PY-CEI-NRR-1458, Forwards Annual Rept of 10CFR50.59 Safety Evaluations for 1991 Summarizing Total of 217 Safety Evaluations
| ML20094J925 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1992 |
| From: | Lyster M CENTERIOR ENERGY |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| PY-CEI-NRR-1458, NUDOCS 9203170017 | |
| Download: ML20094J925 (223) | |
Text
3 y- - - - - - -
[5L
^
a T
E PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT wi Adore s:
Michael D. Lyster f me) 2ssarsi RO
,o PERRY.OHtO 44081 VICE PRESIDENT NUCLEAR March 11, 1992 PY-CEI/NRR-1458 L M ..- .
U. S. Nuclect Regulatory Commis-lon
, Document. Control Desk Vashington, D.C. 20555 L Perry Nuclear Power Plant f Docket No. 50-440 Annual Report of 10 CFR 50.59 r Safety Evaluations for 1991
. Gentlement.
\
. Attached is our summary report of 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluations for the period of September 19 1990 through September 18, 1991, and in selected cases, 7
more recent evaluations. An applicability check using the 10 CFR 50.59(a)(1) threshold criteria was performed on proposed changes to the design of the plant, to procedures / instructions, and to tests. All those meeting threshold criteria were further evaluated pursuant to the 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2) criteria and are summarized herein.
This report summarizes a' total of 217 safety evaluations, none of which
.resulted in the identification of an unreviewed safety question. Safety evaluations are numbered sequentially and those not included in this summary, x have either been voided, withdrawn or are still under consideration though not 1 approved at--this time. Attachment I lists the .. umber of safety evaluations in major categories based on the type of item being. evaluated. Attachment 2 i
' defines the acronyms and format description. Attachment 3 provides the summaries of the safety evaluations described above. Attachment 4 provides summaries of four safety evaluations which through administretive oversight
" vere not included ~in previouc reports.
-Please feel free to call if you have any questions or comments.
C Sincery y, hl/m (Lof M Michael D. Lyster MDL:JEE:ss-Attachments
.cc: .r NRC Project Manager NRC Resident Office
~ ~ Region III f( \ ; ,
i 9203170017 DR 920312 ADOCK 05000440 [ '
PDR \
operavg compones - %
)
cwcu Eiectoc eumaama '
Toten Fdson -
l Attachment 1- f PY-CEI/NRR-1458 L i Summary of 1991 Perry Safety Evaluations by Category
~The' safety evaluations are divided into the major categories listed belov.
Percentage Category Number of Total
- 1. Design Changes (except setpoint changes) 41 19.3
- 2. Drawing Changes 57 26.1
- 3. USAR Changes 45 20.2
- 4. Procedure / Instruction Changes 22 10.1
- (revisions, temporary changes)
- 5. Lifted Lead & Jumper, Electrical Devices 12 5.7 and Mechanical Foreign Item Changes
- 6. Nonconformance Report Evaluations 14 6.6
.7. Special or Temporary Test Instruction Evaluations 5 2.4
- 8. Miscellaneous 21 9.6 Total 217 100%
r.
(
\
t l
~
CENTERIOR ENERGY PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT i d ess
{T to CENTER HOAD Michael D. Lyster PERRY. OHtO 44081 VICE PRESIDENT . NUCLEAR PERRY, OHIO 44081 (216) 259-3737 March 11, 1992 PY-CEl/NRR-1458 L U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document control Desk Vashington, D.C. 20555 Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-440 Annual Report of 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluations for 1991 i
Gentlemen:
l Attached is our summary report of 10 C.R 50.59 safety evaluations for the period of September 19, 1990 thr ough September 18, 1991, and in selected cases, more recent evaluations. An applicability check using the 10 CFR 50.59(a)(1) threshold criteria was performed on proposed changes to the design of the i
plant, to procedures / instructions, and to tests. All those meeting threshold criteria vere further evaluated pursuant to the 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2) criteria and are summarized herein.
This report summarizes a total of 217 safety evaluations, none of which l resulted in the identification of an unreviewed safety question. Safety l
evaluat!ons are numbered sequentially and those not included in this summary, have either been voided, withdrawn or are still under consideration though not
[ approved at this time. Attachment } lists the number of safety evaluations in major categ "les based on the type of item being evaluated. Attachment 2 l
l defines the acronyms and format description. Attachment 3 procides the summaries of the safety evaluations described above. Attachment A provides summaries of four safety evaluations which through administrative oversight vere not included 2n previous reports.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions or comments.
Sincete/y, ,
m -
? J) ki LL*f?l{
Hichael D. Lyster
( MDL:JEE:ss l
Attachments cc: NRC Project Manager NRC Resident Office Region III 9203170017 92031)
DR ADOCK 05000440 PDR
[M' '
e : ,
- /3 i w.
' 6
- f &
+ " J f .1 s
_ .. - . - - _ _. _ _-m.-_. -. . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ -
- Attachment 1 PY-CEI/NRR-1458 L Sumr.aryLef 1991 Perry Safety Evaluations by Category The safety evaluations are divided into the major categories listed below.
Percentage Category Number of Total
- 1. ' Design Changes (except setpoint changes) 41 19.3
- 2. Dracing Changes 57 26.1
- 3. USAR Changes 45 20.2 ,
- 4. Procedure / Instruction Changes 22 10.1 (revisions, temporary changes)
- 5. Lifted Lead & Jumper, Electrical Devices 12 5.7 :
and Mechanical Foreign Item Changes ,
- 6. Nonconformance Report Evaluations 14 6.6
~
- 7. Special or Temporary Test Instruction Evaluations 5 2.4 -
- 8. Miscellaneous 21 9.6 Total 217 100%
L s
k
< ?
4 i
i P
M k
E d
t>- . .,is.'"e I
A+- hment 7, )
-i ./NRR-1458 L FORMAT DESCRIPTION Each 50.59 Safety Evaluation summary is presented in the following format:
SE No.: A sequentially assigned number from one (001) to end of the period, preceded by the years e.g.86-025.
Source Document: There are several sources of evaluations which are abbreviated as shevn.
DCN - Draving Change Notice
-DCP - Design Change Package EP - Emergency Plan FCR - Field Change Request FPI - Pre-Fire Plan Instruction FTI - Fuel Technical Instruction ISS - Installation Standard Specification LL&JED - Lifted Lead and Jumper and Electrical Device ,
MFI - Mechanical Foreign Item-NR - Nonconformance Report where S or N in the serial number indicates safety or nonsafety PAP - Plant Administrative Procedure PEI - Plant Emergency Instruction PSP - Physical Security Plan PTI PeH. odic Test Instruction SCN - Specification Change Notice ,
SCR - 59tpoint Change Request 501 - System Operating Instruction SSCR-- Safe Shutdown Capability Report SVI - Surveillance Test Instruction'
-SXI - Special Test Instructinn TAF - Technical Assignment file TXI - Temporary Test Instruction USAR CR - Updated Safety Analysis Report Change Request V0 --Vork Order Description of Change:
A-short narrative describing the location and type of plant change.
. Summary I. Response to 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2)(1) - is the probability of occurrence or.
~
the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report increased?.
II. Responre to 10 CFR 50.59 (a)(2)(ii) - is the possibility for an accident or malfune. tion of a different type than any evaluated previously in the saf analysis report created?
III. Response to 10 CFR 50.59(a)(2)(iii) - is the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification reduced?
,. .~. --
.,-.A '
--= - Attachment 3 i PY-CEI/NRR-1458L j r
r t
PERRY NUCLEAR POVER PLANT ,
SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
PURSUANT TO .
. 10 CFR 50,59(b)(2) 1991 l t
+
'T i, ,
r i
k W Ww .rg. r *.ge-ne 4 , -w- , - .a - w-,..,,-r _ n- .:- 4 .- v- m.-+-- $-_ -' ------ u _m.i _ . _ _ _ .
4 SE N6. 131 Source Document: DCP 85-288, Rev. O Description of Changes.
This_ design change vill cap the drain outlets of the Condensate Demineralizer Regeneration Tanks.
Summary:
I. No; The condensate Demineralizer regeneration facilities perform no safety function. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the emergencies of an accident important to safety previously evaluated
- in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. The Condensate Demineralizer regeneration facilities are not described in the Technical Specifications or its ba?w: Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Tect- s1 Specification vill-be reduced.
I h
J I
i
-l e
- +- ,4--- -- , r n.- y - - - - . .+-y
.t..m..- .s s s s u sw.,1,.s..e .+u - s nu- a u - ..~ a.,
l i
. SE-No. 156 l Source Document: DCP 88-072A, Rev. 0 Description of Change 1~
This design change installs a " Pull-to-Lock" svitch in the auto / emergency L start circuit of. Division 3 Diesel Generator.
Summary:
! I. No. This design change installs a lockout feature in the Division 3
! Diesel Generator which will prevent an auto / emergency start of the L diesel generator thereby, improving personnel safety. The
,. reliability.of the component added by this change is similar to that of the original design. Further the pull-to-lock feature is
- administratively controlled and is annunciated as "HPCS Out of p Service" in the Control Room when the switch is in-the o " pull-to-lock" position. Hence, this design change does not compromise the redundancy or independence of the safety-related ,
power supplies. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the l consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to J safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
(
II. No. This change creates no reduction of system or component performance levels compated to the original design. The physical installation of.this switch is in accordance vith the original installation i i requirements. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does-not exist.
III. No. .The reliability of the Division 3 Diesel Generator is not compromised by this design change as described above. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases of Technical Specification 3/4-8 vill not be reduced.
L l
. . - _ . _ _ .u __ _ . _ . _ _ __ .. - _ . . _ __ ~
I i
SE No.: 90-164 -i Source Document: 50I-R43, Rev. 6, TC-7 q
Description of Change This change adds a section to System Operating Instruction (S01-R43) that f installs a jumper to override all Division 1(2) Diesel Generator (DG)
= trips except diesel overspeed and generator differential current. This i is not a norma 1' evolution and vill not be performed unless the DG is required to be kept in service to avoid a situation similar to the Vogtle event. ;
Summary -,
- 1. No. In the event that a Standby Diesel Generator should trip due to a false indication during a Loss of Offsite Power (LOOP) event or other plant upset condition, the Shift Supervisor may authorize the i overriding of non-essential trips. This vill effectively place the engine into a LOCA run logic scenario where non-essential trips are alarmed but-do not cause an engine trip to occur. ,
The installation of this jumper results in an electric circuit configuration functionally identical to the configuration utilized i during LOCA conditions. The response of the Division 1 and 2 DGs to accident conditions remains unchanged.
This change creates no cross-ties between safety-related divisional ,
power supplies or interconnections between Divisional Diesel Generators. The response of the DGs and the onsite power supply to l
. plant accident conditions evaluated previously is not affected by this= change since function, performance, and redundancy have not i been compromised. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the :
consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to I safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
i III. No. This change does not adversely affect the reliability of the onsite power supply as defined in the bases of Technical Specifications
, .3/4-8. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for -
any Technical Specification has not been reduced. ;
i 4
?
,, - - , , - -w,, -- g e ,n-o -~--
. . . _ , - -~ . . . - - . - - . . . ..--. _ - _ ---_-. .
- c.- . -_
4 i
~ Source Documents. SOI-R45, Rev. 5, TC-6 Description of Change This change adds a section to System Operating Instruction (S01-R45) that allows continuous operation of the Division 1, 2, and 3 Diesel Generator (DG) Fuel Oil Transfer Pumps (R45) for the purpose of adding chemicals to
.the storage tanks. .
Summary '
I. No. This change installs a temporary jumper into the Fuel Oil Transfer- !
System control circuits'to permit continuous Fuel Oil Transfer Pump
. operation. Continuoas operation of a Fuel O!1 Transfer Pump vill result in day tank levels above the top of the day tank to the elevation of the overflov line. Operation of a DG vith day tank-level at overflow has no effect on the performance or reliability of the DG. .The jumper installation is governed by procedure GEI-0007 i e which ensures that installation vill not compromise the qualification or integrity of the original installation, as it j conforms-to the same codes / standards as vere used in the original '
installation. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the
- consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to ,
safety is not increased.
II. No. The response of DGs and the onsite power supply to plant accident l conditions evaluated previously is not affected by this change since F function, performance, and redundancy have not been compromised.
l Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type then.any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. This change does not adversely affect the reliability of the onsite
. power supply. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for any Technical-Specification vill not be reduced, t
l 1
l
- .-. . - - - - - . . - - - - - . ~ . _ . - . . . . . . ~ . - - . - _ - - . . . . -.~
, i i
3 Source Documents: DCN 3203, Rev. 0 '
. Description of' Change l This drawing change makes an editorial change to P&ID 302-111, High !
Pressure Heater Drains and Vents, to reflect the as-built configuration
-of the control air line to'IN25-R0300A.
~
j Summary ,
I. No. This change updates P&ID 302-111 to depict the actual in-plant
. configuration. The change to this drawing simply adds a control air signal line to IN25-R0300A, All valves controlled vill still fail e in the previously evaluated position on loss of control air. . This control signal has been evaluated previously as nonsafety-related and'this is not changed due to this DCN.- Therefore, the probability -1 of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of ,
equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is ,
not increased. ;
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. Since the system operability has not changed, the margin of safety defined in the bases of the Technical Specifications has not been changed or reduced.
t
?
.. (
); ..
t 4
5
-~ . - , - - - , .-----I- ~r -
-wm- - , n=-~mr, + y -
=
b SE~No.: 90-168'
-Source Document: USAR CR 90-068 Description of Change This evaluation analyzes a change to USAR Section 11.2.2.14 to delete the
' requirement to periodically test radvaste equipment.
Summary I. No. The radvaste filters, demineralizers, and evaporators are continually monitored to ensure performance is acceptable to meeting established design codes and standards and can meet required operating parameters. The Radvaste System still complies with 10CFR20.106, 10CFR50 Appendix I, Reg. Guide 1.143 and NUREG-0800 since no credit is taken for performance testing. Design and
-operational testing associated with these documents is fulfilled by the daily analyses required by PAP-1102, " Plant chemistry Control Program'. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to .
safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. NO. As stated above the design and operational testitig requirements associated with this equipment are fulfilled by the analyses
. performed on a daily basis under PAP-1102. If these analyses do not r satisfy-the acceptance criteria, corrective action is taken. As a !
result-of the daily assessment, performance testing is not required. ;
essentially it is performed daily. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR'does not exist.
III. NO. No' Technical-Specifications describe this performance testing.
Therefore, no margin of safety vill be reduced.
4 l
. _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ . - _ . . _ . _ _ . . - . . _ _ . ._._- - _ _ _ _ . . . . - m -
- SE No.:= 90-169 Source Document: DCP 90-108, Rev. O Description of Change This design change vill permanently deactivate the source voltage supervision relays at the preferred and alternate preferred source breakers;on-Class IE Buses EHll, EH12, and EH13. (Reference NR. 90-5-022)
Summary l l
I. No.- These relays are used as a " voltage supervision" interlock in the l manual control circuits used to connect a de-energized EH11, EH12, l or EG13 bus to the preferred or alternate preferred source breakers. l The operators are presently performing the " voltage supervision" I function by'revieving the availability of source voltage via i available indicating lights and/or voltmeters. Administrative controls are in place which describe the use of the lights, voltmeters, etc. for manually operating the EH bus source breakers and diesel generator synchronization operations.
Deactivation of these EH bus relays vill not-impact the automatic !
responses of the EH bus source breakers and diesel generators to a Loss of.0ffsite Power (LOOP) incident. Should a LOOP occur, the EH buses vill be automatically connected to the diesel generators with the_ existing undervoltage detection logic which is unaffected by j this design change. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety is not increased .
II. No. . LOOP analysis as described in'the USAR is unaffected by this design change._ Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. ' Technical Specifications requires two physically independent circuits between the offsite transmission network-and the Class 1E 'I distribution system be-operable. This design change vill not eliminate the availability or impact the operability of either
- source supply. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for any. Technical' Specification vill not be reduced. !
, , , - . - , + , - - y,,.3, y * .-:..4- , m.- % , , e u ..wi. . . . . - , - ..,,r. - , . . - - . -
-r--- -
_ _ _... . _ _ _ _ . . - . - . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ ~~. _._ __ _ _ . _ ._ _ . - _. .._
SE'No.: 90-170:
. Source Document: DCN 3213, Rev. 0 Description of Ch'ange This drawing change makes an editorial change-to P&ID 302-104, Condensatt Filtration System, to indicate the correct order of the isolation valven for Condensate Filtration sample trough.
Summary I. No. This draving change is editorial and does not impact any plant
. safety feature or system, nor does it have any effect on ether systems,that provide such functions. Therefore, the probability of I occurrence or.the consequences of an accident or malfunction of 1 equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR di:
-not increased.
II. No. This drawing change is editorial only. Hence, the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR is not created. ;
III. No. The. drawing change only clarifies the isolation valve numbering.
Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for any Technical Specification vill not be reduced.
b P
I w -- - - - - - - . - - . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ ___ _ ,, _ ., , , ,,_
. ~ - . . ~ _ - - , _ -. -__..--. _ -.- -.._.~.- - .. ._. . _ . -
- - SE No.
- 90-171-Source Document
- FTI-D06, Rev. 1, TC-8 Description of Change This change modifies Fuel Technical Instruction (FTI-D06) to allow for ;
additional configurations to be analyzed for passing shutdown margin- {
criteria based on the actual core shuffle plan.
]
Summary I. No. The 1% dK/K design margin for cold shutdown is maintained with the strongest rod withdravn. Therefore, the probability of occurrence :
or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. Normal refuel operations are performed. Therefore, the possibility I of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. Shutdown margin of 0.38% dK/K is maintained with the strongest worth rod analytically determined in Operational Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.- Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for any Technical Specification vill not be reduced.
l
]
i l.
- - --- ee- r-W-- -,iy$ y =. T' )}
SE No.: 90-172 Source Document: NR 90-S-123, Rev. 0
. Description of Change This evaluation analyzes the rework and temporary use-as-is disposition i of Emergency Closed Cooling System Flov Element 2p42-N0040B. It allovs
-the temporary use of a potentially non-ASME Class 3 spacer ring in place of the originally designed flov element orifice plate. i Summary
- 1. No. As the spacer ring may not be certified to ASME Class 3 standards it i must be assumed that it has the potential for complete failure. '
Three concerns were postulated (minimization of vall thickness, gross failure, and flooding) and analyzed. The results are detailed .;
in calculations P42-16 Rev. O, P42-17, Rev. O, and GC #JL-83. These -
calculations indicate that ring failure vould not create any adverse plant conditions. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased. l II. No. The function of the system is not affected by the temporary use of i the spacer ring. Any failure of the spacer ring to maintain it's ,
pressure boundary vill not prevent the safety systems from functioning and does not create an unanalyzed flooding concern.
Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of p a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist. ,
+
- III. No. The temporary use of the spacer ring vill not affect flow rates to the required safety-related equipment and it vill not adversely i effect the operation of any equipment. Therefore, the margin of
. safety as defined in the bases for any Technical Specifica; ion vill not be reduced.
4 5
._.m, ,_ . . - _ _ , . , , , , _ m yy_. _,
I
- SE No.:- 90-173 .
Source Document: DCP 90-219, Rev. O Description of Change l
This design change adds a 4-inch isolation valve on Nuclear Closed Cooling (P43) Systen piping to eliminate the use of freeze seals when a section of piping is-removed. The change also modifies a small spring can support. !
Summary I. No. The added valve is located in the "B" Recire Pump P43 cooling vater return line. Lov flow alarms are present on all P43 return lines out of the recire pumps to indicate system blockage, leakage or .
valve misalignment. 101-1, " Cold Startup", requires verification of
^
P43 cooling vater flov to the recire pumps prior to Dryvell closcout. .The gate valve vill improve present P43 System isolation capabilities. The P43 System is not safety-related (except for ,
valves and piping associated with containment isolation, control ;
room chillers, and fuel pool heat exchangers) and is not required i for safe shutdown. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the i consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to '
safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. During normal system operation the valve vill be open and thus system operation remains unaffected. If needed (during outages) for isolation, this valve vill eliminate-the need for installation of less reliable freeze seals. - Therefore, the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than previously
, evaluated in the USAR-is not created. !
III. No. This' change does not affect any P43 containment isolation valves and has no effect on system / plant operation. Therefore, the margin of l.
safety as defined in the bases for any Technical Specification vill not be reduced.
l
- ye+r p.
or 4 t-M+ - - - - ,, , ycu,.,-,e.-- -- g e.r9i .y-w - 4 ,.grw. - , .
7- .--.u p
. ._ . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . -_- .. _- - - . -
SE No.: 90-174 Source Document: OM16F Physical Security Plan,-Rev. 15 Description'of Change Revision 15 of OM16F, Physical Security Plan, has been evaluated to ensure that the effectiveness of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant Security Plan has not been reduced and to ensure that the requirements of 10 CFR 73, Physical' Protection of Plants and Materials, are met. Site Protection must be contacted for further details since this is considered l
- SAFEGUARDS" information.
l Summary.
I. No. OM16F~ describes the comprehensive Physical Security Program and i therefore, does not affect the occurrence or consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment.
l II. No.- OM16F does.not direct the operation of plant systems or equipment and, therefore, does not create the possibility for an accident or i malfunction. ,.
III. No. OM16F does not reduce the margin of safety as defined in the bases +
for-any Technical Specifications.
t f
I
' i 4
+
6 4
u
,y=,w- 'm. .-----w- - , , --,..u.,_. a. .c.-_,, #.m 7+-
. - , . - . ~ , . . - . . . . . . .. . . . - - . . . . . - - .. . . . . . . - . . - . . _. ..- - - . . ,
l SE No.90-175 Source Documentt USAR CR 90-098 ;
Description of Change
-This evaluation analyzes revising the Standby Diesel Generator (DG) fuel oil properties and methods of testing.
Summary I. No. The new fuel-oil remains in conformance with Reg. Guide 1.137-and the various ASTM Standards associated with fuel oil. 'The testing of the fuel oil is' consistent with the ANSI and ASTM standards !
associated with fuel oils. The use of fuel oil with different properties, therefore, does not impact the design, function, or !
performance of the DC. Hence, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of'an accident or malfiinction previously evaluated is '
not increased.
II. No. The new fuel does not adversely affect any plant equipment. The design or function of the DG has not been impacted. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a type different than evaluated does not exist.
III.=No. The new fuel does not impact the design, function, or performance of the DG. Hence,.the reliability of the onsite power supplies in. ,
accordance with Technical Specification 3/4.8 has not been impacted. i Therefore, no margin of safety has.been reduced.
I r
Y L
p L
i l -'
. . .-.,- . .- . _ . - - . . - . - - - =
. ..~. -- .~ . .. - -
i
' Source Documents-DCN 3266, Rev. 0 USAR-CR 90-099 l l
Description of Change This evaluation analyzes the incorporation of test spacers 1E12-D015A/B into USAR Tables _6.2.33 and 6.2.40. (Reference DCP 89-224 and SE 90-054)
Summary I No. -This change revises the USAR tables _to agree with DCP 89-224 which added the test spacers. The test spacers were evaluated and approved for incorporation via Safety Evaluation 90-054. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or :
. malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. This change does not affect-any equipment in the plant. It only shows the type of test required on the bonnet,-bleed off line flanges -!
for IE12-F055A/B using the spacer fabricated under DCP 89-224.
Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different1 type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. The change permits the 1E12-F055A/B bonnet vent flanges to be tested utilizing the test spacers 1E12-D015A/B vhich satisfies the requirements of Technical Specifications 3.6.1.2 and 4.6.1.1.1.A.
L Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for any L Technical Specifie.ation vill _not be reduced.
