ML20059H020
| ML20059H020 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1993 |
| From: | Scott A COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| AMS-93-011, AMS-93-11, NUDOCS 9311090249 | |
| Download: ML20059H020 (125) | |
Text
.-
O 22710206 Avenue North Commonwealth Edison Quad Cities Nuclear Power Stat!on Corcova, Illinois 61242 Telephone 339/654-2241 AMS-93-011 October 12, 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 EE.ariments 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 September 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
/$-lf,$j
'l 4
Anthony M.
Scott System Engineering Supervisor AMS/dak Enclosure 08a011 cc:
J. Martin, Regional Administrator T.
Taylor, Senior Resident Inspector SAFETYtNRC.LTR 9311090249 931012 6
/ 8 I
PDR ADOCK 05000254 s
R PDR ji
,. ' N,.
i SE-93-139 Temporary Alteration 93-1-40 DESCRIPTION:
This change shimed the pipe support (M-994D-585) on the i
crossover pipe (1-1003D-12") for the 1D RHRSW Pump.
This is a dead weight support that was found to have a small gap i
between the support and base plate that increased the vibration of the 1D RHRSW Pump.
1 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:
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, i
or component could lead to the accident.
l The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
[
s LOCA 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 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 change will ensure that the dead weight support will transfer its load to its base plate and by doing this will reduce the 1D RHRSW Pump vibrations.
j This change does not introduce any new-or unanalyzed failure modes because it is ensuring that the dead weight-support will perform its intended function.
Therefore, the change does not adversely effect the operation of any plant components, and will not create-the possibility of an
)
accident or malfunction different from those previously-i evaluated in the FSAR.
3.
The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, is not reduced because this change reduces the vibration induced by the piping in the IB RHRSW pump.
Therefore, the pump reliability is increased and the availability of the RHRSW Pump is increased.
TECHOP3'. SAFETY \\035EFERPT
Temporary Alt.
DESCRIPTION:
Removed the south hypochlorite sparger located in the southwest condenser waterbox because it vibrated excessively which could have lead to leaks in the condenser waterbox wall.
The pipe was not capped off when removed because the hypochlorite sparger has holes to allow the dispersion of-chemicals.
These holes allow the unused hypochlorite piping to fill up with circulating water from the condenser waterboxes.
The hypochlorite piping is isolated upstream to stop leaks from occurring.
}
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1 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.
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:
[
Loss of Condenser Vacuum UFSAR SECTION 15.2.5 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.
t 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 worst case of all failure modes are bound by the loss of condenser accident analysis.
All l
failure modes lead to flooding under the hotwell.
Condensate flood protection will be maintained-throughout this installation.
Thus, in the event of flooding the circulating water pumps would trip at 5 foot level.
Loss of-circulating water pumps is a potential initiator to a loss
.l of condenser vacuum accident.
l 3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
t twvansenimsen.nn
,f L
I
i l
Temp Alt.
i f
DESCRIPTION:
i l
This temporary alteration installed drain plugs in the RCIC pump base plate drain.
These drains were discovered to run into a common header that protruded through a flood barrier (wall) into the reactor building basement.
The check valve in this line was disassembled and inspected.
Therefore, to maintain the proper flooding protection these plugs were installed into the basepla** drain.
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 j
UFSAR analysis.
i 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, l
or component could lead to the accident.
l l
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
t l
Flooding UFSAR SECTION 3.4 l
t For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of 1
an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or i
malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
s 2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a 1
different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is l
not created because the installation of these drain plugs i
change the leakage boundary from a active component to a
{
passive component.
In doing this the reliability of the flooding protection system increases.
The installation of these drain plugs do not create an accident or malfunction j
greater than the failure of the check valve itself.
I 3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
4 TEG OP35A E n v3$UTRM
{
4 i
SE-93-141 QARP Procedures DESCRIPTION:
f Changes / upgrades were made to existing QARP Appendix R Safe Shutdown Procedures to make the procedures properly reflect requirements of the Safe Shutdown Analysis.
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 t
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:
l Design Basis Fire UFSAR SECTION Safe Shutdown Analysis (Various sections)
{
For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of i
l an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or ralfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
r 2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of.a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because the procedure changes do not adversely i
impact any systems or functions.
The changes make the QARPs
}
accurately reflect the requirements of the Safe Shutdown i
Analysis.
Reviews including Technical Review, Cross-Discipline Review and procedure validation have been i
utiliced to prevent the introduction of new failure modes.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any l
Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not j
reduced 1
I i
l 3
f SE-93-142 Temporary Alteration 93-1-46, 93-2-120 DESCRIPTION:
An Exhaust Fan has been installed in the Reactor Recirculation Motor Generator Set (RR MG Set) Scoop tube i
positioner cabinet to ensure component cooling.
Fan is properly fused, and is fed from line in terminal to the scoop tube positioner which is fed from 120 vac essential services supply bus.
Fan leads have a plug connector to allow isolation of the fan and disassembly of the cabinet for routine calibrations and maintenance.
i SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
t 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:
RR Flow CNTR failure increasing flow UFSAR SECTION 15.4.5 RR Flow CNTR failure decreasing flow UFSAR SECTION 15.3.2.1 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 i
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 j
i not created because the fan is properly fused and mounted in the cabinet such that the probability that it should lead to a failure is the same as the probability of any other component in the cabinet.
However, any failure interaction that the fan could have with the scoop tube positioner would lead to a scoop tube lock up, a full speed. demand, or a zero l
speed demand.
All three of these possible outcomes are l
within the design of the system and the analysis of the reactor system.
No other interactions with any systems will occur, so no new accident or malfunction scenarios are introduced.
TECHOP3 SAFTWi93SDTRN i
m
i
)
+
SE-93-142 CONTD I
i
+
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.
i I
+
i 1
I i
f
.i i
6
)
Ii f
i
?
t I
t I
i
?
1 t
f
-lr
[
]
i i
i I
'I t
I TECHOP3tSAFETYt935EPT.RPT
-I f
4
-t
-)
I i
L fE-93-144 OCUS 201-2 Rev. 2 i
i i
DESCRIPTIOlt:
Included requirement to monitor and manually record Reactor Coolant heatup or cooldown rates and Reactor Vessel Shell to Reactor Vessel Shell Flange dT during Reactor heatups and cooldowns.
Included requirement to verify that Reactor Pressure / Reactor Metal Temperature during Reactor heatups and cooldowns are in accordance with limits specified in TS Figure 3.6-1.
1 SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the 1
i UFSAR where any of the following is true:
l 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.
r Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
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 this procedure revision does not direct any actions which could adversely impact systems or functions so as to create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the i
This procedure only directs the operator to maintain
,1 Reactor Coolant heatup and cooldown rates within the limits of Technical Specifications 3.6.A and 3.6.B.
l 3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any l
Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not j
reduced.
4 1
TfrHOP3 SUITY 4MfRRPT l.
SE-93-146 Temporary Alteration 93-1-47 DESCRIPTION:
The 1/2-3998-3"-0, non safety related service water supply to the glycol chillers, developed a leak at a weld of a 90 degree elbow.
To control the leak a foam rubber patch and
[
pipe clamps were installed.
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 after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
For each of these accidents, it has been 6etermined 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 this temporary alteration does not adversely impact any system.
It is just a patch to stop a leak that even if the patch were not installed would not have any affect on plant operation.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
-I SE-93-147 l
DCR 4-92-372
)
DESCRIPTION:
i Changes were performed to update the component support I
detail drawings for ISI hangers 1404-M-104,1025-M-104 and 2305-W-102 to reflect the as-built field conditions or re-adjust spring can settings w/ tolerances.
Hanger 1404-M-104 drawing was updated to reflect a size 11 variable spring can with load setting of 1550 lbs 10%.
Hanger 2305-W-102 drawing was updated to reflect proper configuration of the auxiliary support steel.
Hanger 1025-M-104 drawing was updated to reflect the use of a tack weld as a locking l
device.
j 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 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,
-p or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
j High Energy Piping Inside UFSAR SECTION 3.6.2.2 Primary Containment I
Containment Response to a LOCA UFSAR SECTION 6.2.1.3.2 I
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 j
malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
i i
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a l
different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because the changes being performed are on piping supports.
These piping supports and the systems tnat i
they support have been analyzed by engineering and found to be acceptable.
(See Engineering letter's CHRON #0117325, 0118107 & 0118117).
No new accident or malfunction of a rype different from those evaluated in the UFSAR has been created.
I i
ncuon,ss.ramesntme i
l
a p
I t
SE-93-147 CONTD -
I 3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in-the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not-reduced.
i 6
'l t
I o
t e
i I
l l
t f
i t
i h
e l
'I l
-1 ncnon sArtnester.nrr i
V
+
l SE-93-150 QCAN 9 01 (2 ) B - 3 t
DESCRIPTION
- e l
I l
Gave direction to isolate Reactor Building Ventilation if both the Reactor Building Ventilation Sampler and the Reactor Building Ventilation Continuous Air Monitor are bCch inoperable.
1 SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine.
l 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.
l l
The changed structure, system or component is l
explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or j
after the accident.
j Operation or f ai 2re of the changed structurc, system, 6
or component could lead to the accident.
i l
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 j
malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously 1
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 Tech Specs allow gaseous effluent releases to continue as long as a samples are continuously i
collected.
This procedure change directs the shutdown and isolation of the Reactor Building Ventilation if equipment failures occur that do not allow a continuous sample to be taken.
The shutdown and isolation of the Reactor Building Ventilation system does not adversely impact systems or functions so as to create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a type different from those 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 l
reduced.
l TECHOPF.5AITO'\\935EPT.RM i
I i
i i
l l
}
i M04-0-84-016-B Fire Protection Suppression and Detection
]
i 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 ensures adequate operation of existing safety equipment and i
safety related equipment in the immediate area of installation.
l 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 installation 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 l
and detection is not Safety Related.
The reliability of the Fire Protection system is increased by providing this additional suppression and detection.
j i
i i
TECHLP3 3 ATETr\\93 SEPT.Pff
i i
i l
E04-2-93-164 a
DESCRIPTION:
j The change to the HPCI Turbine Oil transfer line added two (2) supports.
One (1) on the (SR) suction side and one (1) on the (NSR) discharge side.
This was in order to bring the (SR) suction side back within FSAR allowables.
This also j
gave lateral support and stability to the free end of the
-i (NSR) discharge side.
?
The reason for the change was due to the fact that the 2-5105 transfer pump was removed.
This pump served as the main support for the system.
Once removed the line did not i
have adequate seismic support rendering it out of FSAR allowables.
This exempt change made the temporary removal of the 2-5105 i
transfer pump permanent.
f 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:
{
I 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.
4 I
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:
4 4
]
LOCA (Bounding)
SAR SECTION 15.6.5 loss of 4
coolant accidents j
resulting from i
J piping breaks inside i
containment.
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 I
TLOtoP3.5 AFLT)'S35EPT.RPT 4
3
l t
t E04-2-93-164 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 there are-no systems affected by this change other than the HPCI Turbine Oil transfer line, which will now be supported with the seismic criteria stated in the FSAR and will upgrade the system' reliability.
No new failure modes are introduced by-this modification.
The removal of the HPCI Turbine oil transfer pump does not significantly affect HPCI reliability or availability.
r I
j 3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
i e
I i
t
.1 i
J i
i
.h F
I 1
i L
TECllOP3 SAFI'n'\\935EPT.RPT E
[
.t i
E04-1-93-167 l
I DESCRIPTION:
The change to the 1-5647-A RHR Room Cooler filter element added a new cover.
This was in order to keep the filter-j element in place.
l The reason for the change was to replace the missing cover for the filter element.
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 i
explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, 1
or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
[
LOCA_(Bounding)
SAR SECTION 15.6.5 t
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 there are no systems affected by this change other than the RHR Room Cooler filter element, which will now be back to original design.
No new failure modes or system interactions are created by this design change.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any f
Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
l f
i TEC'llOP3'5ATETYW35 EFT.RPT 4
E04-1-93-161 DESCR.IPTION:
The change to the HPCI Turbine Exhaust Instrument Sensing
{
Lines and Gland Seal condenser Sensing Line added a pipe l
clamp support.
The pipe clamp was clamped to existing HPCI Turbine Exhaust Line 1-2306-20".
The reason for the change was due to the fact that the as-found condition of the instrument sensing lines did not meet the Quad Cities seismic design criteria, rendering the lines out of FSAR allowables.
i SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
r 1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine r
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.
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:
1 LOCA (Bounding)
SAR SECTION 15.6.5 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 there are no systems affected by this change other than the HPCI Turbine Exhaust Pressure Instrument Lines, which will now be supported with the seismic criteria stated in the FSAR and will upgrade the i
system reliability.
No new failure modes are introduced by this design change.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any 4
Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
1 TECHOP3.SMITT935 Err.RFT a.
c.
M04-1-87-002D l
~!
l DESCRIPTION:
This design dampened the vibration amplitudes occurring at l
vane-pass frequency by angling the volute inlet edges (cut-i water).
This will decrease the dynamic forces causing the
[
vibration.
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:
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.
Operation or failure of.the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed _alow:
LOCA (bounding)
SAR SECTION 15 For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the.
I change described above will net 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 design will modify the RHRSW pump internals by angling the volute's inlet edges (cut-water).
This will decrease the dynamic force created by the interaction between the impeller vane pressure wake and the volutes, reducing the vibration amplitudes occurring at vane-pass frequency.
The reliability of the pump and its components are increased and pump performance will be improved.
No new accidents or eqpipment malfunctions are i
created by this design.
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 tumonaarnesuT.an-r
QCAP 1000-6 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT A (Page 1 of 1)
OFFSITE REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTION TRA Quad C! ties Nudear Power Station 9/1//3 bE D-lM.
Date:
Reference Number:
Subject:
'f,wp Al/
'/.3
/ - 4 0 Submitted by:
//w /S/4tu /
'FOR REVIEW:
Safety EvaluationsRQIinvolving an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFR 1.
tor:
Changes to procedures as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
a.
Changes to coulpment or systems as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
b.
Tests or experiments NOT described in the Safety Analysis Report.
c.
Proposed changes which involve an unreviewed safety question es defined in 10CFR 2.
Procedure changes.
a.
b.
Equipment or system changes.
Tests or experiments.
c.
P10 posed &Jiges to the Techni::a! SpeGE=tinns or Operating Ucense.
3.
Noncompliance with codes, regulations, orders, Technical Specircations, reense requirements, or intema! picr.dures or irstinctions having nudear safety significance.
4.
Sign!ficant operating abnormalities or deviations from normal and expected p 5.
plant equipment that affects nudear safety.
6.
All REPORTABLE EVEffrS (LERs only).
A!! recognized indications of an unanticipated deficiency in design or operation of 7.
related structures, systems, or comprxsics.
All changes to the Matinn Emergency Plan prior to implement-M l
8.
A!! Items referred by the Systems Engineering Supervisor, Station Manager, Site Vice 9.
President, and General Manager of Quality Programs and Assessmerra.
.... -,. - w N e
.:FORINFORIAATION:
- 10. Other OSR items /DocumentsRQIaddressed above.
This Transmitta! is being made in accordance with Quad Cities Nudear Power Sta Technical Specifications 6.1.G.2.d(1) for information only. No spec!!1c action is l
l unless deemed necessary by Offstte Review and irrvestigative Function.
l 8
s
CGE QCAP 1100-9 i
UNIT 1(2) i REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 1 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION
.i i
GENERAL INFORMATION:
~
Safsty Evaluation Number:
SE-7 3
- /38 D6cument identifier: Temperary Alteration ' 3~/-M l
fhAgd feestion. Toe D Aft.. Wo* 9equoy' 8*.r'ste, 9tc f Unit (s): Unit 1 System (s):1000 RHR SW Applicable Plant Mode (s): ALL
]
mm s,.m.~,, s..,iw %.t sve-,
Plant Mode Restriction (s):NONE E
i List Multiple Procedures Affected Below:
i t
Procedure Number' Procedure Number Procedure N' umber '
' Procedure Number -'
f 5
i
- i CHANGE DESCRIPTION:
l
- 1. Describe the proposed change:
i This change shims the pipe support (M-994D-585) on the crossover pipe (1-1003D-12")for the 1D RHRSW f
. Pump. This is a dead weight support that was found to have a small gap between the support and base plate j
that is increasing the vibration of the 1D RHRSW Pump.
i i
5
- 2. Reason for the change:
3 This will reduce the vibration on the 1D RHRSW pump and ensure that the dead weight support will transfer the wiecht to the base plat.
4
- 3. Is the change:
.g X
Permanent Temporary - Expected Duration:
l
~
CGE j
QCAP'1100-9
j UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 2 of 8) 10CFR50.5E SAFETY EVALUATION.
j l
-REFERENCE DOCUINENTS:
'j i
4.
List reference documents used which describe the structure, system, or component. Identify
{
documents referenced even if no information was found in that section.
a.
UFSAR Section(s): 3.9,9.2 b.
SER Section(s):
c.
Tech. Spec. Section(s):3.5.B.2, 3
\\
d.
Fire Protection Program Document Pkg Section(s):
t e.
Code of Federal Regulations Section(s):
I f.
Regulatory Guides /NUREGs:
i i
g.
Other:
-j EVALUATION:
5.
Describe how plant operation is affected when the structure, system, or component function is
)
changed as intended (i.e., focus on system operation / interactions in the absence of equipment failures). Consider all applicable operating modes. Include a discussion of any changed i
interactions with other structures, systems, or components.
j This change will ensure that the dead wieght support will transfer its load to base plate and by doing
)
this will reduce the 1D RHRSW Pump vibrations. Therefore, the change does not adversly dffect the
_l operation of any plant conponents, it ensure the ability of the support to carry the dead weight and improves the reliability of the 1D RHRSW Pump by reducing the vibrations.
I i
6.
Describe how the change will affect equipment failures. Describe any new failure modes and their impact during all applicable operating modes.
This will not effect equipment failures. This change will consist of a ridged shim that will be tack welded in place ensure proper transfer of weight to the support baseplate. No new failure modes will be created.
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2) _
{
REVISION O 1
i ATTACHMENT G (Page 3 of 8)
~
j 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION j
EVALUATION (cont'd):
7.
Identify each accident or anticipated transient (i.e., large/small break LOCA, loss of load, turbine '
l missiles, fire, flooding) 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 l
function during or after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead'to the accident.
LOCA l
i l
}
l i
.i i
i 8.
List each Technical Specification (Safety Limit, Limiting Safety System Setting, or Limiting f
Condition for Operation) where the requirement, associated action items, associated surveillances, or bases may be affected. To determine factors affecting the specification, it is necessary to review the UFSAR and SER where the Technical Specification Bases section does not explicitly state the basis.
SURVEILLANCE.5.B.2, 3.5.B.3 4
l 9.
Will the change involve a Technical Specification revision?
i YES X
NO If a Technical Specification revision is involved, the change cannot be implemented until the NRC issues a license amendment. When completing Step 14, indiocate that a Technical Specification revision is
{
required.
1 k
.m..
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 4 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
- 10. To determine if the probability or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the UFSAR may be increased, use one copy of these pages to answer the following questions for each accident listed in Step
- 7. Provide rationale for all NO answers.
Affected accident:
UFSAR Section:
- a. May the probability of the accident be increased?
j YES j
X NO The change adds a shim to an existing support to ensure the support transfers the dead weight to the baseplate. This change does not impact any components that increases the probability of a LOCA.
t
- b. May the consequences of the accident (off-site dose) be increased?
YES x
NO This change increase the reliability of the 1D RHRSW Pump by reducing the vibration induced by the crossover line between the low pressure and high pressure pump. Therefore, the availability of this effected component willincrease which will ensure that the consequences of the accident will not be increased.
t
6
'6 CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 5 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION
)
EVALUATION (cont'd):
- c. May the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety increase?
YES X
NO This change reduces vibration that is induced in the low pressure RHRSW Pump by shimming a support on the crossover line between the low pressure and hi h pressure pumps. This irnproves the reliability and D
performance of this pump, therefore,this reduces the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety.
i i
- d. May the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety increase?
YES x
NO The consequences of this failure will be the same with or with the shims installed.
l i
If any answer to Question 10 is YES, then an Unreviewed Safety Question exists.
}
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 6 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
- 11. Based on the answers to Questions 5 and 6, does the change adversely impact systems or functions so as i
to create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the UFSAR?
[
YES I
X NO Describe the rationale for your answer.
This change will ensure that the dead weight support will transfer its load to its base plate and by doing this will reduce the 1D RHRSW Pump vibrations. This change does not introduce any new or unanlyzed failure modes because it is ensuring that the dead weight support will perform its intended function. Therefore, the change does not adversely effect the operation of any plant components, and will not create the possibility of an accident or malfunction different form those previously evaluated in the FSAR.
l i
4 l
If any answer to Question 11 is YES, then an Untuviewed Safety Question exists.
CGE I
QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 7 of.8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
- 12. Determine if parameters used to establish the Technical Specification limits are chenged. Use one copy of this page to answer the following questions for each Technical Specification listed in Step 8. If no Technical Specifications are impacted, then no reduction in margin of safety exists. Proceed to Step 14.
Technical Specification:3.5.B.2,3 Determine which of the following is true for the above specification:
X All changes to the parameters or conditions used to establish the Technical Specification requirements are in a conservative direction. The actual acceptance limit need not be identified to determine that no reduction in margin of safety exists. Proceed to Step 13.
The Technical Specification provides a margin of safety or acceptance limit for the applicable parameter or condition. List the limit (s) or margin (s) below.
The applicable parameter or condition change is in a potentially non-conservative direction and the Technical Specification neither provides an acceptance limit nor explicitly references a limit in the UFSAR. Request Nuclear Licensing assistance to identify the acceptance limit or margin for the Margin of Safety determination. List the limit (s) or margin (s) below.
The change does not affect any parameters upon which the Technical Specifications are based; therefore, there is no reduction in the margin of safety. Proceed to Step 14.
List Acceptance Limit (s)/ Margin (s) of Safety
- 13. Use the above limits identified in Step 12 to determine if the margin of safety is reduced (i.e., the new values exceed the acceptance limits). Describe the rationale for your determination, include a description of compensating factors used to reach that conclusion.
This change reduces the vibration induced by the piping in the 1B RHRSW pump. Therefore, the pump reliability is increased and the availability of the RHRSW Pump is increased.
~
CGE QCAP 1100-9
[
UNIT 1(2)-
l REVISION O r
ATTACHMENT G (Page 8 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION l
EVALUATION (cont'd):
I i
l
- 14. Check one of the following:
An Unreviewed Safety Question was identified in Step 10, Step 11, or Step 13. The l
Proposed change MUST NOT be implemented without NRC approval.
l X
No unreviewed Safety Question will result (Steps 10,11, and 13) AND no Technical Specification revision will be involved. The change may be implemented in accordance with applicable procedures.
A Technical Specification revision is involved; but no Unreviewed Safety Question will result. The proposed change requires a License Amendment. Notify Station Regulatory Assurance and Nuclear Licensing that a Technical Specification revision is required. Indicate applicable type (s) below:
i The change is not a plant modification or minor plant change and will not be f
implemented under 10CFR50.59. Upon receipt of the approved Technical Specification change from i
the NRC, the change may be implemented.
?
i The change is a plant modification or minor plant change. Indicate applicable type (s) below:
A revision to an existing Technical Specification is required. The change MUST NOT be installed until receipt of an approved Technical Specification revision.
i The change will not conflict with any existing Technical Specifications and only new Technical Specifications are required, in these cases, Nuclear Licensing may authorize the installation, but not operation, prior to receipt of NRC approval of the License Amendment. If such authorization is
{
granted, the block below should be checked.
Nuclear Licensing has autnorized installation, but no operation, prior to receipt of f
the NRC approval of License Amendment. The 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation indicates. + hat no j
Unreviewpd Safety Question will result, and provides authority for installation only.
t Preparer /Date: kk' Eh l
I
- 15. Documentation is adequate to support the above conclusion and the conclusion is valid.
l Reviewer /Date:
A
- 16. Obtain a Safety Evaluation number from the Systems Engineering Clerk. Record on Page 1.
f c
- 17. Leave 1 Safety Evaluation copy with Systems Engineering Clerk. File original with package.
t
l Completed:
Systems Ersgineering Clerk initials: %t Date:
$ 3-7) j I
l (final)
w.
m.=-
^^- --
Revision 3-
{
VERBAL APPROVAL TRACKING FORM June 1991.
l DOCUMENT:
j i
Temporary Procedure No.
