ML20214W229

Annual Plant Mod Rept,Jul 1985 - June 1986

ML20214W229
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	06/30/1986
From:	PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:
References
NUDOCS 8612100134
Download: ML20214W229 (39)

Text

__-__ _ _ _ - - - _ - - - - - - - _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ .

f

3. II I

9$ /g 1 g SERVICE 4-

• p *O e I

o r.

t.1 Ie

'I a

<J l # p ,

". ' of 6I

'M i ll llllll , p ...,,, ,, ,,

- c \

,,h li6 r,

"- "'I'L ..

ik 6

- = _ _ _ _ _ _

y. a

. , ,i,p - i

= _ . . = - m.m s r s = -

- -=

)

$ 5

] LIMERICK .

t' GENERATING STATION I i' g 4 860630 i(.. R [K05000352 PDR A \

.t

'il

I 1 l '

E l l

- LIMERICK GENERATINC. STATION UNIT NO. 1 ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT JULY 1, 1985 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1986 13 1

lm SUBMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PURSUANT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES NPF-39 (AND NPF-27)

DOCKET NO. 50-352 l

I I

I I

I t

r. <

k LIMERICK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL PLANT MODIFICATION REPORT

. JUNE 30, 1986 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 one year period ending June 30, 1986 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 of 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 different 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. In addition, no changes have been made to the approved fire protection program which would decrease the level of fire protection as defined in Facility Operating License NPF-39

! 2.C.(3).c.

Note The acr.ua?. work involved in some of these modifications was i started pCior to July 1, 1985 but nok completed until after July 1, 1985,and before June 30, 1986.

i l

t

(

9 l

b F Dockot No. 50-352 4 LIMERICK GENERATING STATION l

UNIT NO. 1 ANNUAL MODIFICATION REPORT

( TABLE OF CONTENTS Item Mod. No. System Page 84-0069 Residual Heat Removal 1

)

84-0131 Containment Atmospheric Control 3 L System 84-0152 Redundant Reactivity Control System 5 85-0372 Neutron Monitoring System 7 85-0360 Control Room Emergency 9 Fresh Air Supply System 85-0379 Main Steam Isolation Valve-Leakage 11 control System 85-0416 Electrical Power System 14 85-0434 Standby Liquid Control System 16 85-0550 Fire Protection System 18 85-0578 DC Power System 20 85-0579 Reactor Core Isolation Cooling 22 85-0617 Emergency Service Water 24 85-0806 Standby Liquid Control 26 85-0826 Reactor Core Isolation Cooling 28 Residual Heat Removal 85-0830 Reactor Core Isolation Cooling 30 85-0831 Residual Heat Removal 32 Special Test Feedwater 34 (1) l Y

m-m.-i-,i

I LimOrick Generating Station Unit 1 Annual Plant Modification Report July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 1 I

I Modification No.: 84-0069 A. System: Residual Heat Removal (RHR)

B.

Description:

Addition of the 3/4" vents and drains to Emergency Service Water (ESW) system piping to/from the RHR pump motor oil and 1 seal cooler to provide the capability to measure pressure drop across the heat exchangers.

C. Reason for Change:

I This modification was made in order to complete the original design.

D. Safety Evaluation Summary:

W i) Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or i -

malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

h) Answer: No, because the proposed pressure taps, P are identical in design and operation to pressure taps currently installed on all i heat exchangers (except the RHR pump motor oil and seal coolers) in the ESW systeni. The piping involved is S-1 class and requires stress and seismic analysis I which assures the system integrity.

I li) Does this modification create the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a different type than any 8

l 1

I Limsrick Generating Station Unit 1 Annual Plant Modification Report July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 2 evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

Answer: No, because the addition of the pressure I

taps to the RHR pump motor oil and seal coolers now allow these heat exchangers {

to have a similar design as the other heat exchangers in the ESW system.

iii) Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specifications?

Answer: No, the modification does not affect the basis for the Technical Specifications.

I The addition of the pressure taps will provide the ability to measure the pressure drop across these heat i exchangers. The availability of this information to operators will increase the margin of safety.

i I

I I

I l

i B

I

Limerick Genorcting Station Unit 1

}

Annual Plant Modification Report July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 3 l

Modification No.: 84-0131 A. System: Containment Atmospheric Control System B.

Description:

/

I^

Provide the motor operated valves associated with the primary hydrogen recombiners with alarms which will indicate motor overload conditions. The modification also includes the replacement of existing motor starters and the addition of L overload relays.

