ML20137T509
| ML20137T509 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1997 |
| From: | Jamila Perry COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| JSPLTR:#97-0068, JSPLTR:#97-68, NUDOCS 9704160110 | |
| Download: ML20137T509 (22) | |
Text
l Conunonw-21t11 Fdis>n Comguny Dresden Genciating St.ition 6%0 North Drexten Road Mortis II. 60 60 Tel 815-9 s2-2920 April 9,1997 JSPLTR: #97-0068 Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document ControlDesk Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
1997 First Quarter 10 CFR 50.59 Report Dresden Nuclear Power Station Docket Nos.50-010,50-237, and 50-249 Enclosed is the first quarter Report of completed Changes, Tests, and Experiments per 10 CFR 50.59 for Dresden Nuclear Power Station. These evaluations correspond to the conditions identified in 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2) for determining whether a pr posed change, o
test, or experiment shall be determined to involve an unreviewed safety question.
If there are any questions regarding this report, please contact Mr. Frank Spangenberg, Dresden Station Regulatory Assurance Manager, at (815) 942-2920, ext. 3800.
I Sincerely, St' he Site Vice President Dresden Station JSP/RWC: as Enclosure cc:
A. Bill Beach, Regional Administrator, Region III W. J. Kropp, Branch Chief, DRP, Region III J. F. Stang, Project Manager, NRR
- -d]3 U
l Senior Resident Inspector, Dresden Office of Nuclear Facility Safety - IDNS 9704160110 970409 '
PDR ADOCK 05000010 P
PDR.
$ll,!hIIlflh,I!l!hh!!
d (!nicont COnl[1.iny
k 10 CFR 50.59 Quarter: 1997-01 Safety Evaluation Summary Report Safety Evaluation Number: 1997 01-003 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Exempt Change i
Evaluation Reference Number: E12-3-96-259
Title:
Unit 3 Comer Room Structural Steel 2
Description. This exempt change provides reinforcement details for the Unit 3 Comer Room structural steel.
The LPCI comer roorr structural steel framing was originally designed in 1966 usin0 the weight of 4
the heat exchanger with area loadings to account for piping loads. During an evaluation o! pipe
-j support load chan0es in 1991, it was determined that the original analysis had never been updated to include as-built piping loads. Waikdowns of all fc*.r LPCI comer rooms were conducted in 1993 d
to idenhfy aN the attached loads on the structural steel. A prehminary assessment was made in January 1994 indicating stress levels in the main support steel and connections may exceed UFSAR limits unless a detailed analysis with refined rnodels was performed. In addition, it was i
determined that piping nozzle loads on the LPCI Heat Exchanger were not accounted for in the j
structural design calculations. The effect of these nozzle loads on the structural steelis i
signif' cant. A ENC-QE-40.1 evaluation was performed (CHRON No. 0123866, dated 1/6/94) which fourwt the structural steelto be operable. At the request of the NRC, a more detailed operabihty evaluato1 was made and documented in supplements to the original ENC-QE-40.1 evaluation (see Docurrent No. 4912523, dated 4/2/96, and Document No. 4921117, dated 4
i 4/4/96). The suppleme 1tary information confrmed the conclusion of the original QE-ENC-40.1 evaluation.
The expectation of the NRC, as outlined in Genenc Letter 91 18, is that design stresses found to be outside design anowables be retumed to within UFSAR allowables in March 1994, Comed met with the Region lli NRC Inspector and presented the operability determination and the plan to restore margin to the LPCI comer room support steel Comments were addressed and resolved q
with the plan showing a completion date of December 31,1994.
In May 1994, based in part on the LPCI comer room support steel being operable, work was postponed to focus Station resources on addressing emergent Ccre Shroud issues. At that time the comer room steel plan was revised to show a completion dets of December 1996. In September 1995, this issue was presented to Dresden's issues Review Board and the technical approach was approved. In October 1995, the Dresden Business Review Committee authorized 1
funding Engineering for work to proceed. The formal evaluation and design for the Unit 3 Comer Rooms was started h1 Apr91996.
The reinforcement details issued under this exempt change increase the capacity of the beams and connections to carry design basis loading and allow them to meet UFSAR requirements. The main purpose of the reinforcement details is to resist seismic loads from the LPCI Heat Exchanger and associated piping nozzle loads. The Unit 3 Comer Room structural steel will meet UFSAR requirements when the installation of the reinforcement is completed.
}
Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
4 4
I
1 l
10 CFR 50.59 Quarter: 1997-01 Safety Evaluation Summary Report Safety Evoluehon Number: 1997 01 004 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Exempt Change Evaluation Reference Number: E12-3-95 258
Title:
Unit 3 Comer Room Structural Steel Description This enempt change provides reinforcement details for the Unit 3 Comer Room structural steel.
The LPCI comer room structural steel framing was originally desi0ned in 1966 using the wei0ht of the heet exchanger with ares loodmgs to account for piping loads. Durin0 an evaluation of pipe j
support load chen0es in 1991, it was determmed that the original analysis had never been updeled to include as tmalt piping loeds. Walkdowns of all four LPCI comer rooms were conducted in 1993 to identify all the attached loeds on the structural steel. A preliminary acessement was made in January 1994 Indicating stress levels in the main support steel and connechons may exceed UFSAR limits unless a detailed analysis with refined models was performed. In addition, it was determmed that piping nozzle loads on the LPCI Heat Exchanger were not accounted for in the structural desien calcuishons. The effect of these nozzle loeds on the structural steelis significant. A ENC-QE-40.1 evaluation was performed (CHRON No. 0123866, dated 1MI/94) which found the structural steel to be operable. At the request of the NRC, a more deteeled operatnilty evaluation was made and documented in supplements to the original ENC-QE-40.1 evolustion (see Document No. 4012523, dated 4/2/96, and Document No. 4021117, dated 4/4/96). The supplementaryinformation confirmed the conclusion of the original QE-ENC-40.1 evolustion The expectation of the NRC, as outlined in Generic Letter 91 18, is that design stresses found to j
be outside design allowables be returned to within UFSAR allowables in March 1994, Comed met with the Region til NRC Inspector and presented the operability determmation and the plan to restore margin to the LPCI comer room support steel. Comments were addressed and resolved i
with the plan showing a compleUon date of December 31,1994.
In May 1994, bened in part on the LPCI comer room support steel being operable, work was postponed to focus Station resources on addressino emergent Core Shroud issues. At that time the comer room steel plan was revised to show a complebon date of December 1996. b September 1995, this lesus was presented to Dresden's issues Review Board and the technical approach was approved in October 1995, the Dresden Busness Review Comtruttee authorized funding Engineenng for work to proceed. The formal evalueuon and design for the Unit 3 Comer Rooms was started in April 1996.
The reinforcement details issued under this exempt change increase the capacity of the beams and connections to carry design basis loedmg and allow them to meet UFSAR r ' _.ds. The main purpose of the reinforcement details is to resist seismic loeds from the LPCI Heat Exchanger and associated piping nozzle loads. The Unit 3 Comer Room structural steel will meet UFSAR requirements when the irdau% of the reinforcement is completed.
