ML20210U793

Rev 0 to Remove Wall Separating Beaver Valley Power Station 1/2 Control Rooms

ML20210U793
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	10/31/1986
From:	Etzel F, Mcghee T, Nass S DUQUESNE LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20210U721	List: ML20210U716 ML20210U738 ML20210U758 ML20210U793
References
DCP-766, DCP-766-R, DCP-766-R00, NUDOCS 8702180591
Download: ML20210U793 (19)

Text

-s DCP 766

. Rsvicion 0 ATTACHMENT 3 Page i EENOTE VALL SEFARATING BVPS 1/2 Colmt0L ROONS TABLE OF ColffENTS Section Description P_ age 1.0 IlffR000CTIOI8 ........................................... 1 2.0 DESIGN OBJECTIVE ....................................... 1 3.0 B0tBEMRIES OF TEI DESIGN CHABIGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4.0 SAFETY RELATED EQUIPMElff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5.0 DESIGIt INFtFFS .......................................... 2 -

6.0 DESIGN AFFROACE ........................................ 2 7.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN OtFfFIFfS ............................. 4 8.0 HUMAN FACTOR ENGINEERING STUDIES ....................... 4 9.0 FIRE PR0fECfI001 CONSIDERATI0IIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 10.0 ENVIR0lWEEIrfAL CollSIDERATIO10S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 11.0 INSERVICE INSPECTION ................................... 4 12.0 AIARA CollSIDERATI0llS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 13.0 _ SCHEDULE AND PRELIMINARY COST ESTINATE ................. 5 14.0 SAFETY EVALUATI001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 0702100391 87020?

PDR ADOCK 05000334 P PDH

- - _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ __ _.. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _

DCP 766

. Revision 0

, Page 1 of 6 l

1.0 IlmococTION The Beaver Valley Power Station, a two-reactor unit plant, was designed to have a common control room floor at EL.735'6" with dedicated areas for each unit's control panels. In order to operate Unit 1 prior to'

Unit

2 s ' completion, a temporary wall was installed between the two 3

! dedicated control room areas as shown in Figure 1. The temporary wall served as an interim pressure boundary as well as a security barrier.

The wall was not designed to meet seismic requirements since it was planned to be removed prior to the completion of Unit 2. Prior to the

removal of the wall three DCPs should be completed, several BVPS #2-l systems should be installed and tested, and several procedures and programs specific to the control room should be written and approved.

j As a result of the TMI 2 accident, the NRC required that the operating

?

licensees perform a detailed control room design review (DCRDR) according to guidelines specified in NUREG 0700. As part of the DCRDR -

for BVPS-1, a questionnaire was provided to BVPS-1 operating personnel I i to identify human factors concerns. The human factors study indicated that noise distraction and activity level should be reduced in the

control room. The new partition between BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 control room

? will be designed to minimize noise distractions and activity levels.

! As part of the Unit #2 Licensing Commitments, the partition should have

! large glass areas in order to provide visual contact between the two control rooms and it should provide ready access of personnel and equipment from one unit's control room to the other. The new partition should not interfere with the current design of the BVPS control room  !

which includes certain common components and systems which serve one '

combined control room area, such as the Control Room Emergency Bottled

, Air System, Chlorine Detection and Isolation System, Fire Protection I

, System, Communication System, and the Control Room Radiation Monitors.

j Other common facilities include a kitchenette, medical and sanitary j facilities, and security access.

i 2.0 DESIGN OBJECTIVE i

j It is the objective of this design change to remove the temporary wall i that is presently dividing Unit 1 and Unit 2's control room areas and install a new partition. The new partition will be installed between j the floor and egg crate ceiling and will be largely transparent. -One i goal of the design of the new partition will be to address human factors

concerns such as minimize noise distractions and activity levels.

j Another goal is to maintain the current design of the BVPS Control Room "kich includes certain common components and systems which serve one

combined control room area.

i i

4 i

i

DCP 766

. Ravisien 0 Page 2 of 6 3.0 B0tEEMAIES OF THE DESIGN CHANGE The temporary control room vall is located in the main control room' area for BV-1 and BV-2, next to the Unit #1 Service Building, at EL.735'6".

A new partition shall be installed in the main control room area.

Therefore, the design change boundary is limited to the main control area.