/4 Maint/ Modification Rev.
l Work Request No..
Other
& AP ue-7 Performed By A. %-es e'
j i
Contact Approval Section:
i Person Contacted:
Jim bhb10 Coments:
Lua a A cect td~.
Date 9/2191 Time co3o Performed By:
\\it t, FM
_j 7
e i
Person Contacted:
Coments:
Date T1me l
Performed By:
i
[3 Person Contacted:
Coments:
Date Time i
Performed By:
l Person Contacted:
Coments:
Date Time I
Performed By:
-l.
Person Contacted:
Coments:
Date
' Time Performed By:
l 5
6.
Person Contacted:
Coments:
l Date Time Performed By:
l
}
y
- (final)
APPROVED I
18/0641a JUN 18199) t Q.C.O.S.R.
QCAP 1000-6 J
UNIT 1(2)
^
REVISION O 1
ATTACHMENT A (Page 1 of 1)
OFFSITE REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTION TRANSMITTAL i
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Reference Number: 4 F - 4 % - #
/ 3cf
!C7.o Date: 9- ?O Sublect: %y ;$ft ll11,4u a nn fbc re a h :n v, m dI 1e
,wi s. k flnhb M J ha k'.,a h ( a c c h ls t w e kle r. h wrn pe evaAvo cec tmbc N Submitted by: // fc / g g /
eToac FOR REVIEW:
Safety Evaluations 1[QIinvolving an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59 1.
for:
Changes to procedures as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
a.
b.
Changes to equipment or systems as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
Tests or experiments NOT described in the Safety Analysis Report.
c.
Proposed changes which involve an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59.
2.
a.
Procedure changes.
b.
Equipment or system changes.
c.
Tests or experiments.
3.
Proposed changes to the Technical Specifications or Operating Ucense.
l Noncompliance with codes, regulations, orders, Technical Specifications, license 4.
requirements, or intemal procedures or instructions having nuclear safety significance.
Significant operating abnorma!!tles or deviations from normal and expected performance of 5.
plant equipment that affects nuclear safety.
6.
All REPORTABLE EVENTS (LERs only).
All recognized indications of an unanticipated deficiency in design or operation of safety-7.
related structures, systems, or components.
l 8.
All changes to the Station Emergency Plan prior to implementation.
9.
Mi items referred by the Systems Engineering Supervisor, Station Manager, Site Vice f
President, and General Manager of Qua!!!y Progwns and Assessments.
'FOR INFORMATION:
- 10. Other OSR ltems/DocumentsJE!I addressed above.
This Transml::al is being made in accordance with Quad Cities fkclear Power Station Technical Specifications 6.1.G.2.d(1) for information only. No specific action is required unless deemed necessary by Offstte Review and Investigative Function.
8
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O l
ATTACHMENT G (Page 1 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION GENERAL INFORMATION:
Safety Evaluation Number:
- /.37 Document identifier: Temp. Alt.
i uoy.e.,,, %,,
a.,
w
%-, em,,e,
i Unit (s):Two System (s):3301, 4400, 4500 Applicable Plant Mode (s):ALL mm s.~ wo,,,,3.y w ss Plant Mode Restriction (s):NONE List Multiple Procedures Affected Below:
Procedure Number Procedure Number Procedure Number Procedure Number l
Nons i
CHANGE DESCRIPTION:
- 1. Describe the proposed change:
Removing the south hypochlorite sparger located in the southwest condenser waterbox because it vibrates excessively which could lead to leaks in the condenser waterbox wall. The pipe will not be capped off when removed because the hypochlorite sparger has holes to allow the dispersion of chemicals. These holes will
+
al low the unused hypochlorite piping to fill up with circulating water from the condenser waterboxes. The hypochlorite piping is isolated upstream to stop leaks from occurring.
- 2. Reason for the change:
The vibrating of the hypochlorite sparger is causing the area around the welds on the condenser waterboxes to leak.
l i
i
- 3. Is the change:
Permanent j
l
f-CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT-1(2)
REVISION O
- ?
X Temporary - Expected Duration:15 months i
L i
t
.i P-f b
a 5
a P
i L
l l
r l
4
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 2 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
4.
List reference documents used which describe the structure, system, or component. identify documents referenced even if no inforrr.ation was found in that section.
a.
UFSAR Section(s):10.4, 3.4, 9.4,15.0, 5.5.2 k
b.
SER Section(s):
c.
Tech. Spec. Section(s):3.5/4.5, 3.1/4.1 d.
Fire Protection Program Document Pkg Section(s):
e.
Code of Federal Regulations Section(s):
f.
Regulatory Guides /NUREGs:
g.
Other: Safety Evaluation SE-93-101
[
EVALUATION:
5.
Describe how plant operation is affected when the structure, system, or component function is changed as intended (i.e., focus on system operation / interactions in the absence of equipment failures). Consider all applicable operating modes. Include a discussion of any changed interactions with other structures, systems, or components.
~
There will be no changes to plant operation. The hypochlorite spargers are not currently being used, the hypochlorite injection point is in the Crib House. This is being done under a Temp. Alt. and Safety Evaluation SE-93-101.
Circulating water will enter the hypochlorite line easier than if the sparger was I
still present, but the end result of having circulating water in the hypochlorite line will not be changed.
With or without the sparger in the waterbox, the hypochlorite line would be full of circulating water.
f F
6.
Describe how the change will affect equipment failures. Describe any new failure modes and their impact during all applicable operating modes.
No new failure modes will be introduced by the removing of the hypochlorite sparger. The remaining 3 inch pipe will allow for an easier path for the circulating water to flow, but with or without the sparger, the hypochlorite line will be full of circulating water. The isolating valve for the hypochlorite line will r
see no different pressure exerted from the circulating water.
I t
W
~
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 3 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
7 7.
Identify each accident or anticipated transient (i.e., large/small break LOCA, loss of load, turbine missiles, fire, flooding) 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.
Loss of Condenser Vacuum 15.2.5 t
8.
List each Technical Specification (Safety Limit, Limiting Safety System Setting, or Limiting Condition for Operation) where the requirement, associated action items, associated surveillances, or bases may be affected. To determine factors affecting the specification, it is necessary to review the UFSAR and SER where the Technical Specification Bases section does not explicitly state the basis.
N/A 9.
Will the change involve a Technical Specification revision?
YES X
NO
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O
}:.
If a Technical Specification revision is involved, the change cannot be implemented until the NRC issues a license amendment. When completing Step 14, indiocate that a Technical Specification revision is required.
t
)
t t
f
,9 9
t i
r l
2
CGE'
.QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(3)
.j REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page.4 of 8) i 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION
'l 1
EVALUATION (cont'dli
- 10. To determine if the probability or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the UFSAR may be increased, use.
~!
one copy of these paDes to answer the following questions for each accident listed in Step-l
- 7. Provide rationale for all NO answers.
Affected accidentioss of Condenser Vacuum UFSAR Section:15.2.5 i
- a. May the probability of the accident be increased?
YES X
NO l
t The probability of a failure of the hypochlorite line or of the hypochlorite line isolation valve is j
no Dreater than that of the failure of the hypochlorite sparger itself. The hypochlorite line and isolation valve will see the same amount of water pressure with or without the sparDer. The l
line will see a decrease in the amount of vibration induced stress at the welded point where the hypochlorite line enters the condenser waterbox when the sparger is removed.
l i
t
.i
?
I i
- b. May the consequences of the accident (off-site dose) be increased?
YES i
X NO The consequences of the accident will not be increased because this change has no impact on any components which perform reactor safety function. This change will not affect flood protection in any way. Further, the CirculatinD Water system and Condenser are no credited for any reactor safety functions. The bounds of this accident are not exceeded by this temporary alteration.
9
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 5 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
- c. May the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety increase?
YES X
NO The probability of a failure of the remaining hypochlorite line is no greater than the probability of the failure of the hypochlorite line with the sparger attached. The sparger is being removed because it is vibrating and causing the area around the welded portion of the entry point to see higher than normal stresses. By removing the sparger, this high stress area will be relieved.
t i
- d. May the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety increase?
YES X
NO The consequences of a malfunction would be no worse than analyzed in this accident. The worst consequence would be a loss of condenser vacuum.
t I
1 If any answer to Question 10 is YES, then an Unreviewed Safety Question exists.
ATTACHMENT G (Page 6 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
I REVISION O r.
- 11. Based on the answers to Questions 5 and 6, does the change adversely impact systems or functions so as to create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the r
UFSAR7 YES X
NO Describe the rationale for your answer.
The worst case of all failure modes are bound by the loss of condenser accident analysis. All failure modes lead to flooding under the hotwell. Condensate flood protection will be maintained throughout this installation.
Thus, in the event of flooding the circulating water pumps would trip at 5 foot level. Loss of circulating water pumps is a potential initiator to a loss of condenser vacuum accident.
1 9
i l
t i
c i
i If any answer to Question 11 is YES, then an Unreviewed Enfety Question exists.
.1-f t
4 t
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O 1
ATTACHMENT G (Page 7 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION i
EVALUATION (cont'd):
- 12. Determine if parameters used to establish the Technical Specification limits are changed. Use one copy of this page to answer the following questions for each Technical Specification listed in Step 8. If no Technical Specifications are impacted, then no reduction in margin of safety exists. Proceed to Step 14.
Technical Specification:
Determine which of the following is true for the above specifica^ ion All changes to the parameters or conditions used to establish the Technical Specification requirements are in a conservative direction. The actual acceptance limit need not be identified to determine that no reduction in margin of safety exists. Proceed to Step 13.
The Technical Specification provides a margin of safety or acceptance limit for the applicable parameter or condition. List the limit (s) or margin (s) below.
The applicable parameter or condition change is in a potentially non-conservative direction and the Technical Specification neither provides an acceptance limit nor explicitly references a limit in the UFSAR. Request Nuclear Licensing assistance to identify the acceptance limit or margin for the Margin of Safety determination. List the limit (s) or margin (s) below.
X The change does not affect any parameters upon which the Technical Specifications are based; therefore, there is no reduction in the margin of safety. Proceed to Step 14.
List Acceptance Limit (s)/ Margin (s) of Safety N/A f
- 13. Use the above limits identified in Step 12 to determine if the margin of safety is reduced (i.e., the new
{
values exceed the acceptance limits). Describe the rationale for your determination. Include a description j
of compensating factors used to reach that conclusion.
N/A i
r t
t i
I i
I
f ccE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 8 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION i
EVALUATION (cont'd):
- 14. Check one of the following:
An Unreviewed Safety Question was identified in Step 10, Step 11, or Step 13. The Proposed change MUST NOT be implemented without NRC approval.
X No unreviewed Safety Question will result (Steps 10,11, and 13) AND no Technical Specification revision will be involved. The change may be implemented in accordance with applicable procedures.
A Technical Specification revision is involved; but no Unreviewed Safety Question will result. The proposed change requires a License Amendment. Notify Station Regulatory Assurance and Nuclear Licensing that a Technical Specification revision is required. Indicate applicable type (s) below:
The change is not a plant modification or minor plant change and wi!! not be i
implemented under 10CFR50.59. Upon receipt of the approved Technical Specification change from the NRC, the change may be implemented.
The change is a plant modification or minor plant change. Indicate applicable type (s) below:
A revision to an existing Technical Specification is required. The change MUST NOT be installed until receipt of an approved Technical Specification revision.
l The change will not conflict with any existing Technical Specifications and only new Technical Specifications are required. In these cases, Nuclear Licensing may authorize the installation, but not operation, prior to receipt of NRC approval of the License Amendment. If such authorization is l
granted, the block below should be checked.
i Nuclear Licensing has authorized installation, but no operation, prior to receipt of the NRC approval of License Amendment. The 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation indicates that no Unreviewed Safety Question will result, and provides authority for installation only.
Preparer /Date: h
/2dnh M VdrMf b OM 7 3 f
- 15. Documentation is adequate to support the above conclusion and the conclusion is valid.
Reviewer /Date: b
))[on h ct W y 9- 01 ' D l
- 16. Obtain a Safety Evaluation number from the Systems Engineering Clerk. Record on Page 1.
- 17. Leave 1 Safety Evaluation copy with Systems Engineering Clerk. File original with package.
Completed:
Systems Engineering Clerk initials:
TX Date:
T.ry,g3 (final)
.o PROCEDURE:
QAP 200-19 QAP 200-T4 Revision 3 VERBAL APPROVAL TRACKING FORM June 1991 DOCUMENT:
l Temporary Procedure No.
Maint/ Modification Rev.
Work Requept No.
Other 't + c dv E vn t w m w -S V (39 Performed By Aiehne/ A2cus l
Contact Approval Section:
Person Contacted:
Monb dt/c rn k Comments:
Arred v,4 crolua //m Date 9 - d V 'V3 Time
/v ! to Performed By:
/77 - c 61 e(
,% a s l
2.
Person Contacted:
/$ [a m cv Comments:
NA.un y r A e o I uo mn, e
Date 1-01-?T Time M f 44 Performed By:
h/ > c he, e (
S gus l
/3 Person Contacted:
Comments:
Date Time Performed By:
l Person Contacted:
Comments:
Date Time Performed By:
l 5
Person Contacted:
Comments:
Date Time Performed By:
j Person Contacted:
Comments:
Date Time Performed By:
l (final)
APPROVED 18/0641a JUN I 61991 0.C.
l QCAP 1000-6 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O i
-l ATTACHMENT A (Page 1 of 1)
OFFSITE REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTION TRA Quad Cities Nudear Power Station k/3/f3 Date:
Reference Numte.
[3-h(o bre Elu a,<Mik L b 4 b 05 [O 2.
/24/6 fedd b
Subject:
kn l Subm!!ted by:
Innu k h w r FOR REVIEW:
Safety EvaluationsRQIinvolving an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10C l
1.
for:
Changes to procedures as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
a.
Changes to equipment or systems as described in the Safety Analysis Report b.
Tests or eg,sriments NOT describad in the Safety Analysis Report.
T c.
Proposed changes which hvolve an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CF 2.
Procedure changes.
a.
b.
Equipment or system changes.
Tests or experiments.
c.
Proposed J.enges to the Technical Spe*-ations or Operating Ucense.
i 3.
Noncornpflance with codes, regulations, orders, Technical Sp6 creations, !! cense requiremerts, or intemal pic,c.6dures or instructions having nudear safety signifcance.
4.
Significant operating abnormatitles or deviations from nom =I and 4,seted pe S.
plant Wpinsat that affects nudear safety.
All REPORTABLE EVENTS (LERs ordy).
6.
All recognized indications of an unatticipated da!!ciency in design or operation of sa 7.
related structures, systems, or compca, eses.
All changes to the Station Emergency Plan prior to implemertMc4.
l 8.
All items referred by the Systems Engineering Supervisor, Station Manager, Site Vic 9.
President, and General Manager of Quellty Programs and Assessments.
?FORINFONMAT50Ni! ' Mr
- 10. Other OSR ltems/Documerts RQI nddressed above.
This Transmittal is being made in accordance wth Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Technical Specifications 6.1.G.2.d(1) for information only. No specirc action is re unless deemed necessary by Offslie Ruview and investigative Function.
8
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 1 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION GENERAL INFORMATION:
Safety Evaluation Number:
- /40 Document identifier:
u.a wi,m. w-a w me..ie., Temp Alt Unit (s): Unit 1 and 2 System (s): RCIC and Core Spray Applicable Plant Mode (s): All m, 9 =~,% %.t sw i Plant Mode Restriction (s): None List Multiple Procedures Affected Below:
Procedure Number Procedure Number Procedure Number Procedure Number Mone t
CHANGE DESCRIPTION:
- 1. Describe the proposed change:
This temporary alteration installs drain plugs in the RCIC pump base plate drain. These drains were discovered to run into a common header that protruded through a flood barrier (wall) into the reactor building basement..
The check valve in this line is going to be disassembled and inspected. Therefore, to maintain the proper flooding protection these plugs will be installed into the baseplate drain.
- 2. Reason for the change:
To provide flooding protection for Core Spray and RCIC during check valve inspections and maintenance.
- 3. Is the change:
Permanent X
Temporary - Expected Duration: 2 Months
CGE QCAP 1100-9
]
UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 2 of 8) t 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 4.
List reference documents used which describa the structure, system, or component. Identify I
documents referenced even if no information was found in that section.
a.
UFSAR Section(s): 3.4,5.4,6.2,6.3,9.2,9.5,10.4 b.
SER Section(s):None c.
Tech. Spec. Section(s): None d.
Fire Protection Program Document Pkg Section(s):None e.
Code of Federal Regulations Section(s):None f.
Regulatory Guides /NUREGs:None g.
Other:None EVALUATION:
5.
Describe how plant operation is affected when the structure, system, or component function is changed as intended (i.e., focus on system operation / interactions in the absence of equipment failures). Consider all applicable operating modes. Include a discussion of any changed r
interactions with other structures, systems, or components.
The basis of the check valve is to prevent water in the torus area form entering the RCIC toom. This feature provides additional assurance that post accident core cooling will not be interrupted during long term operation, operation of the plant remains the same. Drain plug are installed into the bedplate drains to prevent back flow during the inspection and maintenance of thecheck valve.
i 6.
Describe how the change will affect equipment failures. Describe any new failure modes and their impact during all applicable operating modes.
This change is increasing the reliability of the flood protection system. It is changing an active component (check valve) to a passive component, to facilitate maintenance on the valve. Therefore, the failure of this component is less likely than the failure of the check valve, if this comment were to fail, the failure would be no different or greater than the failure of the check valve. Additionally, this drain line is a smaller diameter than the RCIC room sump drain line. Any water that leakedback into the j
room would overflow the sump and run into the floor drain sump prior to effecting any equipment in the room. Therefore, no new failure modes are created.
i
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION 0 l
ATTACHMENT G (Page 3 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
i 7.
Identify each accident or anticipated transient (i.e., large/smali break LOCA, loss of load, turbine missiles, fire, flooding) 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.
3.4, Flooding f
8.
List each Technical Specification (Safety Limit, Limiting Safety System Setting, or Limiting Condition for Operation) where the requirement, associated action items, associated surveillances, or bases may be affected. To determine factors affecting the specification, it is necessary to I
review the UFSAR and SER where the Technical Specification Bases section does not explicitly state the basis.
NONE 9.
Will the change involve a Technical Specification revision?
[
YES i
X NO If a Technical Specification revision is involved, the change cannot be implemented until the NRC issues a license amendment. When completing Step 14, indiocate that a Technical Specification revision is required.
i
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(3)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 4 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVAL UATION (cont'd):
- 10. To determine if the probability or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the UFSAR may be increased, use one copy of these pages to answer the following questions for each accident listed in Step
- 7. Provide rationale for all NO answers.
Affected accident: Flooding UFSAR Section: 3.4
- a. May the probability of the accident be increased?
YES X
NO The installation of these drain plugs have no effect on increasing the probability of a torus flooding event. They do not interface with any component that would lead to a failure such that torus flooding would result.
I i
- b. May the consequences of the accident (off-site dose) be increased?
YES X
NO This change is increasing the reliability of the flood protection system. It is changing an active component (check valve) to a passive component, to facilitate maintenance on the valve.
Therefore, the failure of this component is less likely than the failure of the check valve. If this comment were to f ail and the f ailure would be no different or greater than the failure of the check valve. Additionally, the RCIC drain line is a smaller diameter than the RCIC room floor sump drain line. Any water leaking back into the room would overflow the sump and run into the floor drain sump prior to effecting any equipment in the room. Therefore, the consequences of an accident will still be bounded by current analysis.
i 1
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 5 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION i
EVALUATION (cont'd):
==_.
- c. May the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety increase?
YES X
NO r
The installation of these drain plugs change an active component (check valve) to a passive component, to prevent leakage into the RCIC rooms. Therefore, the failure of this component is less likely than the failure of the check valve and the probability of malfunction of this component and other equipment is decreased.
L
- d. May the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important in safety increase?
YES i
X NO I
if this component were to fail and the failure would be no different or greater than the failure of the check'
[
valve. Additionally, this drain line is a smaller diameter than the RCIC room sump drain line. Any water back flow into the room would overflow the sump and run into the floor drain sump prior to effecting any equipment C
in the room. Therefore, the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to plant safety will not increase.
l l
If any answer to Question 10 is YES, then an Unreviewed Safety Question exists.
I CGE QCAP 1100-9 i
UNIT 1(2) j REVISION O j
p ATTACHMENT G (Page 6 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
l t
- 11. Based on the answers to Questions 5 and 6, does the change adversely impact systems or functions so as l
to create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the l
UFSAR7 j
YES X
NO l
Describe the rationale for your answer.
{
4 6
The installation of these drain plugs change the leakage boundary from a active component to a passive component. In doing this the reliability of the flooding protection system increases. The installation of these drain plugs do not create an accident or malfunction greater than the failure of the check valve itself.
I f
f f
i t
i l
i f
y i
f a
i 2
If any answer to Question 11 is YES, then an Unreviewed Safety Question exists.
ATTACHMENT G (Page 7 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION t
EVALUATION (cont'd):
[
i m
s
,-w-6 1
CGE
~'
QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O
')
- 12. Determine if parameters used to establish the Technical Specification limits are changed. Use one copy of this page to answer the following questions for each Technical Specification listed in Step 8. If no Technical Specifications are impacted, then no reduction in margin of safety exists. Proceed to Step 14.
Technical Specification: /l//h Determine which of the following is true for the above specification:
All changes to the parameters or conditions used to establish the Technical Specification requirements are in a conservative direction. The actual acceptance limit need not be identified to determine that no reduction in margin of safety exists. Proceed to Step 13.
The Technical Specification provides a margin of safety or acceptance limit for the applicable parameter or condition. Ust the limit (s) or margin (s) below.
The applicable parameter or condition change is in a potentially non-conservative direction and the Technical Specification neither provides an acceptance limit nor explicitly references a limit in the UFSAR. Request Nuclear Ucensing assistance to identify the acceptance limit or margin for the Margin of Safety determination. Ust the limit (s) or margin (s) below.
X The change does not affect any parameters upon which the Technical Specifications are based; therefore, there is no reduction in the margin of safety. Proceed to Step 14.
-i List Acceptance Umit(s)/ Margin (s) of Safety i
F i
- 13. Use the above limits identified in Step 12 to determine if the margin of safety is reduced (i.e., the new
-i values exceed the acceptance limits). Describe the rationale for your determination. Include a description of compensating factors used to reach that conclusion.
j i
Not applicable a
I I
l
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 8 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
- 14. Check one of the following:
An Unreviewed Safety Question was identified in Step 10, Step 11, or Step 13. The Proposed change MUST NOT be implemented without NRC approval.
X No unreviewed Safety Question will result (Steps 10,11, and 13) AND no Technical Specification revision will be involved. The change may be implemented in accordance with applicable procedures.
A Technical Specification revision is involved; but no Unreviewed Safety Question will result. The proposed change requires a License Amendment. Notify Station Regulatory Assurance and Nuclear Licensing that a Technical Specification revision is required. Indicate applicable type (s) below:
The change is not a plant modification or minor plant change and will not be implemented under 10CFR50.59. Upon receipt of the approved Technical Specification change from the NRC, the change may be implemented.
The change is a plant modification or minor plant thange. Indicate applicable typels) below:
A revision to an existing Technical Specification is required. The change MUST NOT be installed until receipt of an approved Technical Specification revision.
The change will not conflict with any existing Technical Specifications and only new Technical Specifications are required. In these cases, 'hclear Ucensing may authorize the installation, but not operation, prior to receipt of NRC approval of tee License Amendment. If such authorization is granted, the block below should be checked.
Nuclear Licensing has au+horized installation, but no operation, prior to receipt of the NRC approval of License Amendment. The 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation indicates that no Unreviewed Safety Question will result, and provides authority for installation only.
Preparer /Date: k k k
9[a/JS s
3
- 15. Documentation is adequate to support the above conclusion and the conclusion is valid.
d A T h fu.H-Reviewer /Date:
- 16. Obtain a Safety Evaluation number from the Systems Engineering Clerk. Record on Page 1.
- 17. Leave 1 Safety Evaluation copy with Systems Engineering Clerk. File original with package.
Completed:
Systems Engineering Clerk initials:
) /t -
Date:
7 - / '7-F.~5 (final)
~~ PROCEDURE:
QAP 200-19 QAP 200-T4 Revision 3
'<ERBAL APPROVAL TRACKING FORM June 1991 DOCUMENT:
l Temporary Procedure No.
