ML20205R353
| ML20205R353 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1999 |
| From: | NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205R342 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9904220302 | |
| Download: ML20205R353 (24) | |
Text
Docket No. 50-336 B17740 Attachment 2 Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 Addendum 4 - April 9,1999 to Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 2 Annual Report dated July 1,1998 l
i April 1999 9904220302 990409 7tl PDR ADOCK 05000336 !
K PDR lj
~
Docket No,50-336 B17740 INTRODUCTION None of the plant design changes described herein constitute, nor constituted, an unreviewed safety question per the criteria of 10CFR50.59.
PLANT DESIGN CHANGES Celculation Number Title (FSAR Sections. Tables. and Fiaures Affected) 98-ENG-02424E2 Wire Cable Raceway Facility, Design Criteria (8.7.1,8.7.2, T8.7-2, T8.7-3; processed with FSARCR 99-MP2-9)
DCR/PDCR Number Title (FSAR Sections. Tables. and Fiaures Affected)
M2-98013 Isolate Steam Generator (SG) Blowdown on Low-Low SG Levels (7.3.2,10.4.6, T5.2-11; processed with FSARCR 98-MP2-27) 2-95-058 Auxiliary Building Roof Penthouses -Installation of Snow Screens /
Barriers (9.9.10; processed with FSARCR 99-MP2-7)
FSARCR Number Title (FSAR Sections. Tables. and Fiaures Affected) 97-MP2-12 P! ant Ventilation Systems (T6.5-1, T6.5-2, T6.6-1, T9.9-1 thru T9.9-4, T9.9-6 thru T9.9-15, T9.9-19 thru T9.9-21) 98-MP2-28 Post Accident Sampling System (PASS) (9.6.1, 9.6.2) 98-MP2-90 Structures, Containment / Auxiliary Systems, Fuel and Reactor Component (5.2.6, 9.8.1) 98-MP2-114 Safety injection System / Containment Spray System (6.3.2,6.3.3, 6.3.4, 6.4.3, T6.3-1) 98-MP2-123 Emergency Conditions, Special Features (6.7.3,6.7.4) ,
98-MP2-188 Instrumentation and Control / Chemical and Volume Control System (CVCS) (7.6.4, 9.2.2, 9.2.3, 9.2.4) 98-MP2-194 Emergency Generator Special Features (8.3.4) l 98-MP2-196 Instrumentation and Controls (7.2.5,7.3.1,7.3.2,7.3.4,7.5.6) 1 1
Docket No. 50-336 B17740 98-MP2-200 Safety injection System / Large Break Loss of Coolant Accident (LBLOCA)/ Small Break Loss of Coolant Accident (SBLOCA) (6.3.1 thru 6.3.4,14.6.5, T14.6.1-1 thru T14.6.1-3, T14.6.5.1-3 thru T14.6.5.1-12, T14.6.5.2-1 thru T14.6.5.2-3, T14.6.5.2-12 thru T14.6.5.2-15, F14.6.5.1-1 thru F14.6.5.1-24, F14.6.5.2-1 thru F14.6.5.2-23) 99-MP2-1 Containment Air Recirculation (CAR) and Cooling System / Major Process Instrumentation (6.5.3, 6.5.4, T7.5-1) 99-MP2-2 Enclosure Building Filtration System (EBFS), System Operation, Emergency Conditions / Fuel Handling Area Ventilation System, [
Emergency Conditions (6.7.3, 9.9.8) l 99-MP2-3 Siemens Power Corporation Fuel Assembly / Nuclear Design and Evaluation / Physics Characteristics / Safety Analysis (3.3.1,3.4.3, i 14.0, T14.0.1-1, T14.0-2, T14 0.2-1, T14.0.2-2, T14.0-3, T14.0.4-1, T14.0.5-1, T14.0.7-1 thru T14.0.7-5, T14.0.8-1, T14.0.9-1, T14.0.12-1, F14.0.7-4 thru F14.0.7-7) '
99-MP2-6 General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants / Nuclear Design l' and Evaluation (1 A, 3A, 5.2.5, 6.1.4) 99-MP2-12 Containment Spray System (6.4.4) 99-MP2-17 Fuel and Reactor Component Handling Equipment (9.8.2) 99-MP2-18 Structures / Seismic System Analysis and Seismic Equipment Analysis / Main Control Boards / Hot Shutdown Panel (5.8.4, 5.8.5, 7.6.2, 7.6.4) 99-MP2-23 Access Control Area Air Conditioning System (9.9.13, T9.9-14) 99-MP2-24 Plant Ventilation Systems, Control Room Air Conditioning (CRAC)
System (9.9.10) 2
F 1
Calculation Number Title )
l l
98-ENG-02424E2 Wire Cable Raceway Facility, Design Criteria t Descriotion of Change This change to FSAR Section 8.7 describes the bases for cable ampacity and removes reference to Tables 8.7-2 and 8.7-3, Reason for Change Based on the new calculation, FSAR section 8.7 required revision to encompass new cable calculations and the ampacity tables required clarification.
