ML20140C944
| ML20140C944 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 06/20/1984 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Markey E HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140C950 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-186 NUDOCS 8407050007 | |
| Download: ML20140C944 (56) | |
Text
hh& NYY$
fe &.% e 4-0a 94-l a se au y
o IThe Honorable Edward J. Markey, Chairman Subcomittee on Oversight and Investigations Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The enclosed information supplements three responses contained in my June 4, 1984 letter in which NRC staff provided draft responses to the questions in your March 13, 1984 letter to Chairman Palladino. The enclosed supplemental information was prepared by the NRC staff in response to Mr. Udell's memorandum to Mr. Rehm of June 6,1984.
Sincerely, (Signed) Jack W. Roe ii r/ William J. Dircks
)
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
Supplemental Information for Response to Questions 1(e),
3(a & b) and 9 3 9 -yy. - t,,;# :r i:, h. -1 Distribution l
Docket File EDO R/F WDircks MBridgers l
HDenton/ECase i
DEisenhut/RPurple l
FMiraglia CThomas p
OCA I;f -
DBrinkman
(; ED0
/5' /84 EAdensam f C4fDi s
$6/)%/84 6/
OCA SSPB Reading File 4005-
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE SHEET - REVISED PER ED0 6/18/84 0FC :DL/SSPB*
- DL/SSPB*
- LB#4*
- DL/AD/SA*
- DL/DIR*
- NRR/DD*
- NRR/D*
I _____:____________:____________:-___________:____________:____________:....________:-__________
l NAME :DBrinkman
- CThomas
- EAdensam
- FMiraglia
- DEisenhut
- ECase
- HDenton DATE : 6/12/84
- 6/12/84
- 6/12/84
- 6/12/84
- 6/12/84
- 6/12/84
- 6/13/84 o
$llO1 CCG l
A 1
1
T o
Mr. Richard Udell Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Mr. Udell:
The enclosed information supplements three responses contai ed in my June 4, 1984 letter to Congressman Markey in which NRC staff prov ed draft ressenses to the questions in his March 13, 1984 letter to Chairma Palladino. T1e enclosed supplemental information was prepared by the C staff in response to your memorandum to Mr. Rehm of June 6,1984.
Sincerely, William. Dircks Executi e Director for Operations
Enclosures:
Supplemental Information for Response to Questions 1(e),
3(a & b) and 9 DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File-DCS
/
/
W. Dircks M. Bridgers H. Denton/E. Case D. Eisenhut/R. PurpFe F. Miraglia
/
C. Thomas
/
D. Brinkman
/
E. Adensam
_200 R/F OCA l
SSPB Readi l
- See Previous Concurrence 1
- DL:SSPB
- DL:SSPB
- LB#4
- DL:AD/SA
- DL:DIR
- NRR:DD DBrinkman:cc CThomas EAdensam FMiraglia DEisenhut ECase l
6/ 2 /84 6A2 /84 6A2 /84 6A2 /84 6/12/84 642 /84 S
l l
HD
.D E00 OCA NR l :
ton WDircks 6/ /8 6/ /84
O O
Supplemental Information for Respon'se to Question 9 The licensee has identified various inconsistencies between the fSAR and the technical specifications in submittals of problem sheets recei ed since early March 1984 These problem sheets are attached. None of th e inconsistencies have called into question the validity of the safety anal sis of the plant, as recorded in either the FSAR or the NRC's safety eva ation (SER). For this reason, there is no basis to require an extensi e re-review of there documents at this time. NRC regulations require ch licensee to periodically update the FSAR to assure that the information ntained therein contains the latest material developed.
In the case of Gr d Gulf, we anticipate the licensee will conduct a thorough review of,the FSAR, as part of its required d
update, to insure that it accurately refJ cts the as-built plant.
/
/
o
/
,/
/
/
r l
l l
l i
w
/
Supolemental Information for Respon'se to Question 1(e)
Technical specifications for nuclear power plants include items in the fol-lowing categories: safety limits, limiting safety system settings, limiting conditions for operation, surveillance reautrements, design features, and administrative controls. Of these categories, tne first two have the most insnediate safety significance since a violation of (or error in) these could represent unsafe operation. None of the Grand Gulf Technical Specification deficiencies involved errors in these two categories that would have caused unsafe operation. The third category, limiting conditions for operation, are the lowest functional capability or performance levels of equipment required for safe operation. The technical specifications in this category identify, among other things, the minimum set of equipment that must be operable in order to safely operate the plant at various power levels, and the actions to be taken in the event such equipment is not operable. For Grand Gulf, there were numerous errors in this section of the Technical Specifications. Most of the errors were nonsubstantive and would not likely have caused an unsafe condition to exist during plant operation. However, in some cases the errors could have resulted in operation without assurance that equipment important to safety was, in fact, operational. An example is the error wherein only seven Automatic Depressurization System valves were identified in the technical specifications while eight such valves existed and credit for all valves operating was assumed in the accident analysis. Had this error not been identified, and i.f the unidentified valve was not operable, the reactor's response to an accident may not have provided the safety margins required by the NRC.
i Deficiencies that existed in the remaining sections of the Grand Gulf Technical Specifications were of lesser immediate safety significance in terms of risk. to public health and safety for operation of the reactor at full power. However, the cumulative effect of the numerous inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and lack of clarity represented the potential for operator errors or confusion detrimental to safe operation.
l The surveillance procedures were deficient in that they did not provide for adequate demonstration of equipment operability. Had these deficiencies not been corrected, the plant would have been ope ated without the high degree of assurance necessary that important safety equipment was operable.
Af-M I
lo S.n.ev8h-O29h a se au c-y IiThe Honorable Edward J. Markey, Chairman
/ Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The enclosed information supplements three responses contained in my June 4, 1984 letter in which NRC staff provided draft responses to the questions in your March 13, 1984 letter to Chairman Palladino. The enclosed supplemental information was prepared by the NRC staff in response to Mr. Udell's memorandum to Mr. Rehm of June 6, 1984.
Sincerely, (Signed) Jack W. Roe
\\l & William J. Dircks
}
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
Supplemental Information for Response to Questions 1(e),
3(a & b) and 9
'l i s:,r b ) : ;
- 31. ug. - t Distribution Docket File ED0 R/F WDircks MBridgers HDenton/ECase DEisenhut/RPurple FMiraglia l
CThomas P
OCAg, ]f ',
DBrinkman ED0 EAdensam Di s
6/)%/84 6/ l /84 OCA y
SSPB Reading File M
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE SHEET - REVISED PER ED0 6/18/84 0FC :DL/SSPB*
- DL/SSPB*
- LB#4*
- DL/A3/SA*
- DL/DIR*
- NRR/DD*
- NRR/D*
NAME :DBrinkman
- CThomas
- EAdensam
- FMiraglia
- DEisenhut
- ECase
- HDenton DATE : 6/12/84
- 6/12/84
- 6/12/84
- 6/12/84
- 6/12/84
- 6/12/84
- 6/13/84
Mr. Richard Udell Committee on-Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Mr. Udell:
The enclosed information supplements three responses contai d in my June 4, 1984 letter to Congressman Markey in which NRC staff prov ed draft responses to the questions in his March 13, 1984 letter to Chairma Palladino. -The enclosed supplemental information was prepared by the C staff in response to your memorandum to Mr. Rehm of June 6,1984.