Maint/ Modification Rev.
Work Request No.
Other SE 9 3 -14 o a.o,1 Temo AHs Performed By
- k. St.w, e l
Contact Approval Section:
Person Contacted:
Iouv ScoH-Comments:
bu;a el Date 9 fir Is 3 Time 194s Performed'By:
(lLt M l
~
/
A2.
Person Contacted:
love bmler Comments:
Con c o r ed w M 'Temn A l+s &c u-t
- U Date 9 10 A3
() Time IM O Performed By:
(lL m Y>^_.-
l
/
[3 Person Contacted:
Comments:
Date Time Performed By:
l Person Contacted:
Comments:
Date Time Performed By:
l t
5 Person Contacted:
Comments:
Date Time Performed By:
l Person Contacted:
i Comments:
Date Time
~
Performed By:
l (final)
APPROVED 18/0641a JUN 161991 GSue
QCAP 1000-6 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT A (Page 1 of 1)
OFFSITE REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTION TRANSMITTAL f
Ouad Cities Nuclear Power Station 1, _ l
'/[/6 /O Reference Number:
$f' / 4/
Date:
Subject:
()fff (7(ocr/ury n bs,1c_,
+s a /c )
fjc
& b <bbbw/7 kns I%
/
Submitted by-.jppm,
$g-fy-/ kit
-FOR REVIEWi Safety Evaluations HQI involving an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59 1.
- for, Changes to procedures as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
a.
b.
Changes to equipment or systems as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
Tests or experiments NOT described in the Safety Analys!s Report.
c.
2.
Proposed changes which involve an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59.
a.
Procedure changes.
b.
Equipment or system changes.
c.
Tests or e=riments.
3.
Proposed changes to the Technical Specifications or Operating License.
Noncompliance with codes, regu!ations, orders. Technical Specifications, license 4.
requirements, or internal procedures or instructions having nuclear safety significance.
Significant operating abnormalit!ss or deviations from nonnaf and expected performance of 5.
plant equipment that affects nuclear safety.
6.
M REPORTABLE EVENTS (LERs ordy).
M recognized indications of an unanticipated deficiency in design or operntion of safety-7.
related structures, systems, or components.
~
8.
M changes to the Station Emergency Plan prior to implementation.
M ltems referred by the Systems Engineering Supervisor, Station Managr, Site Vice 9.
President, and General Manager of Quallty Programs and Assessments.
FORINFORMA710N:
i
- 10. Other OSR ttems/DocumentsRDInddressed above.
This Transmittal is being made in accordance with Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Technical Specifications 6.1.G.2.d(1) for inforrnation only. No specific action is required unless deen.ed necessary by Offstte Review ard Investigative Function.
t 8
l i
l l
QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 1 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION GENERALINFORMATION:
Safety Evaluation Number:
SE-f3 -////
440# m u /eres kr4/ l' da' Document identifier: u.e,,_-_.,,,,,,#....-
_ _ _,,o Unit (s):
6; / 2 System (s): n/'45 rd!/n/ VM EM A4df Applicab'e Plant Mode (s):% e
., e.,,,,.
w m.,, g//
Plant Mode Restriction (s):
Ad>p List Muttiple Procedures Affected Below-Procedure Number Procedure Number Procedure Number Procedure Number h(W//t*C j/Ctf ddl?l($ bNC$
Md? 'Jc0 b'fCf 6/W N!l blfW Uff26hhr GWl' 7fC.b/ck d W i:dd btcf t
UG' we n/d d4/fSCCi bkck
(;rff' GCO hecZ C#r 4K' h!ccf asf/ 9ta.b'irZ CcKr Md.6kl lCdO'ffd Mccr
&Yd/' /td8 6 4cK O ff r 'R T? b E< W CHANGE DESCRIPTION:
- 1. Describe the proposed change:
Okuy/Slc',y&l5 70 d^n&},t (NIN A)yexhe d! fr/e 9t7bth Sadima fYQt;Wf.rtStf fej' tsu~:e'i's / $6 5 mzl2 WA'fA^cak'f2'1 Eur$ S /YbuW k?p/y' ci.c
- 2. Reason for the change:
l l
- 3. Is the change:
,d Permanent D Temporary - Expected Duration:
32
'~~ -
g g g.
UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 2 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION
-l REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
i i
List reference documents used which describe the structure, system, or component. Identify l
4.
l documents referenced even if no information was found in that section. -
a.
UFSAR Section(s): ? r; g,, //g,.f,;.,,
, 9 s j z y <,.. c 9,_. tr., % ; s o'ta + n An e are a a % Ingva'[un' b.
SER Section(s): s r a c L w m.: N7
~
c.
Tech. Spec. Section(s): j(/,.,, g r,a a,,,n, mm. n x. v.-,, +~.g. m.
d.
Fire Protection Program Document Pkg Section(s): ppp 4 4.,,,. p r, o ff, ff'f1 cme of Federal Regulations Section(s): gg*gpfggj g e.
i f.
Regulatory Guides /NUREGs:
Other; d(M8dr# 98 g.
EVALUATION:
t 5.
Describe how plant operation is affected when the structure, system, or component function is changed as intended (i.e., focus on system operation / interactions in the absence of equipment faGures)., Consider all applicable operating modes. Include a discussion of any j
changed interactions with other structures, systems, or components.
.31v'ld Ghtc/c2 W ef o f'sr/7&t)6X'S, 77$' $ $ 8 cV8 M7~
I
/!k.
[]s y/ff f 19$!,cyt(tlf8G 40 7h' E@bf sh7X'.M Nff 695!3 y $re (s.r d N hr?S, fNE,rA&
b7 1
j i
i 6.
Describe how the change wl!! affect equipment failures. Describe any new failure modes and their impact during all applicable operating modes.
4 0
91 spod,Gbres. k areP,n gg e g,,,w/77 sa gy
= W & Y M h k' f s n ' A 1 d 't u y r. h w.s ; 4 re a>-47)w. 7h j
by bS6 02 aStu:es,6/hes as-afscedxa/ n 1MI Sed I
i S AvijVf' 7Y?J CIE'O //' t".myii's<ci sik N8b'M baf6/S.
j ns' M 567Wr.m ks
- qrrXz, ep p w ; M m aie n'e a de/ k,.
- rg de ea, hrs, es>m s4 yrceAm.
7Easiea/,c,, a:-
I x.ss-Asey4x reaw, s,-d
,,<a6x x // b ; % /x x k, y 7 se 7
k pv w d'z k, ancAm & iw ;4/4x m&c.
i m'ae
+
i 33
~.
QCAP 1100-9 J
UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 3 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
i 7.
Identify each accident or anticipated transient (i.e., large/small break LOCA, loss of load, turbine missiles, fire, flooding) described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
The change afters 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 fa!!ure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
Accident UFSAR Section
~ O 'seir S M N 6 E!' S7?kt(n' bykch (Vdsw. ucWSh 8.
Ust each Technical Specification (Safety Umit, Umtting Safety System Setting, or Um! ting Condition for Operation) where the requirement, associated action items, associated survelliances, or bases may la affected. To determine factors affecting the specification, it is necessary to review the UFSAR and SER where the Technical Specification Bases section does not exp!!citly state the basis.
N,%' ;f,,diRyf 9.
Will the change involve a Technical Specification revision?
k NO O
YES ff a Technical Specification revision is involved, the change cannot be implemented until the NRC issues a license amendment. When completing Step 14, indicate that a Technical Specification revision is required.
34
QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(3)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 4 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
10.
To determine if the probabEtty or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the UFSAR may be increased, use one copy of these pages to answer the following questions for each accident listed in Step 7.
Provide rationale for all NO answers.
Affected accident: doge.Sws.Fa UFSAR Section:
- a. May the probabi!!ty of the accident be increased?
O YES JR NO
~T2 ;,r d efi f W a r aa%brt(W& r A z!ss ;$rt is oc#
A f
xcreaus' + a,y ps,s a,a su sz cw p w.A res are m' a4s a esnire a' 4 dese Aws An' An a/m/y.Auw esasu,/ m,,.,,g,l,a
//71T n d' u # 47 nema / mus.9 z b,
,yy' /rette
& SA7.0an Corgl/19CxS sue thefec?hu.
Os G A A' dir ik W E rribcs7b!
c' W2 sksp; % s tbt cm.~
r huh 7%.
6v/.ftry dr nwa!<$),+pwctr t
1a4 shne'nw cow
- b. May the consequences of the accident (off-stte dose) be increased?
O YES JI NO The s/e.ssrk: Aiv/y.sts es&s k de acers #-W
- 5AV s6Mm de, ace, ;e 76 owy et a Avy
.Los s Gre, 2e da,9es ade is,rfe ggg,.,e &
,mr<&s czrrecHj reflect &c airp&s aid,&,esie, t
ircm.se 18 isabiA m&/acs a<d' e.pccrims ifr 6tW56 C! ll'd jTCe uyS.
Qa. m.
,y,,.7,3 g/ fpff ffe b& Ss are #mdie Acresa/ svaise Ax pec&e c h ? y s p c,ee e yx 43,7,p 4,,y,, _aa,s pio,s 35
QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 5 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION I
EVALUATION (cont'd):
- c. May the probabl!!ty of a malfunction of equipment important to safety increase?
f O
YES Il NO
~
Et' d'C /* A' " Sff 55th'c5 ki/i>c5 y ggar yip;c:/.as tAkw/A;/i.*,J/g WE 'MN d.lA ksly.s.
y By y W)'ij r/2 q M,e s g a m.,-d M,z l
Q+ Mdax Aes/ps, ;+r k < ej< p eg g ;f,4 ygg g,7 p, g bhf e eAayhy p'8'fntadres, 72e O2' 8 hw ha ead d
h
% taldc&e o' We,[/ft 5' 6'<'u:e AnspL,, -tac
//zn_ps,,y,,,yfg z';{,. q y,
&p/ ct.1FIM' Of Leices5 a &,rtcej,,,
C f
t
- d. May the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety increase?
O YES JI!
NO
'% &fe SMhw/rnyps <6sc<.b s ear,as sewr..cs a.&/t 74 dsyv b5 02' / d.5; & c d c f y,y g,.e5 fyg)a; g,p;,77~ h.y,wjh, [y d&ir-t e
l$'u Y tiNsm,'&bx 184 yrs %c yg pd an/ a ch.c src xwy
\\
b'O7 7Y tM'j) yb.csb.sAtrkax 77m OW,y bi.vy 7d tCr'scP
}c & A N //L f! /da' S & E M, g,y. f y j g,g,,,,f'pg,y,S,-c j
P @ // MS 7
WJMM c7' Ole' ej,y,u-t' ma/6)yy%s qjy/
(
b ' Y ' t b!*f r b e*c: 70Bbj,7Y,'.sdrf aincf hyy,si,,/
/_,g,., g, y
b '% b Y k t & S M Q ' & j ri h :5 yyj 76,7 l
9 l
if any answer to Question 10 is YES, then an Unreviewed Safety Question exists.
e i
36 i
e QCAP 110D-9 s
UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 6 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION l EVALUATION (cont'd):
11.
Based on the answers to Questions 5 and 6. does the change adversely impact systems or fun::tions so as to create the possibElty of an accident or malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the UFSAR?
O YES M NO Describe the rationale for your answer.
S.tjmdh' dJirgs'.s d g adenefy,ey2,f a,p,p_gn y.
AaMS. & cherp wrat th ca%' aairddy ickd Hz MfiUM b l WE.S/t'Y/bbd /p:
lcv1e s isv/si/tsj Ar
,s, Tc7NWY b4euf 0 %-D sepda f wy/ y ] p n yg/,yg I"lMw Ane A<m eMw' /c p,ng,s,,,d;&efim l /%/t' 7$'dff c th).
i E
if any answer to Question 11 is YES, then an Unreviewed Safety Question exists.
J
QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 7 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
12.
Determine if parameters used to establish the Technical Specification limits are changed.
Use one copy of this page to answer the following questions for each Technical Specification listed in Step 8. If no Technical Specifications are impacted, then no reduction in margin of safety exists Proceed to Step 14.
Technical Spec!!ication- //hfu:t Determine which of the following is true for the above specification:
O All changes to the parameters or conditions used to establish the Technical Specification requimments are in a conservative direction. The actual acceptance limit need not be identified to determine that no reduction in margin of safety exists.
Proceed to Step 13.
D The Technical Specification provides a margin of safety or acceptance limit for the applicable parameter or condition. Ust the lim!!(s) or margin (s) below.
O The appilcable parameter or cond! tion change is in a potentially non-conservative direction and the Technical Speelfication netther provides an ceceptance lim!! nor explicitly references a limit in the UFSAR. Reouest Nuclear Ucensing assistance to identify the acceptance lim!! or margin ferine Margin of Safety determination. Ust the lim!!(s) or margin (s) below.
d The change does not affect any parameters upon which the Technical Specifications are based; therefore, there is no reduction in the margin of safety. Proceed to Step 14.
Ust Acceptance Um!!(s)/ Margin (s) of Safety I
13.
Use the above limits identified in Step 12 to determine if the margin of safety is reduced (i.e.,
the new values exceed the acceptance lim!:s). Describe the rationale for your determination.
Include a description of compensating factors used to reach that conclusion.
$0 rid i
if a Margin of Safety is reduced, an Unreviewed Safety Question exista.
f 38
i p
UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O 4
ATTACHMENT G (Page 8 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
^
14.
Check one of the following:
D An Unreviewed Safety Question was identified in Step 10 Step 11, or Step 13. The Proposed change MUST NOT be implemented without NRC approva!.
No Unreviewed Safety Question wDi result (Steps 10,11, and 13) AND no Technical Spec!!ication revision wEl be involved. The change may be implemented in accordance with applicable procedures.
D A Technical Specification revision is involved, but no Unreviewed Safety Question wHi resu!t. The proposed change requires a Ucense Amendment. Notify Station Regulatory Assurance and Nuclear Ucensing that a Technical Specification revision is required.
Indicate applicable type (s) below:
D The change is not a plant modification or minor plant change and wHi not be implemented under 10CFR50.59. Upon receipt of the approved Technical Specification change from the NRC, the change may be implemented.
O The change is a plant modification or minor plant change. Indicate applicable type (s) below:
D A revision to an existing Technical Specification is required. The change MUST NOT be installed untH receipt of an approved Technical Specification revision.
D The change wEl not conflict with any existing Technical Specifications and only new Technical Specifications i
are required. In these cases, Nuclear Ucensing may authorize the insta!!ation, but not operation, prior to receipt of NRC approval of the Ucense Amendment. If such authorization is granted, the block below should be checked.
O Nuclear Ucensing has authorized installation, but not operation, prior to receipt of the NRC approval of Ucense Amendment. The 10CFR50.59 Safety 1
Evaluation indicates that no Unreviewed i
Safety Question wHi result, and provides
)
authority for installation only.
Preparer: //7Fd!)?pY Date:
f?////g3 l 15.
Documentation is adequate to support the above conclusion and the conclusion is valid.
k\\[M Date: ?[/t. /f3 f
Reviewer:
Obtain a Safety Evaluskion number from the Systems Engineering Clerk. Record on Page 1.
16.
17, Leave 1 Safety Evaluation copy with Systems Engineering Clerk. File original with package.
18.
Forward Safety Evaluation copy to FSAR Coordinator (ANI Aud!t Recommendation 88-1).
Completed:
Systems Engineering Oerk intiats:
h k' Date: %/[f D (final)
J OO-
e QCAP 1000-6 UNIT 1(2)
RFVISION O ATTACHMENT A (Page 1 of 1)
OFFSITE REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTION TRANSMITTAL 7
Ouad Cities Nudear Power Station
(
Reference Number:
_5 6 - ci ~T, / a 7 -
Date: 7-M- S'y
Subject:
( Im,el &
s,5 (7 & w s ai?
n, e i a lb2 W/ ? s 's <
~i8,, w M/r u$C l bte,p T. (v
,',7<l<{(?,l)
Ex in
&< i h l.u."
G !>.l w h Submitted by: hk 6,4 / #
Md,
- x 2//[
FOR REVIEW:
Safety EvaluationsE involving an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59 1.
for:
Changes to procedures as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
a.
b.
Changes to equipment or systems as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
[
Tests or experiments NOT described in the Safety Analysis Report.
c.
2.
Proposed changes which involve an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59.
a.
Procedure changes.
b.
Equipment or syrtem changes.
c.
Tests or experimerfs.
3.
Proposed changes to the Technical Specffcations or Operating License.
4.
Noncompliance with codes, regtf.ations, orders. Technical Specifications, license requirements, or intemal procedures or instructions having nudear safety significance.
Signifcant operating abnormalities or deviations from norrnal and expected performance of 5.
plant equipment that affects nudear safety.
6.
All REPORTABLE EVENTS (LERs only).
7.
All rec.cgidzed indications of an unanticipated deficiency in design or operation of safety-l related structures, systems, or components.
8.
All changes to the Station Emergency Plan prior to implementation.
9.
All items referred by the Systems Engineering Supervisor, Station Manager, Site We President, and General Manager of Qualtty Programs and Assessments.
fFOR INFORMATION:
- 10. Other OSR ltems/ Documents RQI addressed above.
This Transmittal is being made in accordance with Quad Cities Nudear Power Station l
Technical Specifications 6.1.G.2.d(1) for information only. No specific action is required unless deemed necessary by Offstte Review and investigatfve Function.
8
car QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O j
ATTACHMENT G (Page 1 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION 1
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Safety Evaluation Number:
SE-T 3
- /h 2 J#93 I ~ 98
'7 b d ' /.2 6 I
Document identifier: TEMPORARY ALTERATION)!E ys - c >y t
w,an.,.,,,-v u,.w.,, an n.,o,w n >
Unit (s): 1, 2 System (s): 0202 RX RECIRC Applicable Plant Mode (s): ALL MODES i
.% v.m,~,, *.~,w n,.
t Plant Mode Restriction (s): NONE l
List Multiple Procedures Affected Below:
Procedure Number
- Procedure Number Procedure Number Procedure Number NO PROCEDURES AFFECTED i
CHANGE DESCRIPTION:
I
- 1. Describe the proposed change:
AN EXHAUST FAN HAS BEEN INSTALLED IN THE REACTOR RECIRCULATION MOTOR GENERATOR SET (RR MG SET) SCOOP TUBE POSITIONER CABINET TO ENSURE COMPONENT COOLING. FAN IS PROPERLY FUSED, AND IS FED FROM LINE IN TERMINAL TO THE SCOOP TUBE POSITIONER WHICH IS FED FROM 120 VAC ESSENTIAL SERVICES SUPPLY BUS. FAN LEADS HAVE A PLUG CONNECTOR TO ALLOW ISOLATION i
OF THE FAN AND DISASSEMBLY OF THE CABINET FOR ROUTINE CALIBRATIONS AND MAINTENANCE.
i l
- 2. Reason for the change:
ELEVATED TEMPERATURES IN THE TURBINE BUILDING NEAR THE MG SET CREATED TEMPERATURES INSIDE OF THE SCOOP TUBE POSITIONER CABINET THAT COULD EXCEED RECOMMENDED TEMPERATURES l
FOR THIS EQUIPMENT. FORCED VENTILATION WAS INSTALLED TO ENSURE COMPONENT COOLING.
- 3. Is the change:
Permanent X
Temporary - Expected Duration: 3 MONTHS
[
c
cGE QCAP 1100 9 UNIT 1(2)
[
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 2 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
4.
List reference documents used which describe the structure, system, or component. Identify documents referenced even if no information was found in that section.
a.
UFSAR Section(s):1.8-1. 3.1,15, 4.6, 5.4, 7.7.3 b.
SER Section(s): NONE c.
Tech. Spec. Section(s): 3.6/4.6 d.
Fire Protection Program Document Pkg Section(s): NONE e.
Code of Federal Regulations Section(s): NONE f.
Regulatory Guides /NUREGs: NONE g.
Other: DBD-OC-002, VETI #C0014 i
EVALUATION:
s 5.
Describe how plant operation is affected when the structure, system, or component function is changed as intended (i.e., focus on system operation / interactions in the absence of equipment f ailures). Consider all applicable operating modes. Include a discussion of any changed interactions with other structures, systems, or components.
PLANT OPERATION IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE PRESENCE OF THIS CHANGE. FAN IS FUSED TO PREVENT INTERACTION WITH OTHER LOADS ON SAME LINE. FAN IS SECURELY MOUNTED ON CABINET. COOLING INCREASES RELIABILITY OF SCOOP TUBE POSITIONER COMPONENTS.
6.
Describe how the change will affect equipment failures. Describe any new failure modes and their impact during all applicable operating modes.
FAILURES OF THE FAN WILL NOT INTRODUCE ANY NEW FAILURE MODES. THE FAN IS FUSED TO l
PROVIDE CIRCUlT PROTECTION TO OTHER LOADS ON LINE.
j THE SCOOP TUBE POSITIONER IS DESIGNED TO LOCK UP IF CONTROL SIGNALS OR POWER SUPPLY j
iS LOST. ANY ELECTRICAL FA! LURE OF THE FAN AND FUSE, THE FAN CIRCUlTRY, OR THE FAN 3
MOUNTING THAT CAUSED AN ELECTRICAL FAILURE OF THE SCOOP TUBE POSITIONER POWER SUPPLY WOULD RESULT IN A LOCK UP. ANY SIMILAR FAILURE THAT RESULTED IN A LOSS OF THE SPEED CONTROL SIGNAL WOULD RESULT IN A LOCKUP. THESE FAILURE MODES ARE NOT.NEW.
FLOW CONTROL SYSTEM FAILURES RESULTING IN FULL SPEED DEMAND AND ZERO SPEED h
DEMAND ARE ANTICIPATED TRANSIENTS ANALYZED IN THE FSAR. ANY ELECTRICAL FAILURE OF THE FAN AND FUSE, FAN CIRCUITRY, OR THE FAN MOUNTING THAT RESULTED IN A CHANGE IN THE CONTROL SIGNAL BUT NOT A LOSS IN THE CONTROL SIGNAL COULD RESULT IN SUCH A TRANSIENT. THESE FAILURE MODES ARE NOT NEW.
i i
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 3 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
7.
Identify each accident or anticipated transient (i.e., largeismall break LOCA, loss of load, turbine missiles, fire, flooding) described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true; The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
e The changed structure, system, or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to e
function during or after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the o
accident.
RR FLOW CNTR FAILURE INCREASING FLOW 15.4.5 RR FLOW CNTR FAILURE DECREASING FLOW 15.3.2.1 i
t c
8.
List eacii Technical Specification (Safety Limit. Limiting Safety System Setting, or Limiting Condition for Operation) where the requirement, associated action items, associated surveillances, or bases may be affected. To determine factors affecting the specification, it is necessary to I
review the UFSAR and SER where the Technical Specification Bases section does not explicitly state the basis.
{
RECIRCULATION PUMP FLOW MISMATCH 3.6.H.
l l
I i
l i
t 9.
Will the change involve a Technical Specification revision?
i YES 1
X NO l
If a Technical Specification revision is involved, the change cannot be implemented until the NRC issues
)
a license amendment. When completing Step 14, indiocate that a Technical Specification revision is required.
)
l
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 4 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
- 10. To determine if the probability or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the UFSAR may be increased, use one copy of these pages to answer the following questions for each accident listed in Step
- 7. Provide rationale for all NO answers.
Affected accident:RR FLOW CONTROLLER UFSAR Section: 15.4.5 FAILURE INCREASED FLOW
- a. May the probability of the accident be increased?
YES X
NO THE FAN CIRCUlT IS FUSED, AND THE FAN IS PROPERLY MOUNTED IN CABINET.
MOUNTING AND WIRING OF THE FAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT OF OTHER COMPONENTS IN THE CABINET. THE PROBABILITY OF THE ELECTRICAL OR MECHANICAL FAILURE OF THE FAN IS THE SAME AS THE PROBABILITY OF ANY OTHER COMPONENT IN THE CABINET.
THE PRESENCE OF THE FAN DOES NOT INCREASE THE PROBABILITY OF THIS ANTICIPATED TRANSIENT.
- b. May the consequences of the accident (off stte dose) be increased?