Safety Evaluation Summary This new calculation provided new baseline ampacities for power and selected control cable types. The new base ampacity calculation will not increase the probability nor the consequence of a malfunction of equipment important to safety and it will not create a malfunction of equipment of a different type than pres iously evaluated. The new calculation will not increase the probability nor the consequence of an acddent nor will it create an accident of a different type than previously evaluated. The base ampacity cal; ulation will not decrease the margin of safety as defined in the Technical Specifications. Therefore, this cho ge is safe and does not constitute an Unreviewed Safety Question.
i I
i l
l l
l i
DCR Number Title t
M2-98013 Isolate Stearn Generator (SG) Blowdown on Low-Low l SG Levels i
Descriotion of Change !
This DCR added an interlock for the automatic isolation of the SG blowdown on the SG low-low water level signal. It was necessary to assure that MP2 was bounded by the results of the feedwater transient analysis described in Chapter 14 of the FSAR.
Reason for Change
)
The design did not include an automatic isolation of SG blowdown lines in response to a SG low-low water level signal. This was identified as a non-conservative condition.
Saferv Evaluation Summarv The control circuit modification to the SG blowdown isolation valves and auxiliary feedwater actuation circuit enhance plant safety by conserving SG water level after SG low-low water level signal. It does not increase the probability of occurrence of a malfunction or accident previously evaluated, or affect the consequences of an accident previously evaluated, and will not create a different type of malfunction or accident than previously evaluated. Therefore, this change is safe and does not constitute an Unreviewed Safety Question.
i 9
b.
(;
PDCR Number Title O' 2-95-058 Auxiliary Building Roof Penthouses - Installation of Snow Screens / Barriers i
1 l
Descriotion of Change This PDCR installs wire mesh snow screens / barriers for the auxiliary building roof penthouses.
- Reason for Change l As designed, snow can buiM ~ in and around ventilation penthouses.1his can lead to blockage of the !
- ventilation path, or can allov,
- ter intrusion when the snow melts. The information has been updated in FSAR Section 9.9.
t Safety Evaluation Summarv i
This change will not contribute to any previously analyzed accident, or its consequences nor will it contribute to any new accident outside of those already analyzed. Additionally, the margin of safety is not reduced as a result of this change. There is no possibility of a malfunction of a different type than previously evaluated as a result of this change. Therefore, this change is safe and does not constitute an Unreviewed Safety Question.
l l
I l
l I
l l
O l
- l. l
Y FS ARCR Number Title O 97-MP2-12 Plant Ventilation Systems Descriorion of Change l
This change revises numerous FS AR tables (20) in sections 6.5,6.6, and 9.9 containing information on 1 plant ventilation systems equipment. The equipment information provided in the tables includes technical -
and performance details of the major subcomponents such as fans, cooling / heating coils, motors, compressors and fihers. The change consists of removing non essential information while adding some <
other critical parameters. The critical design inputs are those that provide the ultimate equipment performance criteria. The FSAR tables information being changed follows the pattern established in ,
previous FSAR changes.
