ML20046B871
| ML20046B871 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1993 |
| From: | Scott A COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| AMS-93-001, AMS-93-1, NUDOCS 9308060354 | |
| Download: ML20046B871 (16) | |
Text
1 I
Commonwealth Edison f
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station
- l:
22710 206 Avenue North Corcova, Illinois 61242 Telephone 309/654-2241 AMS-93-001 July 7, 1993 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, tests, and experiments requiring safety evaluations completed during the month of June 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 COMPANY QUAD-CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION
- &y33
- sf ~.hi,!U Anthony M.
Scott System Engineering Supervisor AMS/dak Enclosure cc:
J.
Martin, Regional Administrator T.
Taylor, Senior Resident Inspector gr,0090 g
$ AI'ITYiN RC.LTR l
t V
U 9308060354 930707 I
PDR ADOCK 05000254 R
PDR t;;
1 4
SE-93-107 Temporary Alteration No. 93-2-106 DESCRIPTION:
Inserted a temporary thermocouple cable into the Unit 2 SBLC storage tank through the hatch at top of tank to the level of 2-1154 temperature element (thermistor).
The'other end of the thermocouple is extended outside of the tank to the tank base.
Operators take shiftily tank temperature measurements by inserting the cable leads into a QA certified digital thermometer.
The thermocouple is secured with tie wraps to conduit in order to prevent cable movement from its original depth placement.
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:
ATWS UFSAR SECTION 7.8, 15.8 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 thermocouple into the Unit 2 SBLC tank is suspended in the tank solution without interfering j
with the tank's internal components.
It is also secured by tie wraps to prevent deeper movement into the tank or movement out through the tank outlets.
The restriction of cable movement deeper into the tank will prevent contact with the tank heater and sparger and with SBLC valves and pumps outside of the tank.
SAFETY \\93NNE.RPT
,m u
g-
f l
SE-93-107 CONTD i
3.
The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, is not reduced because the same temperature. limits and daily surveillance requirements of Tech Specs 3.4.c/4.4c and figure 3.4-2 still apply.
I Therefore, there is no reduction of safety margin.
I 3
i f
P b
f 4
- i i
I
' l 2
s SAFETY \\93J11NE.RPT r
9-e y
---y,
.,w r-.
,e y
r
.e a
m+=
e
--e
SE-93-108 QCOADS 100-4 REV. O DESCRIPTION:
The Functional Test section of procedure QOS 500-3, " Semi-Annual Functional / Calibration Test of the Reactor Protection System Electrical Protection Assemblies" (RPS-EPA) was upgraded into QCOADS 100-4.
Also, the frequency of the RPS-EPA functional test was changed, per Tech. Specs Amendments No. 142 for Unit 1 and No. 137 for Unit 2 dated 5-28-93, from semi-annually to "each time the plant is in COLD SHUTDOWN for a period of more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, unless performed in the previous 6 months."
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 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 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 change involves the frequency of performing the RPS-EPA functional test only.
This frequency change would not create any possibility of an accident or i
malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the UFSAR.
The frequency change would improve the reliability of the reactor units based on reasons mentioned previously.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
SAFETYi9MUNE.RPT i
t DCR 4-92-226 DESCRIPTION:
Provided new and revised P& ids and C& ids for the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) system based on the "as-built" configuration per system walkdown.
Vendor equipment, instrumentation and piping has been added to provide greater detail for maintenance and repair activities.
System function and operation remains unchanged.
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 cn 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.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a i
different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is
)
not created because the function of the RCIC system and its ability to operate is unchanged due to documenting'the'"as-t built" piping configuration on the new and revised P& ids and C& ids.
UFSAR Section 5.0 Table of Contents, Section 5.1 Table 5.1-2, Section 5.4.6.2 and Section.6.2 Table 6.2-7 will require minor editorial changes.