I C. Reason for Change:

I l

Provide annunciation of motor overload conditions for the operators.

I D. Safety Evaluation Summary:

i) Does this modification increase the probability of I occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as I

l previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

Answer: No, because the replacement of the N starters and the installation of the l overload heater assemblies is in I

l compliance with the MOV overload bypass.

This design was found acceptable in the Safety Evaluation Report (SER).

11) Does this modification create the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

I Limerick Generating Station Unit 1 a

Annual Plant Modification Report 1, July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 4 Answer: No, because the design and operation of h

y the valves and their motor starters is the same as previously described in the FSAR. The added circuitry does not I

affect the safety function of the motor operated valves on the primary containment atmospheric control system.

I lii) Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specifications?

Answer: No, because the addition of an annunciator will not affect the operation of the valves. Valve operation will I continue to be verified every six months in accordance with Technical Specification 3/4.6.6.1.

I i

i i

8 I

i i

I I

L Limarick G:norating Station .

Unit 1 i Annual Plant Modification Report 'I July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 l

Page 5 h

?

Modification No.: 84-0152 A. System: Redundant Reactivity Control System (RRCS)

K B.

Description:

k E' Relocate reaJtor dome pressure and low water level-2 trip transmitters Division I Channel B and Division II Channel B to rack 10C005 and 10C026 respectively.

C. Reason for Change: -

I To correct the present design. To prevent a full divisional RRCS initiation in case of a transient to a vessel pipe commonly shared by the transmitters located on a common

1. instrument panel.

I l

D. Safety Evaluation Summary:

1) Does this modification increase the probability of l occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as

)

previously evaluated in the safety analysis report?

Answer: No, because the modification will change the system design to a configuration which is of the type originally intended l by the original design,

11) Does this modification create the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis report?

Answer: No, because the relocation of the transmitters will reduce the possibility f of inadvertent initiation of RRCS systems.

lx Limerick Generating Station '

Unit 1 g Annual Plant Modification Report y July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986

! Page 6 9

lii) Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for the Technical Specifications?

Answer: No, because the reduced possibility of an inadvertent actuation of RRCS will not 4

reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification.

J l

t 1

1 I

l n

r I

L 1

i s

9 ,

s-

Limerick Generating Station

• Unit 1 Annual Plant Modification Report July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 7 I

Modification No.: 85-0372 g A. System: Neutron Monitoring System (NMS) b B.

Description:

l Replacement of 20 vdc power supplies (C51A-PSlA, B, C & D) in panels 10C606 and 10C633 with upgraded power supplies in order to prevent an input breaker trip upon restoration of ac

input power.

C. Reason for Change:

To provide upgraded operational capabilities not included in I the original NMS design to correct a problem with breaker tripping because of power surge.

I LS D. Safety Evaluation Summary:

1) Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as

[ previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

Answer: No, because the upgrade of tne 20 vdc power supplies will increase NMS availability. During restoration of ac input power the previous design allowed l

the breaker to trip.

ii) Does this modification create the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

E Lim 3 rick Generating Station .

Unit 1

, Annual Plant Modification Report July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 8 i

Answer: No. The increased availability of the i NMS will decrease the possibility of an accident or malfunction which might be caused by the loss of neutron monitoring.

iii) Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specifications?

Answer: No, because the increased availability of the Neutron Monitoring System will increase the margin of safety as l

e described in the bases for the Technical Specifications bases section 3/4.2 and 3/4.3.7.

I i

5 i

I I

5 I

l I

I

I m Lim 2 rick Generating Station Unit 1 g Annual Plant Modification Report y July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 9 I l Modification No.: 85-0360 A. System: Control Room Emergency Fresh Air Supply System B.

Description:

Provide an annunciator which will alarm when positive pressure in the Control Room is not being maintained.

1 C. Reason for Change:

Prior to the change, the only indication of Control Room pressure differential was an indicator located on a Control I Room panel. This modification provides a more positive means l_ of alerting the operators of an abnormal differential pressure condition.