YES X
NO THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS TRANSIENT AS ANALYZED IN THE FSAR DO NOT RESULT IN EOUlPMENT DAMAGE OR RADIOLOGICAL RELEASE.. THE PRESENCE OF THE FAN IN THE POSITIONER CABINET, WHEN OPERATING PROPERLY, WILL HAVE NO AFFECT ON THE EQUIPMENT RESPONSE DURING THIS TRANSIENT. A FAILURE OF THE FAN DURING A SPEED TRANSIENT COULD RESULT IN A SCOOP TUBE LOCKUP, WHICH IS LESS SEVERE THAN THIS TRANSIENT, OR IT COULD RESULT IN A SPEED DEMAND FAILURE IN THE OPPOSITE D!RECTION, WHICH IS ALSO AN ANALYZED TRANSIENT.
g-I
~
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 5 of 8) i 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION l
EVALUATION (cont'd):
- c. May the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety increase?
l YES f
X NO THE FAN DOES NOT INTERACT WITH OTHER PLANT EQUIPMENT THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO SAFETY
[
DURING THIS TRANSIENT OR OTHER TRANSIENTS. THE FAN INTERACTS ONLY WITH THE SCOOP TUBE '
POSITIONER. THE FAN DOES NOT INTERACT WITH THE REACTOR RECIRCULATION PUMP TRIP FUNCTION, LOOP SELECT FUNCTION, CORE FLOW INDICATION, OR ANY OTHER RECIRC SYSTEM FUNCTION IMPORTANT TO SAFETY. SINCE THE FAN DOES NOT INTERACT WITH OTHER EQUIPMENT, IT DOES NOT INCREASE THE PROBABILITY OF MALFUNCTION IN OTHER EOUlPMENT.
I i
i
- d. May the consequences of a malfunction of equipment impor: ant to safety increase?
YES l
X NO THE FAN WILL ONLY AFFECT THE SCOOP TUBE POSITIONER. THE FAN DOES NOT AFFECT THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY OTHER PLANT EQUIPMENT, AND THEREFORE WILL HAVE NO BEARING ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF OTHER EQUIPMENT.
i i
t If any answer to Question 10 is YES then an Unreviewed Safety Question exists.
{
J Wig.N"t %(blp P
t'
CGE QCAP 1100-9 i
UNIT 1(2)
[
REVISION O j
ATTACHMENT G (Page 4 of 8)
I 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION h
EVALUATION (cont'd):
- 10. To determine if the probability or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of
-I equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the UFSAR may be increased, use I
one copy of these pages to answer the following questions for each accident listed in Step
{
- 7. Provide rationale for all NO answers.
3 i
l Affected accident:RR FLOW CONTROLLER UFSAR Section: 15.3.2.1 f
3, FAILURE DECREASED FLOW
- a. May the probability of the accident be increased?
YES
\\
X NO i
\\
j THE FAN CIRCUlT IS FilSED, AND THE FAN IS PROPERLY MOUNTED IN CABINET.
MOUNTING AND WIRING OF THE FAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT OF OTHER COMPONENTS IN THE CABINET. THE PROBABILITY OF THE ELECTRICAL OR MECHANICAL FAILURE OF THE l
FAN IS THE SAME AS THE PROBAB!LITY OF ANY OTHER COMPONENT IN THE CABINET.
THE PRESENCE OF THE FAN DOES NOT INCREASE THE PROBABILITY OF THIS ANTICIPATED TRANSIENT.
i 1
- b. May the consequences of the accident (off-site dose) be increased?
I YES X
NO
(
1 l
)
l THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS TRANSIENT AS ANALYZED If, THE FSAR DO NOT RESULT IN l
EQUIPMENT DAMAGE OR RADIOLOGICAL RELEASE. THE PRESENCE OF THE FAN IN THE I
POSITIONER CABINET. WHEN OPERATING PROPERLY, WILL HAVE NO AFFECT ON THE EQUIPMENT RESPONSE DURING THIS TRANSIENT. A FAILURE OF THE FAN DURING A SPEED TRANSIENT COULD RESULT IN A SCOOP TUBE LOCKUP, WHICH IS LESS SEVERE j
THAN THIS TRANSIENT, OR IT COULD RESULT IN A SPEED DEMAND FAILURE IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, WHICH IS ALSO AN ANALYZED TRANSIENT.
?
1
CGE QCAP 1100-9 l
UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 5 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
- c. May the probability of a malfunction of equipment importar't to safety increase?
YES X
NO THE FAN DOES NOT INTERACT WITH OTHER PLANT EQUIPMENT THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO SAFETY DURING THIS TRANSIENT OR OTHER TRANSIENTS. THE FAN INTERACTS ONLY WITH TliE SCOOP TUBE POSITIONER. THE FAN DOES NOT INTERACT WITH THE REACTOR RECIRCULATION PUMP TRIP FUNCTION, LOOP SELECT FUNCTION, CORE FLOW INDICATION, OR ANY OTHER REClRC SYSTEM FUNCTION IMPORTANT TO SAFET1 SINCE THE FAN DOES NOT INTERACT WITH OTHER EQUIPMENT, IT DOES NOT INCREASE THE PROBABILITY OF MALFUNCTION IN OTHER EQUIPMENT.
- d. May the consequences of a malfunction of equipment lmportant to safety increase?
YES X
NO THE FAN WILL ONLY AFFECT THE SCOOP TUBE POSITIONER. THE FAN DOES NOT AFFECT THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY OTHER PLANT EQUIPMENT, AND THEREFORE WILL HAVE NO BEARING ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF OTHER EOUIPMENT.
l If any answer to Question 10 is YES then an Unreviewed Safety Question exists.
a f
T
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 6 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
- 11. Based on the answers to Questions 5 and 6, does the change adversely impact systems or functions so as to create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the UFSAR?
YES X
NO Describe the rationale for your answer.
THE FAN IS PROPERLY FUSED AND MOUNTED IN THE CABINET SUCH THAT THE PROBABILITY THAT IT SHOULD LEAD TO A FAILURE IS THE SAME AS THE PROBABILITY OF ANY OTHER COMPONENT IN THE CABINET. HOWEVER, ANY FAILURE INTERACTION THAT THE FAN COULD HAVE WITH THE SCOOP TUBE POSITIONER WOULD LEAD TO A SCOOP TUBE LOCK UP, A FULL SPEED DEMAND, OR A ZERO SPEED DEMAND. ALL THREE OF THESE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES ARE WITHlN THE DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE REACTOR SYSTEM. NO OTHER INTERACTIONS WITH ANY SYSTEMS WILL OCCUR, SO NO NEW ACCIDENT OR MALFUNCTION SCENARIOS ARE INTRODUCED.
I if any answer to Question 11 is YES, then an Unreviewed Safety Question exists.
I
cGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 7 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION j
EVALUATION (cont'd):
- 12. Determine if parameters used to establish the Technical Specification limits are changed. Use one copy of this page to answer the following questions for each Technical Specification listed in Step 8. If no Technical Specifications are impacted, then no reduction in margin of safety exists. Proceed to Step 14.
Technical Specification: 3.6.H.
REIRCULATION PUMP FLOW MISMATCH Determire which of the following is true for Ine above specification:
All changes to the parameters or conditions used to establish the Technical Specification requirements are in a conservative direction. The actual acceptance limit need not be identified to detennine that no reduction in margin of safety exists. Proceed to Step 13.
The Technical Specification provides a margin of safety or acceptance limit for the i
applicable parameter or condition. List the limit (s) or margin (s) below.
j The applicable parameter or condition change is in a potentially non-conservative direction and the Technical Specification neither provides an acceptance limit nor explicitly references a limit in the UFSAR. Request Nuclear Licensing assistance to identify the acceptance limit or margin for
{
the Margin of Safety determination. List the limit (s) or margin (s) below.
~
X The change does not affect any parameters upon which the Technical Specifications i
i are based; therefore, there is no reduction in the margin of sa12ty. Proceed to Step 14.
]
List Acceptance Limit (s)/ Margin (s) of Safety i
1 i
s s
a
- 13. Use the above limits identified in Step 12 to determine if the margin of safety is reduced (i.e., the new 3
values exceed the acceptance limits). Descobe the rationale for your determination. Include a description of compensating factors used to reach that conclusion.
t 6
h r
r 1
~
1
?
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 8 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
- 14. Check one of the following:
An Unreviewed Safety Question was identified in Step 10. Step 11, or Step 13. The Proposed change MUST NOT be implemented without NRC approval.
X No unreviewed Safety Question will result (Steps 10,11, and 13) AND no Technical Specification revision will be involved. The change may be implemented in accordance with applicable procedures.
A Technical Specification revision is involved: but no Unreviewed Safety Question will result. The proposed change requires a License Amendment. Notify Station Regulatory Assurance ar:d Nuclear Licensing that a Technical Specification revision is required. Indicate applicable type (s) below:
The change is not a plant modification or minor plant change and will not be implemented under 10CFR50.59. Upon receipt of the approved Technical Specification change from l
the NRC, the change may be implemented.
The change is a plant modification or minor plant change. Indicate applicable type (s) below:
A revision to an existing Technical Specification is required. The change MUST NOT be installed until receipt of an approved Technical Specification revision.
j The change will not conflict with any existing Technical Specifications and only new Technical Specifications are required. In these cases, Nuclear Licensing may authorize the installation, l
but not operation, prior to receipt of NRC approval of the License Amendment, if such authorization is granted, the block below should be checked.
Nuclear Licensing has authorized installation, but no operation, prior to receipt of the NRC approval of License Amendment. The 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation indicates that no Unreviewed Safety Question will result, and provides authority for installation only.
Preparer /Date: P&-
% '7kyk3 h
$-/V~D
- 15. Documentatioq is adequate to support the aDove conclusion and the conclusion is valid.
Reviewer /Date:
T
/h[J
- 16. Obtain a Safety Evaluation number j rom the Systems Engineering Clerk. Record on Page 1.
- 17. Leave 1 Safety Evaluation copy with Systems Engineering Clerk. File original with package.
l
Completed:
Systems Engineering Clerk initials:
%K Date:
9- /(,. 9 %
(final)
.j
QCAP 1000-6 UMIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT A (Page 1 of 1)
OFFSITE REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTION TRANSMITTAL Ouad Cities Nuclear Power Station Reference Number-Q - D - /S Y Date:
9- / 7-9'8
/
Subject:
SCCS AO/
,,2 l AIM 4tf SysrfM $onfDARY YBMAL bMt fAfwb i
Submitted by:
[
kk FOR REVIEW:
1.
Safety Evaluations NOT involving an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59 j
for:
a.
Changes to procedures as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
b.
Changes to equipment or systems as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
c.
Tests or experiments NOT described in the Safety Analysis Report.
4 2.
Proposed changes which involve an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59.
a.
Procedure changes.
b.
Equipment or system changes.
c.
Tests or experiments.
3.
Proposed changes to the Technical Specifications or Operating Ucense.
4.
Noncompliance with codes, regulations, orders, Technical Specifications, license requirements, or internal procedures or instructions having nuclear safety significance.
5.
Significant operating abnormallties or deviations from normal and expected performance of plant equipment that affects nuclear safety.
6.
A!! REPORTABLE EVENTS (LERs only).
7.
All recognized indications of an unanticipated deficiency in design or operation of safety-i related structures, systems, or components.
8.
All changes to the Station Emergency Plan prior to implementation.
?
9.
All items referred by the Systems Engineering Supervisor. Station Manager, Site Vice President, and General Manager of Quality Programs and Assessments.
FOR INFORMATION:
/
- 10. Other OSR ltems/ Document NOT addressed above.
This Transmittal is being made in accordance with Ouad Cities Nuclear Power Station Technical Specifications 6.1.G.2.d(1) for information only. No specific action is required unless deemed necessary by Offsite Review and investigative Function.
l 8
r
QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 1 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION GENERAL INFORMATION:
Safety Evaluation Number SE-93
- it/z/-
Document identifier: u,,,,,,,
1,,,..., w,,%,,, m,,
,,,a OCOS 201-2 Rev.2 Unit (s):
1 and 2 System (s): 201 Applicable Plant Mode (s):,,_
,,y,,,%,,.
Run, Startup/ Hot Standby, Shutdown Plant Mode Restriction (s):
List Multiple Procedures Affected Below:
Procedure Number Procedure Number Procedure Number Procedure Number CHANGE DESCRIPTION:
- 1. Describe the proposed change:
Included requirement to monitor and manually record Reactor Coolant heatup or cooldown rates and Reactor Vessel Shell to Reactor Vessel Shell Flange dT during Reactor heatups and cooldowns.
Included requirement to verify that Reactor Pressure / Reactor Metal Temperature during Reactor heatups and cooldowns are in accordance with limits specified in TS Figure 3.6-1.
- 2. Reason for the change:
DEO OP-18 requires Reactor Pressure Vessel Parameters to be monitored during Reactor heatup or cooldown.
1
- 3. Is the change:
[ Permanent 4
0. Temporary - Expected Duration:
32
r QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 2 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
4.
List reference documents used which describe the structure, system. or component. Identify documents referenced even if no information was found in that section.
a.
UFSAR Section(s): 3.9, 5.2.3.3.1, 5.3.2 b.
SER Section(s):
c.
Tech. Spec. Section(s): 3.6.A\\4.6.A and 3.6.B\\4.6.B d.
Fire Protection Program Document Pkg Section(s):
e.
Code of Federal Regulations Section(s): 10CFR 50 APP G.
f.
Regulatory Guides /NUREGs: 1.99 Rev 2 g.
Other:
EVALUATION:
5.
Describe how plant operation is affected when the structure, system, or component function is changed as intended (i.e., focus on system operation / interactions in the absence of equipment failures). Consider all applicable operating modes. Include a discussion of any changed interactions with other structures, systems, or components.
This procedure is used during normal Reactor heatup and cooldown or following a Reactor Scram to ensure the operator monitors and records Reactor Coolant heatup or cooldown rates per the intent of the Technical Specifications. This change will not affect plant operation and only ensures that the operator will be aware of any necessary actions needed for controlling the heatup/cooldown rate within Technical Specification limits.
6.
Describe how the change wl!! affect equipment failures. Describe any new failure modes and their impact during all applicable operating modes.
This procedure change does not affect any equipment operation and does not introduce any new failure modes. This change requires the operator to manually record the required temperatures per the specified intervals.
33
QCAP 1100-9 C
UNIT 1(2)
REVISION.0' ATTACHMENT G (Page 3 of 8).
10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION { cont'd):
7.
Identify each accident or anticipated transient (i.e., large/small break LOCA, loss of load,
(
turbine missiles, fire, flooding) described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
l' The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
The chanDed structure, system, or component is explicitly or implicitly assumed to i
function during or after the accident.
i Operation or failure of the chanDed structure, system, or component could lead to j
the accident.
Accident UFSAR Section l
None N/A f
I i
-l 8.
Ust each Technical Specification (Safety Umit,- Umiting Safety System Setting, or umiting j
Condition for Operation) where the requirement, associated action items, associated surveillances, or bases may be affected. To determine factors affecting the specification, it is necessary to review the UFSAR and SER where the Technical Specification Bases.
j section does not explicitly state the basis.
j 3.6.A/4.6.A and 3.6.B/4.6.B r
i t
9.
Will the change involve a Technical Specification revision?
O YES E[ NO If a Technical Specification revision is involved, the change cannot be implemented until the NRC l
issues a license amendment. When completing Step 14, indicate that a Technical Specification revision is required.
?
34
?
QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 4 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUAT ON (cont'd):
10.
To determine !! the probabi!!ty or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the UFSAR may be increased, use one copy of these pages to answer the following questions for each accident listed in Step 7.
Provide rationate for all NO answers.
Affected accident: None.
UFSAR Section:
N/A.
- a. May the probability of the accident be increased?
O YES EV NO The probability of the accident is NOT increased by this procedure. This procedure revision ensures that the operator will verify Reactor Coolant heatup or cooldown rate within the limits of Technical Specifications 3.6.A and 3.6.8 and does NOT affect any overall system performance which could increase the probability of an accident occurring.
- b. May the consequences of the accident (off-site dose) be increased?
D YES ET~NO The consequences of the accident (off-site dose) will NOT be increased. This procedure revision ensures that the operator will verify Reactor Coolant heatup or cooldown rate within the limits of Technical Specifications 3.6.A and 3.6.B. This change does NOT alter any assumptions previously made in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident described in the UFSAR. This change ensures the integrity of the Reactor Vessel as a fission product barrier by verifying that Reactor Coolant heatup or cooldown rates are per the design specifications of the Reactor Vessel.
I 35
QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 5 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFET( EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
- c. May the probabHity of a rna! function of equipment important to safety increase?
O YES V NO The probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety will NOT increase. This change ensures that the operator will verify Reactor Coolant heatup or cooldown rate within the limits of Technical Specifications 3.6.A and 3.6.B and will NOT degrade any structure, system or component re!!abi!!ty.
- d. May the consequences of a rna! function of equipment important to safety increase?
O YES Y NO The consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety will NOT increase. This change does NOT directly or indirectly affect any structure, system or component important to safety.
l If any answer to Question 10 is YES, then an Unreviewed Safety Question exists.
36 I
QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 6 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFET( EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
11.
Based on the answers to Questions 5 and 6, does the change adversely impact systems or functions so as to create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the UFSAR7 O
YES NO Describe the rationale for your answer.
This procedure revision does NOT direct any actions which could adversely impact systems or functions so as to create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the UFSAR. This procedure only directs the operator to maintain Reactor Coolant heatup and cooldown rates within the !!mits of Technical Specifications 3.6.A and 3.6.B.
If any answer to Question 11 is YES, then an Unreviewed Safety Question exists.
37
QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page_7 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION i
EVALUATION (cont'd)i i
12.
Determine if parameter used to establish the Technical Specification limits are changed.
I Use one copy of this page to answer the following questions for each Technical Specification listed in Step 8. If no Technical Specifications are impacted, then no reduction l
In rnargin of safety exists. Proceed to Step 14.
Technical Specification:
3.6.A and 3.6.B Determine which of the following is true for the above specification:
C All changes to the parameters or conditions used to estabilsh the Technical Specification requirements are in a conservative direction. The actual acceptance limit need not be identified to determine that no reduction in margin of safety exists.
Proceed to Step 13.
i O
The Technical Specification provides a margin of safety or acceptance limit for the l
applicable parameter or condition. Ust the limit (s) or margin (s) below.
l D
The applicable parameter or condition change is in a potentially non-conservative d rection and the Technical Specification nchher provides an acceptance limit nor explicitly referenc3s a limit in the UFSAR. Request Nuclear Ucensing assistance to identify the acceptance limit or margin for the Margin of Safety determination. Ust the j
limit (s) or margin (s) below.
The change does not affect any parameters upon which the Technical Specifications are based; therefore, there is no reduction in the margin of safety. Proceed to Step 14.
Ust Acceptance Umit(s)/ Margin (s) of Safety i
i 13.
Use the above limits identified in Step 12 to determine if the margin of safety is reduced (i.e.,
the new values exceed the acceptance limits). Describe the rationale for your determination.
Include a description of compensating factors used to reach that conclusion.
i i
If a Margin of Safety is reduced, an Unreviewed Safety Question exists.
38 I
QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 8 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION-EVALUATION (cont'd):
14.
Check one of the following:
O An Unreviewed Safety Question was identified in Step 10. Step 11, or Step 13. The Proposed change MUST NOT be implemented without NRC approval.
I No Unrevewed Safety Question wil result (Steps 10,11, and 13) AND no Technical Specification revision wil be involved. The change may be implemented in accordance with applicable procedures.
O A Technical Specification ruvision is involved; but no Unreviewed Safety Question wat result. The proposed change requires a Ucense Amendment. Notify Station Regulatory Assurance and Nuclear Ucensing that a Technical Specification revision is required.
Indicate applicable type (s) below:
O The change is not a plant modification or minor plant change and will not be implemented under 10CFR50.59. Upon receipt of the approved Technical Specification change from the NRC, the change may be implemented.
O The change is a plant modification or minor plant change. Indicate applicable type (s) below:
O A revision to an existing Technical Specification is required. The change MUST NOT be installed until receipt of an approved Technical Specification revision.
O The change will not conflict with any existing Technical -
Specifications and only new Technical Specifications are required. In these cases Nuclear Ucensing may authorize the installation, but not operation, prior to receipt of NRC approval of the Ucense Amendment. If such authorization is granted, the block below should be checked.
O Nuclear Ucensing has authorized installation, but not operation, prior to receipt of the NRC approval of Ucense Amendment. The 10CFR50.59 Safety 4
Evaluation indicates that no Unreviewed Safety Question will result, and provides authority for installation only.
Preparer: b L h[
Date:
9- / 7-9 T 15.
Documentation is adequate to support the above conclusion and the conclusion is valid.
f[/7((8 Reviewer: [/AF[MM Date:
16.
Obtain a Safety Evaluation number from the Systems Engineering Clerk. Record on Page 1.
17.
Leave 1 Safety Evaluation copy with Systems Engineering Clerk. File original with package.
I Forward Safety Evaluation copy to FSAR Coordinator (ANI Audit Recommendatio 18.
Completed:
Systems Engineering Clerk initials:
y Date: 1 (final) 39 j
ocAP 2000-6 UNIT 2.(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT A (Page 1 of 1)
OFFS!TE REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTION TRANSMITTAL Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Y ~2/ ~ h Reference Number $f [k Date:
Sub}ect: &m To pj)ft/f L)ENK 417~
ELBOW of h -$)18-3" O Nu-D/eVRabg/ Jew 4.s MCC 65+-GR$ 130Nblive Submttted by: M4RK RLU/Mbo&E.
?
FOR REVIEW:
1.
Safety EvaluationsRQIinvolving an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59 for:
a.
Changes to procedures as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
b.
Changes to equipment or systems as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
c.
Tests or experiments RQI described in the Safety Analysis Report.
2.
Proposed changes which involve an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59.
a.
Procedure changes.
b.
Equipment or system changes.
c.
Tests or experiments.
3.
Proposed changes to the Technical Specifications or Operating Ucense.
4.
Noncompliance with codes, regulations, orders, Technical Specifications, license requirements, or intemal procedures or instructions having nuclear safety significance.
5.
Significant operating abnormalttles or deviations from normal and expected performance of plant equipment that affects nuclear safety.
6.
M REPORTABLE EVENTS (LERs only).
7.
M recognized indications of an unanticipated deficiency in design or operation of safety-related structures, systems, or components.
8.
A!! changes to the Station Emergency Plan prior to implementation.
9.
All items referred by the Systems Engineering Supervisor, Ststion Manager, Site Vice President, and General Manager of Quality Programs and Assessments.
FOR INFORMATION:
- 10. Other OSR ttems/DocumentsHQI addressed above.
This Transm!ttal is being made in accordance with Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Technical Specifications 6.1.G.2.d(1) for information only. No spec!fic action is required unless deemed necessary by Offs!te Review and investigatke Function.
l 8
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2) r RETTISION O t
ATTACHMENT G (Page 1 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION I
GENERAL INFORMATION:
h
-/((
Safety Evaluation Number:
SE-Document identifier: TEMPORARY ALTERATION 93-1-47 woe.e.r v,n.w a -~~ mi Unit (s): 1/2 System (s): 3900 NON SAFETY RELATED SERVICE WATER Applicable Plant Mode (s): ALL
% s.e., e < a.w sw-i
)
Plant Mode Restriction (s):NONE List Multiple Procedures Affected Below:
I Procedure Number Procedure Number Procedure Number Procedure Nurh l
N/A r
i CHANGE DESCRIPTION:
- 1. Describe the proposed change:
The 1/2-3998-3TO, non safety related service water supply to the glycol chillers, developed a leak at a weld of a 90 degree elbow. To control the leak a foam rubber patch and pipe clamps were installed.
- 2. Reason for the change:
To stop the smallleak at the weld until a full evaluation of the leak can be performed.
- 3. Is the change:
Permanent X
Temporary + Expected Duration: two weeks
CGE
~
- QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 2 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
4 List reference documents used which Gescribe the structure, system, or component. Identify documents referenced even if no information was found in that section.
a.
UFSAR Section(s): 9.2.2, 11.3,15 b.
SER Section(s):
c.
Tech. Spec. Section(s): table 3.2-6,3.8/4.8-6 d.
Fire Protection Program Document Pkg Section(s): none applicable c.
Code of Federal Regulations Section(s):none f.
Regulatory Guides /NUREGs:none g.
Other:none EVALUATION:
5.
Describe how plant operation is affected when the structure, system, or component function is changed as intended (i.e., focus on system operation / interactions in the absence of equipment failures). Consider all applicable operating modes. Include a discussion of any changed interactions with other structures, systems, or components.