Result This evaluehon determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evolustion Number: 1997-01 005 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change Evaluation Reference Number: UFSAR Change 97-006
Title:
Remove Turbine Rating from UFSAR Deecriphon.. Remove turbine rating of 832,000 KW from UFSAR Sectum 10.2. The KW output is not a design limit, but rather a function of turbine generator efficiency.
Result-This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
_~
_ _. _ _. _ _. ~ _
i~
t J
10 CFR 50.59 Quarter: 1997-01 i
Safety Evaluation Summary Report l
Safety Evolustion Number: 1997-01 406 Type of Safety Evaluahon:
FSAR Change Evaluation Reference Number: DFL 97 018 1
Tige:
Informenon on Station Batteries Description Revloe UFSAR Sechon 8.3.2.2 to add informahon addressing the qualified life of the 125Vdc normel and altemete station betteries. This was an item idenhfied during the NRC ISI.
Result:
This evaluation determned that an unroviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluehon Number - 1997-01-007 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change j
Evaluation Reference Number: DFL 97-012 j-TRie:
UFSAR Changes Dealing with the LOCA Analysis j-Deccription: This 50.59 addresses the changes to UFSAR dealing with the LOCA analysis ; w~,,~.6..f. the newly idenhfied ECCS leakages and a conservative ECCS fluid temperature performed by Siemens Power Corporshon usin0NRC approved methods used for previous LOCA analys. of record. Siemens Power Corporation, in order to support the idenbfication of new ECCS leaka0==
l and a new limiting ECCS fluid temperature has performed an analysis to determine the peak 4
ciedding temperature, local claddin0 omdation and core wide metal water reachon for the Rmiting break and ECCS singie failure. These values are all within the acceptance criterie of 10 CFR 50.46. Siemens Power Corporation uses NRC approved methodology to support ther LOCA l
analyses Result:
This evaluation determmed that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evolustion Number 1997-01 006 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Temporay Alteration
- i Evaluation Reference Number
- 111-53-96
Title:
Aux Computer Room 1
Description. The purpose for this Temporary Alteration is to isolate the Aux Computer room from the Control j
Room venblation system by closing the inlet damper 2/3-5741-0540 and instalhng a bienk off piste at the exhaust Two portable air handhng units wlN also be located in the Aux computer room to provide cooling to this room as a stand alone system.
j Result-This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
I 1
Safety Evaluebon Number 1997-01-000 Type of Safety Evaluatiort Exempt Change Evaluation Reference Number: E12-3-97-200 j
j
Title:
Pipe Nipple Downstream of FCV-3-85013A j
Descriptiert The proposed change will allow installation of 1* schedule 80 stainless steel pipe nipple with a throeded end to an existing matching socket weld pipe couphng downstream of valve FCV-3-8501
' 3A. This modification is located inside Unit 3 DryweN at penetration X-115 for Air Sample Return i
Line No. 3-85101*-AK at Elevation 517' near mezzanine catwalk This win facihtate performing i
Local Leek Rate Testing (LLRT) of the valve in an accident direction as required per Appendix J to
{
Result:
This evolustion determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
1
10 CFR 50.59 Quarter: 1997-01 Safety Evaluation Summary Report Safety Evaluahon Number: 1997-01-010 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Exempt Change Evaluation Reference Number: E12-2-96-216
Title:
Yarway Impulse Steam Trap
==
Description:==
The design basis for the HPCl Standby (Normal) mode is that the system is mamtained in a standby conddion to permit rapid initiation while minimizing the effects of thermal stress and water hammer within all wi@ was which are necessary for HPCIinhabon. The HPCI steam supply Rne drain pot, drain piping and steam trap were designed to provide a drainage path for the HPCI steam supply Ene condensate and thus mitigating the likelihood of water hammer in the steam Ene. The existing HPCI steam supply drain pot and the impulse trap 2(3) 2301 1 in the HPCI drain une was designed to store condensate until a certain amount of condensate was accumulated in the trap and then to discharge the stored condensate via the down stream drain piping to the main condenser. The HPCI supply steam drain line is automatically diverted from the main condenser to the suppression pool upon initiation of the HPCI system.
The existing Yarway impulse steam trap 2(3)-2301 1 in the HPCI steam supply drain line was replaced with an Accuflow choke trap to ensure that the HPCI steam line drains operate reliabiy and the perlodic (approximatety every 45 minutes) nuisance alarms occurring in the existing system are eliminated.
ttosult:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number-1997-01-011 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Exempt Change Eval dion Reference Number: E12-3-95-257
Title:
Yarway impulse Steam Trap
==
Description:==
The design basis for the HPCI Standby (Normal) mode is that the system is maintained in a standby conddion to permit rapid initiation while minimizing the effects of thermal stress and water hamrner within all components which are necessary for HPCI initiatkn. The HPCI steam supply Ene drain pot, drain piping and steam trap were designed to provide a dramage path for the HPCI steem supply line condensate and thus mitigating the likelihood of water hammer in the steam line. The existing HPCI steam supply drain pot and the impulse trap 2(3)-2301-1 in the HPCI drain Ene was designed to store condensate until a certain amount of condensate was accumulated in the trap and then to discharge the stored condensaf e via the down stream drain piping to the main condenser. The HPCI supply steam drain line is automaticalty diverted from the main condenser to the suppression pool upon initiation of the HPCI system.
The existing Yarway impulse steam trap 2(3)-2301 1 in the HPCI steam supply drain line was replaced with an Accuflow choke trap to ensure that the HPCI steam line drains operate reliably and the periodic (approximately every 45 minutes) nuisance alarms occurring in the existing system are eliminated.
Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number-1997 01 012 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Technical Specification Change Evaluation Reference Number: CCSW & DGCW
Title:
Tech Spec Bases for CCSW and DGCW
==
Description:==
TS Bases for CCSW has a clarifying clause added to identify that only Unit 2 CCSW supplies water to the CR HVAC Refrigerant Condenser Unit (RCU). Also, the last sentence in Bases 3/4.8.A was inadvertenUy duplicated in 3/4,8.B for the D/G Cooling Water. It is being removed Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
10 CFR 50.69 Quarter: 1997-01 Safety Evaluation Summary Report Safety Evaluehon Number. 1997-01 013 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change Evolustion Reference Number DFL 96143 I
Tlue:
Five Mimde Damper Closure Time Linked to Tech Spec SBGTS Removal Efficiency Description Rewrte UFSAR Secuan 15.7.3.4.3.4 using the same informahon to make It more understandable and add Informehon linking the five minute damper closure time to thn Technscal Specification SBGTS removal emetency (penetration) of 90%. The present UFSAR RMon 15.7.3.4.3.4 does not state this linkage. The added informenon expucitly states that the reiseest for the refuehng accident are weg within 10 CFR 100 limits at the Exclusion Area Boundary (EA3) and GDC-19 does role Imits in the control room are not =w ith SBGTS lhter ofRciency of 90% and a w
madmum closure time of 5 minutes for the Reactor Building leoisuon Damper Remove the second paragraph which references an AEC analysis which is supe seded by the S &
L analysis which is the basis for the change Resut:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evoluohon Number: 1997 01 014 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Exempt Change Evaluation Reference Number: E12-3-96-234 & E12-3-96-235
Title:
3A & 38 Reactor Recirc Pump Motor Lower Bee ing Oil Reservoirs Deecriphon. This Excluded Plant Design Change (EPDC) modines the oil level detection system on the 3A &
3B Reactor Recire Pump Motor Lower bearing ou reservoirs. This change wiH add a vent pipe in the senaang lines to the level switches which provide annuncehon in the control room. Entrapped air in these lines causes leakage and falso high level alarms. The proposed installabon of a vent line wiu provide a vent path for the entrapped air. This design concept has been proven successful on 28 Pump Motor kJwer oil line in Unit 2 which was installed by Exempt Plant Change, EPC P12-2-94-217.
