ML20203F687
| ML20203F687 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1985 |
| From: | PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138Q942 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8604250227 | |
| Download: ML20203F687 (67) | |
Text
I LIMERICK GENERATING STATION UNIT NO. 1 ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT OCTOBER, 1984 THRU JUNE, 1985 SUBMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PURSUANT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES NPF-39 ( AND NPF-27)
DOCKET NO. 50-352 O
8604250227 850630 gDR ADOCK 05000352 PDR
Dockot No. 50-352 LIMERICK GENERATION STATION
(}
UNIT NO. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Item System Page 84-0049 Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC)*
1 84-0085 Reactor Protection System
- 3 84-0113 H2/02 Analyzer System
- 4 84-0122 Residual Heat Removal Service
- 5 Water System 84-0127 Control Room HVAC*
6 84-0128 Reactor Enclosure Refueling Area
- 7 HVAC System 84-0131 Primary Containment Hydrogen 8
Recombiners a
i
( ) 84-0153 Redundant Reactivity Control
- 9 Sys t em 84-0156 Reactor Enclosure / Refuel Floor
- 11 HVAC System 84-0171 Reactor Vessel Instruments 12 84-0184 Neutron Monitoring
- 13 84-0193 Residual Heat Removal System 15 84-0197 Nitrogen Supply System 16 84-0209 Standby Gas Treatment System 17 84-0220 Reactor Building / Refueling Floor 18 High Radiation Isolation Syr, tem 84-0222 13 KV Power 20 4
84-0225 Standby Gas Treatment System 21 84-0253 Building Structures 22
)
84-0259 Reactor Building Equipment
- 23
(])
Compartment Exhaust System (i)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT
(}
June, 1985 This report for Limerick Generating Station Unit No.
1, License No.
NPF-39 (and previous License NPF-27), is issued in fulfillment of the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.59(b).
The report covers modifications that were completed during the period ending C 2ne 30, 1985 including changes made to the facility as described in the safety analysis report.
For each of the modifications included in this report, the safety evaluation has determined that there are no unreviewed safety questions as defined in 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2) in that (i) the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report was not increased, or (ii) a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis report was not created, or (iii) the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification was not reduced.
( )
Note In some cases, the modifications described were implemented in order to (1) complete construction not completed during the construction phase, and (2) correct design or installation errors discovered during the initial testing phases.
The actual work involved in some of these modifications was started prior to October, 1984 but not completed until after October, 1984 and before June, 1985.
The completion of those modifications marked by an asterick were scheduled so that the operability of the equipment involved could be obtained prior to the (operational) scheduled need for that equipment.
O
Licorick Genornting Station Annual Plant Modification Report Table of Contents O
Item System Page 85-0417 Reactor Water Cleanup System 53 85-0435 Building Structures 54 85-0446 Standby Gas Treatment System (SGTS) 56 85-0494 Remote Shutdown Panel 58 85-0497 HVAC Isolation Valves 59 85-0324 Reactor Enclosure HVAC*
60 0
O (iii)
LiCarick G:ncrcting StDticn Annual Pl nt Modification R port Table of Contents
%.)
Item System Page 84-0265 Main Steamline Isolation Valve (MSIV) 24 84-0284 Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) 26 Turbine Exhaust System 84-0289 Redundant Reactivity Control System
- 28 85-0295 High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI)*
30 85-0297 High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI)*
32 and the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) Systems 85-0310 High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI)*
34 85-0320 Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) 36 85-0325 Reactor Enclosure HVAC*
37 85-0328 Steam Leak Detection System 39
/~( )j 85-0338 Reactor Enclosure Air Supply
- 40 85-0339 Emergency Switchgear and and Battery 41 Room Air Supply 85-0351 Control Room HVAC 42 85-0361 Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC)*
44 85-0362 125/250 VDC System
- 46 85-0363 Class lE Inverters 47 85-0373 Plant Leak Detection System 49 85-0375 125/250 VDC System 50 85-0401 High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI)*
51 (ii) nO
i l
l LIMERICK GENERATING STATION UNIT NO. 1
[~T ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT
'l OCTOBER, 1984 TilROUGH JUNE 30, 1985 Modification:
- 84-0049 A.
System:
Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC)
B.
==
Description:==
A test turbine assembly was tested and analyzed dynamically by General Electric.
A comparison of the test results between the test turbine and the Limerick RCIC turbine indicated changes were required to upgrade the Limerick turbine.
Modifications were completed to replace the magnetic pickup speed sensor, the hydraulic actuator, trip solenoid dif ferential pressure switch, unit switches, electrical conductors, trip latch springs and the pedestal locking plates.
C.
Reason for Change:
Dynamic Qualification Testing indicated changes were required.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
mk,)
(i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the previous FSAR analysis / evaluation of the RCIC components assumed they were dynamically qualified.
This modification upgrades the components so that they satisfy the basis for the previous analysis.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the modi fication merely upgrades the RCIC components so that they agree with the design that was previously analyzed.
O (1)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 O
(iii)
Does the modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specifications?
Answer No, because the modification increases the reliability of the RCIC components based on the dynamic testing.
