ML20112G057

Forwards SER Summary Rept of Tests & Changes to Procedures & Facility,Per 10CFR50.59.Future Repts Will Be Included in Annual Rept.Rept Covering Interval Between Encl & Annual Submittal Will Be Included in Annual Rept Due Mar 1985

ML20112G057
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	12/20/1984
From:	Sorensen G WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
To:	Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
References
G20-84-654, NUDOCS 8501160169
Download: ML20112G057 (6)

Text

Washington Public Power Supply System P.O. Box 968 3000 GeorgeWashingtonWay Richland, Washington 99352 (509)372.-5000 December 20, 1984 G20-84-654 Docket No. 50-397 Mr. J.B. Martin Regional Administrator Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Subject:

NUCLEAR PLANT N0. 2 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT

SUMMARY

(10 CFR 50.59)

Reference:

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50.59 (b)

The reference states that "the licensee shall maintain records of changes in the facility cnd of cha.nges in procedures made pursuant to this section, to the extent that such changes consti-tute changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report or constitute changes in procedures as described in the safety analysis report. The licensee shall also maintain records of tests and experiments carried out pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.

These records shall include a written safety evaluation which provides the bases for the determination that the change, test or experiment does not involve an unreviewed safety question."

Further it states that the licensee submit

... annually or at such shorter intervals as may be specified in the license, a report containing a brief description of such changes, tests, and experi-ments, including a summary of the safety evaluation of each."

6

..s 'f g ( q b..

, f:) Mi@M).

4,; + s

., g 9 g gg y; La m

a y

• d n;, uk sd 1

4 8501160169 841220 1 g u

PDR ADOCK 05000397 R

PDR b'

n Mh IMW l l 4 4,..gn?,,,

n k n. w s.

, y W K.'.d ! & $ $ k W l E-y4

~

m 5,

s J. B. Martin Page Two December 20, 1984 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT

SUMMARY

(10 CFR 50.59)

Pursuant to this reference, the Supply System has procedures in place that require a written safety evaluation be performed for all proce-dure changes, all changes to the Final Safety Analysis Report, and all-changes in the facility. These evaluations provide the bases for the determination that the change, test or experiment does not involve an unreviewed safety question.

As a result of discussions with representatives of your staff, the Supply System has determined that only significant safety evaluations should be reported and all others be available for audit purposes as necessary. Significant safety evaluations are those in which it is not readily apparent that the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question as defined in 50.59(a)(2).

In other words, further analysis and evaluation is required to arrive at a conclusion that an unreviewed safety question does not exist. The attached report submits those safety evaluations recognized by the Supply System according to the above criteria.

Additionally, in the future this report will be included in the annual report. Presently the Annual Report is due in March 1985. At that time, a report covering the interval between this submittal and the annual submittal will be included. This will allow all future annual reports to. include the 50.59 summary report.

Should you have any further questions, please contact Mr. P. L. Powell, Manager, WNP-2 Licensing.

Very truly yours 2:J G. C. Sor nsen, Manager Regulatory Programs PLP/ tmh Attachment cc: R Auluck - NRC WS Chin - BPA AD Toth - NRC Site RC DeYoung - NRC

U f$b R 8*

~

STATE OF WASHINGTON

)

Subject:

)

County of Benton

)

I, G. C. SORENSEN, being duly sworn, subscribe to and say that I am the Manager, Regulatory Programs, for the WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, the applicant herein; that I have full authority to execute this oath; that I have reviewed the foregoing; and that to the best of my knowledge, information and belief the statements made in it are true.

'DATE /9 hat

,1984 7 G. C. Soreridien, Manager Regulatory Programs On this day personally appeared before me G. C. SORENSEN to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledge that he signed the same as his free act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.

GIVEN under my hand and seal this /

day of

,1984.

8vs k J # /d d 5

lidtary )ubJic in'and for t1e State of Washi n

,. M d' ",

Residing at 2.-

~. ~,. -

e..e

-.~+,,..,,,a.,,

.4,

,., -..., +

,,a

I TESTS OR EXPERIMENTS

~ During this period WNP-2 was-ir.volved in plant startup and the Power Ascension Test Program (PATP). This program is discussed in Chapter 14 of ~ the FSAR. No other tests and/or: experiments were conducted during this period which have not been part of the PATP or communicated to NRC'I&E.