]
Reason for Change During the ongoing FSAR verification effort, it was identified that discrepancies existed in the tables of a section 9.9, Plant Ventilation Systems, which conflict with param:ters described in the related subsection of the same section. These tables as well as tables in section 6 describing ventilation equipment, are being revised to conform to the format used in other recent changes to various tables in cection 9.9, which consist of having only pertinent information in the FSAR Tables, while the non essential information is available in the original equipment specifications, purchase orders, design drawings, or other retrievable QA documents.
Saferv Evaluation Summarv
'hd The changes to the systems information listed in these tables include the major subcomponents such tis cooling / heating coils, motors, compressors, and filters. For example, the manufacturer's name, model f number, or the component arrangement are not pertinent parameters validating the equipment performance, '
and wheel size, motor rpm, or system static pressure to name a few, are not critical design inputs pertinent to the equipment performance. These parameters are ordering specifications. The critical design inputs are ,
those that support the ultimate equipment performance criteria, such as the fan air flow capacity (cfm), the l cooling / heating capacity (Bru/hr). When components are required to be replaced, the equipment design parameters will be controlled by the equipment specifications, plant design drawings, Material, Equipment and Parts List evaluation and equipment nameplate data which are the nc,rmal method for establishing equipment specifications in accordance with the Design Control Manual. Therefore, this change is safe and does not constitute an Unreviewed Safety Question.
l l
lO i
L
I l
FSARCR Number Title 1
(,, .
l 98-MP2-28 Post Accident Sampling System (PASS)
Description of Change This change corrected the description of the PASS system and PASS analyses in FSAR Section 9.6 regarding sample time requir:ments and allows an alternate sample size. It also deleted the reference to the Connecticut (CT) Yankee laboratory as an alternate for the Millstone laboratory, Reason for Change To update the PASS !.y stem and analysis descriptions to provide consistency with appropriate procedures i and reflect permanent shutdown of CT Yankee !
Safetv Evaluation Summarv l
The changes are consistent with PASS requirements and appropriate chemistry sampling requirements and I procedures. They do not pose any increase in the risk of overexposure of personnel involved in sampling.
They do not change or impact any Technical Specification requirements, nor create or alter the probability j or consequences of any accidents or malfunctions. Therefore, this change is safe and does not constitute an l Unreviewed Safety Question. ;
i i
O 4
FSARCR Number Title
/
O 98-MP2-90 Structures, Containment / Auxiliary J
Systems, Fuel and Reactor Component i Descriotion of Change This change upadated FSAR Sections 5.2 and 9.8 to reflect that the containment pedestal crane is no longer installed.
ReasorLfor Change The containment pedestal crane (except for its support) was removed from the containment because it was not functioning properly. There is currently no plan to reinstall the crane and therefore the description of the facility is being updated.
Saferv Evaluation Summarv l
The containment pedestal crane was only used during plant shutdown and did not perform a safety-related function. The crane suppon which will remain in place was designed so that it will maintain its structural integrity and have no adverse affect on other plant systems or equipment. There will be no affect on plant safety by removing the crane and abandoning the crane support in place. Therefore, this change is safe and does not constitute an Unreviewed Safety Question.
A i 1 V
l O) t v
i l-
r*
FS ARCR Number Title O 98-MP2-114 - Safety Injection System / Containment Spray System Descrintion of Change This change to FSAR Sections 6.3 and 6.4 updates and clarifies information regarding system operations during a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) and provides consistency with operating procedures.
Reason for Change During the ongoing FSAR verification effort, it was determined that information required updating to provide consistency between the FSAR and operating procedures.