B I
l l
l i
T -
._ - - , . . .. - _ s , . . _ _ , _-
. .- - . . ~ . _ - . - .- -.. - _ . . . . - - - - = . _ .- . -. - _,..
I i
- Source Document: - FTI E04, Rev. O, TC-5 1
Description of Change.
This change _ modifies Fuel Technical Instruction (FTI-E04) to permit i utilization of an undervater television system to verify engsgement/
disengagement of the fuel support piece grapple. The normal method for verification is via indicating lights that are mounted on the grapple.
Summary I. No. Remote visual observation via an undervater television system vi.11 )
verify proper operation of the fuel support grapple. Therefore, the l probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or I malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. This_ change _does not change the equipment used to remove fuel support pieces. It provides an alternate method for_ verification.
This method-is as reliable as existing methods. Therefore, the ,
- possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type'than any evaluated previously in the USAP does not exist.-
III. No. Fuel _ support piece grapple indicating lights are not covered by Technical Specifications. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for any Technical Specification vill not be reduced.
i e
I h
l t-
_ e l
i.-
2 m y- w--~ m r v- y- y,-'--g-m +-ym-w-iv-----rf-- -Pep- y tw- y*-r---
> _ . _ . ~ _ - .. - _._.,_._.._... _. _ _ . - . _ ~ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
f u
- Source Document: DCN 3256, Rev. 0
' Description-of Change This drawing change incorporates on various P& ids tne as-built -
information associated with the extension of the plant security system to include Unit 2.-
1 Summary I. No. This work-vas completed under specification #SP-1008, and field installed under DCP 89-138. Individual drawing changes were not part of-the DCP. The asseciated changes to the security plan vere addressed by plant security under separate cover. The NRC is avare of this project. This nonsafety activity vill not affect the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or -
malfunction previously evaluated in the USAR.
II. No. This change to the.nonsafety security system does not impact any other systems. Therefore, the possibility of~ creating an accident '
or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III.-No. The security system is not addressed in the Technical Specifica-tions. The equipment is nonsafety and has no affect on other systems. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in_the bases for any Technical Specification vill not be reduced.
l i
l
Source Document: DCP 90-130, Rev. O j Description of Change This design change'repl' aces the smoke detector in the_ control room kitchen with a heat detector. This replacement vill reduce the~ false alarms occurring as a result of cooking fumes being generated in the kitchen.
Summary I. No. This changes will increase reliability of the fire detection system in the event of a fire and vill not otherwise effect system function :
in response to a fire. This component does not affect or directly _
impact any systems or structures important to safety,-nor is it involved in the initiation or mitigation of any accident.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment _important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. 'This change merely involves th'e change-out of one type of fire -
detector for another more suitable ^ type of detector. The change vill maintain the. fire detection system configuration in compliance with USAR commitments. Therefore, the possibility of an accident or malfunction of a different type than evaluated in the USAR is not created.
III. No. This change has no impacth on the administrative aspects of-the Fire Protection Program and does not affect any plant system relied on
.for Alternate Shutdovi. Papability. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for any Technical Specification vill not be reduced.
?
t 1
i E
l
m SE No.: 90-180 Source Document: Delaval Vendor Manual Revision Notice, HRN 4 i Description of Change This evaluation analyzes revisions made to the maintenance schedule i recommendations generated by the TDI Diesel Generator Ovners Group Design ',
Review and Quality Revalidation (DR/QR) Report.
Summary I. No. These changes are limited to maintenance practices on the standby a diesel generators. Overall, the changes vill not adversely impact the reliability, redundancy, or function of the diesel generators.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence-or the consequences of an i accident or malfonction of equipment previously evaluated in the USAR has not increased.
II. No. These changes do not impact the reliability, redundancy, or function of the standby diesel generator or the onsite power supplies. No-4 new design has been introduced nor has any safety factor been reduced. _Therefore, the_ possibility for creating an accident or malfunction of a different typefthan any evaluated previously does not exist.
III. No. _The reliability of-_the onsite power supply has not:being changed. ,
x- Therefore, margin of safety in the bases of the Technical Specification 3/4-8 has not changed. ,
I n
e-+ - - - r--g > -- m u- 5F-w 7*.e7r- + e: --r--_ m"O
_.-.g__._ - . _ _ _ _ ,_.__. _ _.__ . _ . _ .
t
)
SE No.: 90-181 Source Document: NR 90-N-153, Rev. O Description of Change This evaluation analyzes the use-as-is disposition of the main transformer bus duct support anchor bolts being in an ungrouted condition.
Summary I. No. The isophase bus ducts, cable trays and their supports remain adequate and functional in the ungrouted condition as determined calculation F.C. #18:02. This equipment is nonsafety and is not :
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of any accidents evaluated in-the USAR. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously.
evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No.- The isophasel ducts, cable trays and supports are acceptable with the ungrouted condition of the base plates. Further, these components are nonsafety and are not relied upon for accident mitigation.
. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for any
-Technical. Specification is not reduced. t 1
W 4
,,,vm -
- -, -,w,v. ,,-m, , ...,v _._or , - ,,ms,.,. , .m.-, , . . - . , _ , -
---,.y , . -
)
SE No.:- 90-182 Source Document - DCP 90-232, Rev. 0
-Description of Chango This design change installs an easy-to-remove drain line from the Dryvell cooler. .The current configuration has the drain line velded in place. '
Threaded unions vill be used instead of velds. Further, a small globe l valve is being replaced with a ball valve vith threaded ends to .
-facilitate removal. A lateral clean out is also being provided.
Summary I. No. The portion of the drain line being modified is a nonsafety line.
'The modification allows periodic removal of the piping for '
. inspection for dirt build-up. This vill actually increase the reliability of-the system to function as designed. Tliis line is not relied upon during accident conditions. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequence of an. accident or malfunction 01 equipment-important to safety is not increased.
. II. No. The ball valve being utilized in the design is of the same pressure class. The difference in the materials between the globe valve i
-(carbon) and the ball valve (stainless) vas shown not to cause any problems due to dissimilar metals. The modified line vill perform ,
as originally designed. Therefore,.the possibility of creating an-accident-or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist. ,
III. No. LThis line is nonsafety and not addressed in the Technical Specifications. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for any Technical Specification vill not be reduced.
9 i
5 l.L l
l l
l l
. - - . . . _ .-. -- ~ - - - - . , - . . ., - - - - . , . , -
- Source Document DCP 88-072C, Rev. O Description'of Change This design change replaces the resistor and capacitor relay coil in the High Pressure Core Spray (ilPCS) Diesel Generator Engine Control Circuits with Varistor Suppressors to' reduce voltage surge when the relays are I de-energized.
Summary I. th). The installation of Varistor Suppressors to reduce high voltage surges has been successfully tested. The installation vill reduce s the transient noise to an acceptable value and protect equipment susceptible to high voltage surges. Therefore, the probability of !
--occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.-
^
II. Ma. :The-physical. installation-of the ecmponents and associated viring is in accordance with the original installation requirements. This change creates no reductions of redundancy or component performance levels. compared to the original design. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously'in the USAR does'not exist.
III. No. Reliability of the.HPCS Diesel Generator is not compromised by this change. .Therefore, the margin of' safety described in the Technical ,
Specification bases is not affected.
F l .
i-.
i I
l' l
l I
I v.- -,-2
- , , . . . . - - - - , , . , - - re- " , - . ,iv- -
--rw r- , w - - - - v v-- --w--w,
SE No.t '90-184 Source Document: SCR l-90-1637 through 1640 Description of Change:
This evaluation analyzes the revision of the turbine first stage pressure
, bypass setpoints and allovable values.
Summary:
I. No. The existing values were based on turbine thermal heat balance ,
calculations. Testing has determined that these values are overly I conservative. The design basis that the turbine valve closure j scrams should be bypassed belue the turbine first stage pressure ;
equivalent to 40% of Rated Thermal Power (RTP) remains unchanged. '
The proposed-setpoints_and allovable values vould be depicted in terms of actual turbine first stage pressure, rather than.as a percentage of turbine control valve position. Pressure is a more !
accurate measure of RTP, Therefore, the probability.of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important-to safety'previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased. +
II. No. -The purpose of this change vill establish when a turbine trip vill r cause an-anticipatory reactor trip, and an end-of-life recirculation pump trip as described in the USAR. The proposed setpoints provide additional margin against inadvertent scrams at low power, while still providing for initiation of the turbine stop and control valve closure anticipatory reactor _ scram and the end-of-cycle recirculation pump trip functions. Therefore, _the possibility of ,
creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No.. This change is consistent with the Technical Specification
. modification as described in Operating-License Amendment 29. As
-described above, no margin of safety is reduced.
~.
+
,c~ ~ -
. _ . - _ . ~ _ . . . - - .
SE IJo. : 90-185 Source Document: DCP 89-189, Rev. 1 Description of Change This design change niters the air distribution it the 647'-6" elevation of the Turbine power Con:ple;, The air distribution vill be modified by raiding a branch of ductvork and rebalancing. Ilovever, a revision to D T 89-189,-Rev. O, Safety Evaluation 90-037, was required to accept the a: built condition of the added supply air because one af the registers of the added supply duct could not be balanced to within ten percent of design.
Summary
- 1. fio. This design change vill improve air distribution at the 647'-6" f elevation of the Turbine Power Complex. The design change vill not i adversely impact the function of the Turbine Power Complex !
Ventilation (H42) System. Tne ambient temperature in these areas i vill remain within the ranga specified in she USAR. Therefore, the [
probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or t i malfunction of equipment previously evaluated in the USAR is not j increased.
4.
- 11. tio. See Item I above. l III. 140. . Technical Specifications does not address the Turbine Power Complex l
' -Ventilation (H42) Systera. The design change does not affect the i functAon of the M42 System. Therefore, no margin of safety as ,
i defined in the bases for any Technical Specification vill be ,
! reduced. e V
4 :
i l r
1.
? $
1: f
! i j
a i !
s i
I
,.-_._.._._-..._,...m.-.~...
St No.: 90-186 Source Document: DCN 3214, Rev. O Description of Change This drawing change makes an editorial change to P&lD 302-606, Nuclear Boiler System, to reflect the as-built condition.
Summary I. No. This change updates P&lD 302-600 to depict the actual in-plant configuration. The isolation of these instruments does not altet the overall function of the system. The instruments were only used for local indication. Therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident or malfun: tion of equipment previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. _Since the system opetability has not changed, the margin of safety defined in the bases of the Technical Specifications has not been reduced.
l l
l
__ .z. ._.._;__ _. _ _ . _ . __ __ ___.. _ _ _
1
SE No.: 40-180 Source Documents l'TI-H41-P0002, Itev. O Des _cription of Change This change modliies the periodic Test Instruction of the lleater Bay Ventilation System (PTI-H41-P0002) to pe:mit the shutdown cf both lleater Bay (H41) supply fans during Operation Conditions 4 and 5 for the purpose of performing maintenance in the location of the supply fans.
Summary
- 1. No. Vith the supply fans shutdown the airflow paths as tested and designed vill not change airlinv ftom areas of lov potential radioactivity levels to areas of high potential radioactivity levels. The Heater Bay vill go to a slightly more negative pressure in relationship to the outside which vill enhance correct airflow paths and directions. In this operating configuration at least one M41 exhaust fan vill be operating which vill permit the radiation monitoring system to function. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of ;
equipment important-to safety previously evaluated in the USAlt is !
not increased.- ;
II. No. The M41 System configuration described vill be limited to -
Operational conditions 4 and 5. Further, the system is nonsafety ,
and not required for safe shutdown of the plant. Therefore, the !
possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different ;
I type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
l III. No. Vith the M41 exhaust fans in service per this configuration, the radiation monitoring system vill function as required per Technical Specifications. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in bases 4 for Tehnical Specifications vill not be reduced.
I I
i
(
i i.
eeq-r, 1.-w e g . .- + m.e rw . --e.. n .,,,w.,%e.mm -w., mm [m--.~we
SE No.t 90-109 Soutcc Document: DCp 90-240, Rev. O Desetiption of Change This design change removes broken or missing ASHE turbiae acceptance test lines within the low ptessute, intermediate, and high pressute condensers. These lines are not being used and vill be plugged to reduce the potential for condenset in-leakage.
Summary
- 1. No. This design change removes and plugs the ASME turbine ac:eptance testing lines associated 4 th the Main Tut bine. These lines have no function during normal operation. Further, these lines vill not impact any Engineered Safety Featute rystem (CSF) or system tequited for safe shutdown. Removal of these lines reduces the potential for condenser in-leakage thereby ittptoving the integrity of the Condensate System. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. The design intent of these test lines is for diagnostic purposes only. No EM or shutdown systet has been affected. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accideat or malfunction of a different type then any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. These test lines ate not described within the Technical Specifications. No ESF or safe shutdown system has been affected.
The integrity of the Main Steam and Condensate Systems has been isnproved . llence, no margins of safety as defined in the bases for any Techiiical Specification vill be reduced.
SE No.: 90-190 Fu~TeDocument: SCR l-90-1708 through 1710 Description of~ Change This evaluation analyzes various setpoint changes made to the Division 3 Diesel Generator (DG) Fuel Oil System day tank level switches.
Summary
- 1. No. The setpoint changes made do not physically alter any installed equipment nor do they adversely effect DG function or reliability.
DG day tank level operating margins have not been impacted.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction not previously evaluated in the USAR is not !
increased.
II. No. The setpoint changes-do not adversely effect the DG control system.
PG funesion and response have not been impacted. Day tank level operating margins have been maintained. The performance and 1 function of the original design have been maintained. Therefore, i the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of equipment or a different type than evaluated does not exist.
(
- 11. No.- -The setpoint changes do not adversely effect the function or operation of the DG. As such, Technical Specification 3/4-8 dealing with the-onsite power supplies has not been impacted. _Therefore, no f margin of safety as described in the basis for Technical l
Specifications is reduced.
1
- i, l
l 5
t F
l l
l
..-.___._._,_.._.-._..,_..m , . . _ . . . . . . . , , . . . _ . _ . . . . . , , _ , _ _ _ . . - . .
_. . _ . . _ _ . _ . _ . . . . - _ - _ . . . _ . . _ . ._..-______.___._._._____.__.____.m..
i i
l C5 .A,s t 90-f!' M ,JK'!jy*flis NR 90-N-100, Rev. 1 ;
p.. ,
P p; ption of Changer i
.This evaluation analyzes plant power operation with eleven shroud head f
'_ stud bults removed from the shroud head / separator assembly. ;
Summary '
I. No. The shtoud head and the shroud head studs with associated hardvate :
are nonsafety-related components. There is no impet upon Heactor !
Pressure Vessel (RPV) integrity. Analyses conducted by GE state !
that-there vill be no leakage from the shroud head flange. Further, the probability of ICSSC has not been affected. The potential for :
loose parts has been reduced due to the removal of the bolts. !
Therefore, the probability of the occurrence or the consequences i associated with an accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated is not increased.
J II. No. As stated above RPV or shroud structural integrity have not been ;
reduced. Therefore, the possibility for creating an accident or !
malfunction of a type different than previously evaluated does not .
exist.- !
III. No. RPV integrity has not been impacted. The potential for loose parts ;
has been reduced. The probability for D,SSC has not changed.
Therefore, no margin of safety as described in the basis of .
Technical Specificatf or.s is reduced.
e a
I s
F P
k 1
i I
- - . . . . - - . . - . . ~ . ~ . - - . - . . . - . - . - . - ..-.-. ~ - - . - - . . . . - , -
SE No.: 90-192 Source Document: Repetitive Task 89-2903 Description of Change This evaluation analyzes the shutdown of the Heater Bay Ventilation (H41)
System during plant Operational Conditions 4 and 5 for the purpose of maintenance in the area of the supply fans. The Steam Tunnel Cooling (H47) System and the Turbine Ventilation (H35) System vill also need to be shutdown to perform this activity.
Summary I. No. Viih the M41 supply fans shutdown, the attflow paths as tested and designed vill not change airflov from areas of low potential radioactivity levels to areas of high potential radioactivity levels. The Heater Bay will go to a slightly more negative pressure in relationship to the outside which vill enhance correct altilov paths and directions. This operating mode vill shutdown the M41 supply fans but vill still operate at least one M41 exhaust fan I
which will permit the radiation monitoring system to function.
Therefore, the probability of occutience or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. The system operational change described vill be limited to Operational Conditions 4 and 5. Additionally, the M41 System is nonsafety and not required foi cafe shutdovn of the plant.
Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. Vith the M41 exhaust fans in service per this mode the radiation monitoring system vill function as required per Technical Specifications. Therefote, no matgin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specification vill be reduced.
l 3
1 l
l l
- ..--.--. ~ ..
1 l
l t
i SE No.: 90-193 Source Document S01 F11/15, Rev. 4 TC-8 t
Description of Change -
This change adds a section to System Operation Instruction (501-Fil/15) '
which installs a jumper to defeat the Fefueling Platform tridge Reverse I Hotion Interlock Number Two. The purpose is to allow travel over-the !
reactor vessel in modes such as hot shutdown, cold shutdown, and power '
operation. .!
f*
Summary i
- 1. No. This change vill not affect the refueling bridge's capability of l preventing an inadvertent criticality during refueling operations.
Additionally, the jumper installed by this procedure has no impact ,
on any bridge component that could change the probability of i dropping a fuel bundle during fuel movement. No equipment important !
to safety has been affected. Administrative controls exist which ensure that should the Reverse Motion Interlock Two be required for j plant operations it is available. Therefore, the probability of i i
occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction or equipment important to safety has not increased. .
- 11. No. See Item I above.
III. No. The Reverse Motion Interlock Two is not associated with the core }
-r alterations interlocks described in Technical Specifications. No systems important to safety have been affected. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical i specification is not reduced. l
?
i L
1 b
f 1
I i
i i
I 6
. _. .-..-,,--..--..-.-...~,..,.~,.%s. ..--ew_ .%.r+ +.. , - .-,, . . --=...,,,-,.,--.-.,w . o-% , .-.,.-,+..--e,.w-,,,,. .--.,,-,wr-.-- ,-,.w,-
. -.- - - - .- ...~ ---.-- - - - - . - . . - - - - . - - -. - -
i i
t SE No.: 90-194 t Source Document l'CR 144b5 !
Description of Change l This evaluation analyres the temporary installation of a nitrogen freere j seal in the Ilydraulic Control Unit (1100) Drive Vater line to isolate ;
valve EP101 for disassembly and maintenence. l Summary i I. No. This evolution is performed during Hode 5 vith no fuel movement. t Two independent safety-related systems vill be available to supply low pressure makeup water in case of a loss of vater inventory due to possible seal failure. Since the reactor is cooled. l depressurized and the plant shutdovn with make up available, the [
consequences of a leak caused by frecre seal failure is bounded by !
existing analyses. Therefore, the piobability vi occurrence or the <
consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to i safety previously evaluate in the USAR is not increased.
~
- 11. No. The vater from the postulated leak vill drain into the Suppression- l Pool. The systems which supply make up to the vessel take suction i from the Suppression Pool. Equipment important to safety located '
within the containment are quallfled for containment spray '
operation. . Electrical connections to the llCU's are sealed.
Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of 4 a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist. !
i By requiring two independent safety-related systems to be able to
.III. No.
supply makeup water to the reactor vessel, Technical Specification 4.5.2 is satisfied for operations having a potential for draining the reactor vessel. . Technical Specifications 3/4.5.1 and 3/4.5.2 are satisfied with respect to the sources of emergency ;
core-cooling after the teactor vessel is depressurized and a source for-flooding of the core in case of accidental draining. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for any Technical !
. Specification is not reduced.
i t
b
,- r
I SE No.: 90-195 Source Document NR 90-N-245, Rev. 0 ,
Description of Change t This evaluation analyzes the use-as-is disposition of not replacing a l broken piece of removable radiation shielding for penetration IPRB2503 l l
(Reactor Recirculation Suction piping-Bioshield Vall). ,
t Summary ,
I. No. This use-as-is disposition creates a small void within the layers of f neutron shielding. Calculations verify that the void is insignificant. The original shielding design indicates that S void vould not have a significant impact on the shield's ability to protect components from neutron exposure. Therefore, the '
probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in !
the USAR is not increased. .
II. No. This disposition is bounded by the original shielding design. There l is no impact upon the. operation of any plant component. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a i different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist. .
III. No. The change in-the shield's ability to shield neutrons has been determined to be statistically insignificant. Therefore, it does i
not represent a reduction in the margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications. ,
r I
5 l
1
- . . _ .. , . . , . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . , _ . _ . _ . _ , _ _ . . . . . _ . . . ~ _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - . . , _ .
SE No.: 90-196 Source Document DCp 90-028. Rev. O Description of Change This design change replaces the ASCO dual coil solenoid valves with two ASCO single coil solenoid valves on the outboatd Hain Steam Isolation-Valves (HSIV) in order to correct the sticking problem related to the dual coil solenoid.
Summaty
- 1. No. This change does not alter the HSIV trip logic as described in USAR Section 7.3.1.1.2. Futther, the change does not impact the safety-related air system which supplies motive force for valve closures. The new solenoids and associated tubing are fully environmentally and scismically qualliled for this application.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated is not increased.
II. No. As stated above this change does not alter the HSlV trip logic or I the motive force-(alr). The new components and tubing are fully
, environmentally and seismically qualified. Further, the nev components vill reduce the probability of failure by lovering the expected valve temperatur e rise and eliminating the seizing force
_ associated with the "B" solenoid of the dual coil solenold.
Therefore,'the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of different type than any evaluated previously does not exist.
III. No. Technical Specification 3/4.4.7 states that the operating time for HSIVs is a minimum of three (3) seconds and a maximum of five (5) seconds. Automatic Switch Company (ASCO) submitted test data indicates that the two (2) ASCO single coil control valve assembly is slightly faster than the ASCO dual coil solenoid control valve by 0.5 seconds. Therefore, -the maximum time of five (5) seconds vill still be achievable. A review of past HSIV time response data indicates that sufficient adjustment is available to compensate for the slight. increase in pilot operating time. llence, the minimum operating time is also achievable. Therefore, no margin of safety as described in.the basis for Technical. Specifications is reduced.
l I .,
e i
I
i i
SE No.t 90-197 t Source Document: NR 90-S-277, Rev. O !
Description of Change This evaluation analyzes the interim use-as-is disposition of the Feedvater Loop "B" piping /RPV Nortle, during plant Operational i condition 5. This is due to a reported feedvater nozzle indication which l is beyond the inspection allovable size limits of the ASHE code. i Summary l
I. No. The interim disposition restricts the reactor pressure vessel to '
static pressure The resulting pressure stresses are insignificant ;
during Operational condition 5. Further, there are no sustained {'
loads of significant magnitude during this condition. These conditions are required for crack growth, llovever, these conditions vill not exist during this mode of operation. Therefore, the l probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased. ,
i II. No. See Item I above. .
. III. No. Technical Specification 3/4.4.8 is not vloiated by this interim ;
disposition. Therefore, no margin of aafety as defined in the bases !
for any Technical Specification is reduced.
r P
{ f g .t i
_ ._ - . _ . _ ..m.___ - _ . _ _ _ . - . _ . _ , _ - . _ - - _ . _ _ . . . - -_ -
Source Document: DCP 90-225 Rev. 0 DCP 90-225A, Rev, 0 ;
Description of change j This design change replaces the second stage pump impeller on the _
i Emergency Service Vater (ESV) Pump 1P45-C001D vith a larger size impeller. The use of a larger impeller vill provide additional head and additional reserve flov for the ESV (P45) System. ,
Summary ;
I. No. This change-does not affect the function or integrity of the ESV [
System. The design, fabrication, and installation of the !
modification meets or exceeds the standards / requirements of the !
original design. The prime mover of the pump hns sufficient hotse- 1 power to drive the pump. The ESV piping is designed to vithstand a >
higher pressure-than the modified-pump can deliver. Hence, ,
overpressurir.ation of the piping is not possible. Therefore, the l probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident ot- ;
- malfunction of equipment.previously evaluated is not increased. }
II. No. . This modification is within the original design envelope of the ESV ;
pump. The function of the pump has not-been altered. Analysis has +
shown that-the_ creation of_nisslies due_to the new itipeller is of no ,
concern._ As stated above system overpressurization is also of no concern. Hence, the possibility of c eating an accident or
- malfunction of a different. type than any previously evaluated does :
not exist.