I D. Safety Evaluation Summary:

f i) Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or 8 malfunction of equipment important to safety as

{ previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

Answer: No, because this annunciator will j increase operator awareness of abnormal conditions in the Control Room.

l l

11) Does this modification create the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

Answer: No, because the annunciator will only make operators aware of a possible L

I

1 y Lim 2 rick Generating Station .

l Unit 1 Annual Plant Modification Report July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 10 h

hazardous condition existing in the Control Room. Further, a false indication by the annunciator will cause a more conservative action by the 4 !

operator. Previous to this annunciator Control Room personnel had to periodically check the indicator on the

( Control Room Panel to determine if an abnormal condition existed.

iii) Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specifications?

l Answer: No, the low differential pressure alarm will provide more prompt awareness of a deteriorating condition and as such will increase affected margins of safety.

B I

1 l

\

B l

B l

t I

l

)

Limerick Generating Station .

Unit 1 Annual Plant Modification Report July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 i

Page 11 h

F l

Modification No.: 85-0379 L

g A. System: Main Steam Isolation Valve - Leakage Control System L

B.

Description:

This modification will reconnect power for Main Steam Isolation Valves - Leakage Control System (MSIV-LCS) valves during normal plant operation and remove existing locks on the Motor Control Center breakers.

C. Reason for Change:

To make the MSIV-LCS available for post-accident manual initiation from the control room.

D. Safety Evaluation Summary:

1) Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

Answer: No, because closing the valve circuit breakers will provide the capability of actuating the MSIV-LCS from the control room. The actions taken by PECo will prevent system valve actuation in the event of a fire.

e

11) Does this modification create the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis report?

Limerick Generating Station Unit 1

g Annual Plant Modification Report

!B' July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 12 lt Answer: No, although opening of the MSIV leakage h control system valves due to a fire may 5 de considered an accidenta of a different type than evaluated in the FSAR, such an accident is not considered credible since:

I For both valves of a series pair to l open simultanecusly, a sustained simultaneous hot short, without ground, would have to occur in each valve's control circuit where a specific conductor is involved. The i only event identified with potential for causing this is a fire. The initiation of a fire due to I electrical failure within the electrical raceways is not considered credible since during normal conditions, with the valves i closed, the power cables will be de-energized and the control cables I have insufficient energy to initiate a fire.

Specific instructions have been I

added to the Limerick Station 'F' procedures to prevent spurious actuation of the MSIV leakage I control system valves as a result of an exposure fire. In the event of an exposure fire in any fire area containing leakage control cables, I the operators are instructed to open the valve circuit breakers at the respective MCCs.

I lii) Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specifications?

Answer: No. Because, this modification reduces g' ' the time which is required to make the g MSIV leakage control system operable, it reduces the available time for post I

l I

Lim 2 rick G:narating Station .

I Unit 1 Annual Plant Modification Report July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 13 I accident leakage contamination to reach the turbine enclosure. Therefore, this modification increases the margin of

safety as defined in the bases for the L technical specifications.

l I

I

l Licarick Gsnercting Stction .

Unit 1 Annual Plant Modification Report 5 July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 14 l

Modification No.: 85-0416 ll A. System: Electrical Power Systems B.

Description:

Reconfiguration of the Diesel Generator exhaust stacks by removal of the 90 degree elbow.

5 C. Reason for Change:

To prevent excessive smoke and fumes from entering other I, plant structures.

D. Safety Evaluation Summary:

i) Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or I malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

Answer: No, because the new Diesel Generator exhaust stack configuration will minimize i exhaust fumes and smoke from entering plant structures.

11) Does this modification create the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

Answer: No, because exhausting of the diesel gases upward will not create any new or I different type of accident or malfunction.

I B

I

L Limarick Generating Station .

Unit 1

[ Annual Plant Modification Report y -

July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 l Page 15 iii) Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specifications?

l Answer: No, because the modification does not affect the ability of the diesel generators to perform their designed function of starting and supplying power I to the bus within the required time period as assured by the surveillance requirements of the Technical j Specification.

I t

I L

B 1

~

B t

l

\

1 l

l B

l

Limorick Generating Stetion .

l Unit 1 Annual Plant Modification Report l July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 16 I

Modification No.: 85-0434 A. System: Standby Liquid Control System (SLCS) 1 B.

Description:

l l Raises the level of the SLCS storage tank low level trip setpoint of the SLCS pumps.

C. Reason for Changer Environmental Qualification of the SLCS storage tank level

i I

instrumentation increased instrument loop inaccuracy and drift.

