ML20035F393
| ML20035F393 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 04/12/1993 |
| From: | Walsh R COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| RJW-93-14, NUDOCS 9304210232 | |
| Download: ML20035F393 (56) | |
Text
u 1
e O 22710206 AvenueNorth Commonwealth Edison ound Cities Nuclear Power Station Corcova, Illinois 61242 Telephone 309/654-2241 RJW-93-14 April 12, 1993 i
i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.
20555
SUBJECT:
Quad Cities Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 Changes, Tests, and Experiments Completed NRC Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265 Enclosed please find a listing of those facility and procedure changes, y
tests, and experiments requiring safety evaluations completed during the month of March 1993, for Quad-Cities Station Units 1 and 2, DPR-29 and DPR-30.
A summary of the safety evaluations are being reported in compliance with 10CFR50.59 and 10CFR50.71(e).
Respectfully, COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPAIR QUAD-CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION h"l$b M %
Robert J. Walsh Tech Staff Supervisor RJW/dak Enclosure cc:
A. B. Davis, Regional Administrator T. Taylor, Senior Resident Inspector i
NRCSAFE.LTR 200043 if
. n, 93042102]3 QN$54 V
{
{
PDR A
PDR R
SE-93-044 DESCRIPTION:
UFSAR Section 11.5-19, page 11.5-6, deleted paragraphs two
("The particulate...") and three (A charcoal cartridge...").
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
[
i The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
1 Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:.
NONE For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the' I
change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or i
malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously l
evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously_ evaluated in the UFSAR is i
not created because this change is administrative in nature.
3 These options were included standard when the monitor for noble gas was purchased, but were never placed into service.
A dedicated particulate and iodine filter is used.by the station to monitor these types of releases.
t 3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any l
Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not i
reduced.
t i
i t
0
. _ =
e
-l SE-93-33 i
Turbine First Stage Pressure Scram Bypass Setpoint Change DESCRIPTION:
This change decreased the first stage turbine pressure scram-bypass setpoint to be consistent with current cycle
[
analysis.
Current analysis states that these scrams may be bypassed below 45% rated thermal Power.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the i
UFSAR where any of the following is true:
L The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
l t
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, P
or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
[
ACCIDENT UFSAR SECTION Ttrbine load reject Without Bypass 15.2.2.1 i
Turbine trip without bypass 15.2.3.2 I
For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of; j
an occurrence or the consequence _of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
l 2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than.any previously evaluated in_the_UFSAR is not created because this change conservatively decrease the' i
turbine 1st state pressure scram bypass from 400 psi (TS j
3.1 less than 400 psi) to 350 psi.
By decreasing this
=l
. pressure to approximately 350 psi it ensure that the TCV, j
TSV and EHC low pressure scrams are active above_400 psi, l
1st state turbine pressure.
This ensures that the Minimum j
Critical Power Ratio remains well within the analysis during this transient.
l 3.
The margin of_ safety,.:bs not defined in _the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
l i
'I I
-i i
l SE-93-30 Interim Procedure DESCRIPTION:
I Procedure giving guidance on actions to take on loss of fuel pool cooling.
j i
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
l 1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the l
UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
t The changed structure, system or component is l
explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system,.
i or component could lead to the accident.
i The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
}
ACCIDENT UFSAR SECTION l
Loss of Fuel Pool Cooling 9.1.3.3 r
For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident., or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because the condition described in the UFSAR (eg. complete loss of fuel pool cooling) and the actions taken to mitigate are the limiting steps in this procedure.
All other actions taken in this procedure will only serve to mitigate the-possibility of the UFSAR conditions.from~
occurring.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the-safety margin is.not reduced.
1 SE-93-31 l
ALARA Dose Reduction Request 93-014 DESCRIPTION:
i Installed lead shielding on the fourth level of the drywell to " shadow" shield lines 1(2)-1403,4-10" with the weight of t
the lead supported by the 654' 1-18" gallery steel.
SAFETY EVALUATION SUIMARY:
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or i
after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
NONE For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the i
change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or nalfunction of a l
different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because based on answers to questions 5 and 6, j
this change does not adversely impact systems or functions
~
to create a possible accident or malfunction different than already evaluated in the UFSAR.
The change is only in place during Unit shut down.
Sargent'& Lundy has evaluated the loading configuration desired for the lead shielding and found that the gallery steel will support it without exceeding its original design.
}
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore,.the safety margin is not reduced.
l t
i P
v.
i
.SE-93-028 ALARA Dose Reduction Request 93-019
~
DESCRIPTION:
Installed lead shielding at biological shield was
[
penetrations N11 "A" and "B".
i SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine c
each accident or anticipated transient described in'the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
I The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
l NONE For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the i
change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created.
t 3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
I i
i i
i I
i l
- I
t i
[
M04-2-87-059A/B Construction Test i
DESCRIPTION:
}
This procedure describes the steps to vary reactor uater
[
level with the reactor vessel defueled and the +8 low Rx water level trips bypassed in order to obtain reference data to calibrate the Rx level instrument action.
SAFETY EVALUATION SUFJIARY:
i 1.
The change described above has been analyzed to detennine each accident or anticipated transient described in the 3
UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the
[
UFSAR analysis.
L The changed structure, system or component is
[
explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the' accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
l The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
a None
?
For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of an occurr. ace or the consequence of the accident, or malfunct.4,n of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
i 2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because the accidents analyzed in the UFSAR pertaining to a loss of reactor coolant assume that fuel is present in the vessel._ Under the present plant conditions the reactor vessel is defueled.
Therefore, no fuel rod l
overheating and subsequeut release of fission products can i
occur from lowering vestel level. With no fuel present the low level scram is not required to be'in effect.
Also, under the present plant conditions primary containment is not required to be operable by Tech Specs and the Group II and Group III isolatinre ars not required to be in j
effect.
4 i
~.. -
-i SE 93-035 CONTD.
The reactor building vent isolation, SBGTS auto start and f
control room vent isolation protect plant personnel'and the l
public from a release of radiation due to fuel-damage. -With j
no fuel in the vessel, no fuel damage can occur from:
lowering vessel level.
o f
3.
The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for'any Technical Specification, is-not reduced because no-fuel is~
present in the vessel and therefore there is.no possibility-of damaging fuel-by lowering reactor water level.
t
.I I
t I.;
.i i
I n
}
'I i
1 h
[
p
. 1 1
}
}
!3 i
i i
i
i SE-93-029 Interim Procedure # 062 DESCRIPTION:
Updated Procedure QOS 7500-4, " Standby Gas Treatment System l
Auto Initiation and Reactor Building Ventilation Auto i
Isolation."
Two LER/DVR references were added and two i
precautions were added that address the concerns in the LER/DVRs.
At the end of the procedure a step was changed to return both trains of SBGT to the PRIMARY mode of operation.
l SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
t 1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine i
each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
i The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
I The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
?
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, l
or component could lead to,the accident.
{
i The accidents which meet-these criteria are listed below:
l
\\
The Standby Gas Treatment System is not physically changed l
by this procedure change.
The operation of the system.is the same, therefore this procedure change will not affect any of the accident scenarios.
