ML20053E421

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Public Version of 10CFR50.59 Format for Safety Evaluation of Revised Lzp Procedures,Including Procedures Lzp 1330-21 Re Determination of Reactor Coolant Chloride Concentration at High Radiation Sampling Sys
ML20053E421
Person / Time
Site: LaSalle  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 05/07/1982
From: Knoll P, John Marshall
COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20053E420 List:
References
PROC-820507-03, NUDOCS 8206080024
Download: ML20053E421 (8)
v • d • e


Text

-

e pi 2

LAP 820 2; ATTACHMENT F Revision 19

@ge 1 of 2)

Aprilf,19R?

j 1

20 10CFR50.59 FORMAT FOR SAFETY EVALUATION STATION UNIT SYSTEM TEST /PRCCEDURE No

[_ E 8 / 8 8 d

.'2 /

tuepammT:ou oP 'ItEAc.we. cooca aJr TEST / PROCEDURE TITLE C*.ottw coweenersea 4T 78t. 6M {EVISION S

2-i EQUIPMENT NAME M4 EQUlPMENT NUNSER MA j

=m OESCRIPTION OF TEST / PROCEDURE fpge M afsIWwtt$th d.Alo*162r dex cs s Y& du.kk.g Mrheta/

a n d,0 M U l drx & S h k

W J J U f-t.-

m

.y

.e N

I s

s s

s SAFET( 'cVALUATION: Answer the following questiens with a " yds" er "no", a reasons justifyirg the decision:.

Is the pechobility cf en occurrence or,the coczequence of en accident, or 5[

1.

' ty es previously evelueted in the Finci id'ety Aralysis Raport Shm l

equipment importent to incrossed?

Yes __

No, Gecausa:,C W g pe-4,c m of &2% h ^^ O W& l N f l

i Is ths possibility fer en eccident er malfunction c/ a different type thengn l

Yes No, Beceuse:

2.

evolu

' e Fi i Sciety Anclyst:t Report creeted?

l A@@ #oted in f44A.

u; r y'

^ =

i j

's e.

t s

h Is the mergin er screry, es defined in the basis for :ny Technicci S=ee!!!c=

ki f M6'%<.' n l

3.

74* *fa u-w On 0-e.:

Yes X No, Because: Ma*

%C (

j

~

p ees s c.u s w O

I Any answer checked "YES" should be reper:se'in, the Annual Recor-:.

  • Note:

f. /

[

to the NRC

-T I

Cet Peri:-med 54

/

v 4

82060goog4 820527 wg g

L PDRADOCM05009 wr F

l Y

)

L y

~

m.

- - ~ - ~.. - - ~...., _.... _.,,

v s_

s.

LAP-320-2

~

i Revision ;9 April 7,,

1982 ATTACHMENT F 2,1 fina!.

(Page 2 of 2)

SAFUY EVALUATION CHECKLIST (10 CFR 50.53)

-m

.; )

TEST / PROCEDURE No.

/.J A/ 27o - 2/

g j

REVISION 2

. f_. '

Doec this c:nstitute a change to procedures as described in Safety Analysis Report?

'.5

.'!c

.I_

te: ( )

s a =anga in== Tec nical Icecsfica:ica

}inrcivee?

.t..

_.l 9e d P ' :',

Answr the f:llcwing cuestiens wi-M i *y::' :

SAFUY DAL' TIC:l:

and pr:vids,s;ecific reas ns justi'ying the facisicn:

'c Is ce :r:bability cf (n.=c: r secs. -Mt c:nsecuence of 2n C

1.

ac:t:an:, Or..al fune.icn of saf t:7 rtil:ad stui:: snt, 12 ;rt,i:::!y t

incruse ?

evatus:ad in ce Final Safety analysis. ecert, r

Yes

% No,

~r

{..

e

.ds 2.

Is ths ;:ssibill:7 fcr an acciden er. aifunc:f =n of a dif:'are.n:

1 :15 ty:t can any crtvicusly evaluated n :Me Fina! Saft'y * : 7

'^

Re;:cr: crts 2d?

Yes

'f o,

y,

'ad b

3..

Is the ::artin of safety, as defined in basis f:r any T4 =-10:1 Scec1#ica:1:n, riducad7 Yes No.