These changes, per the attached preliminary FSAR submittal review form QTP~200-S6, will not adversely impact' systems or functions nor will the possibility of an accident malfunction be created that is different from those previously evaluated in the SAR.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
SAIFIT\\93 JUNE.RPT
DCR 4-92-044 DESCRIPTION:
Provided new and revised P& IDS for the Instrument Air system based on the "as-built" configuration per system walkdown.
Vendor equipment, instrumentation and piping has been added to provide greater detail for maintenance and repair i
activities.
System function and operation remains unchanged.
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:
4 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 function of the Instrument Air system and its ability to operate-is ur; hanged due to documenting the "as-built" piping configuration on the new and revised P& ids, including the safety reclassification of various lines and valves.
UFSAR Section 9.3.1.1 and 6.2 Table 6.2-7 will require minor editorial changes.
These changes, per the attached preliminary FSAR submittal review form QTP 200-S6, will not adversely impact systems or functions nor will the possibility of_an accident malfunction be created that is different from those previously evaluated in the SAR.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
DCR 4-92-269 DESCRIPTION:
Provided new and revised P& ids for the Traversing In-Core Probe (TIP) system based on the "as-built" configuration per system walkdown.
Vendor equipment, instrumentation and piping has been added to provide greater detail for maintenance and repair activities.
System function and operation remains unchanged.
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:
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 function of-the TIP system and its ability to operate is unchanged due to documenting the "as-built" piping configuration on the new and revised P& ids.
UFSAR Section 6.2, Table 6.2-7 will require minor editorial changes.
These changes, per the attached preliminary FSAR submittal review form QTP 200-S6, will not adversely impact systems or functions nor will the possibility of an accident malfunction be created that is different from those previously evaluated in the 9AR.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
SAFL!Y\\9MUNE.RI'T
M04-1-84-036A, B& I Fire Protection Suppression and Detection DESCRIPTION:
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-previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not increased because fire suppression and detection is not classified as Safety Related in the FSAR.
Seismic installation of equipment i
ensures adequate operation of existing safety equipment and safety related equipment in the immediate area of installation.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because the installatiisa does not interfere with any existing safety systems.
3.
The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, is not reduced because suppression and detection is not Safety Related.
The reliability of the Fire Protection system is increased by providing this additional suppression and detection.
l SAFETYi93MNE IWT
1 SE-92-111 Upgrade to RAT and UAT Deluge System for Phase 11 of Fire Protection Modification (Q88067)
DESCRIPTION:
This partial Modification M4-1-84-36B relocated the Electrical Supervision and alarms for Unit 1 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 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 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 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 i
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 sAnnnemst nn i
3 l
P04-2-91-123 l
DESCRIPTION:
This changes provided for the replacement of the existing MSIV instrument air copper tubing and valves with stainless steel piping and valves.
New piping was installed to the l
four MSIV actuator in the MSIV Room, The HPCI Valve AO2-2301-17, and only a stainless steel valve attached to the haader with the remainder staying copper to the RCIC valve AG2-1301-50.
1 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:
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, 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 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 2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated-in the UFSAR is not created because the minor design change will not create a malfunction different from those evaluated in the SAR.
The existing USIV instrument air copper tubing and valves will be replaced with stainless steel piping and valves.
The piping w311 be installed in the same configuration as the existing copper tubing.
The MSIVs, HPCI valve, and RCIC valve will still function the same as when the copper tubing l
supplied the instrument air.
1 3.
The nargin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any i
Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
l t
b 3
i
SE-93-80 Exempt Change E04-93-032
-DESCRIPTION:
The existing off-gas hold-up pipe flow elements were obsolete and did not function on Unit Two.
This Exempt Change replaced the existing flow elements with a singular flow element to cover the range of the two existing flow i
elements.
The off-gas flow elements provide the Unit NSO i
indication of Condenser air inleakage rates, and early l
warning of condenser vacuum trouble.
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:
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 new flow elements have the same principal design as the existing elements.
The linearization circuitry for the new element is more accurate than the existing, out dated circuit.
