ML20127P816
| ML20127P816 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 01/15/1993 |
| From: | Walsh R COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| RJW-93-02, RJW-93-2, NUDOCS 9302020081 | |
| Download: ML20127P816 (56) | |
Text
...
Commonwealth Edison ound Cities Nuclear Power Station 22710 206 Avenue North Corcova, Illinois 61242 Telephone 309/654 2241 RJH-93-02 l
January 15, 1993 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Document Control Desk Hashington, D.C. 20555
SUBJECT:
Quad Cities Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2 Changes, Tests, and Experiments Completed NRC Dotte.t_Hos. 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 December 1992, 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, COMMONHEALTH EDISON COMPANY QUAD-CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION h <fY n
Robert J. Halsh Tech Staff Supervisor RJH/dak Enclosure cc:
A. B. Davis, Regional Administrator T. Taylor,_ Senior Resident Inspector fkb 290062
/ s\\
TS 92 9302020001 930115 PDR ADOCK 0500 4
[-
R
- _ _ _ - = _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _
??
i=
~
DESCRIPTION:
This change revises guidance concerning evaluation of: degraded conditions with respect to operability.
The change also provides;a caution
-concerning installation or removal of electrical: jumpers.-
'l SAFETY EVALUATION SUMARY:
1.
The change described above-has been analyzed to-determine each accident'or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR where any of the following ts 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 belowi-
- None, for each of.these' accidents, it has-been determined that the change described above will not increase the4 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 offa different type:.than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is'not' created because this--
a procedure = provision provides additional guidance regarding; steps:to'taken:
to evaluate degraded conditions.
If.a system'1s determined:to be-unable to fulfill its design function,'that system is considered-inoperable and--
appropriate actions will be=taken as1specified in the Technical._
Specifications. This will-ensure that the plant is maintained within-previously analyzed: conditions.
LThe revis' iregarding jumper _ placement.only provides guidance t'o ensure c
that the p tential for unplanned actuations is minimized during-placement / removal.
This procedure does'.not address'the method of: approval.
of temporary' system alterations.
3.
The margin of safety, 1s-not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the' safety margin is not reduced.
TS 123;
2 h
8 SE-92-206 Temporary Change-DESCRIPTION:
This temporary procedure is written to test the Automatic Closure Initiation Test (PCI Group II) for TIP Drive Channel 2.
This procedure will only test the TIP machines and valves 1-1001-20, 1-1001-21, 1-1001-29A and 1-1001-29B which are all fed from Relays 595-127 and 595-128.
No other PCI Group II and III valves or systems will be involved.
SAFETY EVALUATION SlM4ARY:
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:
None.
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 temporary procedure is written to test the Automatic Closure Initiation of U-l TIP Channel 2.
The associated fuses and Relays & valve will be returned to their original position after the completion of the test.
This would not crate the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the UFSAR.
Performance of the test will not prevent the system _from performing as designed.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
TS 123
t SE-92-208 Component Replacement C04-1(2)-92-059 DESCRIPTION:
Replace watt transducer 202-60-780A/0, previously manufactured by Electromagnetic Industries, Inc. with a replacement part #XL31K5A2 from Scientific Columbus /Jemtec Electronics Company, This component takes-voltage and current tap inputs from the Reactor Recirculation (RR) pump motor power and provides local current and megawatt indication, control room mega,att indication, and computer point input to the heat balance equation.
SAFETY EVALUATION SlHiARY:
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 5Sanged structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below; Hone.
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 the replacement component is the same basic design and operates under the same operating parameters as the original component.
There-are no new interactions or functions introduced or deleted by this change.
Therefore there will be no changes in function or operating parameters of any system associated with the changed component.
No new failure modes will,be-introduced.
The probability of failure will not be increased.
3.
The margin of safety, is no+ defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
. TS 123
t a
SE-92-209 QTS 110-1, Temporary DESCRIPTION:
1)
Incorporate degraded voltage. modifications H04-1-91-019A, B, and C.
2)
Incorporate HPCI Sparger nodification H04-1-91-013B,
- 3) Add a recorder to monitor Diesel Generator Voltage and current.
- 4) Add testing to Core Spray undervoltage logic contacts (relays 1430-112A contact 7-8 and 1430-Il2BX contact 1-2.
- 5) Close RHR and Core Spray pump discharge valves instead of injection valves and only those valves associated with the division to be tested-such that the other division is available for shutdown cooling or injection.
- 6) Allow the set-up of the two multi-pen recorders to occur out of step order (allow for early set-up of recorders).
- 7) Re-install the HPCI and RCIC low steam pressure and high reactor water level isolations following completion of the test on the first division.
- 8) Incorporate the 1/2 Diesel Generator Auxiliaries preferred power source modification H04-2-92-006H.
SAFETY EVALUATION SlM4ARY:
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:
Loss of Offsite Power UFSAR SECTION 8.2 Loss of Coolant Accident UFSAR SECTION 15.6 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.
TS 123
t 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 changes made to this procedure'do not create the possibility of an accident different from those evaluated in the UFSAR.
The simulation of the ECCS signal and verified response of the ECCS systems will remain the same as in the original procedure.
The i.hanges made to the procedure were the result of plant modifications which were previously evaluated and do not affect the intent of this procedure.
This procedure verifies the design intent of modification M04-1-91-019.
The remaining changes were-to clarify test set up, reduce radiation exposure, allow for additional data acquisition, and to reduce redundant testing.
The recorder installed to monitor Diesel Generator parameters has been fused to properly electrically protect the plant circuitry.
During performance of this test, one division of ECCS equipment still remains available for use, if-needed.
3.
During performance of this test, a prerequisite must be met requiring that no work is being done which can drain the reactor vessel.
In addition, the reactor is in cold shutdown, and therefore no ECCS systems are required.
However, during the performance of this test, one division of ECCS pumps will be available, if needed. Additionally, one EDG will be available at all times during the performance of this test.