4.0 SAFETY RELATED EQUIPNElff The function of the new partition falls within the definition of QA Category III and vill be installed accordingly. Since the new partition vill be installed next to one of the control panels which is designated as OA Category I, seismic, the new partition vill be designed or restrained in a manner capable of preventing damages in a seismic event.

5.0 DESIGN INPtFfS See Attachment 1.

6.0 DESIGN APPROACH 6.1 Vall Removal Removal of the vall presents no difficult or complex construction problems. However, due to the Startup and Operation of Unit #2, the activities associated with the vall removal must be closely coordinated with the testing of the Unit #2 systems. Startup and testing of the Unit #2 Pressurization System is one of the most critical activities to be coordinated. Operability of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 systems must be maintained so as not to impact the specific operating mode of either unit. Also, because of the sensitive controls and computer hardware located in the control rooms, great care must be exercised to eliminate or minimize the dust, funes, and fire hazards resniting from the removal of the vall.

Portions of this vall have been removed several times in the past  !

to provide access to Unit l's control room. In discussions with j the crafts and members of Unit l's operating staff, it was found 1 that no problems vere encountered in removing or reassembling the  !

vall.

The vall is composed of 3/8" steel plate and several layers of gypsum board as shown in Figure 2. The largest steel plate is 4' x 10' and weighs approximately 612 pounds. There are ten pieces of this size and sixteen smaller pieces. The gypsum board ranges in thickness from 5/8 inch to 2 inches.

, . , , - , .,n- .- --

. _ _ .-- .__._m __ _ . _ __ _ ____ _ __ _ _ - -

-DCP /66 I . R:: vision 0 i , Page 3 of 6 Although installation drawing -were not available, the. field review indicated the steel plate is bolted to angles which are fastened to the concrete floor, vall, and ceiling beam with

! embedded concrete anchors. Several plates have been joined together with 2-inch tack welds in several' places. Removal of

~~the steel plate can be accomplished by burning through the tack' velds and unbolting the bolted connections. Prior to removal of

, the steel plate vall, the control room security requirements must i be met. There is sufficient space between the vall and Unit 2's main control board to lower the steel plates to the floor. The

, 4' x 10' plates can be removed from the control room through the Unit 2 fire door; however, to make the pieces more manageable, they can be cut in half prior to removal with a burning torch.

Screens and ventilation hoods should be used to prevent sparks

and fumes from spreading about Unit 2's control room if such-

cutting is performed. The angles can be unbolted from the j concrete embeds very simply. .

{ Removal of the gypsum wall vould not present any problem, if it j vere not for the dust which will be created while knocking the vall down. Plastic sheets with taped seams should be hung in Unit 1 and Unit 2 control rooms to prevent dust from settling on

, and in the equipment in the control rooms. Special care also should be taken when removing the gypsum vall around the panel i nearest the main entrance (identified as PNL-FALT-RgC on Figure 1 on the Unit 1 side of the room. Removal of the gypsum wall can be accomplished with hand tools and power cutters.

j All the vall material can be removed through the fire doors and can be placed in containers for disposal. Any concrete which may j be damaged during the vall removal should be patched. However,

no structural damage should occur since the vall is attached-only i

with embedded anchors.

1

6.2 New Partition Vall Installation 4 After the existing barriers (gypsum board vall and steel plate) are removed, a new permanent partition vall vill be built to separate the two control room units as shown in Figure 3. The partition vill have the same location as the gypsum board vall (Unit 1 side of the shake space) and vill extend from-the floor

at EL.735'-6" up to the level of the suspended ceiling. It will

be made of the partial height of solid metal (such as, steel, anodized aluminum, or similar) and the rest of shatterproof i laminated sound-absorbing glass, detailed with a view to an ,

aesthetically pleasing appearance, as shown in Figure 4. Instead 4

i of including a small height of solid knee-vall, a total height of glass is also feasible. Three doorways (one double-leaf and two single-leaf) with free-swinging leafs including large glass areas '

t will be included in the partition. The frame assembly i incorporating the doors and glass panels will be made of steel or aluminum designed or restrained in a manner capable of preventing damages in a seismic event.

_ - _ _ _ ~ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ , _ .

DCP 766 R:visicn 0 Page 4 of 6 7.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN OUTPtFrS 7.1 Design Drawings l

7.2 ,

Removal / Installation Specifications 7.3 Bill of Material 7.4 Checklist which indicates installation and operational acceptance of BVPS-2 systems that are required to support this DCP.