Sincerely, William. Dircks Executi e Director for Operations
Enclosures:
Supplemental Information for Response to Questions 1(e),
3(a & b) and 9 DISTRIBUTION:
Decket Fife' DCS ACRS W. Dircks M. Bridgers H. Denton/E. Case D. Eisenhut/R. Purp e F. Miraglia C. Thomas D. Brinkman E. Adensam 200 R/F OCA SSPB Readi
- See Previous Concurrence
- DL:SSPB
- DL:SSPB
- LB#4
- DL:AD/SA
- DL:DIR
- NRR:DD DBrinkman:cc CThomas EAdensam FMiraglia DEisenhut ECase 6A2 /84 6A2 /84 6A2 /84 6A2 /84 6/12/84 642 /84 i
HD iton WDircks l
6/ /8 6/ /84
Supplemental Information for Respo6se to Question 9 The licensee has identified various inconsistencies between the SAR and the technical specifications in submittals of problem sheets recei ed since early March 1984. These problem sheets are attached. None of th e inconsistencies have called into question the validity of the safety anal sis of the plant, as recorded in either the FSAR or the NRC's safety eva ation (SER). For this reason, there is no basis to require an extensi re-review of.these documents at this time. NRC regulations require ch licensee to periodically update the FSAR to assure that the information ntained therein contains the latest material developed.
In the case of Gr d Gulf, we anticipate the licensee will conduct a thorough review of e FSAR, as part of its required update, to insure that it accurately ref cts the as-built plant.
/
/
o r
/
~ _.
Supolemental Infomation for Response to Question 1(e)
Technical specifications for nuclear power plants include items in the fol-lowing categories: safety limits, limiting safety system settings, limiting conditions for operation, surveillance requirements, design features, and administrative controls. Of these categories, the first two have the most imediate safety significance since a violation of (or error in) these could represent unsafe operation. None of the Grand Gulf Technical Specification deficiencies involved errors in these two categories that would have caused unsafe operation. The third category, limiting conditions for operation, are the lowest functional capability or perfomance levels of equipment required for safe operation. The technical specifications in this category identify, among other things, the minimum set of equipment that must be operable in order to safely operate the plant at various power levels, and the actions to be taken in the event such equipment is not operable. For Grand Gulf, there were numerous errors in this section of the Technical Specifications. Most of the errors were nonsubstantive and would not likely have caused an unsafe condition to exist during plant operation. However, in some cases the errors could have resulted in operation without assurance that equipment important to safety was, in fact, operational. An example is the error wherein only seven Automatic Depressurization System valves were identified in the technical specifications while eight such valves existed and credit for all valves operating was assumed in the accident analysis. Had this error not been identified, and i.f the unidentified valve was not operable, the reactor's response to an accident may not have provided the safety margins required by the NRC.
I Deficiencies that existed in the remaining sections of the Grand Gulf Technical Specifications were of lesser imediate safety significance in tems of risk to public health and safety for operation of the reactor at full power. However, the cumulative effect of the numerous inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and lack of clarity represented the potential for operator errors or confusion de). imental to safe operation.
The surveillance procedures were deficient in that they did not provide for adequate demonstration of equipment operability. Had these deficiencies not been corrected, the plant would have been operated without the high degree of assurance necessary that important safety equipment was operable.
s Supplemental Information for Response to Question 3(a & b)
It is doubtful that performance of these deferred tests would have revealed technical specification or surveillance procedure errors due to the type of systems involved and the fact that the preoperational and acceptance tests are performed as a series of tests independent of the routine surveillance tests.
The deferral of these tests was requested by the licensee in their February 12, 1982 two-phased start-up program.
The NRC staff performed a technical review /
evaluation of this program and determined that satisfactory completion of all tests prior to the facility exceeding five percent power would, for the system being tested, demonstrate satisfactory performance and would not impact the health and safety of the public or result in any environmental impacts other than those evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement.
The technical basis for the deferrals was that none of the plant systems for which tests were deferred are required to support or are needed for any event during low power operation.
As expected, many of these systems (i.e., certain turbine generator, feedwater control and steam systems) are not placed into operation until after the facility has achieved at least a five percent power level.
To ensure that the deferred tests were performed prior to exceeding a power level of five percent, the completion and evaluation of these tests were included as a license condition.
l t
l l
l l
Supplemental Information for Response to Question 9 1
The licensee has identified various inconsistencies between the FSAR and the technical specifications in submittals of problem sheets received since early March 1984. These problem sheets are attached. None of these inconsistencies 4
have called into question the validity of the safety analysis of the plant, as recorded in either the FSAR or the NRC's safety evaluation (SER).
For this reason, there is no basis to require an extensive re-review of these 4
documents at this time.
NRC regulations require each licensee to periodically update the FSAR to assure that the information contained therein contains the latest material developed.
In the case of Grand Gulf, we anticipate the licensee will conduct a thorough review of the FSAR, as part of its required update, to insure that it accurately reflects the as-built plant.
On June 1, the licensee determined that the plant, as currently designed and constructed and without operable Unit 2 pumps, was unable to provide a 30 day water supply for the ultimate heat sink, as specified in the FSAR.
The Company shut the plant down at that time.
In recognition of the fact that this represented a different type of occurrence in which the plant did not conform to the application, the licensee directed its contractors, General Electric and Bechtel, to review all other shared or common features of Units 1 and 2 and to ce'rtify whether there were any other similar problems.
Region II will audit these reviews.
i t
~.
TICEFICAL SPECIFICATION PR03LD' SEETT Ites Number:
800 Priority:
3B GE FSAR/SER Reviev
/ 3/19/84
~ Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.2.2, FSAR Reference 7-6 Tech Spec Page: 3 /4 2-5. FSAR Table 7.6-6 Probles
Title:
APRM Tlow Biased Scram Setpoint 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, 75AR. SER, GE Design, Other):
TSAR Table 7.6-6 conflicts with Technical Specification 3.2.2 on the settings for the A??J'. flow-biased control rod block and scran functions. The FSAR should be revised to be consistent with the Techrical Specifications and plant design.
2.
Safety Significance:
Not applicable.
3.
A.ticipated Resciutice; Revise the A?ie flev-biased retpoints in FSAR Table 7.6-6 to reflect plant design and include in the next annual FSAR update per 10' CTI 50.71 (e)(4).
4.
KRC Response to Item (NRR/II):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (Hov) l l
t Date Time ec:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers e
Rav. 18, 4/2/84 P1sd243.3 1
.~.~;.
~ - -
v
TECENICAL SFICITICATION FROELEw. SEIE" Igen Number:
801 Priority:
3B GE Reviev
/
3/30/84
-Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.6.1.7, FSAR Table 3.11-1 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 6-10 Problem
Title:
Technical Specification /FSAR Inconsistenev 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec FSAR, SER, GI Design, Other):
The TSAR (Table 3.11-1) and the response to NUP.EO-0588 (Table B-2) do not reflect the current Technical Specification (3.6.1.7) limits en containment to auxiliary building differential pressure.
2.
Safety Significance:
Not applicable.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Revise the TSAR and the respense t: NTRIO-0596 if required in the next annual t
updat. par ;l CT?. 3;.7;(e)(4).
g 4.
NRC Response to Itan (NKR/II):
l NRC Notified:
/
Individual No:Lfied Date Time 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (Hov)
/
Date Time ec:
J. E. Cross l
R. F. Rogers t
Rev. 18, 4/2/84 F1sd244 l
t
~
~
TECEICAL SFECITICATION FROBLEM SEET Ites Number:
802 Priority:
3B GE Reviev
/ 3/30/84
- Identified By Data Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.3.4.2. FSAR Section 7.6.1.8.1 Tech Spec PaSe: 3/4 3-38 Problem
Title:
Technical Specification /FSAR Inconsistancy 1.
Problen Description (Tech Spec. FSAR SER, CE Design, Other):
Technical Specification 3.3.4.2 states that the end-of-cycle recirculation pu=p trip (IOC-RPT) systa= instrunentatio= shall be OPERABLE in Operational Condition 1, when thermal power is greater than or equal to 40 percent of rated the nal power. However, the discussion in TSAR Section 7.6.1.8.1 implies that the system is required when thermal power is greater than 30 percent of rated thermal power. The correct value is the 40 percent specified in the Tech:[ cal Specification.
2.
Safety SiSnificance:
- t applicable.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Submit the necessary changes to the FSAR Section 7.6.1.8.1 in the next annual FSAR update per 10 CTR 50.71 (e)(4).
l 4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time
'5..