-TS 123
SE-92-210 Temporary Alteration #92-1-42 DESCRIPTION:
A temporary valve will be installed downstream of the 1/2-2901-26 valve.
The 26 valve is the service water supply valve to the Safe Shutdown Makeup Pump Room Cooler.
SAFE 1Y EVALUATION SUleMRY:
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 accideic.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
Safe Shutdown Analysi, UFSAR SECTION 9.5.1.3.4 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 the failure of the temporary valve will not be a new failure.
The failure of the 1/2-2901-26 valve was evaluated as part of the system design and would be the same as the failure of the temporary valve.
Therefore, the addition of the temporary valve would not create the possibility of a different type of accident not previously evaluated.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
(S 123
SE-92-211 C04-1-92-065 DESCRIPTION:
Replace motor /wormshaft gearing and stemnut on MOVI-1301-49.
SAFETY EVALUATION St# MARY:
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient descr'ibed 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, tystem 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:
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.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a-different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because the purpose-for changing the gear ratio on MO 1-1301-49 is to return the opr ational-
+
characteristics to that of the original ~ design. As a result..t.s stroke time and output thrust of H0 1-1301-49 are the only items affected.
The.
overall function of H0 1-1301-49 and the RCIC subsystem remains consistent with.the original design, as do interactions with other structures, systems and components.
Sin:e all functions and interactions. remain unaffected, and the operational parameters of 1-1301-49 are restored to be consistent with the original design, this component replacement will not create the possibility of an accident or malfunction 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 reduced.
TS 123 x.
QTS 1512-1 Rev 12, QTS 1512-51 Rev 5 DESCRIPi10N:
When adjusting the APRMs at low power, the bypass valve comparison will include an additional 1% conservatism factor due to the steam extraction-Ioad at this power.
SAFETY C1!ALUATION
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 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:
- None, for each of-these &cctdents, 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 the change will not affect equipment failures or create any new failure modes, nor-will system functions important to safety be adversely affected._ The APRM fixed scram function in the refuel and startup/ hot standby. modes will remain the same as designed and intended.
Similarly, the APRM fixed-scram function in the run mode will remain functional.
In all cases, the scram signal will occur at 1% lesser neutron flux.
This in conservative, as the flux and power level will not exceed valves initially analyzed in the UfSAR. Additionally, the APRM & RBM Rod Blocks will occur at a 1% lesser (conservative) neutron flux.
3.
The_ margin of safety _is not reduced as having'the_1% addition to the bypass valve equation adjust the APRMs in the conservative direction.
The fixed 120% scram remains unchanged, s
TS 123'
~ _.
SE-92-213 QGA 300, Secondary Containment Control DESCRIPTION:
QGA detail D-12 revised to remove asterisks that were next to some of the Max Safe Radiation level setpoint, and referred to a note stating that they wculd be measured by local survey.
SAFETY EVALUATION SlMMRY:
1.
The change described above has been analyzed *' determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAh,,5ere 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 IIsted below:
None.
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 previcasly 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 the setpoints that direct action are unchanged.
The benefit to the change is-elimination of the need to dispatch rad techs into the plant to perform local surveys.
Since no change has been made to the way the transient will be physically controlled, this change cannot 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 reduced.
TS 123
i SE-92-214 QGA 400 Radioactivity Release Control DESCRIPTION:
]
4 procecare reference was added to an existing procedure step.
SAFE Y 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 tr ue:
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:
i None.
For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will nct 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 the step tht, was modified to include a procedure reference has not changed.
Tne operator action required to implement the step has not changed.
The change only enhances the operators ability to quickly access a procedure that may be used to help implement the ste) in a timely manner.
Due to-these factors, this change cannot create tie 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 reduced.
TS 123
,--m,-
,w
, +.. - -,, - -
...-p
.-a p
p.
a
SE-92-216 QCOP 1600-13 Post Accident Venting of the Primary Containment Procedure DESCRIPTION:
Clarify requirements for sampling and analysis prior to venting the_
Provide direction for the use of Augmented Primary Containment Vent (APCVS).
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.
t The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or imolicitly assumed to funct'on 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:
None.
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
- afety 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 no containment venting is analyzer to be required to deal with the containment pressure response +.o the accident.
Containment venting during normal operation will be in re:ponse to expected gas expansion during heatup or loss of drywell. cooling transients that do not alter containment activity-and therefore cannot impact offsite release rates.
This change provides specific direction to the operator. sot hat containment activity can be adequately evaluated prior to-the' start of venting but does not alter the fact that the release will be monitored continuously and can be terminated if it approaches release rate limitations.
Since the change to verification of offsite release rates does not alterLsystem configuration or use, but simply more clearly defines prerequisites, it cannot create the possibility of an accideat or malfunction of a typesdifferent from those evaluated in the UFSAR. APCVS use is only directed for plant transients that are beyond the design bases of the plant as described in the UFSAR and therefore does not create the possibility of an accident:or malfunction of a_ type different from those evaluated in the UFSAR.
TS 123 -
1.,..
.... ~.
.i 3.
The basis for this procedure change is to establish a value that will not result in a trip of the reactor Butiding Ventilation System Isolation, j
That trip setpoint is set conservatively low to comply with this Tech Spec. Section. Since this change to the verification of release rates is still bounded by an automatic plant setpoint that remains unchanged and is derived to prevent exceeding Tech Spec values, the_ change does not reduce the margin of safety.
For use of APCVS, no events within the design bases of the plant require its use and since the Tech Spec limits address design basis events.,APCVS does not affect margin of safety.
t b
b 3-1 TS 123
..- -,=....-......-. :.-.
m m _ _- _ _ _. _ _ __ _ __ _ _
i i
SE-92-217 lemporary Alteration 92-1-173 i
DLSCRIPTION:
i Operate 1A Reactor Recirculation (RR) Pp without transducer 1-202-60-780A installed.
1his component failed, and the manufacturer is no longer in business.