The off-gas hold-up t
pipe flow elements are mentioned in section 11.3.2.1.5 and Table 11.3-1.
It is not assumed to function in the UFSAR i
accident analysis.
It is not required to be operable during i
an accident scenario, and will not serve any purpose to mitigate the consequences of an accident.
Relay operation is basically the same-function for alarm purposes.
No new
[
system interactions are created, and no new operating parameters are introduced.
SAFTlYiO3 JUNE.RPT l-
{
-i 1
SE-93-080 CONTD
- i i
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not l
reduced.
P
?
f f
n
?
-t l
F i
i i
i
'f i;
.f
[
r 7
e
}
l
-f
'I h
SAFETYi93 JUNE.RPT
' $.c s
^
SE-93-115 DCR 4-92-370 DESCRIPTION:
Updated Diesel Generator Service Water System drawings to reflect as built plant conditions.
These drawings were updated in response to SSFI deficiencies in Part J of CAR 04-89-243..
Deficiencies addressed as part of this change are 502, 503, SP, 503, SS1, SS2, SS4, ST, SU1, SV1, SV2, SV3, SW, SX, SZ, SAH, 5AI, 5AJ, SAL, 5AK, SAM, 5AN, S AP, and f
3C.
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 l
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.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
Loss of Auxiliary Power UFSAR SECTION 8.3.1 For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the 1
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 3
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 change does not effect the operation, function or design basis of any structure, system, or component important to safety as described in the i
All changes have been evaluated in the piping system calculations.
No new hazards are created that can be
.{
postulated to cause an accident different from those i
previously analyzed in the UFSAR.
Therefore, there is no
+
possibility that an accident or malfunction may be created that is different from any already evaluated.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
i S AFMY\\93NNE.UT i
l I
j SE-93-114 IP-178 DESCRIPTION:
Added steps to test HPCI Motor Speed Changer in QCOS-2300-5 and QCOS-2300-1.
Also incorporated statements of.
clarification in surveillance test to address safety concerns.
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed t determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the-l 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.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, f
or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
None For each of these accidents, it has toen 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 IP-178 does not change the way HPCI System is tested per the UFSAR.
IP-178 incorporates QCOS 2300-1 and QCOS 2300-5 into one procedure with addition of testing the Motor Speed Changer from Low Speed Stop to High Speed Stop.
The MSC is not explained in the UFSAR as far as i
HPCI system testing methods.
Therefore, there is no deviation from the UFSAR testing requirements and no operability concerns created.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
SAFEW93 JUPE.RPT
- J
a M04-2-91-030 DESCRIPTION:
The design provides improved generator backup relay protection while backfeeding power through the Main Power Transformer.
In addition, detection of a short-circuit condition in the Main Power Transformer is provided for by the pre ective devices.
The added protection will trip the backup lockout relays if the generator primary protection system fails.
New relays were 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 during unit outages.
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 ths 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:
Load Rejection SAR SECTION 15.2.2 Turbine Trip SAR SECTION 15.2.3 (without bypass)
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 changes do not create the possibility of a different type of accident or equipment failure other than previously evaluated in the SAR>
No new hazards are created that can be postulated to cause an accident different from that previously analyzed.
S AFETYW3JUNL RI'T
~
M04-2-91-030 CONTD This non-safety related equipment is not required for the.
safe shutdown of the plant.There were no failure modes j
identified that could cause an accident other than a load i
reject or turbine trip (with bypass failure).
The design of this modification has been reviewed by A/E, l
CECO System Planning, and BWRSD and found to be acceptable.
a The design adds the features required to allow backfeeding j
power from the switchyard through the MPT and UAT without j
creating any new hazards or reductions in plant reliability or availability.
3.
The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, is not reduced because these changes do not adversely affect any set points, operational limits, or special conditions that_ prescribe the margin of safety.
b S
[
i 1
r i
e i
h i
t i
SATEm03 JUNE.RIT
-,