Result:
This evolueuon determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist Safety Evolustion Number: 1997-01-015 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Temporay Aneration Evaluation Reference Number lll-36-96
Title:
Continued Opershon Below c45% RCTP With 1 Turbine CV Cioned Description This evalueuon assures that there are no unreviewed safety questions with operahng Unit 2 below the Reactor Protection System Interlock for Main Turbine Control Valve Closure Scram at 45%
Power with (1) One Main Turbine Control Valve closed.
Result:
This evaluehon determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist Safety Evolustion Number 1997 01 016 Type of Safety Evaluation Set Point Changes Evaluation Reference Number: SPC 03-96-96
Title:
TSUP Range for LPCI and Core Spray Low Pressure ADS Permisstve Descriphon. TSUP ran0s for the LPCI and Core Spray low pressure ADS permes#ve is "100 less then or equal to Discharge Pressure less than or aquel to 150 peig". This necessitates changing the setpoint of the instruments to 112 +/-2 peig for Core Spray and 106 +/-2 psig for LPCL This is a now addition to Tech Specs as part of TSUP.
Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
.j
i I
10 CFR 50.59 Quarter: 1997-01 Safety Evaluation Summary Report
\\
Safety Evolustion Number: 1997 01417 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Set Point Chen9es Evaluation Reference Nurnber. SPC 02 96-95
Title:
TSUP Range for LPCI and Core Spray Low Pressure ADS Pernussive i
==
Description:==
TSUP range for the LPCI and Core Spray low pressure ADS permissive is "100 less than or equal to Discharge Pressure less than or euqal to 150 psig". This necessitates changeng the setpoint of
{
the instruments to 112 +/-2 poig for Core Spray and 106 +/ 2 poig for LPCI. This is a new addition to Tech Specs as part of TSUP.
Result:
This evaluation deternned that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number 1997-01-018 Type of Safety Evaluation.
FSAR Change Evaluation Reference Number: DFL 97-005
Title:
DFL 97-005 Description Revised assorted sections to be consistent with other UFSAR sections and to reflect the previously installed ISCO Diesel M-U Pumps. Clarified the 90,000 gal levelin the CCST to be consistent with Section 9.2.
Result:
This evalushon determined that an unrevnewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number 1997 4 019 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Modification Evaluation Reference Number: M12-2-87-025
Title:
Drywell Cooling System (Existing Plant Condition)
==
Description:==
A new system had been designed under this modifcation to au9 ment the original Drywell Cooling System by installing a new fan and associated ductwork in the upper elevations of the drywell to provide an additional mixing of hotter air from the upper elevations with cooler air from below. In order to provide power to the new fan, a new electrical penetration was installed in a spare containment penetration sleeve.
Subsequent to the installation of the electrical penetration, a decision was made to cancel the remaining work for this modification. This decision had been made based on repairs of mechanical insulation and repairs made to the original drywell cooling system which allowed the system to function as initially designed
. This Safety Evaluation is being performed to evaluate the existing condition of the incomplete instanetion Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number; 1997-01-020 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Miscellaneous Evaluation Reference Number: DCR 970011
Title:
Errors on Electrical Drawings Description As a result of closing modificahons M12-2(3)-85-032, several errors were identifled on electrical drawings. The errors were mainly minor in nature affecting only references and notes on the i
prints. There are no major changes nor changes to the battery system design.
Result:
This evaluation determned that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
10 CFR 50.59 Quarter: 1997-01 i
Safety Evaluation Summary Report Safety Evolustion Number: 1997-01 021 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change Evaluation Reference Nurnber: DFL 96-110 TRie:
UFSAR Clenfication Changes
)
1 Deecriphon The proposed UFSAR changes are a result of an independent review of various parts of Chapter 13 of the UFSAR. AR changes are for clarification only and do not constitute a change to the facety as described in the UFSAR They do not resuR in any changes to the way the plant is operated or maintamed Resut:
This evaluation determ ned that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number: 1997 01 422 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change Evaluation Reference Number: DFL 96114
Title:
DFL 96114
==
Description:==
The proposed changes are a resuR of a review between the Dresden UFSAR and Operating Procedures. These changes maintain conformance between the design und licensing beels.
These changes do not resut in changes to the plant. There are no changes in the method of plant operation or how it is memtained.
Result This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number. 1997-01-023 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change Evaluation Reference Number DFL 97 003
Title:
Scram Bypass Setting </= 45% RCTP
==
Description:==
The load rejectAurbine trip scram bypass is currently set at <45U,f rated turbine 1st stage pressure (<396 poig) which corresponds to <45% of rated steam flow and is in w,,,;'s s with current Tech Spec Table 3.1.1, UFSAR Sechons 15.2.2.2 and 15.2.3.1, and RPS Design Specifications 257HA388. The scram bypass setting will be changed to 45% of rated core thermal power (<300 poig,1st stage pressure) as required per TSUP Table 3.1.A-1 and recommended per GE SIL no. 423. This change wiu be reflected in FSAR Sections 15.2.2.2 and 15.2.3.1. Turbine bypass capacity listed in FSAR Section 15.2.2.2 will also be changed to 40% of rated to be consistent with other FSAR sections and plant design. Also, reference to load was removed from annunciator tile 902(3)-5 A12 (stop valves closed) to eliminate confusion.
ResuR:
This evaluation determmed that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number 1997 01-024 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Modircation Evaluation Heference Number: M12 0-91-019C, Addendum 3
Title:
Uses of Station Blackout Diesel Generator
==
Description:==
Uses of the Station Blackout (SBO) Diesel Generator for purposes other than an SBO event. This provides the operators with additional flexibility and capacity for energizing the ECCS Busses (23-1,241,33-1,341) and Auxiliary Busses (23,24,33,34) during a loss of offsite power.
Result:
This evaluation determoed that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
10 CFR 50.59 Quarter: 1997-01 Safety Evaluation Summary Report Safety Evaluation Number 1997-01 4 25 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Temporay Alteration Evaluation Reference Number: lll 59-96
Title:
RWCU A HX Room ventilation Control
==
Description:==
When the dampers, regislers, and ductwork in the RWCU A HX Room are covered with plastic to allow asbestos abatement and when the block weil is removed to facilitate HX removal during D3R14 (Modification M12-3-91018A), the differential pressure between the RWCU A HX Room and the refueling floor wul be affected. If the differential pressure is decreased too much, the control system will act to close dampers and possely result in a trip of the reactor building fans on low flow. Another possibility is that portable ventilation units that will be used to remove air and filter cantaminants from the RWCU A and B HX rooms may cause the differential pressure too 1
much. If so, the dampers in the reactor building ventilation system may open too much and possbly result in poor contamination control in other areas of the reactor building.