8.0 HUNAN FACTOR ENGINEERING STUDIES This design change improves the human factor engineering studies for the control room. The new partition vill minimize noise distraction and activity level in the control room.

9.0 FIRE PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS There are fire protection considerations in this design change. The boundaries of the fire area of the control room (CR-1) vill change.

Prior to this design change, the temporary vall separating BV-1 and BV-2 control rooms formed one of the boundaries of the fire area CR-1. This design change vill remove that vall and install a partition vall that vill not be considered a fire barrier. The new fire area vill comprise the entire BV-1 and BV-2 control rooms. Since the fire area CR-1 vill be enlarged, combustible materials in the BV-2 control room vill have to be added to the combustible materials list. Also the fire detection panel is located on the BV-1 side of the control room. The information contained on the fire protection panel vill have to be added to the BV-2 side of the control room.

10.0 ENVIRONNENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Environmental qualification programs are not affected by this design change.

11.0 INSERVICE INSPECTION Inservice inspection requirements of the ASME Code do not apply to this change.

12.0 ALARA CONSIDERATIONS The design change boundaries do not include radiation / contamination zones. The design change does not have ALARA considerations.

i DCP 766 i

, R2visicn 0  !

Page 5 of 6 13.0 SCBDULE AIS FRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE 13.1 Schedule The removal / installation of the vall shall occur during the BVPS

' '#1 outage scheduled to start on March 10, 1987.- To meet this date the following milestones have been established:

Issue Design Concept for management reviev 09/30/86 i Review Design Concept with manactment 10/03/86 Review by OSC 10/17/86 Issue design outputs 12/10/86 Construction material on site 01/09/87 Start work 03/10/87 Removal of the temporary wall could be accomplished in four (4) days, working three (3) shifts. Installation of the nov partition vall could be accomplished in five (5) days, working three (3) shifts. These estimates are subject to change due to limited access and interference with other work going on in the control room during this outage.

Other Design Change Packages which shall be completed before or during the outage are i

DCP 611 - Emergency Pressurization (or else a Technical

] Specification change vill occur)

, DCP 648 - Mux Upgrade 1

DCP 711 - Radiation Monitoring (or else a Technical i

Specification change vill occur) 13.2 Cost Estimate l

For the temporary vall removal:

1 Engineering $30,000 Construction $37,000

. Total $67,000 For installation of the new partition:

, Engineering $33,500

Naterial $25,000 Construction $30,500 Total $89,000 Grand total for removal and installation $156,000 j contingency 25% $ 39,000 1

l Final Grand Total $195,000 i

j

DCP 766 R;visien 0

- Page 6 of 6 14.0 SAFETY EVALUATION The design safety evaluation is an attachment to this design concept.

e l

l l

e D

\

1 nii i ayi -

c ii-- -. a/ . . . .. . :i r ennnn 0 } -~~f .

W ^$

-w

" ~

. . I ;y e T g ,;

a i

=

• i Dy g

?- leio t ritillII: Icitt:1

'_ g aoo via=> ..- '

32 C "

..__j E

- -f,$.  ?

a-

• m N' ovvoo wesmos ==

g* [

N e,

- =I***"

\ s I

=3m2 Se W6ss03 _

ga g L.

} /v.

7 v .

V

]  !

l I! h!

- f E

, .t be 5

] i w

C

]!

8 e

3 g - .

! I ) s ..  !  ! 1).

m 3

. /

8 3 i li OO E- .. . . . . .~ a 2........................~..L......p c4 ,-un, bi d

-es

! (, h _i [ h h h m'

g

.{

v. !

a -.

s .

g ,

. 11 _

i;

[Z n N' i .e 't '

di r,o ! $_

I 8

. - ;5

.. l g

.l i i

• Ti

! li 3l  : .  ! 4..

I E y e. 8,

.y, . , , . . . . .

p 93 h j j' . . . - . lY .E ?, mm Rmm a I l l

-- p. - - , . - . , - , ~ , , , , - - - - .

~

\

lI di

.. .s e.r ,

y ., ==I g ,.

3.; was II! .I r. '

53 Ig I k N .u.g.'.s.t.]:l r

a- . ,

II If

.{

!a s: g:t .

h . .? , I ij .; i

/ 1 . !t s 4 .h i 1: g ua

/ ,

If a  :

13 i*

21 si

~

h.e 3

- =. .