Disposition:
Items Closed: (Bow)
/
Date Time ec:
J. E. Cross R. T. Rogers Rev. 18, 4/2/84 P!sd245
~
TECENICAL SPECITICATION PROBLEM SHEIT Item Number:
803 Priority:
3B CE Reviev
/3/30/84 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.3.7.1. FSAR Table 11.5-1 Tech Spec Pag'e: 3/4 3-56 and 3/4 3-57 Problem
Title:
Technical Specification / TSAR Inconsistency 1.
Problen Description (Tech Spec, TSAR, SER, CE Design Other):
Technical Specification Table 3.3.7.1-1 Radiation Monitoring Instrumentation and TSAR Table 11.5-1 are not identical. A review of these rvo tables identified the following differences:
a.
TSAR Table 11.5-1 contains the following i= formation that is not addressed in the Technical Specification: (a) detector type; (b) sample line or detector location; (c) scale; (d) purpose of measurement; and (e)
~
principa1 radionuclides detected. This information is not required to be in the Technical Specifications.
~
b.
The Technical Specificatien =akes reference to the =1:in = channels C?IRAILI and the TSAR addresses the nc=ber of channels. Therefore, the number of channels given in the TSAR and the number of miniar.zn channels OPERA 3LE given in the Technical Specification may not be identical, c.
TSAR Table 11.5-1 addresses monitoring processes for the main steam line and liquid radvaste affluent. Technical Specification Table 3.3.7.1-1 does not address these items, but they are addressed by Technical Specifications 3/4.3.2 and 3/4.3.7.11, respectively.
d.
TSAR Table 11.5-1 references several CI systems and microprocessor j
systems used for monitoring contain=ent vent, offgas and radvaste building vent, f~el handling area vent, and turbine building vent.
u Technical Specificatien Table 3.3.7.1-1 does not specifically identify the different types of monitoring systems used at Grand Gulf. The TSAR table references the Technical Specification for the alarm / trip setpoint values for these types of systems.
Rev. 18, 4/2/84 Tisd246
o l
e Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECITICATION PROBLEM SHEET (CONT'D)
Ites Number:
803 Priority:
33 2
e.
Line nu=her 10 of Technical Specification Table 3.3.7.1-1 addresses area mesitors for the fuel handling area and the control room. FSAR Table 11.5-1 does not address area monitors, but they are covered by Table 12.3-3 of the TSAR. Table 12.3-3 gives a description of all the area radiation monitors used throughout the plant. Technical Specification Table 3.3.7.1-1 only addresses area monitors for the fuel handling area and the control room.
2.
Safety Significance:
Not applicable.
3.
Ar.ticipated Resolution:
Evaluate the need to nake the TSAA and Technical Specification identical.
l Previde appropriate TSAR changes, if required, in the next annual update per 10 CTR 50.71(e)(4).
4.
NRC Rasponse to Iten (NRA/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Tina 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (Hov)
/
l Date Tina ec:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers i
Rev. 18, 4/2/84 l
"s4 Pled 247
~ ~ ~
TECHNICAL SPECITICATION PROBLEM SHEET i
Ites Number:
804 Priority:
3B I
GE Reviev
/3 30 84
- Identified By Date Rasponsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.8.1.1 Tech Spec Page: None Problem
Title:
Technical Soecification/ TSAR Inconsistenev 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, TSAR. SER CE Design, other):
It has been identified that FSAR Section 9.5.4.2 states that the EPCS diesel
'1 generator day tank has a capability equivalent to approximately 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> of engine operation while supplying post-LOCA maxianza loads. TSAR Section i
9.5.4.3 states the day tank lov level annunciates when appreximately 30 minutes of fuel remains.
~
2.
Safety Significance:
set applicable.
~
7 3.
Ar.ticipated Resciution:
No action is required since the low level alara is not associated with the day The statements in both S'ction 9.5.4.2 and 9.5.4.3 are tank 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> capacity.
e correct as written.
4.
NRC Response to iten (N11/II):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Tina 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (Hov)
/
Date Time I
cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers Rev. 18, 4/2/84 F1sd248
-m
TECBICAL SPECIFICATION FROBLEM SEET lten Number:
805 Priority:
33 CE FSAR/SER Reviev
/ 3-19-84 identified By Date Responsible Supace.sor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.1.5. FSAR Firure 9.3-26. 9.3.5.3 Tech Spec Fage: 3/4 1-18 Problem
Title:
Sodium Fantaborste Volume 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec. FSAR, SER. GE Design, Other):
FSAR Figure V.3-26 specifies that the SLC shall be able to deliver 4,170 a.
gallons of sodium pantaborate solution or the equivalent into the reactor. Technical Specification 4.1.5.a.2 requires verification that the available volume of sodium pentatorate solution is greater than or equal to 4,587 gallons. Technical Specification requirements are more restrictive than that required by TSAR Figure 9.3-26.
b.
FSAR Section 9.3.5.3 implies that operation of the redundant SLC pump will be demonstrated when an SLC pump is out for maintenance. There is no Technical Specification requirement to parf art this type of surveillance.
2.
Safety Significance:
a.
None. Technical Specifications are conservative, relative to the FSAR.
I b.
None. Pump operability is verified by normal Surveillance every 31 days.
Since the loops are redundant, there is no need to increase Surveillance on the operable loop where a redundant component of one loop is out for maintenance.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Confirm that changes to FSAR Figure 9.3-26 are not required, a.
b.
Revise the FSAR to reflect the testing required by Technical Specificat. ions.
Rev. 24, 4/13/84
?!sd289
\\
l t
Page 2 TECHNICAI. SPECITICATION PROBI.D! SEEET (CONT'D)
Ites Number:
805 Priority:
3B 4
NRC Easponse to Item (NRR/IE):
/
NRC Notified:
Individual Notified Date Tina 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (Hov)
/
Date Tina ec:
J. E. Cross E. F. Rogers l
l I
l
- l l
l l
i Rev. 24, 4/13/84 F1sd289.1 e
e S
, o TICENICAL SPECITICATION PROEI,IM SEIIT Item Number:
806 Priority:
3B CE FSAR/SER Reviev
/ 3-19-84 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spee
Reference:
3.2.3, TSAR Table 15.4-8 Tech Spec Page: 3/42-5 Probles
Title:
MCPR 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spee, FSAR SIR, GE Design, Other):
SIR 15.4.3 indicates a delta MCPR of 0.13 for the fuel load error analysis.
Added to the MCTR safety limit of 1.06, this would give an operating limit of 1.19.
This is in conflict with the MCPR limit of 1.18 specified by Technical Specification 3.2.3.
The FSAR Table 15.4-8 states a delts MCPR of 0.13 for the fuel load error and an operating limit of 1.23.
The specific Grand Gulf analysis fer the fuel load error gives a delta MCPR of 0.1.
Thus the -
operating lih t of 1.18 is adequate.
2.
Safety Sig.ift:ar.ce:
- t appli able.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
l Change the FSAR to refleet the Technical Specification operating limit and the plant specific fuel lead error analysis in the next annual FSAR update per 10 CTR 50.71(a)(4).
4 NRC Response to Item (NRR/II):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time i
Rev. 18, 4/2/84 Pled 250
u.
.c
=.
4 i
Page 2 TECHNICAL SPECITICATION PROB'IP. SHEEI (CONT'D) 4 2
1 l
Itsa NuaSer:
806 Prioriry:
3B i
l i
5.
Dispesitic=:
4 i
Items Closed: (Hov)
/
i l
Date Time cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers 4
e t
i e
Rev. 18, 4/2/84 P1sd250.1 i
..J
^*
- ~
d B
~
TECHNICAI, SPECIFICATION PROBI.IM S E Item Number:
807 Priority:
3B
/
Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
FSAR Section 11.5.2.3.1. 11.5.2.3.2. 12.3.4.2.7 Tech Spec Page: TSAR Page 11.5-14 12.3-34 Probism
Title:
FSAR Revision to Update Surveillance Reenirements 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR SER, GI Design, Other):
Surveillance Requirements in FSAR pages 11.5-14 and 12.3-34 ate not consistant with Technical Specifications. The calibration frequency requirement for sach continuous radiation monitor is worded differently in various sections of the 751R and the Technical Specifications namely:
FSAR Section 11.5.2.3.2:
"... annually during plant operation or during the refueling outage if the detector is not readily accessible."