A replacement was not readily available.
This component takes voltage and current tap inputs from the RR Pp motor and provides local current and megawatt indication, control room megawatt indication, and computer point input to the heat balance equation.
SAFE 1Y EVALUATION St W,ARY:
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or anticipated transient described in the UFSAR wher9 any of the following ls true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, syster or component is explicitly-or isolicitly 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:
None. The accidents involving the RR system include pump trip *, speed demand failure high, and speed demand failure low.
This temp alt will not alter initial conditions of these accidents, the functions associated with the component are not required to be operable during these accidents, and the failure of the temp alt configuration can not cause any of these accidents.
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 the change eliminates indications that are not essential to pump operation and that are not associated with any specific accidents.
The loss of these indications.will not introduce any new failure modes. -The. heat balance equation input deviation in the case of a single pump trip is considered negligible and would not introduce any new failure mode.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
TS 123
SE-92-218 Setpoint Change #520 DESCRIPTION:
Adjust proportional amplifiers (Prop. Amp.) 1-640-3A and 1-640-3B to ignore the input signal from pressure transmitters 1-647A and 1-647B.
This will cause the Prop Amps to act as a noise filter only.
SAFETY EVALUATION SUttiARY:
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accider.t 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:
Recirculation Pump Shaft Seizure UFSAR SECTION 15.3.3 Inadvertent HPCI initiation at power.
UFSAR SECTION 15.5.1 Inadvertent SV, RV or SRV opening UFSAR SECTION 15.6.1 Steam System Line Break outside containment UFSAR SECTION 15.6.4 ATHS OFSAR SECTION 15.8 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 the proposed change will not create the possibility of a new accident or malfunction.
The proportional amplifier still performs its intended function.
The-change would increase its accuracy and reliability due to less error being induced into the prop amp.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
-TS 123
SE-92-220 Process Computer Change H-9222 DESCRIP110N:
To change the B0P feedwater flow correction factors for density to match the specifications for the process computer.
SAFETY EVALUATION St# NARY:
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:
None.
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 changes the feedwater temperature correction factor to properly calculate the temperature correction.
This will ensure that systems (APRM) will provide the proper function.
The change ensures that a correct feedwater temperature correction factor is accurately calculated.
This ensures that the heat balance is calculated properly, which ensures that APRMs are set correctly.
This will not change the function an adversely impact system performance to create the possibility of an accident or n,alfunction different than those evaluated, 3,
The change in no way reduces the margin of safety.
The change corrects the feedwater temperature correction factor for low feedwater temperatures.
The change is in the conservative direction allowing for a more conservative calculation of core thermal power with low feedwater temperatures, 4
TS 123
__=
i SE-92-221 Off Gas filter Building Process Radiation Monitor QCOP 1700-8 DESCRIPTION:
New procedure that provides the steps to perform an operability check for Off Gas Filter Building process Radiation monitor.
SAFETY EVALUATION St#9tARY:
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.
- t Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The-accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
None.
For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the prvbability.of an occurrence or.the conseauence 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 tlan any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because this procedure will not adversely impact system 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 provides steps to perform an operability check through the use of the Radiation Monitor built in test mode.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any_ Technical Specification, therefore,-the safety margin is not reduced.
I TS 123 w
m
- ~ -
e v-,
SE-92-222 Component Replacement #C04-(1)2-92-001 DESCRIPTION:
This safety evaluation is for the design and final installation of the Rosemount transmitter type 1152DP4L22T1805PB.
This transmitter will replace the GMAC type 553 currently installed.
SAFETY EVALUATION StH4ARY:
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accident or enticipated 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 assemed 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:
None.
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 tv not created because SBLC level transmitter 1-1153 function will romain as is, thus no adverse system interaction or component malfunction will be created that has not already been evaluated, 3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
TS 123
SE-92-223 Setpoint Change #92-138,92-139, 92-140 DESCRIPTION:
Raise the overspeed trip mechanism trip setpoint from 990-1005 RPM to 1035-1050 RPM.
SAFETY EVALUATION SUMARY:
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 arc 1 dent.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
Loss of Coolant UFSAR SECTION 15.6.2, 15.6.5 Main Steam Line Break UFSAR SECTION 15.6.4 Multiple Recirc Pump Trip UFSAR SECTION 15.3.1 Loss of feedwater flow UFSAR SECTION 15.2.7 Turbine Trip Hithout Bypass UFSAR SECTION 5.2.2.2.2 15.2.3.1 Turbine Trip With Bypass UFSAP. SECTION 15.2.3.2 Turbine Pressure Regulator Halfunction (Increase in Steam flow)
UFSAR SECTION 15.1.3 Loss of Condenser Vacuum UFSAR SECTION 15.2.5 Loud Rejection With Bypass UFSAR SECTION 15.2.2.2 Loss of Auxillary Power UFSAR SECTION 8.3.1 Failure of One Diesel Gen To Start UFSAR SECTION 8.3.1.6.4 Loud Rejection Without Bypass UFSAR SECTION 15.2.2.1 Decrease in feedwater Temp.
UFSAR SECTION 15.1.1 TS 123
i for each of these accidents, it-has been determined that the change i
described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence.of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to-j 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 raising the emergency diesel generator overspeed trip setpoint from 990-1005 RPM to 1035-1050 RPM does not 6dversely impact systems or create possibilities of an accident / malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the UFSAR.
This change will improve the EDG's resistance to overspeed trips.
caused by changes in generator load and is recommended by the original equipment manufacturer telectromotive division-of GH) and safaty related.
i carts supplier (Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc.).
Therefore. the diesel generator will experience no detrimental affects as a result of having the overspeed trip raised to 1035-1050 RPM.
Currently, La Salle County l Station performs full and largest single load reject testing of their..
They use the 1035-1050 RPM setpoint on their, overspeed trip mechanism as recommended in Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc.
