. km~ :# -~ h
- 2 7.
PSRC - ' " ' '- 8. MP&L Review Team established to review LCO's/ ACTION's 39 9. QA 1 10. LCTS (SER, Letters, FSAR, etc.) 10
- 11.
Instrumentation Review per ICSB Commitment 10 -l
- 12. Miscellaneous Technical Support identified items
{.j (primarily long-term issues and commitments) 14 SUBTOTAL 99 e 7
- (
- NI4 VI M M[
i TOTAL: 240 t:
- 13. Review Effort 1,
~:RF A. Tech Spec 132 B. FSAR/SER 33 SUBTOTAL 165 7; TOTAL: 405 j; gg p_ - l}dn-s, - ~,, u p. ,. a v ~ + m c c n.... u,
- n. r, n 4/ls S34cds8 i
/0 rWP
j' k'l/ & 44:&.h ^Y & l$/ $,'Y kh.h< CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION INCONSISTENCIES / o FIRST OF KIND PRODUCT LINE AND NO STS o INFORMAL NRC/MP&L REVIEW PROCESS i i o LACK OF PROCEDURAL CONTROL UNDER GA PROGRAM VERSUS DESIGN CONTROL AND FSAR CONTROL o INSUFFICIENT MANAGEMENT ATTENTION INSUFFICIENT REVIEW BY PLANT OPERATING' STAFF, BECHTEL, AND l!, o GE FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF PROOF AND REVIEW COPY o NO FINAL REVIEW UNTIL APPENDIX A RECEIVED WITH OL e 0 e
[ aouTING AND TRANSMRTAl. SUP [ 7 10s Neme oMice sym 'o, to n num er, initiene Date t l t b f/#f) t, e i/. /-rt we % 3. 3. 4. S. Action File l Note and Retum Approwel For Clearance Per Conversation As Requested For Correction Propero Reply C6teutete For Your informatioss See Me r :....:_2 inweetigste Signature C=a dinetton Justify REMARKS f g g in st ? "g-1 n 'N b 00 NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvets, concurrences, disposals, clearances, and similar actions FItOM: (Name, org. symbol. Agency / Post) Room No.-81dg. LLl( A vy, 3 r 8881-102 OPTIONAL F0ftM 41 (Rev. 7-76) FYisckE-11Jos ..i.. o,. m.m m n ?' u 'w.
- g c,
g 8 e. (F s i r e
~ no p TSRT-84/ D A q s PROBLEM SEEET LISTING AS OF 4 ch MWY ..'( ' Date ITEM NUMBER REVIEVED BY RPD PRICRITY ' REVISION, DATE O 001 I 1B 15, 3/29/84 002 83A I 2D 26, 4/24/84 003 I 2D h h77h 17, 4/01/84 004 ' 1(I8 I 2E 22, 4/09/84 $ qQ 005 I 13 - 15, 3/29/84 006 I 2D hE 'II[A21,4/08/84 007 I 2F 15, 3/29/84 008 I 2R 17, 4/01/84 009 -I 2B If f_ 25, 4/16/84 010 ECV> I 2B [lf 15, 3/29/84 ' 011 To t /l I 2B /21T 15, 3/29/84 012 I 2B /d 26, 4/24/84 013 T(16 I 2D kI 26, 4/24/84 =014 T056I 2B 21, 4/08/84 d 015 I 15 17, 4/01/84 .($ u 016 I IB 15, 3/29/84 017 -46M I' 2D 15, 3/29/84 018 I 3B 15, 3/29/84 019 I 2B 25, 4/16/84 020 / d.$ d I-2BLF 17, 4/01/84 0 02.1 I IC 15, 3/29/84 022 TNA I R.50 2A k.h 17, 4/01/84 023 T[S$ I N3b 2B /1 15, 3/29/84 024 I /b$b 25 d1 18, 4/02/84 025 I (3 d 33 26, 4/24/84 026 I 2D 15, 3/29/84 027 I 2E 15, 3/29/84 028 I 23 5 15, 3/29/84 029 .!Jid I 3B 26, 4/24/84 / 030 FC[5 I 2D 17, 4/01/84 031 I 2D 17, 4/01/84 032 a {f-I 2B d E 21, 4/08/84 9 A,-(bk 033 I 13 18, 4/02/84 ( 034 TCf6 I 1C 18, 4/02/84 1 035 4 3 d I 2c [2 15, 3/29/84 L26sd1 /hf s
~ s. ,y PROBIIM SHEI:T LISTING ITEM NUMBER REVIEVED BY RPD PRIORITY t REVISION, DATE i 2D M E Th N N N ( 036 I 26, 4/24/84 4 M M 037 I 1C 15, 3/29/84 I Cr/de kl 038 I IC 15, 3/29/84 039 .I 2G 17, 4/01/84 040 I 2F 17, 4/01/84 041 I 2B 21, 4/08/84 042 I{$ 3B 26, 4/24/84-043 I 2D 15, 3/29/84 ' 044 I 2B 26, 4/24/84 045 I 2B N6 M 17, 4/01/84 04t Mh I '2F 15, 3/29/84 047 I M6 23 15, 3/29/84 048 I 2H _ 27, 4/26/84 049 I 2B " 18, 4/02/84 050 T C$6 I ~ 2B 17, 4/01/84 051 I 2D 15, 3/29/84 052 I 2E 15, 3/29/84 053 I 2E 55 / 8 17, 4/01/84 NOW 054 I 1B '.f31% 21, 4/08/84 055 I 2D 31/615,3/29/84 e 056 TC.5 A I 33 E E JI/ef 21, 4/08/84 .057 I 2B SJAd 17, 4/01/84 058 M b I 2D [ 2 3YM> 17, 4/01/84 059 I 2D 8 (7t3, blT 17, 4/01/84 060 I FSB 2r6Z r5//115, 3/29/84 061 I 2D dS/M 15, 3/29/84 062 I 2E MiETE 53/M 18, 4/02/84 063 1 2E l-Q6 .5J/ M 17, 4/01/84 064 I 3B L 6 6 I Z S f//~ 26, 4/24/84 065 I 33 L G O, /D 5' f/$ 26, 4/24/84 066 ff1 O I 2D Jl/% 22, 4/09/84 067 I 2D 13, 3/29/84 068 C3b I 3B 15, 3/29/84 .069 C56 I 3B 26, 4/24/84 070 I 3B Cf}f/b'Ef 26, 4/24/84 ,071 I 2D [J/ /* /3 -(( 26, 4/24/84 072 I 2D If l /T -! '/J d# 17, 4/01/84 L26sd2
l PROBLEM SEEIT LISTING ITEM KUMBER REVIEWED BY RPD PRIORITT REVISION, DATE I 2B btI8d -[/d I. ( 18, 4/02/84 074 1 17 4/01/84 [*($/, g g3[7 2 17, 4/01/84 t 075 ' (f. [4 076 I 13 18, 4/02/84 ' ' 077 EUdI 2B [1 21, 4/08/84 Q n M 4 078 I 13 15, 3/29/84 079 I 2E 15, 3/29/84 080 Mld I N/A (Resolved) 15, 3/29/84 081 _T(f D I 3A 15, 3/29/84 082 4d8) idf 6 I 3A 15, 3/29/84 083 ICfdI 2B k11"" 22, 4/09/84 084 CJ/3 I II % 3A 15, 2/29/84 085 I 2D N b.7N, k / N 20, 4/06/84 086 I 2D d 6 T73' [ N 18, 4/02/84 087 I 2D Md.Tl/ '. [/ 40 17, 4/01/84 088 I 2D Md773, /b/16 17, 4/01/84 089 I 2D d [77I) $ /9 8M' 15, 3/29/84 090 I 2D /4/ET8 M/-0 17, 4/01/84 (. ( 091 1 2D ddN [AM7 15, 3/29/84 092 2 2D-M-M. [M 18, 4/02/84 093 I _ 2E d6TM b [bM 22, 4/09/84 094 4 38 I 3B 26, 4/24/84 095 I 2E 22, 4/09/84 096 I 2E 25, 4/16/84 097 I 2E 15, 3/29/84 098 I 2G 15, 3/29/84 099[d/2 I k3b 2G /2. Y ' 5 M O 21, 4/08/84 100 M Ub I 23 25, 4/16/84 101 I 2E 15, 3/29/84 102 I 23 C.N E /.)- F F 15, 3/29/84 h 103 I 13 18, 4/02/84 104 I 2E 17, 4/01/84 105 1 2E MM 25, 4/16/84 106 I 2E 25, 4/16/84 -'-467 I 2E 18, 4/02/84 108 I 2C 15, 3/29/84 109 I 2D 15, 5/29/84 L26sd3 1L .w n