III. No. This' modification does not adversely affect the design f.nction or integrity of the ESV System. . Therefore, no margin of safety as -
defined in the bases for any Technical Specification is reduced.
l h
'I i
')
l
)
k
.# -, , , .n.-.. ,;.,-m.--- . . . - - . . , . , ._,_&, m.--_.m,_ _ _ _ . . _ . , - , . , , , _ ,.-,._..,...1.-,.m y..._ ,.1,m- ,,m.-.. , _ ,w
SE No.: 90-199 Source Documents PTI-GEN-P0015, Rev. 1, TC-2 Description of Change i
This change updates Periodic Test Instruction for the testing of emergency core cooling system header drain valve seats (PTI-GEN-P0015) to incorporate the definition of the term " systems are operating". This update vill eliminate conflicts between the prerequisites of the l instruction and with USAR Appendix 1A, Item III. D.1.1. ,
Summary i I. No. In accordance with ASHE code,Section XI. Subparagraph IVV-3423(e),
seat leakage can be measured at a lover value than the function maximum pressure differential. The observed leakage shall be i adjusted to the function maximum pressure differential using the ratio between test and function pressure differential. Test
-pressure at standby readiness conditions (pump not dead-headed with r elevation correction) is - 45 psig. Pump running maximum function pressure (throttled flov vith elevation correction) is - 165 psig.
These conditions produce a vorse case correction factor of 1.92.
This instruction uses a correction factor of 2 which adds conservatism. This change complies with the USAR since leakage past boundary valves is collected and compare to an overall vater leakage limit. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences :
of an accident or rtlfunction of equipment important to safety I previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item'I above.
III.- No. This instruction change does not effect any safety margin identified
-vithin Technical Specification Section 2.0. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for any Technical Specification i vill not be reduced.
t i
.__.~c-.. ..-m.,- , ..c.-__,m,-v, e,-.. , , - c4 -4e.- .- . . - . . .e +, w-r----u,+
SE No.: 90-200 Source Document: SXI-049. Rev. O Description of Change !
i This evaluation analyzes a feedvater pump runout capability test being performed as a retest for Reactor Feedvater pump Turbines (RFPT) A&B.
The test is required because of a diffuser replacement in each pump.
i Summary I. No. The test verifies the feedvater runout flov and makes the necessary adjustments to the RFPT high speed stops to ensure that the maximum feedvater runout does not exceed 143% (NBR). Until the verification is completed and the high speed stops are adjusted there vill only ,
be one RFPT on the Master Level Controller. This ensures that the !
plant remains within the analyses described in USAR Section 15.1.2.
- Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above. !
III. No. All Technical Specification changes using the 143% feedvater runout l flow were' incorporated in Amendment 20 of the Technical Specifications. This test vill ensure that the 143% feedvater runout flow vill not be exceeded. Since runout flow vill not exceed i 143%, all accidents / transients vill remain bounded by those previously evaluated. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for any Technical Specification is reduced.
1 t
I
. - . , . - - _ , , . . . - _ - , , , ~ , - _ - , , . - - - - , , - - - ,
. ~ - ,- - . - . , , , , - - _ , - . . - . - - , . . . , , -- ,
l SE No.: 90-201 i Source Document PAP-1922, Rev. 1, TC-1 Description of Change i
This change' updates PAP-1922. " Preparation, Reviev, and Approval of Pre-Fire Plan Instructions." The change includes departmental title changes and the location of laminated Pre-Fire Plan Packets. ;
i Summary I. No. This change is administrative in nature and is consistent with the fire protection requirements of the USAR. Therefore, the probability of occur:ence or the consequences of an accident or .
malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in l the USAR is not increased. !
II. No. This change is administrative in nature and is consistent with the f fire protection requirements of the USAR. Therefore, the '
possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different !
type than any evaluated pr~eviously in the USAR does not exist. !
III. No._ This procedure change is consistent with the Fire Protection Program !
as described in Technical Specifications Section 6.5.1.6, 6.5.2.8 and 6.8.1. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases !
for any Technical Specification is reduced.
e t
f i
1 m , - -. -,-- . . - - - ...,.,--..-_..m.-r.-m __ ,, , -
. _ , ~ . _ . . . . , . , . , _ . , . _ . , - , , , , _ . - ~-~.,m~_m_,-._ . . , , , . . , , _ .w.. .._c.m_.,p
- . . . - . . - - .. ~. . - . - _ _ _ - . .__ . - . - . - - . . _ - _ - - . - . .
SE No.: 90-202 Source Document: DCN 3238, Rev. 0
- Description of Change ,
i This drawing change modifies P&lDs 302-103, Condensate System, and !
816-012 Instrument Air Tubing, to depict the as-built configuration of :
the control signal for the Turbine flood Spray. ;
i Summary l I.-No. The as-built cosifiguration does not change the function or i performance of the hood spray for the turbine, but shows the correct l temperature sensing and transmitter configuration. Therefore, the possibility of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of. equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. 'See Item I above.
III. No. The operation of the Turbine flood Spray is not addressed in !
Technical Specifications. Further, the function or performance or- .
the hood spray has act been altered. Therefore, no margin-of safety '
as defined in the bases for any Technical Specification vill be reduced, t
J F
?
l l
I
- f-h
( b' i ,
, . _ . - , _ . , . _ - - . . . . _ . _ . . _ . . . . . _ . - . _ . , . , . _ . . . . - ._ . _ . , . . . . . . _ . - . . _ . . . ~ . . . _ . , . . - . _ . . . , , . . -
.m... . _ _ . - . - . .___._m._ _ _ _.~. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ . . . . _ . _ . _
v :
l l
l I SE No.: 90-203 i Source Document: DCN 3252. Rev. O {
. i
, Dercription_of Change This drawing change modifies Architectural Draving E-015-044, Reactor '
Refueling Floor-Laydown Study, by adding the storage location of some plant tools and equipment.
Summary I. No. This change adds the storage location of various fuel handling tools .
and equipment to the drawing. There is no impact upon the actual :
tools or equipment. The function of the tools has not been altered. ',
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment importa:it to safety is not increased.
II. No. This change does.not impact the function of any fuel handling tool !
or equipment. Fuel handling operations have not been altered.
- Accident analysis has not been affected. Therefore, the possibility i of creating an accident or malfunction of a type different than previously evaluated does not exist. .
+
III..No. There is nn impact upon any fuel handling tools or equipment. i Accident analysis has not been altered. The Refueling Technical Specifications have not been affected. Therefore, no margin of safety has been reduced.
i 1
-Y
'P
. . - .- ,- . - - - , . - - ~ - , , . - - , , - . - - - . . . - - . . _ , . - - - - -
P l
Source Document DCN 3354, Rev. O USAR CR 90-116 S01-H40, Rev. 4 Description of Change This evaluation analyzes the continuous opetation of the Fuel Handling [
Building Ventilation (H40) System exhaust train plenum heaters when the asseciated fan is in service.. ;
Summary I. No. The use of the heatecs vill aid in maintaining charcoal efficiency by reducing the telative humidity of the air entering the charcoal bed. The heaters are rated as continuous duty and vill not cause the system'to be operated outside of the design or testing limits.-
Therefore, the probability of occurrer.ce or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously .
evaluated in the USAR is not increased. !
- 11. No. The operation ei the heaters canrot af fect the reactor coolant l pressure boundary or any of the fuel handling equipment. The ;
charcoal plenum is equipped with tenperature sensors, indicators, !
and high temperature alarms. Also installed is a fire suppression- ~'
system. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist. .
III. No. This change does not exceed any limit associated with the original 1 design analysis. Further, the physical parameters and conditions are consistent-with that of the original design. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for any Technical Specification vill be reduced.
i l
i
- , - ~ .
- v. -. ~. - - - - .. - . - -.. _. .- ..__. - - _ _ .- .- .
- source Documents LL&JED l-90-136 Oscetiption of Change f this evaluation analyzes iristallation of a jumper to silence the Fuel :
Pandling-Building Evacuation Alarm thile performing maintenance on Motor ?
Control C, enter (HCC) FIC08.
~
Summary-I. Uc. Maintenance on MCC F1008 requires that the Fuel llandling Building Ventilation Rhdiat on i Monitor OD17-K710 be placed in a tripped ;
condition per Technical Specifications. This vill activate'the Fuel :
Hand)ing Building Evacuation Alarm continuously vhile the maintanance is in progress. The tripped radiation monitor and the !
continuous evacuation alarm would provide n6 uceful information - !
regarding the radiological conditions. Provisiens.are made to take grab samples at least once every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. Therefore, the !
probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in_ ,
the USAR is not increased. ,
i
- 11. No. Ste Item I above. -
III. No. Technical Specification'3/4.3.7.1 requires grab samples to be taken when 0D17-K710 is out of service. Since this specification is satisfied, the margin of safety vill not be reduced. !
i s
r i
4 A
l t 3
4 v -- n*- - r - . , - - - + -w y ,.,,.m y ,d_,_,,,
SE No.: 90-206 Source Document NR 90-S-276, Rev. O NR 90-S-131 Rev. 1 Description of Change This evaluation analyres the temporary use-as-is (Operational Conditions 4 and 5 only) disposition of the flov that was obtained during the Emergency _ Service Vater (P45-ESV) System loop test performed under TXI-0112. The acceptance criteria for the flov to the fuel Pool lleat Exchangers (C41-FPCC) was not met.
Summary I. No. These systems, P45 and G41, are intended to mitigate the consequences of a h00P/LOCA accident. Neither the ESV or the FPCC System car. initiate a LOOP /LOCA and this disposition does not affect the sys; ems ability to perform their mitigation functions.
.Therefore, the niobability of occurrence or the connequencos of an accident or malfunctino of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is n6t increased.
II. No. This disposition vill not affect the intended function or integrity of the ESV_ System. The reduced flow rate through the Fuel Pool llent Exchangers have no effect on any other ESV heat-load, Calculation C41-34,._ Revision 1 shows that the reduced flev through the Fuel Pool
!! eat Exchanger is in excess of the minimum required flow. The disposition vill allow the Fuel Pool llent Exchanger to function as intended. The disposition does rust introduce any new failure modes.
Therefore, the possibility of creating an accldent or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. .The' flow rate vill not impact any plant funct$on important to safety. The ESV System remains unchanged by this disposition.
Therefore, no margin of safety-as defined in the bases for any Technical Specification vill be reduced.
l l
l-l
1 St No.: 90-207 Source Document: USAR CR 90-034 Description of Change This evaluation analyzes the following changes to the USAR: adding IE51-F040 to the containment isolation valve listing, changing penetration P106 General Design Criteria (CDC) compliance f rom GDC-57 to !
GDC-56, and adding a text description of the Instrument Air System's compliance with GDC-57.
Summary I. No. This USAR change incorporates the items described above.
Penetration P106 has two isolation salves which exceeds the !
requirements of GDC-57. Agreements with the NRC reached during an inspection conducted between June 27 and October 23, 1989 changed compliance to CDC-56 for this penetration. This is similar to ECCS and RCIC suction line and test line penetrations. 1E51-F040 has always been telled upon as the primary isolation for this RCIC line (USAE Section 6.2.4.2.2.3). Further, 1E51-F040 vill be type "C" tested with water to satisfy the containment leak rate criteria.
The Instrument Air System's compliance with GDC-57 has not changed. ,
- The description is contained in a USAR table, however, this change incorporates the information into the main USAR text. Overall, no i physical changes have occurred to the plant by this USAR change.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an
- accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated has not increased.
II. No. Add 8 tion of the valve to the containment isolation valve list does
~
not a1ter the valve's function or operation. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAM does not exist.
III. No. Including 1E51-F040 in the Leak Rate Test program improves-the margin of safety as defined in the Technical Specifications by reducing potential containment Icakage post-LOCA.
t f
[-
l l
[
p
,m, ., -,.-_-.u_.,-- - , --4 3,w--- , . , - -- , , -,.e--.-- m + --e-- mw. - e v =
Source Document: SXI-042, Rev. O ;
Description of Change >
This evaluation analyzes testing the Auxiliary Boiler Ventilation System in the summer and vinter modes of operation to obtain the relative pressures between the Heater Bay and Auxiliary Boiler Buildings. This information vill be used to determine acceptable modes of operation for the Auxiliary Building Ventilation Systen.
Summary I. No. The proposed test may induce the flow of air from the Heater Bay -
Building into the Auxiliary Boiler Building. This air is then free to pass out of the Auxiliary Boller Building through the normally unmonitored roof exhaust fan. To quantify any possible release, temporary sampling equipment vill be placed into service in the Auxiliary Boiler Building. The testing methods vill be similar to those presently employed in the plant vent systems. This. test also monitors the fan performance to ensure that component degradation does not occur. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an_ accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. .The monitoring of radiological levels during the testing in a method ;
consistent with the installed radiological monitors in the Heater Bay, eliminates the probability of an unmonitored release. Further, the test is designed to test nonsafety/nonseismic equipment not required for safe shutdown. Therefore, the possibility of creating i an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. The proposed activity vill not reduce the margin of safety as defined in the bases for any Technical Specification.
8 5
Source Document USAR CR 90-106' Description of Change This evaluation analyzes an editotial change to USAR Section 13.1.2.2.4 which addresses feedback of opetating experience for the operating shift crev.
Summary .
I. No. This change involves administrative responsibilities of operational shift crevs. It is consistent with NUREG 0737 Section I.C.5.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. This change is administrative in nature. Shift crew administrative L responsibilities are not described in the Technical Specifications.
Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for any Technical Specification is reduced.
I 1
7
- v. ..w,, e y,.. :_,,_. ...,,.e , ,
m.. , . . , _,
,y,my_,_.,,,.._,
SE No.: 90-211 Source Document: NR 90-5-279, Rev. 1 Description of Change This evaluation analyzes reducing the Containment Spray (E15) System Spray nozzles form 345 to 344 on the spray rings supplied by the Residual Head Removal System Loop "S".
Summary
- 1. No. The-issue of having i 1 nozzles por spray loop vill have an
( insignificant effect on the ability of the EIS System to perform its design function. The volume of water being pumped through the E15 -
System is. unchanged. The addition or deletion of one nozzle per spray loop vill h;ve a negligible effect on the overall spray pattern. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in-the USAR is not increased.
II. No. .The EIS System is essentially unchanged due to the constant flov rate total per loop and an insignificant change in spray pattern.
.The system still provides protection of containmeist from overpressurization. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III.-No. The change of_i 1 nozzle per loop does not change the rate at which water-is dispersed through the loop or significantly change the spray coverage. 'Therefore.'the margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill not be reduced.
1
__ - . - - . . - = _ - - - - - - - - - . . ~ . . - - . _ . -
1 e
SE No.: 90 212 t
- Source Document: USAR CR 90-119 Description of Change i This evaluation analyzes updating the description of the Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup (G41-FPCC) System operation prior to Unit 2 !
completion. i Summary I. No. The FPCC System cooling sources are not being changed. System ,
operation has not been altered. The estimated heat load the FPCC System must remove for single plant operation is significantly below the heat load associated with dual plant operation. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or ,
. malfunction or equipment important to safety previously evaluated is .
not increased. ,
II. No. -The FPCC System is not being modified. Heat removal capacity for single unit operation is well within the design heat removal :
capacity associated with dual unit operation. Temperature ,
conditions in the associated environmental zones have not been impacted. Therefore, the possibility of creating an-accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluation does not exist.
'III . No.- The FPCC System has not been altered. Heat removal capability for "
single unit operation remains bounded-by that required for dual unit operation. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the basis ;
' for Technical Specifications is reduced. )
I t
L l
f
+ -.-n. - .,- - - . , ,-w. ---..-,,.r, .,,-...,.w. -
4 -.-e-p .,,,ay,-.mm,w_ g----,-- --
3-my, ,-,m,.-----e-v,--.+-c,,,---t--t - ^ ' ' ' ' "
SE No.: 90-213 Source Documeng USAR CR 90-120 ;
Description of Change r
This evaluation analyzes a clarification to the USAR reflecting the use [
of Unit 1 Emergency Service Vater (ESV) to cool the Fuel Pool Cooling and i Cleanup (G41) Heat Exchangers prior to operatica of Unit 2 Emergency Closed Cooling System.
t
-Summary P
I. No. This change clarifies what the E5V to G41 heat exchanger flow rate and the estimated pool heat load vill be prior to Unit 2 operation. <
Both values are below that which was previously analyzed for the G41 i heat exchangers for the dual plant operation. The total number of bundles capable of being stored in-the pool is not altered by this '
change. In addition, operation of G41 System is not being altered by this change. Total heat load being discharged to ultimate heat '
sink is below that of dual unit operation. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or ,
malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased, i II. No. The operation of G41 System is not being-altered by this change. No 1 physical changes to the plant-are being made or implied by this change. Ther , fore, the possibility of creating an accident or .
malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. This change does not adversely impact the ESV flov to the emergency core cooling system heat exchangers. The change does not affect the minimum spent fuel pool vater levels nor the capability of cooling '
4020 fuel assembliec for Unit 1 operation. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for any Technical Specification vill be reduced.
I l
I i-
_ . . . - ,-_ _ ,,, . , , - , _ _ _ . _ . _ . . , _ . . - . , , , - . , . _ - - -r. ~ . . , . . , - , _ . . - . , , - , , . . . _ - - . .
I i
)
SE No.: 90-214 Source Document: NR 90-5-27 Rev. 2 Description of Change This evaluation analyzes the use-as-is disposition of the flov that was !
obtained during the Emergency Service Vater-(P45-ESV) loop test -
(TXI-Oll2). The acceptance critt,rcia for the flov to the fuel pool heat exchangers (G41-FPCC) was not met.
Summary !
I. No. The C41 and P45 S/ stems are designed to mitigate the consequences of a design basis accident. This change does not alter the accident mitigation funettons of either of these systems. The ability of G41 ,
to cool the spent fuel pools is not impacted by using a lover ESV flow rate.- Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously :
evaluated is not increased. ,
II. No. This diroosition does not impact the G41 cooling function of the h fuel pools. The lover ESV flow rates place less stress on the FPCC fleat Exchangers, thus improving the structural reliability of the -
heat-exchangers. The effects of a failure of either the P45 or G41 <
System has not been altered. The function of the ESV System has not changed and_the different flow rates to the C41 Heat Exchangers has no impact upon any other ESV System load. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type not previously evaluated does not exist.
III. No. The ESV flow rate vill not impact any plant function important to safety. The ESV System remains unchanged by this disposition.
Therefore, no margin of safety is reduced.
'o I
f
('
l l
l f
,,-.d >.z. -. ,, , , , , , - -__,.,-,,-m-. ,- _,
.. _.. . .. , . _ _ .. . . . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ - . . _ _ . _ __ _ _ _ - ~_._m. ,
t !
V i i r .
1-SE No.: 90-215 _ _
l l . Source-Document: NR.90-S-280, Rev. 1 ,
I -
i Description of Change i- This evaluation analyzes the temporary use of a nonconforming level ;
[ switch in the Division 1 Diesel Generator (DG) fuel oil day tank, ,
j:- The switch and its associated secondary fuel oil transfer pump will :
not-be considered operable until the rework disposition is implemented.
It Summary
- I. No. This nonconformance report is limited to the Division 1 DG Fuel Oil -
Transfer System. The nonconforming part is a non-qualified switch '
- mechanism housed within a level svitch whose output is used in the fuel oil-transfer system control circuitry. The failure of this l mechanism can-result in either the continuous operation of the s i; _ secondary _ transfer pump, premature / deferred operation of this pump, -
or no pump operation. Since there are two, redundant transfer pumps i.
, . . In_the fuel oilytransfer system the misoperation-of one pump vill I'
not adversely impact!the operation of the-DC. Additionally, the use of this nonconforming component does not adversely impact the fuel oil-transfer system control circuit. Therefore, the probability of ,
occurrence'or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of-l equipment prov.fously evaluated has not increased.
j
'II. No.
This disposition does not introduce any new design standards, changes-in.DG< performance, or changes in equipment reliability.
Therefore, the possibillty of creating an accident or malfunction of
- a"different type than any evaluated previously in:the.USAR does not
- exist.l .
. III.-No. _This-disposition-is limited only:to Division 1~DG.- As' stated above- .
- the operation _- of-this DG is not affected. Hence?'theEreliability" t
4 vfLthis_onsite power supply is not impacted. .Therefore, no margin
-of_ safety vill be reduced.
r
.c3e 5 1
.'I
.y P
5 1
2 i
4
)
e - _2 m_ .i h,- 1 , i,-s ,y, y ,
SE-No. 216
-Source Document: DCN 2972, Rev. O Description of Change Th*s drawing change revises P&ID 302-101, Condensate System, to indicate she presence of hotvell pump shaft seal connections.
Summa ry I. No. The editorial addition of match mark indications to indicate that the seal vater as-built configuration to the hotwell pump c.an be
-:found on P&ID 302-151 does not alter the physical plant. .Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment impcrtant to safety previously evaluated in the USAR.is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. .This drawing revision is editorial in nature. The seal vater lines are as-built and are not altered by this change. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for any Technical Specification vill be reduced.
i 1
y F'-
o S'
u, .
p I
.T i u ..
.- -_. ~ ._ . _ _ . _ - .. _. -_ __. _
, SE No.: 90-217' LSource Document: USAR CR 90-121
-Description of Change 2This evaluation analyzes updating the USAR to reflect the charcoal loading of the Offgas (N64) adsorption trains. ,
Summary I. No. Design change 89-213 added additional charcoal to Offgas Adsorbers 1N64-D013A/B, -D014A/B, and -D015A/B. The adsorber is designed to hold 9076 lbs. Current loading is 7800 lbs. which is an increase of approximately 3000 lbs over-the previous loading. This loading is belov'the design loading hence the new loading vill not contribute '
to adsorber failure as described in USAR Section 15.7. The charcoal augmentation does not adversely affect any system or component required for accident mitigation. Further, the augmentation does not impact the radiation monitors which monitor and control the Offgas effluents. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II.-No. The additional charcoal does not alter the probability of a fire for it has no impact upon any possible ignition source. The pressure drop across adsorbers is less than that experienced with the-previous loading. llence, the probability of flow blockage is remote. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than previously evaluated not exist.
III. No. The additional charcoal vill reduce the Offgas System release rates.
Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for the Technical Specifications vill not be reduced.
I
, ,,_ ,~,.. , .-
. Source Document: DCP 90-267, Rev 0.
Description of Change This design change installs a pressure gauge with an isolation valve at the Emergency Service Water (ESV) System Loop "A" sample point.
. Summary I. No. The gauge, valve and associated piping are safety class 3 components,'and are installed in accordance with the applicable design and installation codes. System operation is not affected.
Accident analysis is not' altered. Therefore, the probability of -
occe;;ence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No,.
Thie modificatior, is consistent with the present design. System operation is nat affected. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated prt:viously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. Overall' system design and operation remains unchanged. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for any Technical Specification vill be reduced.
.m. ___ _ _ . ~ - - . _ . _ _ _ . - . . . . . _ _ _ _
1 SE No.: 90-219- !
Source Document: SXI-0046, Rev. O HFI.1-91-047 .
