ML20066D238

Forwards Listing of Tests,Changes & Experiments Completed During Dec 1990

ML20066D238
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	01/03/1991
From:	Robey R COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
RAR-91-1, NUDOCS 9101140254
Download: ML20066D238 (21)

Text

4 RAR-91-1 January 3, 1991 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555

SUBJECT:

Quad Cities Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 Changes, Tests, and Experiments Completed HEC Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265 Enclosed please find a listing of those changes, tests, and experiments completed during the month of December, 1990, 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(c) .

Respectfully, COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY QUAD-CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION R.h' A.

M obeyv Technical Superintendent RAR/LFH/klm Enclosure cc: A. B. Davis, Regional Administrator T. Taylor, Senior Resident Inspector nrcroprt l

v t o 11 ovet,* viviva ,

ADOCK 05000254 PDR R PDR i

1u .,u 0 9 t

i

Minor Design Chango 4-1-90-126 Main Control Board (MCB) , 901-2 Panel Dan.grintion This minor design change fabricated a new cutout / opening in 901-2 panel in Control Room to prepare panel for new recorder addition for main steam lino radiation level recorder. Work performed during Q1Rll Refuel Outago.

EvaluatitD

1. The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not increased because the fill plato hardware installed are seismically analyzed to withstand postulated seismic event without failure.

2. The possibilty for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not created because the panel rigidity in unaffected by the design, so no new variable is introduced to affect panci analysis.

3. The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification is not reduced because neither main steam radiation nor offgas systems are inoperable; seismic effects per section 5.6 are included in design, therefore margin of safety is unaffected.

a Minor Design Chango 4-0-90-157 Reactor Building Vont Stack Transmitter IltEGIiD310.D This minor design change replaced flow transmitter 1/2-5741-504 on the reactor building vont stack. The current transmittor is a Taylor 1301 TD 1111 2(83). The transmitter cannot be replaced like for like. The replacement transmitter is a Ronomount 1151 DR 2F12.

Evnluation

1. The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not increased because the reactor building vont stack flow transmitter was not addressed in FSAR.

2. The ponsibilty for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the Final Safoty Analysis Report is not created because there has been no chango in function with change in transmitter since this transmitter only increases rango and not the signal.

3. The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification is not reduced boccuso the reactor building vont stack flow transmitter was not addressed in Toch Specs.

4 Minor Design Change 4-1-90-124 Source Rango Monitor Recorder nentrintian This minor design change replaced the existing GEMAC 3 SRM chart recordor, EPN 1-0750-2, with a Johnson Yokogawa j UR100T recorder on 901-5 panol in main control room. A  !

toggle switch is also added close to the recorder to allow  !

selecting of a high or low chart spood. This recorder is used for indication and trending only+ It does not provido 3

contacts for automatic actuations such as alarms or the SRM rod block.

Evaluation

1. The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident or malfunction of equipment importan to safety as previously cvaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not increased because the design does not adversely impact the design baals or chango description in FSAR/UFSAR, Section 7.4.3.

How recordor has boon ovaluated for compatibility with interfacing systems as found suitable for tho application.

2. The possibilty for an accident or mhlfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not created because the recorder replacement installs only a slightly modified configuration from the existing configuration. All changes have boon ovaluated for their impact on adjacent or interfacing comporonts/ systems. Thoroforo this MDC does not increase the probability of an accident, different than described in FSAR/UFSAR.

3. The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification is not reduced becauso 4

MDC replaces a non-safety and non-seismic qualified chart recorder with a now class IE recorder procured safety related from a 10CFR50 appendix B supplier.

By imoosing highest quality standards, margin of i safety is increased.

l

- - - -- - - . , . -. .---__ . - L

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

1 i

Safety Evaluation Checklist $90-376 Minor Design Change 4-0-90-000 Flow Indicator FI-1/2-7541-34A Isolation Valve

'l DescriptiRD This minor design change added an isolation valve and an additional test tee to FI 1/2-7541-34A, to add capabilities of calibrating FI.