To prevent excessive damper movements that rnay occur when the differential pressure in the RWCU A HX Room is affected, this temporary alteration will install a pressure regulator benveen instrument air and the tubing at the output of differential pressure transmittter dPT 3-570315A (located in Local Panel P-24). This pressure regulator should be capable of regulating output pressure between 9.0 and 12.0 p4 The output pressure will be adjusted by a value as directed by the Reactor Building Ventilation System Engineer to ensure that the reactor buMing dampers remain at a position that will prevent a low flow trip of the fans but also ensure areas with a high potential for contamination remain at a negative pressure for contamination control.
ResuR:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number-199741 026 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Temporay Alteration Evaluation Reference Number-lll-58-96
Title:
==
Description:==
This temporary alteration seals ventilation pathways and floor drains in the Unit 3 RWCU A HX Room to provide a containment area for asbestos abatement. This safety evaluation assumes ventilation openings, registers, dampers, and ducts are sealed with plastic (or filters) and taped as required by DHP 0130-08.
Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
10 CFR 50.59 Quarter: 1997-01 Safety Evaluation Summary Report Safety Evaluation Number: 1997 01 027 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Procedure Evaluatior ReW1ce Number: DCP 210342, Rev. 7
Title:
Closed Cooling Water
==
Description:==
Provide allowable Turbine Building Closed Cooling Water (TBCCW) radioactMty concentrations and designate actMiy levels for the various concentrations. These levels wHl be added to procedure DCP 2103-02 and win provide a range of concentrations and station guidance and/or actions required to address / resolve the potential findings and concems. These actions help to ensure that releases from the plant do not exceed the hmns in 10 CFR 20 and 10 CFR 50. In addnion, NRC 1.E. 80-10 requires a 50.59 evaluation if any nonradioactive system becomes contaminated. The TBCCW system has the potental to become contaminated because it services contaminated systems within the plant and potential cobalt particles from the various valves and components of systems may become activated. Contamination sources other than cobalt also have the potential to be initiated into the 1 BCCW system wAh cesium being the worst case contamination.
The procedure levels wHI ldentify the level of station commitment required and th9 anticipated actions to address the issue. Current contamination levels have been identired and are signifcantly lower (10 -8 uCi/ml or not detected although positive confirmation is observed on spectrum) than the level of 3x10 -6 uCl/mi set forth in 10 CFR 20. The identification of these low level contaminations is in part a result of the measuring equipment and process now being utilized at Dresden station which provides a better detectability of contamination in lower ranges. This svuluation addresses and justifies contamination levels up to 7x10 5 uCl/mlin TBCCW, based on a 200 gpm leak from TBCCW into Service Water. This assumes 15,000 gpm Service Water now which mixes ~)mpletely with the 200 gpm leak (2 pumps at 100 ppm). The concentration in service effluent would stiu be within 10 CFR 20 hmits. This evaluation satisfies the need to provide a safety evaluation per NRC t.E. 80-10 fw levels up to 7x10 -5 uCl/ml. At the 7x10 -5 uCi/mi point, the procedure direction is to implement a plan for contsmination reductior..
Continued operation of the TBCCW system at and above this contamination level wlH require a new 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation in accordance with NRC l.E. 80-10.
Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number 1997-01-028 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change Evaluation Reference Number: DFL 97 016
Title:
DFL 97-016 Description-The UFSAR changes associated with this 50.59 evaluation are the results of a review between the UFSAR, the Design Basis Documents (DBDs) and the Dresden Tech Spec Update (TSUP) that has been approved by the NRC and issued for use. The TSUP approval was issued under NRC SER Amendment No.144 for Tech Spec DPR 19 and Amendment No.138 for Tech Spec DPR-
- 29. Nnces to the UFSAR and DBD v;ere not issued at the time of the TSUP approval. The changes to te UFSAR addressed in this package reflect current TSUP parameters which take an exception to the Cydtc! Room air filtration unit (AFU) charcoal effciency testing requirements as set forth in NRC Ragundry Guide 1.52. The current methyliodide penetration hmit is set at less than 0.175% The exentie which was approved by the NRC sets the new penetration Ern# at less than 0.50% This change is strictly for taboratory testing requirements and does not W r 1 the operation of tha Control Roim AFU or any associated components or systems. This dou not resuR in a change to the way the plant is operated or maintained. There are no modifcations, alterations or other facHRy thnges associated with this review.
Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
l
+
10 CFR 50.59 Quarter: 1997-01 Safety Evaluation Summary Report Safety Evaluation Number: 1997 01-029 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Temporay Alteration Evaluation Reference Number: lli-31-95
Title:
Instau Clamp around 3A FW Reg Viv Body-to-Bonnet Flange Joint
==
Description:==
The proposed change is to instad a clamp around the 3A feedwater regulating valve body-to-bonnet flange joint, and inject a sealant material into the chamber between the body and bonnet flange. The quantity of sealant material wiu be limited to ensure that, based on the volume of the injectior.smber and compression ratio needed, the potential quantity of sealant that may be injected into the feedwater system is minimized. The process will include at least two injections, but wiu La govemed by the h.? on the volume of sealant that can be injected. The reason for this change !s to stop a body-to-bonnet leak.
ResuR:
This entuation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number: 1997-01 030 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change E"aluation Reference Number-DFL 97 007
Title:
DFL 97-007
==
Description:==
The change to Section 12.3.2 4 regarding concrete aging testing is a result of an independent review of the UFSAR. An operability evaluation was performed (OSR #96-298, Offsite Review 12-96-128) and it was determined that the UFSAR should be changed to revise the requirement that
'certain key locations are to be tested annually for the effects of concrete aging on shielding
)
integrity'. Upon review of the UFSAR for this operability evaluatxm, it was noticed that the concrete waH surrounding the Drywou was being referred to as the Biological Shield Wall in other i
sections. AB the other changes to the UFSAR addressed by this evaluation are the resut of changing ' Biological Shield' to ' Reactor Shield or ' Containment Shield' to differentiate between the two walls.
Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number: 1997-01-031 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change Evaluation Reference Number: DFL 96-140
Title:
DFL 96-140
==
Description:==
The proposed change is to irnpose limits on 1) the service water inlet temperature such that it must be less then or equal to 75 degrees F when the unit is in operation and 2) the torus bulk temperature such that it must be less than or equal to 75 degrees F. This ensures that tne rate of heat removal from containment is maintained, adequate ECCS pump NPSH is provided, and the open operability evaluations are addressed.