. Description of Change This evaluation analyzes a test which provides the Reactor Vater Cleanup >
(RVCU) System's Backvash Receiving. Tank (BVRT) pressure data which vill be utilized-to size a loop seal for the tank's overflow line.
Summary- ,
I. No. This test has no affect upon the RVCU System's ability to-maintain water quality. There vill be no impact upon the RVCU System's and the Containment Vessel and.Dryvell Purge (M14) System's ability to establish and maintain containment integrity. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences or an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above. .
i III. No. This test has no cffect on the ability of the RVCU System-to maintain required water quality limits. The M14 System operation
' vill be.vithin Technical Specification requirements. . Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for any Technical Specification vill'be reduced.
f l
1 t
t.
l
, . ,._ .. - . , m ._
- - . .. . . . ~ . . - -.. - .. .. ._ - .. -. . .. . - .. . - .~ _
t fSE No.: 90-220 Source Document: NR 90-S-299, Rev. I ;
Description of Change e I .
This evaluation analyzes the interim use-as-is disposition of the Post Accident Sample (P82) System valve IP87-F055. The valve disc was installed without recording the valve disc serial number or heat number.
Summary I No.- The disc installed was in fact supplied as safety-related ASME and +
does have a serial number and is traceable to a heat number. This is documented on MR # 058990. The problem that exists is that the disc could be either of two discs supplied.under that MR. Since i traceability _back to a heat number (in this case two numbers) does exist, the intent of the ASME code is satisfied. Further, a proper valve disc was installed into the valve and its safety function has not been altered or compromised. Therefore, the probability of i occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of
-equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. N,c. The NR only addresses the valve disc traceability. Since the proper valve disc was-installed into valve IP87-F055 and the function, reliability and operability of it is not in question, the use-as-is disposition of the NR does not create:an accident or malfunction of ,
L_ .a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR.
l
'III. No. The traceability of the valve dise does not jeopardize the margin of safety of this valve. Additionally, the operability of 1P87-F055 .
coes not adversely impact the Technical. Specification for_ !
containment isolation valves. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications is reduced.
l r
i l
l l
l
. - . . . _ , - _ _ _ _ _ . . ~ ._ .. _ _ . _ . _ _ . . . . _ - . . , , _ . _ , __ m.
SE No.: 90-221 Source Document: CR 90-427 Description of Change This evaluation analyzes the operation of the Control Complex Chill Vater (P47) System with isolation valves P47-F290A/B and P47-F295A/B in a throttled position. Additionally, the input to the valves' lov level isolation vill be switched to a different instrument to ensure a faster isolation time. This vill be an interim operating mode which is necessitated by the event described in CR 90-427.
Summary I. No. The two activities described above vill ensure that if the event postulated in CR 90-427 vould occur the P47-System vill not become inoperable (reference calculations P47-5 and P47-6). Implementation of the activ!tfes only impacts the nonsafety portion of the P47
-System. Overall, the operation, function, and design intent of the P47 System vill not be affected. The operation of the P47 System in this mode does not impact the function or operation of any system supported by P47. Further, the operation of P47 does not impact the !
accident / transient analysis described in.the USAR. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated is 3 not increased.
II. No. Implementation-of the two activities described above vill reduce P47 t flov to nonsafety components. Calculations indicate that this vill
(' not adversely affect these systems. No safety-related systems vill be impacted. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of different-type than any previously evaluated does not exist.
III. No.
As stated above, no safety-related system vill be affected by the proposed activity. Further, even if the event postulated 1n CR 90-427 vould occur P47 vould still be available to perform its.
intended function. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for any Technical Specification vill be reduced.
l
- 1. . ,, .. - - . - .
1 SE.No.:-- 90-222
' Source Documents Plant Data Book, Tab F, Rev. O j l
Description of Change This' evaluation analyzes the relocation of the MAPLilGR Limits, the MAPFAC Curves,.the MCPR Curves, and the LilGR Limits from the Technical Specifications to the Plant Data Book (PDB).
Summary I. No. The-thermal-limits establish _ boundaries on fuel and core operation. !
The_ actual limits in the PDB have been previously evaluated by the NRC as acceptable _for use. The methodologies used to determine the limits have not been altered. Accident analysis contained in USAR Chapter-15 have not been adversely impacted. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of_ equipment previously evaluated is not increased.
LII. No._ The thermal-limits have-been evaluated by the NRC as acceptable.
.The methodologies used to determine the limits have not been altered. -There=is no impact upon equipment deemed important to
-safety. Fuel integrity is maintained. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction 01 a type different than
~
previously-evaluated does not exist.
-III. No.- Fuel cladding integrity .is maintained. .The methodologies used to determine the thermal limits have not been altered. Accident analysis has not been adversely impacted. ECCS acceptance'eriteria !
per 10CFR50.46 remains satisfied. Therefore, no margin of safety is reduced.
t Y
. , , - ,,,c . - . 7 . - ,
. ~ . , _ . - . . . -. . ~ . . . . . - _ . - - - _ - - . - . _ - -.- . . . . - - . _ . _ ~ .
l I
SE No.: ~90-223. I Source Document: DOSEPROJ, Rev. 2.4 j Description of Change i i
This evaluation analyzes revisions to the "Acumdose" portion of the DOSEPROJ program. This program is a PC based computer program used to calculate the radiological impacts of potential accidents.
Summary I. No. .DOSEPROJ is_a computer program which uses plant radiological and-
-meteorological parameters to provide a prediction as to the radiological'impait of a potential accident. This program does not adversely impact any plant system or component. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR-is not increased. .
II. No. DOSEPROJ merely utilizes data from plant _ equipment and in no way ,
impacts plant systems. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously-in the USAR does not exist.
~ III. No. DOSEPROJ program simply. utilizes plant data for calculational.
purposes.only. Therefore, no margin of. safety will be reduced.
2
{
4 i
t 4
4 l
7+ % - . . - . - . _ - , . - - . . . . ~ , - _ . - . . ~ . - . _ - _ _ - - - - . - - - - _ _ - - - - - _ _ - - - - -
. .. , _ - _ . . _ . _ - - . . _ _ . - . _ _ = _ _ _ .
_..._.__m.._.._.
t l
i
.SE No.: 90-224 Source Document: USAR CR 90-112
~ ~
Description of Change' -
This evaluation analyzes a clarification to the USAR addressing how the t
, acceptance criteria of Standard Reviev Plan Section 3.6 is met for moderate energy line breaks (MELB) in the Emergency Service Vater ;
Pumphouse (ESVPH).
i Summary I. No. This change only adds information to describe how the ESVrd meets the neceptance criteria for moderate energy line breaks.- The HELB analyses are not being altered. No changes are being rade to any ,
plant' structure, system, or component. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or raalfunction of _
equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is A not increased.
II. No. This change does not-change the plant. The safe shutdown components in the ESVPH vill _still function as designed. Therefore, the
. possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different
- type then any evaluated previously-in the USAR does not exit.
III. No. _This change only adds a description of the MELB analysis for the ESVPH to-the USAR. This MELB analysis has not been altered. No changes have been made to the plant. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced.
t i
e
< e, - >, , , - - .m-~,... - - . _
_w-mm. . rx-- ,. _,- , _ , - y , , -~ _
I SE No.: 90-226 Source Document: DCN 3382, Rev. 0 ,
Description of Change
-This drawing change revises the calibration information on various P&ID's for the Reactor Vessel Vater Level Instrumentation as field implemented per FDDR-KL l-7012 Rev. 2 6 3.
- Summary 4
I. No. GE SIL 470 Eupplement I previously reported that specific operating biases (e.g., Dryvell operating temperature, vessel thermal growth) vas not accounted for in the plant reactor vessel level instrument calibration calculations. This resulted in an evaluation for Perry :
(SIL Response), that the biases existed, but that additional margin l nov existed between plant safety setpoints and the settJng
- analytical limits. The FDDR vas implemented to include the L operating biases in instrument calibration data which results in L improved precision for the reactor vessel level instrumentation. '
This improveo provision does not alter the safety-related reactor vessel level trip setpoints or their associated analytical limits.
-Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously.
evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. The margin'of safety between Technical Specification reactor vessel l: level' trip settings and their associated analytical limits was not changed or reduced by implementing the new calibration data.
Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases'for Technical Specifications is reduced.
i 1-l l
l
- .. .. . _ . . _ . , , , , _ , ,m.,,_.,
-- -. .- - _-- .- , - - _ - _ . - _ - ._ - - -...c.- - ~ . - . ~ . - - . - . .
l i
l SE No.: 90-227 Source Document: NR 90-N-321. Rev. O Description of Change
~
This evaluation analyzes the temporary use-as-is disposition of the Auxiliary Boiler (P61) feedvater recirculation lines without the orifice -
_ plates installed. ;
Summary ,
I. No. The function of the Auxiliary Boller feedvater pump's recirculation lines vill remain unaffected by this disposition. The feedvater pumps vill continue to be cooled by recirculation through these lines. The valve downstream of the orifice union locations can be throttled to provide the required recirculation flow until the orifice unions can be installed. The Auxiliary Boiler feedvater system has no effect on the safety of the plant. Therefore,-the ,
probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in
.the USAR is not increased.
II. No. The Auxiliary Steam System is not afety. Operation of this system has no impact upon plant safety. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any-evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. Technical Specifications do not address the Auxiliary Steam System.
L Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced.
l-l 4
I l
[
l
I SE No.: 90-228 Source Documents. NR 90-S-323, Rev. O Description of Change This evaluation analyzes-the service life extension of one cycle for Pullman and CE supplied E-Systems snubbers. The basis for this extension is contained in-a Lake Engineering Co. (Greenville, RI) report detling with said subject.
Summary ,
I. No. A comprehensive visual and dimensional evaluation of the bayonet seals in four snubbers indicated a higher level of degradation than that previously observed in ethylene-propylene bayonet seals with a similar history. However, the seals were nonetheless suitable for i additional service life based upon measured compression set values and seal' flexibility. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences'of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety.previously-evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above, III. No. Technical' Specifications describes the snubber's service life based on monitoring snubber service conditions and maintenance history.
Extension of service life for these snubbers is within the criteria described in the bases. Therefore, the margins of safety as defined in'the bases-for Technical Specifications vill not be reduced..
(
V
--e- - - ~ - .,e- w -
ym, w g g
SE No.i 90-229 Source Document: HFI 1-90-149 Description of Change This evaluation analyzes the Mechanical Foreign Item which installs inspection plugs downstream of RHR and HPCS drain valves which drain to i 4 the Auxiliary Building Equipment Drain Manifold. Inspection plugs are installed on nonsafety piping.
Summary I. No. The inspection plugs vill be installed per ANSI B31.1 l Section 104.3.1 (C.2). Installation in accordance with ANSI B31.1 vill ensure that-the pipe integrity will not be reduced. The installation of the drain plugs vill aid in maintaining the drain manifoldLelosed to_the atmosphere, thus reducing the potential for j flooding in the Auxiliary Building. The inspection plugs (and their ;
~
removal) vill be administratively controlled, further reducing.the possibility of flooding. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of-equipment
- important toisafety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II.~No. The installation standards used to install the plugs maintains the piping integrity. -Removal of the plugs is administrative 1y controlled. The plugs have no impact on any equipment other than the drain manifold. Common mode flooding is not possible.
Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of La different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not
- exist.
- , III. No.- The operability of systems in the Auxiliary Building are not .
affected by-the-addition of inspection plugs in the equipment drain
- manifold. The addition of the plugs has no potential impact on any.
other. equipment. Therefore, the margins of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill not be reduced.
a e
~ - ~ , .,
(
- Source Document: DCN 3253, Rev. O Description of Change This drawing change documents on P& ids 256-014, Electrical One Line Diagram for Non-class lE' Buses L21 and L22, and 206-020 Electrical One Line Diagram for 480V Distribution, the addition of the alternate power ;
supply and associated transfer and fuse enclosures for P&R Building-permanent pover.
Summary I. No. . The equipment depicted on these drawings was installed and is operated by Non-Perry Plant Operators. It vill preclude the
_ possibility of paralleling the Quincy feeder _vith_the Unit 2 offsite- !
power source. This change vill not-affect the availability of the Unit 2 offsite power source or its interface with class lE power systems. Additionally, the LOOP analysis described in the USAR has not been altered. Therefore, the probability of. occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
The equipment depicted is nonsafety and has no effect on equipment II. No.
important to plant safety. The power supply to the P&R Building is ;
not required-for plant operation. Therefore, the-possibility of creating an accident lor malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No._ The modifications depicted are nonsafety. The probability of losing the Unit 2 offsite power supply has not been impacted. Therefore, the margins of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill not be reduced.
i 6
_ = _
- -u--,-r, - - ---,-,w,e,e-- ,,,-w-~ - - -wa,-w, - -w- ~ > , - - -
, -----e w ,
.. . . - . - . . ~ __ . - . . . . . .. .- .. ~ ..
SE No.: 90-231 Source Document: FCR 14840 tDescription of Change l
This evaluation. analyzes the temporary installation of a nitrogen freeze seal in the Turbine Building Closed Cooling (P44-TBCC) supply piping to the Isophase Bus Duct Cooling (R13) System.
Summary
-I. No. This freeze seal permits isolation of instrument IP44-NOS57 for removal and maintenance without affecting the operability of the ,
TBCC System. The TBCC system is not required for safe shutdown.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously
-evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. The TBCC is nonsafety and not required for safe-shutdown. To minimize the potential for flooding should this freeze seal fail, the line can be manually plugged. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. The TBCC System or the Isophase Bus Duct Cooling System are not described in the Technical Specifications. The freeze seal and its-
-postulated failure does not-impact any safety-related system.
Therefore, no margin of safety as described in the bases for any Technical Specification vill be reduced.
l l
SE'No.: 90-232 Source Document: DCP 90-292, Rev. O Description of Change ;
This design change replaces the Fire Protection (P54) System Yoloy pipe with cement lined ductile iron and ductile iron fittings in the ten-inch, t
-underground line located to the vest of Varehouse 1.
Summary-I. No. This change is being performed to repair a break in the line where it enters the building. Pipe routing is unchanged and the materials meet the requirements of_NFPA-24. No nev-fire hazards are ;
introduced. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. This change does not adversely-impact the design of any fire suppression feature, detection component, or fire containment ,
component. Further, the change only impacts the Fire Protection !
System and is not functionally related to any-known failure mechanism for plant features important to safety. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. There is no relationship between the proposed change and the bases for any Technical Specification. Therefore, the margins of safety -
as defined in the-bases for Technical Specifications vill not be reduced.
g - 4 -yr-
. _ . . _ . . . .. .__ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ m . _ _ . . _ . _ __ . . _.
l SE No.: T9 0-233 LSource Document: DCN 3258, Rev. O !
~ Description of Change-This_ drawing change vill revise P&ID 913-001, Control Complex Chill Vater,.to reflect the installed condition of level indicator OP47-R262A. ,
Summary I. No. The_ installation of OP47-R262A vas in accordance with the approved design. However, the drawing did not properly reflect this installation. The function or the operation of OP47-R262A vill not be altered. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. The purpose of OP47-R262A is to notify personnel of the level of L liquid in the expansion tank. It does-not perform any accident l mitigation function. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. The drawing change is editorial in nature. It vill not affect the installed condition or the design of level indicator OP47-R262A.
The indicator vill continue to function as designed. Therefore, the margins of_ safety'as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill not be_ reduced.
4 4
4
~ e .e , a- - ,-
r e ,y
I SE No.: 91-001-Source Document: OM15A Emergency Plan for PNPP, Rev. 10, TC-1 ,
Description of Change This evaluntion analyzes changes made to OM15A, Emergency Plan ~for PNPP.
The chnnges are derived from comments made by the State of Ohio and local .
county Emergency Management Agencies as part of their annual review of :
1 the. Perry Emergency' Plan and Emergency Action levels in accordance with t Appendix E (IV.!!) of 10CFR50.
Summary
.I. No. The proposed changes are administrative it; nature. The changes do not effect or direct the operation of any plant system, equipment,
-or component. The changes do not affect prev.iously evaluated USAR accidents. .The effectiveness of the emergency plan has not been '
reduced per 10CFR50.54(q). Therefore, the probability of occurrence
!- or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment E important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III..No. These' changes are administrative in nature-and do not effect or direct the operation, equipment or components. The effectiveness of the emergency plant has not been reduced per 10CFR50.54(q). -
-Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for any Technical Specification vill not be' reduced.
._. ~
h SE No.: .91-002' Source Document: USAR CR 90-130 ,
Description of Change This evaluation analyzes the removal of a requirement that a-pressurized vater sprayEbe used for spent fuel cask-decontamination, while retaining the requirements for_a decontamination method. A pressurized water spray l has the potential for. causing airborne and personnel contamination problems.
Summary I. No. The methods used to decontaminate the cask vould still have to meet all'other USAR requirements. Further, the method must satisfy the requirements with regards to the usage of the e-sk. Cask decontamination methods do not affect any fission product barrier.
The'refore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of -rut accident or. malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. Cask decontamination does not affect any plant system. Using
- decontamination methods that satisfy other USAR requirements should reduce the potential for airborne contamination. No fission product barrier is af fected. Thetefore, *he possibility of creating an accident.or malfunction of a different type than any previously q evaluated does not exist.
.III. No. Lask decontamination is not described in Technical Specifications.
Cask decontamination occurs just prior to shipping, hence no fission
. product barrier is impacted. Therefore, no margins of safety as defined in -the Technical Specifications vill be reduced.
r i
i l
e i
SE No.: 91-003 Source Document: DCN-3242, Rev. O USAR CR 91-026 Description of Change This drawing change revises an administrative note on P&ID 302-621, Emergency Closed Cooling Vater (P42) System, to permit the use of hose /tuoing to direct surge tank overflov to a suitable collection facility. ,
Summary
- 1. No. The addition of hose / tubing does not alter the system function or reliability. This reduces the potential for loss of Division 1 equipment by directing surge tank overfinv to drains rather than the floor and into the Div. 1 Electrical Penetration Room. P42 System redundancy and the emergency source of make-up vater to P42 are not
- impacted. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. Each P42 surge tank has three separate vents to which the hoses are attached. The hoses are not interconnected. A complete blockage of all three vent hoses is r.ot probable. As stated above, this change reduces the potential for loss of Div. 1 equipment due to tank overflov. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. Operability of the Emergency Closed Cooling Vater System vill be maintained. The redundant cooling capacity as described in Technical Specifications is not reduced. Therefore, the margins of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill not '
be reduced.
SE No. 004 source Docunents- DCN 3292, Rev. O HFI 88-188 Description of-Change This drawing change revises P&ID 302-733, Liquid Radvaste, to show a veld cap on a line which prevents conditioning chemicals from being added to the Chemical Vaste Tank, OG50-A0005B.
Summary 4-- -
I. No. This changes does not affect the integrity of the tank. The addition or deletion of conditioning chemicals vill not aggravate the consequences of a tank failure as analyzed since these chemicals have no affect on the levels of radioactivity which would be released. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. The ability to control radvaste effluents is not_ reduced. Tank
- integrity is not affected. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced.
SE No.: 91-005-
~ Source Document: USAR CR.90-065
-Description of Change This evaluation analyzes the addition of information to the USAR concerning the Standby Liquid control (SLC)_ Transfer System.
System I. No. The addition of the SLC Transfer System description in the USAR does
-not affect any previous evaluations performed in the USAR because the SLC Transfer System is not an active plant component and not '
required to function to mitigate the consequences of an accident and/or a transient. The failure of the SLC Transfer System does not affect any other plant system or component. 'there fo re , the probability of-occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment.important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is.not increased.
II, l.o. The SLC Transfer System is only activated to prepare borated water in the case of the very unlikely event of needing multiple borated water injections. The SLC Transfer System pumps the horated solution to the SLC storage tank where the SLC System injects it into the reactor vessel. The SLC System is designed to shutdovn the reactor with one tank of borated solution. _Hence, SLC System design
=1s not impacted. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR'does not exist.
III. No. The SLC Transfer System allows for the long term operation of the SLC System.if necessary. This increases the margin of safety for reactivity control. Therefore, no margins of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced.
h 3
l' l
- Source Document: USAR CR 90-075-Description of Change
-This evaluation analyzes revising'the USAR to add the Lov Pressure Core Spray (LPCS),:the High Pressure-Core Spray (HPCS), and the Reactor Core Injection Cooling (RCIC) suction strainers to USAR Table 3.2-1.
Summary
~I. No. 1This change is editorial in nature. The strain?rs listed above are included in other sections of the USAR and have been included in'the various USAR analyses. Therefore, the prolability of occurrence or the= consequences of an accident or_ malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
- III. No. Addition of.these existing strainers to the USAR has no effect on Technical Specifications. Therefore, the margin of safety as.
. defined;in-the. bases for Technical Specifications vill not be reduced.
e a
r e - , .# - ,. --
.., ,- , y. ,.,,y y . - - .- . . . , .m ,_ p.
SE No.: 91-007 Source Document: USAR CR 91-015 Description of Change This evtluation analyzes correcting various editorial errors in the USAR, i.e. typos, grammatical errors, and changes previously evaluated and approved but not properly incorporated.
Summary I. No. These changes are editorial only. This change request just properly incorporates previously approved USAR changes. The changes do not alter the design, function, or operation of any plant system or component. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. These changes are editorial in nature. They do not impact any plant margin of safety. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced.
1
1
-1 l
1 SE No.: 91-008-l=, DCN 3427, Rev. 0 Source Document:
. Description of Change ;
This drawing change revises P&ID 302-661, Containment Spray (E15) Syster, to reflect the nozzle spacing and nozzle orientation as required by Reg. Guide'l 70. -
Summary I No. This change is editorial in' nature and does not-impact the ability ,
of EIS to perform its design function. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of '
equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased. >
II. No. This change is editorial only. It does not alter the EIS System nor does it impact any equipment important to safety . Therefore,.the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. This change does not impact the EIS System or any equipment important.to safety. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in ,
the bases for Technical-Specifications is reduced, t
b d
I a
4,,nu em.. _ .,- .w .-m-, .u.._ , , - + -,m., --- . . -. -- . , y _
. _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . _ _ . _ . __. . ._ . _ _ . . . . - >._m i
91-009 Source Document: USAR_CR-91-003
- Description of Change-This evaluation analyzes clarifying several terms in three USAR sections.
The term " block" is being changed to " refueling rod block" in Sections 15.4.1.1.2.f and 15.4.1.2.2.3. The term "out of sequence" is <
being-added before the phrase " continuous, rod withdrawal errors"-in two locations in section 15.4.1.2.2.1.
r Summary .
-t I. No. The clarifications are based upon a GE evaluation of the IRM Rod Block function which concludes that IRM Rod Blocks are not relied upon for any accident / transient mitigation. -Further, the design / operation of the plant has not been changed. Therefore, the e
probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or ;
malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR_is not increased.
_.II. No. See Item I above. <
III. No. This change is editorial and is consistent with Technical Specifications. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill not be reduced.
l' ll
~
l
'f. >
ii,i m.
SE'No.:D 91iO10-Source Documents- USAR VR-91-012 ,
a- ,
Description of-Change This evaluation analyzes revising the Standby' Diesel Generator (DG) fuel oil properties and methods of testing. This safety evaluation revises
- g? Safety Evaluation 90-175.
Summary ;
The use of fuel ~ oil with different properties does not impact the I. No. ,
design, function or performance of the_DG._3the new fuel oil remains j!q " '
in conformance with Reg. Guide 1.137-and.the various ASTM Standards associated with fuel oils. 1The testing of the fuel. oil is l' consistent with the ANSI'and ASTH standards associated with fuel-
- . oils. Therefore, the probability or occurrence or the consequences
) -- , of an accident or malfunction previously evaluated is not increased.