Lyaluation

1. The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not increased because propuc flow control required by FSAR par. 5.3.3.4 for SB3T system is not affected by FI 1/2-7541-34A.

2. The possibilty for an accident or malfunction of a j different type than any previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not created because in the event of an accident, the SDGT system must be functional. FI 1/2-7541-34A has no effect on SDGT proper functioning.

3. The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification is not reduced because proper flow is a SDGT Tech Spec requirement. FI 1/2-7541-34A has no control on system flow.

i

[

i l Minor Design Chango 4-0-90-077 18" Crano Tilting Disc Check Valves

] DescriotioD 1 \

j This minor design chango incorporated vendor l recommended upgrado of pivot pin rotention. This now method of rotontion incorporatos a retaining pin which extends through the entiro diamotor of the pivot pin. The recommended method replaces the method previously used which was similar to a set scrow arrangement.

I Eyaluation l 1. The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident or malfunction of equipment important

to unfoty_as previously evaluated in the Final safety Analysis Report is not increased because the integrity of the valves is being increased with this recommended chango. The valvos function and failure

modo are remaining unchanged with this now method of pivot pin retention.

2. The possibilty for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysin Report is not created because the function of the valvo is unchanged with this minor chango. The possibility of an accident or malfunction is being decreased with this positivo

-pivot pin rotontion method.

3. Tho margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification is not reduced because Toch Spoca address leakago through those valves.

This minor design chango will not affect the valvos seating capabilities. The valvos integrity is being increased through this minor design change.

L l-i

i h ,

l ,

t <

i. ,

l Minor Design Chango 4-2-90-155 l Flow Transmitter FI-2-1279-75A d

Descrintion This minor design changed reactor water cleanup i transmitter because it is not repeatable during calibration.

Changing.model numbers because installed model is no longer available.- No changes in mounting detail or functions of i transmitter. _ Will-require retubing due to physical

] - dimensional differences of transmitter body.

Evaluation 1._The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety-Analysis Report is not increased because the transmitter operates identically and provides the

same, function (providing flow indications) as the previous transmitter. Transmitter is'not safety  ;

related.

2.-The_possibilty for an accident or malfunction of a

' different type than any previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not created because Lfunction of the component has not changed. No 4

functions added cr deleted.

3. The margin of' safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical specification is not reduced because t

- the reactor clean-up system is not mentioned in the Technical Specifications.

a 4

i'; ,

f y f&'qi-eg1"-"W*W y ' *y Yv 5'g 4 y v-gyp *gg wpy,w pg wi m , , _ _my.n-ygg,--- yq w w ni-rw w 7T-C +e e e we m he--*-**-F#

Proceduro Chango QOS 1600-11 l PCI Simulated Automatic I Closure Initiation Tost, Group I Descrintion Added sign-offs for performing the stop and second verifications sign-offs.

Eyaluation

1. The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously ovaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not increased becauso the probability of an accident is decreased due to the additional verification to electrical alterations to ensure the correct alteration is being made.

2. The possibilty for an accident or malfunction of a different typo than any previously evaluated in the Final Safoty Analysis Report is not created because the stops in the proceduro are not being altered, just additional verification that the stops are being performed correctly.

3. The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any_ Technical Specification is not reduced because of the increase due to the addition of second verification to ensure the step is being performed correctly.

1 l

. 1 I

I Proceduro Change QFP 100-1  !

Master Refueling Procedure Description l

This change allows the strongest rod suberiticality '

check to be performed after core verification in complete.

Evaluation

1. The probability of an occurrence or the consequenco ,

of an accident or malfunction of equipment important '

to safety as previously evaluated in the Final l Safety Analysis Report is not increased because this '

change does not affect or invalidato any analysis in the FSAR. Additionaly this change does not altor the safety function of equipment listed in the FSAR.

2. The possibilty for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not created because the function and normal operation of all equipment required to terminato a reactivity addition in this modo of operation will not be changed. Thereforo no new accident or malfunction is created.