FSAR SecEien 12.3.4.2.7:
... annually..."
Technical Specification Table 4.3.7.1-1: "R" (refueling outage) 2.
Safe:y Significar.ce:
~
Not applicable.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Revisions to the appropriate FSAR sections to reflect plant design vill be included in the next annual FSAR update per 10 CFR 50.71(a)(4).
4.
NRC Response to Iten (FRR/II):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time j
i Rev. 18, 4/2/84 l
l Plsd251
,.6__w._..._._...._...
~
Page 2-TECHNICAL SPECITICATION PROBI.D' SEEET (CONT'D)
Item Number:
807 Priority:
3B 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (How)
/
Date Time cc:
J. E. Cross
- 1. T. Egers Rev. 18, 4/2/84 Plsd251.1
.a s..._.
-. n..
TEC1DTICAL SPECITICA* ION PROBLEM SHIET Ites Number:
808 Priority:
3B
/
Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
4.8.1.1.2.d.16 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 8-7 Problem
Title:
SER Evaluation of Diesel Generator Not in Agreement with FSAR and Technical Specifications in Regard to Diesel Generator Trip Parameters 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, S$1, GE Design, Other):
The SER evaluation of the diesel generator does not address diesel generator i
trip on ground overcurrent and lov lube oil pressure as identified in the design documents, FSAR Section 8.3.1.1.4.1.f.2 and Technical Specification 4.8.1.1.2.d.8.a.
I
~
2.
Safety Significance:
Net applicable.
~
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Raquest that the next supplement to the SER reflects the correct design condition.
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/II):
l NRC Notified:-
/
Individual Notified Date Time 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (Bov)
/
l Date Time ec:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers I
Rev. 18, 4/2/84 l
l P1sd251
.-w.
-,,+e-
.--w--,-i--
,-m-*
ee--wm,,mm,-..-m,
, mr--
<--,4.-,i=s-r w e
. ~......
TECENICAL SPECITICATION PROBLEM SEET Item Number:
809 Priortry:
3B
/
'Tdentified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3 /4. 8. 4. 2 Iach Spec Page: 3/4 8-38 Problem
Title:
TSAR and SER Do Not Proverly Describe MOV Thermal Overload Bypass Circuitrv 1.
Problem Description (Inch Spec FSAR, SER, GI Design, Other):
Section 7.1.2.6.22 of the TSAR does not reflect all three methods of viring used for the Grand Gulf MOV thermal overload bypass concuitry.
2.
Safety Significance:
Not applicable.
3.
Anticipated. Resolution:
TSAR Section 7.1.2.6.22 indicates that the Grand Gulf design cenplies vi:h l
This sta:ene.
. correct and an TSAR revision is ::
necessary.
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/II):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed': (Hov)
/
Data Time I
cc:
J. E. Cross
- 1. 7. Rogers t
Rav. 18, 4/:/E,4 l
Pled 253
\\
~-n
--ww
~,,,--,v-7-,w.-e-,------
- u ;
2.-
1 TECENICAL SPECITICATION PROBLEM SHIET Itsa Number:
810 Priority:
3B-P. Gardner
/ 3-8-84
" Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.8.4.1 (Table 3.8.4.1-1)
Tech Spe'c Page: 3/4 6-21 Problem
Title:
Trip Secooints for 6.9 KV circuit Breakers 1.
Probles Description (Tech Spec FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
Technical Specification Table 3.8.4.1-1 identifies trip setpoints for the reactor recirculatics pump 6.9 kv circuit breakers. The serpoints identified in this table are correct based on plant design changes implemented in DCP-82/3173. Rowever, the informatf.on contained in FSAR Figure 040.5-1 of Question and Response 040.5 is inconsistent with the information conts.nued in Technical Specification Table 3.8.4.1-1.
In addition, the respense to NRC questien 040.5 describes precperational calibratien and periodi: checks for the primary protectics circuit breakars.
The discussien centained in the respense to this question is not consistent with the Surveillance Raquirements identified in Section 4.8.4.1 of the Techr.ical Specifications.
2.
Safety Significance:
i Not applicable.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Implement revisions to FSAR Figure 040.5-1 to incorporate DCP-82/3173. Revise the response to Question 040.5 to maintain consistency with the Surve111an=e Requirement 4.8.4.1 of the GGNS Technical Specifications.
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/IE):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time i
Rev. 18. 4/2/84 Pisd254
~
...-.a.
E I
i 1
Page 2 J'
TECENICAL SPECITICATION PROBL5.M SHEET (CONT'D)
Item Number:
810 Priority:
3B 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (How)
/
Date Time ec:
J. E. Cross R. F. E5gers t
)
5 l
e Rev. 18, 4/2/84 I
Pled 254.1
--. ao..
.u-
.... ~.
l j
l
~
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM SHIET Item Number:
811 Priority:
3B
/
-Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spee
Reference:
6.5.1 Tech Spec Page: 6-6 Problem
Title:
00AM Not in conoliance with Technical Specifications 1.
Probles Description (Tech Spec, TSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
OQAM, Revision 3, Section 1.3.10 does not contain all of the PSRC requirements contained in Technical Specification 6.5.1.
The OQAM does not aantion that PSRC functions are addressed in the Technical Specification.
2.
Safety Significance:
Not applicable.
l 1
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Investigate whether a revision to the GQAM is required.
(
4.
NRC Response to Iten (NRR/II):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Dete Time-5.
Disposition:
Ita=s Closed: (Hov)
/
Date Time Referenet: TSRT-84/0464 cc:
J. E. Cross i
R. F. Rogers s
Rev. 18, 4/ /84 P1sd255 i
-s ev3 e.,---
-.--w
-.,----,,-,-.,---,---.-,.--3
-.--,-.,,,..--------v--
ee
, - - --,-- -- -- + - - - -
TECENICA1 SPECITICATION FROBLEM SHIET Item Number:
812 Priority:
3B
/
- Identified By Data Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.2-1. Item 5.h; FSAR Figure 7.6-17, FSAR Section 7.3.1 Tech Opac Page: 3/4.t-12: TSAR Pase 7.3-29 Problem
Title:
TSAR / Main Steen Tunnel Temperature Timer l
1.
Probles Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design, Other):
Technical Specification Table 3.3.2-1 Item 5.h identifies a " Main Steam Line Tunnel Temperature Timar", whose function is to delay RCIC isolation for 30 minutes (to allow the operator time to establish an alternate means of Raaetor Vessel Level Control.) A timer is identified in FSAR Figure 7.6-17 for the Laak Detection System, but is not included in the discussion on Main Steam
~
Line Laak Detection presented in FSAR Section 7.3.1.1.2.4.1.3.
2.
Safaty Significance:
Not Applicable.
3.
Anticipated Rasolution:
Evaluate the need to revise FSAR Section 7.3.1 to include a discussion of the Main Steam Line Tunnel Temperature Timer and if necessary, include appropriate changes in the next annual FSAR update per 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4).
4 NRC Response to item (NRR/II):
NRC Notified:
/
individual Notified Date Time i
l-i Rev. 23, 4/10/84 F1sd292 1
.,-.,_.--.,r-
.-%r
,,-%,--m.
ja,
_2_-
~ -.
4 Page 2 TECEKICAL 'SPECITICL* ION FROBLEM SEET (CONT'D)
Ites Number:
812 Priority:
33 5.