Saferv Evaluation Summarv implementation of these changes does not initiate an accident previously evaluated and identified. More specifically, implementation of the changes does not initiate, or impact the radiological consequences of, a I LOCA, or any of the other accidents. Additionally, the change does not initiate an accident of a different type than previously addressed. In addition, implementation of the change does not add any new plant equipment or change the manner in which existing equipment is operated. Implementation of the change, ;
consequently, does not create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety, nor affect j the consequences of such a malfunction. Therefore, this change is safe and does not constitute an Unreviewed Safety Question.
O l I
1 l
0 P
f l
FSARCR Number Title l
d 98-MP2-123 Emergency Conditions, Special Features
! Descriotion of Change l The change to FSAR Section 6.7 - Enclosure Building Filtration System (EBFS), revised the description of l the operation of the EBFS fiher units and updates the iodine loading based on results of a revised calculation.
Reason for Change During the ongoing FSAR verification effort, it was identified that the description of the function, type, location and quality classification of the temperature instruments installed in the EBFS filter units needed updating.
Safety Evaluation Summary These changes were required to revise the description of the function, type, location and quality classification of the temperature instruments installed in the EBFS filter units. Also, the results of a revised calculation are credited for the revised basis of the EBFS filter adsorber method of preventing iodine desorption from the charcoal beds. Use of the cooling air and EBFS filter temperature instrumentation is no longer required since the peak iodine loading will not raise the idle train charcoal beds temperature above 200'F. Therefore, this change is safe and does not constitute an Unreviewed Safety Question.
O
'p,.
V
FSARCR Number Title >
98-MP2-188 Instrumentation and Control / Chemical and Volume Contol System (CVCS)
Descrintion of Change This change to FSAR Sections 7.6 and 9.2 updated information regarding CVCS operations.
Reason for Change j
During the ongoing FSAR verification effort, it was identified that certain information in FSAR Section 7.6 1 and 9.2 was not consistent with approved, appropriate procedures on CVCS operation. l Safety Evaluation Summarv The changes have been evaluated and are in accordance with appropriate, safe procedures. The details of )
performing reactor coolant system leak testing are more appropriately categorized as engineering design ;
basis; the design basis being the ability to leak test, and the periodicity of performing leak testing. The method of performance, although different, is safe. The revised CVCS startup, operating, and shutdown j discussions is consistent with proper safe operating procedures. Removing the ability to operate charging and boric acid pumps from their switchgear has no impact on plant operations, including the ability to j achieve and maintain cold shutdown from outside the control room. Therefore, this change is safe and does l not constitute an Unreviewed Safety Question, j i
l l
f 5
roe nel
F j l'
l f FS ARCR Number ling f lO l
98-MP2-194 Emergency Generator Special Features j
l l l I Descrintion of Change
! This change to FSAR Section 8.3. emergency generator special feature added the alarm condition described as diesel generator breaker trouble.
Reason for Change l This change was made for consistancy since other diesel generator alarm conditions are listed in this section.
Saferv Evaluation Summary Whenever the circuit breaker loses 125V DC control power or the breaker is racked out, an alarm is
{
annunciated in the annunciator window of panel C08 of the control room. The diesel generator breaker trouble annunciation will not increase the probability nor the consequence of a malfunction of equipment important to safety, it will not create a malfunction of a different type than previously evaluated. The l alarm annunciation will not increase the probability nor the consequence of an accident nor will it create an accident of a different type than previously evaluated. The addition of the new alarm annunciation, diesel generator breaker trouble reflects existing plant des!gn and will not decrease the margin of safety described in the basis for any Technical Specification. The efore, this change is safe and does not constitute ar. q Unreviewed Safety Question. J O
1 l
l l
1 l 1 i
l
' ee
.)
FSARCR Number Title O
I 1 98-MP2-196
%J Instrumentation and Controls l
Descriotion of Change This change to FSAR Chapter 7 updates descriptions of systems and tests performed on the emergency safety features actuation system (ESFAS), reactor protection system (RPS), and radiation monitoring systems.