~

s-A11 Ans.*en No

?-

_ :ns ;nraer - Yes ( )

  • 3 e

e ee

  • eE271i 2*.Or/ C0::"l rid.$ I -n Zu =:M:1:1 = far :M nes.

c l

(..

u==. = : :n 2.czi,ee ( )

b Initiata Fr:cmdrt/Tes:

t Ir::Ierzientati:n P

.b

"!OTI:

/

q

/./

7g L

s W/f4d

'n'f inswer thsettd 'yes' l

Fer':r. ed by n/

=

s.:ul :e es::- ac f:

nt

[

[

1: nuai em::r. :: =: ::XC.

i

/-l N l&

CA:s

,e

/

r*

\\.. w.

,s*

N I

%a s.

w.

4

s 1

LAP 820.=

ATTACHMENT F Revision 19,

Qage 1 of 2}

A ril 7, tort 20 10CFR50.59 FCRMAT FOR SAFETY EVALUATION IIe UNIT STATION A

SYSTEM T

TEST /PRCCEDURE No df8 /.,Do - 72.

.F.ST/ PROCEDURE TITLF, c.aiseenw ofe: io wwu /N QW% REVISION vue 2

6 g e g g g gg y Q g g, g (_,

fA der EqulPMENT NAME Mo)& to 3 foggy EqulPMENT NUMBER 0 PL 6 (J',

..m_--

/ M N C*f DESCRIPTION OF TEST /PRCCEDURE '

bkyk M M N.

N SAFiiY EVAWATICN: Answer the following questions with a "yes" er "no", and gw reasons justifyiry the decisien:

Is the probo'nility of an occurrence er t!w cor=equence of en accident, or m I

equipment impertent to safe es previously ownluoted in ths Finel Sciety Anclysis Resort 1.

i.

47 Yes _

No, Becausa:,& m e Oa LA_e -

h'.o,

m Is the possraility fer en uccident er malfunction of a different type then eny

'Yes V No, Seccuse:

2.

evolueted in the Final Seisty Analysis Repert created?

h# 7f,Y ese.

a-r l

Is the mergin ei sciety, es defined in the basis for cny Technicel Saecifie= tion

(

62.fr/ ~4 3.

Yes M No, Secause:

orf f e,/- m W.

Any answer checked "YES" should be reported in :he Annual Recort.

  • Mote:
o the NRC

$2f s

Periermed Sh_

A lL C=ta -

3sie,f3G!h

    • ht Aq,rrousi 17 r:

l'

u t

<3

~-e

~

LAP-320-2

.'**~;.-

g,y,,,,,

9 April 7, 1982 ATTACHMENT F 21 fina?

..,.t (Page 2 of 2)

CFR 50.33)

SAFETY EVALUATION CHECKLIST (1p 'US -ZL.

.;-)

TEST / PROCEDURE No.

l tr l g

REVISION 2-1:

r Does this constitute a change to procedures

. w as described in Safety Analysis Report?

m

.'!c D T

,I (es ( )

,O

} is a :nanga in== Tecnnic.a.1 5;ect fica ica ifavcivec?

t a..

_.l

'to M r

P

  • Answer the fellcwing Jesticns wiu a 'ys ' :

g SAFEif E7AL"ATIC.1:

and ;r:vids,s;:ecific reascns jus:1'ying the tectsfen:

L..

Is ens :r:bability cf an. cc:.- snes. Se c:nsecuence cf inas ;rtvf:::17 L.

ac:ican, er malfune:1 n of saft:/ rela:ad ecuf:: snt, incriare?

evatustad in the Final Safaty Analysts Re:cet,

_Yes No, mf Is the ;essibility fer an accident cr' eaifunc:f =n of a if f fer:n:

r ty;s than ar.y ;rtvicusly evalua:xd in :he Final Saft:y 2,- 1 :11 L'

2.

7

^

ne:cr creatad?

\\ Yes

Mfo, y

u n

1 Is the argin of saft:y, as defined in :he basis f:r my c:n-f:

3..

Scecificatica, reducad?

Yes

.N o,

Q.

G i

Anv Ansser - Yes ( )

,i A11 Ans ers No ec. ective.'tucitar r

Recus :

f

?.aquI a =: / Cemi.s.s f.:n tu: :r n:' n ?y :.~enes.

l r -- '

  • u=:--n:i:n ?ec ived ( )

1-t.L Initia a Fr:cswrt/ Test I. lemnts:icn

.C "l0T?.:

a.