1 Report 9022-PRQ.
1 3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in-the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
1
'j iTS 123
~-.n
. ~ -, -
SE-92-224 QCAP 1100-13 Processing Fleid Temporary Procedure Change (No Change in Intent)
DESCRIPTION:
To change the review process to incorporate changes from Tech Specs 6.0, and to keep review process self contained in this procedure.
SAFETY EVAL.UATION StMtARY:
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 Itsted below:
None.
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 tho 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 change is to a procedure that administratively controls Field Temporary Procedure Changes that do not change the *.ntent of the original procedure.
This procedure implements administrative controls, therefore it cannot directly impact systems or functions in such a way as to create an accident or malfunction of any type.
This procedure implements the changes of Tech Spet section 6.0.
3.
The Tech Spec required approvals are implemented as stated in Tech Specs.
TS 123
SE-92-225 QCAP 1100-4 Procedure Revision, Review and Approval DEFCRIPTION:
This procedure change incorporates the new technical review requirements of Technical Specification 6.0.
The Writers Guide Checklist, QCAP 1100-6 and QCAP 1100-7 are incorporated into this procedure by the change.
This revision also incorporates the processing of "Q" procedures.
SAFETY EVALUATION SUM 4ARY:
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 UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or.impilcitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component l.
j could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
- None, for each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change i
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 the change is to a procedure that implements the administrative controls for the revision, review and approval process for procedures, therefore it cannot directly impact systems or functions in such a way as to create an accident or malfunction of any type.
3.
The Tech Spec required approvals are implemented as stated in Tech Spec Section 6.0 and have not changed as a result of this procedure revision.
TS 123
SE-92-226 QCAP 1100-1 Station Procedure Hanual DESCRIPTION:
Added a discussion and a definition section to the procedure.
Reorganized the existing information contained QAP 1100-1 for ease of use and provided more descriptive information on procedure process and controls.
Provided a brief description of the Review and approval process of procedures.
Provides a cross reference of acronyms of "Q" procedures to "QC" procedures.
Procedure has been updated to include the new Technical Specification Section 6 requirements.
Procedure has a new section to cover a discussion for special Procedures, Interim Procedure Changes, and field Temporary Procedure Changes.
SAFETY EVALUATION St# MARY:
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 analysia.
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:
None.
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.
TS 123
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 is an administrative procedure that describes the administrative processes used to develop, implement, review and approve, arid control Station Procedure Manual it can not directly create the possibility of an i
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 nrgin is not reduced.
J l
1 i
i o
r i
I i
.)
t 7
TS 123 v'~
o
, - ~
+
,n,.w,,,.n.ww.,-,,,l.n.,
e.
-.a,..n n.
,.n.
,- ~
.,..n.n,.,an,,.,,..'l,
.,.r..
.,l
.. -. _ = -. -
L o
SAFETY EVALUATION FOR H04-91-013A,0,C,D E,r,G,H DESCRIP110N:
These partial modifications replace existing GEMAC 5000 control devices in the Radwaste Control System with the GE Fanut System.
SAFETY EVALUATION StM4ARY:
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.
r Operation-or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
ACCIDENT SAR SECTION Safety Analysis 14 for each of these accidents, it has been determined that th0 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 is3not created because the new GE Fanuc System will improve the reliability of the Radwaste Control System.
In addition, this new design increases the redundancy of the Radwaste Control System by installing two series 90-70 programmable logic controllers and providing two independent 120 Vac power feeds.
TS 123
SAFETY EVALUATION FOR A04-91-013A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H (Continued) i The GE Fanut System to be installed is a series 90-70 programmable logic control (*PLC) system with GENIUS input / output devices.
Dual series 90-70 controllers will be employed, where the second series 90-70 controller is a redundant on-line "Het Back-up" to the first controller.
If one controller fails, the system automatically transfers to the back-up controller.
A: shown by the above answers to Questions 5 and-6, the changes do not-adversely impact systems or functions so as to create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of equipment of a type different from those evaluated in the FSAR/UFSAR. All changes being made are limited to the e
Radwaste Building and the physl(al configuration of the Radwaste processing equipment Llanks, pipes, valves, etc.) will not-change.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefot6, the safety margin is not reduced.
These_ changes to the non Safety-Related Radwaste System do not-tmpact the' margin of safety.
The Unit 1 Technical Specifications were reviewed for this modification.
Sections 3.2/4.2 " Protective Instrumentation" (G. Radioactive liquid Effluent Instrumentation), 3.8/4.8 " Radioactive Effluents" and 6.10
" Major Changes to Radioactive Waste Treatment Systems (Liquid, Gaseous, Solid)" were reviewed for operation-and surveillance requirements.
There are no changes required as a result of this installation.
L 4
TS 123
+
+ -,
www.<
e--,w_--..-*w-
- -..mw---
w ar-.-.,.
,,m.
,,,__.--,+
v
.-w.,w.-,
u s-rwe. we w-wg-ry-,
e
,w.w,
, e g r ev --wwy
++-w.pree-e.++-.y,--,---
SAFETY EVAL.UATION
)
i H04-1-90-003A l
DESCRIPTION:
l This modification provides an Augmented Primary Containment Vent System l
(APCVS) which is a non-essential system capable of relieving pressure in the Primary Containnient.
A vent path to the atmosphere form the air space at the top of the suppression chamber, with the option to vent from the.
drywell (once venting from the suppression chamber has been initiated), is provided by this modification. Air operated isolation valves were added and interlocked with existing system valves to allow system operation.
i SAFETY EVAUJATION StM4ARY:
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 i
true:
The change alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR analysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or impilcitly 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:
-No accidents described in the UFSAR/FSAR are affected by the action or operation of the APCVS.
The APCVS is an augmented system designed for use outside the Design Basis of the plant.
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 the Augmented Primary Containment Vent System (APCVS)-is designed to relieve'Frimary Containment pressure to avoid overpressurization and possible breach of the Primary Containment which may occur due to events which are beyond-the design basis of the plant.