O O
(2)
1 LIMERICK GENERATING STATION t
ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 4
- (:)
Modification:
- 84-0085 A.
System:
Descriptions I
The high power input isolator and the load driver cards were revised to eliminate a second latching circuit which was causing an inadvertent initiation of the Standby Liquid Control i
System, a trip of the Recirculation Pump and the Reactor Water cleanup System and isolation of the Feedwater Control System.
C.
Reason for Change An incorrect circuit was installed and was l
discovered during initial testing.
5 D.
Summary of Safety Evaluations (i)
Does this modification increase the possibility of occurrence or consequences of an accident or j
malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
l Answer:
No, because the second latching circuit was not included in the original design and the i
evaluation was based on only one latch I
circuit which would detect an actuation i;
signal of 200 maec or longer.
The second latch circuit was therefore deleted from the design.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or ralfunction of a dif ferent type than any j
evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis j
Report?
r Answer:
No, because the change to the circuit l
2 merely corrected an installation error and L
the corrected circuit now agrees with the j
original evaluation.
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
I Answer No, because af ter correction, the system j
operates as defined in the bases for the Technical Specifications.
t (3)
(
i
,n
-e
, - -, -. - - -. ~, -, -, - - - - -, - -
- n. e
,,._.,,_-a-.pr
-nn_.n
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 O
Modification:
84-0113 A.
System:
H2/02 Analyzer System B.
==
Description:==
Heat tracing was added to the sample piping on the H2/02 Analyzer system to eliminate the possibility of condensation.
C.
Reason for Change:
The modification was made in order to complete the orginal design.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluations (i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer No, because the addition of heat tracing increases the reliability of the system and allows the system to operate inside the O
bounds of the previous evaluation.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the heat tracing allows the system to operate inside the bounds of the previous evaluation.
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer No, because the addition of heat tracing
~
increases the reliability of the system and therefore increases the margin of safety.
O (4)
LTMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 O
Modification:
84-0122 A.
System:
Residual Heat Removal Service Water System.
B.
==
Description:==
The time delay relays which delayed the closure of the heat exchanger discharge valves were replaced by relayn with a longer time span.
C.
Reason for Change:
The Preoperational Testing indicated that the revision was necessary.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluations (i)
Does this modification increase the probability of
~
occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as j
previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis 1
Report?
j Answer:
No, because the logic for closing the
()
valves remains unchanged with only the speed of the valve closure being changed to a more conservative, faster closure.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the change allows the valves to operate inside the bounds of the previous evaluation.
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer No, because the change allows the valves to isolate the heat exchanger in the same sequence as was previously evaluated.
O (5)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 OV Modification:
84-0127 A.
System:
Control Room HVAC B.
==
Description:==
The control ' room HVAC fan housing plenum drain loop seals were increased in height to avoid loss of the loop seal water during momentary pressure surges.
C.
Reason for Change:
The loss of loop seal water problem was discovered during initial system testing.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluations (i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment ir.po r tant to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
s Answer:
No, because the modification prevents
('/
N.
leakage of air into the control room and allows the system to operate within the bounds of the previous evaluation.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the additional height added to loop seals assures that the system meets the original design intent previously evaluated.
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer No, because the change allows the system to operate per the original design.
O O
(6)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 O
Modification:
84-0128 A.
System Reactor Enclosure Refueling Area HVAC System B.
==
Description:==
Fan blade pitch adjustments and addition of outlet flow cones were made to the Reactor Enclosure Refueling area HVAC fans to increase their air flow.
C.
Reason for Change:
The need for higher differential pressure was discovered during the Preoperational test program.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation (i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
()
Answer:
No, because the modification corrects a design error and is part of the larger program to correct various problems associated with this system which must be corrected prior to the first refuel outage.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer No, in order to have the system agree with the design parameters used in the original evaluation, an increase in air flow was necessary.
/
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as i
defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer No, the modi fication corrects a system deficiency which increases the margin of
(])
safety.
(7)
/
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 Modification:
84-0131 A.
System:
Primary Containment Hydrogen Recombiners B.
==
Description:==
Alarms were' provided to indicate motor overload conditions on the motof operated valves for the primary containment hydrogen recombiners.
C.
Reason for Change:
The alarms were added after removal of the valve motor operator overload heaters.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluations (i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the design change allows the gs
(_)
system to operate within the bounds of the previous evaluation.
(ii)
Dee's this modi fication create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any.
evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, the modification allows the system to operate within the bounds of the previous evaluation.
'(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer:
No, because the valve operation is not af fected by the modification which merely alarms on motor overload.
(8) l
\\
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 O
Modification:
84-0153 A.
System:
Redundant Reactivity Control System (RRCS)
B.
==
Description:==
The pressure transmitters for the reactor vessel were modified, increasing their span from (800-1300) psig to (0-1500) psig to prevent downscale false failure signals below 800 psig.
This change also required changes to the Data Acquisition Display Controller.
C.
Reason for Change Erroneous failure signals were discovered during the testing program.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluations (i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
O Answer:
No, the modification only increased the range of the dome pressure transmitter and did not change the type of indication.
The system remains inside the bounds of the original evaluation.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, the only change was to the range of the instrument and the change did not affect the instrument accuracy.