Reason for Chance During the ongoing FSAR verification efTort, it was determined that these changes were necessary to ensure that the FSAR is consistent with Technical Specifications, system design, and appropriate and approved testing procedures.
Safety Evaluation Summary This change evaluated the impact of changing the description of certain ESFAS and RPS testing performed, certain changes in the description of the engineering safeguard actuation system testing logic, and minor changes in the description of the containment high range area radiation monitors. None of the changes affect the operability or performance of any equipment, or the ability of testing to determine system operability. Nothing in the change alters the ability of any system to perfonn its design functions to mitigate accidents. The changes neither create new malfunctions or accidents, nor do they increase the probability or consequences of existing malfunctions or accidents. Therefore, this change is safe and does not constitute an Unreviewed Safety Question.
1 ls ld 1
l
[?
L FSARCR Number lille t, -
98-MP2-200 Safety Injection System /Large Break Loss of
Descriotion of Change This change to FSAR Sections 63,14.6, and numerous tables in section 14.6, updates information to incorporate the most recent SBLOCA and LBLOCA analyses. The changes included wording changes for clarification and changes as a result of the new analysis. A number of editorial changes were also included.
Reason for Chance ,
l This change was a result of the reanalysis performed by Siemens using modified plant specific input parameters. The comments from the ongoing FSAR verification effort review were incorporated.
Safety Evaluation Summarv All input changes related to the revised SBLOCA and LBLOCA analyses were reviewed. In particular, it is noted that the reliance on operator action to initiate the turbine driven auxiliary feedwater pump is consistent with the assumptions used in the previous SBLOCA analyses. The only changes with respect to auxiliary feedwater modeling are incorporation of the latest delivery curves, modeling of the sweep out volume, and adding a description of the modeling to the FSAR. Therefore, this change is safe and does not f
constitute an Unreviewed Safety Question.
C l
{
FSARCR Number Title
(
99-MP2-1 Containment Air Recirculation (CAR) and Cooling System /
Major Process Instrumentation Descriotion of Change l
l This change to FSAR Section 6.5, and Table 7.5-1, consisted of rewording a misleading reference to a technical specification (TS) and clarification of the containment temperature alarm and operator response, clarifies the pitch of the fins on the car cooler coils, and changcs in tense for tests and inspections to clarify inspections that were donc prior to startup, or on prototypical equipment vs. ongoing periodic testing.
Reason for Change During the ongoing FSAR verification effort, it was identified that certain information regarding the CAR and cooling system and containment temperature monitoring required updating and clarification.
Safety Evaluation Summary The changes to the FSAR relative to containment air temperature monitoring, alarm and alarm response, and changes to the CAR and cooling system testing have no impact on the ability of either system to perform their design functions. The changes do not increase the probability or consequences of existing malfunctions or accidents, nor do they create any new malfunction or accident. The changes make the FSAR internally consistent and consistent with existing TS. Therefore, this change is safe and does not constitute an Unreviewed Safety Question.
O l
1 l
O A
L.
FS ARCR Nurnber lille O
V 99-MP2-2 Enclosure Building Filtration System (EBFS), Sy: tem Operation, Emergency Conditions / Fuel Handling Area Ventilation System, Emergency Conditions Descrintion of Channe This change to FSAR Section 6.7 removed the description of the normal position of EBFS dampers.
Egason for Change During the ongoing FSAR verification effort it was determined that this change was necessary to eliminate confusion regarding the positions of motor operated EBFS dampers.
Safety Evaluation Summary This change deleted the description of the normal position of motor-operated EBFS dampers from the FSAR. This change is consistent with Table 6.7-2 of the FSAR, "EBFS Failure Mode Analysis" that shows normal closed positions for some EBFS motor-operated dampers, and no normal positions on others.