3. The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification is not reduced because this chango ensures that the reactor configuration is consistant with the analyzod configuration so that the margin of safety required by the Technical-specifications is maintained.

l

procedure Change QAP 400-24 Technical Staff Engineer Training Procedure Spray Parts / Materials Evaluation RoEgriotioD Ensures that the independant reviewer is qualified as a procurement / materials evaluator, and to allow sufficient timo for now engineers to become qualified using the on the job training method.

Evaluation

1. The probability of an occurrence or the consequeace of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final -

Safety Analysis Report is not increased becausa the temporary chango is not mentionsd, nor does it affect the FSAR.

2. The possibilty for an accident or malfunction of a different typo than any previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report 19 not created because this chango will not affect th( operability, whatsoever as described in the ESAR.

P

3. The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification is not reduced because Tech Specs are not involved with this temporary chango.

i

._mm_ _m- _ m-____m. m___ -m __ _._ _.__ - u _-

l Safety Evalaution # 90-796 Special Test #1-152 A Model Gt:ter Field Test Descrintion The test functionally verified tino operation of the Quad Cities Eberline Gotter Software Subrot.:ino and the link j- bot voon the 1/2 Main Chimney SPING monitor.

Evaluatiyn

1. The orobability of an occurrence or the consequence of a, accident or malfunction of equipm',nt important to saJety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not increased because the only eguiument affected is the main chimney SPING offlvhit manitor. It will bo OOS for a few days durina the testing. The SPING does not have any autout.uic actions associated with it. only provides indication of releases during La accident.

Backup monitoring capabilities are availt Je for this function.

2. The possibilty for an accident or malfunction eif a 61eriront type than any previously evaluated in the c

/nal-6,fety Analysis Report is not croated becs yae tuo GPIf!C does not provido any automatic actinr.a

3. The kargin of safety, as defined in the biais foe any Technjaal Specification, is not reduced.bocaute the main t.himney GE detectors will still be availablu to monitor gaseous effluent releases at ,

the main chimncy. Those monitors have alarms to signal control room personnel that high relcano rates are occurring, p

I, l

Safety-Evaluation #90-851 Minor Design Change 4-0-90-149 Canal-Lift Station Feedor #3 DescriotioD-

~

This: minor-design-change performed tie-in of electrical feed supply to the service building addition from the feeder "to canal-lift station Bus #3. -

Evaluation

1. The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of-an-accident or malfunction of equipment important to stfety as-previously evaluated in_the Final Safety; Analysis Report is not increased because this change involves only no.~. cafety related equipment and does. sot-affect either directly-or indirectly-the D design function of any safety-related equipment.

2. The'possibilty for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any-previously evaluated in the ,

Final Safety Analysis Report is not created because  %

this change only involves-non-safety related-equipment.. The bounding conditions-in the-FSAR

-AccidentLAnalysis are not affected so no new accidents are introduced _by this change .

3. The'.nargin of safety, as-defined in the basis for any. Technical Specification,_is not reduced because the-caual-lift station equipment is not specifically identified as_tbe basis for any Technical g Specificatione, so safety is not-affected.

Safety Evaluation #90-592 Minor Design 4-1(2)-90-003 RHRSW Sump Pump Discharge Check Valves Description This minor design change replaced discharge check valves on the RHRSW vault sump pumps. Current lift check valves were replaced with wafer type check valves to improve system reliability.

Evaluation

1. The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not increased because the RHRSW vault sump ejector system is classified as non-safety related. Isolating one line at a time to perform this work will not affect the operability of the RHRSW system.

2. The possibilty for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not created because replacing the existing lift check valves with wafer check valves does not affect the design function of the RHRSW sump pump system of providing flood protection for the RHRSW pump rooms.