Disposition:
Itaas Closed: (Bov)
/
Date Time Raferasea: INTEL, item 35 l
ec:.J. E. Cross j
P.. F. Rogers
.s P
l l
Rev. 23, 4/10/84 Plsd293 9
m
,,---,a-.g--,,--..,---__..,,.,,,m_,,
w m.-, - -.- -,. -
,,.--.-,,,---.---,,,=-....---,--.-,.e._-,._-_,,
TECENICAI. SPECITICATION PRC31.Dt SHIr Item Number:
813 Priority:
33 1
- Identified By Date Rasponsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
6.S.2.2 Tech Spec Page: 6-9 Problem
Title:
Manager of OA Technical Specification Recuirements Dif fer from 00AM 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec. PSAR, SIR, GE Design. Other):
Technical Specification 6.5.2.2 states that the Manager of Quality Assurance shall be a member of the safety review conmittee (SRC) and establishes educatienal and experience requirements fer all members of the SRC. The requirements for the Manager of QA, as shown in the GGNS Operational Quality Assurance Manual, differ fro = the Technical Specification.
2.
Safety Significance:
Not applicable.
3.
Anticipated Resoluties:
Investigate the difference between the requirements of the two documents and nake appropriate changes.
4 NRC Response to Item (NRR/II):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Nocified Date Time l
Rev. :, 4/c/84 l
Plsd294 l
Page :
TECENICAL SPECIPICATION PRCELLH 5HIIT (CONT'D)
Item Numb'ar:
813 Priority:
3B 5.
Disposition:
, Items Closed: (Hov)
/
Data Time
Reference:
TSRT-64/0485 cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers l
l I
i I
i l
Rev. 02, 4/9/64 1
Plsd294.1 l
..- au.....-
T!CEICA1. 5?ECITICATION PROBW SEIr" Item Number:
814 Priority:
3B
/
- Identified 37 Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
6.5.2.2 Tech Spec Page: 6-9 Problem Title; SIR Recuirements ver SRC Composition 1.
Probles Description (Tech Spec. FSAR, SIR, CI Design, Other):
Section 13.4 of Supplement 2 to the SIR is in conflict with Technical Specification 6.5.2.2 concerning the titles of the specific personnel who ccupose the SRC.
2.
Safety Significance:
Net applicable.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
No Technical Specification change is required. The titles of the persental
' composing the SRC wate changed and these changes were reflected in a Technical Specification revision, thereby causing the SIR and the Technical Specifications to dif fer.
4 NRC Respense to Ites (b7.1/II):
h*RC Notified:
/
- ndividual Notified Late Time l
4 Rev. 22, 4/9/84 F1sd295
,,,__m_
_._,,_._..__-,-___....--_-._v,,,,r,-
~
Page 2 TECENICAL SPECITICA~ ION PROBLLw. SEEET (CONT'D)
Itaa Number:
814 Priority:
33 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (Bov)
/
Date Time Referenca: TSL -84/0483 ec:
J. E. Cross
~
r R. T. Regers
~
Rev. ::, 4/9/84 Plad296
~
TECEICAL SFICTTICATION PROBLD'. SHITT Item Number:
815 Priority:
33 QA Reviev
/
Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spee
Reference:
3/4.4.4. FS AR Table 5.2.6 Tech Spec Page: 3/44-11.3/44-12,3/44-13 Problem
Title:
Raaetor Coelant Chemistre 1.
Froblem Description (Tech Spec FSAR, SIR, GI Design, Other):
FSAR Table 5.2-6, sheet 2 of 2 requires (1) shutdown if pH is out of limits for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, and (2) in-line calibration for continuous conductivity monitored weekly and every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> if conductivity is greater than 1 micro MEO. These are inconsistent with the ACTION and Surveillance Requirements under Grand Gulf Technical Specification 3/4.4.4.
2.
Safety Significance:
Not applicable.
3.
Anticipated Rasolution:
Update FSAR Table 5.2-6 to be consistant with Grand Gulf Technical Specifications.
4 h"RC Response to Item (h7.R/II):
/
FRC Notified:
Individual Notified Date Time 5.
Disposition:
[
Items closed: (Hov)
/
Date Time i
l ec:
J. I. Cross R. F. Rogers Rev. 22, 4/9/84 l
l Pisd297
O TTC1tNICAL $7ECITICA* ION PROBL". SIIIT Ites Number:
816 Priority:
3B
- Identified By Date Easponsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.2-2; FSAR Table 7.3-10 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-15; FSAR Table 7.3-10 Probles
Title:
FSAR/ Main Steam lina Flow-Eigh Instrumentation 1.
Probles Description (Tech Spec. TSAR SIR, GI Design, Othar):
TSAR Table 7.3-10 contains specifications for the containment and teactor vessel isolation control instrumentation. The maximum allevable setpcint for the main stama line flow-high instrumentation is given as 133.5 psid. The trip setpoint for this instr =nentation in Technical Spect.fication Table 3.3.2-2 is 169 psid. A 169 psid signal corresponds to a main staan line flow of 140% which is the value used in the TSAR analysis for a main steam line
~
break.
'.(
The range f or the main staan :.ine flov-high instrument given in TSAR Table
\\",
7.3-10 is -15/0/150 psid. As discussed above, a trip setpoint of 169 psid vould necessitate revising this instrument range to accomodate the setpoint.
l FSAR Table 7.3-10 should be revised to correct the main steam line flow-high instnamentatien valves.
2.
Safety Significance:
Not Applicable.
3.
Anticipated Rasciution l
Revise TSAR Table 7.3-10 to coritect the main stema line flow-high inst $umentation valves in the maxt annaa. TSAR ui ete per 10 CTR 30.71(a)(4).
4.
NRC Easponse to Item (ERE/II):
/
NRC Notified:
individual Notifisd Date Time
-s lev. 23, 4/10/84 r
l P!sd298
~...
.,------..-e-
-,.-,-----.,___-r--
-n-_.n-
s.
. u...
~-
~'
~.
m TICENICAL 57ECTFICATION PROBLIF. SYETT Iten Number:
819 Priority:
3B
/
~
Identified By Date Easponsible Supervisor Tech Spec Enference: N/A; FSAR Table 3.7-17 Tech Spec Page: N/A; FSAR Table 3.7-17 Probles
Title:
FSA1/ Seismic Instrumentation Nomenclaura 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec. FSA1, SEE. GE Design, other):
FSAR Section 3.7 describes the seismic design and seismic monitoring for GGNS.
Section 3.7.4.2 discasses the location and description of seismic monitoring instrumentation. which is consolidated in Table 3.7-17.
The response spectrum analyzer identified in Section 3.7.4.2.5 is incorrectly hbeled in Table 3.7-17 as a "Iriaxial Response Spectrum Recorder."
2.
Safity Sig.ificance:
Not applicable.
\\,,.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Evaluate the need to relabel the response spectrum analyser in Table 3.7-17 and. if necessary, include the appropriate' changes in the next annual TSAR update per 10 CFR 50.71(a)(4).
4.
NRC Rasponse to Item (N11/II):
NRC Notified:
/
l Individual Notified Date Time 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed (Bov)
/
t Date Time cc:
J. E. Cross
- 1. F. Rogers
\\.'
Lev. 23, 4/10/84 l
l Pled 302 I
~ - * " ' - - - - - - - - - - -
~~ ~ *'-
~
r
- i m
. ~
TECD*ICA!. SPECIFTCA* ION F103 LIM SEZZT
(.
Item Numbers g20 Priority:
3B
/
m...
Identified By Data Easponsible Supe visor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.2-2. Table 3.3.5-2: FIAR Table 7.4-1 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 3-17, 3/4 3-47: F5M Table 7.4-1 Problem
Title:
FSAR/1CIC Instnment Specifications 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec. FSA1, SER GE Design, other):
FSAR Table 7.4-1 lists the Enactor Core Isolation Cooling instrument specifications. The values provided in this FSAR table are not consistant with the associated instrument specifications in the GCNS Technical i
Specifications.