This UFSAR cnange maintaint the heat removal capability of the Containment Cooling System by limiting the service water inlet temperature thus ensuring the containment cooling function. The conteinment cooling function a) limits the peak containment and suppression pool temporature and pressure b) ensures the Mark I and Torus attached piping loading is within the current analysis and c) ensures that the 20 psi differential is maintained between the service water and LPCI side of the heat exchanger with reduced CCSW flow thus ensuring no radioactive release to the environment. By taking this administrative action, the containment and ECCS design parameters are met ensuring the containment cooling systems can perform their intended function.
Result:
This eva!uation determirwd that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
L
)
10 CFR 50.59 Quarter: 1997-01 Safety Evaluation Summary Report Safety Evolustion Number 1997-01-032 Type of Safety Evaluation FSAR Chan0e Evoluehon Reference Number: DFL 96-141 and TSUP 3/4.7k
Title:
DFL 96-141 and TSUP 3/4.7K i
Description. Durin0 the Dresden independent Safety inspechon, a concem was raised that under DBA LOCA conditions with LPCI and CS pumps at above rated flow, it is pose 4ble under some circumstances to have lees then requirad NPSH. Operability evaluation ID 9618 was iniheted to evaluate this concem Suhaaquantly a ceiculation of the ECCS torus suction strainer heed loss was discovered that changed the loss from 1 foot at 10,000 gpm to 5.8 feet. As a result operabluty evaluation 96-68 mes performed. The purpose of this change is to revise UFSAR Sections 6.2.2.3.2 and 6.3.3.4.3 and clarify Tehenical Specification (TSUP) Basis 3/4.7K regardin0 the impact from thesa concems on NPSH for the LPCI and Core Sprey pumps. These caicua eians of NPSH utihas the reconstituted head loss for the ECCS torus suction strainer and the torus weder and CCSW wat
- f temperature administrative controls presented in pending UFSAR change DFL-96140. This v el allow operabliny asesoaments 9618 and 96-66 to be closed.
The change to UF3AR Sechon 6.2.2.3.2 revised the tons suction stramer head loss.
The change to UFSAR Section 6.3.3.4.3 documents the new NPSH calculations for short term (injection phone, no manual action) arJ long term (containment cooling phase, manuel action ).
Result:
This evalumbon determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number: 1997 01-033 Type of Safety Evaluatiort FSAR Change Evaluation Reference Number: DFL 96-145
Title:
DFL 96-146 Deecriptiort Section 6.3.2.1.3.3, para 2: The other instrumentation listed la both local and remoto (in the -
control room), thus the word
- local" is removed. The discherge pressure was never monitored locauy. The percent How may have been indicated as a secondary funcbon of the Flow indlcahon Swuch that contround the minimum How valve. Neither of these indicahons have operator schon
-i=*=8 with them. These clarincations do not change the origmel design.
1 Section 6.3.4.1, para 1.b: Remove the word " test" from leak off drain lines and drainline which j
were added incorrechy during r* " 44 of FSAR. These lines are test provisions and are not j
themselves to be tested. This correction retums the description to reflect original design.
Sechon 6.3.4.1, para 2.B.2: Change nomenclature from "startup valve" to the correct " injection j
valve", This has no affect on design.
j Sechon 6.3.4.1, pers 3: Delete the end of the Inst sentence since it can imply that the pump running in test, shuts off and then restarts upon a receipt of an actuation signal. The pump continues to run per design as stated in the UFSAR Section 6.3.2.1.4. This reflects orignw!
design.
1 Result:
This evaluebon determined that an unreviewed safety question dh. not exist.
1 I
i i
a
10 CFR 50.59 Quarter: 1997-01 Safety Evaluation Summary Report Safety Evaluation Number. 1997-01 035 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Procedure Evaluation Reference Number: DEP 050006
Title:
Revision to DEP 0500 6 Description This Reactor Protection System (RPS) logic is jumpered out to prevent a full SCRAM when doenergizing one of the RPS Buses, With the reactor in mode 4 or 5 there is an automatic bypass around all nf the MSIV closure and condenser low vacuum trip relays so that these condnions do not hold the RPS in a tripped condnion. The design of the bypass relay logic is such that loss of power to either RPS bus will resuR in the removal of the Bypass in both trip systems. This resuRs in a full SCRAM. During those periods when RPS bus maintenance activities are being performed the Bypass relay contacts are jumpered so the bypass is not removed.
l Resut:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safey question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number: 1997-01 036 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change Evaluation Reference Number: DFL 96-026
Title:
FSAR Section 7.6.1.5.3.2, Figure 7.617
==
Description:==
FSAR Section 7.6.1.4.3.2 states incorrectly that the reference APRM downscale trip provides a rod block setpoint. Instead, a rod block is provided if the channel reading falls below the downscale trip setpoint which is specife to RBM circuitry.
FSAR Figure 7.6-17 needs a generic change for the rute to reference the COLR (Core Operating Limits Report) for RBM setpoint guidance, as already specified in the Tech Specs.
ResuR:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed scfety question did not exist, Safety Evaluation Number; 1997 01 037 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change Evaluation Reference Number: DFL 96-022 Titie:
Sections 5.4.6.2 & 7.3.4 Descriphon: Change UFSAR sections 5.4.6.2 and 7.3.4 by deleting reference to 1070 psig as pressure at which the Iso Condenser automatically intiates.
ResuR:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety quest n did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number: 1997-01-038 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change Evaluation Reference Number: DFL 96-020
Title:
Administrative Controis for Manually. Operated Valves
==
Description:==
Revise text conceming the administrative controis for manually-operated valves associated wRh process piping which penetrates Primary Containment. As a result of the present text being vague, Dresden Station developed a technical position for defining which manually-operated valves are Prirr,ary Containmora isolation Valves (PCIVt) and which of these valves are required to be locked in order to safeguard containment integrity.
ResuR:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
10 CFR 50.59 Quarter: 1997-01 4
Safety Evaluation Summary Report Safety Evaluation Numbec 1997 01-039 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change 4
Evaluation Reference Numbec DFL 96-018
Title:
Reference to HPCl Low Steam Pressure Setpoint i
s
==
Description:==
Delete UFSAR reference to HPCI low steam preseure setpoint.
1 Result:
This etaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Numbec 1997 01-040 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change I
Evaluation Reference Numbec DFL 96-010 t
Title:
Volume 5, Section 9.1.4.2.2 Description Add the following statement to Volume 5 Section 9.1.4.2.2 page 9.1 18, "As an allemative to the t
digital load limiter, station procedures require supervising personnel to ensure load hangups do not occur during rew: tor building crane operation." This statement is being included to update the UFSAR with the current design requirements of the Reactor Building overhead crane.
l Resut:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
i Safety Evaluation Numbec 1997-01-041 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change 3
Evaluation Reference Number-DFL 96006
Title:
FSAR Sections 8.3 and 9.5 Descriptiort The change in description is to 1) correct the description to match the field (original design) and 2) to allow for tolerances in respective setpoints. FSAR 8.3 and 9.5 j
Resut:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
l Safety Evaluation Numbec 1997-01 042 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change Evaluation Reference Number: OFL 96-002, NTS 237-200-95-494
Title:
HPCI Normal Sucten
==
Description:==
Change the UFSAR description of the HPCI normal suction from 2/3B CST to either the 2/3B or j
the 2/3A CST. This change will allow the flexibility of being aligned to either tank. P&lD M35-1 and the procedures in paragraph 2 above already reflect this flexibility by specifying that valves be aligned to take water from the 2/3 A CST.