1 II. No. The new fuel does not adversely affect any plani equipment. The design or function of the'DG has not been impacted. Therefore, tho possibility offereating an accident or malfunction of a type different-or' malfunction of a type dffferent'than evaluated does not exist. .
III. No'.-'The nev fuel does not impact the dest.gn,. function, or performance of the DG. Hence, the_ reliability.of.the onsite power nupplies in accordance with Technical Specificationi 3/4.8 has not been impacted.
i Therefore, no margin of safety has been reduced.
P
? \
, :A N
1-
. - - - - ,, . , - - , e . ., , . - , - .- - - - - - - - . . _ .
SE No.: 91-011 B Soutte Documenti USAll Cft 91-019 Descrlyttou of Change This evaluation analyzes coriceting various ed!'orial errors in the USAlt, i.e. typos, format cotrections, gi attina t roniections, and changes previously evaluated and approved but not propetly incorporated.
$"mmary 2 1. No. These changes ate editorial only. This change request jutst progtly incorpotaten pteviour.ly approved USAR changes. The changes do not alter the design, function, or ope ation of any plant system or component Therefore, the probability of occuttence or the con;egtances of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to r.afety previously evaluated in the USAR is not inrtensed.
- 11. No. See Item I above.
In. ho. These changes are editorial in naiure. They not iSport any plant margin of safety. Ther ef ore, no mat gin of saf ety an ti3 tined in the bases for Technical Specification vill t,e reduced.
Y L
1 m <______.________ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _
- _ .- - .. - --~ _ -. . ,... .. - -. -... _ . - ---. - . - - ..-._ _- -
i I
t i
SE No.: 914012 i F.ourci Document: USAR CR 91-020 y ' Description of Change .
This evaluation analyres revising PNPl"s License Commitments (LC) 47, #8, and #13. LC #7 describes Perry's compliance with R.G. 1.97. This change j
accounts for all licensing activity that occurred in 1990. LC 48 states i
'that a portion of the commitment has been closed as detal ad in a letter i sent to the HRC. The change to LC 613 merely adds another letter to the !
listed references which provides the results of a fatigue analysis for
, the in-core guide tubes during single loop operation.
Summary I. No. The LC's A not make any plant modifications. The changes also do not impact accident analysis. The changes simply update the USAR to !
include the PNPP responses made to the NRC as documented in various submittals to-the NRC. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or !
the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment ,
important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not ;
increased.
II. No. The ch'anges are editorial. No plant modifications have been made. l Accid (nt analysis has not been-e.ltered. -Therefore, the possibility of crear.ing an accident or malfunction of a different type than any ,
evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. 'Phe changes are editorial. The changes-just update the USAR to -}
include responses made to the NRC as documented in various other !
correspondence. No plant changes have been made. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specification r vill be reduced.
i
?
i
!- i
! 4 j
-l s- 6 -v e ww w eve, m.-r==er--++*--,-,-----,e ve4e-% - - . +-.m<,--e. w ve.= , ..m.ew-.,n -+,..-n-=-- a---..rwm-- -=----~.-%- - -.vr.,- * .e-r-
i l
SE No.: 91 013 JS_ource Document llSAR CR 90-021 r
Description of Change This evaluation analyzes various editorial text changes to the USAR ,
sections which describe the plant organization.
Summary ;
- 1. No. This change is editorial. It only updates the description of the !
plant organization as stated in the_USAR. The plant has not been modified or altered. Accident analysis has not been impacted. '
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences _of an accident or malfunction _of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. This change is editorial. The plant organization has not been altered. The plant has not changed.. Accident analysis has not been i impacted. Therefore, the possibility for creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously does not exist.
III. No. This change is editorial in nature. It does not alter the plant.
The plant organization remains consistent with the organization that is described in. Technical Specificatien. Therefore, no margin of i safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications will be
- reduced. l I
I i
e 1
.s , . _ _ . . _ _ _ _.,.__-;_,. .. _ _ _ . _ _... _ .._
_- ._. _ . , . _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . ._ . _ . _ . _ . _ . - . _ _ . _ - . _ . . = _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _
- Souris Docurvent DCN 3383, Rev, 0
, SCN 304-D$p-R45-h46-R47-3-4$49 Descriltion of Change This evaluation analyzes revising various p&lD's and the design ,
specification associated with t;% Standby Diesel Generators (DG) to incorporate a change in the code associated with the fuel oil transfer l pump level svitches. ,
Summary l
- 1. No. This change revisen the code class for the DG fuel oil transfer pump ;
level switch connections to the fuel oil day tank. The change is
' rom Class 3 to non-ASHC safety-related. Ilovever, the design still jatisfies the ASME code Section III requirements. Further, these connectiona are not relied upon to maintain day tank integrity. The i level svitehes continue to provides their safety-related function. ;
Overall, this change does not adversely in. pact the design, function, '
or performance of the DC's. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously cvaluated is not increased.
i II.-No. This change does not impact the design function, or performance of I the DG's. The DG's will still provide all mitigation actions i required by accident analyses. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a type different than previously evaluated does not exist.
Ill. No. This change does not adversely impact the design or operation of the DG's. There is no impact upon Technical Specification 3/4.8 vhich deals with onsite power supplies. Therefore, no margin of safety has been reduced. ?
b 4
',---en y-v- -
p e < ,w.+',.-w. , w wew.,,,-r,m ,-w , , i.-es., ,m. * ---.-m
. -~ , . , , _ -e -.*- .mr,- --...,w-4,-r.,, .-. --,
i SE No.: 91-015 Source Document: USAR CR 91-022 t
Description of Change {
This evaluation tnnlyzes changing the reporting point of the Independent '
l Safety Engineering Group (ISEG) from the Director, Perry Nuclear Engineering Department (PNED), to the Vice President, Nuclear-Perry.
Summary ,
I. No.. The administrative reporting point of the ISEG has no impact upon l any plant equipment or accident analysis. Therefore, the '
probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or i malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in f the USAR is not increased. !
II. No. See Item I above. [
- III. No. Technical Specifications state the ISEG recommendations and activity ,
records vill be sent to the Director, PNED. ISEG vill continue to comply with this statement. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced.
2 i
e l
l t i
\
4 i
'k 6
l
, , . . . . . . _ . _ . . , . . . . . . , m, ~~...r., ., _ . . , - . . _ . , _ . _ , . ~ . . . . . _ . . , , , , . , . _ , , ,..r.. .-e._...
__.._..._._..__..___._m.__
a- .
Y e
SE No.: 91-016 i Nourc^o Documents DCN 3417, itev. O !
Description of Change l This drawing change updates P& ids 806-022 and 806-023, Plant Radiation '
Honitoring System, to accurately tellect HPL symbolism, ;
i Summary j I. No. This change is editorial in nature. It just corrects instrument -
symbol designation on the P&lDs. The design and function of the instruments in question have not been altered. Therefore, the probability _of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in i the USAR is not increased. .
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. This change is editorial in nature. The instruments in question are !
not safety-related. Further, the function of the instruments have not changed. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced.
I f
i i
I i
k l
i i
$E No.t 91-017 ;
Source Document USAR CR 91-027 i Description of Change This evaluation analyzes making various editorial revisions to the USAR. ;
The revisions include administrative corrections and updating figure !
lists.
Summary I. No. The changes contained in this tfSAR change request are editorial in nature. There are no changes to the plant. Accident analysis has :
not been impacted. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the !
consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously [
evaluated in the USAR is not increased. i II. No.-'These changes are editorial only. The plant has not been chringed nor has accident analysis been impacted.' Hence, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a type different than evaluated does not exist. I III. No. These changes are editorial. The plant has not been altered.
Accident analysis has not been impacted. Therefore, no margin of safety will be: reduced. ;
i i
't V
)
t t
L
_t
)
r
%.--o., -w -
r, - - y , ------,m ,--w-r- - . - - -+ r e e - - e *y-+-v,, .v,e+--e.- v- . +.we-e. e-n.e-e,4-m._r, + - - = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I SE No.: 91-010 Source Document: DCN 3291, Rev. O ;
i' Description of Change This drawing change revises P&ID 302-162, Hakeup Vater Pretreatment (P20) l System. The change includes deleting the lov-low cleatvell vater trip i and the P21 regeneration permissive interlock associated with the !
cicarvell pumps. '
Summary
{
I. No. This change climinates the inadvertent trips of the clearvell pumps. l The clearvell pumpo supply seal vater to the service water and
- circulating vater pumps. Loss of seal vater to those pumps can result in a plant trip. The difference in clearvell tank level !
between the low-lov level trip and lov-lov level alarm provides :
sufficient volume even under maximum system demand to ensure !
compensatory actions can be taken to-maintain clearvell flov.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an l accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously ;
evaluated in the USAR is not incicased.
II. No. The P20 System is nonsafety-related. The removal of the lov-lov level trip does not impact availability of the service water or the '
circulating vater-pumps. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated .
.previously in the USAR does not exist. 4 III. No. P20 System is nonsafety nor is it describe in Technical '
Specifications. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specification vill be reduced. ,
1 U
J f
I
SE No.: 91-019 Souree_ Documents DCP 90-160, Rev. O Descr M ion of Chan6" This design change replaces the existing Unit 1 plant security perimeter equipment with an improved version of detection equipment.
Summary I. No. The' existing "E-Field" Equipment vill be replaced with a Siemens ,
"Perifleid" System. This change is unique to the plant security ;
system. Additionally, it is an improvement that according to i 10CFR50.54(p) does not require prior NRC approval. No other plant !
systems are involved. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or I the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment l important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not ;
increased. l I
- 11. No. See Item I above.
- 111. No. The_Socurity System is not addressed in the Technical.
Specifications.. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the ,
bases for any Technical Specification vill not be reduced.
l i
i
?
l l
f i
I l
I I
- . , ,.,,_.,.,,,~..-..-..,_...,m.m..~m.,.._._,_,..,,,....,_.,.._,_,_.,.,...._, , , . . . , . . - , - . , , . . _ . . . , , . , - . , , . . . . . . . _ , , , -
- ..-. .- - - - . . - - . - . - .~ .- - -.-..-.-
i 5
Source Document: DCP 89-028, Rev. D !
Description of Change {
' l This design change adds valves and tees to the Offgas (N64) System {
Hydrogen Analyzer internal piping. This additional valving vill be i used to reduce contamination levels prior to performing maintenance ,
or. the analyzers. '
4 Summary .
- 1. No. The new valves are used for testing / maintenance purposes only. They [
do not change the functicu of the hydrogen analyzers. Failure of c the hydrogen analyzers is bounded by the Offgas failures analyzed in i USAR Chapter 15. Therefore, the probability of Occurrence or the !
consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to .j safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
i II. No. This change does not alter the function of the hydrogen analyzers.
Valve failure is bounded by analyzers contained in USAR Chapter 15.
Further, the hydrogen analyzers are nonsafety and have no impact upon any equipment important to safety. Therefore, the possibility for creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any :
evaluated previously does not exist. l
+
III. No. The design change does not alter the function of the hydrogen analyzers.- Failute of the hydrogen analyzers is bounded by the Offgas failures analyzed in USAR Chapter 15. Hydrogen analyzer !
internal piping is not described in the Technical Specifications. 1 Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced.
t i
i
! s I
.2- -.*,,,-.-~w,ws. - . , .w.-.m.. .e-s .w.. ....,.c_.-.y.r-.,,n,,,,--..wr..,wm.-,e.%,,,m-m, ...~,,-,yw -
,e,,,-e,-,w.tw.- . . . pm n. -c yg .-.r g cry.gm. .p mp,r - +
_ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _._ _ . _ . -- _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ = _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _
r
- i
\
t l
SE No.: 91-022 source Document: LIAJED l-91-030 {
Desetp tion of Change ;
This evaluation analyzes installation of a jumper to bypass the torque f
. switches asrociated with motor-operated valves IE12-l'024A/B. This vill i permit the operator to ride through any momentary increases of thrust !
vhile closing the valves under flow conditions.
Summary :
r
- 1. No. Bypassing the torque svitch for those valves is part of the overall Residual 11 eat Removal (E12) System design. Isolation capability of ,
the valves has not been impacted. The overall function of the t valves has not been changed. Therefore, the probability of _
occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated is not increased.
II. No. The overall design and function of the valves has not been changed.
To ensure the valve actuator is not adversely impacted, the number of valve operations is administratively limited. 11ence, the i possibility of creating an-accident or malfunction of a type
_different than evaluated does not exit.
t
-111. No. The isolation function of those valves has not been impacted. .
Therefore,-the margin of safety is described in the bases of Technical Specifications will not be reduced.
l
- u. - c. ,2 ,,2 , - . . , . _ . . _ . _ _ _ .~_2_.._,,_.._._,,....__,,,_...-,,.,_.,_,,.,_. , _ , . _ _ _ .
SE No.: 91-023 Source _ Document: Installation Standard Specification Sp-2450 Rev. 2 Descrigtion of Change This evaluation analyzes the use of the lillti Kvik-Dolt II Anchor as an acceptable concrete expansion anchor in safety-related buildings. .
Summary
- 1. No. The specification change permits the uae of 111111 Kvik-Bolt II Anchors as concrete expansion anchors in safety-related structures. ,
Structural integrity of safety class structures is not compromised l by the use of this new anchor. Further, tillti bolt installations '
for maintenance /new vork/revork are still in accordance with the installation specification. Therefore, the probability of ,
occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of egripment important to safety previously evaluated is not increased. ;
i II. No. The specification change does not impact the structural integrity of I safety class structures. tillti bolts are still installed in l accordance with the installation specification. As such all design !
requirements are still satisfied. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any
= evaluated previously does not exist. i III. No. As stated above, structural integrity of safety-class structures is not impacted. IIence , the margin of safety as defined in bases for technical specifications la not reduced.
b r
a l
.. _ . . - . . . , . , , , , y,... , _ - , . . . - - , - - - , , . - ~ , ~ , _ . , _ _ . . . . . . . . _ , . ~ , . . - ~ - - . ~ _ _ _ _ . - - . , _ . - _ _ . . - - - - -
.. _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ ~ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ . _ _. . _ , . . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _
i l
SE No.t 91 024 Source Document: DCN 3424, Rev. 0 l 1
Description of Change This drawing change makes an editorial revision to Pl.lD 912-610 Control Room IIVAC (H25) System, which temoved several HPL numbers used only for reference location purposes.
Summary I. No. This drawing change is editorial only. The operability and function of the H2$ System has not been altered. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment iniportant to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
I II. No.- This change does not physically alter any plant syntem design or ,
equipment. The function and c aration of the H2$ System has not been impacted. Thetofore, the possibility of creating an accident i or malfunction of a ditferent type than any evaluated previously in i the USAR does not exist. !
III. No. This change is editorial in nature. Operation of the H2$ System has ;
not been altered. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the i bases for Technical Specifications vill not be reduced. !
r l
!s h-a
.-a 6 ,-. _ . . _ . . _ _ . _ . . , , . . . . _ . . _ . . _ , . . , _
._..,,,.._,_,__,.,_.._,,__,_,,,._...__._.,__.._.,_._,,.,..._,.._..j
SE No.: 91-025 Source Document: DCN 3339, Rev. O Description of Change This drawing change makes editorial revisions to P& ids 302-103, Condensate System, and 302-601 and 302-602, Reactor Recirculation System.
The chatige to drawing 302-103 vill correct the panel location of IN21-R0481. The change to drawings 302-601 and 302-602 vill correct the power source to IB33-N015A/B.
Summary I. No. This drawing change is editorial in nature. The design or operation of the plant is not affected. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is ;
not increased.. j II. No. See item I above.
III. No This change is editorial in nature. The design or operation of the plant is not affected. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced.
f I
i t
i S
i t
i 1 ,
i t
b
. , . ;_ -__...a,.__. . , , _ . _ . . _ _ . . _ . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . . _ , . _ . . . . . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ , _ . . _ . . . . ,,
. ~ . _ . _ .__..._.m . . _ . . _ . . _ . . _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _
SourU Document USAR CR 91-030 Dy eriptson of Change This evaluation analyzes a clarification made to the USAR regarding the !
use of Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (E51-RCIC) System valve 1E51-I'040 ;
as a test barrier during the performance of the Containment Integrated j Leak Rate Test (CILRT).
Sy mary ;
- 1. No. This USAR clarification does not alter the design or function of the l containment isolation system. RCIC System design or operation is not-affected. Accident analysis is not impacted. Therefore, the :
probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated is not increased.
i II. No. This USAR clarification does not impact the RCIC-System or the containment isolation system. Isolation system failures have been analyzed and analyses have not been affected. Accident analysis has not been changed. llence, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a type different-than previously evaluated does not
-exist. ,
I III. No. This change does not alter the design or function of the containment isolation system. It does not prevent an isolation from occurring if it_is required. Therefore, no margin of safety has been reduced.
6 I r I
?
_ _ ._ . . . . _ _ _ . _ _. -. . - . _ - ~ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ - _ _ . - _ . _ . . ~ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ .
SE No.: 91-027 Source Document: USAR CR 91-031 i Description of Change l This. evaluation analyzes revising the USAR by incorporating a new plant !
management organization. j i
Summary t I. No. This change is administrative in nature. Management responsibilities have not been deleted only reassigned. Plant i design or operation have not been affected. Accident analysis has !
not been altered. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. This change.fs administrative in nature. The plant has not been changed. The nov plant organization is consistent with Technical Specification 6.2. Therefore, no margin vill be reduced.
)
I k
I T
i b
-,.y yg w , y.. ,, _ . , . - . - , ~ , _ . . , . .
,g. g.. , . . , _ . . , . , . _ , + - m-%,,,g,.+,,g_y_-,..,,-_.,,,_m,. g....r,_ y.. , ,+. we.-4,.r%.w.ww&,__e.,. ,,-y_.
. . . .. . . .. ~ .-. -- - - . . - - -_- .- ~ _ _ - ~_.--
I i
Source Document: DCN 3444. Rev. 0 NR 91-N-013, Rev. O i
Description of Change i This draving chrege modifies P&lD 302-110, Condensate Demineralization !
(N24) System, by deleting two isolation valves between the condensate ;
demineralizer backvash rinse and regeneration chemical receiving tank ,
level. bubbler tubes and the level transmitters.
Summary
- 1. No. NR 91-N-103 states the valves were never instr 11ed. The valves are not required to maintain and operate the tank level instrumentation. '
The instrument design is not sitered by deletion of these two valves, IN24-F0615 and IN24-F0616. . Instrumtnt valving associated with the level transmitter permits proper transmitter operation and maintenance.- Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the ;
consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
- 11. No. The nonsafety level instrumentation is still capable of performing '
its design. function without valves 1N24-F0615 and 1N24-F0616.
Instrumentation valves are provided which permit proper operation and maintenance of the instrumentation.. Therefore, the possibility.
of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any
. evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist. :
III. No. The N24 System is not addressed by Technical Speelfications. In addition, reactor chemistry is not affected since the instrument
~
performance has not been affected or changed. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for any Technical Specification vill be reduced, i
k s
t 6
i
.....,y .m. _ . . , -,.,.,..-~.-4 _..y.. ,m.r,,,.. e v ., -n, ..~4r, . . - , - e ,,%.-. - 4..
i SE No.: 91-029 Source Document: USAR CR 91-055 Description of Change This evaluation analyzes revising USAR Sections 3.2 and 9.4 to reflect that the nonsafety portions of the Control Complex Chilled Vater (P47)
System vill maintain pressure integrity during seismic events.
Summary I. No. The P47 Systen design and original operating configuration vill not be adversely impacted by a seismic event (reference Stevenson
& Associates report on said subject and calculations P47-6 through P47-9). Accident analysis is not affected. Therefore, the ',
probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment is not incressed.
II. No. The design or operation of the P47 System vill not be adversely 1 impacted. The valves used to isolate the nonsafety portions of the !
system from the safety portions vill not be affected. The above referenced calculations show that P47 failures vill not result in a >
flooding hazard: Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident >
or malfunction of a type different than evaluated does not exist.
III. No. The design, function, and operation of the P47 System vill not be adversely impacted. The cooling systems supported by P47 vill also not-be affected. Therefore, the margins of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill not be reduced.
t f
. . . , _ , . - , , - - - , , , . , . , , , ,- , , , , . , , - - . . ,, , , - _ , , , ,, , - , . + - , , ,.-n ,nr e- , r
- - . - . . - _.- - .~ . _- . _ - .- . _ . ,. . . . . . . . -
Source Document: DCN 3401, Rev. 0 l Description of Change f This drawing change revises P&lD 302-212, Service Vater (P41) System, to make permanent a temporary Service Vater System pipe. The piping vill ;
serve as a convenient source of vater for vork associated with the l condenser vaterboxes.
i Summary ,
- 1. No.- This modification does not alter system operation. The P41 System is nonsafety-related and is not required for safe shutdovn.
Portulated failure of the piping vould result in flooding of the .
Turbine Building. Ilovever, this scenario is bounded by the flooding analysis contained in USAR Section 10.4.5.3.1. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in ,
the USAR is not increased. l
-11. No. The modification is consistent with the existing P41 design and system operation remains unaltered. Piping failure is bounded by the~USAR. Therefore the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a dliferent type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
t 111. No. The modified P41 1,(ne has no affect on system or plant operation. ,
Its failure is bounded by the USAR. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Tec'anical Specifications vill be ;
reduced.
b i
t 1
. _ .. . _ _ . _ - . -____.__.-_.__.r_. _ _. _._ .. _ . ..
SE No.: 91-031 l Source Document: DCN 3363, Rev. 0 Description of Change This evaluation analyzes updating various Emergency Service Vater :
(P45-ESV) System related USAR sections and plant drawings. The USAR '
changes. include revising ESV heat loads, updating operating parameters, '
and clarifying the use of lay-up for the Residual Heat Removal System Heat Exchangers. The drawing changes include revising operating ;
parameters on P&ID 302-793 Emergency Service Vater Operating Data, and incorporating the LOOP signal and note clarification on P&ID 302-621, Emergency closed Cooling System Unit 1, and 352-621, Emergency Closed Cooling System Unit 2.
Summary
- 1. No. These changes ate based upon previously evaluated and approved design information (references cale's G41-34 Rev. 2, P45-30 Rev. 3, G/C 2.6.13.1 Rev. 1 DCP 90-086 Safety eval's88-387, 89-079,90-105, 90-155,90-198, 90-213). As such, this change is editorial
- in nature and does not impact the current operation of the plant nor affect any plant equipment. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or malfunction of equipment important to safety i previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. This change does not modify the current operation of the plant nor affect equipment. Therefore, the possibility of creating an ;
accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR.does not exist. '
III. No. This-change is editorial. ESV System availability is not altered.
Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specification vill be reduced.
e w k 7Y e- p M * - m ,-.i.e w - w y- 3y-g..g4*,e- . - -ye-g,p--- r wsmv,m. 4e e m e+ w yre--W-tp-g --y v ~ g--er -et- p yp. v v
1 l
SE No.: 91-032 Source Document: USAR CR 91-038 Description of Change This evaluation analyzes an update to USAR Figure 8.3-19, Containment 7<ssel Penetration Locations, which reflects the conversion of Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (E51) System valve 1E51-F063 from a DC to an AC operated valve. (Reference Safety Evaluations87-111, 87-112,87-113, 87-381, and 89-067).