PROBLEM SHEET LISTING ITEM NL'KBER REVIEk'ID BY RPD PRIORITT REVISION, DATE ( 110 I N 3h 23 17, 4/01/84 111 Ib0I 2D 18, 4/02/84 ' _112 IMI 2A kI 15, 3/29/84 h.M ll - 113 I N/A (Resolved) 15, 3/29/84 114 MAI 2B 18, 4/02/84 115 I 2D 17, 4/01/84 116 .bCMI kSb 2B 15, 3/29/84 lL 117 I N/A (Resolved) 18, 4/02/84 118 I 2D 16, 3/31/84 119 TC$dx 2B 15, 3/29/84 120 1 23 M C-7~73 25, 4/16/84 h., M / ? 121 I N/A (Resolved) 15, 3/29/84 122 X 2D 17, 4/01/84 123 I 2D 18, 4/02/84 124 I 2C 18, 4/02/84 hM ll 125 ' kbd 7, N/A (Resolved) 18, 4/02/84 I 126 I b0 2D N ' 15, 3/29/84 127 I 2G 17, 4/01/84 Q 128 I 2E 26, 4/24/84 129 h-30 I 2B 15, 3/29/84 k M l1-130 I N/A CResolved)[l.//f/5-7//15, 3/29/84 131 I 2B GN 6/h - F[ 26, 4/24/84 132M.Ih I 2B 15, 3/29/84 133 I 2D 18, 4/02/84 134 I k30 2D 17, 4/01/84 h kl7 135 I [38 I N/A (Resolved) 18, 4/02/84 136 I [M 2D 15, 3/29/84 137 I F.16 2B 15, 3/29/84 138 I 2D 15, 3/29/84 139 I 1C 15, 3/29/84 l 140 I 2D 18, 4/02/84 141 I Nd 2F 17',4/01/Q { 142 I [J6 2F 15, 3/29/84 j 143 I Of6 2G
- 15. 3/29/84
{ 144 I 23 6 15, 3/29/84 145 I kfA 2F 17, 4/01/84 I
- 146 I
21 15, 3/29/84 L26sd4 1j
PROB 2.Di SHEET LISTING ~ ITEM NLHBER REVII'.ED BT RPD PRIORITY REVISION, DATE 147 I 3B 16,'3/31/84 ( 148 I ffb 3A 17, 4/01/84 149 IkN 33 18, 4/02/84 '150 I 2G 17, 4/01/84 151 . M D *I 3B ' 25, 4/16/84 152 I 2E -k I 16, 3/31/84 153 I 2H 17, 4/01/84 154 I 2D 16, 3/31/84 155 I 2D 18, 4/02/84 156 M O I 2D 17, 4/01/84 157 I 2D 17, 4/01/84 '158 3)8IM 2D 17, 4/01/84 159 I 2D 16, 3/31/84 160 I 6-2E 21, 4/08/84 161 I 2E 18, 4/02/84 162 I b lh 2D 16, 3/31/84 163 I 2D 16, 3/31/84 164 I 2B 18, 4/02/84 (' f 165 M b E$N I 2D 17, 4/01/84 166 I 2H 26, 4/24/84 167 I 2B kf 17, 4/01/84 168 I '2B 21, 4/08/84 169 I 2D 18, 4/02/84 170 I 2E 16, 3/31/84 l7' 1 I 2D 16, 3/31/84 172 I 2B b 17, 4/01/84 173 43d I 2D kit 21, 4/08/84 174 I 2E 17, 4/01/84 175 I 980 3B 21, 4/08/84 176 M A I 8/h 23 17, 4/01/84 177 I kJ6 2D 25, 4/16/84 178 I ff6 2D 17, 4/01/84 179 I [f/f 2D 16, 3/31/84 180 I NM 2A 17, 4/01/84 181 I k@ 2A 26, 4/24/84 182 I 2D 17, 4/01/84 !(' 183 I 2D 18, 4/02/84 I L26sd5 g t-T"- 1 _____,______________.____._f._z
~- PROB 2.EM SHEET LISTING ITE'. NW3ER REVII'~ED BY RPD PRIORITY REVISION, DATE ( 184 I 2D 16, 3/31/84 185 I 2B 18, 4/02/84 186 I N/A (Resolved) 18, 4/02/84 187 M h I 2G 18, 4/02/84 188 M b' I 3F (Resolved) 15, 3/29/84 189 BSD I.R S 6 2H 18, 4/02/84 190 1 2D/d/3 TU I M 20, 4/06/84 191 I 2D - 18, 4/02/84 192 I 2D 16, 3/31/84 193 I 2D 16, 3/31/84 194 I 2D 18, 4/02/84 195 A.SA I 2D 26, 4/24/84 196 I 2B 16, 3/31/84 197 I 2B 26, 4/24/84 @ N M 198 I IC 16, 3/31/84 f 199 M h NO I 3B 18, 4/02/84 i 200 I 2G 18, 4/02/84 201 I 25 6 22, 4/09/84 ' (( 202 MdI 3B A 6 18, 4/02/84 l 203 I 2D /) f 22, 4/09/84 204 N80 I 2H-18, 4/02/84 205 3 56 I 2H J -i 17 16, 3/31/84 206 1 2G 16, 3/31/84 207 N$.b I 2H 18, 4/02/84 208A56 I 2n 18, 4/02/84 209 I 2H 15, 3/29 /84 210M,3[$ I 2C 18, 4/02/84 211 .}lD I 33 26, 4/24/84 0 -212 TOS$ I 2D 18, 4/02/84 0 213 I 1C 16, 3/31/84 214 h $d I 3B [df 21, 4/08/84 215 I k8h 3B 16,3/3N84 216 E($ D I 3B 18, 4/02/84 217 f /'\\ /1 I 3B 21, 4/08/84 l 218 W$6 I 2R 26, 4/24/84 219 I 2I d Eb 16, 3/31/84, } I 220 I 3A 18, 4/02/84 4 L26sd6-Qt
PROBLDi SHEET LISTING ITEM NLHBER REVII'JED BT RPD PRIORITY _R*7ISION, DATE 221 A s A ( I 2D 16,' 3/31/84 - 222 A-$ b I 3B 26, 4/24/84 223 I 2B ( /1/E/> -F/S f 18, 4/02/84 ~ 224 I 3B [t/-/5/5 #8 16, 3/31/84 2D[2 E.MlE.M ' N i 25, 4/16/84 , 225 I ,226 I M5y!) 3A d.E ' 18, 4/02/84 t 227 I f56 3B E n-21, 4/08/84 5 228 I F56 3B 6Tr 26, 4/24/84 229 k3[b I 25 d.IT" 21, 4/08/84 230 I 23 (Resolved) 15, 3/29/84 231 I 3 B </- l__ 17, 4/01/84 232 I 3B 17, 4/01/84 233 1 2E (C 25, 4/16/84 234 I 3A b_I_ 25, 4/16/84 235 Cdh I 2B-18, 4/02/84 236 I 2B 17, 4/01/84 237 I 2D 18, 4/02/84 238 I 2D 18, 4/02/84 b(, 239 I 2D 18, 4/02/84 240 I 2D 17, 4/01/84 241 1 2D 26, 4/24/84 242 I 3B 18, 4/02/84 243 I [Oh 35 18, 4/02/84 2B ((. d /~A's/ 3 d "/~ M 18, 4/02/84 244 I / 2B /2_Y d.// /$ "F# 17, 4/01/84 245 I 0 246 I 2B 8 I. ( // d /) - f /d 18, 4/02/84 k E,' d // 1 6 f 8 18, 4/02/84 247 I 25 / 248 I 2D 18, 4/02/84 249 I 2D d6 22, 4/09/84 250 $ $[h I 2B 18, 4/02/84 251 I 27 /2_C 18, 4/02/84 252 I
- 3B 18, 4/02/84 253 I
2C 18, 4/02/84 254 I 3B 18, 4/02/84
- Priority changed from 1A per J. C. Feberts 3/27/84 7[
L26sd7 _ _,. 9.