~ .. <

1.. .

i

. s  ;

. t 3 ,

, 1 1

14.

ll,-

/ 11 ~

~

. i

l. I ni y . .

- se.

i

1.1 in- , . . ._.

5 l g gi'g  :  ::

1: . --

. 4.t;lI

..4==

a ..,.

g;

'4

. 31 4 e

M g ,

_ .., /

/

/ ...e.

w t

.. / . i ' ..

x .

W

. =. . .

, 4 ..,' i

! s

'.  ! 1-

. . I 11 16 ... l

.s s  :; .-

i; s;s n .

t/  ?

s,r . . 2

. 8 u e 90

• ag .

_ - - - . _. - ~ - , - .

a e

I!

t! s

\ >

f -- I )

C$5_L.fl_

w

) -) .

i

] d- I l

_i= -

it:-, m 2,- . m n

-oe. . w ->

,-m -

,1 _ g c  ; l c

f l .

~y g ~,,,A !f, -

i- ..- 1 \

sa n -

~b '

oves mami =va 2

6 m i _

=> m on w aaos qlL- '

3 ,(//--

e!

.. 3 J I

I 3 1

i

. !I Ci l 1 "

e ! 1  ! .. I , lj5-i

.6 1

) I ..  !  ! - /

j ) h

'* r a l

J OO

1. (. "

F_i Y Wi, a ..)

"' ~

li

~

bl

- . . P '-i -! lj (!)illl I hll '

I

!! D,t"!! P i n '

[

si l 8 l [a

! ,; i -

3 1 0.1 1' c. !! i ri

I .

.J .... ....

g

\N .mn= =.=

})

hJ W esses m ies =va a 3 a * ""'"0""

I e

l' e

L

Figure 4 SU5ffNDEO CEILING 1 ?O*HIGN -

': Asevt EI.13s'.G' ,

e a El. 152 - to -

-^

V frL O" BEEP 61ISTING CONCAETE BIAM d s.t. OFFICES Bff0ND t

- EXISTING concKETE COLUMM EssSTING COLUMN GLASS FRAMING

!(Rutfv5AL FNAMING FfEMdlRS(TY ) Akbb'ZEb ""M'AlvM (rfr.) EFISTIN & CoHcRETE 84 AIL t 'j. :-.z ; / >

l

[.'.,

g

. o. . .

- . - . - .- - - x- --- . .--- -. - - -

~; ;a'

.n c f

• g* /-

,/*

F

/ ~t .p a ' / ./

b

-.+ m, , -

.4 MNN m o:

~ -

W. , . . -

?: , ,N' / y / , .4 ,; /

' .a

.. ENMY

• ~.'

y

,s :. . "

QPEN M w" sui"

.[

f h \ .s '

' ? .-

~ '

/

_ / {  % ' ,,  % . :-

( .' -

/ - et.735.s' e _

~

et2" t 7'g ~ g '. o ' s 'q" s'.o z z

_ _ ,L_ ,m l 3'-3"- : 3 <- o~,-l

_ =),ato~ = = - _-- --

g '.i 1'.it " gto' ,

34 '. 6" II '- 0"

=

l s -

El E\/A TION PARTITION WALL LOOKING WEST FROM ^UNITt TOWAKb UNIT 1

, Attachment 1 ~

DESIGh .NPUT LIST

• DCP No. 766 Revision O Datf) 09-30-86 Sheet 1 of 4 Desip Input Design Input Source Design Input Requirement (Design Parameters, Limitations, Conditions) (Title, No. , Section, Page, Rev.) (Figure 2.8-6 or other)

DVPS-1 Updated FSAR, Rev. O Fai.lpre Effects Basic Safety Functions Loads Environmental Conditions BVPS-1 Appendix R Review", Rev. O Fire Protection or Resistance BVPS-1 Operations OA Program, Appendix A, Category II Require-Rev. O ments

• BVPS-1 Technical Specifications, Section Safety Functions, Opera-3/4.7.7, Rev. O tional Requirements Performance Require-ments Administrative Control NUREG 0700, Section 6.1, Rev. O Human Factors Require-ments Justification of Design Input List ReviElons Does this revision affect the desip ob-jectives, boundaries of change or safety evalu-ation as contained in the Design Concept?