Provisions are made in the test procedure to restore the system to the recommended status in the event of the l
contingencies referenced in the listed LERs.
For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because the Standby Gas Treatment System is l
available to mitigate the consequences of an accident.
The operation of the SBGTS will.not change by this procedure change.
The SBGTS prccedure change will not create the
. possibility of a different type of accident, not described in the UFSAR.
l l
m.
- t 1
t.
.=
l t
t
- f f
l-SE-93-029 CONTD
~
3.
The. margin of.cafety, is not' defined in theIbasis.for'any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is-not.
}
reduced.
i
'a
. i
' l
- !i i
'f b
i
- f;
..)
i t
i f
f l
~ 't i
~
. f
.k l
I 1
l a
t t
~
i i
l
?
l T
4 t
T
-'M r
=
i i
l
't SE-93-040 QCOP 1600-4 Torus Pressure Relief Through Reactor Building Vent System DESCRIPTION:
i i
i Clarified requirements for sampling and analysis prior to venting the Primary Containment.
l i
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
l 1.
The change described above has been analyzed to' determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the i
UFSAR where any of the following is.true:
l The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
None For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
i k
t SE 93-040 CONTD 2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously. evaluated in the UFSAR is
{
not created because for accidents evaluated in the UFSAR, no containment venting is analyzed to be required to deal with l
the containment-pressure response to the accident.
Containment venting during normal operation will be in j
response to expected gas expansion during heatup or loss of drywell cooling transients that do not alter containment activity and therefore cannot impact offsite release rates.
This change provides specific direction to the operator so-that containment activity can be adequately evaluated prior a
to the start of venting but does not. alter t.he fact tr't the
[
release will be monitored continuously and can be terminated 4
if it approaches release rate limitations.
Since the change l
does not alter system configuration or use, but simple more l
clearly defines prerequisites, it cannot create the i
possibility of an accident or malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the UFSAR.
I 3.
The margin of scfety, as defined in the basis for any
[
Technical Specification, 9 not reduced because the basis for this procedure change is to establish.a value that will not result in a trip of the Reactor Building Ventilation t
System Isolation.
That trip setpoint is set conservatively low to comply with this Tech Spec. Section.
Since this change is still bounded by an automatic plant setpoint that remains unchanged and is derived to prevent exceeding Tech Spec values, the change does not reduce the margin of l
safety.
j i
l l
s 1
1 t
l l
-l 1
2
t i
SE-93-41 QCOP 1600-1, Drywell Pressure Relief Through SBGT Procedure DESCRIPTION:
Clarified requirements for sampling and analysis prior to venting the Primary Containment.
i I
l SAFETY EVALUATION SUMMJLRY:
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
l The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
.None For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of i
an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously l
evaluated in the UFSAR.
l l
l l
l 1
1..
I I
l l
l I
l
.~
I j
~!
SE-93-41 CONTD'
(
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR.is l
not created because for accidents evaluated in the UFSAR, no j
containment venting is alienist to be required to deal with j
the containment pressure response to the accident.
6 Containment venting during normal operation will be in I
response to expected gas expansion'during heatup or loss of l
drywell cooling transients that do not alter containment j
activity and therefore cannot impact offsite telease rates.
l This change provides specific direction to the operator so that containment activity can be adequately evaluated prior
- l to the start of venting but does not alter the fact that the release will be monitored continuously'and can be terminated l
if it approaches release rate limitations.
Since the change does not alter system configuration or use, but simply more j
clearly defines prerequisites, it cannot create the l
possibility of an accident or malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the UFSAR.
i
'3.
The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for'any Technical Specification, is not reduced because the basis-for this procedure change is to establish a value that will not result in a trip.of the Reactor Building Ventilation system Isolation.
That trip setpoint is set. conservatively i
low to comply with this Tech Spec. Section.
Since this change is still bounded by an automatic plant setpoint that j
remains unchanged and is derived to. prevent exceeding Tech j
Spec values, the change'does not reduce the margin of a
safety.-
.j
)
1 a
6
'I i
SE-93-42 QCOP 1600-3, Drywell Pressure Relief Through Reactor Building Vent System Procedure DESCRIPTION:
l l
Clarified requirements for sampling and analysis prior to l
venting the Primary Containment.
(
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
l The change alters the initial conditions used in the
[
UFSAR analysis.
i The changed structure, system or component is f
explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or i
after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
None i
{
For each of_these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or l
malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously a
evaluated in the UFSAR.
I I
I i
l j
l 1
-i SE-93-42 CONTD l
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is J
not created because for accidents evaluated in the UFSAR, no l
containment venting is analyzed to be required to deal-with l
the containment pressure response to the-accident.
Containment venting during normal operation will be in j
response to expected gas expansion during offsite or loss of j
d drywell cooling transients that do nota alter containment activity and therefore cannot impact offsite release rates.
This change provides specific direction to the operator so that containment cctivity can be adequately evaluated prior to the start of venting but does not alter the fact that the release will be monitored continuously and can be terminated if it approaches release rate limitations.
Since the change does not alter system configuration or use, but simply more clearly defines prerequisites, it cannot create the j
possibility of an accident or malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the UFSAR.
i 3.
The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, is not reduced because the basis for this procedure change is to establish a value that will i
not result in a trip of the Reactor Building Ventilation i
System Isolation.
That trip setpoint is set conservatively low to comply with this Tech Spec. Section.
Since this change is still bounded by an automatic plant setpoint that remains unchanged and is derived to prevent exceeding Tech Spec values, the change does not reduce the margin of safety.
~
l I
1 SE-91-333 i
M4-2-87-51C, Q87844-6.04 i
1 DESCRIPTION:
Installed new cables ECN 04-0018SE in associated 901-53, -
l 54,
-55,
-56 and 901-34 panels.
Installation was to include I
all associated new conduit and supports as required per ECN j
04-00165E.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
j 1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated. transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
e The change alters the initial conditions used in the-1 UFSAR analysis.
3 The changed structure, system or component is l
explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident..
l Operation or failure of the changed structure, system,-
or component could lead to the. accident.
l The accidents-which meet these criteria are listed below:
Station Fire UFSAR SECTION 10.6 l
For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the i
change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or.the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously.
evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of at i
different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is i
not created because all required fire watches will be l
established to meet Tech Spec requirements.
All penetration fire barriers will be restored in accordance with applicable plant procedures to maintain USFAR 10.6 requirements.
System operations will not be affected by installation of these cables.
I t
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin.is not reduced.
l I
i I
i
SE-92-129 M04-0-91-015B, Q98572-6.01 DESCRIPTION:
This work package removed the Makeup Demineralizer (MUD)
System piping and components that are currently abandoned.
The portable trailer system replaced the MUD's in supplying makeup demineralized water to both nuclear units.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the i
UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR. analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
+
Operation or failure of the changed. structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
Instrument Air Failure UFSAR SECTION 9.3-9, 9.3-10 For each of these accidents, it has been detemmined that the change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously i
evaluated in the UFSAR.
I 2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in'the UFSAR is not created because the MUD system has been inoperable for 2-3 years.
In that time, a portable trailer demineralizer i
system ash been used to generate makeup water for the nuclear units.