-. ~ ~ PR03L5.M SHEET LISTING j ITD'. NUMBER RIVIE'*ED BY RPD PRIORITY REVISION, DATE 255 A-b $ I 2E 18, 4/02/64 256 4-T b I 2E 27, 4/26/84 256-1 I Sub, 2E 18, 4/02/84 257 I 2B 17, 4/01/84 258 AM I 3B [2,b 18, 4/02/84 i 259 I 3B dFM 25, 4/24/84 260 I 3B 18, 4/02/84 261 M b I 3A 18, 4/02/84 -{ 262 I IC 16, 3/31/84 263 I 2D 17, 4/01/84 ] 264 I 25 kT 17, 4/01/84 265 I 2D 18, 4/02/84 266 I 2B 17, 4/01/84 267 dfd 1 2B 18, 4/02/84 268 I 2F 18, 4/02/84 269 I 2D 18, 4/02/84 270 1 2E 22, 4/09/84 271 I 3B d,C/Mid "(( 26, 4/24/84 (k. 272 1 2D 22, 4/09/84 273 I 3B 26, 4/24/84 274 I k$$ 2D 18, 4/02/84 275 I 2B 18, 4/02/84 i 276 M b I 2D 18, 4/02/84 277 I 2B ( /4 8 4 - M 18, 4/02/84 278 I 2D 18, 4/02/84 279 I 2D 17, 4/01/84 280 1 2D 18, 4/02/84 281 I 2E 25, 4/16/84 282 I 2E 17, 4/01/84 l; 283 I 2E 17, 4/01/84 284 I 3B 26, 4/24/84 jf d d 285 1 1C 18, 4/0'2/84 286 I 2D 18, 4/02/84 j 287 MA I 2D 18, 4/02/84 288 I f$h 2D 18, 4/02/84 t 289 I 2E 18, 4/02/84 ~290 I 2E 18, 4/02/84 1.26sd8
- 3
.,..._.,,-,,,__-._..-m.s. .,.r,,, ---,.m ...._.,,,..,c ... m + -.. -, - -
-. - = ~. ~. PROBLEM SHEET IISTING ITEM NUMBER REVIEVED BY RPD PRIORITT REVISION, DATE 291 1
- 3B 18,'4/02/84
,s[ M 292 I 1B 18, 4/02/84 C d M 293 1 13 ' 18, 4/02/84 294 I 2B 1 18, 4/02/84 295 I 3B ' 26, 4/24/84 296 I 3B 26, 4/24/84 297 I 2E 26, 4/24/84 298 I 2E 18, 4/02/84 299 I 23 6.//8MM[ 25, 4/16/84 300 I k$$ 3A 18, 4/02/84 301 I 2E 18, 4/02/84 302 'I 956 2D 26, 4/24/84 303 I 23 18, 4/02/84 304 I 2D SMM'E/ 21, 4/08/84 305 A8 b I 3B 26, 4/24/84 8 M 306 I 13 26, 4/24/84 J07 I 2B 18, 4/02/84 h( M 308 C I 13 f2 I 18, 4/02/84 309 I h.8M 2A 18, 4/02/84 I M $8 2A 18, 4/02/84 310 311 1 2E 18, 4/02/84 312 N A I 25 22, 4/09/84 313 44 A I 23 18, 4/02/84 314 I 2B 18, 4/32/84 315 Id5d 2BkE 18, 4/02/84 l. 316 Id60 21 /2.E 26, 4/24/84 317 I (3d 2E 18, 4/02/84 318 I 3B MJI~ 18, 4/02/84 t 319 I 2E 21, 4/08/84 ~ 4 320 I 2E 18, 4/02/84 321 I 3B 26, 4/24/84 322 I d.$$ 2E 18, 4/02/84 323 I 2B 18, 4/02/84 324 I 2E 18, 4/02/84 325 I 3B 26, 4/24/84 l h
- Priority changed frem 1A per J. C. Roberts 3/27/84.
L26sd9 s f .t.
.m.. PR001.Di SilIET 1.ISTING ITEM NUMBER REVIE W 3 BY R?D PRIORITY REVISION. DATE
- /
326 d(d I 3B 26.4/24/84 ( 327 I 33 18, 4/02/84 328 I 2D vf.JT 26, 4/24/84 ~ [h,bk329 I IC 18, 4/02/84 330 I 3B 26, 4/24/84 331 I 3B dF 26, 4/24/84 332 I 3B k [ 21, 4/08/84 -[l 333 I Ud-35 26, 4/24/84 334 1 2D 18, 4/02/84 335 I 2B [ E 18, 4/02/84 t 336 I bh 2D 18, 4/02/84 337 I $b 2D 18, 4/02/84 338 I 23 (M6/$ -F F
- 18. 4/02/84 339 I
3B 26, 4/24/84 340 1 3B 26, 4/24/84 341 I 33 18, 4/02/84 342 I 23 19, 4/05/84 343 I 33 26, 4/24/84 j(, g q Q 344 I IB 19, 4/05/84 345 I Mfb 2B 21, 4/08/84 346 I 2D. M M
- 26. 4/24/84 347 I
2B b T,-Jrd d 21, 4/08/84 0 f 348 X 2D MlETb 26, 4/24/84 349 I 2D 21, 4/08/84 350 I 25 21, 4/08/84 351 1 2D [ M M - F [ 21, 4/08/84 352 I 2D 21, 4/08/84 i 353 I 2D M 21, 4/08/84 354 I 2D 21, 4/08/84 il 355 I 2D
- 21. 4/08/84 356 I
2D 21, 4/08/84 357 IMO 2B 21, 4/08/84 358 I 2D MLTTb 21, 4/08/84 359 I 23 21, 4/08/84 ~ 360 I 2B
- 21. 4/08/84 361 1
2D PT6 Th 21, 4/08/84 ( 362 I }2.id 23 26, 4/24/84 363 I 2D 21, 4/08/84 L26sd10 17
...?- g. ,.7,_,., -~ ~- N... ni:-,--- - - -.....,.,. PROBLEM SHEET LISTING ITEM NUMBER REVIEk'ED BY RPD PRIORITY REVISION, DATE 364 X 2B 21, 4/08/84 365 K 2D ~ 24, 4/13/84 366 X 2D 24, 4/13/84 367 X 2D (Resolved) 26, 4/24/84 368 I 3B (Resolved)./YLIT71 7 26, 4/24/84 369 X 2D 26, 4/24/84 370 X 3A 24, 4/13/84 ) 371 X 2D 24, 4/13/84 372 X 35 26, 4/24/84 373 I hd 2G 28, 4/28/84 374 I ff(b 2B 28, 4/28/84 375 I 2E Ok(( 28, 4/28/84 376 I 3B /4'/5 6 M e m 28, 4/28/84 377 X 3B HE.M MM) 28, 4 /2:~. 84 l 378 I 3B fi N M 28,4[28/84 379 C$b X 2E 28, 4/28/84 380 X 2D hb 28, 4/28/84 (- 381 X 2D bh 28, 4/28/84 382 X 2H C[d 28, 4/28/84 800 X 3B 18, 4/02/84 l 801 X 33 18, 4/02/84 802* I [ t6 3B 18, 4/02/84 803 I 3B 18, 4/02/84 804 X 3B 18, 4/02/84 805.4S$ I 3B f E 24, 3/13/84 806 I 3B kW 18, 4/02/84 807 X 3B 18, 4/02/84 808 I M5 d 3B If, 4/02/84 809 X 9$h 3B 18, 4/02/84 810 X P$$ 3B 18, 4/02/84 811 X 3B 18, 4/02/84 812 X 3B 23, 4/10/84 813 X 3B 22, 4/09/84 814 X 3B 22, 4/09/84 l 815 X 3B ( N[h -[7 22, 4/09/84 L26sd11 = =.