The modification allows the system to operate inside the bounds of the original evaluations.
O (9)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION
^T ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT
(/
x JUNE, 1985 (iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer:
No, the RRCS system pressure transmitters are not defined in the bases for the Technical Specifications.
The modification does not reduce the margin of safety.
(_
s-(R@)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT Os JUNE, 1985 Modification:
84-0156 i
A.
System: Reactor Enclosure / Refueling Floor HVAC System B.
==
Description:==
Undervoltage relays were added to each isolation circuit of the Reactor Enclosure / Refueling Floor HVAC system to initiate isolation on loss of power.
C.
Reason for Changer The relays were added to complete the original design / construction phase.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
(i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, the modification allows the system to operate within the bounds of the previous evaluation.
4 (ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of as accident or malfunction of ~a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the modification was made so that the system would operate within the bounds of the original evaluation.
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer:
No, the system is not part of the bases for the Technical Specifications.
O un
I LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT
-( )
JUNE, 1985 Modification:
84-0171
~A.
Systems Reactor Vessel Instruments B.
pescription:
Head chambers were added to the reference and variable legs of the reactor vessel level transmitters to prevent air from being introduced into the transmitter during calibration.
C.
Reason for Change:
The chambers were added to avoid inadvertent / erroneous signals.during instrument checks and calibration.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
(i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of. equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the head chamber is isolated from the detector during all operational conditions except during instrument calibration.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer No, because the devices are normally isolated from the process liquid by redundant isolation valves and are only used during instrument calibration.
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer:
No, because installation of the head
'{])
chambers does not affect instrument operability as discussed in the basis of the technical specifications.
(12)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT
()
JUNE, 1985 Modification:
84-0184 A.
System Neutron Monitoring B.
==
Description:==
To eliminate the uncertainty of an actuation of a Reactor Protection System (RPS) trip channel after a loss of a minus 20 volt power supply, loss of voltage relays were added to cause a RPS trip channel actuation from the af fected Intermediate Range Monitor (IRM) channels on loss of the minus 20 volt output.
C.
Reason for Change:
The potential problem with the minus 20 volt power supply was discovered during intial startup testing.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation (i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or fT malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the addition of the relays and test button improves the system design by causing a protective action on a single failure of the minus 20 volt power supply, thereby increasing the system reliability.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the change to the system by the addition of relays and the test pushbutton improves the operation and eliminates the possibility of an accident outside the bounds of the original evaluation.
(13)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT O
JUNE, 1985 (iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer:
No, the modification inereases the margin of safety by being more conservative in i
design.
i.
O f
1 O
{
, _,,_, _. _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ I)_ h _ _ _ _
1 LIMERICK GENERATING STATION p
ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT
(/
JUNE, 1985 Modification:
84-0193 A.
System Residual Heat Removal B.
==
Description:==
Spectacle flanges were added to the wetwell spray loops.
C.
Reason for Change:
The flanges were added to facilitate Integrated Leak Rate Testing (ILRT).
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluations (i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
("d
)
Answer No, because the previous evaluation in the FSAR considered blockage of spray loops and concluded that compensation is made for the loss of the spray loops by use of the drywell sprays.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because a blocked flow path will be detected by the surveillance test program.
Further, compensation is made for a blocked flow path by use of the drywell sprays.
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer:
No, the containment spray capability is not defined in the bases for any technical
, -)
specification.
V (15)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 Modification:
84-0197 A.
System:. Nitrogen Supply B.
==
Description:==
An interlock was added to the nitrogen facility which closes the nitrogen supply valve When the low temperature limit is reached in the nitrogen supply line.
l C.
Reason for Change:
Experience at other stations indicated the possibility for abnormally low temperatures from liquid nitrogen causing metal imbrittlement in the event of a malfunction in either the water bath regulator or the nitrogen discharge interlock.
t D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
(i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or O
malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final, Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
Noi because the modification will increase the reliability of the nitrogen facilities.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
i.
Answer No, because the change increases the reliability of the nitrogen system and precludes an accident or malfunction caused by brittle metal fracture not previously evaluated.
'(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
.r Answer:
No, the nitrogen system is not part of the bases for the technical specifications.
(16)
=
d LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT O
au==.
1985 Modification:
84-0209 A.
Systems Standby Gas Treatment System B.
Description The level switches on the charcoal absorbers were repiped to eliminate bypass leakage thru the switches.
C.
Reason for Change:
The change was necessary because bypass leakage exceeded 0.05% during leak testing.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluations (i)
Does this modification increase the probability of
?
occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the modification decreases the-probability of gases bypassing the charcoal absorbers and allows the system to operate within the bounds of the FSAR.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
l Answer:
No, because the modification increases the system ability to filter gases and allows the system to operate within the bounds of 4
the FS AR.
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
r.
Answer:
No, the modification reduces the amount of 4
bypass. leakage thru the charcoal filters and therefore increases the margin of
.O safety.
- (17)
1 LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 Modification:
84-0220 A.
System: Reactor Building / Refueling Floor High Radiation Isolation System B.