Result:
This evaluatton determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number: 1997 01-043 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Nuclear Work Request Evaluation Reference Numbec 950018646-02
Title:
Movement of 3A Core Spray Pump Motor
==
Description:==
This safety evaluation reviews the affect on Unit 3 Plant Operatens during movement of the 3A Core Spray Pump Motor. All other design issues and affects are considered in Temporary Rigging Permit 95-191. This Safety Evaluaten and its precautions apply during removal and
]
installation of the motor.
ResuR:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
10 CFR 50.59 Quarter: 1997-01
+
Safety Evaluation Summary Report Safety Evaluation Number: 1997-01-044 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Procedure Evaluation Reference Number: SPl 97-03-02
Title:
Unit 1 Service Air Supply a
Description The normal Sesvice Air supply to Unit 1 win be temporarily replaced by a portable air compressor, located outside the Station Sewage Ejector House. This Special Procedure win instaH, operate and then remove the temporary air compressor to supply Unit 1 Service air (cross-tied to j
instrument Air) whue the normal feed from Unit 2 Service Air is out of service for maintenance.
Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number: 1997-01-045 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Set Point Changes Evaluation Reference Number. SPC 2/3-96-016
Title:
High Flow Setpoint for FS 2(3)-23S4
==
Description:==
This change revised the high flow setpoint of FS 2(3)-2354 to ensure the system design limit contained in the DBD (1200 GPM) for minimum flow valve 2(3) 2301 14 closure is met.
4 Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number: 1997-01 043 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change Evaluation Reference Number: DFL 97-024
Title:
J.L. Manta painting procedure JLM/QWP-09 3, Rev.11 Desenption: This procedure controls the touch up painting activities in the torus and drywell in support of maintenance and modification work at Dresten Station. The coating systems have been quaiired to design basis accident conddions and have been approved by Comed's System Materials Analysis Level lli Coating Specialist. The painting procedure is required to perform the remedial coating activites for the drywell.
Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number 1997 01 050 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Procedure Evaluation Reference Number: DES 8000-01
Title:
Reactor Protection M-G set output Breaker Trip Device Test i
==
Description:==
This revision to procedure DES 8000-01 win inctall temporary power to the radiation monitoring equipment located in Main Control Room Panel 903-10 to preclude auto-initiation of the Standby Gas Treatment System during the surveillance testing of the RPS MG set output breakers. The previously used temporary power from revision 2 of this procedure did not meet the requirements for operability of the effected rad monitors. The new temporary power source wiH maintain the operable status of the radiatxm monitors, whicn will allow fuel transfer activities to continue during the tuting of the RPS breakers. The use of this temporary source of power is expected to last for i
the duration of the Reactor Protection System testing which is normally about two days.
Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safey question did not exist.
1 i
4 i
10 CFR 50.59 Quarter: 1997-01 l
Safety Evaluation Summary Report Safety Evalushon Number: 1997-01 051 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change Evaluation Reference Number: DFL 96-112, Rev.1 i
Titie:
DFL 96-112, Rev.1 i
Description-The UFSAR changes associated with this 50.59 evaluation are the result of an independent review of the UFSAR and includes changes initiated under DFL 96014 which is being superseded so that 2
au RWCU changes can be performed at the same time. These changes are already marked up in 1
the pendin9 change pages of the next revision to the UFSAR (not issued) and reflect the design i
document initiating the change. The changes previously addressed under DFL 95014 were initiated as a result of Mod M12-2-90-018 for RWCU piping components and the 50.59 evaluation addresses these changes. An adddional change is added to this evaluation to address the l
abandonment of the RWCU filters which was performed under M12-2-86-037 and P12 3-90644 The remainder of the changes are the result of the UFSAR review and provide typographical corrections and minor technical enhancements and/or correction to the descrip: ions of the design 1
basis. These changes do not alter the original intent of the design basis of the station and only l
reflect the current plant configuration.
This is revision 1 to this Safety Evaluation. Also see the original,1996-04-286, dated 10/5/96.
l Result:
This evaluation deteminned that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
4 Safety Evaluation Number-1997-01-052 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change Evaluation Reference Number: DFL 96-040
Title:
DFL 96 040 Descriphon The UFSAR win be updated to include a section 9.5.10 for the Station Blackout system
)
description and licensing basis. The Table of Contents will be changed to reflect the adddson of section 9.5.10. Sections 8.1.3 and 8.3 are revised to discuss the addition of Station Blackout to the station au)dliary power systems. Figure 8.2.1 is revised to show the adddion of the Station Bisckout generators in the station single-line electrical diagram. Table 8.3-1 has been updated to describe the SBO generator capacity and size.
Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evsluation Number: 1997-01-055 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change Evaluation Reference Number: DFL 96-098
Title:
DFL 96-098
==
Description:==
The UFSAR changes resulting from this review are far minor technical clarifications and do not change the intent of the UFSAR and do not constitute a change to the facildy. One technical change in Section 12.3.2.1 does delete reference to 10 CFR 50, Appendix I and the rules of the lilinois Depettrnent of Putdic Health which do not address occupational exposure limMs which are annotated in 10 CFR 20.
This is revision 1 to this Safety Evaluation. Also see the original,1996-04-281, dated 10/7/96.
Result:
This evaluation determined that an unroviewed safety question
- i not exist.
i 10 CFR 50.59 Quarter: 1997-01 Safety Evaluation Summary Report Safety Evaluation Number. 1997-01-056 Type of Safety Evalestion:
Set Point Changes Evaluation Reference Mmber: SPC# 03-06-049
Title:
SPC# 03-96449
==
Description:==
The SBGTS Inlet Damper 75058 tripped while being cycleo. Based on a walkdown of the 480Vac feed circuit at MCC 39-281, it has been determined that the Thermal Overload relay currently installed was not ambient compensated but shWd be based or, the service application. The heater is also marginally sized and will be incread Thh metpoMt change will specify the appropriate ambient compensated TOL (relay and heaterp he ins'alled in the 7505B SBGTS Inlet Damper at MCC 39 2 Compartment B1 i
i' Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not axist.
Safety Evaluation Number: 1997-01 058 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Miscellareas Evaluation Reference Number: OOS 950011M4 & 960003741
Title:
O O S 950011754 & 960003741
==
Description:==
This evaluation addresses the perrnanent abandonment in place and the installation of the Out of Service Tags under OOS 950011754 & 960003741 for the drywell pneumatic air opeated supply vanes 2(3)-4720 and 2(3)-4721. This drywell pneumatic compressor abandonment wes l
performed at an earlier date and is documented in the UFSAR and on desig, drawing (P AID) M-l7, Sheet 2 and M-367, Sheet 2. As part of thio abandonment, the listed valves were plac'd in the closed position and tagged out of-service (OOS). These valves were previously used to control supply of compressed drywell atmosphere for the drywell pneumatic supply system. Drawing M-37, Sheet 2, Revision RH and M 367, Sheet 2, Revision AJ shows that this equipment is abandoned in place or not in use. Additionally section G.3.1.5 states that, "The drywell pneumaVc compressors have been permanently removed from service. The crosstie to the pump back system supplies the pressurized drywell gas to this system." However, the valve status as designated in Table 0.2-9, Sheet 5 was not revised to reflect the permanent out of service. This evaluation addresses the change to the table and designates that the valves normal status is in the closed position. The original safety evaluation for this abandonment was not found. Therefore, this evaluation addresses the OOS of the valves and along with OOS 950014864 is an evaluation performed for drywell pneumatic compressor abandonment design change.
Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number: 1997 01 059 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Exempt Change Evaluation Reference Number. EC E12-3-96-212
Title:
EC E12 3-96-212
==
Description:==
The scope of the change is to add two safety related check valves in series to each reactor recirculation (RR) pump seal purge line to prevent the potential bypass of secondary containment.
Additionally, test taps are added to each line to facilitate check valve leakage testing. The RR seal purge water is directed through the drywell penetrations to the RR pump seal cavities via the seal ce+
ssure instrument lines.
Result:
Thes evaluation determir.ed that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
10 CFR 50.59 Quarter: 1997-01 i
Safety Evaluation Summary Report Safety Evaluation Number: 1997-01-060 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change Evaluation Reference Number. DFL 96-125
Title:
DFL 96-125
==
Description:==
Engineering was requested to resolve discrepancies between UFSAR temperature values for the condensate system and those obtained by fold measurement. The resuRs are documented in letter 5210516. The discrepancies are to be resolved by removal from UFSAR Section 10-4 of l-Tables 10.4 2, Condensate Pump Characteristics, and Table 10.4 3, Condensate Booster Pump l
i Characteristu. Said tables list operating ctaracteristics of non-safety related pumps. Tables are meant to provide general information only. However, values have turned out to be too restrictive and do not coincide with actual operating values. Because tables lead the reader to believe that the values listed are strict design limits (which they are not), then it is best to delete the tables to avoid future misinterpretation. Current UFSAR text description of said pumps has suffcient detail to adequately describe the pumps and their design function.
j Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
4 Safety Evaluation Number: 1997-01-061 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Modircation
{
Evaluation Reference Number: M12-2(3)-94-004
Title:
Core Shroud HorizontalWelds 1
==
Description:==
This modifcation is a mechanical repair to the Dresden Unit 2 core shroud horizontal welds H1 through H7, its purpose is to structurally replace the horizontal welds should the horizontal welds 1
eventually crack through wall.
Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number 1997-01-062 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Modircation Evaluation Reference Number: DCP 9600318 DCN 001049M
Title:
Modirmation to Torus Penetrations Going to the ECCS Pump Suction Ring Header
==
Description:==
The modifcation to the Torus penetrations going to the ECCS pump sucten ring header is required in order to support the installation of the new ECCS pump sucten ring header suction strainers. The new strainers will be boned to the flanges of the existing penetration piping and will be supported by the flange and piping. The larger strainers result in increased loads on the penetrations, which have been evaluated as part of this Design Change Package. The evaluation of the adequacy of the penetration and flange are documented in calculations DRE97-0007 and DRE 97-0019. The evaluations include applicable seismic and pool hydrodynamic loads and demonstrate that all applicable UFSAR acceptance limits are met. Dresden Station committed to installation of larger suction strainers in their interim response to NRC Bulletin 96-03 and tLeir request for deferral of full NRC Bulletin 96-03 compliance.
Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
i l
10 CFR 50.59 Quarter: 1997-01 Safety Evaluation Summary Report i
Safety Evaluation Number: 1997-01-063 Type of Safety E.stuation:
Modification i
Evaluation Reference Number: DCP 9600318 ECN 001050M
Title:
Install New Torus ECCS Ring Header Suction Stromers i
Description The purpose in performing this modification is to increase the surface area of the stramers and thus increase the flow area of the strainer. NRC Bulletin 96-03," Potential Plugging of Emergency Core Cooling Suction Strainers by Debris in Boiling-Water Reactors", describes ECCS suction strainer clogging events and required responses to satisfy the Bulletin. This modification win address at least a portion of the actions required by the bulletin, but at this time it is not assumed that the modification or the associated 50.59 wiu desposition allissues associated wth Bunetin 96-
- 03. Comphance with E03 will be fully addressed, separate from this modification, to ensure fun GmsG with the requirements of the NRC builetin. Structural qualification of the strainers and flange bolting is documented in calculations DRE97 0016 and DRE97-0019, which conclude that the new configuration meets the applicable UFSAR allowable stress limits for all load combmations, including pool hydrodynamic and seismic loads.
Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number: 1997-01-064 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Exempt Change i
Evaluation Reference Number: E12-3-95-251
Title:
HPCI Oil Pump Pressure Switches Descriphon This exempt change wHI replace three HPCI Oil Pump Pressure Switches PS-003-2303-psi, PS3, PS4. The function of the pressure switches is safety related. These switches are being replaced due to potential internal diaphrsgm leakage. The existing switches are obsolete, and 4
replacement parts are not available. A test valve will be added in-line with PS1 for calibration i
Purposes f
Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number: 1997-01-066 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Exempt Change i
Evaluation Reference Number: E12-2-E202
Title:
Hydrogen Supply Une
==
Description:==
This change adds a cross connect pipe in the Unit 2 Turbine Building between the hydrogen supply Hne to the Generator and the hydrogen supply hne to the Hydrogen Water Chemistry system, and cuts and caps the existing Generator hydrogen supply line near the floor of the Turbine Building. This change also de-terminates the cables associated with the controls and instrumentation for the abandoned hydrogen supply line to Unit 2.
This change is required due to a failure in the existing buried hydrogen supply piping from the hydrogen tank farm to the Unit 2 Generator.
Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
10 CFR 50.59 Quarter: 1997-01
[
Safety Evaluation Summary Report Safety Evaluation Number 1997 01-(167 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Exempt Change Evaluation Reference Number. E12 2-95-262
{
Title:
Unit 2 CRD SDV Gallones Description This change is based on the results of an evaluation of the Unit'3 CRD-SDV galleries for additional piping reactions from proposed >ermanent lead shieldeng on the Unit 3 CRD-SDV 4
piping. The Unit 3 evaluation identired discrepancies between the as-built configuration and the drming configuration of the gaRories, smi also identi6ed modeling and design discrepencies in the Unit 3 CRD-SDV gatory design basis calculations. A QE-ENC-40.1 evaluation was performed sj' and the Unit 3 CRD-SDV galleries were found to be operable. A commitment wee made to the NRC (LER 3 06-022) to evenuele the Unit 2 CRD-SOV gaueries prior to restarting Unit 2 from D2R14. In order to expedite work, the engmeering evaluation of the Unit 2 CRD-SOV galleries win t
be performed in paralled with the reinforcement installebon. Therefore, reinforcement instanetion i
j details must be leeued prior to calculation approval. The final installed connguration win be j
quellnad prior to Unit 2 restart.
