ML20053E421

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
Issue date:	05/07/1982
From:	Knoll P, John Marshall COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20053E420	List: ML20053E421
References
PROC-820507-03, NUDOCS 8206080024
Download: ML20053E421 (8)

Text

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

e .

pi

. . LAP 82022; ATTACHMENT F

1. - Revision 19 1 , ,.;..,. <

@ge 1 of 2) Aprilf,19R? j 20 10CFR50.59 FORMAT FOR SAFETY EVALUATION STATION UNIT TEST /PRCCEDURE No [_ E 8 / 8 8 d .'2 /

SYSTEM .

tuepammT:ou oP 'ItEAc.we. cooca aJr

. S 2-TEST / PROCEDURE TITLE C*.ottw coweenersea 4T 78t. 6M {EVISION i

EQUIPMENT NAME M4 EQUlPMENT NUNSER MA --

. j

=m fpge M afsIWwtt$th

' OESCRIPTION OF TEST / PROCEDURE d.Alo*162r dex cs s Y& du.kk.g Mrheta/

a n d ,0 M U l ,

drx & S h t.-

k W J J U f-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:.

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

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

equipment importent to Yes __ No, Gecausa: ,C W g pe- 4 ,c Shm m of &2% h ^^ O W& l N f incrossed?

l i

l

2. Is ths possibility fer en eccident er malfunctionYes

' e Fi i Sciety Anclyst:t Report creeted?

c/ a different type thengn No, Beceuse:

evolu u; l

i

A@@

r y' #oted ^ in

= f44A. ,

j 's

, e.

t s h 3.

Is the mergin er screry, es defined in the basis for f:ny ' Technicci M6'%<.'

n S=ee!!!c=r ki l X No, Because: Ma* <

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

j

p ees s c.u s w > %C O (

I

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

[

• Note:

to the NRC f./

-T I '

Cet Peri:-med 54 v / 4 wg 82060goog4 820527 g F

PDRADOCM05009 wr &

L ) L Y  %%

y l

~

' m. - - ~ - ~ . . - - ~ . . . . , _ . . . . _ . , ,

._ _ _ v s_ - --- .. .

s. .. ,

LAP-320-2 i

, ,, ' ~

Revision ;9 i

. April 7,, 1982

. . *

• ATTACHMENT F 2,1 fina!. '

• - (Page 2 of 2)

-m .

.; ) SAFUY EVALUATION CHECKLIST (10 CFR 50.53) j g

TEST / PROCEDURE No. /.J A/ 27o - 2/

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

.t . .

}inrcivee?

9e d

_ .l -

P ' :',

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

-, SAFUY DAL' TIC:l:

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

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 evatus:ad in ce Final Safety analysis .tecert, incruse ? .

r

~r Yes  % No ,

e

{..

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

.ds '^

2.

ty:t can any crtvicusly evaluated n'f o:Me Yes ,

Fina! Saft'y * :

17 :15 Re;:cr: crts 2d?

y,

'ad

• b .

basis f:r any T4 =-10:1 3.. Is the ::artin of safety, as defined in -

Scec1#ica:1:n, riducad7 Yes No.

~ s- A11 Ans.*en No ,

,  ?-

_ :ns ;nraer - Yes ( ) *

• 3 e *. ee e

• eE271i 2*.Or/ C0::"l rid.$ I -n -

, . Zu =:M:1:1 = far :M nes.

c l .

(..

.,. :u ==. = : :n 2.czi,ee ( )

b

• t Initiata Fr:cmdrt/Tes:

q Ir::Ierzientati:n P

L s

.b .

"!OTI: -

-' /./

/

7g l *

'n'f inswer thsettd 'yes'

=

Fer':r. ed by n/ W/f4d

- :- s .:ul :e es::- ac f: nt _

i 1: nuai em::r. :: =: ::XC.

[

[

,e, CA:s /-l N l&

• /

r*

,s*

\ .. w .

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 STATION A IIe UNIT SYSTEM T TEST /PRCCEDURE No df8 /.,Do - 72.

• vue 2

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

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

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

I

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

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

i. 47 Yes _ .