The APCVS is designed and shall be operated so' that the-impact on existing systems or functions do not create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a type different form those.
evaluated in the UFSAR/:SAR.
3.
The margin of safety,- is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
-TS 123 b
SAFETY EVALUATION P04-1-91-055 DESCRIPTION:
The main steamline (MSL) temperature switches that provide a Primary Containment Isolation (Group 1) signal require calibration each refuel outage.
In order to calibrate these instruments accurately, it is necessary to remove the switches and perform a calibration in the Instrument Maintenance Department (IMD) shop.
New EQ qualified electrical connectors were added at each temperature switch in a 1" LB conduit fitting (Mogul series) to facilitate removal of the temperature switches.
SAFETY EVALUATION SlMMRY:
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 tae 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:
ACCIDENT FSAR SECTION MSL Break Outside DH 14.2.3 for each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probab111ty 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 all wiring changes affect only the PCI wiring for the MSL temperature switches.
There are,-therefore, no new system interfaces created by this_ Minor Plant Change.
The changes replace existing Raychem splices with an electrical connector supplied by a 10CFR50, Appendix B supplier. _The seismic and Environmental Qualification test reports have been reviewed by Sargent and Lundy.
A prototype was also inspected by SLL and Ceco.
The new connectors should not significantly increase the potential for equipment failure.
No new failure modes are anticipated.
TS '23
I l
SAFETY EVALUATION PO4-1-91-055 I
(Continued)
The changes to the local wiring include a connector to replace a wiring spilce.
This change should not significantly reduce the wiring reliability.
There is no functional change to the PCI logic.
The normally energized logic of the PCI system would detect most connector failures by " falling safe," if continuity through the switch.were lost due to a faulty connector.
Hith each lead to the switch connected by a separate _ connector to the external wiring, the failure mode where the leads are shorted together (as a result of connector failure 0 is extremely remote.
The functionality of the PCI system is not being changed.
The normally energized logic of the PCI system mitigates the consequences of nost types of failures, the equipment shall.be thoroughly tested following the HPC to verify that the equipment still functions as anticipated and that no i
inedvertent errors have been made during the installation that would l
render the PCI trip sensors or logic inoperable.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
The wiring for the HSL te.;,erature switches mitigate the consequences of-a HELB i
outside containment.
The trip function does not affect containment-integrity, except for the HELB accident.
31nce the function, performance, and reliability of the modified equipment is not adversely affected, the i
margin of safety has not been reduced, t
t t
l l
f TS 123 s)
r SAFETY EVALUATION M04-1-91-019A DESCRIPTION:
Circuit breaker control logic was being revised to automatically shed a total of eighteen non-safety related loads from 480 V ESS Division I load center 18, 480 V Division II load center 29, and non-safety related bus 17.
The loads will be shed on a high drywell pressure (2.5 psi) or.
low-low reactor water level (-59") which actuates an auto-start of the emergency diesel generator with off-site power available.
The loads which are shed are Partial A.
SAFETY EVALUATION St# NARY:
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 l
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:
NONE l
for each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change l
described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to i
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 changing the l
load shed logic.does not change the normal function of any system or l
component, but changes the operation during the following plant conditions:
l l
High drywell pressure (2.5 psig) OR Low-low reactor water level (-59" and <325.psig reactor pressure) OR Low-low reactor water lesal (-59" for 8.5 minutes) i l
TS 123
SAFETY EVALUATION M04-1-91-019 (Continued) 3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical I
Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
During normal plant operations and following a normal shutdown, the joy air compressors are still available to maintain the drywell to torus dP ecual to or greater than 1.20 psid.
For an accident condition where crywell pressure is 2.5 psig or reactor water level falls to 48" a Group !! isolation occurs and the joy air compressors would be isolated from the drywell.
There fore, the use of the joy air compressors to control drywell to torus pressure under these conditions is not available and the trip of the RBCCH system (which provides cooling water to the joy air compressor after i
coolers) does not have an adverse impact.
t F
t TS 123-
.-.....-------...-..--.-....~......-.!
~-..~,..-,-..---..._.-.-.:,...-..,--_....---...-...
SAFETY EVALUATION M04-1-91-020 DLSCRIP110N:
The battery charger for the 24/48 VDC system were replaced.
The old charger input and output cabling was replaced and new conduit installed.
The output breakers of the chargers was replaced with a larger 70 amp breaker.
The chargers were being replaced due to obsolescence of the existing chargers which has led to increasing maintenance.
SAFETY LYALUATION SlM4ARY:
1.
1he 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 impilcitly 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:
NONE 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 the 24/48 VOC battery chargers are being replaced to alleviate increasing maintenance and operating _ concerns with the existing Gould chargers.
The replacement will greatly improve the reliability of the 24/48 VDC system.
The impacts of a failure of the new charger on operation of the plant will be-the same as the existing configuration.
Therefore, this modification does.1ot adversely impact systems or functions of equipment.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
Replacenent of the chargers will be done during a refueling outage.
Once replaced, the chargers will provide the same function as the existing chargers.
TS 123 4
w
,4,-.
m._,
v.
SAFETY EVALUATION M4-1-91-037A DESCRIPTION:
This modification installs a non-safety related 250 VDC battery system.
The new system consists of a battery, battery chargers, and motor control center.
The non-safety related loads currently powered from the safety related 250 VDC battery will be relocated to the new system.
The main turbine emergency bearing oil pump will be relocated to the new system by partial modification H04-1-91-037A.
The relocated loads will continue to function in their respective systems as originally designed. All control room actuation / alarms will remain unchanged.
All functions performed by the existing MCC will be dupittated at the new non-divisional MCC.
Local controls at the loads will remain unchanged.
Indication and annunclailon for the new 250 VDC system will be provided locally at the new motor control center.
Remote annunciation Will be provided in the control room through the use of a summary annunciator window which will indicate that there are potential troubles associated with the new battery system.
