ML052920418
| ML052920418 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  (DPR-018) |
| Issue date: | 10/10/2005 |
| From: | Korsnick M Constellation Energy Group |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML052920418 (5) | |
Text
Maria Korsnick Site Vice President Constellation Energy' Generation Group R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC 1503 Lake Road Ontario, New York 14519-9364 585.771.3494 585.771.3943 Fax maria.korsnick@constellation.com October 10, 2005 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTI ON:
SUBJECT:
Document Control Desk R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-244 Report of Facility Chan2es. Tests, an(l Experiments Conducted WVithout Prior Commission Approval The subject report is hereby submitted as required by 10 CFR 50.59(d)(2). The enclosed report contains descriptions and summaries of the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations conducted in support of proposed changes to the facility and procedures described in the UFSAR and special tests, from January 2004 through June 2005, performed under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. Should you have questions regarding the information in this submittal, please contact George Wrobel at (585) 771-3535 or george.xrTobel~constellation.com.
Very truly yours, Ma G.6rsnick Enclosure cc:
S. J. Collins, NRC P. D. Milano, NRC Resident Inspector, NRC 2Le 1001q14
REPORT OF FACILITY CHANGES, TESTS, AND EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED WITHOUT PRIOR NRC APPROVAL FOR JANUARY 2004 THROUGH JUNE 2005 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 10 CFR 50.59
50.59 EVALUATION
SUMMARY
REPORT 50.59 Evaluation No:
2003-0002 Title of Change:
DA-ME-2001-0001 for Local Throttling of AOV-624, AOV-625 Imnplenientation Docuinent:
Emergency Operating Procedures UFSAR Affected Sections:
5.4.5, 6.3.2.1, 6.3.2.3, 6.3.3.3, 6.3.3.9, 15.6.4.2, Figures 15.6-40 and 15.6-42 Systemn:
Residual Heat Removal System Description of Change:
The proposed change justifies a revision to applicable Emergency Operating Procedures to change the current local operator actions for throttling of Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system valves AOV-624 and AOV-625. Current procedures call for operator action to throttle these valves to achieve a specified flow rate prior to transfer to the post-accident sump recirculation phase. Previous analyses have determined that the system resistance offered by limiting flow during the injection phase will provide a long-term benefit for RHR pump net positive suction head (NPSH) margin, following transfer to the sump recirculation phase, under the limiting assumptions for large break loss of coolant accident (LBLOCA). The proposed change will direct operators to throttle these valves locally using the top-mounted hand wheels, by a specified number of turns from their normally maintained full open position, after the RWST has decreased to a level of 70% or less, and before transfer to the sump recirculation phase.
Evaluation Szuninary:
A design analysis was performed which determined that the RHR discharge valves throttled to a specific disc angle would correspond to a specified flow rate in the sump recirculation phase, considering the limiting NPSH assumptions. The specified flow rate is a conservative value that would ensure additional NPSH margin as compared to the NPSH analytical value associated with flow during sump recirculation, and which conservatively exceeds the valve variability experienced during prior outage tests. Tests indicated that the disc angle did not change and the flow remained relatively steady once the hand wheel was set in position.
Based on the evaluation performed, it has been concluded that this change may be implemented without NRC approval, per the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59.
50.59 EVALUATION
SUMMARY
REPORT 50.59 Evaluation No:
Title of Change:
Implementation Document:
UFSAR Affected Sections:
2005-0001 Reload for Cycle 32 None 4.2.4.2.5, 4.4.2.2.3, 4.4.2.2.4, Table 6.4-1, Table 6.4-2 System:
Reactor Coolant System Description of Chian ge:
This 50.59 Evaluation addressed the change in the source terms for Cycle 32 and the resultant minor change in calculated dose following a design basis accident. All other changes associated with the Reload Safety Evaluation for Cycle 32 have been addressed in 50.59 Screening No.
2005-0138.
Evaluation Summary:
Based on a dose analysis evaluation of the new source terms it was determined that all the calculated doses are less than the guidelines'set forth in the Standard Review Plan. Furthermore, all increases in doses (calculated vs. current) are less than 10% of the difference between the current value and the regulatory limits set forth in GDC 19.
Based on the evaluation performed, it has been concluded that this change may be implemented without NRC approval, per the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59.
50.59 EVALUATION
SUMMARY
REPORT 50.59 Evalutation No:
Title of Change:
Implementation Document:
UESAR Affected Sections:
System:
2005-0002 Block the Turbine Bearing High Vibration Trip Function.
Temporary Modification 2005-0015 Plant Change Record 2005-0022 10.2.1.4 Turbine Generator System Description of Change:
This 50.59 Evaluation addressed two specific plant changes. The first change was performed under Temporary Modification 2005-0015 and consisted of blocking of the Turbine Bearing High Vibration Trip. The second change is being performed under PCR 2005-0022 and consists of physically removing the trip circuitry wiring.
Evaluation Summary:
The blocking and subsequent removal of the High Vibration Turbine Trip will reduce the potential for a spurious turbine trip and subsequent Loss of External Load accident as described in the UFSAR. This trip is not a credited safety function in the UFSAR. In the event of an actual high vibration, by procedure, the Operators will manually trip the turbine or the reactor, thus accomplishing the function. Any increase in risk due to turbine failure is expected to be mostly, if not completely, offset by a decrease in unnecessary turbine/reactor trips and the change is therefore approximately risk neutral.
Based on the evaluation performed, it has been concluded that this change may be implemented without NRC approval in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59.