Removing the inoperable MUD system piping will improve housekeeping and reduce hazards associated with the current incomplete installation of M04-0-87-003.
The.ECN addresses temporary measures required to remove the MUD equipment from interfacing plant systems that are retained.
i These features of the modification enhance plant personnel and equipment safety and; therefore, make the probability of
'an unanalyzed accident less likely.
i
~.
~.
'l t
(
t
?
SE-92-129 CONTD
'I 3.
The margin of safety, as defined in the basis-for any l
Technical Specification,.is.not reduced because the MUD l
system removal will not adversely affect Reactor Water l
Chemistry.
Alternative methods will continue to supply.high qua3ity demineralized make up water.
Sampling and-monitoring-equipment is not adversely affected.
i
-i l
I f
l t
i i
i
.I A'
I i
.j 1
~.
i h
l SE-91-79 I
M4-2-84-36F, Work Package #Q95903-6.01 i
DESCRIPTION:
This safety evaluation was for the review of Work Package Q85903-6.01 - Installation of electrical supervision for the Unit 2 02 syst em Electro-Manual Pilot Valve.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
-1 The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed. structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
Fire UFSAR SECTION 10.6 For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
.i
-i 2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because Section 10.6 of the UFSAR does not specifically identify which fire protection detection systems are required to have electrical supervision, only that "all alarm circuits are either electrically supervised or are tested to assure operability."
The use of limit switches with two form C contacts, one pair of which is to i
be rewired and used for the original design intent, does not present any new credible accidents from those previously analyzed.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
t L
i
SE-91-99 M4-2-84-36F, Work Package #Q85903-6.02 DESCRIPTION:
This Safety Evaluation was for the review of Work Package Q85903-6.02 - Installed miscellaneous equipment, associated cable installation and terminations for electrical supervision on the Unit 2 CO2 system Electro-Manual Pilot Valve.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
Fire UFSAR SECTION 10.6 For each of these accidents, it has been' determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of.
an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a-different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because Section 10.6 of the UFSAR does not specifically identify which fire protection detection systems are required to have electrical supervision only that "all alarm circuits are either electrically supervised or are tested to assure operability."
Installation of cables and miscellaneous equipment associated with the addition of electrical supervision for the Unit 2 CO2 System Electro-Manual Pilot Valve will not affect the operation of the existing equipment or the fire protection system.
Therefore, no new credible accidents are being introduced by.
this change.
3.
The margin of safetyy is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
i l
t 4
l M4-1/2-82-9 j
DESCRIPTION:
f i
Replaced GECO 4020 Computer with Honeywell 4500 Computer, f
including peripheral equipment.
i SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The probability of an occurrence or the. consequence of an accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as.
previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not increased because neither the process computer or associated peripherals are evaluated in the FSAR.
Neither is required for the operation of the plant safety systems.
i 2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because the process computer is a completely f
isolated system and will not create any possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than previously.
3.
The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, is not reduced because the i
installation of a new process computer is not the basis for any Tech. Spec. safety margin.
The addition of this modification will indirectly increase.the' safety margin in that will provide.the operators with a more updated means for obtaining plant data.
I i
5
- 1 l
t
' I I
6 a
lq i
M-4-0-84-14A, M-4-0-84-14B, M-4-0-84-14C, i
M04-0-84-016, M04-1(2)-84-036, M-4-1-84-36J, i
M04-1-84-37A, M04-2-84-37A, M04-1-84-037B, M04-2-84-037B, M04-2-84-037C, M04-2-84-037D, I
DESCRIPTION-i Installed fire suppression and detection systems in several areas of the plant.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as i
previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not increased because fire suppression and detection is not classified as Safety r
Related in the FSAR.
Seismic installation of equipment l
ensures adequate operation of existing safety equipment and safety related equipment in the immediate area of installation.
l 2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a
[
different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is i
not created because the installation does not interfere with any existing safety systems.
l 3.
The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, is not reduced bec:iuse suppression.
and detection is not Safety Related.
The reliability of the Fire Protection system is increased by providing this additional suppression and detection.
i I
1 i
i 1
h
I f
M-4-1-87-011 t
DESCRIPTION:
i Cables for-Unit 1 were pulled in preparation for installing i
modification M04-1-87-011.
This modification was incompleted and the pulled cables were abandoned in place.
Verification of each MSIV to close on demand could still be accomplished; however, the MSIVs had to be disabled as a i
group.
This is the present procedure for verifying MSIV I
closure.
i SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
3 1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the i
UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the i
UFSAR analysis.
I The charged structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
t Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
None s
For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the f
change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously
[
evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a l
different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is i
not created because incompleting this modification does not i
alter the existing system.
Cables have.been pulled and will f
be abandoned in place. ' Efficiency of MSIV maintenance and testing will remain the same, and normal operation of the MSIVs is not affected.
Therefore, the possibility of any new accident of equipment malfunction is not created as a result of incompleting this modification.
1 3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not l
reduced.
i I
i
SE-91-332 M4-1-87-51C, WR #Q85559-6.08 DESCRIPTION:
Modification test for the ringback horn time-out relay and silence pushbuttons on the 901-55 and 901-56 panels.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
Operation or f ailure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
None.
For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment'important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type.than any previously evaluated in-the UFSAR is not created because the annunciator system is not specifically described in the UFSAR.
This modification test will test the ringback and silence functions of the annunciator system.
This modification test will use the annunciator system pushbuttons to verify proper system operation.
These pushbuttons are not descr3 bed in the UFSAR and do not interact with any other plant systems or functions.
3.
.The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
't I
SE-91-308 M4-1-87-51C, Q85559-6.07 DESCRIPTION:
Modification test for ringback horn time-out. relay and i
silence pushbuttons on panels 901-53 and 901-54.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient' described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the i
UFSAR analysis.
i The changed structure, system or component is
~j explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
3 Operation or failure of the changed structure, system,
-)
or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
l None i
For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
J 2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in.the.UFSAR is i
not created because the annunciator system is not described in the UFSAR.
This modification-test will test functions of the annunciator system only.
This modification test will i
use the annunciator systems " test" pushbuttons to verify proper system operation.
These pushbuttons are not described in the UFSAR and do not interact with any other j
plant systems or components.
i 3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any
-l Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
l 1
SE-91-303 M4-1-87-51C, Q85559-6.06 DESCRIPTION:
Modification test for power feeds of annunciator systems in panels 912-2, 7,
8 and 901-55.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accidenc.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
None For each of these accidents, it has been determined that.the change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated.in the UFSAR is not created because the annunciator system is not described in the UFSAR.
This modification test will test functions of the annunciator system only.
This modification test will use the annunciator systems " test" pushbuttons to verify power is restored to the system.
These pushbuttons are not described in the UFSAR and do not interact with any other plant systems or components.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is~not reduced.
i i
?'
l-SE-91-46 M4-1-87-51C I
DESCRIPTION:
Modification test for M4-1-87-51C.
Test evaluated annunciator functions and verified the functions meet the l
requirements of NUREG 0700, and the mod approved letter.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The chrnge described above has been analyzed to determine I
each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, j
or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
None l
For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the i
change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the-accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a j
different type than any'previously evaluated in the UFSAR is-not created Decause the annunciator system is not described
)
in the UFSAR.