YES NO Prepared by: [ [ w Date: Jo/fg Reviewed by Date: /kg

/

, Attachment 1 DESIGh .NPUT LIST

• DCP No. 766 Date Revision 0 09-30-86 k Sheet of 4 2

Design Input Desip Input Source Desip Input Requirement (Design Parameters, Limitations, Conditions) (Title, No. , Section, Page, Rev. ) (Figure 2.8-6 or other)

BVPS-1 Human Factors Engineering Study, finnian Factors Require-Rev. O ments Plant Modification Manual - Section S-4,Rev.2 Drilled-In Expansion Section S-8,Rev.1 Type Concrete Anchor Section G-1,Rev.0 Requirements, Fabricatio )

Section W-5,Rev.0 and Erection of Structur il Steel Requirements, Regulatory Requirements, .

Packaging, Shipping, Receiving, Storage and llandling of Materfals,-

Requirements for Control of Welding Electrodes and Filler Material BVPS-1 Stone and Webster Drawing 88700-RA-20A Physical Layout and Rev. 6 Arrangement, Design Conditions Justification of Design Input List Revisions Does this revision affect the desip ob-jectives, boundaries of change or safety evalu-ation as contained in the Desip Concept?

YES NO Prepared by: # /J.m m A_ Date: f/_$0[#g i

Reviewed by:

/

[r Date: /o[d

.- Attachment 1 -

DESICh .NPLff LIST -

DCP No. 766 Revision o

• Dato 09-30-86 Sheet of 3 4 Desip Input Design Input Source Design Input Requirement (Design Parameters, Limitations, Conditions) (Title, No., Section, Page, Rev. ) (Figure 2.8-6 or other)

BVPS-2 Stone and Webster Drawingi8700-RE- , Physical Layout and 27A-llD, Rev. IlD Arrangement, Interface Requirements <

BVPS-2 Walkdown of Control Room, September Accessibility, Maint-1986 enance, Constructability 4

Letter NDISLC:0929 from K. D. Grada to Interface Requirements J. F. Zagorski dated February 22, 1984

" Assessment of Alternatives for the Removal Redundancy Require-of the Temporary Wall Separating the Unit 1 ments, Interface and Unit 2 Areas of the Common Control Room Requirements, operation il at the Beaver Valley Power Station", Report Requirements written Quadrex Corporation, dated November, 1983.

Letter NDINEM:0714 titled " Control Room Wall Physical Layout and Between BV-1 and RV-2 Areas," from H. M. Arrangement Siegel to W. S. Lacey, dated April 23, 1986 Justification of Design Input List Revisions Does this revision affect the design ot>-

jectives, boundaries of

. change or safety evalu-ation as contained in the Design Concept?

YES NO Prepared by: [ d m u , Date:

[M h Revi g M e: Wh

/ .

DESIG4 INPUF LIST .

1 DCP No. 766 Date 09-30-86 Revision 0 '.

Sheet a of 4 Desicp Input '

Design Input Source Design Input Requirement (Design Parameters, Limitations, Conditions) (Title, No., Section, Page, Rev.) (Figure 2.8-6 or other)

Memo from W. S. Lacey to II. M. Siegel, Physical Layout and titled "C. R. Wall, " dated May 16, 1986. A rangement i Letter ND2SS2:1215, titled " Control Room Physical Layout and Wall", from T. P. Noonan to J. P. Thomas, Arrangement dated May 1, 1986.

BVPS-2 Fire Protection Evaluation Report, Fire Protection or Rev. O or Rsistance Technical Specification Amendment No. 32 Safety Punctions, Operational Requirementti ,

Performance Requirementt ,

Administrative Control Justification of Design Input List Revisions Does this revision affect the design ob-jectives, boundaries of change or safety evalu-ation as contained in the Design Concept?

YES NO Prepared by: [ d M S-&, Date: /d /ey/A Reviewed by: [. w Date: /d M3/$4

,r / /

DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY H Nuclear Engineering Department l Engineering 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluation STATION: Beaver Valley Unit No. 1/2 EQUIPMENT: Unit 1/ Unit 2 Common Cost /ai Bo sal..