==
Description:==
Control test switches and test jack adapters were added to i
panels 10C606 and 10C633 for surveillance testing of the Reactor Building / Refueling Floor high radiation relay contacts in the Balance of Plant (BOP) isolation circuit.
C.-
Reason for Change:
The switches and adapters were added to avoid the necessity for lifting leads during surveillance testing.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
(i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or
()
malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the addition of the jack adapters and test switches does not interfere with the design for isolation of the containment.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the modification allows surveillance testing without lifting leads which would interfere with the function of the design logic.
O (18)
1 1
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION
./
ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 l
l (iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as i
defined in the basis for any Technical Specp$lication?
Answer:
No, the switches and adapters allow
~
operation without interferine, with the design for isolation of containment and they are not part of the bases of the technica) specifications.
t i
4 O
}
b d
O (1
__---.._.._____________________,,_____.__,_9)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 Modification:
84-0222 A.
System:
13.2 KV Power B.
==
Description:==
Jumpers were added and circuits were disconnected so that the 21 unit auxilliary bus and the 22 unit auxilliary bus can be operated from either the 10 or 20 startup bus while bypassing the interlocks from the Unit 2 auxilliary bus.
C.
Reason for Change:
The change was required by the unit isolation program to support operation of Unit 1.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
(i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as s
previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, this modification allows Unit 1 Residual Heat Removal Service Water (RHRSW) system which 1.c energized by the 13.2 KV system to operate within the bounds of the previous FSAR evaluation.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer No, the modification does not change the operation of the RHRSW system and allows the system to operate within the bounds of the previous FSAR evaluation.
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer:
No, the modification does not af fect the operation of the RHRSW system as defined in the bases for the technical specifications.
/LWe
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION O
ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT
\\-
JUNE, 1985 Modification:
84-0225 A.
System Standby Gas Treatment System B.
==
Description:==
The Unit 2 reactor enclosure / refueling floor isolation relay contact in the Standby Gas Treatrent system exhaust fan circuit was disconnected.
C.
Reason for Change:
The change was necessary in order to isolate the Unit 2 input from the logic circuit until Unit 2 is ready for operation.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
(i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as
(_)s previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, the modification does not af fect the operation of Unit 1 and allows Unit 1 to operate within the bounds of the original FSAR evaluation.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the modi fication deletes erroneous Unit 2 signals and allows Unit 1 to operate within the bounds of previous FSAR evaluation.
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
/~T
(/
Answer:
No, the modification maintains the margin of safety by allowing Unit 1 to operate 4
wi thout the false Unit 2 signals.
_ (21). _ _..,
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION
/~
ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT (3)
JUNE, 1985 Modification:
84-0253 A.
System:
Building Structures B.
==
Description:==
Silicone sealant and metal strongbacks were added to Door #52 at elevation 180' 0",
in the control enclosure at the 23 line to preclude cross-contamination from Unit 1 to Unit 2 in the event of accidental sump overflow in Unit 1.
C.
Reason for Change:
The unit isolation program identified this door as requiring sealant to prevent cross contamination between units.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
(i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as
()
previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because this modification maintains isolation of Unit 1 from Unit 2 to preclude cross-contamination to Unit 2.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, this modification isolates Unit 1 from Unit 2 and eliminates the possibility for a cross contamination accident.
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer:
No, the isolation program is not defined in the bases for any technical speci fication.
)
(22)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT
-(,)
JUNE, 1985 Modification:
84-0259 A.
System: Reactor Building Equipment Compartment Exhaust System B.
==
Description:==
Ductwork was installed between the reactor building sample station and the reactor building equipment compartment exha ust system that was inadvertently left uncompleted during the contruction phase.
C.
Reason for Change:
The ductwork was needed for completion of Construction phase work.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
(i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis
(}
Report?
Answer:
No, because the modification allows the sample stations to be used, while maintaining dose rates to the operators ALARA as was evaluated in the FSAR.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an i
accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, the modi fication allows the sample station to be used while operating inside the ALARA criteria as described in the FSAR.
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
gS Answer No, the exhaust duct and sample station are
(_)
not part of the bases of any technical specifications.
(23)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION r
ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT k_%)
JUNE, 1985 Modification:
84-0265 A.
System:
Main Steamline Isolation Valve (MSIV)
B.
==
Description:==
The 125V DC relays in the MSIV pilot circuit logic required surge suppression and were replaced with new Agastat relays of a di f ferent type.
C.
Reason for Change:
The change was required because the Source Range Monitoring (SRM) period tests indicated " spikes" due to induction from the 125V DC MSIV relays.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
(i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as
()
previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, the system reliability was increased by the elimination of the noise and erroneous meter movement in the SRM instruments.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, the change increases the system reliability and eJ iminates problems of electronic instrument noise in the Source Range Monitoring meters.
O (24)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT i
JUNE, 1985 t
j (iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer:
No, the modification improves the operation 4
of the system and allows the systems to operate as described in the bases for the technical speci fications.
i l
O i
J l
i
!O l
4 l
(25)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION pd ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 Modification:
84-0284 A.
System: Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) Turbine Exhaust System B.
==
Description:==
The 2" vacuum pump discharge check valve was removed from the vertical section of pipe and reinstalled on a horizontal section of the same pipe.