These dampers are powered from separate sources and are independent as are the two trains of EBFS. It is the redundancy in EBFS trains that precludes loss of function. The EBFS has two redundant, independent subsystems, each fully capable of meeting the EBFS functional requirements. A single failure of an active component in one subsystem will not affect the functional capability of the other subsystem. Therefore, this change is safe and does not constitute an Unreviewed Safety Question.
O
1 F
FS ARCR Number Title 99-MP2-3 Siemens Power Corporation Fuel Assembly / Nuclear Design and Evaluation / Physics Characteristics / Safety Analysis Descriotion of Change This change to FSAR Section 14.0 provided general information associated with the Chapter 14 safety analysis. An update to the FSAR Sections 3.3,3.4 was also included for its compatibility. The change is primarily to clarify information provided as the general information associated with the Chapter 14 safety analysis.
Reason for Change During the ongoing FSAR verification effort, it was identified that inconsistency existed between the information provided in the FSAR Section 14.0 and the information actually used for the safety analyses.
Safety Evaluation Summary The change to the FSAR Sections 3.3,3.4 and 14.0 have been reviewed. The FSAR Section 14.0 provides only general information associated with the Chapter 14 safety analysis and the information regarding specific event analysis are provided in each Chapter 14 Sub-section. The change was mainly to correct the information provided in Sections 3.3,3.4 and 14.0 to be more consistent with the Chapter 14 safety analysis. Many of the changes made were identified as either non-intent changes, clarification, or administrative corrections. Those changes identified as intent changes were reviewed to determine the impact on licensing basis accident analysis as defined in Chapter 14 of the FSAR. The change to the FSAR Sections 3.3,3.4 and 14.0 does not increase the probability of occurrence of a malfunction of equipment important to safety or of a previously evaluated accident. The possibility of a malfunction or accident of a different type has also not been increased as a result of this change. The consequences of either a malfunction of equipment or of an accident have not been increased. Therefore, this change is safe and does not constitute an Unreviewed Safety Question.
[I
[
FSARCR Number Title 99-MP2-6 General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants /
I Nuclear Design and Evaluation l
l Descriotion of Change This change to FSAR Sections 1.A.1,3A.5,5.2 and 6.1 incorporated the design basis for the consideration l of the dynamic (mechanistic) effects associated with the postulated pipe ruptures in the reactor coolant l system main coolant loop (MCL) piping, safety injection (SI) and shutdown cooling (SDC) piping is being changed from double-ended-guillotine-break (DEGB) to the one based on the leak-before-break (LBB)
I technology.
Reason for Change This change is a result of the change of pipe rupture dynamic effects design basis from DEGB to the one based on the LBB technology.
Safety Evaluation Summarv All of the changes are consistent with the MCL, SI and SDC system LBB evaluations which have been reviewed and approved. An evaluation demonstrating the applicability of the LBB technology to the MCL piping and unisolable sections of the Si and SDC piping has been performed in accordance with the guidance provided in NUREG 1061 These evaluations show that the MCL and SI and SDC piping satisfy the criteria for compliance with the current version of GDC-4. Therefore, this change is safe and does not constitute an Unreviewed Safety Question.
i O
I
m FSARCR Number Title
.T 99-MP2-12 Containment Spray System Descrintion of Change This change to FSAR Section 6.4 deleted the overly detailed description and replaced it with a general statement regarding system testing. Additionally, a clarification is added regarding access to the containment spray pumps and shutdown cooling heat exchangers.
Reason for Change Dcring the ongoing FSAR verfication effort, it was determined that this change was needed to eliminate inconsistencies with plant procedures.
Safety Evaluation Summary The change deleted the three paragraphs that provide a detailed description of system testing and replaces them with a general statement. The change did not impact the physical condition of the plant, and it is in conformance with the approved system operability testing, response time testing, and inservice testing surveillance procedures. Additionally, a clarification was made to indicate that the design and location of the containment spray pumps and shutdown cooling heat exchangers, and not the components themselves, allow access for testing and maintenance. These changes do not alter the probabilities or consequences of any accidents or malfunctions; nor do they create any new malfunctions or accidents; nor do they reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification. Therefore, this change is safe and does not constitute an Unreviewed Safety Question.