This modification test will t est system-functions of the annunciator system only.
This modification-l test make use and test the annunciator syetems test pushbuttons.
Those pushbuttons are not described in the UFSAR.
These pushbuttons do not interact with any other plant systems or components.
l 3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any l
Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
f a
SE-91-55 Modification Test for M4-1-87-51C, DCRDR Annunciator DESCRIPTION:
I Modificat' ion test for M4-1-87-51C.
Test evaluated annunciator functions and verified that functions met the requirements of NUREG 0700, and the mod approva2 letter.
?
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true.
The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or componer.t is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or l
after the accident.
i Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
None i
For each of these accidents, it has been determined.that the l
change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or i
malfunction of equipment important to safety'as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a
'different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because the annunciator system is not described in the UFSAR.
This modification test will test functions of the annunciator system only.
This modification test makes use of and test the annunciator systems " test" pushbuttons.
These pushbuttous are not described in the UFSAR.
These pushbuttons do not interact with any other plant systems or i
components.
l 3.
Thc margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any l
Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
l l
l
?
I l
l 3
i l
5 SE-91-236 M4-1-87-51C, Q85559-6.05 I
DESCRIPTION:
Testing of annunciator panel 912-8.
Test evaluated annunciator functions and verified that functions met the requirements of NUREG 0700, and the mod approval letter.
j SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true-l The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or i
after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
None I
i For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of l
an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
l i
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a j
different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because the annunciator system is not described
. i in the UFSAR.
This modification test will test functions of the annunciator system only.
This modification test makes use of and tests the annunciator systems " test pushbuttons."
l These pushbuttons are not described in the UFSAR.
These
{
pushbuttons do not interact with any other plant systems or components.
i 3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
I i
l
' i
.=.
._s.
i I
SE-91-272 M4-1-87-51C, Q85559-6.09 i
DESCRIPTION:
. Modification test for M4-1-87-51C.
Test evaluated annunciator ringback time-out function.
i SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
I 1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine i
each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is 6
explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
l Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
i The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
j None
[
i For each of these accidents, it has been determined'that the change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
l t
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because the annunciator system is'not described in the UFSAR.
This modification test will test functions of the annunciator system only.
This modification test makes I
use of the annunciator systems " test" pushbutton, and will test the systems time-out ringback relay.
This pushbutton and relay are not described in the UFSAR.
These items don't interact with any other plant systems or components.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any i
Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
I i
I I
L J
SE-91-294 M4-1-87-51C, Q85559-6.03
-DESCRIPTION:
Modification test for panel 912-2.
f SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
i l
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accidenc or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
t The changed structure, system or component ie
+
explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or j
after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, j
or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
None.
For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of i
an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a j
different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because the annunciator system is not described in the UFSAR.
This modification test will test functions of the annunciator system only.
This modification test makes use of the annunciator system only.
This modification test makes use of and tests the annunciator systems " test" pushbuttons.
These pushbuttons are not described in the UFSAR.
These pushbuttons do not interact with any other plant systems or components.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not-reduced.
)
i I
I
i
~
[
M4-1-87-51C, Q85559-6.10 j
i DESCRIPTION:
l l
Modification test for annunciator system ringback time-out j
relay and " silence" pushbuttons on panels 9t2-2 and.912-8.-
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine f
each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the l
UFSAR analysis.
[
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
i Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
}
None I
For each of these accidents, it has been det ermined that the j
change described above will not increase the probability of
~
an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or i
malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for-an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because the annunciator system is not described in the UFSAR.
This modification test will test "ringback" and " silence" functions of the annunciator system.
This modification test will use the annunciator systems pushbuttons to verify system functions.
These pushbuttons are not described in the UFSAR and do not interact with any
[
other plant systens or functions.
?.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
i
?
A i
i c
r i
M4-1-87-54B l
DESCRIPTION:
i The bellows elements could not be replaced with identical j
units without disassembly of the process pipe and its anchors.
However, a replacement design concept'was v
implemented that utilized longitudinal split bellows elements tha; are assembled in-situ.
Local leak rate l
testability was restored by installing an additional bellows j
assembly concentric with and just outside of the containment t
boundary bellows.
This replacement concept has been previously qualified by prototype test for CECO by NUTEC l
undar Project XCE-17/ CEC-37.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
[
1.
The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of'an
[
accident, or' malfunction of equipment important to safety as p: viously evaluated in the UFSAR is not increased because tu purpose of this modification is to repair the flexible j
metallic bellows at penetration X-12 to better' meet the performance objectives of the primary containment system as l
stated in Section 5.2.1 of the FSAR.
Therefore, the i
probability of primary containment failure due to a pressure e
transient as described in the FSAR is reduced.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a l
different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because no new types of accidents or malfunctions of a different type thc' those previously i
evaluated in the FSAR are created.
The purpose of this modification is to reduce leakage at penetration X-12 by
(
replacing the existing bellows assembly which has been found to be leaking.
3.
The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any
}
Technical Specification, is'not reduced because the margin of safety is increased as a result of this modification as defined in the basis of Technical Specification Section 3.7.A.
By increastag the integrity of prima'y containment, l
r the possibility of a breach in containment and resultant i
offsite releases in excess of 10CFR100 limits'is decreased.
i
?
i h
I i
~
M 1 (2 ) 074 DESCRIPTION:
Removed timer controls from the following units and replaced with photo sensing scheme:
Unit #2 7.oedwater Pump AHU Unit #1 MG Supply _AHU-Filter 1B Unit #2 MG Supply AHU-Filters 2A & 2B Unit #1 "ast T.B.-Supply AHU Unit #2 East T.B.
Supply AHU Unit #1 West T.B.
Supply AHU Unit #2 West T.B. Supply AHU Unit #2 Rx Bldg Supply AHU SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
l 1.
The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an l
accident, or malfunction of equipment _important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not increased because roll-o-matic filters are not addressed in the FSAR and do not inpact accident probabilities.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because roll-o-matic filter failure does not impact accident possibilities with respect to the FSAR.
i 3.
The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, is not reduced because it is not addressed in Tech. Specs.
t s
i i
P
SE-92-152 M04-1-91-032 DESCRIPTION:
Transferred the feed for the 1-1001-47 valve from 250 VDC MCC IB to MCC 1A in order to provide adequate capacity margin for the 250V batteries.
In addition, the feed for 1-2301-36 was also shipped to a different cubicle, on the same bus, to provide a space for the above move.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to deternine each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
Work will be done while the unit is shut down and in the E/F mode with no fuel in the vessel.
For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of-an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously-evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because the scope of work is being performed with the unit in refuel where'the 1001-47 valve is not required for operation.
No accidents of malfunctions are evaluated for this case.
Also, the scope of, work is scheduled during the outage when the fuel will not be in the-RPV.
