ML20207K803

Forward Listing of Changes,Tests & Experiments Completed During Month of Sept 1988

ML20207K803
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	09/27/1988
From:	Robey R COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
IEB-84-02, IEB-84-2, IEB-88-004, IEB-88-4, RAR-88-46, NUDOCS 8810170031
Download: ML20207K803 (11)

Text

-

Commonwealth Edison ovad Cities Nuclear Power Station 22710 206 Avenue North Corcova, Illinois 61242 Telephone 309/654 2241 RAR-88-46 September 27, 1983 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulations U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Station PI-137 Washington, D. C.

20555 Enclosed please find a listing of those changes, tests, and experiments completed during the monti, of September, 1988, for Quad-Citles Station Units 1 and 2 OPR 29 and DPR-30. A summary of the safety evaluation is being reported in compliance with 10 CFR 50.59.

Thirty-nine copies are provided for your use.

Respectfully, COMMONHEALTH EDISON COMPANY QUAD-Cli!ES NUCLEAR POWER STATION 0.0 - (

R. A, obey Services Superintendent RAR/vmk i

Enclosure cc:

1. Johnson T. Hatts/J Galligan gj017003:

gno977 q q R

ADOCK 05000254 PNV 0027H/00612

'l

\\

SPECIAL TEST 2-86 Special test 2-86 was completed on Sct.tember 23, 1988.

The purpose i

of this test was to run the 2A Core Spray Pucp at minimum flow to gather data for assessment of minimum flow line sizing in accordance with NRC Bulletin 88-04.

Safety Evaluation 1.

The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluatei in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not increased because the system was in the normal operating configuration, and was designed to operate in the manner described by this test.

2.

The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type r

than any previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not created because no operations were performed outside specified in the FSAR.

3.

The margin of aafety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification is not reduced because no operations outside the Technical Specifications were done.

i f

b i

c 1

1 i

i I

l J

l

]

i I

1 e

~

SPEriAL TEST 2-87 Special test 2-87 was ccepleted on September 23, 1988. The purpose of this test was to run r'..e 2D Residual Feat Removal pump at minimum flow to gather data for assessment of minimum flow line sizing in accordance

.ith NRC Bulletin 88-04.

1.

The probability of en occurrence or the consequence of an accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not increased because the system was operated in the normal operating configuration. Monitoring i

instruments are all external to the pump and do not affect the operation of the pump.

i c

j 2.

The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not created because no operations were performed outside that l

)

specified in the FSAR.

The pump was operated in a normal configuration.

~

3.

The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification is not reduced because no operations outside the Technical Specificatiuns were done.

l i

1

\\

l r

i I

?

i l

i l

4 i

i l

i l

E

[

SPECIAL TEST 1-118 Special test 1-118 was completed on September 16, 1988. The purpose of this tes* was to run the 1A Residual Heat Removal pump at minimum flow to gather data for assessment of minimum flow line sizing in accordance with NRC Bulletin 88-04.

l l

l 1.

The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident, l

or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated j

in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not increased because the i

2 system was in the normal operations configuration. Monitoring instruments are all external to the pump and do not affect the operation of the pump.

2.

The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report 1

is not created because no operations were performed outside that specified in the FSAR. The pump was operated in a normal configuration.

4 3.

The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification is not reduced because no operations outside the Technical Specifications were done.

1 I

i 1

i

)

f i

l l

l l

SPECIAL TEST 1-116 I

Special test 1-116 was completed on September 16, 1988. The purpose of this test was to run a core spray minimum flow test to verify proper operation in accordance with NRC Bulletin 88-04.

1.

The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis is not increased because the syscem was designed to operate under the conditions of this test.

The I

system was in the normal operations configuration.

j 2.

The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously avaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not created because the pump was operated under the conditions it was designed for.

No operation was performed outside that specified l

in the FSAR.

j

?

i 3.

The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical t

]

Specification is not reduced because the test conditions do not j

differ from the conditions the system was designed and intended to operate under. No operations outside the Technical Specification i

were done.

7 i

i t

1 r

I t

i l

i i

-l I

j i

4 i

l 1

l 4

1 3

SPECIAL TEST 1-117 Special test 1-117 was completed on September 15, 1988.

The purpose of this test was to measure float and equalize currents of the 24/48, 125, and 250 VDC Station Batteries. This test gives quantitative data on the applicability of using a current probe to measure battery curreats in the rsnge of 50 to 2000 milliamps and to detect stabilized float and equalize currents.