There will be no change in plant operation as a result of this temporary alteration. This temporary alteration put a foam rubber patch on a leaking weld in the service water supply to the glycol chillers.
At no time was this leak of sufficent size to have an affect on the ability of the glycol chillers to remove moisture from the Off Gas charcol adsorbers. The need to stop the leak is due more to the mess than to any affect on plant operation.
6.
Describe how the change will affect equipment failures. Describe any new failure modes and their impact during all applicable operating modes.
The temporary alteration will not affect any equipment failures or introduce any new failure modes.
The patch is just to stop a leak that is not large enough to have any affect on plant operation.
i
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 3 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATI EVALUATION (cont'd):
7.
Identify each accident or anticipated transient (i.e., large/small break LOCA, loss of load, turbine missiles, fire, flooding) 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.
NONE 8.
List each Technical Specification (Safety Limit, Limiting Safety System Setting, or Limiting Condition for Operation) where the requirement, associated action items, associated surveillances, or bases may be affected. To determine factors effecting the specification, it is necessary to review the UFSAR and SER where the Technical Specification Bases section does not explicitly state the basis.
NONE l9. Will the change involve a Technical Specification revision?
YES X
NO If a Technical Specification revision is involved, the change cannot be implemented until the NRC issues a license amendment. When completing Step 14, indiocate that a Technical Specification revision is required.
CGE QCAP 1100 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 4 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont *di:
- 10. To determine if the prnbability or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the UFSAR may be increased, use one copy of these pages to answer the following questions for each accident listed in Step
- 7. Provide rationale for all NO answers.
Affected accident: NONE UFSAR Section: fd/A
- a. May the probability of the accident be increased?
YES NO
- b. May the consequences of the accident (off-site dose) be increased?
YES NO
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O
+
ATTACHMENT G (Page 5 of 8) l 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
I
- c. May the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety increase?
f YES NO l
[
i i
~
- d. May the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety increase?
l t
YES NO i
i r
r t
I i
i If any answer to Question 10 is YES, then an Unreviewed Safety Question exists.
f I
t t
n
[
CGE-QCAP 1100-9
[
UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 6 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION i
EVALUATION (cont'd):
- 11. Based on the answers to Questions 5 and 6, does the change adversely impact systems or functions so as
{
to create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the UFSAR7 1
YES X
NO Describe the rationale for your answer.
This temporary alteration does not adversly impact any system. It is just a patch to stop a leak that even if the patch were not installed would not have any affect on plant operation.
n i
i l
i i
I If any answer to Question 11 is YES. then an Unreviewed Safety Question exists.
I i
f CGE QCAP 1100-9' i
UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 7 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
l
- 12. Determine if parameters used to establish the Technical Specification limits are changed. Use one copy of this page to answer the following questions for each Technical Specification listed in Step 8. If no Technical Specifications are impacted, then no reductiort in margin of safety exists. Proceed to Step 14.
Technical Specification:
N/A Determine which of the following is true for the above specification:
All changes to the parameters or conditions used to establish the Technical Specification requirements are in a conservative direction. The actual acceptance limit need not be identified to determine that no reduction in margin of safety exists. Proceed to Step 13.
The Technical Specification provides a margin of safety or acceptance limit for the applicable parameter or condition. List the limit (s) or margin (s) below.
i The applicable parameter or condition change is in a potentially non-conservative direction and the Technical Specification neither provides an acceptance Emit nor explicitly references a limit in the UFSAR. Request Nuclear Licensing assistance to identify the acceptance limit or margin for i
the Margin of Safety determinatian. List the limit (s) or margin (s) below.
The change does not affect any parameters upon which the Technical Specifications are based; therefore, there is no reduction in the margin of safety. Proceed to Step 14.
I r
List Acceptance Limit (s)/ Margin (s) of Safety I
alA l
i i
9
- 13. Use the above limits identified in Step 12 to determine if the margin of safety is reduced (i.e., the new values exceed the acceptance limits). Describe the rationale for your determination. Include a description of compensating factors used to reach that conclusion.
r 3
f N/A i
i t
r w
- - =
m
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 8 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION t
i EVALUATION (cont'd):
l
- 14. Check one of the following:
l An Unreviewed Safety Question was identified in Step 10, Step 11 or Step 13. The Proposed change MUST NOT be implemented without NRC approval.
i X
No unreviewed Safety Question will result (Steps 10,11, and 13) AND no Technical I
Specification revision will be involved. The change may be implemented in accordance with applicable l
procedures.
A Technical Specification revision is involved; but no Unreviewed Safety Question will result. The proposed change requires a License Amendment. Notify Station Regulatory Assurance and Nuclear Licensing that a Technical Specification revision is required. Indicate applicable type (s) below:
i The change is not a plant modification or minor plant change and will not be implemented under 10CFR50.59. Upon receipt of the approved Technical Specification change from i
the NRC, the change may be implemented.
I I
The change is a plant modification or minor plant change. Indicate applicable type (si below:
i A revision to an existing Technical Specification is required. The change I
J MUST NOT be installed until receipt of an approved Technical Specification revision.
The change will not conflict with any existing Technical Specifications and only new I
Technical Specifications are required. In these cases, Nuclear Licensing may autiaorize the installation.
but not operation, prior to receipt of NRC approval of the License Amendment. If such authorization is granted, the block below should be checked.
Nuclear Licensing has authorized installation, but no operation, prior to receipt of the NRC approval of License Amendment. The 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation indicates that no Unreviewed Safety Question will result, and provides authority for installation only.
Preparer /Date: T f
, a S.,943 1
- 15. Documeniation is adequate to sup ort the above conclusion and the conclusion is valid.
l
_ eviewer/Date: ///YM)[/f M [
[ b 7-/hb M [k R
l
- 16. Obtain a Safety Evaluation number from the Systems Engineering Clerk. Record on Page 1.
i
- 17. Leave 1 Safety Evaluation copy with Systems Engineering Clerk. File original with package.
(
i Completed:
Systems Engineering Clerk initials:
b Date:
C'.2l-C l
t (final) t I
QCAP 1000-6 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT A (Page 1 of 1)
OFFSITE REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTION TRANSMITTAL, :
i Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Reference Number: $ E -9 3 -/ W Date: 9f20f93 e
Subject bc Q % 4%371 o odnh d 3 n ngym 6 Ic::,I hoa n in ; td nf /e M h1d H- (wnd i Oedh.
0 i
Submtted by: MMBN bWMM 3
FOR REVIEW:
Safety EvaluationsRQIinvolving an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59 1.
1 for:
r Changes to procedures as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
a.
Changes to equ!pment or systems as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
b.
s Tests or experiments NOT described in the Safety Analysis Report.
c.
Proposed changes which trwolve an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFRSO.59.
2.
a.
Procedure changes.
b.
Equipment or system changes.
I Tests or experiments.
c.
3.
Proposed d-rges to the Technical SW*lons or Operating Ucense.
Noriusplance with codes, regulations, orders. Technical Spa 4*lms, license 4.
requirerr,6rits, or intemal pr*ures or instructions having nuclear safety significance.
Significant operating abnormallties or deviations from norrnal and vad performance of 5.
l plant equipment that affects nuclear safety.
'. A!! REPORTABLE EVENTS (LERs orty).
6 All recuy.lz.d indications of an unanticipated deficiency in design or operation of safety-7.
related str*wes, systems, or ws. guises.
All ctoriges to the Matim Emergency Plan prior to implorr dauvs.
8.
All items referred by the Systems Engirmring Supervisor, Station Manager, She VL7 9.
President, ard General Manager of Qualty Programs and Assessments.
i
^
FOR INFORMATION:
- 10. Other OSR ttems/DocumentsHQIaddressed above.
This Transmittal is being made in accordance wth Oued Cries Nu:: lear Power Station Technical Specifications 6.1.G.2.d(1) for Information only. No specific action is requ! ed unless deemed necessary by Offsite Review and Irwestigative Function.
8 s
4 e
QAP 1100-521 Revision 2 i
100FR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATIONS December 1991 Safety Evaluation Number: SE b IN DC f! 4-92-372, Document ident1f1er:
' "I K 'Wd S'3 7 /' ? Z C G !!?!' '?-
r/!? !!
^'
modification Temp Alt, Hork. Request Number, etc.)
Unit (s):
D/0 K F
System (s): N Y I U 'M Ir'^'* % A>" D S O Applicable Plant Hode(s):
JL L (RUN, STARTUP/ HOT STHBY, REFUEL or SHUTDOWN) t Plant Hode Restriction (s):
M 0/Uit 1.
Describe the proposed change: Flo/YM J W i m ML //^'A /'4 W '*44 4 ar be n.
4x umr.r.auf 2.a.':d sz % D.u.M.rDC 231 J'a 3tRS
.% 44?- A 4, ju s -!>.-1.J i>. 3
,'3:..r-u - u n:w r de n wi< riata cocai<.u c: RG-As it>r
- prw; i h
.s;i n % c : / n i.: u ~.u.
m.1,: is.s-m -m
,:ia s;> 1:: 47, u,,.a.
c Ei r*Ln:.f' D 1i! I' 11 L'?M 6..T.Cir:o r;,
cAv n, forp L i.1 b fE fNrJC, CF /Frp L ;r/; pC smata
., x 3's -!. 2 K.n setu is a c;w cu, 4,2 ; ;i.r,gp,;; ; ;,,,a, a,,
- ,.,. y,;-
O.! \\ /L r n e v'
_...;f:; f.5& g L.
J.,x,5 t; pc;;
p,.p,.; 3 p,g,wS
,,g y,,
y,,
??. l ~ fa,' - lHf
- #X c;; A
-r): c
,rt b y;
,1 i, c x,,,
- y t ic,3 r
2.
Reason for the change: s u,A if_5
, c;e y us,.,,;z y 3.,g s,;;',:
9,,,, _.
- d:lviL CM G;,17 MA w usi k r:b d l h af f a,?
It. >
-4's c...,p'.:.G w f I
au!N C M Gc w.v ra s.
E,u,i, ca,:1,. x,:ai,,,, n b 4x a uin.,3 m z:w,,,zys;g j
uut a r&ia. n.,s:,
w n. a.pu L,a
-GL x u c r 2;.,,w,,v,;.
r 3.
Is the change:
I I
M Permanent
(
)
Temporary - Expected Duration:
I e~~...,,,.
w
?
... '.,i e n Rq 4
4 QAP 1315 '
OAP 1100-521 Revision 2 1
4.
List the reference documents reviewed which describes the structure, system or component.
(Identify documents referenced even if no information was found in that section.)
j a.
UFSAR 5ection(s):
M A's - 16
?c 63
/f. 6 i
i b.
SER Section(s):
e3
[
~
c.
Tech Spec Section(s):
Mc G-3 T du 6 ifMa d.
Fire Protection Program Document Pkg Section(s):
A UB e.
Code of Federal Regulations Section(s):
d h2
)
f.
Regulatory Guides /NUREGs:
A /h g.
Other:
^^
"'O E
i 5.
Describe how the change will affect plant operation when the changed i
structure, system or component function as intended (i.e., focus on system operation / interactions in the absence of equipment failures).
[
Consider all applicable operating nodes.
Include a discussion of any changed interactions with other structures, systems or components.
$ cum s (ie,pra isnt-n-id, a sin it st*4* una ass. t-a 31%4 n /Mc e s'-X, h rse.u.r-so-in, tutter ns.,nf c.whan.,h er s.noisso suprar.c;1gg, 4 se.73.,,,. ig,
se x a.rica wub m acxix hi:vicx,) suitt r.1r Arrecr l's,Jr s?tM mar.
i
//ft par 1 srfxc. nth mws sas?Ar' Anz,0 Zsisws12b M EmirwsDxk f
[.c:xzicienhassx4f. ras ters ca.a e cw? :.w opJw9, 0/th/') ;.O J
nu.Oh 4C.cx n:cs:rG>sia arra die AJWn d'swMr.s.
i 6.
Describe how the change will affect equipment failures.
In particular, describe any new failure modes and their impact during all applicable operating modes.
4 cpA4aS
&~ &n?LscnR#12b iJiti A W css' fg A rN Ak w m.OE s o.F
,W?/t upg,
/
i
.D 1
.i QAP 1315 --
OAP 110G-521 i
Rev1ston 2 7.
Identify each accident or anticipated transient (i.e., large/small break LOCA, loss of load, turbine missile, fire, flooding) 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 structure, system or component failure of the changed structure, system or component could lead to the accident ACCIDENT OFSAR SECTION pe,n saxn v ?,ra: zu ;v,,,a r can..ac
,cces;...
it.n
( ;.a ra w.n2.17 in s!.n sK dA / CA
.t. fc 'fie n/ L ) I, 7 2
^
8.
List each Technical Specification (Safety Limit Limiting Safety System Setting or Limiting Condition for Operation) where the requirenant, associated action items, associated survelliances, or bases may be affected.
(To determine the factors affecting the specification, it is l
necessary to review the UFSAR and SER where the Bases Section of the Technical Specifications does not explicity state the basis).
w a.!
P r
]
9.
Hill the change involve a Technical Specification revision?
(
) Yes M No If a Technical Specification revision is involved, the change cannot be implemented until the NRC issues a license amendment.
When completing step 14, indicate that a Technical Specification revision is required.
i e
-o.-,,,,_ :)
't
=
- reo,
=
... 8
(
~ 7# ~ '"!,
QAP 1315
~3-
QAP 1100-521
_lpvision 2 l
i 10.
To determine if the probability or the consequenas ol' an accident or
~
malfunction of equipment important to safety pr.m misly evaluated in the UFSAR may be increased, use one copy of this papa to answer the following questions for each accident listed in step 7.
Provide the i
rationale for all NO answers.
r Affected accident Gedfi @ rd f A45'-I.T 12 UFSAR Section:
61/-3-2 s i.+er -aasar su obw r-t May the probability of the accident be increased?
(
) Yes (M No WE c HAME S
-n 4 N su HeA r.h,1 dit.h/AWauc; c,f ps,u,;y, 1404-m -/04,.:?n.r~- iJ - 102
+
y,,, _,4
,c W g g p,,( ( 4,
(
Asput f a.u.h, 6 4_r-gg,,A carwa,:b,,.sas.u rs sisJg s.gzu ACALY?N 8y 2 Dc;nOJERjidG [(,ygy,ggy, gy,s cv, y 3
+ DtIU I 7) A xb Of I Bla'?
wx nu~b 6 s ?s % >
.-1 7 i:,c vis,a AK WAM Nt w etX j.7,h gim,.; 3.
}
May the consequences of the accident (off-site
(
) Yes P <3 No dose) be increased?
Y E
l k
/$,0 bh,}
[ y& p f h kk A
e NKAZ w.>
azx,J
.40 Tecnnsx riv c; ;=,: c=c s w&,* ax.stc uNas c+ on,ec=L,4% accaaur impa<ik.
i 4
- **
- e em
, o,D e
h S h h QAP 1315
EC31}3
@P 1100-521
-E O.C.S.R
___Jtevision 2 r
May the probability of a malfunction of equipment
(
) Yes Q>Tc f <f54
,AS -du // f CONh' 6 N.s
.TA]
l s
b f/A L b.
.4A > K "CnAsa c " s " Hm!L gaul-KUAtuATEh B Y nik>iasa2>,t'c och
- suisb 4,_
p,p BE
- d N O 61It AttiweCL 2
- =.si?g g,4 9 y,n,73_
ga
[
f6CEEA5A TN AN/:
P A.>B il B IL s f y of p svi,;L y a,0c g;u gg,5 7g k
s r
i J
Hey the consequences of a malfunction of equipment (
) Yes I% No important to safety increase?
NU WE Ot0L Y P a s/att /10 ratac CoiJ zio vci vio3q dx A?2 e
i JuNoATL LJiulb /3.L A Lccii, gg pygf pg g I
ANAL YE0 faA Lud sof n GJ.g.
,q,[gg; jacgzy g7,yg I
f,* ckasE O '-
y;;,
0 CO^G E QtAidC U cfp acg
.ht
,y, 47;g p,p,,g
- JuPPCRf3, T
i e
i If any answer to Question 10 is YES. then an Unreviewed Safety Ouestion exists.
QAP 1315.
1-QAP 1100-521 Revision 2 t
10.
To determine if the probability or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the UFSAR may be increased, use one copy of this page to answer the following Questions for each accident listed in step 7.
Provide the rationale for all NO answers.
Affected accident #',o<J N P'^4 * 'u UFSAR Section:
34 12 sw,.,w w a,-nnar I
Hay the probability of the accident be increased?
(
) Yes N No
,,f,k cp2u 3 dn'af nan ftink fianfo 1_[ Pnpc. u MJm-'
c'"
"'" "'Ws paws.,,4
- n..r-w- !.a ce su, sab PDanM 4ic-n-c'ca dC ## "
g & L.p,s ( & M ZNG INEEllAG RO ps9L AAEA, nuoGb d AA N' Nd AK NPR DittaanGL C tbrah 5.
&LM II A~ MA'U': S#
pupsii1T' cQ pccilAdE Au i
May the consecuences of the accident (off-site
(
) Yes N No dose) be increased?
A;c,,
di onti ib.trisit accistr f.-rZ f 4,J y m,,,g,
J U P A'N b
Llidit Ceut.h ARA b 6 acug.g pg,
,g. o p. _,,,,
di PLsa r an Aids,4 y p x g,s,
y 4,,
="'
Al sa,
4:34 g,gg 3,,,,, gg,g,m y,g
&s r 4! y' ppy-
.3 % ^^0 A n a,1;G,,J g,4 f4t?
AllsJAdig jc,q S,
e i
. __ D QAP 1315 4-
~
20 317 :q QAP 1100-521 i
Revision 2
? C.2.5.1Q,.
Hay the probability of a malfunction of equipment
(
) Yes N No important to safety increase?
8: s;.??c:t G 14P': M.n,?f u r - flix. car 1 ? sgj,perijJ //Riider MWs,plERdb Y DaAiv Aw LY?K}
By 5,tlGw'gndudc, Ed l
WL Citi%C,Eh CtJh t WN.5.
ALL AM As i;,9 b 3 sgg,J fy
$11 s ro fN<-,
Ai?A wvf5sid FS A 2 dii> rig.S,
bAltLGABt2 b
f i
i
}
~
May the consequences of a malfunction of equipment
(
) Yes bA No important to safety increase?
f MC Cw~c 6.safA kf1
_so u; ug 4 p,0,,z yg gb
,, g,cc,,gg,y,,4 l
A'Ob Wi i ssh.s
.542 sJ ay 4x.5v5sg,,,gg g,gi,a 9,, w g,-
1 FSPR L im d.c.
.TF Ad A c c ih,7 cq-jagag C cec 4 g( wcy,_ $
fiu B?6L V GE A ja c;),
.-flJgpg acuth ;g a y gg,y
,p b CON M "E'OCES OF A L;icit han f
Q uppg A.
na, If any answer to Duestion 10 is YES. then an Unreviewed Safety Ouestion erists.
QAP 1315
-b i
..,a_,
-l Z 3 i jpgl QAP 110c-521 Revision 2 O C.O.S.R.
11.
Based on your answers to Questions 5 and 6, does the change adversely i
impact systems or functions so as to create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the UFSAk?
(
) Yes C><> No Describe the rationale for your answer.
k CJIAnGrT5 6E/ AJC,
/LAfeds n Zb M ii O^}
S'OA
' "0l#
dtsit hy>AG Su,t%2fs
,GNN h.SKs72m) dhdV NY AN
- t.
su?PtA f J// t/,C AAEA) /NAL Y2 sib M
EAMidfiu',? ttOc j) J N"db b
Si ACCAPWdL R,
575 fisc;;iasiadnvq LE,92,t 'S CA2CN # O? Jh~, Olt8Ic?,- ott2 ji7 Na nM sJ Acc ib.nai OR InAt r aMG,V CF s9
~
f Yi S h j f f y g g f yg,.,,m 4 s _
S
< vALuiWith.
a NA NAS AAAi C1%Er1TE, joe answer to Duestion 11 is Yes. then an Unreviewed Safetv Question exists.
QAP 1315
-b
i E C 3 1 jpp}
OAP 110D-521 Revision 2 i
I.C.O.S.R.
12.
Determine if parameters used to estabitsh the Technical Specification limits are changed.
Use one copy of this page to answer the following
)
auestions for each Technical Specification listed in step 8.
If no Technical Specifications are impacted, then no reduction in margin of safety exists, proceed to step 14.
Technical Specification
/ME
~
i Determine which of the following is true for the above specification:
(
)
All changes to the parameters or conditions used to establish the Technical Specification requirements are in a conservative s
\\
direction.
Therefore, the actual acceptance limit need not be identified to determine that no reduction in margin of safety exists, proceed to question 13.
(
)
The Technical Specification provides a margin of safety or cceptance limit for the applicable parameter or condition.
1 L'1 t the limit (s)/ margin (s) below.
(
)
The pplicable parameter or condition change is in a i
potentially non-conservative direction and the Technical Specif1' cation neither provides an acceptance limit nor explicit 1'y'a sistance to identify the acceptance limit / margin references a limit in the UFSAR.
Request Nuclear l
Licensing l
for the Marg (in of Safety determination.
List the limit (s)/margt (s) below.
List Acceptance Limit (s)/Ma gin (s) of Safety NN i
13.
UsetheabovelimitsidentifiedinsteN2todetermineifthemarginof safety is reduced (i.e., the new values exceed the acceptance limits).
Describe the rationale for your determinatlon.
Inclurte a description of compensating factors used to reach that conclusion.
i
?
)
N
's j
l If a Marcin of Safety is reduced. an Unreviewed Safetv Duestion exists.
QAP 1315.-.
i
QAP 1100-521 Revision 2 14.
Check one of the following:
(
) An Unreviewed Safety Question was identified in step 10, step 11, or step 13.
The proposed change MUST NOT be implemented without NRC approval.
(
No Unreviewed Safety Ouestion will result (steps 10, 11, and 13)
AND no Technical Spectftcation revision will be involved.
The change, may be implemented in accordance with applicable proteaures.
(
) A Technical Specification revision is involved; but no Unreviewed Safety Question will result.
The proposed change requires a License Amendment.
Notify Station Regulatory Assurance and Nuclear Licensing that a Technical Specification revision is required. Mark below as applicable.
(
) The change is not a plant modification or minor plant change and will not be implemented under 10CFR50.59. Upon receipt of the approved Technical Specification change from the NRC, the change may be implemented.
(
) The change is a plant modification or minor plant change.
Mark below as appilcable.
(
) A revision to an existing Technical Specification is required.
The change MUST NOT be installed until receipt of an approved Technical Specification revision.
(
) The change will not confilet with any existing Technical Specifications and only~ new Technical Specifications are required.
In these cases, Nuclear Licensing may authorize installation, but not operation, prior to receipt of NRC approval of the License Amendment.
If such authorization is granted, the block below should be checked.
(
)
Nuclear Licensing has authorized installation, but not operation, prior to receipt of NRC approval of the License Amendment.
The 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation indicates that no Unreviewed Safety Question will result and provides authority for installation only.
b W NIMn MohM NAIN$
Preparer Signature Date
?
- - -... = D 7 3 : Ci QAP 1315
-B-7,n
QAP 1100-521 Revision 2 15.
The reviewer has determined that the documentation is adequate to support the above conclusion and agrees with the conclusion.
II SE 2 /- I '
f Reviewer Signature Date 16.
Obtain a safety evaluation number from the Tech Staff clerk and record it on page 1.
17.
Leave one copy of the safety evaluation with the Tech Staff tierk and-file the original with the applicable package (s) 18.
The Tech Staff ciert will forward a copy "of this safety evaluation to the FSAR Coordinator.
(ANI Audit Recomendation 58-1)
Completed:
hlC 9WO43 InitIa1 Date a
r I
l l
4
- - _..... _ D (final)
QAP 1315 - ^ 0,e,a, i
QCAP 1000-6 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT A (Page 1 of 1)
OFFSITE REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTION TRANSMITTAL SED 150 Ouad Cities Nuclear Power Sta+1on l
Reference Number *
(X/W
% d)-3 6-3 Date: 9-M-f]
Subject:
[x
- Mc,
$gcc
@,e b
,dL, s Submitted by: MV 6 4//
FOR REVIEW:
Safety Evaluations NOT involving an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59 1.
for:
Changes to procedures as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
a.
b.
Changes to equipment or systems as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
Tests or experiments NOT described in the Safety Analysis Report.
c.
i Proposed changes which involve an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59.
2.
a.