Therefores shutdown cooling is not required.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the_ basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
SE-91-549 Modification M04-2-91-034 1
DESCRIPTION:
i I
This safety evaluation was written for the work instructions associated with the modification to add four additional cells to the Unit Two 250 VDC battery.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has.been analyzed to determine
(
each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initi -1 conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
l Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
Small break LOCA UFSAR SECTION 14.2.4 For each of these accidents,'it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the. probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or
+
malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or nalfunction of a i
different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because the final phase of work involves.the l
connection of the new rack to the existing 116 cell racks.
This will require the U-2 250 VDC battery to be inoperable.
i This will not create a possibility of an accident or.
malfunction of a' type different than those stated in the FSAR because the back-up systems for U-2 HPCI and U-1 RCIC will be fully operable.
Those systems are-stated in step 10.
The requirements of Technical Specification 3.9.C.3, 3.5.E.2, 3.5.F.3, 3.5.C.2, C.5.C.3 will be met.
r 3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any j
Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced..
l
1 j
M-4-1-92-006C i
)
DESCRIPTION:
The changes made by this modification involved upgrading the power feed to the RER and Core Spray Emergency Air Handling i
Units.
The existing cables were abandoned in place and new larger cables were installed following the routing points of the old cables, where feasible.
These changes were made to increase the voltage levels at the loads under degraded 1
voltage conditions.
l SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
I 1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine I
each accident or anticipated transient descrribed in the i
UFSAR where any of the following is true:
l i
The' change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
A
?
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, i
or component could lead to the accident.
i The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
.)
l LOCA SAR SECTION 14.2.4 Fire 10.7
~ !
Power bus loss of voltage 8.2.2 For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the I
change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accfdent, or malfunction of equipment important to safet, as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
I i
t f
t h
f 1
I 5
1
k 1
. 1 i
M-4-1-92-006C CONTD j
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously. evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because as discussed in the. responses to l
questions 5 and 6, the modification-has not effect on operating modes or equipment functions.
The installation of new cable enhances the reliability of safety equipment powered through the cable, because it improves the voltage at the load under degraded. voltage conditions.
Therefore, I
the modification would.not create the possibility of an-accident or. malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the FSAR/UFSAR.
l 3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any
.i Technical Specification, therefore,.the safety margin is not' reduced.
j l
l l
i u
i s
.i a
i
.I i
l I
.)
j 1
-.- - ?
d i
?
I M04-1-92-006E l
t DESCRIPTION:
This modification upgraded the power feed fcom Switchgear Bus 18 to MCC 18-2 by paralleling the existing conductors with the same size and type of conductors.
The modification is a result of Sargent & Lundy (S&L) Calculation 8913-67 !
1, Revision 0, which indicates that there might be a problem with insufficient voltages for various electrical loads during degraded voltage conditions.
To the extent possible, the new cables were routed through the same routing points as the existing power feeds.
All of the affected cable i
trays were evaluated for seismic and thermal loading and conduits were installed where it is not feasible to use existing cable trays or conduits.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
3 The chaaged structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after tne accident.
t Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, i
or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
{
~
~.5.6.5 Fire
'.5.1 Power bus loss of voltage E.0 l
For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the l
change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
i i
I b
I i
5
l I
l l
M04-1-92-006E CONTD i
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a j
different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is j
not created because the modification has no effect on i
operating modes or equipment functions.
The installation of the new. power feed configuration enhances the reliability of MCC 18-2 under degraded voltage conditions by improving the
. voltage level at the Motor Control Center.(18-2).
Therefore, the modification would not create the possibility l
of an accident or malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the FSAR/UFSAR.
l 3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
i i
a.
I i
l 1
h l
I 4
i M-4-1-92-006F i
DESCRIPTION:
i This change ;2pgraded the existing control circuits for the
[
Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System LPCI injection valve 1-1001-29A and RHR shutdown cooling valve 1-1001-50.
This is l
being done to assure that the contactors associated with j
these two valves will have sufficient terminal voltage to pick up and actuate the valves.
These changes helped resolve degraded voltage concerns.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
i 1.
The change described above has been analyzea to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
?
f The change alters the initial conditions used in the l
UFSAR analysis.
j The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
LOCA SAR SECTION 15.6.5 Fire 9.5.1 Power bus loss of voltage 8.0 t
For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the l
change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
i 2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated-in the UFSAR is not created because the modification has no effect on operating modes or equipment functions.
The installation of l
the control circuit upgrade, enhances the reliability of i
safety equipment because it increases the voltage level at the contactor could under degraded voltage conditions.
Therefore, the modification would not create the possibility of an accident of malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the FSAR/UFSAR.
i l
I M-4-1-92-006F CONTD s
~
3.
The margin of safety,.is not defined-in the basis for any l
Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not-t reduced.
l r
a h;
'h F
'h i
i rt t
I f
i E
i a
4 r
l i
.I
+'f I
i r
r I
?
5 4
J
SE-92-201 Work Request 002227 j
1 DESCRIPTION:-
-l Installed three one inch thread-o-lets at various locations on.the CRD. Repair Room Sink drain.line.
The drain line runs from the Reactor Building, through the Extraction Steam Pipeway, to the Chemical Waste Tank in Radwaste.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine l
each accident or anticipated transient. described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true-l The change alters the initial conditions used in the i
UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or-(
after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
Loss of coolant UFSAR SECTION 15.6.5, 15.6-30 l
Refueling UFSAR SECTION 15.7.2 i
For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not-increase the probability of an occurrenca or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction.of a j
different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because the design function of the drain line-is i
not altered by the installation of the thread-o-lets.
Since-i the thread-o-lets are welded to the drain line, they will have the same integrity as the pipe.- This installation will' I
facilitate cleaning of the drain lint which will result"in
~I better flow through the drain line and reduce the source term in the line.
Threaded plugs will.be installed in the thread-o-lets during normal operation of the' drain line.
P I
I i
c)
l 1
I SE-92-201 CONTD I
i k
If the welded connections on one or more of.the. thread-o-lets were to fail or if one or more of the threaded plugs l
fell out, Secondary Containment test results, station
. surveillance QTS 160-5, indicate that Secondary Containment can be naintained with an induced leak equivalent to a four inch hole (surface area of 12.566 square inches).
The failure of all three of the thread-o-lets would be I
equivalent to a hole with a surface area.of approximately 2.356 square inches.
This is well below the size of the leak induced during the Secondary Containment test.. Thus,
]
Secondary Containment integrity will be maintained.
-i The installation of the thread-o-lets does not adversely l
impact systems or functions which create the possibility of an accident or malfunction.
'i s
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the. basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not l
reduced.
.i
!'l
?
l i
-j i
u l
i A
a, i
Ij
i SE-92-113 Upgrade to J2 Main Power Transformer Deluge System for l
Phase 11 of Fire Protection Modification.(Q88133) l DESCRIPTION:
This partial Modification M4-2-84-36A relocated the Electrical Supervision and alarms for Unit 2 Main Power Transformer Deluge System from the Main Control Room annunciators to the XL3 Central Monitoring System.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
t The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
Transformer Fire UFSAR SECTION 10.6 References Updated Fire Analysis 4.15.1 Design Basis Fire For each of these accidents, it has been det ermined that the change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accadent, or j
malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a_
different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because during the Design basis accident, the-Unit transformer is lost due to fire.
The purpose of the-detection equipment is to detect and quickly extinguish a fire from the transformer.