i i 4 PROBLDi SHEET LISTING ITEM NUMBER REVIEb'ED BY RPD PRIORITY REVISION, DATE ( t 816 I 3B 23, 4/10/84 817 X 3B M 23, 4/10/84 818 I 3B 23, 4/10/84 819 X 3B 23, 4/10/84 820 Ilf5(> 3B 23, 4/10/84 821 d(N X 3B 24, 4/13/84 822 X 3B M 24, 4/13/84 ) 823 X 3B M S 24, 4/13/84 824 X 3B 24, 4/13/84. 825 X 3B 24, 4/13/84 8264(h-X 3B 25, 4/16/84 i 827 I 3B C M 6h "((, 25, 4M6/84 828 I-3B ' 25, 4/16/84 829 I 3B[44fd"CF 25, 4/16/84 830 X 3B M 6 d 25, 4/16/84 831 X ($h 3B 25, 4/16/84 832 X 3B 48b 25, 4/16/84 11 ~ '08 ~ 3B 28, 4/28/84 833-X 4 I 1 ) i( L \\ L26sd12 ....,_._t.
6 RCUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SUP \\ 70s (Name, oMice symbol, room number, buMing, Agency / Post) initians Date If /...a.o /i m 1. b /d - w, { i 2. (/ / r 8' s. E ~ "e m File "s-si Note and Retum For Clearance Per Conversation As Requested For Correction Circulate Prepare Reply For Your Information See Me E^ ment investigste _. Coordination "C ature Justify REMAR 3 f U (sV /2. ! y - [W 4 A/L44A - cY N ra a rs..s. -a w =Vr + r4 mixx 1 22 DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals, clearances, and similar actions FROM:(Name, org. symbol. Agency / Post) _ Room No. -8ldg. " 8' " g 41 (Rev. 7-76) l
- cro isss o - ist.srs ttan r m a na M sos.31.aos i
i ~~ ,,+<-w,- .,.,,,,,e .r.g e ,-m_ ,.ow-m--ns-4ne ,y,.
- a.,
9-- TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PRO 3LEM SEEIT ~ Item Number: 222 Priority: 33 / Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.7.2 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 7-5 Problem
Title:
Cohtrol Room Emergency Filtration System 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): 1 The helear Regulatory Commission (NRC) suggested in its proof and review comments, that Surveillance Requirement 4.7.2 should be revised to include the following requirement: "At least once per 12 hours, by verifying that the control room air -temperature is less than or equal to 120*F." This requirement was believed to be necessary for ensuring operability of the control room emergency filtration subsystems. 2. Safety Significanca: (.- cone. This proposed revision is already addressed by Surveillance lequire=ect 4.7.8 which assures that the control room air temperatures will be verified to be below 77'T at least once every 12 hours. i 3. Anticipated Resolution: A response to the NRC's suggestion should be prepared and transmitted to the NRC. This response should state that the proposed require =ent is i=plemented by Sutveillance Requirement 4.7.8. This requirement specifies that the control room ta=perature must be verified to be below 77'T at least once every 12 hcurs. s 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRR per 4/11/84 meeting is planning to mandate 'a to this specification based on hu=an factors, acuipment s cumu.izcanon and delete from control roem te=cerature specification. NRC Notified: / Individual ' Notified Date Time w ( ) Rev. 26, 4/24/84 4 Plsd43 M,d -e9 - - - -e- -,,yre e.- ,--.-w--%y ,g9.,.r -,eyiww.--- --m=3 9eyg-3 ,-rri-en,.g-mi- --&ew,eyy-e gy----,.a-m--ws--* e-w,-ww - q ve g.,9--<-- r-w--ay
O Page 2 4 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D) - Item Nu:nber: 222 Priority: 3B 5. Disposition: Items Closed: (Hov) ~ / Date Time cc: J. E. Cross L 7. Rogers Y.' e s ( Rev. 26, 4/24/84 Fisd44
,.n
-, - ~, ,,,._,n..--e-- n.n--- , - + - - - - ~, - - - - -. - - - - - - - -
.. a.._. * ~ ^ ~ ^ - ^ ~ ~ L ~ ^ ~ i TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET ({ ^ I -- Kuabe : 373 Priority: 2G NRR/PSB / dentified By Date Rasponsible Supervisor ec
Reference:
Table 3.3.3-2 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-29 s Problem
Title:
Division 3 Undervoltage Level (s) '1. Probles Description (Tech Spec, PSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): I Division 3 bus does not have the same degraded voltage protection compared with Divisions 1 and 2. Only one level is provided, for Division 3 (72 percent). Divisions 1 and 2 have 90, 80, and 70 percent. 2. Sa'ety Significance: None. Design is in accordance with FSAR 8.3.1.1.2.2, 8.3.1.1.4.2, Q&R 040.90, and NEDO 10905. 3. Anticipated Resolution: '_; k (. Ensura all auxiliary equipment can operate at 72 percent degraded voltage. l, [** Consider design change and Technical Specification change if appropriate. [ 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time l 5. Disposition: Itama Closed: (Hov) .3 i / Date Time I cc: J. E. Cross R. T. Rogers ( Rev. 28, 4/28/84 Pled 283.4.5 D ._-n y yw, 2e,y e 9 m ~- e.- e w-~-
O g TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET ~ 2 Item Number: 374 Priority: 2B NRR/ICSB / Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.7.5-1 Tech. Spec Page: 3/4 3-70 Problem
Title:
Category 1 Accident Monitoring Instrumentation 1 'W7EElem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, CE Design, Other): er NRR/ICSB, 1 Category 1 Accident Monitoring Instrumentation as identified MP&L shgul be in the Technical Specifications. 2. Safety Significance: None. Proposed change updates Technical Specification to latest co==itments associated with Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2. 3. Anticipated Resolution: ( Determine from MP&L submittals to NRC on implementation of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2, which variables are Catenorv 1. Revise Technical. Specifications acco N gly. 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time ( Rev. 28, 4/28/84 P1sd283.4.6 ~ ~
i{ Page 2 3
- o I
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D) l Item Ndabir -" 374 e Priority: 2B 5. Disposition: .j t 'i Items closed: (How) .r / Date Time 4-
References:
AECM-82/0078 j AECM-82/0317 l AECM-82/0563 AICM-83/0286 { AICM-83/0486 AECM-83/0652 AECM-84/0027 cc: J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers S l f J i i I + I( 9 Rev. 28, 4/28/84 ) Pled 283.4.7 s ...,. ~., .,no.. -~..,.. ~-
{ TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET t Item-NuEber: 375 Priority: 2E -y 3 NRR/CPB l / ,j/IdentifiedBy Date Responsible Supervisor Tech' Spec
Reference:
B3/4.2.3 Tech Spec Page 33/4 2-5 4 Problem
Title:
MCPR Bases Reference j 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, CE Design, Other): i No reference is given in the Bases Figures 3.2.3-1 and 3.2.3-2. Probably } should reference NEDO-24011, Revision 4 (January 1982). 2. Safety Significance: Not applicable. 3. Anticipated Resolution: Determine reference and add to Bases. - ( -(' 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time 5. Disposition: Items Closed: (How) /