Procedure changes.
b.
Equipment or system changes.
c.
Tests or experiments.
3.
Proposed changes to the Technical Spec!'ications or Operating License.
i Noncompliance with codes, regulations, ordeis, Technical Specifications, Ilcense 4.
requirements, or intemal procedures or instructions having nuclear safety significance.
I Significant operating abnorrnalities or deviations from normal and expected performance of 5.
plant equipment that affects nuclear safety.
i 6.
A!! REPORTABLE EVENTS (LERs only).
All recognized indications of an unanticipated deficiency in design or operation of safety-3 7.
related structures, systems, or components.
8.
All changes to the Station Emergency Plan prior to implementation.
9.
All items referred by the Systems Engineering Supervisor, Station Manager, Site Vice President, and General Manager of Quality Programs and Assessments.
FOR INFORMATION:
A
- 10. Other OSR ltems/ Documents NOT addressed above.
This Transmittal is being made in accordance with Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Technical Spec!fications 6.1.G.2.d(1) for information only. No specific action is required q
unless deemed necessary by Offsite Review and Investigative Function.
i 4
8
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O l
ATTACHMENT G (Page 1 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION GENERAL INFORMATION:
Safety Evaluation Number:
SE-93 f50 Document identifier: OCAN 901(2)-3 B-3 y-,e.,,
v, a we a.m
.w,
Unit (s): 1 and 2 System (s): Reactor Building Ventilation Applicable Plant Mode (s): ALL mm e.,,,,, *., s,.
%. s%u...,
Plant Mode Restriction (s): NONE List Multiple Procedures Affected Below:
Procedure Number -
Procedure Number Procedure Number Procedure Number NONE j
=.
CHANGE DESCRIPTION:
- 1. Describe the proposed change:
Give direction to isolate Reactor Building Ventilation if both the Reactor Building Ventilation sampler and the Reactor Building Ventilation Continuous Air Monitor are both inoperable.
j I
1
- 2. Reason for the change Present direction in annunciator response procedure is to verify Reactor Building
)
Ventilation CAM is operable and to initiate an outage report that does not specify actions i
when both sampling means are inoperable.
]
4 1
- 3. Is the change:
X Permanent 4
Temporary - Expected Duration:
F CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 2 of 8) i 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
4.
List reference documents used which describe the structure, system, or component. Identify documents referenced even if no information was found in that section.
i UFSAR Section(s): 11.5 a.
b.
SER Section(s):
1 c.
Tech. Spec. Section(s): 3.2/4.2, 3.8/4.8 d.
Fire Protection Program Document Pkg Section(s):
e.
Code of Federal Regulations Section(s):
f.
Regulatory Guides /NUREGs:
g.
Other EVALUATION:
5.
Describe how plant operation is affected when the structure, system, or component function is changed t
as intended (i.e., focus on system operation / interactions in the absence of equipment failures).
Consider ali applicable operating modes. Include a discussion of any changed interactions with other structures, systems, or components.
l Tech. Specs. require a continuous means of monitoring gaseous effluent releases to allow the releases to continue. Direction is being added to the procedure to discontinue the release (isolate Reactor Building Ventilation) if a continuous means of sampling does not exist.
6.
Describe how the change wi!! affect equipment failures. Describe any new failure modes and their j
impact during all applicable operating modes.
i This change gives direction in the event that equipment failures occur to both the Reactor E
Building Vent sampler and Continuous Air Monitor to comply with Tech Spec Table 3.2-6.
This change is independent of the operating mode and involves no new failure modes.
4 i
^
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O i
ATTACHMENT G (Page 3 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
7.
Identify each accident or anticipated transient (Le., large/small break LOCA, loss of load, turbine missiles, fire, ficoding) described in the UFSAR where any of the following is true:
l The change a!!ers 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 NONE NA i
8.
Ust each Technical Specification (Safety Limit Limiting Safety System Setting, or Limiting Condition for Operation) where the requirement, associated action items, associated surveiitances, or bases may be affected. To determine factors affecting the specification, it is necessary to review the UFSAR and SER I
where the Technical Specification Bases section does not explicitly state the basis.
3.2 H i
Tabte 124 i
l 9.
Will the change involve a Technical Specification revis. ion?
r YES f
X NO i
if a Technical Specification revision is involved, the change cannot be implemented until the NRC issues a licon;c amendment. When complethg Step 14, Indlocate that a Technical Specification revision is required.
r
l
~
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 4 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
- 10. To determine if the probability or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to cafety previously evaluated in the UFSAR may be increased, use one copy of these pages to answer the fo!!owing questions for each accident listed in Step 7. Provide rationale for all NO answers.
Affected accident: NONE UFSAR Section: NA
- a. May the probability of the accident be increased?
YES X
NO 9
The direction given in this procedure is to place the Reactor Building Ventilation in a shutdown and isolated condition due the unavailability of a continuous gaseous effluent monitor. This does not increase the probability or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
i
- b. May the consequences of the accident (off-site dose) be increased?
YES X
NO l
The consequences of an accident will not be increased by isolation of the Reactor Building Ventilation when a continuous gaseous effluent monitor is unavailable.
I
i CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O i
ATTACHMENT G (Page 5 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
- c. May the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety increase?
YES X
NO Isolation of Reactor Building Ventilation when a continuous gaseous effluent monitor is unavailable does not increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety.
i i
L
- d. May the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety increase?
)
YES X
NO i
isolation of Reactor Building Ventilation when a continuous gaseous effluent monitor is unavailable does not increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to J
safety.
i 1
ff any answer to Question 10 is YES, then an Unreviewed Safety Question exists.
l
l CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 6 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
- 11. Based on the answers to Questions 5 and 6, does the change adversely impact systems or functior.s so as to create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the UFSAR7 l
YES l
X NO
{
Describe the rationale for your answer.
Tech Specs allow gaseous effluent releases to continue as long as a samples are continuously collected. This procedure change directs the shutdown and isolation of the i
Reactor Building Ventilation if equipment failures occur that do not allow a continuous sample to be taken. The shutdown and isolation of the Reactor Building Ventilation system does not adversely impact systems or functions so as to create the possibility of an accident i
or malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the UFSAR.
l l
J I
l
)
e if any answer to Question 11 is YES, then an Unreviewed Safety Question exists.
i b
i
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION 0 ATTACHMENT G (Page 7 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
- 12. Determine if parameters used to establish the Technical Specification limits are changed. Use one copy of this page to answer the following questions for each Technical Specification listed in Step 8. If no Technical Specifications are impacted, then no reduction in margin of safety exists. Proceed to Step 14.
Technical Specification:
3.2 H Determine which of the following is true for the above specification:
All changes to the parameters or conditions used to establish the Technical Specification requirements are in a conservative direction. The actual acceptance limit need not be identified to determine that no reduction in margin of safety exists. Proceed to Step 13.
The Technical Specification provides a margin of safety or acceptance limit for the applicable parameter or c.ondition. Ust the limit (s) or margin (s) below.
The applicable parameter or condition change is in a potentially non-conservat've r
direction and the Technical Specification neither provides an acceptance limit nor explicitly references a limit in the UFSAR. Request Nuclear Ucensing assistance to identify the acceptance limit or margin for the Margin of Safety determination. Ust the limit (s) or margin (s) below.
X The change does not affect any parameters upon which the Technical Specifications i
are based; therefore, there is no reduction in the margin of safety. Proceed to Step 14.
List Acceptance Umit(s)/ Margin (s) of Safety i
f
- 13. Use the above limits identified in Step 12 to determine if the margin of safety is reduced (i.e., the new values exceed the acceptance limits). Describe the rationale for your determination. Include a description of compensating factors used to reach that conclusion.
7 1
i CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O t
ATTACHMENT G (Page 7 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
l
- 12. Determine if parameters used to establish the Technical Specification limits are changed. Use one copy of this page to answer the fo!!owing questions for each Technical Specification listed in Step 8. If no Technical Specifications are impacted, then no reduction in margin of safety exists. Proceed to Step 14.
Technical Specification: Table 3.2-6 i
Dttermine which of the following is true for the above specification:
i All changes to the parameters or conditions used to establish the Technical Specification requirements are in a conservative direction. The actual acceptance limit need not be identified to determine that no reduction in margin of safety exists. Proceed to Step 13.
i The Technical Specification provides a margin of safety or acceptance limit for the applicable parameter or condition. Ust the limit (s) or margin (s) below.
1.
The applicable parameter or condition change is in a potentially non-conservative direction and the Technical Specification neither provides an acceptance limit nor explicitly references a limit in the UFSAR. Request Nuclear Licensing assistance to identify the acceptance limit or margin for the Margin of Safety determination. List the limit (s) or margin (s) below.
i X
The change does not affect any parameters upon which the Technica! Specifications are based; therefore, there is no reduction in the margin of safety. Proceed to Step 14.
List Acceptance Umit(s)/ Margin (s) of Safety i
F I
- 13. Use the above limits identified in Step 12 to determine if the margin of safety is reduced (i.e., the new values exceed the acceptance limits). Describe the rationale for your determination, include a description of compensating factors used to reach that conclusion.
i l
NA a
l n
CGE QCAP 1100-9 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT G (Page 8 of 8) 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION EVALUATION (cont'd):
- 14. Check one of the following:
An Unreviewed Safety Question was identified in Step 10, Step 11, or Step 13. The Prooosed change MUST NOT be implemented without NRC approval.
X No unreviewed Safety Question will result (Steps 10,11, and 13; AND no Technical Specification revision will be involved. The change may be implemented in accordance with applicable procedures.
A Technical Specification revision is involved; but no Unreviewed Safety Question will result. The proposed changa requires a Ucense Amendment. Notify Station Regulatory Assurance and Nuclear Ucensing that a Technical Specification revision is required. Indicate applicable type (s) below:
The change is not a plant modification or minor plant change and will not be implemented under 10CFR50.59. Upon recelpt of the approved Technical Specification change from the NRC, the change may be implemented.
The change is a plant modification or minor plant change. Indicate applicable type (s) below-A revision to an existing Technical Specification is required. The change MUST NOT be installed until receipt of an approved Technical Specification revision.
i The change will not conflict with any existing Technical Specifications and only new Technical Specifications are required. In these cases, Nuclear Ucensing may authorize the installation, but j
not operation, prior to receipt of NRC approval of the Ucense Amendment. If such authorization is granted, j
the block below should be checked.
Nuclear Ucensing has authorized installation, but no operation, prior to receipt of j
the NRC approval of Ucense Amendment. The 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation indicates that no Unreviewed Safety Question will resutt, and provides authority for insta!!ation only.
)
Preparer /Date: % e,e [ufM 9,7/. fJ
- 15. Documentation is adequate to support the above conclusion and the conclusion is valid.
Reviewer /Date: f)k?[vf )
Y,b Yf91
- 16. Obtain a Safety Evaluation number from the Systems Engineering Clerk. Record on Page 1.
- 17. Leave 1 Safety Evaluation copy with Systems Engineering Clerk. File original with package.
Completed:
Systems Engineering Clerk initials:
ig Date:
- 9. p$ f 7 (final) 1
QCAP luvu-o
,s UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT A (Page 1 Of 1)
OFFSITE REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTION TRANSMITTALi
)
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Reference Number:
NO4 - / - h'7 - CO2 D Date: /O-7-93
Subject:
$U$.Stad $c) CuMdeh reclac1hn f fu, elle,' clvwct -c vT j
Submtted by: %Mn
/hckcC I
FOR REVIEW:
Safety EvaluationsEQIinvolving an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59 1.
for:
Changes to procedures as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
a.
b.
Changes to equipment or systems as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
Tests or experiments NOT described in the Safety Analysis Report.
c.
Proposed changes which involve an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59.
2.
~
a.
Procedure changes.
b.
Equipment or system changes.
c.
Tests or experiments.
3.
PiccM changes to the Technical Specifications or Operating Ucense.
Noncompliance with codes, regulations, orders Technical Specifications, license 4.
requirements, or intema! procedures or instructions having nuclear safety significance.
Significant operating abnormalities or deviations from normal and expected performance of 5.
plant equipment that affects nuclear safety.
)
6.
All REPORTABLE EVENTS (LERs onty).
All r6cugruod Indications of an uranticipated deficiency in design or operation of safety-7.
related structures, systems, or componenta.
8.
All changes to the Station Emergency Plan prior to implemercation.
AB ltems referred by the Systems Engineering Supervisor, Station Manager, Site Vice 9.
President, and General Manager of Qum!ty Programs and Assessments.
FORJNFORMATION:
- 10. Other OSR ltems/ Documents HQI addressed above-This Transmttal is being made in accordance wth Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Technical Specifications 6.1.G.2.d(1) for information only. No specific action is required j
unless deemed necessary by Offsite Review and investigative Function.
O 8
i i
Modi ficatIan(s) Ifumber M-4. /(2)-(7 902 A), Q O Description Write 'a'brief description explaining what the modification was; why it was tlated (reference any NAC requirements); how it was accomplished (basically) int I
huap
- '*1w & h uffESW k&
A A swA~r" w @r' W m W.
ra A u x - w m s a l+cs fit Te avd & a'w 4 fo- & th ( 4 P f "la w2<$
M 54 M f
.A & A t
i 1 -wr-Q p rs m.
Evaluation i
Sasically a synopsis of the safety aspects of the mdification.
Use the safety evaluation as a guide.
(Do not try to answer the specific questions on the safety evaluation.)
YW Y N W^t Tht M -
W y ra Mcu %~
asydJDD'& Hot w
.4 &%'<
/y
$ntrnth %A/14 ANA9' b/
1Ae m M L a 4 r J f
,a _ A u w ns n,,, J, a s s, s
- W -
~ ~e
/I A
O i
n
1 l*
l ENGINEERING SYNOPSIS M4-1(2)87-002A B,C.D RHRSW PUMP IMPELLER REPLACEMENT The unit One "A" RHRSW pump impeller (1-1001-65A) was replaced under special test 1-109.
The replacement provided solution to the pump cavitation problems and adequately exceeded test criteria for implementation.
The Unit One "A" RHRSW pump impeller was operation authorized 12-18-87 as per special test 1-109. Modification documentation has subsequently been generated and processed for the 1-1001-65A RHRSH pump impeller (s) replacement via partial modification M4-1-87-002A.
The Unit Two "C" RHRSW pump impeller (s) partial modification was satisfactorily completed and operation authorized on 4-28-89.
This work was documented under the provisions of Nuclear Work Request Q74621 and partial modification M4-2-87-002C.
Partial modifications M4-1-87-002B, C, & D and M4-2-87-002A, B &D remain to be performed.
These partial modifications will be processed in ordinary manner for BWR Engr'd. modifications. Once any of the RHRSW pumps has been taken out of service and the modification begun, it will require the completion of modification and operability testing, as well as operation authorization, prior to initiating the modification work on any of the remaining RHRSW pumps.
This will meet Tech Spec requirements as well as i
operational concerns.
The Installer for these remaining partials will be the Mechanical Maintenance O
Department.
The nuclear work requests associated with the remaining partials l
1s as follows:
Partial Mod #
Nuclear Work Recuest #
RHRSW Pumo #
M4-1-87-002B 074616 1-1001-65B l
M4-1-87-002C Q74617 1-1001-65C M4-1-87-002D 074618 1-1001-65D M4-2-87-002A Q74619 2-1001-65A l
M4-2-87-002B 074620 2-1001-65B M4-2-87-0020 OS4622 2-1001-650 Operating Procedure QCOP 1000-4 will require further revisions as each pump is modified to allow fully opening the pump discharge valves
[1(2)-1001-3A, B, C, D) associated with the appropriate RHRSW pump.
These changes, allowing increased flow, should be approved prior to operation authorization of each of the newly modified pumps.
l Q
?il dum_
Mike Freeman Tech Staff Engineer TECHE2 i
.m..
u.
1 1
Exhibit I Mod # M4-1-87-002 ENC-QE-06.1 M4-2-87-002 iiMkr14 Revision 5
{
Page 1 of 8 l
Station / Unit ound Cities
/lf2)
I l
r Exhibit E lOCTR50.59 SATETY sVALUATION 1.
List the documents implementing the proposed change.
I ECNs: 04-00897M, 04-00898M, 04-00899M. 04-00900M.
04-00901M. 04-00902M. 04-00903M FCR 4-93-130 j
t 2.
Describe the proposed change and the reason for the change.
This design will dampen the vibration amplitudes occurring at vane-pass frequency by angling the volute inlet edges (cut-water).
This will decrease the dynamic forces causing the vibration.
3.
Is the change:
?
[X) Permanent
[ ] Temporary -
)
Expected duration l
t i
AND Plant Mode (s) restrictions while installed (NONE if no plant mode restrictions apply) f 4.
List the SAR sections which describe the affected systems, structures, or components (SSCs) or activities. Also list the SAR accident analysis sections which discuss the affected SSCs or their operation.
List any l
other controlling documents such as SERs, previous modifications or
]
Safety Evaluations, etc.
5.4.7 RHR - Shutdown Cooling I
6.3 Emergency Core Cooling System t
9.2.1 RHR Service Water System 15 Accident and Transient Analyses j
5.
Describe how the change will affect plant operation when the changed 4
SSCs function as intended (i.e.,
focus on system operation / interactions in the absence of equipment failures).
consider all applicable i
operating modes.
Include a discussion of any changed interactions with other SSCs.
I Grinding the volute inlet edge (cut-water) will reduce i
vibration in the pump.
RHRSW flow will not be affected.
QE-06.1 DECA Version 2.2 t
i l
t ExhLbit I Mod # M4-1-87-002 ENC-QE-06.1 M4-2-87-002 GdAl&f a14 Revision 5 Page 2 of 8 Station / Unit Quad cities
/lf21 i
Exhibit E 10CFR50.59 SAFETT EVALUATION 6.
Describe how the change will affect equipment failures.
In particular, l
describe any new failure modes and their impact during all applicable operating modes.
Modifying the pump internal casing will reduce vibration and improve pump seal life.
t i
7.
Identify each accident or anticipated transient (i.e.,
large/small break LOCA, Icss of load, turbine missiles, fire, flooding) described in the SAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the SAR analysis The changed SSC is explicitly or Lmplicitly assumed to function during or after the accident a
operation or failure of the changed SSC could lead to the accident s
ACCIDENT SAR SECTION LOCA (boundino) 15I 8.
List each Technical Specification (Safety Limit, Limiting Safety System j
l Setting or Limiting Condition for Operation) where the requirement,
]
associated action items, associated surveillances, or bases may be l
affected. To determine the factors affecting the specification, it is necessary to review the FSAR and SER where the bases section of the j
Technical Specifications does not explicitely state the basis.
j i
3.5/4.5 Core Containment Cooling _ Systems j
9.
Will the change involve a Technical Specification revision?
l I
[ ] Yes (X) No If a Technical specification revision is involved, the change cannot be l
implemented until the NRC issues a license amendment.. When completing j
step 14, indicate that a Technical specification revision is required.
j J.
j' I
?
i I
QE-06.1 DECA Version 2.2 I
3 Exhibit I Mod # M4-1-87-002 ENC-QE-06.1 M4-2-87-002 drdam 4 Revision 5 Page 3 of 8 Station / Unit Quad cities
/1(2)
Exhibit E 10CrR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION 10.
To deter:nine if the probability or the consequences of an accident or malf unction of equipenent important to safety previously evaluated in the SAR may be increased, use ene copy of this page to answer the following questions for each accident listed in Step 7.
Provide the rationale for all NO answers.
-Affected accident LOCA (boundino)
SAR Sectien:
15 May the probability of the accident be increased?
[ ] Yes
[X) No Grinding the volute inlet edge (cut-water) will reduce vibration in the pu:tp.
RHR service water flow will not be affected.
The probability of an accident is not changed.
May the consequences of the accident (off-site dose)
[ ] Yes
[X) Ne be increased?
RER service water pump provides cooling water to the RHR Hx.
modifying the pump internal casing improves performance of the pump.
Consequences of an accident are decreased.
May the probability of a malfunction of equipment
[ ] Yes
[X] No impcrtant to safety increase?
This design will reduce the vibration of the pump and improve seal life.
The probability of an equipment malfunction will decrease.
May the consequences of a malfunction of equipment
[ ] Yes
[X) No important to safety increase?
Pump internals are being modified to improve the performance of the pu=p.
Consequences of an equipment malfunction is unchanged by this design.
If any answer to Question 10 is YES, then an Unreviewed safety ouestion exists.
J t
QE-06.1 DEC1 Version 2.2 i
d m
Exhibit I Mod # M4-1-87-OO2 ENC-QE-06.1 M4-2-87-OO2 M41ndnm 4 Revision 5 Page 4 of 8 Station / Unit Quad Cities
/1f2)
Exhibit E 10CFR50.59 SATETY EVALUATION 11.
Based en your answers to Questions 5 and 6, does the change adversely impact systems or functions so as to create the possibility of an accident er malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the SAR?
( ; Yes
[X) No Describe the rationale for your answer.
This design will modify the RHRSW pump internals by angling the volute's inlet edges (cut-water).
This will decrease the dynamic force created by the interaction between the impeller vane pressure wake and the volutes, reducing the vibration amplitudes occurring at vane-pass frequency.
The reliability of the pump and its components are increased and pump performance will be improved.
No new accidents or equipment malfunctions are created by this design.
If the answer to ouestion 11 is Yes, then an Unreviewed Safety ouestion
- exists, i
f I
l CE-06.1 DECA Version 2.2 t
a
t Exhibit E Mod # M4-1-87-002 ENC-QE-06.1 l
M4-2-87-002 d d4tedivr 4 Revision 5 f
Page 5 of 8 Station / Unit Quad Cities
/lf21 t
Exhibit E lOCTR50.59 SATETY EVALUATION 12.
Determine if parameters used to establish the Technical Specification limits are changed. Use one copy of this page to answer the following 1
questions for each Technical Specification listed in Step 8.
List the Technical Specification, Technical Specification Bases, SAR and SER Sections reviewed for this evaluation.
3.5/4,5 Evaluation of Technical Specification (Enter N/A if none are affected and check last option.)
L N/A (Check appropriate condition):
[ ] All changes to the parameters or conditions used to establish the Technical Specification requirements are in a conservative direction. Therefore, the actual acceptance limit need not be identified to determine that no reduction in margin of safety exists - proceed to Question 13.
[ ]
The Technical Specification or SAR provides a margin of safety or acceptance limit for the applicable parameter or condition. List the lunit(s)/ margin (s) and applicable reference for the margin of safety below - proceed to question 13.
[ ]
The applicable parameter or condition change is in a potentially non-conservative direction and neither the Technical Specification, the SAR, or the SER provides a margin of safety or an acceptance limit. Request Nuclear Licensing assistance to identify the acceptance limit / margin for the Margin of Safety determination by 3
consulting the NRC, SAR, SER's or other appropriate references.
List the agreed ibnit(s)/ margin (s) below.
(X) The change does not affect any parameters upon which Technical Specifications are based; therefore, there is no redaction in the
[
margin of safety. Proceed to question 14.
List Acceptance Limit (s)/ Margin (s) of Safety Tech Spec 1
QE-06.1 DECA version 2.2 t
i
f Exhibit I Mod # M4-1-87-OO2 ENC-QE-06.1 M4-2-87-002 oddLd1W 4 Revision 5 Page 6 of 8 l
Station / Unit ~ ound cities
/1f21 i
9 Exhibit E 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATICIf f
13.
Use the above limits to determine if the margin of safety is reduced f
(i.e.,
the new values exceed the acceptance limits). Describe the f
rationale for your determination.
Include a description of cornpensating i
factors used to reach that conclusion.
N/A If a Marcin of Safety is reduced an Unreviewed Safety Duestion exists.
r I
r t
4 i
I i
1 I
a 4
i i
d
' i r
I J
i i
QE-06.1 DECA version 2.2
)
1 I
i
. -.......:~~~
4 r
4 Exhibit E Mod # M4-1-87-002 ENC-QE-06.1 O'
M4-2-87-002 fldtOn 4 Revision 5 Page 7 of 8 Station / Unit O>ad Cities
/lf21 Eahibit E 10CTR50.59 SATETY EVALUATIC,N 14.
Check one of the following:
[ ] An Unreviewed Safety Question was identified in Step 10, Step 11, or Step 13.
The proposed change MUST NOT be implemented without NRC approval.
[X) No Unreviewed Safety Question will result ( Steps 10, 11, and 13)
AND no Technical Specification revision will be involved.
The change may be implemented in accordance with applicable procedures.