C.
Reason for Change:
The change was made because the check valve accumulated corrosion products in the vertical position and was sticking closed.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluations (i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as (s,,),
previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, the change allows the RCIC system to operate within the bounds of the original FSAR evaluation.
-(11)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, the change allows the system to operate inside the bounds of the original FSAR evaluation.
O (26)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT O
auN=. 198s (iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification?
Answer No, the barometric condenser vacuum pump will continue to exhaust to the suppression pool regardless of the location of the check valve.
Therefore the modification has no af feet on the margin of safety.
O J
f e
O l
e (27)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION Q
ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 Modification:
84-0289 A.
System:
Redundant Reactivity Control System (RRCS)
B.
==
Description:==
The design of all RRCS High Power Output Isolator (HPOI) cards in panels 10C634 and 10C635 caused fuses F2 and F3 to blow out because of signal spikes occuring during application of card power and/or during bus or substation switching.
The loss of the fuses rendered the RRCS/HPOI cards inoperative.
The overload / spike problem was eliminated by replacement of fuses F2 and F3 with 100 ohm resistors.
C.
Reason for Change:
The modification was necessary in order to prevent rendering the HPOI cards t
inoperative.
The problem was discovered during the initial testing program.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
()
(i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to' safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because replacement of the resistors in lieu of the original fuses allows the RRCS system to operate inside the bounds of the original design intent.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer No, the change eliminates the inoperability of the HPOI cards by the addition of 100 ohm resistors which provide adequate protection in lieu of the original fuses.
()
(S@)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION
^"""^' "'^"' "
' ^ " """ "'
C)
JUNE, 1985 (iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer:
No, because the RRCS is not part of the bases for the technical specifications.
O O
(29)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION
()
ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 Modification:
85-0295 A.
System:
High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI)
B.
==
Description:==
The variable leg piping on the suppression pool level transmitters was re-routed so that the heat tracing on the reference legs would not boil the water in the variable legs which were in close proximity.
C.
Reason for Change:
The heat trace problem was discovered during the initial testing program.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluations (i)
Does this modi fication increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety an r~)n previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis l
Report?
m Answer:
No, the modi fication does not change the HPCI system logic to change suction from the condensate storage tank to the suppression pool and allows the level transmitters to operate correctly as was originally evaluated in the FSAR.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, the modification merely relocated the variable leg of the transmitters and did not af fect the transmitter operation or the HPCI logic associated with suppression pool level.
,s
,s (30)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT O
JUNE, 1985 (iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer:
No, the modification allows the system to operate within the bases for the Technical Specifications and also no credit is taken for the level in the condensate storage tank.
I i
l I
l (31)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 Modi fication:
85-0297 A.
System: High Presure Coolant Injection (HPCI) and the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) Systems B.
==
Description:==
In order to eliminate pressure surges being sensed by the level detectors on the Condensate Storage Tank (CST), snubbers were installed in the level detector sensor piping.
Previously, the pressure surges caused erroneous CST level indications which caused the HPCI and RCIC systems to change pump suction from CST to the suppression pool.
C.
Reason for Change:
The pressure surge problem was discovered during the initial testing program.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
(i)
Does this modification increase the probability of
()
occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the addition of the snubbers does not reduce the reliability of the transmitters.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the snubbers have been evaluated for clogging or leaking.
Both 1 type failures would not create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than previously evaluated.
O (32)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT O
au==
1985 (iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer:
No, because no credit is taken for the level in the condensate storage tank.
O i
O (33)
1 i.
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION l
pg ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT j
U-JUNE, 1985
- Modi fication:
85-0310 i
j A.
System:
High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI)
B.
==
Description:==
l A time delay relay was added to the control logic which transfers the HPCI pump suction from the Condensate Storage Tank (CST).to the suppression pool to delay pump automatic suction transfer on low condensate storage tank level.
Previously, an erroneous pressure fluctuation caused by the start of this HPCI pump would cause premature transfer of the HPCI pump suction.
C.
Reason for Change:
The logic transfer problem was discovered 1-during the initial testing program.
f.
]
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
i j
(i)
Does this modification increase'the probability of
- ()
occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis 4
]
Report?
1 Answer:
No, the added time delay is intended to extend the suction transfer logic beyond the transient yet not prevent HPCI from accomplishing the required safety function.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an j
accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis j
Report?
i-Answer:
No, the system was evaluated with the time delays and a determination.was made that the HPCI system could continuously deliver its rated flow to the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) prior to and during the suction transfer period.
i o r
1
-,,,-+-,--eme,n.-- - -, _ -, - - - - -.
.,,,--w,'
-n_,.
_,---w-.
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION
',e '
ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 (iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer:
No, because the HPCI system will continuously deliver its rated flow to the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) prior to and during the suction transfer period..
f 4'
i
/
s O
t i
f 4
0 4
(35)
l LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT O*
JUNE, 1985 Modification:
85-0320
A.
System:
Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC)
B.
==
Description:==
The Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) system steam supply piping was restricted from expanding because of interference from abandoned pipe restraints.
The restraints were removed.
C.