This modification is being installed to improve reliability and ircrease the reserve capacity of the existing 250 VDC system.
By removing non-safety related loads on the safety related 250 VDC system, the margin of sefety of the safety related 250 VDC loads will increase.
SAFETY EVALUATION SlM4ARY:
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:
l ACCIDENT SAR SECTION Loss of auxiliary power 8.3.1 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 evaluated in the UFSAR.
TS 123
l f
1 SAFETY EVALUATION M4-1-91-037 2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because this modification installs a non-safety related 250 VDC system so that non-safety related loads can be removed from the safety related 250 VDC system.
This is being done to improve the reserve capacity of the safety related system and thereby increase the margin of safety for the safety i
related 250 VDC loads.
The removal of the non-safety related loads from the safety related system will be done in stages with the ma, turbino emergenc) bearing oli pump being relocated by this partial modification.
The installation of a non-safety related 250 VDC system does not change the operation of any equipment.
Only the power source will be changed for the non-safety related loads.
The power source, while not being Class IE will be very reliable. AC power will be the input source for the chargers.
The chargers will supply power to the loads under normal conditions. Under a loss of AC power, the loads will be supplied by the battery.
As a source of DC power, a battery ahs proven to be a very reliable source of power under emergency conditions.
The system is configured such that there are two battery chargers.
Each of these chargers is capable of providing ample power for the loads.
The power source of these chargers is from Bus 13 (via Bus 15) and Bus 14 (via Bus 16).
Both of these sources provide very reliable sources of AC power.
Therefore, the installation of this system does not have any adverse effects on equipment or systems which have a safety related function and does not create any accident conditions not previously analyzed in the SAR.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
technical Specification Section 3.9.C.3 states:
From and after the date that one of the two 125/250-volt battery systems is found to be inoperable for any reason, continued reactor operation is permissible only during the succeeding 3 days unless such battery system is sooner made operable.
This is interpreted to mean only the safety related 250 VDC battery and not the new non-safety related battery installed by this modification.
As a result, the margin of safety _for this Technical Specification has not_been reduced.
This is due to the fact that the new system will not provide power for any systems-or components which are important to the safe shutdown of the plant.
3 TS'123 4'
twi -+
e
-+=pr mM -w-N+
-timn--t w n
- --=r-
-?N
+w-v+
+.-r-e-m--e
+e--
-r-s
-s--ru-
-i--=-twa-w, sw,w-m w an*--m=+n
- e--
e w
'-= = <
=7-
SAFETY EVALUATION P04-1-91-105 DESCRIPTIDN:
The minor plant change (HPC) replaced the second level undervoltage relays that are in the degraded voltage protection scheme for 4.16 kV buses 13-1 and 14-1.
The existing relays ITE-270 were rep' aced with ITE-27N.
The new relays have a lower pickup / dropout voltage ratio which allows them to reset quicker when the system voltage recovers.
This change will avoid potential unnecessary tripping of the offsite power source.
SAFL1Y EVALUATION Sl# NARY:
1.
The chango described above has been analyzed to determine each accioent 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 impilcitly assumed to function during or after the accident.
Operition or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
ACCIDENT SAR SECTION Degraded Voltage 8.2.3 for each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequene-of the accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safet) 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 minor design change does not alter the function or logic of the second level undervoltage protection system.
The trip setting of the new relays will be the_same as the old relays.
The new relays will recognize an undervoltage condition at the same voltage level as the existing relays but with more accuracy.
The new relays will also reset at an acceptable voltage level lower than that of the old relays once the voltage begins to recover from a voltage dip.
Therefore, no new accidents or malfunctions are created.
System reliability has been improved through this design change.
l TS 123
-..... -. -.. -.. -. -.. -.. ~. ~
.. ~.
SAFETY EVAli.'AT10i1 P04-1-91-105 3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
No change to the Technical Specifications or bases te Technical Specifications as a result of V s minor plant change.
Technical Specification sections 3.2/4.2, 3.92'.7, and Tables 3.2-2, ' 4.2-1 are unchanged.
?
I~
c 6
l l
L TS 123
d SAFETY EVALUATION M04-1-91-013 DESCRIP fl0H:
This modification includes:
the installation of an external vacuum breaker line connecting the turbine exhaust pipe to the torus air volume.
Because the vacuum breaker line is now external to the torus (previously vacuum breakers were located inside the torus), primary containment isolation valves, and modified primary containment isolation (PCI) logic are included in the design.
SAFETY EVALUATION StMMRY:
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:
ACCIDENT SAR SECTION HELB Outside Containment 14.2.3-LOCA 14.2.4 Inadvertent HPCI Inj.
4.3.3 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.
TS 123 0
.I J
SAFETY EVALOATION H04 1-91-013 (Continued) 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 modification does not contain-any system interfaces or failure modes that' have not been evaluated.
Therefore, the modification does net create or-increase the probability of. failure of other~ systems or equipment.
There-are no accidents caused (directly) by a failure of the-added or modified-equipment.
This modification alters equipment used for protection to mitigate the consequences or accidents described in-the FSAR and'5ER.
The_ modification enhances the performance of HPCI by eliminating the conditions causing HPCI turbine exhaust valve " chugging".
The~ modification improves primary-containment by 1) eliminating the direct connection of the torus air _ space to the turbine exhaust line (by provid1*.g isolatico Valves in tt.a. vacuum breaker line), 2) providing' redundant MOV's in the above connection instead of relying on check valves for containment isolation, and 3) improving the Group 4 contain ant circuitry (e.g., additional _ seal-ins, improved reset controls, indication of circuit power, increased circuit separation between trip channels, etc). A failure of these protective.
systems is not made more likely.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
E l
TS.123-
SE-91-463 M04-2-90-003A/Q91830-6.03 DESCRIPTION:
Stiffening of structural beams to accommodate addition of piping and conduits for the " hardened wetwell vent mod" SAFETY EVALUATION StM4ARY:
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:
NONE For each of these accidents, it has-been determined that the change-described abovi <111 not increase the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of ;ne 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 light fixture F263 and cenduit vill be relocated, The fixture is not needed for control panels or operation of equipment in the turbine building.