/

CHANGES T0 PROCEDURES

~ Procedures described in the WNP-2 FSAR are used by the Plant Operating

-Staff and by various offsite support organizations. The following departments made changes to-procedures, during this pertsd, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, and concluded that none of the changes involved un-I reviewed safety questions:

Plant Staff..

--Support Services Quality Assurance

-Technical-Training Engineering Changes Eto procedures were generally either administrative.or technical in

,. nature... Administrative changes consisted of title, organizational and editorial Jchanges,'while technical; changes were the result of system or fcomponent modifications, license ' amendments,:or improvements in' procedural processes.' A safety _ evaluation was ~ conducted for each-change,.in accordance

with 10 CFR 50.59, and was reviewed and approved by the appropriate personnel.

The review concluded d1at the probability of, occurrence or consequences of

' an? accident or. equipment malfunction were:not. increased, there was no reduction in any. plant' safety margins, and the possibility of an accident or malfunction not-previouslyJ evaluated was not-increased. All safety evaluations ' performed' "have been reviewed and accepted by-the Plant Operations-Connittee per the WNP-2 Technical Specifications and:are available' for audit as necessary.

3 1

2 f.

4 9

o 4

4

_Sy=wt-**-W--fv--F'4-N'-4^V'F+

1. g* M

• y v v7 g

g

--w*yM+^W-r-

~

.; ~. -

CHANGES IN THE FACILITY LInasmuch as changes to non-safety related systems could potentially have a' safety'. impact, all design changes regardless of safety classification

are-evaluated in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 for unreviewed safety questions; this safety evaluation is documented in each case and available for< audit.

As a result of the design control process utilized at WNP-2, all technical and' safety ~ questions are evaluated and resolved during the design review process: no changes were made in the plant that increased the probability of ' occurrence or consequences of an accident or equipment malfunction or reduced any plant safety margins, or increased the possibility of an accident or malfunction not previously evaluated.

.In a few cases, changes were approved for which the safety evaluation was not considered straight forward, further analysis and evaluations were

. required. These are considered significant safety evaluations, and are sununarizedas follows:

- Plant Design Change - PMR-02-84-636 This change was. initiated to reduce the potential of containment instrument air system components overpressurization during LOCA conditions due to

- thermal effects. The. design change consisted of reducing the maximum i

pressure level of.the Containment. Instrument Air System from 200 psig to

.159 psig;-the nonnal operating pressure is 105 psig. ' The change was effected by reducing certain. pressure regulator, relief valve, and

~

-instrumentation settings.

Plant Design Change - PMR-02-84-435 This ' change was. initiated to reduce the potential of occurrence of low water

. level-in the RPV, caused by a feedwater pump trip. The~ design change con -

sisted of control logic changes, to' cause the Reactor Recirculation flow.

< control valves to close if the recirculation pumps are at full flow,'a

'.feedwater pump trips, and the RPV water level drops to Level 4.

This tends

,to preserve RPV water level by'the resultant reduction in steaming rate.

/q

' Plant Design ' Change - PMR-02-83-0059 This cha_nge'was: initiated to eliminate an unnecessary trip from the Group 1 isolation 1.ogic. Specifically,-a high ambient-temperature in -

- the main steam line area in the Turbine-Generator Building was. removed.

A

_as a trip signal, as discussed in letter " Group 1. Isolation.Instrumenta-tion;3 urbine Buildi.ng High Temperature",1G02-83-984, dated October 28,

~

T 1983.

Plant' Design Change - PMR-02-84-1096.

This change was initiated to assure that an auxiliary steam line break in the: Reactor Building could not cause ambient temperatures that exceed limits for operation of; safety-related components, as established by environmental

qualification considerations. The-design. change' added redundant temperature -

. detection and' automatically actuated-isolation valves to isolate the steam line in event of a break.

6

CHANGES IN THE FACILITY (Continuedl Plant Design Change - PMR-02-84-1203 This change.was initiated to clarify the control room ventilation isolation logic in response to radiation, chlorine, and LOCA event signals.

In event of a LOCA, the control room is isolated and pressurized through the emergency filter units; if concurrently present, signals from remote air intake radia-tion monitors cause the control room toilet exhaust fan to shutdown, and the associated damper to close.

In event of a chlorine detection, the control room is isolated, the toilet exhaust fan continued to operate because a radiation signal would not be present.

- _ _ _