1.

The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not increased because the probe being tested clamps around a cable and creates no disturbance on the DC system.

i 2.

The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis l

Report is not created because the probe has no electrical connection with the system.

It is only a sencAng device that detects fields around the battery cable.

Placing the battery in equalize mode only increases the r(serve capacity available, j

3.

The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification is not reduced because the test has less interactions on the DC system than standard station surveillances (i.g. Station Battery Weekly Survei lance QOS 6900-1).

t I

l

i t

1 Modification M-4-1-82-017 Description The modification is to replace the drywell H m nit r system. The existing 2

system does not fully satisfy NRC requirements as listed NUREG 0737. The existing in-containment system will be replaced with an out-of-containment system.

Evaluation

+

The basic function and operation of the system is not being changod, so the modification doesn't create a new accident situation.

I 4

f I

i i

1 l

i e

I 1

b i

l l

l

'i j

l l

l l

]

4 L

.I

1 Modification M-4-1-83-45 Description

[

i t

I This modification was initiated to replace the old Unit One 125 volt i

battery which was nearing the end of its service life. A new 125 volt battery.

I a GNB type NCT 1344, was installed along with a new seismically qualified battery rack. Also included in this modification was the installation of f

a seismically qualified overhead x-y crane to facilitate battery installation and c.aintenance.

l Evaluation The new 125 volt battery has a greater ampere-hour capacity which enhances

(

plant safety. The battery rack and overhead crane are deuigned to be seismically r

I qualified and therefore do not change the margin of plant safety.

1 f

I

?

1 l

1 1

i I

(

i 4

t a

t 1

I 2

a 1

1 l

1 l

i

]

j l

i i

1 i

Modification M-4-1/2-85-6 Description Failures of General Electric type HFA relays have been reported industry-I wide since 1973. The principle cause of the failures has been cracking of I

the nylon or lexan bobbins of the magnetic coil assemblies (detailed in NRC IE Bulletin 84-02).

The station committed to the NRC to replace the coil assemblies on all safety related HFA relays with a Tefzel bobbin (G.E. Cen.ury series coils). After the coils were replaced, relays were bench tested for contact wipe and gap, proper mating of contacts, pick-up voltages, and smoothness of motion.

Once the rclays were returned to their locations, de-energized and

)

energized tests were done to ensure correct contact configuration. No logic circuitry was altered by the coil rcplacement.

]

Evaluation 4

l The new coils with a Tefzel bobbin are more resistant to cracking and l

have made the relays more reliable. The margin of safety, therefore, has increased due to the replacement.

I i

'l l

i

)

i 1

1 i

l I

1 1

?

I" a

i f

1 i

4 I

l 1

i l

l i

l 1

4 1

I

l j

j Modification M-4-1(2)-85-12 l

Description Failures of General Electric type HFA relays have been reported industry-I wide since 1973. The principle cause of the failures has been cracking of i

the nylon or lexan bobbins of the magnetic coil assemblies (detailed in NRC lE Bulletin 84-02). The station committed to the NRC to replace the coil l

l assemblies on all safety related HFA relays with a Tefzel bobbin (d.E. Century i

series coils). Af ter the coils were replaced, relays were bench tested for l

I contact wipe and gap, proper mating of contacts, pick-up voltages, and smoothness i

of motion.

Once the relays were returned to their locations, de-energized and i

energized tests were done to ensure correct contact configuration. No logic

)

j circuitry was altered by the coil replacement.

l l

Evaluation i

The new coils with a Tefzel bobbin are more resistant to cracking and j

have made the relays more reliable. The margin of safety, therefore, has increased due to the replacement.

4 l

t

)

t l

l l

i i

]

1 i

1 I

i I

i t

[

l I

_--,,....-.ms

---r-w

--n-

-,,nnvr--m,~~~--<-,-,,,-'

^

Modification M-4-2-85-38 Description A decon flange was installed on line 2-1913F-6"RWC where it bends to a 10" x 6" reducer attached to line 2 1913-10"RWC.

This decon flange consists of a two inch tap with a gate valve and a capped end.

This decon flange enables a hydrolazer to be used on the ten inch line. This will remove the crud and eliminate the hot spots from this line.

This is the Bellows Seal Drain Line.

Evaluation This decon flange will not in any way obstruct the flowpath or affect the operation of the system. The decon flange is equipped with a capped end which is in series with a manual valve.

This combination provides redundancy in isolating the line from the environs.

i i

i I

4 Q

J