I D. Safety Evaluation Summary:

I i) Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as I previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

No, because the amount of sodium Answer:

I pentaborate available for injection into the reactor is still sufficient to shutdown the reactor and maintain the reactor in a shutdown condition for 24 I hours following an ATWS event. Only the overflow volume for which credit was not taken in the previous FSAR evaluations, I is reduced. The instrument loops LT IN010/LIS-48-lN610A,B,C,E,F, and G will continue to automatically initiate a trip of the SLCS pumps before the storage tank I level has decreased to a level where l

I

L Limerick Generating Station -

l Unit 1 l Annual Plant Modification Report y Jely 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 17

~

minimum pump suction head can no longer be maintained.

l 11) Does this modification create the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

Answer: No, because the amount of sodium j pentaborate available for injection into l the reactor is still sufficient to shutdown the reactor and maintain the reactor in a shutdown condition for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> following an ATWS event. Only the I overflow volume for which credit was not taken in the previous FSAR evaluations, I is reduced. The instrument loops LT l' 1N010/LIS-48-lN610A,B,C,E,F, and G will continue to automatically initiate a trip of the SLCS pumps before minimum pump suction head can no longer be maintained.

iii) Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as j defined in the basis for any Technical Specifications?

Answer: No, because the basis for Technical E Specification Section: 3/4.1.5 states l that a boron concentration of 660 ppm in the reactor core is required to bring the I reactor from full power .o a cold xenon-l free shutdown. A 25% overallowance of boron concentration is also provided.

This concentration is achieved by having available in the SLCS storage tank a I specified minimum quantity of sodium pentaborate. This setpoint change does I not affect these values and therefore the defined margin of safety is not affected.

1 I

I I

H g Limarick Ganarcting Station .

I Unit 1 g Annual Plant Modification Report g July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 18 L

F 1

, Modification No.: 85-0550 A. System: Fire Protection System l

B.

Description:

I Reclassification of pairs of doors (204 and 208) to single E doors (204N, 204S and 288N, 288S respectively). Addition of 5 electromagnetic closing devices to doors No. 204N and 288N.

l 5 C. Reason for Change:

E To improve the method for unlocking the doors and gaining 5 access to the switchgear room No. 336.

l t D. Safety Evaluation Summary:

I l

i) Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis I Report?

l Answer: No, because the electromagnetic door locks will improve plant security and I protect the electrical components in the j switchgear area in the event of a pipe break or fire in the Turbine Enclosure.

l 11) Does this modification create the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any I evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis l Report?

l Limsrick Ganorating Station .

Unit 1 I Annual Plant Modification Report July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 19 I Answer: No, because the increased ease of locking tg and unlocking these doors will only serve 5 to improve the existing design and purpose of the doors.

I lii) Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specifications?

Answer: No, because this modification has no affect on the margin of safety involved I with the function of these doors.

Technical Specification 3.7.7 was reviewed when making this determination.

5 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

l Limerick Generating Station .

Unit 1 I Annual Plant Modification Report July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 20 I

Modification No.: 85-0578 A. System: DC Power System l

B.

Description:

l Installation of voltage dividers and isolators between the i battery voltage sensing lines and their appropriate Emergency Response Facility Data System (ERFDS) inputs.

I C. Reason for Change:

To prevent damage to the ERFDS input module in the event the 5 difference between the input signal low and the module ground exceeds +50 vdc.

I D. Safety Evaluation Summary:

1) Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as I previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

Answer: No, because the ERFDS input module will I continue to perform its function as designed.

I 11) Does this modification create the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any I evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

Answer: No, because the addition of the voltage I dividers and isolators will only serve to improve the availability of the ERFDS I

I I

Limarick Ganarating Station .

Unit 1 Annual Plant Modification Report I July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 21 I

input module in the event of a difference in potential between the input signal low I and module ground.

iii) Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specifications?

Answer: No, because the detailed design 3 requirements of the Safeguard DC Power 5 System are not affected by the modification to the ERFDS.

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

Licorick G norating Station o Unit 1 Annual Plant Modification Report I July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 22 I

Modification No.: 85-0579 I A. System Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC)

B.

Description:

Cables Nos. lAI003D and 1AI003E are being rerouted in fire-protected raceways.

C. Reason for Change:

These cables are required for safe shutdown by providing proper operation of the RCIC turbine governor. The fire-5 protected raceways will provide protection of the cables in the event of a fire in the Auxiliary Equipment Room. -

I D. Safety Evaluation Summary:

1) Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as I previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

I Answer No, because this modification restores the fire protection for the affected cables as required in the FPER for safe shutdown. There is no change to this I circuit electrically which could affect operation of the RCIC system. This modification does not alter the I implementation of electrical separation criteria presented in FSAR 8.1.6.1.14.