[ ] A Technical Specification revision is involved; but no Unreviewed Safety Question will result.
The proposed change requires a License Amendment.
Notify Station Regulatory Assurance and Nuclear Licensing that a Technical Specification revision is required.
Mark below as applicable.
O5
[ } The change is not a plant modification or minor plant change and will not be implemented under lOCTR50.59.
Upon receipt of the approved Technical Specification change from the NRC, the change may be implemented.
[ ] The change is a plant modification or minor plant change.
Mark below as applicaide.
[ ] A revision to an existing Technical Specification is required. The change MUST NOT be installed until receipt of an approved Technical Specification revision.
3
[ ] The change will not conflict with any existing Technical Specifications and only new Technical Specifications ars required.
In these cases, Nuclear Licensing may authorize installation, but not operation, prior to receipt of NRC approval of the License Amendment.
If such authorization is granted, the block below should be checked.
{ ) Nuclear Licensing has authorized installation, but not operation, prior to receipt of NRC approval of the License Amendment. The 10CTR50.59 Safety Evaluation indicates that no Unreviewed Safety Question will result and provides authority for installation only.
l h
QE-06.1 DECA Version 2.2 l
t Exhibit E Mod # M4-1-87-002 ENC-QE-06.1 M4-2-87-002 oddt,*d1YT14 Revision 5 Page 8 of U
\\/
Station / Unit Quad Cities
/1f21 l
Exhibit E 10CTR50.59 SATETT EVALUATION Ncte:
Partial Modifications and/or separate 10CFR50.59 reviews for
,, portions of the work reay be used to f acilitate installation.
Preparer - ? ? '1 *)
Oft 8'/4-W (Cognizant Engineer)
Date 15.
The reviewer has determined that the documentation is adequate to support the above conclusion and agrees with the conclusion.
Reviewer G !t // M (Design Superin(endent/ Supervisor)
Cate O
l t
I l
P l
l l
l l
l(
QE-06.1 DECA version 2.2
~~.
QCAP 1000-6 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O ATTACHMENT A (Page 1 of 1)
{V OFFSITE REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTION TRANSMITTAL
'T Quad C! ties Nudcar Power Station 1._
Go 4 - /- 93 -/4 /
cate:toltz/95 Reference number:
Subject:
kOO P Pf C'A~P 1%)P*d"
- f***
C<Lud' $<<l I
Oc n (lt r1%r & l}PCl Tud8W &%dAuf r Erl$rgs/MM4 l #1'$.
l (M$r h$
Submftted by-CrN a 4
/.[4/o#
i w v.
FOR REYlEW:'
Safety EvaluationsEQIinvolving an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59 1.
l V
a.
Changes to procedures as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
b.
Changes to equipment or systems as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
Tests or experiments NOT described in the Safety Ana!ysis Report.
c.
Proposed changes which bvolve an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59.
2.
a.
Procedure changes.
b.
Equipment or system changes.
g x
c.
Tests or amartmerrA 3.
Pr* changes to the Technical Sc+Ae:ons or Operating !Jeonse.
Noncom;ilance with ccdes, regulations, orders Technical Spec!!ications. Ilcense 4.
requirements, or internal procedures or instructions ;wjng nuclear safety significance.
Sign!!icant operating abnorma!!tles or deviations from r cnal and expected performance of S.
plant equipment that affects nudear safety
~
AB REPORTAB!.E EVENTS (LERs only).
t y-.,
/Ji recogntrad irdiaths of an unar**=4 deficiency in design or operation of safety-
?-
j relaisd structures, s/ stems, or componorra 8.
AH changes to the W Emergency Plan prior to implementation.
9.
A!! tems referred by the Systems Engineering Supervisor, Station Manager, Site Vice Praskient, and General Manager of Qualty Programs ard AssessmerrA l
^
~,
j bFORINFORMATiONr *
\\
M
- 10. Other OSR ltems/ Documents HQI addressed above.
This Tiger.tta is being made in asd.w with Quad Ctles Nudoar Power Station Technical Spe#46 6.1.G.2.d(1) for infomsation onty. No specific action is required unless deemed necacemry by Offs!!e Redew and investigat!ve Function.
J 8
~
l
}
Exhibit E Mod # E04-1-93-161 ENC-QE-06.1 Ttevision 5 Page 1 of 9 Station / Unit Quad Cities
/
Exhibit E lOCTR50.59 SAFETY EVAL,UATION 1
List the documents implementing the proposed change.
ECN 04-00938M 2.
Describe the proposed change and the reason for the change.
The proposed change to the HPCI Turbine Exhaust Instrument Sensing Lines and Gland Seal Condenser Sensing Line is to add a pipe clamp support. The pipe clamp will be clamped to existing HPCI Turbine Exhaust Line 1-2306-20".
The reason for the change is due to the fact that the as-found condition of the instrument sensing lines did not meet the Quad Cities seismic design criteria, rendering the lines out of FSAR allowables.
g3 l
3.
Is the change:
[X)
Permanent
[ ] Temporary -
Expected duration AND Plant Mode (s) restrictions while installed (NONE if no plant mode restrictions apply) 4.
List the SAR sections which describe the af fected systems, structures, or components (SSCs) or activities. Also list the SAR accident analysis sections which discuss the af f ected SSCs or their operation.
List any other controlling documents such as SERs, previous modifications er Safety Evaluations, etc.
FSAR 6.2.5 High Pressure Coolant Injection Subsystem UFSAR 3.0 Design of Structures, Components, Equipment and Systems 3.6 Protection against Dynamic effects associated with the postulated rupture of piping
(
)
3.10 Seismic Qualification of Class I and Electrical Eq.
3.11 Environmental Qualification of Electrical Eq.
5.4 Component and Subsystem Design QE-06.1 DECA version 2.2
r L
Exhibit E Mod # E04-1-93-161 ENC-QE-06.1
/
\\
Revision 5 b
Page 2 of 9 Station / Unit Ouad Cities
/
Exhibit E 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION 6.1 Engineered Safety Feature Materials 6.3 Emergency Core Cooling Systems 7.3 Engineered Safety Feature Systems Instrumentation and Control 9.2 Water System 9.3 Process Auxiliaries 15.0 Accident and Transient Analysis 5.
Describe how the change will affect plant operation when the changed SSCs function as intended (i.e.,
focus on system operation / interactions in the absence of equiprnent failures). Consider all applicable operating modes.
Include a discussion of any changed interactions with other SSCs.
This design change is adding a support to four (4) instrument lines.
This support will not change the operating parameters of the HPCI system.
The support being added will increase the fG integrity of the system.
)
%/
6.
Describe how the change will affect equipment failures.
In particular, describe any new failure modes and their impact during all applicable operating modes.
Should a failure of this support occur, the instrument lines would not be adequately supported and fall out of FSAR allowable criteria.
This design change will reduce the probability of a line failure by bringing it back to FSAR seismic allowables.
There are no new failure modes created from this design change.
7.
Identify each accident or anticipated transient (i.e.,
large/small break LOCA, loss of load, turbine missiles, fire, flooding) described in the SAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the SAR analysis The changed SSC is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident operation or failure of the changed SSC could lead to the accident bCCIDENT SAR SECTION LOCA (Boundina) 15.6.5 QE-06.1 DECA Version 2.2
Exhibit E Mod # E04-1-93-161 ENC-QE-06.1
[
'}
Revision 5 V
Page 3 of 9 Station / Unit Ouad Cities
/
Exhibit E lOCTR$0.59 SAFETY EVALUATION 8.
List each Technical Specification (Safety Limit, Limiting Safety System setting or Limiting condition for Operation) where the requirement, associated action items, associated surveillances, or bases may be affected. To determine the factors affecting the specification, it is necessary to review the FSAR and SER where the bases section of the Technical Specifications does not explicitely state the basis.
3.5.C 4.5.C 9.
Will the change involve a Technical Specification revision?
[ ] Yes
[X) No If a Technical Specification revision is involved, the change cannot be implemented until the NRC issues a license amendment. When completing
/
Step 14, indicate that a Technical Specification revision is required.
\\v/
N l
v QE-06.1 DECA Version 2.2
k Exhibit E Mod / E04-1-93-161 ENC-QE-06.1 Revision 5 j
Page 4 of 9 Station / Unit Quad Cities
/
Exhibit E 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION 10.
To determine if the probability or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the SAR may be increased, use one copy of this page to answer the following questions for each accident listed in Step 7.
Provide the rationale for all No answers.
Affected accident LOCA Boundina SAR Section:
15.6.5 May the prcbability of the accident be increased?
[ ] Yes
[X) No The support being installed is not located near any high energy lines and will not affect any high energy lines.
The new support will not increase the probability of a LOCA.
f May the consequences of the accident (off-site dose)
[ ] Yes
[X] No
\\
be increased?
This design change installs a support to increase the reliability of the system.
No effluent systems will be affected.
Off-site dose will not be increased by this design change since no release paths are modified.
May the probability of a malfunction of equipment
[ ] Yes
[X) No important to safety increase?
The installation of this support will not affect the probability of a failure to the HPCI Turbine Exhaust Pressure Instrument 7tnsing Lines.
This will increase the reliability of the system by bringing the instrument lines back into FSAR allowables.
May the consequences of a malfunction of equipment
[ ] Yes
[X) No important to safety increase?
This design change installs a support to the HPCI Turbine Exhaust Pressure Instrument Sensing Linen.
This will increase the reliability of the system by returning the instrument lines to code allowable stresses thereby, decreasing the consequences of a malfunction of these lines.
If any answer to Question 10 is YES, then an Unreviewed Safety ouestion exists.
j
\\
QE-06.1 DECA Vet sion 2.2
i Exhibit E Mod # E04-1-93-161 ENC-QE-06.1 Revision 5 Page 5 of 9 x
Station / Unit Quad Citles
/
Exhibit E 10CTR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION 11.
Based or your answers to Questions 5 and 6, does the change adversely impact systems or functions so as to create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the SAR7
[ ] Yes
[X) No Describe the rationale for your answer.
There are no systems affected by this change other than the HPCI Turbine Exhaust Pressure Instrument Lines, which will now be supported with the seismic criteria stated in the FSAR and will upgrade the system reliability.
No new failure modes are introduced by this design change.
If the answer to Ouestion 11 is Yes, then an Unreviewed Safety Ouestion
/]
- exists, v
b)
L QE-06.1 DECA Version 2.2
(
l Exhibit E Mod # E04-1-93-161 ENC-QE-06.1 Revision 5 Page 6 of 9 Station / Unit Ouad Cities
/
Exhibit E 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION 12.
Determine if parameters used to establish the Technical Specification limits are changed. Use one copy of this page to answer the following questions for each Technical Specification listed in Step 8.
List the Technical Specification, Technical Specification Bases, SAR and SER Sections reviewed for this evaluation.
DBD-OC-001. section 5 Tech. Spec.
3.5.C.
4.5.C UFSAR 3.0, 3.6, 3.10, 3.11, 5.4.
6.1, 6.3.
7.3, 9.2.
9.3, 15.0 Evaluation of Technical Specification (Enter N/A if none are affected and check last option.)
N/A (check appropriate condition):
[ ] All changes to the parameters or conditions used to establish the g,
Technical Specification requirements are in a conservative direction. Therefore, the actual acceptance limit need not be identified to determine that no reduction in margin of safety exists - proceed to Question 13.
[ ] The Technical Specification or SAR provides a margin of saf ety or acceptance limit for the applicable parameter or condition. List the limit (s)/ margin (s) and applicable reference for the margin of safety below - proceed to question 13.
[ ] The applicable parameter or condition change is in a potentially non-conservative direction and neither the Technical Specification, the SAR, or the SER provides a margin of safety or an acceptance limit.
Request Nuclear Licensing assistance to identify the acceptance limit / margin for the Margin of Safety determination by consulting the NRC, SAR, SER's or other appropriate references.
List the agreed limit (s)/ margin (s) below.
[X] The change does not affect any parameters upon which Technical Specifications are based; therefore, there is no reduction in the margin of safety.
Proceed to question 14.
List Acceptance Limit (s)/ Margin (s) of Safety Tech Spec n\\~s' SAR Section QE-06.1 DECA Version 2.2
4' Exhibit E.
}
Mod # E04-1-93-161 ENC-QE-06.1 Revision 5
[
\\s-Page 7 of 9 Station / Unit Ouad Cities
/
i Exhibit E 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION i
SER Section 13.
Use the above limits to determine if the margin of safety is reduced (i.e.,
the new values exceed the acceptance limits).
Describe the rationale for your determination. Include a description of compensating factors used to reach that conclusion.
3 I
If a Marain of Sa fety is reduced an Unreviewed Safety Question exists.
i i
t b
i h
h QE-06.1 DECA version 2.2
f r
t Exhibit E Mo<J # t04-1-93-161 ENC-QE-06.1 t
(
Revision 5 Page 8 of 9 Station / Unit Quad Cities
/
Exhibit E 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION 14.
Check one of the following:
[ ] An Unreviewed Safety Question was identified in Step 10, Step 11, or Step 13.
The proposed change MUST NOT be implemented without NRC approval.
[X) No Unreviewed Safety Question will result ( Steps 10, 11, and 13)
AND no Technical Specification revision will be involved. The change may be implemented in accordance with applicable procedures.
[ ] A Technical Specification revision is involved; but no Unreviewed Safety Question will result. The proposed change requires a License Amendment. Notify Station Regulatory Assurance and Nuclear Licensing that a Technical Specification revision is required.-
Mark below as applicable.
O' I ) The change is not a plant modification or minor plant change and will not be implemented under 10CFR50.59.
Upon receipt of the approved Technic. Specification change f rom the NRC, the change may be implemented.
[ ] The change is a plant modification or minor plant change.
Mark below as applicable.
[ ] A revision to an existing Technical Specification is required. The change MUST NOT be installed until receipt of an approved Technical Specification revision.
4
[ ] The change will not conflict with any existing Technical Specifications and only new Technical Specifications are requ ired.
In these cases, Nuclear Licensing may authorize installation, but not operation, prior to receipt of NRC approval of the License Amendment.
If such authorization is granted, the block below should be checked.
[ ] Nuclear Licensing has authorized installation, but not operation, prior to receipt of NRC approval of the License Amendment. The 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation indicates that no Unreviewed Safety Question will result and provides authority for installation only.
\\
QE-06.1 DECA Versaon 2.2
~
\\
Exhibit E Mod # E04-1-93-161 ENC-QE-06.1
(
Revision 5
(
Page 9 of 9 Station / Unit Ouad Cities
/
Exhibit E 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION Note:
Partial Modifications and/or separate 10CFR50.59 reviews for port is of the work may be used to facilitate installation.
6 5
Preparer (Cogniht~ Engineer)
Date 15.
The reviewer has determined that the documentation is adequate to support the above conclusion and agrees with the conclusion.
L s cam Bl M 93 Peviewer (Dhign Superintende8t/ Supervisor)
'Date O
s
/
QE-06.1 DECA Version 2.3
QCAP 1000-6 UNIT 1(2)
REVISION O 1
ATTACHMENT A (Page 1 Of 1) h OFFSITE REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTION TRANSMI1TAL i.
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Date: /0-//-%>
Reference Number: [c,/ - / / c 7
Subject:
A/M n< d cc,r,c 43 & g_
/- $(4~7-A
[/f/
fa.,v Gu I.w h l}.v 2ll.w 4 4e km p ie ac d
, in c e w
I I
l l
Subrntted by-b't 1 84/ w<d i
FOR REVIEW:
Safety EvaluationsE invoMng an unrwiewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59 1.
for:
Changes to procedures as desenbed in the Safety Analysis Report.
a.
Changes to equipment or systems as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
b.
Tests or experiments.HQI described in the Safety Analysis Report.
c.
Proposed changes which involve an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFRSO.59.
2.
a.
Procedure changes.
p--
Q b.
Equipmera or system changes.
c.
Tests or e,s,efuT.6nts.
3.
Pmp-2:=1 d iges to the Technical S --W-x'ons or Operating Ucense.
Nor..orivilance with codes, regulations, orders, Technical Specifications, licerse 4.
requirements, or intemal pr*ures or instructions having nudear safety significance.
Significant operating abnormalties or deviations from normal and expected performance of 5.
plant equipment that affects nudear safety.
6.
All REPORTABLE EVEFUS (LERs onfy).
A!! recOw Jzed indh-stbns of an ufuudh.4 Ied deficiency in design or operation of safety.
7.
r related structures, systems, or components.
8.
All ch ig.s to the Whn Emergen y Plan prior to implementation.
All iterns referred by the Systems Engir.6.r.cq Supervisor, Station Manager, Site Vice 9.
President, and Genera! Manager of Qualty Programs and A55.aT, rE FONINFORMATION: +
- 10. Other OSR ltams/ Documents.NQI addressed above.
This Trsi T.::s! is being made in accordance wth Quad Ctles Nudear Power Station Technical Spa 2 Ais 6.1.G.2.d(1) for information only. No specific action is required unless deerr,sd necessary by Offsite Review ard Investigative Function.
8
p.
s Exhibit E Mod # E04-1-93-167 ENC-QE-06.1 f
Revision 5
\\
Page 1 of 9 Station / Unit Ouad Cities
/
Exhibit E 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION 1.
List the documents implementing the proposed change.
SDCN 93-0069 2.
Describe the proposed change and the reason for the change.
The proposed change to the 1-5647-A RHR Room Cooler filter element is to add a new cover.
This is in order to keep the filter element in place.
The reason for the change is to replace the missing cover f or the filter element.
3.
Is the change:
IX]
Ferr.anent
[ ]
Temporary -
(
Expected duration AND Plant Mode ( s) restrictions while installed (NONE if no plant mode restrictions apply) 4.
List the SAR sections which describe the affected systers, structures, or components (SSCs) or activities. Also list the SAR accident analysis sections which discuss the af f ected SSCs or their operation. List any other controlling documents such as SERs, previous modifications or Safety Evaluations, etc.
FSAR 6.2.4 Residual Heat Removal System UFSAR 3.10 Seismic Qualification of Class I and Electrical Eq.
6.3 Emergency Core Cooling Systems 9.4 Air Conditioning, Heating, Cooling and Ventilation Systems o
QE-06.1 DECA Version 2,3
. =..
o e
i Exhibit E-
)
Mod # E04-1-93-167 ENC-QE 06.1 Revision 5 I
Page 2 of 9
. Station / Unit Ouad Cities
/
f f
Exhibit E j
10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION v
5.
Describe how the change will affect plant operation when the changed i
SSCs function as intended (i.e., focus on system operation / interactions f
in the absence of equipment failures).
Consider all applicable 7
operating modes.
Include a discussion of any changed interactions with j
cther SSCs.
This cover is used to keep the filter element from falling out-of its position.
This does not affect the operation of the RHR Room Cooler.
i 6.
Describe how the change will affect equipment failures.
In particular, describe any new f ailure modes and their impact during all applicable j
cperating modes.
Should a failure of this cover occur, the filter element may become dislodged due to vibrations.
The cover being added will
[
increase the reliability of the system, since the covers hold the filter elements in place and the filters prevent fouling of the cooling coils / fins.
There are no new failure modes of this cover verses the original covers.
l 7.
Identify each accident or anticipated transient (i.e.,
large/small break I
LOCA, loss of load, turbine missiles, fire, flooding) described in the SAR where any of the following is true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the SAR analysis l
The changed SSC is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function
{
daring or after the accident Operation or failure of the enanged SSC could lead to the accident ACCIDENT SAR SECTION LOCA (Boundina) 15.6.5 8.
List each Technical Specification (Safety Limit, Limiting Safety System j
Setting or Limiting Condition for Operation) where the requirement, associated action items, associated surveillances, or bases may be affected. To determine the factors affecting the specification, it is necessary to review the FSAR and SER where the bases section of the Technical Specifications does not explicitely state the basis.
3.5.A/4.5.A RHR Subsystems 3.5.B/4.5.B RHR Subsystems QE-06.1 DECA Version 2.3
--n -
i i
s Exhibit E.
Mod # E04-1-93-167
. ENC-QE-06.1
/*
Revision 5
-j Page 3 of 9 f
Station / Unit Quad Cities
/
r
?
Exhibit E 10CFF50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION 9.
Will the change involve a Technical Specification revision?
i
[ ] Yes
[X] No If a Technical Specification revision is involved, the change cannot be implemented until the NRC issues a license Emendment. When completing Step 14, indicate that a Technical Specification revision is required.
l t
i t
)
1 J
i l
i I
C k
QE-06.1 DECA Version 2.3 1
)
Exhibit E-
~!
Mod # E24 1-93-167 ENC-QE 06.1 Revision 5 Page 4 of 9 l
Station / Unit ouad cities
/
i I
s Exhibit E 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION
{
10.
To determine if the prcbability or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated.in the 7
SAR may be increased, use one copy of this page to answer the following l
questions for each accident listed in Step 7.
Provide the rationale for l
all No answers.
p i
Affected accident LOCA Boundina 1
SAR Section:
15.6.5 i
May the probability of the accident be increased?
[ ] Yes
[X] No i
t The room cooler filter is not close to or attached to any high energy piping.
The filter cover, therefore, cannot cause a pipe break.
t May the consequences of the accident (off-site dose)
[] Yes
{X] No.
be increased?
l The change will not have a negative impact on the availability of any RHR or other Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) i equipment that'is important to mitigating the consequences of an l
accident.
There is no change to any potential release patterns that could affect off-site doses.
May the probability of a malfunction of equipment
[] Yes IX) No i
important to safety increase?
The installation of this cover will not affect the probability
{
of a failure to the RHR Room Cooler.
This filter and cover will-maintain the reliability of the system by keeping the filter element in place during a seismic event and preventing any dust or clogging of the coils / fins.
The cover will restore / maintain
[
the original design of the cooler.
i May the consequences of a malfunction of equipment
[] Yes
[X] No
.i important to safety increase?
i This design change installs a new cover on the existing RHR Room Cooler filter element.
If the filter element should fail (through fouling or by falling out), the consequences have not changed by installing the new cover.
I
~ If any answer to Question 10 is YES. then an Unreviewed Safety ouestion exists.
f 5
QE-06.1 DECA Version 2.3
.l
h 4
Exhibit E
~
Mod # E04-1-93-167 ENC-QE-06.1' l
Revision 5 l
Page 5 of 9 i
Station / Unit Ouad Cities
/
[
{
5 Exhibit E I
10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION l
v 11.
Based on your answers to Questions 5 and 6, does the change adversely impact systems or functions so as to create the possibility of an r
sceident or malfunction cf a type different from those evaluated in the 9
SAR?
i I) Yes
[X] No s
Describe the rationale for your answer.
l There are no systems affected by this change other than the RHR.
.l Room Cooler filter element, which will now be back to original 4
design.
.No new failure modes or system interactions are created by this design change.
j If the answer to Question 11 is Yes, then an Unreviewed Safety Question exists.
[
[
i f
1 f
r t
1 N
i i
t i
f 1
i r
i i
I h
1 Q006.1 DECA Version 2.3 i
-~
'f
f Exhibit E Mod # E04-1-93-167 ENC-QE-06.1 Revision 5 Page 6 of 9 Station / Unit Duad Cities
/
Exhibit E 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION 12.
Determine if parameters used to establish the Technical Specification limits are changed. Use one copy of this page to answer the following questions for each Technical Specification listed in Step 8.
List the Technical Specification, Technical Specification Bases, SAR and SER Sections reviewed for this evaluation.
Technical Soecifications 3.5.A/4.5.A.
3.5.B/4.5.B UFSAR 6.3.
9.4 Evaluation of Technical Specification (Enter N/A if none are af fected and check last option.)
N/A
{ Check appropriate condition).
[]
All changes to the parameters or conditions used to establish the Technical Specification requirements are in a conservative direction. Therefore, the actual acceptance limit need not be identified to determine that no reduction in margin of safety exists - proceed to Question 13.
I] The Technical Specification or SAR provides a margin of safety or acceptance limit for the applicable parameter or condition.
List the limit (s) / margin (s) and applicable reference for the margin of safety below - proceed to question 13.
( ) The applicable parameter or condition change is in a potentially non-conservative direction and neither the Technical Specification, the SAR, or the SER provides a margin of safety or an acceptance limit.
Request Nuclear Licensing assistance to identify the acceptance limit / margin for the Margin of Safety determination by consulting the NRC, SAR, SER's or other appropriate references.
List the agreed limit (s) / margin (s) below.
[X} The change does not affect any parameters upon which Technical Specifications are based; therefore, there is no reduction in the margin of safety.