The following incensistencies have been identified between the TSAR *able 7.4-1 and Technica.1 Speeg ication Table 3.3.2-2:
Tunction FSA1 Value CONS-75 Value a) ECIC systes steam supply greater than or equal l
l 4.
low pressure 65 psig to 60 psis b) ECIC turbine exhaust less than or equal to high pressure 25 psig 10 psig The f ollowing inconsistencies have been identified between the FSAR Table 7.4-1 and Tech =1 cal Specification Table 3.3.5-28 Function FSAR Value CCN5 *$ Value a) reactor vessel low water less than or equal greater than or equal i
i level to -41.8" to -41.6" b) reactor vessel high water greater than or equal less than er equal to level to 54.t" 53.5" 4
c) condensate storage tank l'2" greater than or equal to 0" level d) suppression pool level 5"
less than or equal to 5.9"
'C Rev. 23, 4/10/84 Pled 303 9
e. - -,
y,-,rs,-.,,-~_.,
,-w.,,, _ _ -.
__.,,_,_..,-_-_.-__y
._,,,,-%~__.%,-m-,-
Fage 2 l
TICENICAL $FECITICATION FROILDI SEIIT (CONT'D)
Ites Number:
820 Priority:
33 2.
Sa.fety Signi.ficance:
Not applicable.
3.
Anticipated Rasolution:
Evaluate the RCIC instrument specifications in FSAR Table 7.4-1 to determine the correct values. Revise the table as necessaty following this review and include the appropriate changes in the next annual TSAR update per 10 CFR 50.17(e)(4).
4 NRC" Response to Itas (N11/II):
/
N1C Notified:
individ a.1 Notified Date Tina
~
Disposition:
Items Closed: (Bov)
/
Date Time
.ce:
J. E. Cross
- 1. F. Rogers i
i i
1 I
Rev. 23, 4/10/84 P1sd304 f
\\
. _... -.. - _ _ - ~ - _ -, _ _ - - -
(
TECIK!CA1 !?ECITICAT!ON FROBLEM SYII" Item Number:
821 Prioriry:
3B Impe11
/4/3/84 Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3 /4 1.3.3. F5AR 4.6.3.1.1.5.d Tech Spec Page: 3/4 1-9 Problem
Title:
Control Rod Drive Ace.usulator Invel 1.
Probles Description (Tech Spec FSA1, SEE, CE Design, other):
FSA1 Section 4.6.3.1.1.5.d states that "Imperienes with control red drive systems of the sane type indicates that weekly verification of accumulator pressure and level is sufficient to assure operability of the accuamlator portion of the control rod drive system." This is inconsistent with Surveillance 4.1.3.3.a. vtich only requires weekly verification of accumulator Plant design doea not provide an indicator for accumulator. level; pressure.
however, a high level alarm is provided for leakage past the accumulator seals.
~
v 2.
Safety Significance:
None. When the high water level alarm is noted for an accumulato; proper acticus are taken to ensure accumulator operabiliry.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Revise TSA1 to delete the implication of a weekly accumulater Surveillance test.
4 NRC Response to Itas (N17./II):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time i
1 i
I w
Rev. 24, 4/13/84
?!sd310.1
o l
Page 2 TICINICAL SFZ:ITICA ION FROBLD'. SIIIT (CONT'D)
I:en Number:
821 Priority:
33 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed (Rov)
/
Date Time cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers
.~
Rev. 24. 4/13/84
?!sd312.2 8*
- - - -, -, -. ~.,
s...
.a..
TvNCAL SPECITICA* ION FR031D! SIZIT Item Number:
822 Prioriry:
33 Inne11
/ 4/13/84 Identified By Data 1esponsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3 /4.6. 6. 3: FSAR 6.2.3. 6.5.3 Tech Spec Fage: 3/4 6-5A_
Problem
Title:
Standbv Cas Treatment Sysees Flow Test 1.
Probles Description (Tech Spec, FSA1, SEE, CZ Design, Other):
FSAR Appendiz 3A states GCIS is in compliance with legulatory Guide 1.52 a.
lavision 1 but should reference Revision 2.
b.
Regulatory Guide 1.52 paragraph C.5.b dese:1bes an air flow distribution test, but this test is not included in Technical Specification 3/4.6.6.3.
GGNS TSAR erroneously states that the time for seccada:7 containment c.
negative p; assure to be achieved is 120 seconds instead of 101 seconds in pa:agrapli 6.5.1.3.
TSA1 paragraph 6.2.3.1.1.c should be revised'to reflect the correct value of the 120 seconds d.
TSAR Section 6.5.3 states that long torn operation flow rate of the standby gas treatment system is 2300 cin. Rovaver. Technical Specif1' cation 3/4.6.6.3 and the Surveillance ?:ocedure state that long l
term flow rate is less.than 4000 cfs.
l 2.
Safety Significance:
t a.
None. This is a typographical error.
b.
None. The referenced test is not : squired for normal operational surveillances. The TSAR should be changed to reflect this, The T541 Section 6.2.3.1.1.c does not acenrately reflect the standby gas c.
Eevever, this has no effect on plant treatment system par mater.
operation or safety.
l d.
None. Technical Specification and Surveillancs ?;ocedutos are correct, and TSAR should be changed to reflect GGNS design requirments.
3.
Anticipated Rasciution:
Perform an evaluation to determine what TSA1 changes, if any, are required.
4.
Inv. 24, 4/13/84 l
l 71sd313
8%
Page 2 TECINICAL $7ECIFICATION FROBLLw. SIZET (CONT'D)
Item lhimber:
322 Prioriry:
3B 4
NRC Basponse to Itas (NB1/II):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time 3.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (Iow)
/
Date Time 4
e cct J. E. Cross.
- 1. 7. Regers i
I L
i l
I sh 1
~
tee. 24. 4/13/84 71sd312.0.1 f
j L
O
~
(
T!CB ICAI, S7!CITICA"!0N FR05 LIM SEEE"
~~
(
Itan Number:
823 Priority:
3B
/
~ Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor i
Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.6.6.2-1: FSAR Table 7.6-12 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 6-48 throush 6-52: TSAR Table 7.6-12 Problem
Title:
FSAR/Secondar, Containment ventilation System Autematic Isolation Dasroers/Ts.19es 1.
Problem Descriptiot. (Tech Spec FSA1, SIR, CZ Design. Other):
The coupleteness of Technical Specification Table 3.6.6.2-1 cannot be verified by FSAR Table 7.6-12, auxiliary building isolation, since the specific isolatien dampers are not listed in TSAR Table 7.6-12.
Additionally. TSA1 Table 7.6-12 does not list the RER "A" loop discharge to
~
liquid radvasie valve (E12-T203) which is listed in Technical Specificat1en Table 3.6.6.2-1.
~
V 2.
Saf ety Significance None. The Technical Spect.fication requirementa can be verified by plant design documents other than the TSA1.
3.
Anticipated Rasolution:
Evaluate the necessity of adding the isolation dampers and isolation valve E12-T203 to FSAR Table 7.6-12 and, if necessary, include the appropriate changes in the next annual TSAR update per 10 C7150.71(e)(4).
4.
NRC Response to Itan (NU/II):
NRC Notified
/
IndivstuAl 1.stafied Date Time.
Rev. 24, 4/13/84 Pled 313.1 I
Page 2 TECINICAL SFICITICATION F10312M SIIZT (CDIC'D)
' ' $ ten painber:
s23 Priority:
33 5.
Disposition:
It m Closed: (Iow)
/
Data Time cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers
~
,.s 4
i i
l i
i 1
i lav. 24, 4/13/84 i
i 71sd314
.... _.... -.. _. _... c.. - - -
TECIDUCA1 $?!CITICA*!ON FR031.ZM SEIr!
\\
Iten Number:
824 Priority:
33 INTL Audit of Tech Specs
/
Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Technical Specification Table 3.6.4-1; FSAR Table 6.2-44 Tech Spec
Reference:
l Tech Spec Page: 3/4 6-33 through 44 Problem
Title:
Containment and Drwell Isolation valves Problem Description (Tech Spec. FS&1. SER, CZ Design, other):
1.
Technical Specification Table 3.6.4-1 items 1.b through 4.b. lists several,
contai=sent and drywall isolation valves that are not listed in FSAR Table -
6.2-44 (contat:enant isolation valve information). Iovever, some of these valves are listad in TS R Tables 7.6-12, 6.2-48, and 6.2-49.