11) Does this modification create the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any i

I I

I Lim 2 rick G2norating Station -

Unit 1 I

l Annual Plant Modification Report July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 23 l

l evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

l Answer: No, because the change does not affect i operation of the RCIC system; it only g reroutes the affected cables through encapsulated raceways.

1 111) Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specifications?

Answer's No, because the modification to the routing of the cables which connect the Remote Shutdown Panel and RCIC Turbine governor ramp signal generator does not I impact the design operation of this l equipment as discussed in the bases for the Technical Specification 3/4.3.5 and I 3/4.7.3.

l 1

I 1

1 1

1 1l 1l l

1 I

I

LimJrick G nsrcting Station ,

Unit 1 i Annual Plant Modification Report July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 24 I

I Modification No.: 85-0617 A. System: Emergency Service Water (ESW) System B.

Description:

Addition of flanges to valve PSV-ll-107A inlet and outlet -

ends.

C. Reason for Changre To facilitate the removal of the valve for periodic testing.

I D. Safety Evaluation Summary:

1) Does this modification increase the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as I previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

I Answer No, because the addition of the flanges to the PSV-11-107A inlet.and outlet ends will not alter the function of the valve.

ii) Does this modification create the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

I Answer: No, because the substitution of the I flanged connections for the welded connections has been evaluated and the impact on the piping' system design is negligible.

I I

I I

L

- Limerick Generating Station l

Unit 1 Annual Plant Modification Report July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 25

~

iii) Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as c defined in the basis for any Technical Specifications?

Answers No, because there are no Technical 1 L Specification requirements for flanging the PSV and therefore no change to the Tech Spec is required. TS 3/4.7.1.2 was

[ reviewed in making this determination.

c I

[

E c

[

C

[ .

[

E

[

Limarick G:ngrating St0 tion .

Unit 1 I Annual Plant Modification Report July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 26 I -

I Modification No.: 85-0806 1 A. System: Standby Liquid Control System (SLCS)

B.

Description:

Temporarily replace the existing SLCS actuation relays in the I SLCS pump motor control circuits with time delay pick-up relays. These relays will be removed when permanent logic card modification is made by Mod 85-0817.

I C. Reason for Change:

To prevent automatic initiation of SLCS by the Redundant Reactivity Control System (RRCS) resulting from transient initiation signals when power is restored to the SLCS pump I motor circuits.

I D. Safety Evaluation Summary:

i) Does this modification increase the probability of I occurrence or the ccnsequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

Answer No, because the original design of the function of the SLCS will not be I compromised by the addition of a one second time delay to the start of the system.

11) Does this modification create the possibility for an I accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis report?

I I

I

Limarick Ganorating Station Unit 1 Annual Plant Modification Report i July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 27 I Answer: No, because the function of the SLCS is maintained. The modification only delays i the start by one second.

iii) Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specifications?

Answer No. Technical Specification basis 3/4.1.5 was reviewed and the modification

. does not affect the ability of the SLCS to shut down the reactor as described in the basis.

I I

I I

I i

1 5

1 I

I I

I I

I Linarick Ganarcting Station y l

Unit 1 I

Annual Plant Modification Report '{

July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 '

Page 28 I  !

I Modification No.: 85-0826 I A. System: Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) and Residual Heat Removal (RHR)

I B.

Description:

Provide fuses in the control circuitry for the RCIC unit I cooler lAV208 and RHR unit cooler 2AV210.

I C. Reason for Change I To isolate the above equipment from cables 2AB21103E&G (1AV208) and 1AB21104E (IAV210) in order to assure functionality of the unit coolers in the event of a fire in the control complex.

D. Safety Evaluation Summary:

i) Does this modification increase the probability of I occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

I Answer No, because the modification will ensure that the RCIC and RHR unit coolers will be able to operate in the event of a fire I in the cable spreading room, through which the subject cables are routed.

Reference FSAR section 9.4.2.2.

11) Does this modification create the possibility for an I

j accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

I I

l I

Limerick G:ncrating Station e

( Unit 1 Annual Plant Modification Report July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 (i Page 29

( Answer No, because the added fuses can only blow if the cables are grounded (i.e. by a fire in the cable spreading room). The fuses will then blow protecting the unit C Coolers.