- j Date Time
Reference:
4/3/84 NRC Handout from Capra ec: J. E. Cross R. T. Rogers ( Rev. 28, 4/28/84 ,Fisd283.4.8 ,-,,------_-----,--v -, - ~ -,---------,--a- --e ev--- g--, -. w w ,,-4-,,-
... - = e i TECENICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM. SHEET j Item N n t: 376 Priority: 3B NRR SB / IdentifiedBy Date Responsible Supervisor Tacti
Reference:
3/4.6.6.1 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 6-46 Problem
Title:
SBCT Flow Rate of 2300 CFM j i 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): i ! NRC recommended changing 4000 cfm to 2300 cfm for Standby Gas Treatment Flov. 2. Safety Significance: None. Technical Specificatien is correct. .-#.ntfiipated s'olution: No action is required./ / / 4, 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time 5. Disposition: Items Closed: (How) i / Date Time i Reference 4/3/84, NRC Handout from Capra t cct J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers ( Rev. 28, 4/28/84 71sd283.4.9
- =e e e
-.--._,,,_,m.____,%_ ,--,_-._,~y_,_,_-, y,,.,,, -..,, m7-.. ,_3-,-_ _..,,__,y---..,..,.__~%r,.,,._- -,m-
( TECHNICAI. SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number: 377 Priority: 3B NRR/RAB) / y y' Identified By -Date Responsible Supervisor l Tech Spec
Reference:
3/4.7.2 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 7-5 Problem
Title:
Control Room In-Leakage j 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): NRC noted that post-licensing tests indicate execssive control roon j in-leakage. i j 2. Safety Significance: Not applicable. 3. Anticipated Resolution: This issue is associated with License Condition (Attachment 1, Item 3). No Technical Specification change is required. 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time 5. Disposition: i Items Closed: (How) i / Date Time i J
Reference:
4/3/84, NRC Handout from Capra cc: J. E. Cross i
- 1. 7. Rogers
( Rev. 28, 4/28/84 i Pled 283.5' )
f ( TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET 4 I en-N er: 379 Priority: 2E MP&L/IE ' 1 / IdentifiedBy Date Responsible Supervisor oc Spec
Reference:
3/4.6.2.3.d.3 and 3/4.6.1.3.d.3 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 6-16, 6-6; B3/4 6-1, 6-3 Problem
Title:
Air Lock Seal Decay Test 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): Technical Specification specifies the leakage rate acceptance criteria in terms of a 2 pois pressure drop in a 48 hour period. 2. Safety Significance: None. Clarification only. 3. Anticipated Resolution: Modify Bases to clarify that a shorter time period may be used if it can be justified given instrument accuracies. This is in accordance with ANSI N45.4-1972. '2 f h, ~/ I 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time 5. Disposition: Items Closed: (How) l l I Date Time I l cc J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers l e i Rev. 28, 4/28/84 I 1 P l ed 283.,7, f
- =
^^ ^ e TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHEET i'(. . Item Number: 380 Priority: 2D NRC/IE / Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3/4.10.1 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 10-1 Problem
Title:
Low Power Physics Test 1. Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other): Technical Specification allows low power physics tests to be conducted with 1 the head removed and containment /dryvell integrity not established. Region II i states Technical Specification only allows low power physics tests as a part of open vessel testing, i 2. Safety Significance: None. Clarification only. T 3. Anticipated Resolution: .(. Discuss with NRR the purpose of this specification and revise Technical Specification as necessary. 4. NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE): NRC Notified: / Individual Notified Date Time 5. Disposition: Items Closed: (Hov) / Date Time 1 ces J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers i T-Rev. 28, 4/28/84 i ( P1sd283.8 1
-.re 6-O v n_. Au ......{ A 1 & M.. t. 1 % b i v f.. D.p e.:X4 ... -.. _c A 4 v m
- w. Jg2wg_y Q
~ .. D y A z ;. & -. A. _, a. s_ _ u...e ..eo -...-..n .w. .phjdaX) we-_- .4....... ~. ..... J c Q - _. -J. - L ys& g* c/w'yautApe, ...du w.- .- n y it &. yJ > e. 9 e 4 ee o-e e. e e n u. . -. + -.. ~e .ee e.-,-.. em..s...- e.ww om. e. e-ew... em gw ..w + im.m.- $ae-- ,.g .M gag g. e -. g ?. AY t% N.h 1 )y9., - ]. .a-.... b f- .MA .I 4 -..e 4..., ...w ..i.. g.4 L .. ~ GD.P. .e.>y. h*hW. e e g. .W.- . h awM e 4..- .e .>..6 v h 4 p. e .-e... .e
== .en-- -e. em h. Np e e.w . 4m e eee-M e.. et e.W'e m
TSRT-84/ D 4 g { PROBLDi SHIET LISTING AS OF % obs %,\\ki$ {f ' ' Date W ITEM NUMBER REVIEiGD BY RPD PRIORITY ' REVISION, DATE C/Ldhttd. 001 I 13 'SE 15, 3/29/84 002D MM I 2D ' 26, 4/24/84 003 I 2D b$M Id 17, 4/01/84 004 MI81 2E 22, 4/09/84 $ScQ 005 I IB - 12 e5. 15, 3/29/84 I I 2D NT h[8 If[A 21, 4/08/84 006 007
- I
( PSt{ ' 2r - 15, 3/29/84 ~ 008 @ I d/ A' 2R 17, 4/01/84 009 I 2B (f E 25, 4/16/84 010 10$t$ I 2B A11~ 15, 3/29/84 ' 011 "Io r /t I 2B f E 15, 3/29/84. 012 1 2B /f_E 26, 4/24/84 013 III A I 2D kS 26, 4/24/84 014 TC$6 % 2B 2<E 21, 4/08/84 d 015 Tf$ll I 15 M M 17, 4/01/84 (.(@rtglu.A b 016 f,/t b I 1B Tl M 15, 3/29/84 017 dfA I 2D 15, 3/29/84 018 I 3B M 6N, 15, 3/29/84 019 I 2B // /1-25, 4/16/84 020 / d.$ d I-2B /_ 8 17, 4/01/84 O /*,,, 4e 021 I le M 66 15, 3/29/84 022 T(C4 I Mb 2A/2.N 17, 4/01/84 023 T($$ I k$b 2B /1 15, 3/29/84 024 I dSb 2B N 18, 4/02/84 025 I iC.3 A 3B M6b 26, 4/24/84 Y _026 Z 2D [bf-15, 3/29/84 027+ U I 2E 6N, d8M 15, 3/29/84 [ [ [ *}l N 028 I 2B ' N [d/$ h[b5 15, 3/29/84
- 029 E'flI I 3B $5 26, 4/24/84 I
Tff[2 I k 3O 2D 17, 4/01/34 / 030 031 OhIl I 2D 17, 4/01/84 0325 h[h I 2B8,E 21, 4/08/84 9 M b k 033 .I N.6 I 1B //11' 18, 4/02/84 0* .TC f($ I 1C 18, 4/02/84 ( 034 0359.} d I 2C 2 15, 3/29/84 L26sd1 .b hIY 1*'YAl h% lg&/V<.~x '-n - M A ~ y. E & 4 4 ; Mk.'kV
- N"w.2,. 1 eS.s M 4.y m yr,1 w % t
\\.c /
. -. ~. e 9 i P10BLEM SHEET LISTING ITEM NUMBER REVIE*.TED BY RPD PRIORITY REVISION, DATE 4 N 2D N6 Th I [eh 26, 4/24/84 ( 036 I $ V M 037 / I IC bE ' 15, 3/2'9/84 l P,t.4'* 1 038 I IC [L 15, 3/29/84 039 2 2G 12 - IL._ k b LE./3 17, 4/01/84 040 Y TC S b I 2F 17, 4/01/84 1 i 041 ' I 2B 7/2 C [l3 21, 4/08/84 i 042 I O f? 3 B. 8 J,._Y 26, 4/24/84 i 043 Y Z PM 2D,' 15, 3/29/84 ' 044 I [$0 2B 'ft 3' 26, 4/24/84 25 M & M /I/ E./ M 17, 4/01/84 045' I '04[M h I '2F 15, 3/29/84 047 I I Mh 2B fl.JT_ 15, 3/29/84 i 048 Y Z 2H C[h 27, 4/26/84 [f 'bb. 049 I 25 -/?- ][ C [ 8 18, 4/02/84 050 D $6 I-[db.