The particulate samplirg pump and flow control unit will be temporarily deenergized and reenergized with temporary power until permanent power is restored.
These changes do 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 defired in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
TS 123 9
SE-92-464 H04-2-90-003A/Q91830-6.04 DESCRIPTION:
Stiffening of structural beams to accommodate addition of piping and conduits for the " hardened wetwell vent".
Installing this mod will require a temp alt on vent stack particulate sample pump 2-1793, this is a Tech spec pump.
The conduit carrying the power to this monitor must be moved temporarily while beam stiffening is accomplished.
SAFETY EVALUATION SthMARY:
1.
The change de:cribed 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 efter the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet those criteria are listed below:
N0hE 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 accidenc, or malfunctioti of equipment imoortant to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfenction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not crested because the installation of a RAS monitor per temp. alt., will not adversely impact-the requirements of the Tech Spec.
This compensatory measure will insure continuous monitoring of the Rx Bldg Vent Stack is done.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specificction, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
TS 123-
SE-91-63 M4-1-88-016A MOD TEST DESCRIPTION:
Stroke the 1-1001-43D valve from the control room.
Proper operation of the valve will be determined by verifying valve position indications, timing the valve, and verifying valve interlocks.
This will prove valve operability.
SAFETY EVALUATION SU M RY:
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:
NONE 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.
1he possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type-than
-any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because the Mod did not change the function of the valve.
Therefore, stroking the valve does not create the possibility of a new accident.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
TS 123
'4 s
SE-91-126 M4-1-88-016A MOD TEST DESCRIP TION:
The test will involve stroking the 1-2301-10 valve from the control room to verify proper light indications and timing.
The test will also perform DC Ground Checks.
The mod test will also be the operability test.
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 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 itsted below:
NONE 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 valve functionality was not affected by this nodification.
Stroking the 1-2301-10 valve does not create a new accident possibility because the appropriate isolation valves will be closed and the valve will be stroked from the control room.
HPCI is not required during the refuel / shutdown mode of operation and the low pressure ECCS systems will be available during testing.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical-Specification, therefore,-the safety margir,is not reduced.
TS 123
SE-92-227 QCOP 1700-2 DESCRIPTION:
New procedure to provide instructions for the operation of the SJAE Radiation Monitors, 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 after the accident.
Operation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component c3uld lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
NONE 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 differe;,t type-than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because the implementa1'.on of this procedure will NOT create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a type different from those evaluated in the FSAR.
The procedure ONLY provides instances to the operator to be able to read input and to clear associated alarms.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the-basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is.not reduced.
TS 123
SE-91-51 M4-1-88-0168 H00 TEST DESCRIPTION:
The test will involve stroking the 1-1601-57 valve from_the control room several times to ver_1fy proper light indication and valve operation. The modification test satisfies the operability test requirements.
SAFETY EVALUATION SUD91ARY:
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.
rperation or failure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
NONE 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 eautpment important to safety as previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type-than any previous 1_y evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because this test does not create the possibility of an accident as it only involves stroking the 1-1601-57 valve from the control room.. The 1-1601-57 valve is in the drywell N2 makeup system and no chance to drain the reactor exists.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
L TSl123
SE-91-61 M4-1-88-016B HOD TEST:
DESCRIPTION:
The 1-1001-198 valve will-be stroked by Operating personnel from the-Control Room to verify proper valve position indicotton and operation.
The Hodification test proves proper valve operability.
SAFETY EVALUATION StH4ARY:
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:
NONE 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 eqdipment'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;bertuse valve functionality was not affected by this modification.
,troking thel valve-does not create a new accident possibility.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical
. Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
l i
i I
i TS 123
1 SE-91-62 M4-1-88-0168 H0D TEST DESCRIPTION:
Valve 1-1001-43C will be stroked from the Control Room by Operations, Personnel to verify proper valve position indication and valve operation The Mod Test also shows valve operability.
SAFETY EVALUATION SUl#4ARY:
1.
The change described ebove 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 1s axplicitly 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:
NONE 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 the modification did not affect valve functionality.
Therefore,-the.
possibility of an accident is not created.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
TS 123 t
SE-91-69 M4-1-88-0168 HOD TEST DESCRIPTION:
The 1-1001-43A valve will be stroked by Operating personnel from-the-Control Room to verify proper valve position indication and operation.
The Mod Test proves proper valve operability.
SAFETY EVALUATION SlMMRY:
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, s'ystem 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:
N0tlE for each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change de:cribed 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 valve functionality was not affected by this modification. Stroking the valve-does not create a new accident possibility because'the "A" RHR Loop is-not in use and the valve to be tested will be isolated by other closed valves.
The "A" RHR Loop is not required for operation because other low-pressure ECCS Systems are available.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical' Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
TS 123
SE-91-94 M4-1-88-016B HOD TEST DESCRIPTION:
The test involves stroking the 1-1201-2 valve from the Control Room to verify proper light Indications ar.d valve operation, The Mod Test is also-the Operability Test.
SAFETY EVALUATION StMIARY:
1, The change described above has been analyzed to determine each accioent 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:
NONE 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 testing will not create the possibility of an accidcnt as the 1-1201-5 anilve will be closed to isolate the reactor.
The reactor water cleanup system will be off during this test.
In addition, the valve functionality will not be affected, as it will be stroked from the control room, as designed.
In addition, the PCI valves are not required for the plant mode in which the valve will be tested.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
TS 123
SE-91-104 M4-1-88-016B H00 TES1 DESCRIPTION:
The test involves stroking the 1-2301-4 valve from the control room to verify proper light indications and valve operation.
The Mod Test is also the operability test.
SAFETY EVALUATION St# MARY:
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:
NONE 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 the valve functionality was not affected by this modification. _ Stroking the valve does not create a new accident possibility, because the valve to be tested-will be isolated by the 2301-5 valve.