3. The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for

~any Technical Specification, is not reduced because the-replacement of these lift check valves with wafer check valves inside the RHRSW sump pump vaults will not affect the condensate pump room flood protection required per Technical Specification Section 3.5.H.

l l

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

'aluation # 90-1023 So, -st Install Pb Shielding 3o on Tech Staff PC

Description

-Impell upgraded their Pb Shielding program fror version 2B-to 3B. The new version ruits on a PC unlike the ot:1er version which ran on the Prime. The new program also cracks lead: shielding and includes more lines in its data base than version 28.

Evaluation ,

1.!The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety: Analysis Report is not increased because the program gives:a' conservative estimate of the allowed load based on piping stress calculations. There are also precautions and limitations given for the-evaluations. Due to these 2 factors, ne safety related equipmentiin the FSAR will be adversely ,

affected.

2. The possibilty for an accident or malfunction of a differentitype than any previously evaluated in the

. Final Safety = Analysis Report is not created because this takes:into account many different factors in order;to determine the maximum allowable lead shielding. 'These factors include: pipe material properties, pipe span, supports (type and number),

. valve and actuator.(type and weights).. By taking all of these intoLaccount as well as a safety ,

-factor, the evaluations are seen as safe and credible.-

'3..The margin _of safety l ras defined in the basis 3or Lany Technical- Specification,1is not reduced b3cause

the. lead that is1 approved is only for temporary i shielding and,will not impair the operation'of any U safety

related equipment.

Safety Evaluation #90-1017 Core Monitoring Code Update DR. der.ip.ti2Il A revision of the core monitoring code was installed to correct the software problem report listed in CE FDI; RBGU Rev. 19.

Evaluation

1. The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an uccident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not increased because this installation involvt ' correcting an output formr.t error for a computer program and has no bearing on any equipment. Therefore, the probability of an occurence or consequence of an accident as previously evaluated in the FSAR remains unchanged.

2. The possibilty for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Roport is not created because the change in format of output for the computer program has no functional control over any equipment and can therefore not create any d4fferent type of accident.- The calculations of thermal limits are not affected.

3. The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, is not reduced because the revision to the CMC program is for changing the format of an output for the program, and has no effect on the calculation of thermal limits.

l "d '

Procedure Change QEP 400-1, Rev. 2 Plant Assembly Description Allowed for changing designated assembly areas should emergency conditions warrant such a change.

Evaluation

1. The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not increased because the FSAR indicates that personnel should be assembled in safe locations with no specific areas designated, thus this revision, which allows for changing assembly areas if predetermined areas become unsafe does not increase the probability of an occurrence, consequence of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety. (Ref. FSAR 13.4.2.6)

2. The possibilty for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not created because the assembly of personnel at designated areas does not form the basis for any accident / malfunction analysis and therefore does not create any new accident / malfunction possibility.

3. The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification is not reduced because there is no margin of safety defined for personnel assembly in the Technical Specifications, thus the margin of safety is not reduced.

4 Safety Evaluation #89-71 Modification 4-1-87-074B A I B'Feedwater Flush Line Restrictive Orifice

= Descriotion

-This-Partial Modification replaced restrictive orifice

_ 1-3241-53B with a spectacle flange consisting of a blank plate and a large bore orifice. The blank plate will be

- used'during normal: unit operation and the large bore orifice will-be used for flushing operations. The large. bore orifice will have.a: diameter equa) to the inside diameter of the1 flush line pipe.- Flushing will be done using a-

-condensate / condensate booster pump which will. provide

. sufficient-flushing flow at a pressure much less than

feedwater pressure.- A 3/4 inch drain line was installed between the spectacle-flanges and valves 1-3212D to allow for drainage of the flush line. The drain line can also be used as a-vent path when leak-testing the 1-220-59B check.

- valve.

Hyaluation

1. The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as-previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not-increased because the feedwaterJflush, lines are not mentioned in section II- of .the FSAR which -deals with the feedwater system...Since the1 original-conditions and assumptions made.in~the:FSAR have not been unchanged '

the1 probability of an occurrence of the consequence

offan accident, or malfunction of equipment- - 4

-important to safety-as previously evaluated in the

-FSAR-istnot increased.