- 2B d'$
17, 4/01/84 051 U \\_4 15, 3/29/84 Z 2D 1 052 N I 2E L @ $ 15, 3/29/84 ~ 053 I Mb. 2E 53 / /) 17, 4/01/84 ' bob 054 ff/$I 13-I l/ 4 21, 4/08/84 7 i 055 1 2D kX D 81/615, 3/29/84 056- .115AI M56 3B TL E J/* 21, 4/08/84 t 057I-1 25 5J//317,4/01/84 058 M O I 2D M.. '/ 33/ 6 17, 4/01/84 059 I 2D f(15_3 /LII 17, 4/01/84 f/f(($(fr)060 I fjd 2EhE f 5//l 15, 3/29/84 061 I 2D dS/M 15, 3/29/84 062 I 2E' N!5T3 33/N 18, 4/02/84, ,j 063 1 2E l Qd .S M d 17, 4/01/84 >f ] 064 I 3B L_, Gd N E S c/A26, 4/24/8A j 065 1 3B L. Q O I /6.8 E 8 % 26, 4/24/84 066 R1 A I 2D k Z 8 V A 22, 4/09/84 067 ['Sh I 2D 15, 3/29/84 { 068 O3b I 35 15, 3/29/84 069 C(6 I 3B 26, 4/24/84 i 070 I 3B C Jh* /b ' M 26, 4/24/84 071 I 2D [ Jif A - [ 8 26, 4/24/84 i 072 1 2D (/M /l / /2# 17, 4/01/84 'O 4 LI6sd2 1 'l
i ~ 2 PR031.EM SHEIT LISTING 3 ITEM NUMBER RE7IE'ED BT RPD PRIORITT REVISION, DATE ( -7 f/[ 073 1 25 M BA - M 18, 4/02/84 074 I 2D N M 17, 4/01/84 $ [/
- f/1075 3$bIOh 2B 17, 4/01/84
' f t [p g 076 I /?f/> 1B 18, 4/02/84 077 EC}b I 2B [2 b [ // d d M 21, 4/08/84 } Q n Q 078 I IB [ 15, 3/29/84 079 ((Th I 2E 15, 3/29/84 4 0807 Y M $et 0T V)I // w/A (Resolved) ' 15, 3/29/84 081 /~ NdIY 3A 15, 3/29/84 082 A38 Idf6 I 3A 15, 3/29/84 t 083 ICf6I 2B bI'~ 22, 4/09/84 084 hj/3 I k% 3A 15, 3/29/84 085 I 2D N15.T/h, (( 4 6 20, 4/06/84 086 I 2D P'I6 7~7I ' [/. 4[* 18, 4/02/84 087 1 2D Ml3.T1/ '. [94M 17, 4/01/84 088 I 2D Md76, /2. A6 [T 17, 4/01/84 089 I 2D MM ' /88M' 15, 3/29/84 090 1 2D FI6T8' M86 17, 4/01/84 I.- ( 091 F I 2D d $'/3 '[4 M 15, 3/29/84 092 I 2D Mi- %. M r6. 18, 4/02/84 093 I 2E N 6 d ', M. 4 6 ;- 22, 4/09/84 094M3$ I 3B 26, 4/24/84 l 095 I 2E / ' Ob
- 21. 4/09/84 096 I
2E L~D b. IMO 25, 4/16/84 1 2E 45///j 15, 3/29/84 097 098 I 2G 4d0 15, 3/29/84 099A'f/2 IUb 2G [' Y MM Sf/h 21, 4/08/84 I 100 4 db I 23 M 25, 4/16/84 h[f/f 101 " I 2ELkh 15, 3/29/84 S k.f f/[ 102 1 2B Ub[)'ff 15, 3/29/84 h M 103 I 1B 18, 4/02/84 104 I 2E l--hO 17, 4/01/84 i [7 /4.T T/[ 105 1 2E Md, M6#3 25, 4/16/84 106
- O ( b (0l) I 2E 25, 4/16/84 7$(
hE'-te7 C$6 I 2E 18, 4/02/84 1 2c C)@3 15, 3/29/84 T5 Cuf.6tr 108 N b //,7 109 1 2D / F4 15, 5/29/84 t I
- z. u 1
L26sd3 $%f; j 4, u, WA ma,,wA4,p. P o..
^ 1 ~- - - - - - ---- - ~ - X L~ ~ - - ~ ^^ / g-PROBLDi SEEEI I,ISTING 's ITEM NUMBER _ REVIIID BY RPD _ PRIORITT REVISION, DATE 1 ( '.I.- f/[ 110_ 1 N.kb - 23 17, 4/01/84 l p W 7!@ 111 NJ0T 2D 18, 4/02/84 I {$ by 112 T[f 61 2A @ 15, 3/29/84 [r:yhd l 11J I N/A (Resolved) 15, 3/29/84 lQj.hvj,$/I'I114 " '^* _ MAI 25 18, 4/02/84 K [ryN 115_ E(Jd I 2D 17, 4/01/84 ~ pf M 116 _..CC)h1 fl56 25 15, 3/29/84 M { L-- 117 I N/A (Resolved) 18, 4/02/84 f[f/f b (13) 118 3(6 I _ 2D 16, 3/31/84 f N$dx 2B '
- 15. 3/29/84 3(jf f 6 6~)
119 ,%[i/f 3 Ol 120 I 2B M dW
- 25. 4/16/84 hM / Z__121
'I N/A (Resolved) 15, 3/29/84 k, /rJ f/P 122 \\~- I 2D M $ T75 17, 4/01/84 Jk AE f/f .123 I 2D M d O ' - 18, 4/02/84 124 I 2C Okh 18, 4/02/84
- h kll 125' I f38 3 N/A (Resolved) 18, 4/02/84 K f. f/I 126
[_ S A. I U6 2D I d 15, 3/29/84 ) N h d44 127 dM I 2G 17, 4/01/84 h 128 Ub I 2E 26, 4/24/84 4 ' ;$g g' LU 129 h-30 I 2B 15, 3/29/84 ' kwh d I L-130 I N/A (Resolved)[l/l'A-//.215, 3/29/84 k$C d 131 1 2B ( N6/5 - 88 26, 4/24/84 [ld /[ 132 M Ih I_ 2B #Fd/1 15, 3/29/84 h[+T f/I 133 I 2D' M IE.6 18, 4/02/84 j f j[10) 134O l s. I k$d 2D 17, 4/01/84 f m kl7 135 I [j d $ N/A (Resolved) 18, 4/02/84 '#/f[/')(?L/ 136## / I /J/3 2D 15, 3/29/84 3 137 1Cd M I F)6 28 M 15, 3/29/84 [ d 139- _ 2D~ M 8 d $ f/5 15, 3/29/84 138 I I 1C M M 15, 3/29/84 j ff . N 140 b I ~2D 18, 4/02/84 T I - ((d 2F 17', 4/01/84 141 142 W X M 27 15, 3/29/84 143% 1 81$ 2G 15, 3/29/84 1_444 I 23 6 15, 3/29/84 1458 I NA 27 17, 4/01/84 (
- 146 X
2E C/MM " M 15, 3/29/84 L26sd4 1j i
~:.. ^ ..~ ..L.. '^ '^ ~ '~' ~ -^ PROBLEM SHEET LISTING 2-k ~ ITEM NUMBER REVIEL'ED BT RED PRIORITY REVISION, DATE P)b ~ 147 I 3B 16, 3/3U84 148 I M 3A 17, 4/01/84 M 149 I k.N 33 18, 4/02/84
- 150I IMd 2G 17, 4/01/84 151