Per':r-ed by

)/]

t Nkf a ! !$

s m

3:

s.cui: e re:cr se in :32 q

[

annual et: r. :: =:.;EC.

df

-.a.a

/

g-

.gs. e

  • d" S--4..mo

,w m

2 LAP 820 2-j ATTACHMENT F

~

Revision 19 (Page 1 of 2}

April 7, 19At 20 10CFR50.59 FCRMAT FCR SAFETY EVALUATION STATION [d.[d UNIT SYSTEM M TEST /PRCCEDURE No d M/280 ~ 2.,7 Mreeg. of E x C ae6 A NT-P W, f.MD.

REVISION I

TEST / PROCEDURE TITLE-+ D o-Nr WE H845 EQUIPMENI' NAME

))A EQUIPMENT NUMBER Ale m

OESCRIPTION CF TEST / PROCEDURE ',,v/ound y NEy frna W G f aud d &dt$vC/ g y u M Ct-x in,u n w g

~ w M

", M -a "

aea L.gw:/c.5/0ws t

SAFEiY EVALUATION: Answer the following questiens with a "yes* cr "no", and,,,

e reasons Justifyirg the decision:

Is the pechobility of en occurrence or the coresquence of en occident, or m

(

equipment importent to safe es previously evaluated in ths ~

l Sefety Anclysis Racert 1.

increased?

Yes No, Becausa: he,4.h h

a./Je QW, &

Yks

& a aM '

(d4 Is the posibility fer en uccident or malfunction of a different type th=n any Yes W No, Because:

2.

evaluated in the Final Scisty Analysis Report created?

h '

YSb $.

w Is the margin of sciety, es defined in the basis fer cny Technic =I Specific tion 4kad.o

~ Yes M No, Secause: 'BefJg g o.,J. e cu:.e. M 3.

m&O Any answer checked "YES" should be reported in the Annuel Report.

  • Note:

o the NRC f Eh

_e

, _..._:i

  • Y Reig Appround 17 r:

-]

mw

, ~

s p

}'..

lap.320 2

~

~~

Revision jg

.~. -...

April 7, 1982 ATTA:HMENT F 21 fina!'

(Page 2 of 2)

SAFETY EVALUATION CHECXLIST (10 CFR 50.53) ej g

TEST / PROCEDURE No. 4.7//3fo-g3 RE'llSION

/

n

.g!

Oces this constitute a change to procedures l

as described in Safety Analysis Report?

5 1

(es ( )

'!c W p

  • s a cang i n== ecnnical 5:ec1fi:2:ica

'invcivec7

.s _.,

.l e M3

'r r

Ansner the felicwing :uesti:ns wi th a 'ys:' :r ' :',

SAFIi7 I7ALUATIC;I:

and pr:vids,ssecific reascas justifying :he incisien:

i

!s one :r:bability cf an, cce.:r seca. :Me ::nsecuence ef 2n b

as ;rtvi:::!y ac:ican:, or =alfuncti:n cf saf t:y rtil:ac equi:. snt, evalcated in the Final Safety analysis Re:ce. increass?

-m Yes 5C No.

F.

L..

4 Is the ;cssibill y f:r-in accident er maifunett:n Of a it f f ar n:

. ym C

2.

tytt than any crsvicusly evalua:ad in the Fina! Safety 2,uly:is

^

Re ert creatad?

Yes V No, m

w M+

31 Is One margin of safa:y as defined in :te basis f:r any Tc=ni:

3..

Sceci'icati:n. reduced?

Yes

>< No,

Anv Ansser

  • Yes ( 1 I

All Ans*deM Mc M 1I a

Recue: inc. tetive ?!ucitar F

aqui z=: / Omri.$.s ica 1 i:n ! r :.' tete.

, 2:==M :

J s

(-,

4 =: n ti:n ?.ectived ( )

I.' '

I-t._

r Ini:11:a Pr:c=uurt/ Test

!.-DI ementati:n C

'*l0TE:

i,

N[

1 i.

]

any ins er escut 'yes' 7;

s. uld te r:: r:tc in :na Per':r ad by_

//

Ennu21.-t: r :: =:.!KC.