Reason for Change:
Stress calculations (1-01-02 Rev. 7/P362 Rev. 2) indicated that there was insufficient expansion clearance between the RCIC pipe and the abandoned pipe restraints.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
n (i)
Poes this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or
()
malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
t Answer:
No, because the FSAR does not take credit
,for the two restraints which were removed.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the two restraints performed no function.
(iii)
Does this modification reduce Ehe margin of safety as defined in the basis for aly Tects ical Specification?
Answer:
No, the restraints are not part of the bases for any Technical Speci fication.
O (36)
.~ -. ~. -
.~
N LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT
!= - ()
JUNE, 1985 Modification:
85-0325 A.
System Reactor Enclosure HVAC 1
i B.
==
Description:==
)
i 3
The two outside pressure sensing masts used to detect outside i
air pressure were tied together in order to eliminate sensed pressure dif ferences between each mast which was caused by i
1g us ty winds.
The ' cross connection provides an averaging ef fect to eliminate nuisance trips.
C.
Reason for Changer Following a secondary containment drawdown, i
the dif ferential pressure being sensed at each mast was dif ferent because of pressure i
differences caused by gusty winds.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
v (i)
Does this modification increase the probability of I.
occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
r Answer:
No, because the cross connect allows for a broken or plugged sensing line and provides an averaging ef fect between the two sensing masts which does not af fect the logic associated with the system.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any
. evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer No, isolation valves have been installed so that in the event that one mast is inoperable due to damage, both channels may be cross-tied to the second (operable) mast.
f i
(37)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT O
JUNE, 1985 (iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer:
No, the reactor enclosure differential pressure system is not addressed in the bases for the Technical Specifications.
O i
4 4
9 I
O l
(38)
l LIMERICK GENERATING STATION O'
ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 Modi fication:
85-0328 A.
System Steam Leak Detection System B.
==
Description:==
I Resistors were added to the Riley supplied temperature switch point module assemblies to eliminate momentary voltage spikes in the comparator circuit by suppressing the switching transient.
C.
Reason for Change:
The Reactor Water Cleanup valves were automatically closing as a result of a spurious trip signal caused by a voltage spike whenever the Read / Set switch was placed to the " READ" position.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
(i)
Does this modification increase the probability of O
occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the modification is within the original design intent of the steam leak detection system.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the modification allows the system to operate within the bounds of the original evaluation.
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
O Answer:
No, the temperature sensors are not part of the bases for Technical Speci fications.
f 18 9
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION p
ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT ss JUNE, 1985 Modification:
85-0338 A.
System:
Reactor Enclosure Supply Air System B.
==
Description:==
Balancing dampers were added to the ductwork near the Reactor Enclosure Supply fans in order to reduce the pressure in the system.
The high pressure had caused several dif fuser assemblies to come loose, disrupting air balance.
C.
Reason for Change:
The dampers were added to correct a design error discovered during the initial testing phase.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
(i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as
()
previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
e Answer:
No, because the modification restores the HVAC air balance to the original specifications.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the modification allows the HVAC system to operate within the original bounds of the FSAR.
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Anshar:
No, because the modification allows the system to operate per the original design.
(40)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION i. h.
ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 3
i Modi fication:
85-0339 I
A.
System: Emergency Switchgear and Battery Room Air Supply 1
B.
==
Description:==
i The supply -and return ducts for Unit 2 inverter room were blanked off in order to preclude steam flooding of the Unit 1 l-emergency switchgear and battery room during a postulated steam pipe break.
C.
Reason for Change:- The blanks were identified as being required for Unit 1 isolation until Unit 2
=
is ready for operation.
1 L
D.
Summa ry of Safety Evaluation:
4
)
(1)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as
()
previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
I Answer:
No, because none of the equipment that is ef fected in Unit 2 is required for safe sh utdown.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an i
accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any 1
evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
4
[
Answer:
No, the blanks which were installed protect l
Unit 1 equipment from a Unit 2 pathway.
The pathway and Unit 2 uncompleted equipment are not evaluated in the FSAR.
f (iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as i
defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
I Answer No, because Unit 2 is not defined in the bases for the Technical Specifications.
I t
i 1
(41)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT s
JUNE, 1985 Modification:
85-0351 A.
Systems Control Room HVAC B.
==
Description:==
7
- Excessive vibration in the chlorine detector panel was dampened by additional supports and rubber pads on the sample pump motor pedestal.
I C.
Reason for Change:
The change was necessary because of unnecessary isolation of the control room ventilation caused by excessive vibration from the pump.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluations
- r (i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as
(])
previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
i Answers-No, because the performance of the sample pump was not changed.
The modification allows the system to operate within the original bounds of the FSAR evaluation.
9 (ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
i Answer:
No, because the additional equipment does not change the equipment performance as i
previously evaluated.
i
(
l 3
1 (42)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION O-ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 (iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer:
No, because the modification does not change the operation of the c6ntrol room isolation equipment as defined in the bases for the Technical Speci ficatlon.
O i
(43)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION O
ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT
~#
JUNE, 1985 i
Modification:
85-0361 A.
System:
Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC)
B.