The compensatory measures of a fire watch will be used for detection of a fire until'the transformer detection system is returned to service, and the system is Op-Authorized.
3.
The margin of safety, is~not defined in the basis'fo; any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
t 9
1
=
SE-92-114 Upgrade the RAT and UAT Deluge System for Phase 11 of Fire Protection Modification (Q88135)
DESCRIPTION:
This partial Modification M4-2-84-36B relocated the Electrical supervision and alarms for Unit 2 RAT and UAT Deluge Systems from the Main Control Room annunciators to-the XL3 Central Monitoring System.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used'in the UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after tne accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
Transformer Fire UFSAR SECTION 10.6 References Updated Fire Analysis-4.15.1 Design Basis Fire For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence.or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because during Design basis-accident, the Unit transformer is lost due to-fire.
The purpose of the-detection equipment is to detect and quickly extinguish a fire from the transformer.
The compensatory measures of a fire watch will be used for detection of a tire until the transformer detection system are returned to service, and the system is Op-Authorized.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the: basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
i t
SE-93-46 I
QCOS 201-4, Rev. 1 DESCRIPTION:
[
t Enhanced per writers guide.
Added new prerequisites, precautions,
[
limitations and actions, procedure steps, attachments, notes and l
cautions.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
-i 1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of' the following is true:
5 The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
j The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
None For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change-described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important
'i to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type
'than any previously evaluated.in the UFSAR is not created because the prerequisites added to procedure as listed by the number used in the l
procedure under PREREQUISITES section; D.2.,
only requires
[
notification of personnel.
D.4.
only requires that pumps are available or that it has been determined are not necessary.
D.10.
only requires posting Reactor Vessel-Thermocouples at the recorder.
l D.11 only verifies that the recorder is operating' properly.
D.12 ani D.13 only sets up the computer trend with alarm points and display to aid the operator of temperature changes.
D.22 thru D.26'only verifies.
-all available ECCS-Systems are operable, manual scram inserted, CRD' Pumps secured, Adequate-communications available, required valves 4
taken out of service.
1 D.33 only establishes a temperature band.
D.35 only allows the test!
I director to list any valves placed in an off-normal position and l
provides tracking of off-nornal positions.
D.36 is only a-checkoff if l
pre-test section was performed.
D.38 only insures hoses are installed and secured for venting Recirc pump seals.
D.39 only insures MM has been notified and are prepared to install Excess Flow Check Valves i
i i
i
I i
l i
i SE-93-46 CONTD when required.
D.40 only reviews Jumper / Block Log to make sure none l
exist that will affect this test.
Therefore they do not create the j
possibility of a new accident of malfunction.
t' The precautions E.4.,
E.5.,
E.6. as listed by number used in the procedure under PRECAUTIONS section only provides the operator.with additional information for plant and personnel safely while performing the procedure.
Therefore they do not create the possibility of a new i
accident or malfunction.
i The limitations and actions F.2.,
F.6.
thru F.9.,
and F.11 as listed-I by number used in the procedure under LIMITATIONS AND ACTIONS section only provides the operator with limitations and actions to take while performing the procedure.
Therefore they do not create the possibility of a new accident or malfunction.
t
)
The steps as listed by number used in the procedure under PROCEDURE I
section; H.1.
only secures SDC to start heatup of Reactor Water.
H.2.
gives the method to begin the heatup.
H.S.
only has the operator j
notify RP for Drywell access limitations.
H.8.
only provides options for controlling temperature.
H.11. only provides the steps to maintain the temperature per Attachment H(I).
H.12. only verifies the temperature within limits.
H.13. only provides the actions necessary.
j and required to be performed in rapid order to begin pressurization.
H.14 only correlates Reactor Pressure with Heise Gauge pressure.
H.15 i
only has the operator record information.
H.18 only added to ensure i
MM reinstalls Recirc Excess Flow Check Valves after seals are. vented.
l H.22 only provides the operator with the method to control ~ temperature depending upon which area needs increasing or decreasing.
H.23 only i
provides the operator with the steps to naintain pressure and' control l
temperature.
H.26. only provides more information when pressurizing-to 1000 psig.
H.26.b. of step H.26 only has the operator'close level control valves to prevent leak through.
H.28 is just'a double check to confirm no leakage before continuing.
H.34 only.has the operator
-l available to operate valves.
H.35 only provides the operator with the i
method to control temperature depending upon which area needs i
decreasing during cooldown.
H.36 provides-acti'ons that need to be performed when Reactor Pressure drops to <10 psig.to hold parameters l
constant.
H.37 thru H.44 only notifies 191 to return to normal duties, l
terminate logging of Reactor Parameters, place shutdown cooling.in i
operation, and removes copies of Attachment-H(I).
Therefore-they do j
not create the possibility of a new accident or malfunction..
i The attachments as-listed by Attachment in procedure under-l ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment C and D_were taken out-of. Attachment B:and made into 2 separate Attachments for_ individual units,' Attachment.E-and F which was the existing-Attachment C and made into 2 separate
-Attachments for individual units and new Attachments.G,.H, and I were l
added for recording special valves and data only.
Therefore they do not create the possibility of a new accident or malfunction.
{
i
.1 l
I
-SE-93-46 CONTD Also added notes and cautions throughout procedure so the operator-is aware of any special situations before performing the step.
Therefore they do not create the possibility.of a new accident or malfunction.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced, i
.r I
'f a.
I i
l i
.f i
f k
a I
'l
-l 4
1
b t
t SE-93-47 i
QCOS 201-7, Rev. 1 r
DESCRIPTION:
l Enhanced per Writers Guide.
Added new prerequisites, precautions, limitations and actions, procedure steps, r
attachments, notes and cautions.
SAFETY EVALUATION SUMFJmY:
1 1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each' accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
None
.L For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the t
change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or t
malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
1 2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in-the UFSAR is l
not created because the prerequisites added to procedure as j
listed by.the number used in the procedure Ander PREREQUISITES section; D.1.d, onlyfprovides a check off for.
l which test is being performed 1000 or 1110 psig.
D.2 -only; requires notification of personnel.
D.4 only requires that i
Pumps are available or that it has been determined are not necessary.
D.10 only requires posting' Reactor' Vessel Thermocouples at the recorder.
D.11 only verifies that the
-recorder is operating properly.
D.12 and_D.13>only-set up.
l the trend with alarm-points-and display to aid the operator of temperature changes..D.15 and D.16 only. provide option' l
for recalibration of a Relief Valve only if the-1110 psig test is being performed.
i i
)
I l
)
-i 3
i SE-93-47 CONTD D.19.a and b only added to defeat AO 1(2)-220-47 to remain open irregardless of switch position.
D.27.d only added to l
take 1 (2) -220-50, Reactor Continuous Head Vent out of service.
D.37 only establishes as high a. temperature band 1
as possible before starting test.
D.42 only insures hoses are installed and secured for venting Recirc Pump seals.
D.43 only insures MM has been notified and are prepared to i
install Excess Flow Check Valves when required.
L,44 only reviews Jumper / Block Log to make sure none exist that will affect this test.
Therefore they do not create the possibility of a new accident or malfunction.