O Es . . .
.i
FSARCR Number lille 99-MP2-17 Fuel and Reactor Component Handling Equipment Descriotton of Change This change to FSAR Section 9.8 updated the weight of the spent fuel pool bulkhead gate and the length of the long tools attached to the hoist of the spent fuel pool platform crane.
Reason for Change This change is a result of the ongoing FSAR verification effort. The FSAR section 9.8 was updated to ensure the physical parameters contained the proper values.
Safety Evaluation Summary The changes revised the weight of the spent fuel pool bulkhead gate (from 4000 pounds to 5100 pounds) and the length of the long handling tool (from approximately 25 feet to approximately 32 feet). These changes do not impact the physical condition of the plant, do not change nor conflict with any plant procedures, and do not impact any Technical Specification (TS), These changes do not alter the probabilities or consequences of any accidents or malfunctions; neither do they create any new malfunctions or accidents; nor do they reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any TS.
Thereic e, this change is safe and does not constitute an Unreviewed Safety Question.
i _
I FSARCR Number Title l D I
l d 99-MP2-18 Structures / Seismic System Analysis and Seismic Equipment Analysis / Main Control Boards / Hot Shutdown Panel Descrintion of Change This change to FSAR Section 5.8 provided clarification and more clearly defined the seismic analysis i
design basis by specifically adding a description of the modal combination method used for piping analysis and components when the response-spectrum-modal-analysis technique is used, and for editorial non-intent changes.
l Reason for Change
[ During the ongoing FSAR verification effort, it was determined that the methodology used to combine closely spaced modes for structures and piping systems was not consistent with what was at the time and l still is used for piping analysis. Thus, these changes provided a clarification of the design basis for piping I
systems and a better organization ofinformation within the FSAR.
Saferv Evaluation Summary This change is related to the seismic qualification of piping. Accidents and malfunctions that result from piping failures as well as accidents or malfunctions that require the availablility of fluid systems to mitigate the consequences were evaluated and do not require a change to the Technical Specifications nor the i
,3 Operating License. Therefore, this change is safe and does not constitute an Unreviewed Safety Question.
, i )
i v l
l l
t l
l l
l l
l v)
f- 1 1
FSARCR Number g 99-MP2-23 Access Control Area Air Conditioning System i
Description of Change This change revised FSAR Section 9.9 and Table 9.914 to clarify the system configuration. i Reason for Change During the ongoing FSAR verification, it was identified that there were inaccuracies in the access control area heating ventilation and air conditioning system description provided in FS AR Section 9.9.
Safety Evaluation Summarv i i
The changes consisted of additional clarifications added within the section text and to Table 9.9-14 to ;
better describe the system operation. The changes do not affect the equipment functions and design
]
characteristics since they have not been changed from their current design and licensing basis. There are no i physical changes within the scope of this evaluation. Therefore, this change is safe and does not constitute an Unreviewed Safety Question.
l t
l O
O
~.
j e L
I' i
[O Q FSARCR Number Iith ,
\
99-MP2-24 Plant Ventilation Systems, Control Room Air Conditioning (CRAC) System Descrintion of Change l
This change to FSAR Section 9.9 revised the reference to the cooling water system associated with the CRAC system, since the system has no cooling water. The mechanical refrigeration system has an air cooled condenser and no associated cooling water system.
l l Reason for Change During the ongoing FSAR verification effort it was determined that the FSAR description of the CRAC system in Section 9.9 required updating.
Safety Evaluation Summarv The changes in the description of the CRAC are consistent with its design, and applicable design bases.
, The changes are minor in nature and do not alter the probabilities or consequences of malfunctions or I accidents and do not create the possibility of new malfunctions or accidents. Therefore, this change is safe and does not constitute an Unreviewed Safety Question.
O I
l l
'O t
z