==
Description:==
Time delay relays were added to the logic on the RCIC suction transfer schere to delay initiation of the RCIC suction transfer logic from the Condensate Storage Tank to Suppression Pool.
C.
Reason for Change:
The time delay was needed because the RCIC suction had pressure fluctuations during the start of the pump.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
(i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or p) malfunction of equipment important to safety as
\\s previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, the added time delay extends the suction transfer scheme beyond the auction pressure transient yet does not prevent RCIC from accomplishing its required safety function.
l (ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
l Answer No, the system was evaluated with the time delays installed and a determination was made that the RCIC system would continuously deliver its rated flow to the l
Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPS) prior to and during the suction transfer period.
1 1
(44)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT
/
JUNE, 1985 (iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as detined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer:
No, because the RCIC system will continuously deliver its rated flow to the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) prior to and during the suction transfer period.
4 O
- O I
(45)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION CT ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT k/
JUNE, 1985 Modification:
85-0362 A.
System:
125/250 VDC System B.
==
Description:==
4 The switches for monitoring the Division I and Division II Battery current were replaced with shorting type switches which assure that a complete (ammeter) loop is maintained.
C.
Reason for Change Initial testing indicated that monitoring of the Division I and Division II Battery current was not possible due to a design error.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
(i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or 3
malfunction of equipment important to safety as
. j previously evaluated in the Final Satety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the monitoring of the battery current by the Emergency Response information system is not required for safe shutdown of the plant.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the Emergency Response information system is passive and is not required for safe shutdown.
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
{>}
Answer:
No, the Emergency Response information system is not defined in the basis for the Technical Specifications.
(46)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION O
ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 Modi fication:
85-0363 A.
Systems Class lE Inverters i
B.
==
Description:==
The low voltage and high voltage trip setpoints on the Class lE inverters (supplied by Topaz) were adjusted to 108 VDC and 132 VDC so that the inverters would not trip (or fail to restart) during a design basis accident.
C.
Reason for Change:
The original 13 VDC fixed inverter trip / reset of fset was outside the bounds of the typical DC bus voltages specified by General Electric in their original design.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
(i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or sj malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because this modification corrects a design error and adjusts the Trip / Reset 4
of fset so that the inverters operate inside the bounds of the original FSAR evaluation.
(ii)
Does this modification create tle possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis l
Report?
Answer No, the modification corrects a design error to allow the system to operate within the bounds of the original FSAR evaluation.
i 1
l
- -. - ~.
-. I N
.. _. - _. ~
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION O'
ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 (iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer:
No, the modification maintains the margin I
of safety by correcting a design error which could have resulted in a safety hazard during a design basis accident, i
{
1 O
d I
\\i i
(
t (40)
1 i
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION O'
ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 Modification:
85-0373 A.
System Plant Leak Detection System B.
Description The original location and the original design setpoint for Temperature Element (TE-41-lN017 ) in the main steam tunnel was changed so that the leak detection system would function correctly to alarm on a steam leak.
C.
Reason for Change:
The original location and setpoints were incorrect and caused spurious alarms.
i D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
(i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, this modification improves the leak l
detection system by eliminating false alarms and assuring that if an alarm occurs, it is a steam leak.
?
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any j
evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis j
Report?
j Answer:
No, failure of an individual leak detection device is not evaluated in the FSARr however, redundancy is provided for all leak detection methods.
i (iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer:
No, the leak detection alarms are not part i
of the bases for the Technical l
Spe ci f ications.
t
(
______.______.----,--_,-_.,.-._-.49)----.,_
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 O
Modification:
85-0375 A.
System:
125/250 VDC System B.
==
Description:==
The ground fault detection scheme for the 125/150 VDC system included seal-in logic which required the operators to make unnecessary trips to the ground detection cabinets in order to reset the alarms.
The seal-in circuits were eliminated.
C.
Reason for Change:
The circuits were changed to avoid excessive operator trips out of the control room.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluations (i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as 4
previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
O Answer No, because the modification only provides i
an improvement in the design of the alarm reset to avoid the need for local reset.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the modi fication only changes the reset button and does not change the design intent of the ground fault detection system alarms.
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer No, the ground fault detection system is not part of the bases for the Technical Speci f ica t ions.
l (50)
- -. - - - = - - -,.
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 O
Modification:
85-0401 A.
System:
High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI)
B.
==
Description:==
The Ramp Generator / Signal Converter (RGSC) was adjusted along with a byp2ss line being added to bypass the Hydraulic Actuator.
These two changes limit the initial surge of steam to the HPCI turbine by partially closing the control valve prior to steam admission.
C.
Reason for Change:
The HPCI control system required this change. in order to dampen the turbine acceleration transients discovered during initial testing.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
(i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as
()
previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer No, testing verifies that the rated flow is obtained within the time frame design limits of the FSAR evaluation.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the modification improves the system reliability and remains within the bounds of the FSAR evaluation.
O (51)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 O
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer No, the change allows the HPCI turbine to ramp up in a smooth manner, but does not change the time frame requirement for achieving rated flow.
O O
(52)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT
~
JUNE, 1985
(:)
Modification:
85-0417 A.
System:
Reactor Water Cleanup System (RWCU)
B.