2.
Saf aty Significance:
j The Technical Specification requirements can be verified by plant None.
design documents othat than the FSA1.
3.
Asticipated Resolution:
investigate the need to revise TSAR Table 6.2-44 and, if neesssary, include appropriate changes in the nast annual TSAR update per 10 CTE $0.71(e)(4).
j 4.
NEC Response to Ites (N11/II):
/
NRC Notified:
Individual Notified Date Time 1
3.
Disposition:
I e
Items Closed: (1ew)
/
Date Time f
J. E. Cross cc:
- 1. F. Rogers Rev. 24, 4/13/84
?!sd315
~.
m
--g.
-,,m
,m.-
__e__w..-w-,,...-,.----,w._,,.,.,
._,,e,..,.--~a--
n._
......n
..... +.
+.
TICD' ICE 57!CIFICATION FRetI.IM SEIIT
(
Item Number:
825 Priority,:
33
/
Identified By Date Responsible S.pervisor Tech Spec 34ference: Table 3.3.2-1: TSAR Section 5.4.6 Tech Sp: Page: 3/4 3-12 & 13: FSAR Pages 5.4-15 & -16 Problem
Title:
FSAR/1CIC Isolation Instrumentation 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec. FSAR. SEE GE Design. Other):
FSAR Section 5.4.6. reactor core isolation coeling system (RCIC), does not cunently reflect that valve group 9 requires concurrent dryvell high pressure and ICIC steam supply pressure-lov signals to isolata. Novever, note (a) to Technical Specification Table 3.3.2-1, items 5.b and 5.a for the 1CIC steam supply pressure-lov and drywall pressure-high actuation signals of the RCIC isolatien trip function states that "Talve Group 9 require concurrent dryvell high pressure and 1CIC steam supply pressure-low signals to isolate".
~
2.
Safety Significance:
~
None. The note (a) in Table 3.3.2-1 adds arplanatory information not necessary for safe operation of the isolation function. This information vill l
I only add clarification to the FSAR.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Evaluate the need to revise FSAR Section 5.4.6 and, if necessary, include appr:priate changes in the next annual TSAR update per 10 CFR 50.71(a)(4).
l 4.
NRC Response to Ites (W11/II):
/
NRC Noeified:
Individual Notified Date Time 1
l Rev. 24, 4/13/84 I
f plad316
^ ^
s
'. '.... '... ^
^L. :..
^
- . ~.
- u. L......
~ ^ ~
- ^
^ "
- Page 2
(
TECIKICAL 5FECITICCION 7M3LN. SIEC (CORT'D)
Item Numbert 825 Priority:
33 i
5.
Disposition:
1 l
Items Closed (Bow) i
/
Data Iima 1
cc J. E. Cross i
R. F. Rogers j
i b-l l
l I
l l
e 4,,a Rev. 2I., 4/13/84 F1sd317.
i
~.
.-,enn-p,+-----
-,-q.,.
-.-ne_-
r-
-.nn,---
--r w.
,,_-__---..,w.,
-. -- -m-..
,----,,,e
-.w.---,w.
,,,,,--n--
.. w. ;.;
- ~ --^
^ ;;^ "
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBI.IM SHEIT f"
\\
Ites Number:
826 Priority:
3B J. C. Cesare
/
Identified By Cate Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3/4.7.9_; FSAR Section 9.1.3.4; SIR Section 9.1.3 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 7-45; FSAR Pare 9.1-17: SIR Page 9-4 Proble=
Title:
SER/ Periodic coeration of Spare Fuel Fool Cooling Pune 1.
Problen Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SIR, CE Design, other):
Technical Specification 3.7.9 requires that the spent fuel storage pool be maintained at less than or equal to 150*F but does nop explicitly address cperability requirements for system components. Operability is discussed in Section 9.1.3.4 of the FSAR, which states that the " spare" system components (i.e., the pump, heat exchanger, and filter-demineraliser) are operated periodically to handle abnerzal heat loads or to allow the nott.a1 components to be servicad.
Section 9.1.3 of the Saf e:- Evaluatien Report (SIRhp;esentlystatesthat the
~
- un;.-i*.* ha
- perstaf peri:ditall r in ::::: dante ith plant Technical ry::t i
Specifications. As stated above, the Technical, Specifications do not explicitly require the spara pump to be operated periodically; therefore, the SIR is not consistant with respect to its reference to the Technical Specifications. The SIR may need to be revised to state that the spare pump vill be operated periodically in accordance with the FSAR.
2.
Safety Significance:
Not applicable.
3.
InticipatedResolution:
Investigate the need to request a change to the SIR in an SER supplement to correctly address the periodic operation of the spara fuel pool cooling pump.
4.
NRC Response to Itaa (NR1/II):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time V
Rev. 25, 4/16/84 Find 317.1
.~-
w e-
-.y.
,,-w-,,-
wm-,----
,,-www w
-,ww----.
,ww-w---w.-m-
,----,,,--.-.---w--
.;.....~
2a.....
l I
Page 2
(
TECENICAL SPECITICATION FROBLD1 SREET (CONT'D) i i
4 j
Itsa Number:
826 Priority:
35 5.
Disposition:
Itans Closed: (Rov)
/
'/
Data Tae Rafarence: LC 3 Ita= Nu=her 198 2517-84/0102 ec:
J. E. Cross i.
R. 7. ?.esers G
Rev. 25. 4/16/84 Fisd317.2
~w--
-... ~ - ' ^ '
TECINICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEM 5"dIIT Iten lhamber:
827 Priority:
3B
/
Identified By Data Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
_3 /4. 7. 6.1. FSAR 9. 5.1. 2.1 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 7-28 Frobles
Title:
Firevarer Storare Tank Automatic Level Makeue 1.
Frobles Description (Tech Spec, FSA1, SER, GE Design, other):
FSAR 9.5.1.2.1 statas that automatic makeup to the storage tank occurs at 18" below the overflow pipe. The actual makeup point is 45," below the overflow pipe.
FSAR also states the system is maintained at 125 psig vs. Technical Specification 120 psig.
2.
Safety Significance:
None.
The actual makaup point prevides adequate vatar volume in the fire storage tanks.
The water of 120 psig is adequate. as only.118 psig is required for axt::n= 2717 gym for sprinkler flow plus 1000 spe for hose strains.
- i..
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Review FSAR 9.5.1.2.1 to reflect the proper level of 45".
Revise FSAR 9.5.1.2.1 and 9.5.1.2.2.1 to reflect 120 psig.
4 R1C Easponse to Item (NRE/IZ):
NEC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time 5.
Disposition:
i Items closed: (Bov) i l
/
Date Time cc:
J. E. Cross t
l
- 1. F. Rogers v
Rev. 25, 4/16/84 F1sd318 l
i
...:=..-
_, _ ~.
I s
TECEKICAL !? !FICATION FROBLIM sn m Itsa Number: _ 828 S. M. Feith Priority: _ 3d
/
Identified By bate Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3/4.3.5: FSAR Section 7.4.1.1 Tech Spec Page: _3/4 3-44 throurh 3-49: FSAR Pases 7.4-3 t, 7.4-5 Probles
Title:
FSAR/RCIC Actuation on Reactor Low-Water I.evel 1.
Problea Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SIR, GE Design FSAR Sections
, other):
7.4.1.1.3.2 and 7.4.1.1.3.5 indicate that the re isolation cooling (RCIC) system is actuated by a reactor 1ow-water l actor core signal.
This is different that the title for the functional unit in T evel Specification Tables echnical 3.3.5-1, 3.3.5-2, and 4.3.5.1-1 which indi is actuated by the reactor vessel water level-lov low cate that RCIC
, Level 2 signal.
2.
Safety Significance:
Not applicable.
~
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
.a.
~
Review the discussions contained in FSAR Sections 7.4 1 1 3 2 and 7 4 1.. 1.3.5 with respect to the need to indicate the title for the functional unit that actuates RCIC.