No, Becausa: ,& m  %

h' .o , m e Oa LA_e -

2. Is the possraility fer en uccident er malfunction'Yes of a different V No, Seccuse:type then eny evolueted in the Final Seisty Analysis Repert created? '

h# 7f,Y a- ,

ese .

r l

(

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

3. '

Yes M No, Secause: orf f e,/- m 62.fr/ ~4

. W. '

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

• Mote:

o the NRC s $2f A lL C=ta - I Periermed Sh_

- Aq,rrousi 17 ** ht 3sie,f3G!h r:

I l' . . . . - . .

t

. , . . u

<3 .

~-e .. ,

. . ~

LAP-320-2 .-

.'**~;.-

g,y,,,,,

9 April 7, 1982

..,.t

• ATTACHMENT F 21 fina?

(Page 2 of 2)

CFR 50.33)

.;-) ,. ,

g SAFETY EVALUATION CHECKLIST l tr l (1p 'US -ZL.

• - TEST / PROCEDURE No.

- REVISION 2-1:

. w r '

Does this constitute a change to procedures m ,

as described in Safety Analysis Report?

,I (es ( ) .'!c D T

,O } is a :nanga in == Tecnnic.a.1 5;ect fica ica t

a.. ifavcivec? .

_ .l 'to M - r - . . . . .. .

g

• Answer the fellcwing Jesticns wiu a 'ys ' : P* '.

L.. 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

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

evatustad in the Final Safaty Analysts Re:cet, m _Yes No, f . .

r Is the ;essibility fer an accident cr' eaifunc:f =n of a if2,- f 1fer:n: 7 :11 L' ^

. 2.

ty;s than ar.y ;rtvicusly evalua:xd in :he Final Saft:y Mfo, ne:cr creatad? \ Yes y  %

u

, n .

1 3.. Is the argin of saft:y, as defined in :he.N obasis f:r my c:n-f:

Yes , .

Scecificatica, reducad?

Q.

G .

i

'- Anv Ansser - Yes ( )

,i A11 Ans ers No r

Recus : ec . ective .'tucitar 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 "l0T?.: I. lemnts:icn

.C a.

t Nkf a ! !$ s m

Per':r-ed by )/]

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

• q annual et: r. :: =: .;EC. &

[ -.a .a df -

.- /

g- , .

.gs. e

• d" S--4..mo . .

, , * ,w .,..,

LAP 82022-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 .

TEST / PROCEDURE TITLE-+ D o- Nr WE H845 .

REVISION I EQUIPMENI' NAME ))A Ale EQUIPMENT NUMBER ,_

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

aea in,u n w g _

~ w M L.gw:/c.5/0ws - -

t e

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

reasons Justifyirg the decision:

(

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

'.- 1. es previously evaluated in ths ~ l Sefety Anclysis Racert equipment importent to safe No, Becausa: he,4.h h a./Je increased? Yes Yks QW, & &

(d4 & a aM ' .

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

evaluated in the Final Scisty Analysis Report created?

w h '

YSb $.

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

~ Yes M No, Secause: 'BefJg g o.,J. e cu:.e. M m&O -

• Note: Any answer checked "YES" should be reported in the Annuel Report.

o the NRC

_e f Eh

, _.. ._:i _

• Y Reig Appround 17

- r: -'

mw ----

. - __ ,~

- - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -] - - . _ - -

p s _ _ . . . . _ . . . . . _ _ _ .

.. ~

}'.. .

• lap.320 2 Revision jg

~~

.~ . - . . . .-

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

(Page 2 of 2) ej ,. ,

g SAFETY EVALUATION CHECXLIST (10 CFR 50.53)

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

.s _ . ,

'invcivec7 *

'r e M3

.l _

- r . . . . . . . .

SAFIi7 I7ALUATIC;I: Ansner the felicwing :uesti:ns wi th a 'ys:' :r ' :' ,

and pr:vids,ssecific reascas justifying :he incisien: i b  !. .

!s one :r:bability cf an, cce.:r seca. :Me ::nsecuence efas2n;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

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

C 2.