The precaution E.7 is listed by number used'in the procedure l
under PRECAUTIONS section only provides the operator with additional information to prevent violating the temperature i
at the Lower Head Region while perfomming the test.
l Therefore it does not create the possibility of a new accident or malfunction.
The limitations and actions F.7, F.8, F.9, and F.11 as listed by number used in the procedure under LIMITATIONS AND i
ACTIONS section only provides the operator with limitations i
and actions to take while performing the prcicedure.
l Therefore they do not create the possibility of a new i
accident or malfunction.
l The steps as listed by number used in the procedure under PROCEDURE section; H.1 only secures SDC to start heatup of Reactor Water.
H.2.b only provides an alternate method to increase Reactor Temperature.
H.5 only has the operator
,l 2
notify RP for Drywell access limitations.
H.11 only adds l
additional steps to maintain the temperature per the new l
attachment Attachment H (I) and to pump the DWEDSP to 3
minimum.
H.12 only verifies the temperature within limits.
H.13 only provides the actions necessary and required to be performed in rapid order to begin pressurization.
H.14 only correlates Reactor Pressure with Heise Gauge pressure.
H.15 only has the operator record information.
H.18 only added to ensure MM reinstalls Recirc Excess Flow Check Valves i
after seals are vented.
H.23 only-provides the operator I
with the method to control temperature depending upon which j
area needs increasing or decreasing.
H.24 only-provides the j
- operator with.the steps to maintain pressure and control j
temperature.n H.32 only has the operator available to
~!
operate valvSs.
H.33 only provides the operator with the
.I method to cont's.ol temperature depending upon which area I
needs decreasing.during cooldown.
H.34 provides actions that need to be p'arformed when Reactor Pressure drops to <10=
psig to hold parameters constant.
I
's N
\\
s
\\'-
i
=
,i
. ~ _ -
f SE-93-47 CONTD t
H.37 only terminates logging of Reactor Parameters, H.41.and
{
H.42 only place shutdown cooling in operation and removes copies'of Attachment H(I).
Therefore, they do not create j
the possibility of a new accident or malfunction.
The attachments as listed by Attachment in procedure under ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment C and D were taken out of i
Attachment E and made into 2 separate Attachments for individual units, Attachment E and F which was the existing t
Attachment C and made into 2 separate Attachments for-individual units, Attachment G was Attachment D, and new i
Attachments H and I were added for recording special valves and data only.
Therefore they do not create the possibility l
of a new accident or malfunction.
l Also added notes and cautions throughout procedure so.the j
operator is aware of any special situations before i
performing the step.
Therefore, they do not create the possibility.of a new accident or malfunction.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any
[
Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not l
reduced.
1 i
t Y
i i.;
-!.i
[,
I i
i l
4
~.'
SE-93-48 l
QCOS 201-8, Rev. 1 I
DESCRIPTION:
i Revised existing procedure to add prerequisite to check Temporary Alteration log prior to performing test and i
updated Attachment E(F) walkdown checklist.
{
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
f 1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine i
each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
i The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
i Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, j
or component could lead to the_ accident.
Tne accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
None For each of these accidents, it has'been determined that the i
change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence _of_the accident, or i
malfunction of equipment ~important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because this revision only adds a prerequisite to check the Temporary Alteration log to ensure no jumper.or block is installed that will affect the operation of equipment during the hydrostatic test.
The walkdown checklist was updated to show actual components that are checked during_the high pressure leak test part~of this surveillance.
Therefore this revision does not adversely change or impact systems or functions so as to create the possibility of an accident'or malfunction of a type different.from those previously-evaluated in the UFSAR.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical-Specification, therefore, the safety margin'is not j
reduced.
k
M-4-1-E7-059A/B i
DESCRIPTION:
l Changes implemented by this partial modification included replacement of the existing condensing chamber with a new condensing chamber.
The Yarway column was replaced by a new i
condensate reservoir.
The variable reference leg was rerouted inside the drywell.
The cold reference leg piping from the new condensing chamber and condensate reservoir was relocated to the reactor building holding the vertical drop in the drywell to a maximum of two feet.
The new reference let piping was routed outside the drywell and tied back into the existing instrument piping upstream of the instrument racks.
The existing containment penetration (X-108) was used for the rerouted cold reference legs.
The purpose of this modification is to minimize the effect of reference column water boil-off in a post-LOCA or high drywell temperature condition on the "A" loop reactor vessel water level instrumentation system.
l SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
-j The change alters the initial conditions used in.the UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or-e after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
t The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
Small Line Break LOCA SAR SECTION 5.2.2-Main Steam Line Break Outside Drywell
'14.2.3.4 l
Loss of Coolant Accident 14.2.4/5.2.3
'For-each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or i
malfunction of equipment important to safety'as previously i
evaluated in the UFSAR.
j l
i i
a
ll M-4-1-87-059A/B CONTD f
i
.2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because the function and setpoints associated I
l with the RWVLIS remain unchanged.
The RVWLIS interfaces l
with no new systems.
The system is composed of passive components (i.e., piping and chambers) exposed to the same f
reactor coolant system operating parameters (i.e.,
temperature and pressure) as the pre-modified system.
There is, therefore, no new failure mechanism or mode that could result in an accident or malfunction of a type different frem those evaluated in the UFSAR.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any l
Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
I I
i t
k P
e I
r I
PO4-1(2) 066, 063253 i
f I
DESCRIPTION:
i Installed printed circuit card which will disarm the zone
{
computer.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
[
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine i
each accident or anticipated transient described in the i
UFSAR where any of the following is true:
[
i The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
i The changed structure, system or component.is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or l
after the accident.
Operation or failure of the chateged structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
None For each of these accidents, it has been determined that'the-change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously.
evaluated in the UFSAR.
i 2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluatec in the UFSAR is not created because the refuel bridge will operate the same with this change as it did when the jumper was installed to bypass the zone computer.
Admin controls assure that fuel i
bundles do not interact with objects:in the. fuel pool.
This-is per the original design of the. refuel bridge.
3.
The' margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
I I
I
'I l
'I i
1 P04 - 1 (2 ) 066 ECN 04-00341E, 04-00342E DESCRIPTION:
The existing refuel bridge design includes a permissive zone computer which prevents running the grapple into a fuel pool
{
or transfer canal wall.
While the intended purpose of the permissive zone computer may be worthwhile, its design does not provide the necessary flexibility for operation in a two pool plant or within the fuel pool transfer canal.
Additionally, the permissive zone computer has a high failure rate which results in unnecessary time lost during j
refueling activities.
ThiG MPC removed the permissive zone computer, a travel override button and replaced two PC cards l
per unit in order to bypass the travel override system on each refuel bridge.
The associated Safety Travel Interlock 5
alarm at the refuel bridge console was also disabled.
This will provide the necessary flexibility for operation in the opposite unit's fuel pool or within the fuel pool transfer canal.
i SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the i
UFSAR where any of the following is true:
{
The change alters the initial conditions used in the
{
UFSAR analysis.
[
i The changed structure, system or component is i
explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or f
after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
Refueling Accident SAR SECTION 14.2.2 For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously
}
ovaluated in the UFSAR.