]
Result This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
i j'
Safety Evoluehon Number: 1997-01-068 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Exempt Change Evaluation Reference Number: E12-2-96 200
Title:
Replace Valve Body of MOV 2/3-3099 60A j
==
Description:==
The scope of this exempt change is to instaN a 3" Volan gate valve body with a reducer assembly to replace the emisung 2.5" Walworth gate valve body of MOV 2/3-3099-60A lar=8ad on the piping l
from the Liquid Radweste Rebouer to the Unit 2 Main Condenser. The change is proposed as a result of corrective memtenance work performed to replace corroded eachone of piping around MOV 2/3 3099-60A. The subject valve body was inspected and found to be severely degraded. A r
like-for-ake replacement was not feasible due to long lead time. A 3" Veien gate valve aveHable at j-the site storeroom, equipped with a mounhng piele to hook up the existing Limitorque Operator shal be instaHed. To facultate the instanation of the subject and reducer assembly, euteting support located above manual gate valve 2/3-3099-71 shall be removed arW in addition, existing support at the bottom of the riser supporting the subject MOV and the manual gate valve shen be l
modined.
Result This evaluatico determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exiel Safety Evalushon Number. 1997-01 069 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change Evaluation Reference Number: DFL 97-010
Title:
DFL-97-010 Descriphon The subject change is to remove reference to the continuous in-process monitors as described in UFSAR Sections 9.3.2.4,11.3.2.1.6, Figures 11.314 & 15 and on drewmps identified in DCR 970038. These monitors perform a grab sample at the discharge point of the charcoal absorbers
. with continuous main control room alarm of high radinhon levels in the sample. These monitors are currently not instaued in the plant, therefore, a review of the system has been performed and was documented per DOC 10 5182004. Upon conclusion, it was recommended that an As-Built i
DCR and a UFSAR revision be generated and tracked per NTS 2372019616203. Doc id 5182004 eleo stated as an assumption that the eleck monitor fulfde the functico that this in line sample monitor was intended to perform. Since that time, this assumption has been confirmed and is documented in the UFSAR package DFL 97-010.
ResuR:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
o 10 CFR 50.59 Quarter: 1997-01 Safety Evaluation Summary Report Safety Eva'uation Number: 1997-01 070 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Exempt Change Evaluation Reference Number: P12-2-94-209
Title:
Replace Flexible Metallic Bellows
==
Description:==
The purpose of this change is to replace the two-ply flexible metallic bellows over the isolation condenser steam supply drywell penetration X-108A (U2).
Result:
This evaluehon determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number 1997-01 071 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Exempt Change Evaluation Reference Number: P12-2 94-208
Title:
Replace Flexible Metallic Bellows
==
Description:==
The purpose of this change is to replace the two-ply flexible metallic bellows over the LPCI pump discharge drywell penetration X 116A (U2).
Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Saisty Evaluation Number: 1997 41-072 Type of Sahty Evaluation:
Modification Evaluation Reference Number: M12-2-94-008 7Ple:
Replace Existing Evaporator Cooler (2-6711)
==
Description:==
At the present time, the cooling of the various areas inside the reactor building is provided by the evaporative cooler of the reactor building ventilation system (ref. M-239). The proposed modification replaces the existing evaporator cooler (2-5711) with new chilled water cooling coils to be served by a new chilled water system (ref. Drawing 2-CWS-M01). Additionally, the existing roll-type filter (2-5717) is also being replaced with new bag-type filter. The replacement cooling coils and replacement air filter are to be installed insule the existing pienums at the same location as the existing equipment. Existing drains in the turbine building will be used to remove condensate from the chilled water coils. The existing coolers, filters and other associated installations will be demolished and removed.
Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluation Number: 1997 01-073 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Modifcation Evaluation Reference Number M12-2-90-066
Title:
SBGT Sucth 1..olation Valve
==
Description:==
The SBGT system can draw suction from Unit 2 and Unit 3 reactor buildings. The 2-7503 and 3-7503 are the molation valves on this suction duct work (spiral wound pipe). In the orginal design configuration, the Unit 3 SBGT suction isolation vatve would close on high radiation signal from Unit 2 and the Unit 2 SBGT suction isolation valve would close on a high radation signal from Unit j
- 3. This confguration infers that the SBGT can opcrate on a unit specirc basis. However, the open refueling floor is common to both Unit 2 and Unit 3 reactor buildings. Because of the failure history of tNs SBGT suction isolation valve and/or the associated isolation logic, this modifcation was implemented to electrically disconnect valve 2-7503 in the open position.
Result:
This evaluation determmed that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
9 1
10 CFR 50.59 Quarter: 1997-01 Safety Evaluation Summary Report Safety Evaluahon Number-1997 01-074 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Modifcation Evaluation Reference Number M12-2-90-057D 1
I
Title:
Replace Motor on Iso Condenser Makeup Valve 2-4399-74 Descriphon. This partial modification provides for the replacement of the ac motor on isolation condenser makeup valve 2-4390 74 with a de motor. To accomodate the motor change, a de power supply will be provided to the motor. The gearing and sprirgpack will also be chan9ed in the MOV.
These changes are part of a larger modification to upgrade the capability of the isolation condenser to operate, if needed, during the loss of offsite ac power. Modifcation M12-2-90-067C i
provided two diesel driven isolation condenser makeup pumps that do not require ac power to start or operate. Valve 2-4399-74 is a normally closed valve that is remote manually opened from the 1
control room when the pumps start. Providing a de motor for this valve is the final step required to get makeup water to the isolation condenser during loss of ac power.
ResuR:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
l Safety Evaluation Number: 199741 075 Type of Safety Evaluation:
Modification Evaluation Reference Number: M12-0-91419E
Title:
SwLchgear Bus 24
==
Description:==
This partial modifcation consists of Switchgear Bus 24 circuit breaker and secondary stationary contact (auxiliary) switch replacement, and the addition of two new cubicles. The new circuit breakers willincrease the bus rating from 250 MVA to 350 MVA. The ampere rating of the circuit breaker will not be changed by this modifcation. The presently installed air magnetic circuit i
breakers will be replaced with Sulfur Hexafluoride gas insulated circuit breakers which will be a "rollin fit". Circuit breakers will be furnished complete and ready for installation. The circuit breaker replacement will increase the interrupting rating of Bus 24 from 250 MVA to 350 MVA to envelop the installed system requirements. The replacement of the secondary stationary contacts and associated linka9e with new design components will improve the operability and reduce maintenarwe. There will be no control system changes associated with the auxiliary switch as the circuitry remains the same. New switches at the DCS panels will control the SBO tie-in circuit breaker. The two new cubicle additions will serve as a third source of power to Bus 24 (from SBO Bus 61) and as a spare for a future RAT. This third source of power is in order to meet the requirements of Station Blackout Rule 10 CFR 50.63," Loss of all Altemating Current (ACC)
Power".
ResuR:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.
Safety Evaluatm Number: 1997 01-076 Type of Safety Evaluation:
FSAR Change Evaluation Reference Number: DFL 95-019
Title:
DFL 95419 Description Change the position of valves 2(3)-1501-35 to eliminate an operator work-around.
Result:
This evaluation determined that an unreviewed safety question did not exist.