.[.ODI 3B bl 6 ' 25, 4/16/84 ) -152 Y Z 2E-kI CM 16, 3/31/84 153 8 I 2H Cf26 17, 4/01/84 154 NY Z 2D ([/O 16, 3/31/84 155 Y I 2D (C//$ 18, 4/02/84 l 156 Ad O I 2D 17, 4/01/84 l 157 O I 2D C/d 17, 4/01/84 .1D 8 IM 2D C P6 17, 4/01/84 '158 159 Y M 3 6 I 2D 16, 3/31/84 160 Y F I 2E MM 21, 4/08/84 161 4 % 6 I f2_.80 2E' 18, 4/02/84 162 Y Y Zd3/3 2D 16, 3/31/84 163 F A C$l) 4 I 2D 16, 3/31/84 DT C36 I 2B 18, 4/02/84 164 I ' (, 165A38 3$h I 2D 17, 4/01/84 166F 080 X 25 26, 4/24/84 167F T O$A I 2B kF. 17, 4/01/84 O$6 I '2B 21, 4/08/84 168 169 D ($d I 2D S ( /M 18, 4/02/84 U $l[ b 16, 3/31/84 170 I 2E M I 2D J.7/,6 16, 3/31/84~ 171 I 2B $ Sf//3 17, 4/01/84 1"i2 T" 173 d f/7 I 2D /2.[ N 21, 4/08/84 174W X 2E dE 17, 4/01/84 175 I I fM 3B 21, 4/08/84 176 % A I T$6 2B 17, 4/01/84 177 Y# I Rf6 2D 25, 4/16/84 178
- 5 I
- Nff, 2D 17, 4/01/84 179 5Y I
Mid 2D 16, 3/31/84 8 I '94 2A 17, 4/01/84 180 181* " I MTth 2A
- 26. 4/24/84 I
97 182 1 2D M/3 ff/417,4/01/84 e(' 183 1 2D C /A c<//118,4/02/84 L26sd5 Y l t- .--....-<.---...~.-..-,..__--,--._.---..--,,,,_-_..-.y-,___.,--.,,.-m..-, x ,-.~.%...,
. ~.. -~ ~~ ~ p$ PROBf.IM SHEET I,ISTINc ITEw. hTMBER RIVIEVE3 BY RPD PRIORITT REVISION, DATE 4 ( 184Y 2D h4 N $ 16, 3/31/84 X 185 * # I 2B /46773. /8Ad ^ 18, 4/02/84 186 D#f X N/A (Resolved) 18, 4/02/84 187 M h 2G b Y./ - I 18, 4/02/84 l 188 U'b' [$u,/ff) I MO ' 3B (Resolved) 15, 3/29/84 Y' ' Y3MIk$h 9 2H 18, 4/02/84 190 " X 2D/4/.3fd } M 20, 4/06/84 T# ( b W 9) X U 2D Pf/E d $44 18, 4/02/84 191 D 192 I 2D MftA //Jf$ 16, 3/31/84 193 F 2 2D ME t-b /Mo 16, 3/31/84 194 "# (fu,1.8/9) I 2D N d 7"/$ /Lt 4 18, 4/02/84 19543[$ I 2D 26, 4/24/84 196 F I 2B c 344 16, 3/31/84 197 25/1I 23 26, 4/24/84 /) N 3 d _198- 'C-N lh I Ic 16, 3/31/84 l 199 A'b[) MTS I 3B 18, 4/02/84 200 *. I f.JA 2c 18, 4/02/84 201 C,$ 0 x 2B E Z ' M 22, 4/09/84 '(( 202 .COSAI e.sA 3B etzC 18, 4/02/84 i 203 %* x 2D /17 22, 4/09/60 l 204 M$h I 2B 18, 4/02/84 205 .T436 x 2n / isif 16, 3/31/84 206 Eid x 2c 16, 3/31/84 1 207 6 FS8 I 2B 18, 4/02/84 208
- 456 x
2B 18, 4/02/84 8 209 ($d I 2E 15, 3/29/84 T 210 4 J[$ 'I 2c 18, 4/02/84 211 [.U6 x CSS 33 26, 4/24/84 212 Y TC(/3 x 2D 18, 4/02/84 ( OM 213 .I Cf6 x tc 16, 3/~>1/84 I 2144$$ I 3B [d 33M 21, 4/08/84 215 x kfh 3B 16, 3/31/84 216 L'( $ D I 35 18, 4/02/84 217 JN112 3B 21, 4/08/84 218 W56 X 2B 26, 4/24/84 219 I 2I dGb 16, 3/31/84, I Y 220 Z 3A 18, 4/02/84 Q E L26sd6
m ~ PROBLEM SHEET L2 STING ITEM NL'MBER REVIEk'ED BY RPD PRIORITY RIVISION, DATE 221dbb I I-2D 16, 3/31/84 222 A-$ b I 3BL.Oh 26, 4/24/84 223 I 2B ( /46/3 4/# f 18, 4/02/84 224 X 3B OJ/Ed-68 16, 3/31/84 l 2D MlE M S M M 25, 4/16/84 _225 I 226 I M$b 3A /bF ' 18, 4/02/84 227 x
- 56 33 IL E 21, 4/08/84 I
228Y'* [$6 35 b[I 26, 4/24/_8,4 I 229 AS6 x 2B 12 tr 21, 4/08/84 230NY hdA. Nu) I 2B (Resolved) 15, 3/29/84 231 " I 35./ TC 17, 4/01/84 232 " X 3B 8,@ 17, 4/01/84 233 1 2E $7 25, 4/16/84 234 I 3A El 25, 4/16/84 235 C,hh I 25 18, 4/02/84 2365 Z 2B l'b 17, 4/01/84 237# I 2D C,[0 18, 4/02/84-5 238 1 2D 18, 4/02/84 ' b (, 239 N I 2D 18, 4/02/84 240 #I I 2D 17, 4/01/84 2E1 Z 2D 26, 4/24/84 242 MN I kbh 33 18, 4/02/84 243 IOh 33 A66 18, 4/02/84 X 2B [0E I4/.f-d "FM 18, 4/02/84 244 Y 245 Z 2B /2E'[/./86 "F/0 17, 4/01/84 246F I 23 f I ///46 -/~/d 18, 4/02/84 247 " X 25 k [,' d M/ld "FN 18, 4/02/84 248MI I 2D 18, 4/02/84 , 249 I 2D SE./2 NN db/7322, 4/09/84 i 250 d 6 [b I 2B 18, 4/02/84 I 27 M_E C[O 18, 4/02/84 251 252 6 ' CID I
- 3B 18, 4/02/84 253 TTD I 2C 18, 4/02/84 254 * "
1 33 18, 4/02/84
- Priority changed from 1A per.7. C. Roberts 3/27/84
( 1.26 47 7/ -. S.-
= ?, i PROBLIM SHEET LISTING ITIM NL'M3ER REVIE' EDI BY RPD PRIORITY REVISION, DATE p-255 A5O I 2E 18, 4/02/84 256 N M /3 1 2E 27, 4/26/84 256-1 MS/1 1 Sub, 2E 18, 4/02/84 F# r CA I 2B 17, 4/01/84 257 258IM (lh I 3B/2.(- 18, 4/02/84 2593 D
- I I (58 2 3B 8
'8 26, 4/24/84 260$< r CDO I 3B 18, 4/02/84 261 ' M8/3 I* 3A NN 18, 4/02/84 .p 262 I 1C 88 @ 16, 3/31/84 263 N I 2D '.C 8 0 17, 4/01/84 264 Nb I 2B k (( 17, 4/01/84 '6
- 265 I
2D 18, 4/02/84 266 I 23 17, 4/01/84 267 YM I 2B 18, 4/02/84 268 I[$8 kM 2F 18, 4/02/84 269 I I 2D 18, 4/02/84 270 % N O - I 2E 22, 4/09/84 271 * * # # I 3B [d.6/J/.I/8 "(( 26, 4/24/84 l 272 A-5/i I 2D 22, 4/09/84 8# M/fI 3B 26, 4/24/84 273 W X 956 2D 18, 4/02/84 274 275 I 23 18, 4/02/84 276M 43h I 2D 18, 4/02/84 277 N I 2B N 5 F 9 18, 4/02/84 278 ^ # I 2D 18, 4/02/84 E MY I 2D 17, 4/01/84 280W I 2D 17,__ 13, 4/02/84 281 I 2E ON/h 25, 4/16/84 282Y# I 2E 17, 4/01/84 283 I 2E 17, 4/01/84 I 3B d6@ 26, 4/24/84 284' ja.O,* d 285 1 1C /*M 18, 4/02/84 286 M I 2D 18, 4/02/84 .287 d.M I 2D 18, 4/02/84 4 288 + ^ I M3h 2D 18, 4/02/84 I 2 8 9 " I 2E 18, 4/02/84 ~290 1 2E l.dh 18, 4/02/.84 lb L26sd8 .55 f h,,_, E nd!! w hel ' [L )*5 N/L OLlWObR, O