-i l
I I
I I;
l t
i PO4 - 1 (2 ) 066 CONTD i
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because this MPC will replace two PC cards per
)
unit in order to bypass the travel override system on each refuel bridge.
This change will not adversely impact i
systems or functions which will create the possibility of an i
accident or malfunction of a type'different from those evaluated in the SAR.
Existing administrative controls are
{
adequate to prevent the refuel bridge grapple from being run into either the fuel pool transfer canal or the fuel pool walls.
j i
I 3.
The margin cf safety, is not defined in the basis for_any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
l l
I i
i i
t 4
l 3
t i
I E
i i
~1 I
l l
i a
n
1.2 DESCRIPTION
Revised section 4.2.2.1.1.2 of the UFSAR to add the termination of the BLTA test program at EOC 12, giving explanation for terminating the BLTA test program one cycle early, EOC 12 rather than EOC 13.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
f The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis, j
\\
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
l Operation or failure of the changed structure, system,
}
or component could lead to the accident.
i' The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
None For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
l l
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because the UFSAR change updates'the UFSAR section 4.2.2.1.1.2 stating the BLTA project was terminated at EOC 12 rather than EOC 13 due to observed _ spot spallation i
(localized pitted corrosion) on four of the six BLTA rods.
The change in no way adversely impacts systems or functions so as to create the possibility of an accident on malfunction of-a type different from those evaluated in the l
l 3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
l
[
+
r
i M4-1-91-030 I
ECN 04-00775E DESCRIPTION:
i l
This design provided improved generator backup relay i
protection while backfeeding power through the Main Power Transformer.
In addition, detection of a short-circuit j
condition in the Main Power Transformer is provided for by i
the protective devices.
The added protection will trip the i
backup lockout relay if the generator primary protection l
system fails.
New relays are being installed for
{
overcurrent protection for the Unit Auxiliary Transformer (UAT) during backfeeding through the Main Power Transformer (MPT).
This modification was installed to increase the flexibility of the unit's electrical distribution system i
during unit outages.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
l 1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
i The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
I The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
i Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, 6
or component could lead to the accident.
3 The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
Load Rejection SAR SECTION 15.2.2 i
Turbine Trip (without bypass) 15.2.3 For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated-in the UFSAR.
i t
i e
i
n..
.~.
i'j 3
M4-1-91-030 CONTD il i
2.
The possibility for_an accident or malfunction of-a 1
different type than any previously evaluated in thelUFSAR isi l
not created because_tne generator backup.short circuit protection system detects'a short condition and tripsLthe.-
backup lockout. relay if the generator' protection system' fails.
This modification enhances this capability.
Relays j
and other equipment.have_been selected to be suitable for the applications.
Backfeeding power will only.ber performed-with the turbine off line.
Relays and circuits associated I
with backfeeding power will not significantly increase the:
i possibility of a turbine trip during normal operation..
j 3.
The margin of safety, is-not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not j
reduced.
.i
]
lb
-i w
4 k5 b.'
r 1
F i
M4-1/2-84-8 and M4-1/2-84-8A i
Diesel Fire Pump Cranking Batteries and Chargers DESCRIPTION:
This modification replaced the existing lead-acid diesel fire pump starting batteries and associated battery chargers with nickel-cadmium batteries and appropriate battery chargers.
The new installation consists of fully enclosed battery / charger i
systems for each fire pump.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
i 1.
The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not increased because the new batteries / chargers are chosen specifically for diesel fire pump service to provide more reliable operation, therefore, probability of an occurrence or malfunction will-be reduced.
Any consequences of an accident will remain the same as previously evaluated.
j 2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because this modification is a one-for-one i
replacement of existing equipment (batterier and chargers).
Therefore, an accident or malfunction will be the same type as previously evaluated.
i 3.
The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any
)
Technical Specification, is not reduced because the new l
equipmert will provide longer service life; therefore, the
)
units will be in a Limiting Condition for Operation less i
often, and the margin of safety maintained.
i
l
+
Temporary Alteration j
DESCRIPTION':
This Temporary Alteration connected a strip chart recorder at two locations to monitor and record certain parameters in the HPCI System during surveillance testing.
One strip chart recorder was connected to the vacuum breaker line test taps, and one recorder was connected at the 902-3 panel.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
t 1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine j
each accident or anticipated transient described in the.
i UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used1in the ff UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or-after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, l
or component could lead to the accident.
l l
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
ACCIDENT UFSAR SECTION Loss of Coolant Accident 115.5, 15.6 Inadvertent HPCI Injection i
For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above.will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or t
malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is i
not created because HPCI turbine speed and pressure indicators have no automatic safety system actuations associated with them.
They are not considered in the UFSAR
?
single failure criteria.
Because the strip chart recorders uses non-safety related power,' fuses will also be used to:
provide isolation between safety and non-safety related power.
The Flow Indicating Controller will not be affected r
due to parallel circuitry and high impedance-resistor within recorders themselves.
Additionally, the chart recorder failure mode is that of an "open circuit" assuring no short would occur throughout the logic circuits.
The pressure transducers and d
j
SE-92-198 CONTD tubing used for the vacuum breaker line will monitor only pressure differentials across the vacuum breaker check valves.
The transducers are sized to assure the pressure integrity of the exhaust line is maintained.
This will not affect the operation of the check valves.
There are no identified failure modes or interactions more severe than a steam line break or inadvertent injection.
Therefore, the potential failures are still bounded by the UFSAR analysis.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
~, _
, =<
i i
+
M 1 (2 ) 18 i
DESCRIPTION:
Modification M04-1-78-018 consisted of replacing existing supports and upgrading existing equipment to the downcomer lateral bracing, downcomer/ vent header stiffeners, downcomer i
longitudinal bracing, vent header deflector, T-Quencher installation and supports, SRV piping supports, spherical junction drain supports, ring girder drain holes, Thermo-wells, catwalk supports at ring girder and midbay, catwalk r
handrails and conduit reroute, ring girder reinforcements, Drywell/ Torus vacuum breaker replacement, spray header supports, HPCI Turbine exhaust, HPCI Turbine drain pot support, SRV piping, SRV penetrations and ring header j
reinforcements, RCIC Turbine exhaust, RCIC drain pot support, RHR return line supports, Torus miter joint saddles, monorail removal, conduit reroute work, ECCS I
suction header reinforcement, SRV drain line vacuum breakers and piping penetration reinforcements.
This modification was in compliance with NRC order number 46FR9312, and to assess the suppression pool hydrodynamic loads in accordance with NEDO-24583-1, NEDO 21888 and Appendix A of NUREG-0661.
l SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
?
1.
The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of zu2 l
accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as l
previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not increased because this modification does not increase the chances or consequences of an occurrence as previously evaluated since the purpose of this modification is to upgrade the existing i
structural support capability.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is l
not created because the systems affected by this modification have design functions to standby to operate in c
the event of a loss-of-coolant accident.
This modification does not alter the intended design functions and does not create a possibility of a different type accident of i
malfunction.
3.
The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any i
Technical Specification, is not reduced because this modification does not affect any conditions as defined in the basis of the Technical Specifications for ECCS.
{
i
,