Summary I. No. This change does not alter the function of the E51 System. The !
modification is installed in accordance with the approved standards 1 documented in the USAR. Accident analysis has not been impacted. l
-Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an ]
l accident er malfunctice of equipment previously evaluated is not ,
increased, j
II. No. The function of the E51 System or its components have not been ;
altered. The modifications is installed in accordance with I approved standards. Accident analysis has not been impacted. <
Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of l a type different than previously evaluated does not exist. :
i III. No. The function of the E51 System has not been altered. The change is consistent with' Technical Specifications 3/4.6.4, 3/4.8.2.1 and 3/4.8.3.2. Therefore,-no margin of safety as defined in the bases of Technical Specifications has been reduced. ;
)
l I
I l
l- ,
I
. - - , - , ,, , . , _ . . . _. _ _ .~. . ~ _ . . . . - . . . ,
-Source Document: DCN 2990, Rev. O USAR CR 91-036 Description of Change This drawing change revises P61D 302-112, liigh Pressure Heater Drains and Vents, by correcting a HPh designation.
Summary I. No. This is an editorial change only. There is no impact upon the function of any plant equipment. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or mall' unction of equipment impottant to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is '
not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. This change is editorial. There is no impact upon the plant.
. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical '
Specifications will be reduced. .
L I
l l
f
. . - , . . , . , . ...:.,.4,._.,,._.._-._,,..c__,
- - . _ _ . . .._. __m . - - . - . _.. __. ___ . _ _ _ _ . - . _ . . _._._.___
t SE No.: 91-034 Source Document: DCN 3358, Rev. O ;
i Description of Change t i
This drawing change updates Environmental Zone Drawings 022-001, l' 022-006, 022-007, 022-050, 022-051, 022-062, and 022-063 to reflect the up-to-date s: ;ronmental zone temperatures of the Steam Tunnel and
< a Turbine Building. j Summary 3 I
I. No. This change has no effect on equipment located in these l environmental zones. The equipment remains quallfled for i normal / abnormal and accident operating conditions. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction-of equipment important to safety previously of evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. The equipment design limit in the affected zones is not exceeded.
The equipment remains qualified to perform its safety-function.
Accident analysis is not impacted. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. All equipment within the affected zones remains qualified for normal / abnormal and accident conditions. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill not
- be reduced.
1 t
l .- !
7 l
l l- ,
,'-,-n--
- , . - - - -, - - . ,,-nv.,.-
-,.,-c . . , - , - , , , - . . , : - . . , . , m.n.~.,....--...'..,.
. ,,,,---..,.-,_,,n., , . , - , , ~ . , , , - - , - . , . ~ , , , , , . , - -
. . - - . - - ~ - - - . - . - _ . . . - ~ . . - = . - . - . . _ - . -
i i
SE No.: 91-035 Source Documents- PAP-0101, Rev. 5, TC-1 6 Description of Change [
This change' updates PAP-0101, " Perry Organization", to reflect that the Independent Safety Engineering Group (ISEG) and the Corporate Health 6 Physicist report to the Vice President Nuclear. (Reference Safety ;
-Evaluations91-005 and 91-027)
Summary r
I. No. This change is administrative in nature. The functions of both the Corporate Health Physicist and ISEG are not altered. Only their reporting point has changed. The change in reporting point does not alter the design or operation of the plant.. Accident analysis is not impacted. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the -r consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment to safety !
previously evaluated is not increased. !
II. No. See Item I above, t
III. No. -This' change is administrative in nature. It is consistent with the r administrative requirements of the Technical Specifications. '
Therefore, no margin of safety vill be reduced. :
1 I
\
I
?
i L
L, , __ -, -
I i
i f
SE No.: 91-036~ ,
Source Document: USAR CR 91-039 i DCN 3150, Rev. O ;
t Description of Change f This evaluation analyzes updating USAR Figure 6.5-1, Annulus Exhaust Gas !
Treatment System, to reflect editorial changes made to P&lD 912-605, Reactor Building Annulus Exhaust Gas Treatment thilt 1. -
i Summary :
- 1. No. This change is editorial in nature. Control panel location numbers j have been corrected on this figure. There is no change to system ,
operability. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to ,
safety previously evaluated in the llSAR is not increased. j II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. The change is editorial only and does not affect any equipment ;
important to safety. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in i the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced. >
b b
I r
f l
l
- , . . . . _ _ . - . - _ . . _ . _ - _ . . . _ . . , . . _ . . . _ ~ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . _ . . . . - . . ,-....~u._-.. . -.;._.-_.
_ _.._.________.._-._______._m.. mm____.____m._
i i
I SE No.: 91-037 i Source Document: DCp 90-196, Rev. O j Description of Change This design change replaces the septa tubes in the Condensate Filtration I (N23) System with a new type. The new tubes, as a result of technology l change, vill allow removal of suspended solids in the N23 System without the use of any precoat material. ;
i Summary I. No. The use of different septa, does not compromise the effluent vater quality not any other performance parameter associated with the N23 System. The availability or reliability of the H23 System has not l changed. The N23 System in not used to mitiEate the effects of any t plant accident or transient. Therefore, the probability of
- occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is ;
not increa 1d. j II. No. The N23 System does not perform any function important to safety. !
-Effluent vater quality has not been compromised. The system is
-designed to automatically bypass flov should any septa become -
. plugged. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or ;
malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the ;
USAR does not exist. ;
5 III. No.. -The use of different septa does not impact vater quality.
Therefore, no margin of safety-for any chemistry related Technical
-Specification vill be reduced. ,
l 9
5 i
e
. , , , - .,, _ , . - _, _.,,_,,,_,m.,,.,,___,,,_ ,m., ...,,m_,y, ,.y, .. __.,.g. . . , _ . , , . , . , , . . . ,, y,,,m,,..., ,., , , , _ , ., , , . ,.
SE flo.: 91-038 Source Document: MFI 1-90 009 Descriptiont of Chang This Mechanical Foreign Item analyzes the addition of extra chatcoal to the offgas (N64) System chatcoal beds. This is a revision to Safety Evaluation 90-008.
Summary I . 14 0 . This HF1 analyzes the addition of extra charcoal to the N64 charcoal be.d s . Adsorbers 1464-0012A/fl vill have no charcoal while udsorbers fi64-D013A/B, (M14 A/l), and -D0iSA/B vill each contain apptoximately 4 tons of charcoal. This results in approximately 60 ft. of charcoal in the flovpath. This exceeds the design of $3 ft. as stated in USAR Section 11.3.2.1.11. Failute of the adsorber vessel is bounded by the analysis described in USAR Section 15.7.1.1.
Therefore, the prcbability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment is not increased.
I I . 140. The additional charcoal aflects only the adsorber vessels. No equipment important to safety is impacted. Further, the additional charcoal should decrease the releare of radioactive gases.
Therefore, the probability of creating an accident or malfunction of a type different than previously evaluated is not increased.
III. No. The margin of safety as described in the bases for Technical Specification 3/4.11 has not been reduced.
--- - - - - ~ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - . - _ - . - - _ - _ - _ - _ , _ _ _ _ _ -
SE No.: 91-039 Source _ Documents - HFI 1-90-006 Description of Change This Hechanical Foreign Item analyzes-the installation of a stainless steel valve disk in offgas loop seal drain valve IN64-F031 instead of a
-nonsparking, brass disk. This is a revision to Safety Evaluation 90-005.
Summary I
- 1. No. USAR Section 15.7.1.1.1 addresses the ptobable consequences of '
having sparking valve disks (system rupture or filter bed fire).
Both are possible resultn of a hydrogen detonation caused by a sparking valve disk. A hydrogen detonetton can only be caused by a hydrogen build-up caused by recombiner failure and the presence of an ignition source. The addition of the stainless valve disk does not alter the probability of a recombiner fallnre and the subsequent hydrogen build-up. In order to produce a spark the valve must be exposed to air and then stroked. Since the valve is located in a loop seat it vill be submerged suppressing any spark. If the loop seal is lost the valve is administratively prohibited from operation, again suppressing any spark. Hence, the addition of this i valve disk does not increase the probability of the events necessary to have a hydrogen denotation. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety prevronaly evaluated ..a the USAR is not increased.
- II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. The addition of this valve disk' vill not impact Technical i Specification 3.11, Offsite Release. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for-Technical Specitications is reduced. -t l
\ i s
y - * .- , -+ - ~ ..,.w. a,,_.,,,,.. M,g , , ., , , ,, _ ,,i , , ,_ ,_.,, s , . , , ,,,,,,,.7,,_,,_% , . . , ,.y.
SE No.: 91-040 Source Docunent: HP1 1-87-387 Description of Change This Mechanical Foreign Item analyres reversing the drain valve controllers en leedheater 6B first and second stage drain tanks. The normal valve controller vill operate the alternate valve while tto alternate valve controller vill operate the normal valve. This is a revision to Safety Evaluation 87-487.
Summary I. No. Controlling the drain valves in this aanner will ensure drain tank levels are maintained with the normal operating bands. The MFI does ]
not effect any other drain tank controls or alarms. Failure of the controls could result in a small reduction in feedvater temperature.
However, this is bounded by the analysis contained in USAR Chapter 15.1. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the i consequences-of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to '
saf,ety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. This.I!F1 does not adversely impact the Feedvater System. Drain tank levels cre' maintained in the normal operating band. MFI failure is bounded by analysis contained in USAR Section 15.1. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunctions of a type different than previously evaluated does not exist. ,
III. No. This MFI does not affect the operation of the Feedvater System.
Failure of the HF1 in bounded by analysis contained in USAR Chapter 15.1. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduce <i.
1
i i
,SE No.: 91-041 j p Source Documenq ,
HFI l-88-lL4 Description of Change This Mechanical Foreign item analyzes reversing the drain valve controllers on the Feedheater 6A first and second stage drain tanks. The normal valve' controller' vill operate the alternate valve while the alternate' valve controller, vill operate the normal valve. This is a revision to Safety Evaluation 80-367.
Summary I. No. Controlling the drain valves in this manner vill ensu~.e drain tank levels are maintained within with the normal operating bands. The MFI does not effect any other drain tank controls or alarms.
Failure of the controls could result in a small reduction in feedvater temperature. Ilovever, this is bounded by the analysis contained in USAR Chapter 15.1. Therefore, the probability of
. occurrence'or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II.-'No. -This NFI does not adversely impact the Feedvater System. Drain tank levels are maintained in the normal operating band. MFI failure is s bounded by analysis contained in USAR Section 15.1. Therefore, the j' possibility of creating an accident or malfunctions of a type
- different than previously evaluated does not exist.
<3 R J- III. No :41s MFI'does not affect the operation of the Feedvatec System.
- tilure of the MFI is bounded by analysis contained in USAR h- t. apter 15.1. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the
- T Lises for Technical Specifications will be reduced.
2 i . --
1, t
i a
1
'\.
.. -. \ 1 _ ;-,, - + +
i l
SE'No.: '91-042 Source Documents. MF1-1-87 *69. +
i Description of Change ;
This Mechanical Foreign item analyzes drain valve resequencing of Feedvater lleater 6A. -The normal drain valve controller vill operate the i alternate drain valve and the alternate drain valve controller vill operate the normal drain valve. This is revision to Safety l Evaluation 87-489. l Summary
_I. No. This MFI permits the normal drain valve to be controlled by the '
alternate level controller. This allows drains to be directed to
'the condenser until the drain water quality is high enough to allow the drains to be directed to the Feedvater Ilenter 4. By rerouting the drains to'the condenser, a small reduction in final feedvater i
! temperature vill occur. Ilovever, this reduction is within the: )
reduction evaluated in USAR Section 15.1. This MFI does not affect any other heater. controls. A-failure of the heater level cr.ntrols
~
would result in'a high level isolation of the heater's extraction
- steam. This vould result'in a feedvater temperature reduction of less than 40'F. This_is well within the USAR Chapter 15 analysis _ .
which assumed a 100'F temperature reduction vould occur. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or.
malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not-increased. -?
II.'No. This MFI makcs-use of installed plant _ equipment. NFI . failure is bound by USAR analysis. No equipment is being added or removed.
Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident'or malfunction of
-a different type than any evaluated.previously in the USAR does not ;
exist.
III. No. .
This HFI uses plant equipment in compliance with Technical
-Specifications.- Therefore, no margin of' safety-as defined in the bases for Technical-Specifications vill'be reduced.
1
(:
.E
t SE No.: .91-043 ;
Source Document:- DCN 3251. Rev J ;
- Description of Change
'This drawing change makes an editorial revision to P&ID 302-641 Residual lleat Removal System, to accurately reflect IE12-R0608A as a position transmitter rather than a position indicator.
Summary i I. No. This change corrects a typographical error on the P&lD. This is not a change to the physical plant nor does it affect the operability of the plant.- Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the coa;equences of an accident or malfunction of equipment irportant to safety previcusly evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III._No.- This is an editorial correction, it does not affect the operation or
' function of the Residual Heat Removal System. Therefore, no margin !
of safety as defined.in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced, e
t D
l
. - + . ,. . . - , , . , , , . , - . . , , . , , , . , ~ - , .n.,.,,m.
+
T SE No.: 90-044 1 Source Document: DCN 3480, Rev. O Description of Change i
This drawing change makes an editorial revision to-P&ID 302-621, !
Emergency-Closed Cooling (ECC-P42) System, to reflect the actual motor >
RPl* f or ECC Pumps IP42-C001 A/B. .-j i
Summary .
I . No. - This editorial change does not modify the ECC pumps nor alter system
- performance or function. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety pr eviously evaluated in the USAR is not !
increased. ,
II. No. See Item I above. i III. No. -This drawing change is editorial in nature. No system or component function has been altered. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced. ;
4 f
4 W
F b
'I 4:
'l -
i i
l i
SE No.: 91-045 Source Document: USAR CR 91-045 :
Description of Chang ;
1 This evaluation analyzes an editorial change to USAR Figure 6.4-2, -
Control Room Envelope, which adds the Fire Rating Labels for each of the i fire barriers on the drawing.
Summary '!
I..No. This change does not in any vey change the fire rating of the fire barriers. It only adds a label which describes the fire rating of the barrier. .Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the.
consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
-II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. This editorial change does not reduce the margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications. {
l l
1- . . . = , . . - - -,-, , - - . , ,--,-- -
__ _. . _ . _ _ - _ ___ ._ _ _ _ . _ ~. , _ . . . _ _
SE No.: 91-046, 91-095 Source Document: DCN 3393, Rev. O j Description of Change This drawing change revises P&lD 206-009, the 1.oading and Unloading of Safety Switchgear - Division II..to accurately reflect the load associated with a newly installed Motor Control Center Switchgear Ventilation Motor (OH23-C0018).
Summary I. No. The newly installed motor is a 115 amp, 82.0 kw load as compared to the 116 amp, 80.0 kv load of the old motor. The 2.0 kv increase as documented in Calc #26133-86-2 is an insignificant addition to the Unit 1 Division 2 diesel load. Thus, with the added 2.0 kw load the diesel generator vill continue to operate within its design limits. -
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or the malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased. ,
II. No. The 1.0 amp decrease as documented in Cale's #431-85-1 and #686-85-3~
results in a very small change in the total Unit 1 Division 2 diesel loading. As such, the new motor creates no additional concern for the safe-loading / operation of the diesel. Due to the identical nature of the new motor when compared to the old motor, the consequences of motor fallute have not changed. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. The 2.0 kv load increase is within the postulated diesel load " band" ,
described Technical Specifications 3/4.8.1.1.2.a.5 and f.9.
Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced.
- - . _, , .._ ___.v. . , . , m. e . . _ . .
,- .. .- . - . . ~ . - - - . - - - - . . - . . . . . . . . - - . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . .
t.
l 1
SE No.-- 91-047 Source Document:- DCN 3474, Rev. 0 l Deseription of Change This drawing. change makes an editorial revision to Architectural Drawing '
E-013-007, Plant Layout Above EL. 652, which reflects the removal of door CC503. i Summary I. No. Door CC503 is not a security door nor a fire rated door. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or >
malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in ,
the USAR is not increased. 7 II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. This editorial change does not reduce the margin of safety as-defined in the bases for Technical Specifications. - !
I t
(
L a
6 l
r
)
, . _ -. . . __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ . _ - . _ _ .-- ~._ - __ . _ ._m_._.. _._.-, _
Source Documents HFI l-91-038 l
Description of_ Change ,
This Hechanical Foreign Item vill block open the Emergency Service Vater Pumphouse Ventilation.(M32) System Discharge Damper 1H32-F0708B. This :
-vill enable the M32-System to perform its design function while the ,
damper actuator is out of service.
1 Summary ;
1.'No. This HFI will maintain the M32 System in a configuration that vill ,
ensure it. satisfies its design basis, pumphouse temperature vill be
- maintained by operation of the M32 intake and-recirculation dampers.
Since pumphouse temperature is being maintained within the design band, there is not inpact upon any component or system housed within L the_pumphouse. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the L
L consequences of an accident or the malfunction of equipment ,
important'to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.-
II. No.- The design function of the M32 System is to supply cooling to the l Emergency Service-Vater pumps during normal and accident conditions.
The cooling function of the M32 System vill be maintained-through 4 use this MFI and continuous operation of system fans. Therefore, r the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the'USAR does not exist.
III. No. This HFI vill permit the M32 System to perform its design function- ,
as stated above. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced. !
J r
" yyev'- w y- ,w g -
yny- 9.w--y#- -pm-y-t- w~ =
. ._. _ . . _ _ _ _ _ .. m .~_..__._._-.-__-_.____.m_. ~
SE No.: 91-049 Source Document: DCN 3452, Rev. 0' i
Description of Change This drawing change revises P&lDs 302-241 and 352-241, Service Air (P51) System, to show a range of flov to reflect the use of two different types.of compressor cartridges in the air compressors. +
Summary I. No. .This drawing change vill clarify normal load capacity, since the smaller of the two air compressor motors is large enough to drive the. larger of the two types of compressor cartridges. System ~
pressures downstream of the receiver tanks have not changed. Hence, the probability of line break has not changed. The change has no impact upon any safety-related system or component. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety prevlously evaluated in the USAR is not increased. ,
II. No. This drawing change does not impact-the instrument air failure evaluated in USAR Section 15.2.10. Air quality and flows downstream of the filters / dryers have not changed. There is no effect on any safety-related component or equipraent. Therefore, the possibility
-of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
' III. No.. This change does not alter the ANSI class or operating pressure of the P51 System. Further, no information in Technical Specifications has changed. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the~
bases for any Technical Specificatfor, vill not be reduced.
?
q.
1
. -..-,_y - -
-.o , y.w < , , _ _ _ . , ,
- SE No.: 91-050 Source Document DCN 3227 Rev. O Description'of Change This_ drawing changefmakes an editorial change to P& ids 302-501, TIP System, and.302-686, Suppression Pool Makeup System, to reflect the correct location of transmitter E22-NP. 1 Summary I. No. This editorial change does not-impact the component's reliability or function. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previous evaluated .in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III.-No.- This drawing change is editorial in nature. It only revises the i P& ids to reflect the correct location of the transmitter. There is L no impact upon any plant equipment. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced.
4
+
0
SE No.:- 91-051-Source Documents. DCN 3479, Rev. O Description of Change This drawing change modifies P&ID 302-081, Feedvater (N27) System, to ,
reflect the removal of the temporary start-up strainers IN27-D006A/B and IN27-D007.
Summary I. No. These strainers vere used for start-up to remove any foreign material that may have accumulated in the N27 System during '
construction. The strainers vere removed _after the system reached.
full flow. The strainers are not required since any foreign material in the N27 System vill be removed by the feed pump suction strainers. The removal of the strainers vill not effect N27 System integrity or operability. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences _of.an' accident or_ malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not .
increased, s II. No. The removal of the feedvater strainers vill not affect system i integrity or function. Foreign material-that may have entered the N27 System vill still be removed by permanently installed strainers.
Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not i exist.
1 III.'No. These strainers were only' intended as temporary start-up strainers and are not addressed in Technical Specifications. N27 System integrity or operability has not been altered. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill ,
} be reduced..
l i-k L
D
m._ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - _ . _ . . - _ _ _ _ _ _
l I
1 SE No. - 91-052~
Source Document: USAR CR 91-025 1
Description of Change This evaluation analyzes removal of the reference to NEDP-0202, " Fire Protection Program," from the USAR. The information contained in this
- procedure has been incorporated into POP-0210. " Fire Protection Prog:am,"
and NEI-0330, " Interface Reviews and Evaluations."-
Summary, I. No. This change is editorial in nature. NEDP-0202 is referenced as describing the responsibilities within the Nuclear Engineering Department-relating to design control for the fire protectiun systems and safe shutdown analysis. This information has been incorporated into P0P-0210 and NEI-0330 which are also referenced in the USAR.- Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. This. change only affects procedure references. There is no imp.ct on the fire. protection program. No equipment important to safety is affected. Therefore, the possibility of creating an necident or malfunction:of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exi'st.
-III.-No. This change only affects references to procedures of the Fire
, ' Protection Program. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced.
I.
m l
I
i l
- Source Documents USAR CR 91-046 Description of. Change This evaluation analyzes changing the cable standard used to govern large power cables (#4 AVG and larger) from IPCEA P-46-426 to ICEA P-54-440.
Reference FSAR CR 85-303.
Summary I. No. , Engineering calculations for the class 1E system are based upon the ICEA P-54-440 standard. An editorial error was made in the FSAR i which listed the standard as IPCEA P-46-426 instead of the ICEA l standard. Hence, this change is only an editorial correction. No i physical change is being made to the plant or its desirn.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an ,
accident:or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evalusted in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above. ,
III. No. The margin of safety included in the Technical Specification bases .
and NUREG 0887 for the safe operation of the electrical power system '
' 19 not based on specific ampacity ratings for a given size power-cable. As stated above, the power cables are designed to ICEA P-54-440.- The ICEA standard is more conservative than the -
IPCEA standard. Therefore, the. margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill not be reduced.
+
S I
)
4
+ , , , . . , . . . - . - , . , , , . , - - , , . - , - - - - - - -
. Source Document: .DCP 89-010A, Rev. 0
- Description of Change This-design change installs a pressure regulator in the Service Air !
System piping associated with the Reactor Vater Cleanup (RVCU) System Fil te t .'Ceminerali zers. ;
Summary I. No. This design change installs a pressure regulator in the Service Air System piping associated with the RVCU Filter /Demineralizers. The '
pressure regulator ensures sufficient air pressure exists for purging the f11ter/demineralizers during backwash cycles. The regulator is installed in-nonsafety-related piping. The RVCU !
filter /demineralizers are nonsafety-related. These portions of the RVCU System and Service Air System are not required for accident
, mitigation. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety'previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. This design only impacts nonsafety-related systems and components.
Accident analysis is not impacted. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a type different than previously evaluated does not exist.
III.'No. As stated above, sufficient air pressure vill be maintained during the backvash cycle. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in Technical Specification 3/4.4.4 is maintained. ,
y i
l!
---~, , , , .l.--.--
SNNo.: 91-055 Source' Document: DCp-89-126, Rev. O. ;
"- E Description of Change This' design change re-engraves six control room annunciator vindows associated with the standby diesel generators. Specifically, the windows vill reflect fuel oil strainer differential pressure instead of filter ,
differential pressure.
Summary I. No. The annunciator vindows are being re-engraved to have the alarm wording in agreement with plant equipment. The diesel fuel transfer pump strainer' differential pressure alarms are nonsafety and are used for operator information only. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of 1 equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. The annunciators and alarms are nonsafety. The vindov revording ,
cannot cause a plant malfunction. Therefore, the possibility of an ,
accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. This change has no impact on any of the bases for Technical
- . Specifications. Therefore, no margin of safety will be reduced.
i 9
9 3
Y e
I 1
. . % . , . , . ~ - _ . ,. . . . _ , , , , _ - . ,. , , . . - . . , , , .
n i
SE No.'91-056 Source Documents- DCP 91-089, Rev. O SCN-318-DSP-B33-1-4349-00
~ DescrihtionofChange This design change removes the bonnet vent lines and valves for the Reactor Recirculation (B33) pump suction and discharge isolation valves. !-
Summarg ;
I. No. This change removes the bonnet vent connections for the B33 pump suction and discharge isolation valves. The connections vill be plugged in accordance with ASME standards. Failure of the plugs are bounded by the loss of coolant accident as described in USAR Chapter 15.- Therefore, the-probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accider't or the malfunction of equipment >
important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not
-increased.