If necessary, include the appropriate changes in the next annual FSAR update per 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4).
4 NRC Response to Itan (NRK/IE):
NRC Notifiad:
/
Individual Notified Date Time l
(
i i
i Rev. 25, 4/16/84 l
i F1sd319 l
.. ~
~
^
Fase 2
(
TECHNICAL SPECITICATION FROBLEM SEEET (CONT'D)
Item Number:
828 Priority:
33 5.
Disposition:
. Items Closed: (How)
/
/
Data Tina Rafarauca: TSIT-84/0903. Item 3 ec:
J. E. Cross
'K. T. Rogers t.
Rev.- 25, 4/16/84
~-
i v
Pisd320
- ' ' ' ~ ~ ~
-.=
~.a.
. -.. ~..
~. - -...
f e
TECINICAL SPEC *FICATION PROBLEM SHEET
(
Ites Number:
829 Priority:
33 S. M. Faith
/ 4/4/84 Identified By Data Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3/4.4.4; FSAR Table 5.2-6 Tech Spee Page: 3/4 4-11, 4-12 and 4-13 Problem
Title:
FSAR/ Reactor Coolant System Chemistrv Recuirements 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SIR, GE Design, Other):
a.
FSAR Table 5.2-6 (Coolant Chemistry Requirements) requires that the reactor be shutdown if the pH is out of limits for,M4 hours. However.
Technical Specification 3.4.4.a.2 allows the pH to be out of limits for up to 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> before taking action.
b.
FSAR Table 5.2-6 requires checking the continuous conductivity monitor with an in-line flow call once a week and performance of an in-line conductivity calibration every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> whenever the reactor coclant conductivity is 1.0 unho/es at 25'C.
Technical. Specification Surveilla.:e Requirentat 4.4.4.d requires the perferna.ca of a channel check cf the ec tinuous conductivity acnitor with an in-line flow call at least once per 7 days and 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> whenever conductiviry is greater than the limit in Technical Specification Table 3.4.4-1.
2.-
Safety Significance:
Not applicable.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Ivaluate the need to revise FSAR Table 5.2-6 and, if necessary, include appropriate changes.in the next annual FSAR update per 10 CFR 50.71(a)(4).
4 NRC Response to Item (NRR/II):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time I
v Rev. 25, 4/16/84 Plsd321
- 7 r
,,w-.
D
'e e
I Page 2
(..
TECENICAL $PECIFICCION F1035.ZM SEEET (CONT'D)
Iten Number:
829 Priority:
35 5.
Disposition:
Itaas Closed: (Row)
./
/
Data Tina cc:
J. E. Cross
- 1. F. Regars t
l
'v Rev. 25, 4/16/84 i
l
?1 4322
'h'
--emee--w
, --.+.-
m-nw q
w -, --
-w---
---'----v'--
--mm--
l 4
~
TECENICAI. SPECIFICATION PROBI.EM SEIIT 1
Ita= Number:
830 Priority:
3B
/
. Identified 3y Data Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.4.1.4: FSAR Section 5.3.3.6 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 4-4: TSAR Pase 5.3-21 Problem
Title:
FSAR/Tesserature Difference Between Dome and Botton Head-Drain 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec. FSA1, SEE, GE Design, Other):
l FSA1 Section 5.3.3.6 states that if the coolant temperature difference between the done and the bottom head drain exceeds 145'F, neith[r reactor power level nor recirculation pu=p flow shall be increased. This temperature limit value is for 3WE 4/5 plants and is incerte:t for BVE/6 plants.
The correct value for 3WE/6 plants in 100*F as specified in Technical Specification 3.4.1.4
~
2.
Safety Significance:
Not applicable.
l 3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Revise the temperature 11=1: value identified in FSA1 Section 5.3.3.6 in the next annual FSAR update per 10 C7150.71(a)(4).
4 NRC Response to Item (NR1/IE):
NEC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time 5.
Disposition:
Items Closed: (Hov) l l
Date Time ec:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers t
i Lev. 25, 4/16/84 Plsd323
n.
'e
~ e i,
TECENICAL $7ECITICATION PROBLD! SRIZT
(
Item Number:
831 Priority:
33
/
- Identified.37 Date Rasponsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
Table 3.3.1-2: FSAR Table 7.2-5 Tech spec Page: 3/4 3-6: ?SAR Table 7.2-5 Problem
Title:
FSA1/1?S Resnonse Times 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, TSA1, SE1, CE Design, other):
FSA1 Table 7.2-5, RPS time response (design), gives incorrect response times forthereactorvessellovvaterlevel,thereactorvesd1highwaterlevel, the turbine stop valve closure, and the turbine control valve fast closure functions. Technical Specification Table 3.3.1-2 identifies the correct response times which are in agreement with CE Design Specification 2213771AI, i
as supplemented by letter number MFCI-82/c77.
2.
Safety Sigr.ificance:
Not appycable.
\\.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Review TSAR Table 7.2-5 with respect to the response times identified in l
Technical Specification Table 3.3.1-2 and, if necessary, include appropriate changes in the next annual FSAR update per 10. CT150.71(e)(4).
l i
4.
NEC Response to Item (NR1/II):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time l
5.
Disposition:
l I
Items Closed: (How)
/
Date Time ec:
J. E. Cross i
- 1. T. Rogers Rev. 25, 4/16/84 Plsd324 u..
,1
~
.'_.T.'._'..~
~~...." Q --
' ~ ~ " "
-. =.^ * ~ =
e
(
TECENICAI. $?!CIFICATION PROSI.Df SEZ""
1 Item Number:
832 Friority:
35 C. D. Stafford
/ 3/17/84
. Identified By Date Responsible Supervisor Tech Spec
Reference:
3.6.6.3: FSA1 Section 7.3.1.1.8.2 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 6-53: TSi1 ?ste 7.3-67 Problem
Title:
FSA1/ Incorrect Descriotion of SGTS Logie 1.
Froblem Description (Tech Spec, FSA1, SER, GI Design, Other):
FSAR Section 7.3.1.1.8.2 is incorrect in stating that any manual or automatic initiationsignalstartsbothtrainsofthestandbygasdreatnantsystem (SCTS). The logic for the SCTS is divisional and will only start its associated SCTIS train. The systes design and Technical Specification 3.6.6.3 are consistant with divisional separation criteria.
2.
Safety Significance:
Not applicable.
V 3.
Anticipated Resciution:
Revise FSAR to reflect correct as-built configuration of the SGTS logic in the next annual FSA1 update per 10 CT150.71(e)(4).
4.
N1C Response to Item (N11/II):
NRC Notified:
/
Individual Notified Date Time 5.
Disposition:
Itana closed: (Hov)
/
Date Time ec:
J. E. Cross
- 1. F. Rogers ll (
w lev.
~5, 4/16/84
? led 325
x_
6 g 4
s
.4-----
TECHNICAL SPECIFICAT' ION PROBLEM SHEET Item Number:
833 Priority:
3B
/
Identified By Date Responsible Tech Spec
Reference:
4.8.1.1.2.d.2; FSAR Table 8.3-1, 8.3-2, 8 Tech Spec Page: 3/4 8-4; FSAR Tables 8.3-1, 8.3-2. 8.3-3 Problem
Title:
Reject of Diesel Generator Largest Single Load 1.
Problem Description (Tech Spec, FSAR, SER, GE Design.
AECM-83/0356, item 5 corrected the Technical Specification loac to conform with testable KW values associated with maxi =um pun; 2.
Safety Significance:
Not applicable.
3.
Anticipated Resolution:
Update TSAR tables to list the testable lead reject values in' a motor nameplate ratings.
((,
4.
NRC Response to Item (NRR/1E):
NRC Notified:
Individual Notified Date 5.
Disposition:
l Items Closed: (Hov)
/
Date Time cc:
J. E. Cross R. F. Rogers N
Rev..'
Plsd326 4
. z,..
r.
-^