^ tytt than any crsvicusly evalua:ad in the Fina! Safety 2,uly:is Yes V No, w Re ert creatad?

m *

'. M+ .

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

Yes >< No , .

Sceci'icati:n. reduced?

I 1I "

Anv Ansser

• Yes ( 1 All Ans*deM Mc M a .. .

Recue: inc . tetive ?!ucitar F :aqui z=: / Omri.$.s ica

, 2:==M : 1 i:n ! Jr :.' tete. .

s

(-,

I .' ' I-4 =: n ti:n ?.ectived ( ) . ,

.. t._

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

!.-DI ementati:n i , C '*l0TE:

1

]

i.

7; any ins er escut 'yes' s . uld te r:: r:tc in :na

• Per':r ad by_ // N[

Ennu21.-t: r :: =: .!KC.

[; [

Cata 84 asp a- .

1, 3 __ _

O " 9m w=-

a ~ ., ,- e , , - -

, s S *

• LAP'82022-

}- ATTACHMENT F Revision 19 (Page 1 of 2} April 7, 14A7 l' .

10CFR50.53 FORMAT FOR SAFETY EVALUATION il'AT10N [a UNIT l l

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

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

l ,

0-TEST / PROCEDURE TITLE 4r Tw6 N255 REVISION 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&,

N N .

Q mho<.a/ af& -

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

= end provide- senific

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

reesens justifyirs the decision:

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

' .- 1. e ecpipment inwnt to sciety es previously ow:lueted in ths 4 AbrFinci y Sciety Anclys Yes  % No, Becausa: , M wa.,,g increeed?  % GCA+OM0

/>c f nx.smC4 & ~d>u  % Mk /uusx sM-sa s u 4/ Q s W<.d,&L .no ey cc4a.cpw #J

2. Is theinpersi'aility evaluated fer Repcer the Final Saisty Analysis en cceident created? er malfunction Yes See usa:

of a

,9 * . w epe?v a'ad n Y y ( A , d d V N M CL M

<^'<e d d b r l snc.tw4 cf mene l

g in ep,_terg, c2 defined in the xgbcsis fer eny Technic

3. Is the g'gix,pwsW ,?5 Y&& ""'

"YES" shoul b ted in the Annual Recort.

, e' y enec to the NRC

^

l' l

em.=rm=c

. y2 i e_A _

~. Re =

j

_.. A p wd ty , / LP - 3a64

- . ~ . ._ _

, e

'! ~-~ -- .

LAP-320-2 . ~

l ..

q-Revision j9

. A III 7., 1982 21 fina!.

.", 5 - ATTACHMENT F

~

- - (Page 2 of 2)

'm .

SAFETY EVALUATION CHECKLIST (10 FR 50.53) (::,

.*-)* ,. ,

g TEST / PROCEDURE No. L /33)62

- REV I3(CN *2 Does this constitute a change to precedures m ,

as described in Safety Analysis Report?

.lo

~

J (c: ( )

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

.i..'.}fnvcived? .I

.,cws. - r ..

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

P ' :' ,

I L. SAF1E'i / IVAL"ATIC I

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

C 1,. Is es :re: ability cf an ec=r tnes. Se c:nsecuence c' 23is :rt'if :ly

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

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

Yes fNo, lce4 44 %g PSAL t

2. Is the ;cssibf1f ty f:r- an ac:idant 'er eemaifuncti:n

.:fnst Saft:y of aLn if ffar sis n:

{* ^

ty;e can any =rtvicusly evalut: Ha, W /%.W Re:cr: crts:st? Yes r- "w ts>

" , F5M'-

N . -

3.. Is :ne argin cf saferf, as defined in the.o, basis82ot f:r any Tc=ricalo M Scecificatien, rtducad7 Yes M' - -

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 r tOTT.:

!=cI t=ents:icn -

i f, '

i -

Any snswer =ecu 'yes*

7tr'::-ned by Q} L s

- :- s. utt :e rt::r te in 2

• tenua.i es:Or. = = : .;XC.

[ :ata G G O f-l

_ )

.W

,4 t !

h

.I ._

~- - . _ . _ - , ,

' ' ' -- , , ,