II. No. ~See Item.1 above. ,
III. No.
The pressure retaining capability vill be maintained. Dryvell unidentified leakage is unaffected. Therefore, no margin of safety i
as defined in;the bases for Technical Specifications vill be !
reduced.
ei 1- :
l i=
4 4-1 4
2 L
i, / t i
SE No.: 191-057 Source Document: FPI-01B, Rev. 2 FPI-0FH, Rev. 2 Description-of Change This-evaluation analyzes changes made to Pre-Fire Plan Instructions ;
FPI-01B and FPI-OFH. The changes for FPI-01B include the ;
addition / elimination of flammable storage cabinets in several areas and ;
the storage of' flammable material in a specific lotstion. The changes :
for FPI-OFH includeLthe designation of equipment stcrage areas in several
' locations.
Summary I. No. All changes vere found to be consistent with the Fire Protection requirements with respect to the USAR and its sub-tier documents, p The changes are an improvement to-the Fire Protection Pre-Fire Plan
. Instructions. Therefore, tha probability of occurrence or t'he consequences-of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to.
safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased. -
t II.L No. See Item I above. ,
III. No. ;The' changes made to1 Pre-Fire-Plan Instructions do not involve any activity described in Technical Specifications. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for any Technical Specifications vill-not be reduced.
4 i f
\
l -
I I
l'
, . ., __ _ _. _ _ _ __ - _ - . _ ___ _. =
i i
SE No.: 91-058 DCP 91 086A, Rev. O
-5ource Document:
Description of Change .
l interlocks to pick-up and hold the This design change installs electricadby coil. Diesel Generator field breake closing coil of the Division 2 StanThis vill minimize the arcing of the contactor "Kl".
Summary l t d relay contacts in The installation of the new safety-re has been a e successfully proven.the In contact I. No.
parallel with the mechanical-latchThe d during the entire engineit.terlocks run.the new interlocare e closed position at the start anh failure, Therefore, the ition.
the keepevent of a mechanical-latc the contactor in the required equences of an accident or pos previously in to safety evaluated probabilityofofequipment occurrence or the cons important malfunction fa the USAR is not increased. vill not increase the probability oD
- 11. No. This new installationwithin the control circuitry of thevill reduce the malfunction The safety-related interlocks flashing and/or field closing, as Generator.
possibility of failure of field llel with the mechanical-latch.t This and the the interlocks are acting in para i ments.
The physical installation is in accordance d ofTherefore, the componenwith the origi change creates no reduction i of re unlevels compared of creating an accident or malfunct onAR does not exist.
evaluated previously in the US l Generator is not The reliability of the Division 2 DieseTherefore, vill be reo margin of saf e III. No. l Specificat.?ons compromised by this design change.as defined in the reduced.
f
~ ~ ~ ~~-
5 SE No.: 91-059 Source Document: DCP 91-086, Rev. O i
Description of Change This design change installs electrical interlocks to pick-up and hold the closing coil of the Division 1 Standby Diesel Generator field breaker contactor "Kl". This vill minimize the arcing of the coil.
Summary i
I. No. The installation of the new safety-related relay contacts in parallel with the mechanical-latch has been successfully proven.
The interlocks are electrically holding the contactor "K1" in the closed position at the start ar.d during the entire engine run. In the event of a mechanical-latch failure, the new interlocks vill keep the contactor in the require (1 position. Therefore, the L probability of occurrence or the consequences of in accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
! II. No. This new installation vill'not increase the probability of a malfunction within the control circultty of the Division 1 Diesel Generator. The safety-related interlocks will reduce the possibility of failure of field flashing and/or field closing, as the interlocks are acting in parallel with the mechanical-latch.
The physical installation of the component and the associated viring is in recordance with the original installation requirements. This l change creates no reduction of redundancy or component performance
! levels compared to the original design._ Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not sxist.
- III. No. The reliability of the Division 1 Diesel Generator is not compromised by this design change. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced.
l l
t l
l t
i
}
P SE No.2-
.91-060 Source Documents _ PSTG, Rev. 1 i
Description of Change This evaluation analyzes the incorporation of the BVR Owner's Group Emergency Procedure Guidelines (EPG) Rev. 4 and the Hydrogen Control Owners' Group (HCOG) Combustible Gas Control Guidelines Rev. 3 into the Perry Specitic Technical Guidelines (PSTG) Rev. 1. The PSTG forms the basis for the Perry Emergency Instructions (PEI).
Summary I. No. The PSTG is the document which implements the EPG and HCOG guidelines. -Both of these guidelines were reviewed-end approved by the NRC. -The guidelines are symptom based and are used to aid in the mitigation of emergency events. In general, use of these guidelines do not impact the overall plant design or function. !
Therefore, the probability of oteurtence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated is not increased.
II. No. The EPG and HCOG guidelines which form the basis of the PSTG are approved by the NRC. The guidelines are symptom based so the consequences associated with event misdiagnocis is minimized. The systems /com e onents used to perform the activities described-in the PSTG are not being' modified in a manner for which they are not- .
designed for. All PSTG activities are administratively controlled so that they vill only be used for emergency event mitigation.
Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a type different than evaluated does not exist.
III. No. The;EPG and HCOG guidelines are approved by the NRG. The PSTG is administratively controlled for emergency event mitigation only. In general, use of the guidelines do not impact the overall plant design or fenetion. _Therefore, no margin of safety vill be reduced, i
~, - . - - . - . _ . .
SE No.: ~ 91-061 Source Document: USAR CR 91-057 DCP 87-03S7, Rev. 0 Description of Change This_ evaluation analyzes changes made to USAR Figure 9.1-27, Reactor Refueling Floor - laydown l Study, which lacorporates the blade guide storage rack on the vall of the containment fuel storage pool.
Summary I. No. The design and construction of the rack-itself is in accordance with the applicable codes and standards. The blade guide racks do not impact the accident or transient analyses contained in the USAR.
Further,-the load handling equipment involved with moving the blade-guides is not affected. Therefore, t~he probability of occurrence or the consequences of_an accident or malfunction af equipment L important to safety previously evaluated in the _ JAR is not increased.
II.-No. The blade guide storage rack does not affect any equipment or system important to safety. Accident analysis has not been affected-Therefore, _the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different' type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not'
-exist.
III. No. The Refueling Technical Specifications are not impacted by this change. Additionally, the racks are designed to preclude failure during all postulated loading conditions described in the USAR.
Therefore, no_ margin of safety vill be reduced..
4 y & . ,. , , . - ~ - . . , ,
I l
-SE No.:
~
91-062 Source Document: 501-B33, Rev. 3, TC-17 Description of Chang This change incorporates into System Operating Instruction (S01-B33) GE recommendations for zero Reactor Recirculation (B33) pump seal purge flow.
. Summary I. No. Zero purge flow is the original design basis for the B33 pumps.
Byron Jackson, the pump manufacturer, concurs that pump operation with zero (or reduced) seal purge flow is within the design bases for-the. pump pressure boundary. Potential B33 seal failure is bounded by the analysis contained in USAR Section 15.6.5.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated-in the USAR is not increased. '
II. No. Zero purge flov may lead to increased B33 seal wear. This increased wear may_ lead-to increased leakage through the seals. To offset this, the B33 pumps use a two seal cartridge with each individual seal designed for pump operating pressure. The seals are individually monitored for leakage. Seal failure is bounded by analysis contained in USAR Section 15.6.5. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. Reactor Recirculation pump seal purge flev does not enter directly or indirectly'into any margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications. Dryvell identified leakage may change slightly due to eliminating seal purge flow. However, since-B33 seal leak-aff remains as identified leakage, is collected and.
monitored as before, the margin of safety.as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill not be reduced.
I
~.
SE No. . 064 Source Document: FCR 15136 Description of Change
'This evaluation analyzes the temporary installation of a freeze plug in >
the Turbine Building Closed. Cooling (p44) System, upstream of l 1p44-F0626C. :
Summary :
I. No. The installation of the freeze plug vill permit inspection and repair of IP44-F0626C. The P44-System is not required for safe shutdovn. Freeze plug failure vill not create a flooding hazard since flov.can be isolated by manual isolation valves. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accidentlor malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR.is not increased.
II. No. The P44 System is nonsafety-related and is not required for the safe shutdown of the reactor. Should the freeze plug fail the leakage
- can be l'solated. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in
' the USAR does not exist.
LIII. No. The freeze plug operation and its postulated failure does not affect any safety-related system. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specification vill be reduced,
+
9 i
4 4a+y - - ~ ,y,. ., _y,.~..w.. y ,-w-_,.-s. ,.y- y_ , _-,__. .. _y ,. ,, ,_ , _ , _ _ , .
. , - . - . . . . . . . -.. .-.- -. .-. _ . . .. - . - . .. - . . ~ . - - -
P f
f SE No.: 065 ,
Source Document: DCP 90-043 Rev. 0- [
4 . Description of Change This design change vill provide two modes of operation for the Control i
- Room Simulator' communication devices.
Summary-
- I. No.. This design. change modifies a nonsafety communications system. This system'is not interconnected with any safety-related system. The ,
design basis for the plant communications systems are maintained. ';
Therefore, the: probability of occurrence or the consequences of an ;
accident.or; malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased .
- II. No. See Item I above. ,
III.'No. - This modificat' ion does not impact any communications systems described in Technical Specifications._ Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications will not
. -befreduced.
i 4
?
e
".ie , r,7-- y c,'- ,=,.#,----r- - -y e w -eav '- e e va ---- r='*-s . . - --e- -- - e--~-r =n e- -- - - ~ - + * -
_ _ ._ ___ _. _ . . = _ . - _ _ . _ - _ _ . -
-SE No.: 91-066 Source Document: DCP 88-252, Rev. 0 Description of Change This design change _ constructs a vork' enclosure 1on top of the Auxiliary.
~
Building roof. The enclosure vill be used when performing maintenance on the Hain Steam Isolation Valves (MSIV).
Summary I. No. The MSIV enclosure is nonsafety-related. It is designed in-accordance'with approved codes / standards. Analysis indicates that
-it will not be a missile hazard. The Auxiliary Building roof has
=been analyzed and is capable of= withstanding the additional loading of the enclosure. The enclosure is not required to be nor is designed to be a radiation boundary. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated is not increased.
-II. No.- See Item I above.
III. No.- The enclosure has been designed to prevent the creation of missile barards. The structural integrity of the Auxiliary Building has not been affected. The change is consistent with Technical Specifications-3/4.6.1.5 and 3/4.6.6. Therefore, no margins of safety have been reduced.
l
-SE No.s._ 91-067 3 Source Documentt OM16F Physical Security Plan, Rev. 15 TC-2 Description of Change
. ' Revision 15. TC-2-of OM16F, Physical Security Plan, has been evaluated to ensure'that the effectiveness of the. Perry Nuclear Power Plant Security .
Plan has not been reduced and to ensure that these changes meet the requirements of 10 CFR 73, Physical Protection of_ Plants and Materiais.
Site Protection must be contacted for further details since this is considered " SAFEGUARDS" information.
Summary I; No. OM16F describes the comprehensive Physical Security Program and .
therefore, does not affect the occurrence or consequences of an !
accident or malf. unction of equipment.
.II; No. OM16F does not direct the operation of plant' systems or equipment and, therefore, does not create the possibility for an accident or malfunction.
III. No.- OM16F does not reduce the margin of safety as defined'in the' bases for any Technical Specifications.
k !
i I
- - m , 1 -r a y, w l n.4
. , ~ ~ ~ .
~
> ;- \.
Source Document: NR 91-N-043- Rev. O Description of Change-J - This evaluation analyzes the use-as-is disposition of the Condensate Filtration (N23) System septa filter element tube sheets. Traceability !
- of the tube sheets (ASME origin) was lost during performance of DCPs87-464 and 90-196. The septa filter element tube sheets were transferred between filter vessels without adequately tracking the origin.
Summary-
- 1. No. The septa filter element. tube sheet components are stainless steel SA-240, type _304 and are identical for each filter vessel.
Transferring the tube sheets between vessels has r effect upon the
-vessel or its code classification. Theedesign or operation of the N23 System has not been impacted. Ilence, the probability of occurrence or the cpnsequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment importantit.o safety previously evaluated in the USAR is
- not increased.
II. No. Tube sheet components are all identical and are acceptable for use in-any of/the N23 filter vessels. Loss of traceability on the tube i c4 sheets does not affect the design or operation of the vessels.
Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of 4- ~ a.dif{erenttypethananyevaluatedpreviouslyintheUSARdoesnot
-exist; III.-No. The N23 System is nonsafety-related. The design or operation of the N23 System has not been difected. Reactor water chemistry has not been impacted. .Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the
--bases for Technical Specifications vill not be reduced.
N'
_-i S
i' w -- , , - , , e- r. - - ,, - - - - ~ , ,,,,..,-n,, , , ~ , , . . , , ,
t F
- C 5ource Document: SCR 1-91-1061 through 1069 .
DescriptIlon of Chang This evaluation analyra. various setpoint changes made to the Div! vion 1 ,
and 2 Standby Diesel Generator (DG) l'uul Oil System day tank level ;
switches. !
Summary ;
f.-No. . The setpoint changes made do not physically alter any installed equipment nor do they adversely effect DG function or reliability. ,
DG day tank level operating margins have not been impacted.
1herefore,; the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an .
c.ccident or malfunction previousiy evaluated in the USAR is not l' increased.
i
! 11. No. . The cetpota+ changes do not adversely effect the DG control system.
DG function and ret:ponse have not been impacted. Day tank level operating riargins.have been maintained. The performance and l function of the original design have been maintained. Therefore, !
the' possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of equipment j of-a different type than evaluated does not exist.
III. No. The setpoint changes do not adversely effect the function or ;
operation of the-DG. As such, Technical Specification 3/4.8 dealing i vith the onsite power supplies has not been impacted. Therefore, no margin of safety es described in the bases for Technical '
Specifications is reducer $.
i e
' (.
i l ,5 ,
i- l e
i l
c
[
_SE No.91-070 Source Documents pap-1107, Rev. 4 t Description of Change j This change revises PAP-1101, "Tempolary Instructions and Special Test i Instructions," to include combining the temporary instruction and the special test instruction into one instruction type and extending the !
effective duration to eighteen months.
I Summary ,
.t. No.. The change is editorial. The procedure combines the two instruction 1 types to improve efficiency. All administrative controls vill be maintained. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the ,
consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment impottant to i safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased. j i
II. No. The change is administrative in nature. It does not affect j
- equipment important to safety. Therefore, the possibility of ;
creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previot. sly in t'Te USAR does not exist.
i III. No.- SS change is editerial. 90 administrative controls specified in i
.;chnical Specifications Lee affected. Therefore, no margin of !
safety as defined in the teses for Technical Specifications vill be ;
reduced.
i h
6 t
h I
i
. , . - - , - - , - _ _ . , . , - . . . ~ . .
t I
.s SE No.: 91-071 Source Documents. DCP 90-128. Rev. O Description of chy ge This design change eliminates cross-ties between the Potable Vater (P71)
System and the Fire Protection (P54) System, the Cooling Tover Chlorination (P84A) System and the Plant Discharge Dechlorination (P84D)
System. The cross-ties are presently unused and unnecessary for pla'4t operation. (Hechanical Evaluation)
Summa _ry j I. No. The P71 System is nonsafety-related. It does not impact accident ;
analysis. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the ,
consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to I safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased. l II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. The P71 System is ru>t addressed in any Technical Specification. ',
Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill not be reduccd.
i f
hource Document DCP 90-178. Rev. O Description of Change j This design change eliminates cross-ties between the Potable Vater (P71) ,
System and the Fire Protection (P54) System. The cross-tie is presently unused and unnecessary for plant operation. (Fire Protection Evaluation)
Summary
- 1. No. The cross-connection was provided for a backup to the construction fire pump before the petmanent plant pumps vere available. The :
permanent plant Fire Protection System is independent of the potable I vater supply and removal of the connections vill not degrade the ,
water supply to ,:ny plant Fire Protection System. Operation of the ,
Fite Protection System is not affected. Therefore the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of '
equipment-importent to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II, No. The change only impacts the Fire Protection System piping and is not functionally related to any known failure mechanism for plant l features important to safety. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist. ,
III. No. The P71 S,vstem is not addressed in Technical Specifications. The
[
Fire Protes' ion System is not adversely impacted by the change.
Therefore, :o_margfn of safety as defined in the bases for any ,
Technical Specifications vill be reduced. i i
I h
l l... _.._ _. _ . . . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _._.___.;______.___,.,__,,
SE No.: 91-073 source Documeny PAP-1919. Itev. 1. TC-2 Description of Change This change revises PAP-1919 " Fire litigade Stations and Equipment", by
- deleting the einerEency garage as a Fire 11tigade Station, i J l Summary l
- 1. No. .
This change is administrative in nature. The Fire / Security i Inspection Unit is nov located within the Ptotected Atea. No .
benefit exists for having equipment stoted in a location outside of j the Protected Aten.- The change is consistent with the Fire i Protection Plan. Thetefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to l safety previously evaluated in the llSAR is not increased. l II. No. See Item I above. ,
III. No. -This change is administrative in natute. It is consistent with the .
. Fire Protection Program requitements described in Technical i specificatione. Thetofore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Speciftentions vill be reduced. !
t e
I I
)
I l
f I
i 9
r I
t h
, y eye w ...,,___..,._...,,,.-._m_.._,... .m,m___.,.,_m.u.,_,._ _
m .o.m, , . ., _ . _ ,,,_ _ m y . ,. .,.m .,_,_,.y...., , . , .,-.__,.s
l SE No.: 91-074 5ource Document: PAP-0507, Rev. 8. TC-8 PAP-0401, Rev. 1. TC-3 Description of Change This change revises PAP-0507, " Preparation, Reviev, and Approval.of Instructions", and PAP-0401, " Administrating Control of the Materials i control Program". The changes include altering the responsibility for !
the preparation of Haterial Controls Instructions and adding the !
Engineering Project Support and Emergency planning Sections as entitles for the preparation of various instruction types. ;
Summary I. No. This change is administrative in nature. Administrative controls !
for instruction preparation are being maintained. Therefore, the !
probability of occurrence ar the consequences of an accident or '
malfunction of equipment Apo. - mt ti: =afety previously evaluated in ,
the USAR is not incteaseo j II. No. -See Item I above. -;
?
III. No. He administrative controls specli'ad in Technial Specifications are !
affected. Therefore, no margin et raiety as defined in the bases ,
for Technical Specifications vill de reduced. ;
i f
I i?
i i
l -
?
L P
I L !
l E
i t
I
. _ . . , . . . _ . . - . . . . . . . _ - . . . - - , . . . . , . . _ . _ , _ , . . . . _ . . . . , _ , , , . . . _ _ , . , _ _ . , , _ , _ . . . _ ...._....__.___,,.,_,.,,,,.,_._..,_,,,_m
SE No.t 91-075 Source Docunients PAP-1916, Rev. 4 Descriptton of Change This change revises PAP-1916, aDuties of the ritevatch", to clarify the utilization of tiac vatches.
Summary
- 1. No. The changes made in this procedute are administrative in nature and relate only to the cotnpensatory actions taken in respect to fire protection requirements. The changes are consistent with all NRC and NFPA guidelines relating to the fire vatch activity. These changes have no effeet on system operability or system design.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment isnpor t an t to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
111. No. This change is consistent with the Fite Protection Program requirements described in Technical Specifications. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be teduced.
_-_-_m___-___--____. _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ,
l l
i k
SE No.: 91-076 j Source Document: DCP 90-288A, Rev. 0 l i
Description of Change i f
This design change installs lighting enhancements in the control complex !
and the Divisional 3 Diesel Generator Room. -
Summary t
I. No. This change installs lighting enhancements which operate on 208 VAC. !
The power supply for this lighting is noneafety-related. The system l 1s designed for this voltago. The installation meets all applicable ;
. codes and standards. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
i II. No.- The lighting system is designed for this voltage level and its installation meets applicabic codes and standards. Therefore, the ;
possibility of creating an accident or malfunction-of a different !
type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. This lighting enhancement combined with the-use of nonsafety-related 208 VAC vill have no adverse effect upon the plant. Hence, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical ;
Specifications vill be reduced.
. i, i
i r
i
?
L i
_ _ _ . ~._.;__. .._.-.,_.._u_, , _ . . - _ _ _ . . . . . _ _ _ , _ _ , , . . . , , , , ~ . , _ . _ . , , , . _ . ,
SE No.: 91-077 Source Document: -OH15A Emergency Plan for PNPP, Rev. 10, TC-2 Des _cription of Change This evaluation analyzes changes made to Rev. 10 of OH15A, Emergency Plan for PNPP. The changes are derived from comments made by the State of Ohio and local county Emergency Management Agencies as part of their l annual ~ review of the Perry Emergency Plan and Emergency Action Levels (EAL) in accordance with Appendix E (IV.B) of 10 CFR 50.
Summary I. No. The proposed changes are administrative in nature. The changes do not effect or direct the operation of plant systems, equipment, or components. The changes does not affect previously evaluated accidents. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequence; ef. an accident or malfunction of equipment important to
! safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. These changes are administrative in nature and do not effect or direct the operation, equipment or components. The change does not affect previously evaluated accidents. Therefore, no margin of safety _ defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced, t
___.__.....___m ~ _ . - . _ - - - -_ _ _.-_ _ _..-_ _ _ _ .___-
i SI: No.: 91-078 ',
source Document: SCH 313-155-2000, Rev. O Description of change ,
This evaluation analyzes a change to the pipe line speelfication. The l present pipe line spec L6-4 requires use of Yoloy piping. It is being ;
replaced with K24-6. The scope of this evaluation entails the buried i L6-4 piping vith the Hakeup Vater Pretreatment (P20) System.
Summary
- 1. No. The P20 System is nonsafety and nonseismic. The replacement of the !
L6-4 piping with K24-6 does not impact the function, operability, or ;
integrity of the P20 System. Failure of P20 does not impact j accident analysis. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to !
safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. The P20 System is nonsafety. System function or operability has not been impacted. Accident analysis is not affected. Therefore, the ,
possibility of creating an accident-or malfunction of a different '
type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. The P20 System is not addressed by Technical Specifications. There ';
is no impact upon reactor water chemistry. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced. {
r i
i I
l l
l
(- . - . - .- - - . - - - - _ - .-... . - - -
SI: tio. : 91-079 S,ource Document: FPI-1AB, Rev. O FPI-1AX, Rev. 1 l
Description of Change j
. 4 This evaluation analyzes changes made to Fre-Fire Plan Instruction ;
FPI-1AB. The changes incorporate plant modifications affecting the '
characteristics of Auxiliary Building fire areas. Additionally, Pre-Fire !
Plan Instruction FPI-1AX vas cancelled. The contents of the plan vere f incorporated into FPI-1AB. !
S_ummary ;
- 1. No. All changes veie found to be consistent with the Fire Protection ;
requirements with respect to the USAR and its.sub-tier documents.