==
Description:==
Test switches and jack adapters were installed in the RWCU high dif ferential flow isolation circuits in control panels 10C609 and 10C611 to allow surveillance testing without lifting leads.
C.
Reason for Change:
The switches and jack adapters were added to facilitate surveillance testing.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluations (i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
()
Answer:
No, because the addition of the test switches and adapters does not change the logic or operation of the circuit as evaluated in the FSAR.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis 4
Report?
Answer No, the addition of the switches and jack adapters increases the reliability of the circuit because periodic li f ting of leads is no longer required.
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer:
No, the additional switches and adapters have no ef fect on the Technical Specifications and by increasing the reliability, they increase the margin of Os safety.
(53)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 rh c
%-)
Modi fication:
85-0435 A.
System:
Building Structures B.
==
Description:==
The fire rating of the service water pipe tunnel ceiling slab at elevation 217 ', Room 202, was changed from non-fire rated to 3-hour rated.
C.
Reason for Change NRC Ouestion (Doc. No. 192180, PECo to Bechtel) instigated a review which found that a three-hour barrier was needed.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluation:
(i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
(
)
v Answer:
No, because each of the af fected fire areas was analyzed and the analysis indicates that safe shutdown capability is retained in the event of a fire.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because there is no decrease in the methods available for safe shutdown in the event of a fire.
O (54)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 O
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the bases for any Technical Specification?
Answer:
No, the modification adds internal conduit seals to conduits containing safety-related cables so that the margin of safety is maintained.
O O
(55)
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 Modification:
85-0446' A.
System Standby Gas Treatment System (SGTS)
B.
==
Description:==
The latching mechanism used to position the splitter damper at the connection of the SGTS duct going to the Reactor Enclosure Recirculation System (RERS) was damaged and in order to preclude the damper from inadvertently blocking the SGTS flow, the damper was welded into a fixed position.
C.
Reason for Change:
This change was needed to prevent the damaged splitter damper from blocking SGTS flow from the Reactor Enclosure Secondary Containment.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluations (i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or 4
malfunction of equipment important to safety as
^
previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, the SGTS flow rates were reverified to be inside the bounds of the original FSAR evaluation.
t (ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer No, the change restored the SGTS to its original design criteria and allows the system to operate within the bounds of the FS AR evaluation.
1 (56)
I
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 O
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer:
No, the SGTS flow rates were reverified so that the margin of safety would be maintained as defined in the basis for the Technical Specifications.
O l
(57) i
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 i
Modification:
85-0494 A.
System Remote Shutdown System B.
==
Description:==
The remote shutdown panel indicators on the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) and the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC)
L remote shutdown systems were replaced with safety grade (Q-Active) inst ruments.
C.
Reason for Change:
The original instruments were not Q-Active and were replaced.
s D.
Summary of Safety Evaluations (i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
l O
Answer No, because the upgrade in equipment does not change the accuracy of the meters and maintains the reliability of the instruments.
(ii)
Does this modification cr'. ate the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in thu Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer No, because the replacement indicators maintain the systems inside the bounds of the FSAR evaluation.
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer No, the margin of safety is maintained because the replacement instruments are the same accuracy as the instruments which were
{}
replaced.
(58) l
,--, -, _ _ -. -. -,,. ~.., _.
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JUNE, 1985 qD Modification:
85-0497 A.
System:
HVAC Isolation Valves B.
==
Description:==
A pipe connection for a gauge was added to the nitrogen gas side of the Paul Munroe actuator accumulators so that the gas pressure can be monitored and the gas pressure readily relieved during surveillance testing.
C.
Reason for Change:
The change was made for ease of maintenance and surveillance testing.
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluations (i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the additional fitting does not af fect the operation of the actuator or the HVAC isolation valves.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
Answer:
No, because the additional pipe fittings include an isolation valve to isolate the actuator following maintenance or surveillance.
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Answer No, the added fittings do not af fect the operation of the INAC isolation valves.
O (59)
~
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT 1
JUNE, 1985 O
Modification:
85-0324 A.
System:
Reactor Enclosure HVAC B.
==
Description:==
1 The time delay between the reactor enclosure low dif ferential pressure and the trip function was increased from 15 seconds to 100 seconds in order to prevent spurious isolations caused by gusty winds on the outside instrument masts.
C.
Reason for Change:
The location of the instrument reference leg masts (on the roof) caused spurious / erroneous signals due to gusty winds.
{
D.
Summary of Safety Evaluations i
(i)
Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previcosly evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?
i Answer:
No, the additional time delay of 85 seconds has no adverse impact because the low dif ferential signal is not relied upon for isolation during high radiation or LOCA
.i conditions.
(ii)
Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a dif ferent type than any 5
evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis j
Report?
d Answer No, because the des ign of the modi fication was done in accordance with the design requirements applicable to the original design.
The plant as described in the FSAR is not being changed.
(60) i l
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT r
JUNE, 1985 O
^
(iii)
Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
1 i
Answer:
No, the low dif ferential pressure trip is not part of the bases for the technical spe cif ications.
1 J
l I
l f
l O
3 t
l O
i
}
(61) 1
.__ _ ~
.