DESIGN CONCEPT NO. 766, Dated 10/23/86, Rec -

Description & Purpose 6F " ,, ,

The purpose of this modification is L -

As o n..>ry 4:11 that is presently separating the Unit 1 and Unit 2 - 4 rcota, 0.n4 in its place, install a new partition. The new partition .Ai le rettre iron the floor to the suspended egg crate ceiling, with a  %. f4 35Ptson being shatterproof, laminated, sound-absorbing glass. The new part;

• uill be designed so that its framework vill be restrained during a seisLh #9ent. Additionally, the design vill address human factor engineering ecastens, such as minimizing noise distractions and activity levels, and vill maintain the current design

, of the common components and systems which serve boin the Unit 1 and Unit 2 control room areas.

Safety Evaluation This modification is required so that the common systeas between the 1

control rooms vill function properly. Its design vill feature a seismic frame assembly and shatterproof, sound-absorbing glass. The installation of the nev

partition is considered to be safe and does not present an unreviewed safety question; however, the Unit 1 design changes listed in Section 13.1 and the Unit 2 systems listed in the Design Output 7.4 checklist of the Design Concept must be operational prior to entering Mode 4 of startup following the outage.

A change to UFSAR Figure 7.8-1 is involved, and therefore shall be revised.

J J

. -. . - . - - .-_ _ = - - - -

• l Unrevieved Safety Question Determination

. 1. Is the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) increased? No.

Reason 1 The frame assembly of the new partition vill be seismically designed and restrained in a manner capable of preventing damages to control room equipment important to safety during and after a seismic event. Additionally, the partition will be designed so that it vill not interfere with the function of any common safety related equipment required to operate during an accident, such as the Control Room Emergency Bottled Air Pressurization System. Therefore, the probability of an i occurrence or the consequence of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in UFSAR Section 7.8.1 vill not be increased.

2. Is the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than previously evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report created? No.

Reason: Since the new partition vill be constructed out of non-combustible material, and has a seismically restrained frame assembly and shatterproof glass, the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the UFSAR will not be increased.

3. Is the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification reduced? No.

Reason: As long as the Emergency Pressurization System, Control Roon Radiation Monitoring System, Multiplexer Upgrade and Unit 2 i systems listed in the checklist of Design Output 7.4 of the Design Concept are installed and~ operational, either prior to or during the outage, the margin of safety as defined in the basis of any technical specification vill not be reduced.

4. Based on the above, is an unreviewed safety question involved? No.

5. Is a change to the Updated FSAR required? Yes Reason: UFSAR Figure 7.8-1 vill have to be revised to show the new partition.

6. Is a change to the Technical Specifications required? No.

. . . , _ . . , . . ~ _ _ _ . . . _ . . . , .. . _ . _ , , , , , - - - , , -e_, -

• .l 0.A. CATEGORY REVIEW

1. Q. A. Program' Appendices A, B & C Appendix A The function of the new partition is to minimize noise distractions and activity levels while providing a large visual area and ready personnel access between control rooms, and therefore falls under the definition of 0.A.

Category 3.

Appendix B: The control room is listed as a Category I structure.

Appendix C: N/A

2. Updated FSAR, Appendix B -

The control room is listed as a structure-requiring design for seismic loading.

3. Master Equipment List (M.E.L.) - N/A 0.A. CATEGORY CONCLUSION Since the new partition is neither a pressure retaining vall nor a fire barrier, it is considered a 0.A. Category 3 structure requiring seismic design.

i

. . /*

REFERENCES

1. 10CFR50; Appendix A, Criterion 2, 3, 5 and 19

2. Updated FSARI Sections 7.8.1 and 9.13.4, Figure 7.8-1

~

3. Techni? cal Specifications; Sections 3/4.3.3 and 3/4.7.7

4. Source Document; Design Concept, DCP 766, Rev. O, dated 9/30/86

5. Standard Review Plan; Section 7.7, Rev. 2, July 1981

6. Drawing; 8700-RE-27A-14

7. NRC Regulatory Guides; 1.78, June 1974 and 1.95, Jan. 1977

> 8. BVPS Unit 2 FSAR; Section 6.4 Prepared'by . h. /0 !73 lW',

F. W. EtzTel Date Checked by , hht h' l0 %

Date Approved by S. A. Nass

/8 [96

/ Date -)

l Review by OSC at Meeting No. 'b[**. e D T 'f/ /k M OSC Action: Accept Reject Returned with comments OSC Chairman hj i Date /O*N-b[

l l

l