2'. The:possibilty:for.an-accident or malfunction of a

. different type than any previously-evaluated 11n the Final Safety Analysis: Report' is not created because

'this modification does not interface with any'

-safety-related equipment and would not fall outside any single failurelevent or design basis accident i ,which has already been analyzed in the'FSAR.

c3'. The margin of-safety, as defined'in the basis for

any-Technical Specification is not reduced.because

.the feedwater flush 11nos do not interact with any systems described in the Technical Specifications.

Therefore, the1 margin of safety.is not reduced.

4

Safety Evaluation #90-1010 Replacement of Unit Two Rod Movement Control Switch (RMCS)

Sequence Timer and Relay 281-112 During Unit Power Reduction Description The unit two RMCS timer and 281-112 relay will be replaced during unit power operation. The " Rod In", " Rod Out Notch", and " Notch Override" functions will be disabled during the repalcement. However, the " Emergency Rod In" function and the scram function of all control rods will be available at all times.

Evaluation

1. The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident or_ malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not increased because the replacement does not affect any accidents analyzed in the FSAR.- Rod withdrawal-will not be possible during_the replacement, and therefore the replacement is bounded with respect to accidents involving rod withdrawal errors. The " Emergency Rod

-In" and scram functions will be available at all times. The control rod drop accident is unaffected by the replacement.

2. The possibilty for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not created because the normal control rod movement functions which require the use of the timer (" Rod In", " Rod Out Notch", and " Notch Override") will not be possible during the replacement. Actuation of the-control-switches to attempt these: rod movement functions will result in no rod movement. The " Emergency Rod In" function and the scram function of all control rods will be available at all times. The scram-operation of all rods is completely independent of the circuitry involved in rod positioning during normal operation. _The " Emergency Rod In" function wil'1 be unaffected as its operation does not depend on any action of the sequence timer. The work involved in disconnecting the old timer, connecting the.new timer, and replacing the relay will not result in any new accident or malfunction type.

3. The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification is not reduced because all control rods will remain operable since the

" Emergency Rod In" function and scram function will be unaffected during the replacement. The replacement does not reduce the margin of safety to any Tech Spec basis.

l

e i

Safety Evaluation #90-961 Modification 4-0-89-066 Electrical Demolition for 1/2 IA System Descrintion Replace the 1/2 instrument air system with higher capacity equipment. This ovaluation is for the cloctrical demolition work and the temporary instrument air system configuration required for installntion of this modification.

Eyaluation

1. The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not increased because the electrical demolition will disable the 1/2 instrument air system which is not required for the design function of any equipment important to safety.

2. The possibilty for an accident or malfunction of a H different typo than any previously ovaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not created becausa loss of both unit one and two due to loss of instrument ulr will not occur sinco unit one will bo )

in a refueling outago. Tho 1B compressor will be tied to unit two during installation of this modification.

3. The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification is not reduced because instrument air does not affect any margin of safety defined in Technical Specifications.

Safety Evaluation i90-880 Modit'1 cation # 4-1-90-021 Install Temperature Control Valves in l TBCCW Supply to RFP Oil Covers Descrintion This modification installed temperature control valves in the turbine building closed cooling water discharge lines from the reactor feed pump oil coolers. The temperature control valves will regulate TBCCW flow to the coolers to i ensure acceptable oil cooling takes place and thus acceptable oil viscosity.

Evaluation

1. The probability of an occurrence or the consequenco of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not increased because this mod will increase the reliability of the feed pump oil coolers and thus the feedwater system. The probability of an occurrence or the consegunces of an accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated has been reduced for this reason.

2. The possibilty for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not created because the worst case malfunction due to this modification would be the loss of feedwater which-has been previously evaluated in the FSAR.

3. The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification is not reduced because this modification does not affect any system which up the bases for any Technical Specification and thus does not reduce the margin of safety.

l

- - - - _ - - - - - _ - _ - - _ _ _ - _ - _ - - _ l