The HPCI system of ECCS is not required because other low pressure ECCS systems are available.
This modification test will modify valve functionality as the HPCI low pressure isolation will be bypassed.
This will not cause a safety problem as the l
2301-5 valve will be closed to provide adequate reactor isolation.
In addition, HPCI is not required in the refuel or shutdown modes of reactor operations.
L 3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical
[
Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
l TS-123
_, +
SE-91-108 H4-1-88-16B M00 TEST DESCRIPTION:
The test will involve stroking the 1-2301-8 vai, from the control room to verify proper light indications and timing.
The test;will also check for DC grocad checks.
1he mod test will also be the operability test.
SAFETY EVALUATION StMMRY:
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.fallure of the changed structure, system, or component could lead to the accident.
The accidents which meet these criteria are listed below:
NONE 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 the Valve-functionality was not affected by this modification.
Stroking the 1-2301-8 valve does not create a new accident possib;11ty because the-appropriate isolation valves will be closed and the valve will be stroked as designed from-the control room.
HPCI is not required during the Refuel / Shutdown mode of operation and other (low pressure) ECCS systems will be available during testing.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
TS 123
n SE-91-112 M4-1-88-016B H00 TEST DESCRIPT10N:
The test involves stroking the 1-2301-6 valve from the control-room to verify proper light indications and valve operation.
The Hod Test is also the operability test.
SAFETY EVALUATION SlMMRY:
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:
NONE For each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not ir. crease 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 valve functionality was not affected by this modification.- Stroking the 1-2301-6 valve does not create a new accident pcssibility because the appropriate isolation valves will be closed.
In addition, HPCI is not required in the refuel or shutdown mode of operation and the low pressure ECCS systems will be available during testing.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
TS-123
4.
SE-91-127 M4-1-88-016B H0D TEST DESCRIPTION:
The test will involve stroking the 1-2301-3 valve from the control room to.
verify proper light indications and timing.
The test will also perform DC:
ground checks.
The mod test will also be the operability test.
SAFETY EVALUATION SUM 4ARY:
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:
NONE for each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change dest.ibed above will not increase the prob 6bility 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 valve functionality was not affected by-this modification.
Stroking the 1-2301-3 valve does not create a new accident possibility because-the appropriate isolation '/alves will be closed and the valve will be stroked, as designed, from the control room.
HPCI is not required during the Refuel / Shutdown mode of operation and the low pressure ECCS systems will be available during testing.
3.
The margin of safety,.is not defined in the basis for any fechnical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
l^
l l
TS 123 I
7.
3 SE-91-135 H4-1-88-016B H00 TEST DESCRIPTION:
The test involves stroking the 1-220-2 valve from the' control room to verify proper light indications and valve operation.
The Mod Test is also the operability test.
SAFETY EVALUATION SUHRY:
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:
NONE 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-valve functionality was not affected by this-modification.- Stroking the 1-220 valve does not create a new accident possibility because the 1-220-1 valve will be closed and the valve will be stroked from the control room by the Unit NSO.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.'
TS 123
M4-1-92-005 DESCRIPTION:
This modification involved repairing the cracked Access Hatch Covers.
There are two types of cracks this repair will eliminate.
Circumferential crack which developed along the weld affected area and radial cracks which could propagate to the vessel or shroud wall.
The original plates and the weld affected area will be Electric Discharged Machined out.
The new cover plates are designed in accordance with ASME Section III, Subsection NG.
SAFETY EVALUATION SUPNARY:
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:
ACCIDENT SAR SECTION LOCA UFSAR Section 14.2 FSAR 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 is 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 repair will not create an accident or malfunction different than evaluated in the SAR. ASME Section III Subsection NG was used to assure reliability and adequate margins of safety in the design. The materials of construction are compatible with the vessel internals for a 40 year life.
There has been no new malfuncticns that have been associated with this repair, nor does this introduce a new method of impacting other RPV interna:s.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any. Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.The current MCPR Safety Limit will remain valid and the basis for the Techni;al Specifications will not be affected as long as no more than one double tap i
and two single tap jet pump flow instrumentation are out of service.
TS 123
M4-1-88-016B HOD TEST I
DESCRIPTION:
The test involves stroking the 1-2301-14 valve from the Control Room to verify proper light indications and valve operation..The Hod Test is also-the Operability Test.
SAFETY EVALUATION SlM4ARY:
l.
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:
NONE 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 valve functionality was not affected by this modification.
Stroking the 1-2301-14 valve does not create a new accident possibility, as the appropriate isolation valves will be closed.
Low pressure ECCS systems will be available during testing.
HPCI is not required in the REFUEL and SHUTDOWN modes.
The valves will be stroked, as designed, from the Control Poom.
3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
TS 123
- [ i 3-SE-91-68 M4-1-88-016A H00 TEST DESCRIPTION
The 1-1001-43B valve will be stroked by Operating personnel from the Control Room to verify proper valve position indication and operation.
the Modification test proves proper valve operability.
SAFETY EVALUATT]N SU M RY:
1.
The change described above has been analyzed to determine each iccident or anticipated transient described in t_he UFSAR where any of the fc11owing is true:
The charge alters the initial conditions used in the UFSAR anclysis.
The changed structure, system or component is explicitly or impl!citly 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 criterit
.,e listed below:
None for each of these accidents, it has been determined that the change described above will not increase the probability of an occurrence or the conscquence 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 I
any previously evaluated in the UFSAR is not created because valve functionality was not affected by this modification.
Stroking the valve does not create a new accident possibility, because the "A" RHR LOOP is not in use and the valve to be tested will be isolated by other closed valves. The "A" RHR Loop is not required for operation because other low pressure ECCS Systems are available.
j 3.
The margin of safety, is not defined in the basis for any Technical Specification, therefore, the safety margin is not reduced.
3 i
TS 123 1