j L/ j PROBL E SHEET 1ISTING ITN NL'MBER RIVIEVED BY RPD PRIORITT R.*.TISION, DATE 1hhd 18,' 4' /02/84 291 I
- 35
,..d : w / 292 (, 56 I IB 18, 4/02/84 C r 24*M 293 4 % 03 1 1B ' 18, 4/02/84 294 M fth I 2B d 18, 4/02/84 295 I 3B L. 4 6 ' 26, 4/24/84 296 I 35 M h 26, 4/24/84 297 N ' N I I 2E C [8 26, 4/24/84 D I 2E C86 18, 4/02/84 298 299 I 25 d.//8M-~ b[ 25, 4/16/34 N 300 I k$b 3A C OO 18, 4/02/S4 301 8 I 2E 18, 4/02/84 302 * # I QSA 2D 26, 4/24/84 303 AY TCM I 2B 18, 4/02/84 304 I 2D [dE/P P/ 21, 4/08/84 305 M b I 3B $6 M 26, 4/24'/84 .8 M ( 306 I 1B 26, 4/24/84 307W A-S6 I 2B 18, 4/02/84 D M M 308 I IB (2 I 18, 4/02/84 I,, ( 309 $/ Sh I/ 3h 2A 18, 4/02/84 310 [CSD I M $6 2A 18, 4/02/84 311 I 2E 18, 4/02/84 312T.U/hS6 1 2B 22, 4/09/84 313 - .A-5C I 23 18, 4/02/84 314 I 2B C[Y 18, 4/02/84 315 Id,$6 2Bd 18, 4/02/84 316 I/7.50 21 /2.E 26, 4/24/84 317 I N_36 2E 18, 4/02/84 318 Y 06/ o E9) I 3B D 18, 4/02/84 O# 319 I 2E 21, 4/08/84 320 03/3 I 2E 18, 4/02/84 321 CSA I 33 26, 4/24/84 322 I M $$ 2E 18, 4/02/84 323 I ASd 2B 18, 4/02/84 324 I 2E L~63 18, 4/02/84 325 Y f f.f. I 3B 26, 4/24/84 (
- Priority changed from 1A per J. C. Roberts 3/27/84.
L26sd9 4 4-
M PROKEM SF.EET LISTING ITEM NUMBER REVIE"*ED BY RPD PRIORITY REVISION, DATE [(d 326 I 3B 26,'4/24/84 '(- 327 K I 3B A46-TU 18, 4/02/84 328 [Ijh I 2D Pf.E P1 d 7'8 26, 4/24/84 " g,h(329 I 1C 18, 4/02/84 330 I 3B1/M 26, 4/24/84 331 I 3B d F - 26, 4/24/84 332 I 33 i [ 21, 4/08/84 333 I UO 3B 26, 4/24/84 334 I 2D O-[O 18, 4/02/84 335 I k,50 2B 8 E 18, 4/02/84 336 8 N d M I [ 2D 18, 4/02/84 337 # I $h 2D 18, 4/02/84 338 1 2B (// Od> -b [# 18, 4/02/84 339 I 3B l-Ob 26, 4/24/84 340 I 3B CS8 26, 4/24/84 341 I 3B L 06 18, 4/02/84 342P I ' 956 2B 19, 4/05/84 343 I P3d 33 26, 4/24/84 ( g b ( 344 I IB 19, 4/05/84 345 I /L$fb 2B 21, 4/08/84 346 'k(b I 2D. M f$ 26, 4/24/84 2B d,-kdd 21, 4/08/84 347 I 348 I 2D M6Tb 26, 4/24/84 349 I 2D /d[d 21, 4/08/94 350 I 2B FTL 21, 4/08/84 2D [ M b - f k 21, 4/08/84 351 I 352 M I 2D C [ N 21, 4/08/84 353 I 2D NE 21, 4/08/84 M* 354 I 2D C 8D 21, 4/08/84 355 k(0 I 2D 21, 4/08/84 l 356 I 2D 686 21, 4/08/84 ? I[8) 2B 21, 4/08/84 357 358 1 2D Mtf70 21, 4/08/84 359
- 7. R SS ' C 56 2B 21, 4/08/84 360
- 7sA I 23 21, 4/08/84 361M I
2D M D'h 21, 4/08/84 ( 362 I((3d 23 26, 4/24/84 363 D T I 2DO/h 21, 4/08/84 L26sd10 /7
f 5 PROBLEM SHEET LISTING i ITEM NLHBER REVIE%'ED BY RPD PRIGRITY REVISION, DATE i 364 (($ $ X 2B 21, 4/08/84 M.)6 2D 24, 4/13/84 365 K 366 @Sd X 2D 24, 4/13/84 367 [8m 32.T)I 2D (Resolved) 26, 4/24/84 368'^ # I 3B (Resolved).kL T7$ 7 26, 4/24/84 Y 369 NY I 2D 26, 4/24/84 370 M8 I 3A 24, 4/13/84 I 371 I 2D 24, 4/13/84 372 C Y/3 1 3B 26, 4/24/84 373 X Nd 2G 28, 4/28/84 374 N Il 2B 28, 4/28/84 375 X 2E C k/8 28, 4/28/84 376 I 3B /Ab M$ Nh 28, 4/28/84 377 I 3B HM NM) 28, 4/28/84 378 I 3B M b M 28, 4/28/84 379 C.56 X 2E 28, 4/28/84 380 X 2D bb 28, 4/28/84 ( 381 X 2D /bh 28, 4/28/84 382 N I 2H R [N 28, 4/28/84 1 3B d, b 18, 4/02/04 800 1 801 X 3B ?@h 18, 4/02/84 I 802 I d.,$$ 3B 18, 4/02/84 803 X 3B N6TO MS 18, 4/02/84 804 X ' Nf> 3B ' 18, 4/02/84 8054S(3 'I 3B (E 24, 3/13/84 806 X 3B kD [/ N 18, 4/02/84 N 807 1 3B TTh /Md 18, 4/02/84 808 I MS 6 33 18, 4/02/84 809 X 95A 33 18, 4/02/84 810 X PSA 3B 18, 4/02/84 811 X 3B $ V A-b 18, 4/02/84 812 A II-X 3B 23, 4/10/84 813 X 3B dt)d8 22, 4/09/84 814 X 3B b/) d 22, 4/09/84 815 I 3B C N [ b -[ 7 22, 4/09/84 L26sd11 1
_. Z.' ~~ ^ ~. _. ~~ ~ ~ l PROBLEM SHEET LISTING f, ITEM NLMBER REVIEkED BY RPD PRIORITT REVISION, DATE h$h
- (
816 I 3B 23, 4/10/84 817 I 3B41M 23, 4/10/84 l 818 (.<O x 3B 23, 4/10/84 3B k' fd/7 23, 4/10/84 h j 819 x 820 x/85h 3B 23, 4/10/84 821 d(6 x 3B 24, 4/13/84 822 x 3B /46A 24, 4/13/84 823 x 3B Af33 24, 4/13/84 824 Cso x 3B 24, 4/13/84. 4 825 OS I f_38 3B 24, 4/13/84 826k(h x 3B 25, 4/16/84 827 x 3B C # 6h f8, 25, 4/16/84 828 I /Ob 3B 25, 4/16/84 829 x 3B [flfd "Cf 25, 4/16/84 (?45 f// 830 I 3B/d/26 25, 4/16/84 831 x k$h 3B 25, 4/16/84 832 x 3B /}8b 25, 4/16/84 (J 833-I '080 3B 28, 4/28/84 5( L L26sd12 .}}