Proceed to question 14.
List Acceptance Limit (s) / Margin (s) of Safety Tech Spec SAR Sect ion
\\
SER Section QE-06.1 DECA Version 2.3 I
a-1 Exhibit E l
Mod # E04-1-93-167 ENC-QE-06.1 Revision 5 4
Page 7 of 9 Station / Unit Ouad Cities
/
r Exhibit E 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION 13.
Use the above limits to determine if the margin of safety is reduced (i.e.,
the new values exceed the acceptance limits). Describe-the rationale for your determination.
Include a description of compensating factors used to reach that conclusion.
If a Marcin of Safety is reduced an Unreviewed Safety Question exists.
i l
1 1
5 1
\\
P 5
i I
1 i
i i
i QE-06.1 DECA Version 2.3
]
.~
i t
t Exhibit E l
Mod # E04-1-93-167 ENC-QE-06.1 Revision 5 l
Page 8_of 9
Station / Unit Duad Cities
/
i Exhibit E 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION 14.
Check one of the following:
l
[ ]
An Unreviewed Safety Question was identified in Step 10, Step 11,.
or Step 13.
The proposed change MUST NOT be implemented without ;
NRC approval.
[X]
No Unreviewed Safety Question will result ( Steps 10, 11, and 13)
AND no Technical Specification revision will be involved. The change may be implemented in accordance with applicable procedures.
i
[] A Technical Specification revision is involved; but no Unreviewed l
Safety Question will result. The proposed change requires a License Amendment. Notify Station Regulatory Assurance and Nuclear
[
Licensing that a Technical Specification revision is required.
Mark below as applicable.
4
() The change is not a plant modification or minor plant change
[
and will not be implemented under 10CFR50.59. Upon receipt of
-f the approved Technical Specification change from the NRC, the change may be implemented.
}
[]
The change is a plant modification or minor plant. change.
-l Mark below as applicable.
i 11 A revision to an existing Technical Specification is-re quired. The change MUST NOT be installed until receipt of an approved Technical Specification revision.
j i
[} The change will not conflict with any existing Technical Specifications and only new Technical Specifications are
[
required.
In these cases, Nuclear Licensing may authorize installation, but not operation, prior to receipt of NPC approval of the License Amendment. If such authorization is granted, the block below should be j
checked.
I]
Nuclear Licensing has authorized installation, but not operation, prior to receipt of NRC approval of the License Amendment. The 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation indicates that no Unreviewed Safety Question will result and provides authority for i
installation only.
i i
QE-06.1 DECA Version-2.3
~f i
.~
a 4-Exhibit E Mod # E04-1-93-167 ENC-QE-06.1 Revision 5 j5
(
Page 9 of 9 Station / Unit Ouad Cities
/
Exhibit E 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION Note:
Partial Modifications and/or separate 10CFR50.59 reviews for portio-of the work may be used to facilitate installation.
Preparer
^
SI/ M //93b (CognizdbtEngineer)
Date 15.
The reviewer has determined that the documentation is adequate to support the above conclusion and agrees with the conclusion.
X Y/
/? se n:s2 5l'd//5.]
Peviewer
?
1.-
(Design Superintendent / Supervisor)
Date.
O l
1 CE-06.1 DECA Version 2.3 l
)
s QCAP 1000-6 UNIT 1(2) i REVISION O a
ATTACHMENT A (Page 1 of 1)
( ')
OFFSITE REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIVE F13NCTION TRANSMITTAL
(
Quad Cities Nudear Power Station
/0 lll3ftf 3 0o 4 - 2
'l5 - /(p Q Date:
Reference Number-Subject AOO A Sufpoe+1 h&
WPC/ Torr $o'n.e Ooc transCer la M1.
CrE y /b // wen Submitted by:
m
-n FOR REYlEW:
m-Safety Evaluations EQI involving an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59 1.
for:
Changes to procedures as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
a.
Changes to equipment or systems as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
b.
Tests or experiments NOT descted in the Safety Analysis Report.
c.
Proposed changes which irrvolve an unnroewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59.
2.
a.
Procedure changes.
b.
Equipment or system changes.
c.
Tests or experiments.
Pio - +5d chmages to the Technical Sr cOc+S. s or Operating Ucense.
3.
Noncompliance with codes, regu!ations, orders, Technical Specifications, license 4.
requirements, or intemal procedures or instructions having nudear safety signifcance.
Signifcant operating abnormalttles or devations from normal and expected performance of S.
plant equign=at that affects nudear safety 6.
M REPORTABLE EVENTS (LERs ordy).
~
M res.vgniz.d inefir ations of an uruudidpstod deficiency in design or operation of safety-7.
related structures, systems, or components. -
8.
M changes to the S*n Emergency Plan prior to implementation.
M ltems referred by the Systems Engineering Supervisor. Station Manager, Site Vice 9.
President, and Generi! Manager of Quality Programs and Assessmerr.s.
~
FOR INFORMATION: -
- 10. Other OSR ttoms/ Documents RQI nddressed above.
/
This Tren.is::I6! is being made in accordance with Quad Cities Nudear Power Station Technical Spect!! cations 6.1.G 2.d(1) for information only. No specific action is required unless deemed necessary by Offstte Review ard Investigative Function.
v i
8 1
1 i
I Exhibit E Mod # E04-2-93-164 ENC-QE-06.1 i
['
Revieion 5 Page 1 of 10 l
Station / Unit Oued Cities
/
}
Exhibit E 20CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION 1.
List the documents inplenenting the proposed change.
ECN 04-00935M i
2.
Describe the proposed change and the reason for the change.
l The proposed change to the HPCI Turbine Oil transfer line is to add two (2) supports.
One (1) on the (SR) suction side and one (1) on the (NSR) discharge side.
This is in order to bring the (SR) suction side back within FSAR allowables.
This will also give lateral support and stability to the free end of the (NSR) l discharge side.
r The reason for the chant i is due to the fact that the 2-5105 transfer pump was remov 1.
This pump served as the main support for the system.
Once.emoved the line did not have adequate seismic support re mering it out of FSAR allowables.
This exempt change makes the temporary removal of the 2-5105 l
transfer pump permanent.
3.
Is the change:
{X] Permanent t
[ ] Terporary -
Expected duration AND Plant Mode (s) restrictions while installed (NoNE if no plant mode restrictions apply) 4.
List the SAR sections which describe the af fected systems, structures, or components (SSCs) or activities.
Also list the SAR accident analysis sections which discuss the af fected SSCs or their operation. List any other controlling documents such as SERs, previous modifications or safety Evaluations, etc.
FSAR 6.2.5 High Pressure Coolant Injection Subsystem l
UFSAR 3.10 Seismic Qualification of Class I and Electrical Eq.
5.4 Component and Subsystem Design 6.3 Emergency Core Cooling Systems QE-06.1 DECA Version 2.2
4 Exhibit E Mod / E04-2-93-164 ENC-QE-06.1
[
Revision 5 Page 2 of 10 Station / Unit Quad Cities
/
Exhibit E 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION 5.
Describe how the change will affect plant operation when the changed SSCs function as intended (i.e.,
focus on system operation / interactions in the absence of equipment failures).
Consider all applicable operating modes.
Include a discussion of any changed interactions with other SSCs.
The HPCI Turbine Oil transfer line was used to remove the old oil from the HPCI oil tank and discharge it to the dirty turbine oil storage tank.
This does not af fect the operation of the HPCI System.
The station no longer uses this system for this function and oil is transferred with a manual pump.
The supports being added will increase the integrity of the system since the pump served as the line's main support.
The transfer line is being abandoned in place.
6.
Describe how the change will affect equipment failures.
In particular, describe any new failure modes and their impact during all applicable operating modes.
Should a failure of the line occur the control room would be notified via annunciator systems.
This change will reduce the probability of a line failure by bringing it back to FSAR seismic allowables for this plant.
7.
Identify each accident or anticipated transient (i.e.,
large/small break LOCA, loss of load, turbine missiles, fire, flooding) described in the SAR where any of the following is true The change alters the initial conditions used in the SAR analysis The changed SSC is explicitly or implicitly assumed to function during or after the accident Ope ation or f ailure of the changed SSC could lead to the accident
&CCID LNI SAR SECTION LOCA (Boundina) 15.6.5 loss of coolant accidents resultino from Diping breaks inside containment
\\,.
QE-06.1 DECA Version 2.2
i.
~
A 9:7
.& 6
,O e.",:p ~I;' h q,,
p.
/
'f 6 (p S'R IMAGE EVALUATION
//g,%
j/'q^f4 4ffg
\\# t7 TEST TARGET (MT-3)
\\
< % + f ?
qp e
s, e
. %v 4
h I
i 4
4 t,, 5 2 8 P25
-l,()
m 3
~-
1.1
.e >:= yu =
2n e
i
!! l.8 l
i 3
1.25 1.4
'l l.6
(
4 150mm -
4 6"
l 8,
sr s>
s,oss d
9 0 7 ;,% >p sp a /A 9 m-ya;, o
-i sm* NN
,/
p 4p o
$ i N,.-~...
=.... - - - m e O G U S $ $a -
g
- 's
^
[ / %( 0
%'As
_9 o vs
]a 4'
IMAGE EVALUATION
' A '%
";, =.
N9 TEST TARGET (MT-3)
,f',:W[,,4,,
/
%qff sgr'lp fy'*,-& E
/
~Y s,\\
49 4
g 1.0 D"7
. "M
!?2.0 lj
!WcgE lillj l.8 lii!!aea T l.2 5 l
1.4 mllI.6--
i i==
l 4_.___.-
150mm 4.___.-
6" Abg&y, t h' hf j+ \\
~
eg o.e 88 Qa g/,%9s x
s n;s;;;g;
,c spg c
y;g;w o,
1
/ 'a 4
l
_g p
/
\\\\\\\\
o',
.,A
,p',
Me%
IMAGE EVALUATION
/,
f '
/Q, j f?, dge Q
.s
\\//
?V,~
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
=ge n
4 k!
fj[fp@
'4
[h'#'
d.
4h ~
v I.0
. ?'"
l' 2 2 U.w_
, k...m;m=
20 j,l 24 ljl1.25 y 1.4u --
a==
hj! 1.6
'i
=
150mm 4
6"
. -cs
/ 4 s,, r l
{;
i lh
//4h 7
4, y
p
'" m%
(g p.~
e u',.
?
IMAGE EVALU ATION
,s A s
UI '
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
[ft g
/
gig 4,y u&
l.0 "w
- . cn N 2.0 1.1
$^1.8 id mi;
.25 i4 I.4m= g=
i.6 w
i-150mm 4_____..
I I _.__. __.
---6" E
s;f%
s:l%sw s<s,/,\\
i g.
a h'y*p>
d(a@
se S
C k
lQ k
/
,/
[~'~
,D,,,. kb, #h G
- -({i
- w()*
Q.
f
/,/
y
4' b
Exhibit E Mod # E04-2-93-164-ENC-QE-06.1 T
Revision 5
.d.
Our.d Citles
'/
Page 3 of 10 Station / Unit h
11 Exhibit E 10CFR50.59 SArrfY EVALUATION 8.
List each Technical Specification (Safety Limit, Limiting Safety System (E
Setting or Limiting Condition for Operation) where the requirement, associated action items, associated surveillances, or bases may be affected. To determine the factors affecting the specificatier, it is necessary to review the FSAR and SER where the bases section of the Technical Specifications does not explicitely state the basis.
3.5.C/4.5.C HPCI Subsystem 9.
Will the change involve a Technical Specification revision?
[ ] Yes [X) No If a Technical Specification revision is involved, the change cannot be implemented until the NRC issues a license amendment. When completing l
Step 14, indicate that a Technical Specification revision is required.
O r
\\
4 QE-06.1 DECA Version 2.2
r Exhibit I Mod # E04-2-93-164 ENC-QE-06.1 Revision 5
('-
Page 4 of 20 Station / Unit Quad Cities
/
Exhibit E 10CrR5C.59 SAFETY EVALUATION 20.
To determine if the probability or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to saf ety previously evaluated in the SAR may be increased, use one copy of this page to answer the follcwing questions for each accident listed in Step 7.
Provide the rationale for all NO answers.
Affected accident LOCA Boundina SAR Section:
15.6.5 LOCA from pipe breaks inside of containment May t he probability of the accident be increased?
[ ] Yes [I] No The supports being installed are not located near any high energy lines and will not affect any high energy lines.
The new supports will not increase the probability of a LOCA.
May the consequences of the accident (off-site dose)
[ } Yes (I) No be increased?
This design change installs supports to increase the reliability of the system.
This line and supports do not affect any accident nitigation equipment.
No effluent systems will be affected.
Of f-site dose will not be increased by this design change since no release paths are modified.
May tt ra probability of a malfunction of equipment
[ } Yes (I) No important to safety increa :?
The installatior of these supports will not affect the probability of a f ailure to the HPCI Turbine Oil transfer line.
This will increase the reliability of the system by bringing the transfer line back into FSAR allowables.
The removed oil transferpump is not required by HPCI to perform its' safety related function.
May the consequences of a malfunction of equipment
[ ] Yes
[1] No important to safety increase?
This design change installs two (2) supports to the HPCI Turbine Oil transfer line.
This will increase the reliability of the p) system by returning the piping to code allowable stresses.
The
(~'
removal of the oil transfer pump does not affect the CE-06.1 DECA version 2.2 e
s.
Exhibit E
]
Mod # E04-2-93-164 ENC-QE-06.1 j
Revision 5 l
Page 5 of 10 i
s Station / Unit Ouad Cities
/
Exhibit E 10CTR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION consequences of a HPCI failure.
HPCI is backed up by ADS, and ADS is not affected.
If any answer to Cuestion 10 is YES, then an Unreviewed Safety Ouestion exists.
O QE-06.1 DECA Version 2.2 a
s
(
Exhibit E l
Mod # E04-2-93-164 ENC-QE-06.1 Revision 5 i
Page 6 of 10 Station / Unit Guad Cities
/
?
Exhibit E 10CFR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION 11.
Based on your answers to Questions 5 and 6, does the change adversely
[
i impact systems or functions so as to create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a type different f rom those evaluated in the SAR?
1
[ ] Yes (X) No l
Describe the rationale for your answer.
There are no systems affected by this change other than the HPCI Turbine oil transfer line, which will now be supported with the j
seismic criteria stated in the FSAR and will upgrade the system reliability.
No new failure modes are introduced by this modification.
The removal of the HPCI Turbine oil transfer pump
+
does not significantly affect HPCI reliability or availability.
If the answer to Ouestion 11 is Yes, then an Unreviewed Safety Ouestion exists.
4 i
f j
i i
{
1 O
QE-06.1 EECA Version 2.2
Exhibit E Hod # E04-2-93-164 ENC-QE-06.1 7
Revision 5 Page 7 of 10 Station / Unit Ouad Cities
/
Exhibit E 10CFR50.59 SATETY EVALUATION 12.
Determine if parameters used to establish the Technical Specification limits are changed. Use one copy of this page to answer the following questions for each Technical Specification listed in Step B.
List the Technical Specification, Technical Specification Bases, SAR and SER Sections reviewed for this evaluation.
i Technical Specification 3.5.C/4.5.C FSAR 6.3 DBD-OC-001, Table 9-1.
Section 5 L
Evaluation of Technical Specification (Enter N/A if none are affected and check last opt ion. )
N/A (Check appropriate conditien):
f
[ ] All changes to the para.Teters or conditions used to establish the
(
Technical Specification requirements are in a conservative direction. Theref ore, the actual acceptance limit need not be identified to determine that no reduction in margin of safety exists - proceed to Question 13.
[ ] The Technical Specification or SAR provides a margin of safety or acceptance limit for the applicable parameter or condition. List i
the limit (s)/ margin (s) and applicable reference for the margin of safety below - proceed to question 13.
[ ] The applicable parameter or condition change is in a potentially non-conservative direction and neither the Technical Specification, the SAR, or the SER provides a margin of safety or an acceptance l
limit. Request Nuclear Licensing assistance to identify the acceptance limit / margin for the Margin of Safety determination by 4
consulting the NRC, SAR-SER's or other appropriate references.
List the agreed limit (s)/ margin (s) below.
[X) The change does not affect any parameters upon which Technical Specifications are based; therefore, there -is no reduction in the margin of safety. Proceed to question 14.
List Acceptance Limit (s)/ Margin (s) of Safety Tech Spec SAR Section QE-06.1 DECA Version 2.2 w
f Exhibit E Mod # E04-2-93-164 ENC-QE-06.1
[s Pavision 5
[
Page 8 of 10
{
Station / Unit Quad Cities
/
i t
Exhibit E 10CTR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION
- (
)
SER Section 13.
Use the above limits to determine if the margin of safety is reduced (i.e., the new values exceed the acceptance limits). Describe the rationale for your determination. Include a description of compensating factors used to reach that conclusion.
e If a Marain of Safety is reduced an Unreviewed Safety Ouestion exists.
t i
l l
r
\\
l QE-06.1 DECA Version 2.2
3 Exhibit E Mod # E04-2-93-164 ENC-QE-06.1 Revision 5 Page 9 of 10 Station / Unit Ouad Cities
/
r Exhibit E i
lOCTR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION 14.
Check one of the following:
[ ] An Unreviewed Safety Question was identified in Step 10, Step 11, or Step 13.
The proposed change MUST NOT be implemented without NRC approval.
[X) No Unreviewed Safety Question will result ( Steps 10, 11, and 13)
AND no Technical Specification revision will be involved. The change may be implemented in accordance with applicable procedures.
I
[ ] A Technical Specification revision is involved; but no Unreviewed Safe *y Question will result. The proposed change requires a License Amend. ment.
Notify Station Regulatory Assurance and Nuclear Licensing that a Technical Specification revision is required.
Mark below as applicable.
[ ] The change is not a plant modification or minor plant change and will not be implem?nted under 10CFR50.59.
Upon receipt of the approved Technical Speci fication change f rom the NRC, the change may be implemented.
[ ] The change is a plant modification or minor plant change.
Mark below as applicable.
[ ] A revision to an existing Technical Specification is required. The change MUST NOT be installed until receipt of an approved Technical Specification revision.
[ ] The change will not conflict with any existing Technical Specifications and only new Technical Specifications are required.
In these cases, Nuclear Licensing may authorize installation, but not cperation, prior to receipt of NRC approval of the License Amendment.
If such authorization is granted, the block below should be checked.
[ }
Huclear Licensing has authorized installation, but not operation, prior to receipt of NRC approval of the License Amendment.
The IOCFR50.59 Safety Evaluation indicates that no Unreviewed Safety Question will result and provides authority for installation only.
QE-06.1 DECA Version 2.2
. g-
- (
r Exhibit E ENC-QE-06.1 Mod # E04-2-93-164 Revision 5 Page 10 of 10 Station / Unit Quad Cities
/
i Exhibit E 10CTR50.59 SAFETY EVALUATION Partial Modifications and/or separate 10CFR50.59 reviews for Note:
portions of the work may be used to facilitate installation.
b~/3~93 Preparer W$ /
8-Date (CognElant Engineer) 15.
The reviewer 1.ss determined that the documentation is adequate to support the abo,'e conclqs'on and agrees with the conclusion.
Reviewer 7
8I5!/3 I
(Design SuperinEendent/ Supervisor)
Date I
)
E l
O QE-06.1 DECA Version 2.2
T QCAP 1000-6 UNIT 1(2)
PIVISION O Arr^cament ^ <e se, or 4)
O OFFSITE REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTION TRANSMITTAL i
Quad Clties Nudear Power Station lo/7/u Reference Nucidier: h04 8 4 -B1LG oate:
t Subject-PM 90fTerT1cd DCietT\\0d UPEC%Es l
O /? / A l Submitted ty h/.hdkd
'FOR REYlEW:
Safety EvaluationsE involving an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59 1.
for:
Changes to procedures as described in the Safety Analysis Report.
a.
Changes to equipment or systems as desenbed in the Safety Analysis Report.
l b.
Tests or experiments NOT described in the Safety Analysis Report.
c.
Proposed changes which involve an unrevewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59.
2.
s.
Procedure changes.
b.
Equipment or system changes.
c.
Tests or experiments.
3.
Prow d r.ges to the Technical SpWJons or Operating License.
Neiwng; lance with codes, regulations, orders Technical Specifications, rcense 4.
ram *ements, or intemal prnmiures or instr"r* inns having nudear safety significance.
Significant operating abnorma!nies or deviations from normal and expected performance of 5.
plant equipment that affects nudear safety.
6.
M REPORTABLE EVENTS (1.ERs only).
7.
M ik.cgiM indle=tinos of an tauun-F=M deficiency in design or operation of safety-i related structures, systems, or m.. gar.4 8.
M (4-r.ges to the Station Emergency Plan prior to implementation.
M ltems referred by the Systems Engineering Supervisor Station Manager, Site Vee 9.
Preskient, and General Manager of Quality Programs and Assessments.
- FORINFORMAT5ON: A
- 10. Other OSR ltems/ Documents E addroceed abwe.
This Transmittal is being made in awdar.ce with Quad Cales Nudear Power Station Technical S;xnJa.a 6.1.G.2.d(1) for information only. No specific action is required unless deerr.ed ne-eary by Offstte Review and investigative Function.
8
- t Modification (s) Number M-4 0-8 8-016B Description Write a brief description explaining what the modification was; why it was initiated i
(reterence any NRC requirements); how it was accomplished (basically).
i The Fire Protection System Upgrades Modifications (M041-84-36. M04-2-84-36.
M04-0-84-14 and MG4-0-84-16) provided additional fire suppression and detection t
systems to comply with 10CFR50 Appendix R requirements and National Fire Protection l
Association (NFPA) code commitments from Appendix A to Branch Technical Position APCSB 9.5-1. The work was divided into 12 phases with this work designated as partial modification MG4-0-84016B of Phase 108. It intended to install electrical supervision for the old Service Building smoke detection and wetpipe systems into the XL-3 Central Monitoring System. Subsequent to the Mod authorization. a new Service Building had t
been erected. The fire protection systems servicing the new Service Building are not part of any safe shutdown system and are being monitored by a Pyrotronics panel in the Gatehouse. Since the old Service Building is also not required for safe shutdown.it was decided to monitor alarms from the Gatehouse instead of the centralized XL-3 system.
)
l l
l Evaluation O
Basically a synopsis of the safety aspects of the modification.
Use the safety evaluation as a guide.
(Do not try to answer the specific questions on the safety evaluation.)
i Fire suppression and detection systems are not classified as safety-related in the FSAR.
The FS AR/UFSAR does not speciDcally identify which fire protection systems are required to have electrical supervision nor does it specify the location only that "all alarm circuits are either electrically supervised or are tested to assure operability". The 1
Gatehouse Pyrotronics panel constantly monitors for fire alarms and provides a trouble alarm for equipment malfunctions for fire equipment in the Service Building and Gatehcuse.
i i
i O
/'
'o 10CFR50.59 FORMAT FOR SAFETY EVALUATION Ccomenwealth Utsen
[)
C/
M-4-1/2-84-14 M-4-1/2-84-16 M-4-1(2)-84-36 STATION Quad Cities UNIT 1 & 2 / N -M 2)-84-p SYSTEM Fire Protection (4100)
MODIFICATION No.-
SEE ABOVE EQUIPMENT NAME superessien and Detection EQUIPMENT No.
DESCRIPTION OF MODIFICATION:
Install fire suppression and detection systers in several areas of the plant.
SAFETY EVAL.UATION: Answer the following questions with a "yes" cr "no", and provide specific reasons justifyire the decision:
1.
Is the probability of en occurrence or the consequence of on occident, or malfunction of equipment importent to sofep cs previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report increased?
Yes No, Because_:
Fire suppressicn and detection is not classified as Safety Related in the FSAR.
Seistic insta11atien of equipment ensures adequate operation of existing safety equip ent and safety related equipment in the immediate area of installation.
/
7, 2.
Is the possibility for en occident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evolucted in the Final Safety Analysis Report created?
Yes X
No, Because:
The installatien does not interfere with any existing safety systems.
3.
Is the margin of scfety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, reduced?
i I
Yes X
No, Beccuse:
Suppression and detection is not Safety Related.
The reliability of the Fire Protection system is increased by providing this additicnal suppression and detection.
f' i
b V
Ferformed By C
Date /~hM
- c. c. ca.... s u.
,r. n u o.
3.s o ::
Date #b K l
App ~ roved 2L!
h"*"
u
<