[; [

84 Cata asp a-1, 3

9m w=-

O "

a

~

e

s 2

LAP'820 2-

}-

S

ATTACHMENT F Revision 19 l'

(Page 1 of 2}

April 7, 14A7 10CFR50.53 FORMAT FOR SAFETY EVALUATION il'AT10N

[a UNIT l

l d

TEST /PRCCEDURE No d'2// iI.3d 'M 1

SYSTEM l

pyrygisc., of Q.wTR&MS1'AIK.

TEST / PROCEDURE TITLE 4r Tw6 N255 REVISION 0-EqulPMENT NAME EqulPMENT NUMBER

~"

OESCRIPTION OF TEST / PROCEDURE' c[t.,40rM NM#I M

a & c />ee a f a<J k njo Ae-a%Ay @-M&,"

Q mho<.a/ af&

Wd c.% 4-o vs-d A Y-t b N N.

SAred EVAL.UATION: Answer the fellowing gestiens with a "yes" cr "no",

end provide-senific

=

reesens justifyirs the decision:

Is the prc'chility of en occurrence er the cer=ewence of en ce ident, or mc 1

e P

ecpipment inwnt to sciety es previously ow:lueted in ths Finci Sciety Anclys 1.

% No, Becausa:, M wa.,,g 4

Abr y

/>c f nx.smC4 & ~d>u % Mk /uusx

% GCA+OM0 increeed?

Yes sM-u 4/ Q s W<.d,&L.no ey cc4a.cpw #J sa s Is the persi'aility fer en cceident er malfunction of a Yes See usa:

2.

evaluated in the Final Saisty Analysis Repcer created?

n Y y ( A, d d V N M CL M

,9 *. w epe?v a'ad

<^'<e d d b r l

snc.tw4 cf mene l

in ep,_terg, c2 defined in the bcsis fer eny Technic xg g

3.

Is the Y&& ""'

g'gix,pwsW

,?5 enec "YES" shoul b ted in the Annual Recort.

e' y

to the NRC l'

e_A

~. Re =

^

l

. 2 i em.=rm=c y

j A p wd ty,

/ LP

- 3a64

-. ~.

e

~-~

LAP-320-2.

l

~

q-Revision j9 A III 7.,

1982 ATTACHMENT F 21 fina!.

5 -

(Page 2 of 2)

~

FR 50.53) (::,

SAFETY EVALUATION CHECKLIST (10

'm

. -)

g

/33)62 TEST / PROCEDURE No.

L REV I3(CN

  • 2 Does this constitute a change to precedures as described in Safety Analysis Report?

m

.lo J

(c: ( )

~

li,s a =anga in== 7te nical Scecifica-ica p'

.i..'.}fnvcived?

.,cws.

.I r

Ansner-Os felicwing :uesticns w121 'y'.:'

P ' :',
I SAF1E'i / IVAL"ATIC I

L.

and ;r: rids,scecific etascns justifying me incisicn:

Is es :re: ability cf an ec=r tnes. Se c:nsecuence c' 23is :rt'if :ly C

1,.

ac:ican, er -alfunctiin' of saf te/ rita:ac ecuf:= tnt.

evalus:sd in the Final Safety Analysis Xe:cr., incrtase?

fNo, lce4 44 %g PSAL Yes Is the ;cssibf1f ty f:r-an ac:idant er maifuncti:n of a if ffar n:

t

' ee.:fnst Saft:y Ln sis

{*

2.

ty;e can any =rtvicusly evalut:

Re:cr: crts:st?

Yes Ha, W /%.W

^

"w r-ts>

, F5M'-

N Is :ne argin cf saferf, as defined in the basis f:r any Tc=rical 82ot o M 3..

M' Scecificatien, rtducad7 Yes

.o, C

d a./6-ALWL M

Anv Ansser - Yes ( )

,s -

Ali Ans ers No Recut: Lnc -tesioc nuclesr*

I Esqui1=: / CarniM J cn

. zu==M :1:t n far :. enes.

l

('

.u =.'-.:itn Recsised ( )

L-Ini:11:a Frecr.uurt/ Test

!=cI t=ents:icn r

tOTT.:

f, Q}

i i

Any snswer =ecu

'yes*

L s

7tr'::-ned by

s. utt :e rt::r te in 2 G G O f-

[

tenua.i es:Or. = = :.;XC.

ata

)

l

.W

,4; ;

t !

h

. I

~-

,,,

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20053E421&oldid=4501541"