( lii) Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specifications?

f Answer No, because the addition of the fuses 5 will not affect the performance of a L safety function as described in the bases for the Technical Specifications 3/4.4.9 and 3/4.7.3 because of the redundancy on both a system and component level.

C C

C C

C C

(

(

(

I Licorick G:narcting Station Unit 1 e

I Annual Plant Modification Report July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 30 I

I Modification No.: 85-0830 I A. System: Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC)

B.

Description:

The terminal connections for cable 1AD20109D were replaced

'I with those for cable 1AD20119C, both at Motor Control Center (MCC) 10D201 and at the remote shutdown panel 10C201.

.I C. Reason for Change To replace a non-fire protected cable with a fire protected cable which will provide adequate protection to the cables in

=

order for them to be functional long enough to achieve a safe shutdown.

D. Safety Evaluation Summary:

1) Does this modification increase the probability of lE occurrence or the consequences of an accident or lE malfunction of equipment inportant to safety as i previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis l

Report?

Answer No, because this modification will ensure

the operation of valve HV-49-1F019 (RCIC l3 minimum flow recirculation valve) in the

)3 event of a fire in the area of the cable.

l l

l

11) Does this modification create the possibility for an I

accident or malfunction of a different type than any l ovaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

I

Limarick Ganorating Station .

Unit 1 1

g Annual Plant Modification Report July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 31 Answer: No, because this modification ensures the I function of the valve as required for safe shutdown of the power plant and as described in the FSAR.

I lii) Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specifications?

Answer: No, because compliance with the original design and margin of safety as described in the basis for Technical Specification 3/4.7.3 is assured with this modification.

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I r Lic3 rick G norating Station *

(. Unit 1 Annual Plant Modification Report July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986

( Page 32 L

Modification No.: 85-0831 A. System Residual Heat Removal & Reactor Core Isolation Cooling B.

Description:

Replace the terminal connections for cables 1AB21511C&D with those for cables LAB 21516C&D, both at Motor Control Center (MCC) 108215 and at the remote shutdown panel 10C201.

C C. Reason for Change:

{

To replace non-fire protected cables with fire-protected cables which will provide adequate protection in order for them to be functional long enough to achieve a safe shutdown.

[ D. Safety Evaluation Summary:

i) Does this modification increase the probability of

( occurrence or the 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 will ensure the operation of valve HV-51-lF007A in

[ the event of a fire in the area of the cable.

L

11) Does this modification create the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis

( Report?

Answer: No, because this modification ensures the function of the valve as required for

{

(

(

Licarick G3narcting Station .

( Unit 1 Annual Plant Modification Report July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 33

\

( safe shutdown of the power plant and as described in the FSAR.

iii ) Does this modification reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specifications? ,

l

( Answer: No, because compliance with the original design and margin of safety as described in the basis for Technical Specifications

(

L 3/4.7.1 and 3/4.7.3 is assured with this modification.

( .

( .

(

(

( -

t

• A

( .

h "m

1

( .

1. i . b g g u

E Limarick Ganarcting Station .

Unit 1 I Annual Plant Modification Report July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 34 s

I Special Test i

I\ A. System: Feedwater B.

Description:

Vibration testing of the Reactor Feed Pumps in accordance with Procedure SP-5-033.

i C. Reason for Change:

To determine the reason for vibrations present when operating in low flow regions (below 60% Best Efficiency Point flow).

D. Safety Evaluation Summary: ,

1) Does this test increase the probability of occurrence I or the consequences of an accident or mslfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Sa*ety Analysis Reporti Answer: No, because testing of the Reactor Feed Pumps will be done at levels expected during plant operation. Transients involving the Reactor Feed Pumps are analyzed in the FSAR.

11) Does this test create the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the Final Safety Analysis Report?

j u Answer: No, becauce due to operation of the Reactor reed Pumps at expected and I previously analyzed levels no different possibility of an accident or malfunction is created.

I lI .

I

Limerick Generating Station .

Unit 1

'I 's, Annual Plant Modification Report July 1, 1985 Through June 30, 1986 Page 35 s

\

lii) Does this test raduce the margin of safety as defined

, in the basis for the Technical Specifications?

Answer: No, because Reactor Feed Pump operation is not addressed on the LGS Technical Specification.

I I.

I

!I I

I I .

I cl I

I