The changes are an improvement to the Fire Protection Pre. Fire Plan Instructions. Therefore, the prebability of occurrence or the
-consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased. j II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. The changes made to the Pre-Fire Plan Instructions do not involve any activity described in Technical Specifications. Tl.erefore, the margin-of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill not be reduced. l e
p
. - , . - - - - - . - . . . , - - - . . -.-_--..,-,a-......-..-. - , , . -
i i
SE No.: 91-080 Source Documents PTI-C11-P0006, Rev. O Description of Change This change modifies the Periodic Test Instruction for the Control Rod l Drive flydraulic System (PTI-Cll-P0006) to permit operation of the Control l Rod Drive (CRDil) Ilydraulic pump vlth the minimum flow valve 1Cll-F015A/B !
closed. l Summary i t
I. No. The CRDit pump is nonsafety. A full capacity redundant pump is !
availabic should a pump failure occur. To prevent pump overheating i a precaution is included in the instruction to varn operators of the 1
-possibility of deadheading the pump if a downstream isolation valve ;
.'is shut-yhen the minimum flov valve is shut. The CRD pumps are not '
j required for accident mitigation. Therefore, the probability of
- occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of '
equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is
-not increased. ;
'II. No. Pailure of a CRD pump does not adversely impact any safety or nonsafety equipment. A fully redundant backup pump is available to i support operations should a failure occur. The CRD pumps are not relied upon for accident mitigation. Therefore, the possibility of '
creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist. l III. No.- Technical Specifications describes CRD pump operation but is based ,
upon inoperable SCRAM accumulators. Since all accumulators have a check valve which prevents depressurization should a CRD pump fail !
the margin of safety as defined in the bases for the Technical t Specifications vill not be reduced.
f v
b r
. , . . - . . . . . , . . . - . . - - . . . . . . _ . - . . _ , , , , . .,,,.-,,,,.....___.__.,,,,,,,,n,-__,_,..,,,,..,...,,_, . , , -
SE No.: 91-081 Source Document: DCN 3551, Rev. O USAR CR 91-069 Description of Change This drawing change revises P&ID 206-051, Reactor Core Isolation I Cooling (E51) System, to show the installed power cable size for i 1E51-F0045 as number 8. )
i Summary .
I. No. This change-is a editorial in natute. No change is being made to the plant.- Operability of IE51-F0045 has not been impacted. f Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an :
accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased. i II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. This change is editorial only. The E51 System design or operation i has not been impacted. . Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in ;
the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced.
P t
..:_._...,a.. ._.-, . . , _ , . . , . . . . . - . _ . . ._;,_...~.-..._-.,.,..._.....-___
)_._.__._.....
I SE No t 91 082 Source Document PAP-1912, Rev. 4 Deset iption of Chany,e This change revises PAP-1912, " Burn Petmits for Ignition Sources", i Changes include clarifying areas that require the use of a Burn Permit and establishing field conttol to prohibit accidents from occurring.
Summary
- 1. No. This change is administrative in natute. The changes vere found to be consistent with the NFPA guidelines and the Pire Protection requirements with respect to the USAR and its sub-tier documents.
The changes do not alter any system or component. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the conseyaences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety pteviously evaluated in i the USAR is not incteased. ;
II. No. :The changes described above are administrative in nature. Plant i system design or operability have not been impacted. The changes are consistent with NRC and NFPA guidelines. Therefote, the '
possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a type i' different than previously evaluated does not exist.
i III. No. This change is administrative in nature. It does not impact any ,
activity described in Technical Specifications. Therefore, no !
margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced. l t
F i
r T
i
.. . _ . . . - . , . _ . . . . . - . . , - - . _ . _ , _ , ..<_...,_,,w..,,__.___,,,__m.-,,.,,,___.: .....- .., _ ,._,,,_ . m...- m, ,,._.__,,_,.,,m:
i i
i i
i l
Source Document DCN 3$46, Rev. 0 :
Description of Change !
This drawing change revises Rosemont Vendor Drawing 4549-44-456-4 to [
permit the use of upgraded Rosemont Hodel 1153 transmitters. !
Summaty l
- 1. No. The upgraded Rosemont transmitters possess improved radiation resistance characteristics and is less susceptible to loss-of-fill-oil events. The transmitter is also less susceptible ;
to " level ringing" phenomenon. The use of the new transmitter in place of the old transmitter vill not adversely impact overall !
system function or operation. Instrument response times have not been altered. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously :
evaluated is not increased. '
II..No. See Item I above.
III. No. As stated above, instrument response time has not been affected.
The change is consistent with Technical Specifications 3/4.3.2 and 3/4.3.3. Therefore,-no margin of safety vill be reduced. -
i i
f i
r S l
1
SE_No_ 91-084 Source Document:- TXI-121, Rev. O Description of chang This evaluation analyzes the performance of the activities associated with the chemical decontamination of the Reactor Recirculation (B33) pump impeller assemblies in the Fuel llandling Building (FilB).
Summary
- 1. No. The activities associated with the chemical decontamination of the B33 impellers are similar to those already evaluated and being performed. The process vill be administrative 1y controlled. The design / function of the FilB vill not be adversely af feccod by the performed of this activity. The decon equipment being used or its failure vill not impact any safety-related system or component.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated is not increased.
- 11. No.- See Item I above..
. Ill. No. .This activity does not affect any radioactive effluent, its monitoring, or its processing. The activity is consistent with Technical Specification 3/4.11. Therefore, no margins of safety have been reduced.
l m
_m.m.... , _ , , _ _ . . - , , _ . . _ , _ . _ . . . . . _ . - - _ _ . . . . . . , . _ _ . - _ , . . . _ . ~ . - . _ . . _ . _ , _ . . . _ _ , , _ . . . . _ _ _ _ . . - _ . . _ ~ _ , . . _ . . _ .
l SE No.: 91-086 Source Document DCP 90-209, Rev. O Description of change This design change replaces Ofigas (N64) System globe valves IN64-F119A/B vith ball valves.
Summary I. No. The installation of a ball valve vill eliminate the trapping of debris vhich vill result in a decreased potential for valve leakage.
In addition, the new valves have softer seats which vill further l
improve leak tightness. The new valves do not adversely impact the N64 rupture analysis described in USAR Section 15.7. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. As stated above this design change vill increase the leak tightness l of the loop seals where the valves are used. Changing valve type i does not affect N64 System design nor leakage of radioactive gases from the N64 System. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. This change vill not affect the operation of the N64 System. The basis for Technical Specification 3/4.11.2 has not been altered.
Therefore, no margin of safety will be reduced. '
ll l
l l-
- -...-~,--.-,--n . - , . . _ . . ,,. - e, ...--~,v. -, , -n,+.e,
, . . , > ~ -.---,.,,.n-.,, ----.,-,e ,, . , , ,
SE No.- 91-087 Source Documentt DCN 3536, Rev. O Description of Change This drawing thange revises P61D 302-686, Suppression Pool Hakeup (G43-SPMU) System, by deleting the flange end and reference elevation at the discharge of each SPMU line to the Suppression Pool.
Summary
- 1. No. This drawing change has no physical impact upon the SPHU System.
SPHU function or performance has not been altered. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No._ This change does not impact SPMU system function or performance.
Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specification vill be reduced.
l l
l L
l r
SE No.: 91-088 Source Docuttent: DCN 90-153, Rev. O NR 90-S-060, Rev. O Description of Change ,
This design change installs air pressure reducers / regulators in the i instrument air supply lines to the containment airlock inflatable seals. !
t Summary ,
I. No. This change reduces the air supply pressure to the airlock l Inflatable seals. The seal evaluation contained in NR 90-S-060 indicates that reduced supply pressure vill increase seal life. .
Airlock operability is not affected by this pressure reduction. The '
loss of instrument air accident, USAR Section 15.2.10, is not adversely impacted by this modification. No other accident analyses are impacted. Therefore, the probab.ility of occurrence or the i consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously ,'
evaluated is not increased.
i II. No. A seal evaluation indicates that seal life vill be extended. Air i lock operability has not been affected. The loss of instrument air accident analysis is unaltered. Containment design and operation is ,
not impacted. 1.cakage past the seals is processed, as designed, by !
the Annulus Exhaust Gas Treatment System. Therefore,the probability ,
of creating an accident or malfunction of a type different than previously evaluated does not exist. .
III. No. Airlock operability has not been affected. The change is consistent with Technical Specification 3/4.6.1.3. Therefore, no margin of ;
safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specification is reduced.-
r 4
5 5
p
1 SE No.: 91-089 l Source Document: DCP 88-378, Rev. O I Description of Change. l t
This design change installs level instrumentation in the Building 1 Heating (P55) System Hot Vater Heat Exchanger 1P55-B001A. j l
Summary ,
I. ho. This design change utilizes the instrument air signal from an i existing level transmitter. The nev level indicator provides local indication only. It does not perform any control function. The !
operability of the P55 System is not affected. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. This design change does not impact equipment required for safe shutdown. Therefore -the possibility of creating an ~~cident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III No. The function of the P55 System has not been affected. Further the ,
P55 System is.not addressed in the Technical Specifications.
Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced. ;
i i
P t
r*, w vvv v e *,m , + w w.- -e *,, wr*,ww c w ev we w ,-
l SE No.: 91-090 Source Document: DCP 91-042, Rev. O Description of Change This design change instali e low-lot level alarm and a regeneration interlock to the Hakeup Va. Pretteatment (P20) System clearvell pump trip logic.
Summary i I. No. The lov-lov level alarm and the regeneration interlock vill enhance ;
the existing annunciation and control logic. The probability of !
reaching the point of inadequate clearvell vater level is reduced by i this modification. The regeneration interlock vill ensure that i proper regeneration vill occur which improves the performance of the .
demineralizer resin. The ptetreatment and demineralized water !
systems are nonsafety. Accident analysis is not impacted. '
Therefore, the probability or the consequences of an accident or -
malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in ;
'the USAR is not increased. ,
II No. The P20 System is nonsafety-related and is not required for safe shutdown. Therefore, the possibility for creating an accident or ,
malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the !
USAR does not exist. !
I III. No. The P20 System is nonsafety-related and does not supply water to ',
systems important to safety. The addition of the low-low level alarm and the regeneration interlock is consistent with the P20 design. Accident analysis is not impacted. Therefore, the margins of safety as defined in the bases for Technical .
Specifications vill not be reduced.
t L
i i
a s
I
- . - - , . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ - , _ . , _ _ . _ . , . . . - - . _ , , . , , _ _ , . .._.,..__.,....-,,,,,_,-,__....__...,,.,._,.___.,...._.,_-,___m,.. -
SE No.: 91-091 Source Document: DCP 89-146, Rev. O Desc 1pt,lon of Change This design change extends the Tutbine Grnerator hydrogen cooler Vaterbox vent lines. Extending these vent lines impioves access for venting pu poses.
Summary
- 1. No. This modification does not alter the Tuibine Building Closed Cooling (P44) System or Turbine Generator hydtegen cooler operation or reliability. The P44 System is not required for safe shutdown. The line extensions vill be installed in accordance vith approved codes and standards. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in USAR is not increased.
- 11. No. The vent line extensions are less than one-inch in diameter and are outside of the scope of moderate energy line break analyses.
P44 System and hydrogen cooler operation on function is not impacted. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. The overall design of the P44 System remains unaffected. The function of hydrogen cooler vaterbox vents remains unchanged.
Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced.
SE No.t 91-092 Source Document OH15A Emergency Plan for PHPP, Rev. 10, TC-3 l Description of Change This evaluation analyzes changes made to OH15A, Emergency Plan for PHPP.
The changes are derived from modifications made to the Plant Emergency Instructions (PEI). .
Summary ;
I. No. The proposed changes are administrative in nature. The changes do not affeet or direct the operation of any plant system, equipment, or component. The d.anges do not af feet previously evaluated USAR i accidents. The effectiveness of the Emergency Plan has not been reduced per 10CFR50.54(q). Therefore, the probability of occurrence
-or the consequences of an. accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previcaly evaluated in the USAR la not increased. ,
II. No. See Item I above. ;
III. No. These changes are administrative in nature and do not affeet or direct the operation of any equipment or components. The effectiveness of the Emergency Plan ! ' not been reduced for !
10CFR50.54(q). Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced, r
i F
i l'
I l
k.
i t
i SE No.: 91-093, 91-094 l Source Document: DCP 90-207, Rev. O ;
SCR 1-91-1201 j i
Description of Change This design change removes a flow orifice and disconnects the associated :
flow controls in the Back-up Hydrogen Purge Line of the Combustible Gas !
Control (H51) System. (Hechanical and Instrument control evaluations)
-Summary l
I. No. This design change vill reault in a higher flow through the back-up purge line to the Annulus Exhaust Gas Treatment (AEGTS-H15) System. ,
This change in flow vill noc affect the MIS System design or t
operation. There is no advense impact upon the operation of the i H51 System. A back-up means of containment hydrogen control vill be '
through the use of the Fuel Pool cooling and Cleanup (FPCC) System.
Accident analysis is not affected. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. This change does not adversely impact the opecsbility of the H51 and H15 Systems. An acceptable back-up method of hydrogen control using the FPCC System is in place. Equipment protection against a hydrogen explosion is not compromised. Therefore, the possibility -
of creating an accident or a malfunction of a type different than evaluated does not exist. ,
III. No. The M51 System continues to satisfy the requirements of Reg.
Guide 1.7. Radiological doses remain within the requirements of !
10CFR100 Guidelines. H51 and MIS System operability have not been adversely impacted. Equipment protection against a hydrogen explosion has not been compromised. Hence, no margin of safety has been reduced.
SE No.: 91-096 Source _ Document: PAP-0110. Rev. 4 USAR CR 91-067 Description of Change This change revises PAP-0110, " Shift Staffing and Overtime", to include redefining _the Horseshoe Area and renaming the Surveillance Area as the Operations Area.
Summary J
- 1. No. During notmal operation the operator at the controls remains in the llorseshoe Area. In the event of an emergency affecting the safety -
of operations,_the operator at the controls may enter the Operations Area. TF change is consistent with guidance provided in
-Regulatory Guide-1.114. " Guidance on Being Operator at The Controls of a Nuclear Power Plant." Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No._ This change is administrative in nature and does not reduce the margin of safety.as defined in the bases for any Technical Specification.
l
, IE ..
l l
SE No.,a 91-097 Sourr.e Document HF1 1-91-051 Description of Change This Hechanical Foreign Item analyzes the installation of temporary stainless steel tubing and fittings into the sample lines of the Condensate Filter (N23) System. These connecticns vill support performance testing of the condensate filters.
Summary 1
- 1. No. This Hechanical Foreign item permits performance monitoring for the N23 System. The N23 System is not required for safe shutdown.
Sample line failure vill not create a flooding hazard in excess of :
that already analyzed. The sample water vill be sent to the Radvaste System for processing. This is consistent with the existing N23 and Radvaste designs. .The design of the HF1 components exceeds the design' requirements essociated with the original design. ,
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated is not increased.
- 11. No.. This NFI exceeds the design requirements of the original installation. Failure vill not create a flooding hazard. The use of this sampling station vill not result in increased plant radiation IcVels. All samp*c-vater vill be treated by the Radvaste System. The N23 System is nonsafety. Its failure vill not compromise any safety-related system or component. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a type ,
different than previously evaluated does not exist. '
III. No. The N23 System is nonsafety and its failure does not impact safe r shutdown. Therefore, the margins of safety as' defined in the bases ;
for Technical Specifications is not reduced. .
r t
- ..y
....w,- ,. .. .,.y. ,,,_.x,,,,_.m.,,_-.. -
,.,_.s._,, . , _ _ , , . , , _ , , _ . ,.-r,----- r ---w---w----- w-m e -w --ee e-
l l
~ Source Documents HFI 1-87-326 l l
Description of Change This evaluation enalyzes the Hochanical Foreign Item which removes Main Steam Valve IN;1-F763 and Pressure Test Point 1N11-R415A and installs a pipe cap on the pipe nipple.
Summary ,
I. No. The valve and test point was to be used during ASHE turbine ,
acceptance testing. It is not required during normal. operation. i The new configuration conforms to ANSI /ASHE B31.1. Failure of the i connection is bounded by the analysis in USAR Section 15.6.4 Steam >
System Piping Break. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or ,
the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased. ,
II. No. The configuration resulting from the removal of IN11-F503A and pressu;e test point IN11-R415A conforms with ANSI /ASHE B31.1.
Failure of the configuration is bounded by USAR 15.6.4. Therefore, the possibility for creating an accident / malfunction of a different type than evaluated previously within the USAR does not exist.
III. No. The removal of IN11-F503A and 1N11-R415A do+1 not impact the integrity of the Main Steam System. System configuration conforms with ANSI /ASHE B31.1. Therefore, no margin of safety as described I in the basis for Technical Specifications vill be reduced.
r e
t 4
b e
4 ,,.r , - 3,., ..._ , , , , . , - - - - g- . , . ,.c ., . - .,m. --- - - . #w.= -,y-, ,,% ,-m-, n. ym w- ,w- w,,,,xw-,+- ,.
i.
1 ,
SE No.: 91-099 Source Document: LL&JED l-90-136 j
. Description of Change.
i This evaluation analyzes installatio9 of a juener to silence the Fuel 1 Handling Evacuation Alarm while performing maintenance on Motor Control Center (MCC) FIC08.
Summary-
- 1. No. Maintenance on HCC FIC08 requires that the Fuel Handling Building Ventilation Radiation Monitor OD17-K710 be placed in a tripped condition per Technical Specifications. This vill activate the Fuel Handling-Building Evacuation Alarm continunusly while the
> . maintenance is in progress. The tripped radiation monitor and the continuous evacuation alarm would provide no useful information
- tegarding the radiological conditions. Grab samples ~ v:111 taken at '
least once every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in accordance with Technical Specifications. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I'above. ,
III. No. Technical Specification 3/4.3.7.1 requires grab samples to be taken ,
when OD17-K710 is out of service. .
Since this specification is satisfied, the margin of safety vill not be reduced, i
i 5
~
-b
+
F 4* ,T+-e- +v m v>r ,tt-'r < r e- m-,'r e5er-~,-> w y -
-er-Twit %yN g t----sm----r-7'--w'Hm-
, l i
SE No.t- 101-101 i
-Source Documents -DCP 88-3075 Rev. 0
' Description of Change Thisidesign change adds sight flov indicators to all Daergency Service Vater (P45-ESV)-System pump cooling lines.
LSummary I. No. The flov-indicators =are installe.' in accordance with ASME Section III subsection ND-2610. The prest-'are retaining ' capability of the indicators sa'isfies the ESV design criteria. Failure of the indicators cannot stop cooling vater flow to the ESU pumps. The :
performance or. availability of the ESU Syst,em has not been degraded. ,
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident er malfunction of equipment important to safety is not increased.
II. No. The change does not adversely impact the design or operation of the ESV_ System. . Indicator failure cannot stop cooling vater flow to'the'
~
ESV, pumps. Cooling line rupture is bounded by. pipe break analysis for the ESV Pumphouse. Therefore, the possibility of creating an 1 accident-or malfunction of equipmentoof a type different than evaluated does not exist.
III. No. The design or operation of the ESV System'has not been affected.
There is no impact upon the Technical! Specifications. Therefore, no margin of safety has been reduced.
)
k L
'l-I
~ - - - - . - - . - . - - . . . - - _-- . - . . ~ .. .- . - . . . - .-
P
-f 1
SE No.: 91-102-Source Documents. DCP 90-109, Rev. 3 Description of' Ciia:3ge Thiridesign change modifies an architectutol change made to the 599' i level of the Control Complex - Specifically, the Chemistry office is
.being enlarged, a Respirator Issue room is being added, and several offices:and storage areas are being renovated. (Civil evaluatir.o
- , Summary
- o. .
I -. RN o . These architectural changes are incidental to the arrangement of the
'599 level of the Control Complex. These-changes vill not have an) effectLon equipment that is important to the safe operation of the plant. ' Therefore,-the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident,or malfunction of equipment important to safety
.previously evajunted in the USAR is_not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
.III. Nn The architectural features of the 599' level of Control Complex are not addressed in the Technical 6pecifications. Therefore, no margin '
- of 11afety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications is reduced.
r li j
+ w.- e , e
g- . . - . . - - . . . . . - . . ~
l
-l SE No.: 91-103 i Scurce Document USAR CR 91-070 ,
Description of Change' i
.This evaluation analyzes replacing General Electric Vendor drawings with i PNPP specific drawings 808-302, sheets 1-3, Reactor Protection (C71) .
System. Both drawing sets reflect the same configuration and information.
Summary ;
I. No. This'is an administrative change to the USAR. This change dots not change the configuration, function or performance of the C71 System.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an I accident or malfunct.'u sf equipment important to safety previously evaluated-in the USAR is not increased.
i II.'No. See Item I above.
III No. This is an administrative change. C71 System configuration, function, or performance have not been altered. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced.
V e
i t.
I .,
~,. . . - . - . .
SE No.: 91-105, 91-106 5outee Document: DCP 91-028A, Rev. O Description of Change This design change disenga.es the toxic gas monitors / detectors / alarms and interlocks from the Control Room Ver.tilation (H25/26) System.
(Mechanical Evaluation and Fire Protection Evaluation)
Summary I. No. The design of the toxic gas monitoring equipment is to protect control room operators against the accidental offsite re' lease of chlorine and ethylene oxide gases. Analysis indicates (reference Calc. 5.6.1, Rev. 3) that this is not a credible event per .
NUREG-0800. Section 2.2.3. Hence, toxic gas protection is not required. Disergagement of the toxic gas monitors does not impact the M25/26 System's ability to protect control room operators against other events such as fire LOOP, LOCA, or high radiation.
Additionally, this change does not impact the ability of H25/26 to perform its safe shutdown functions. Further, centrol room in-leakage, ventilation air flows, and H25/26 filter efficiencies vill not be ch,nged. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or ,
the consequencea of an accident or malfunctier. of equipment previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. This change does not impact the ability of H25/26 to protect personnel against analyzed events such as fire, LOOP, LOCA, or high radiation. The safe shutdown capabilities of the M25/26 System have ,
not been altered. Further, control room in-leakage, ventilation air !
flows, and H25/26 filter efficiencies will not be changed.
Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a type different than evaluated does not exist.
III. No. Control room habitability vill be maintained as described in
- Technical Specifications 3/4.7-3 through 3/4.7-5. H25/26 System operation has not been adversely impacted. There is no impact upon the~ Fire Protection Program described in Technical Specifications.
Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill not be reduced.
5 d
. . . , , _ . _ _ . ~ . _ . - - . , . , . , . _ _ _ . _ ,
h I
r 1
SE No.: 91-107 Source Document DCN 3162, Rev. O USAR CR 91-086
~ Description oil Change.
This drawing change updates various Neutron Monitoring (C51) System f
. drawings based on the results of drawing reconciliation program vith ;
General Electric. Changes provide clarifying information about PNPP's !
existing design or add administrative data concerning the reconciliation i program.
I Summary t
- I . No .- These changes are editorial and do not change the design configuration of the C51 System. Therefore, the probability of occurrence-or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of ,
equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is -;
l- not increased.
i II. No. See Item I above.
III. No.. These changes are editorial and have no physical impact on the C51 System. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical-Specification vill be reduced.
i r
Y k
1 a
l I
=.i. 1 -# , . - - x -4 - - e . . , , . - _ - , - m # n.- im-.-, - "
r = -
--m' '
i f
SE No.: 108
-Source Document: DOSEPROJ, Rev. 3 Description of Change This evaluation analyzes revisions to the DOSEPROJ. program. This program ;
is a PC based computer program used to calculate the radiological impacts of potential plant-emergencies. !
Summary >
I. No. DOSEPROJ is a computer program which uses plant radiological and i
-meteorological parameters to provide a prediction as to the i radiological impact of a potential plant emergency. This program ,
does not adversely impact any plant system or its operation. ;
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased. >
II.-No. DOSEPROJ merely utilizes data from plant equipment and in no way impacts plant systems. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist. l r
III. No. DOSEPROJ program' simply utilizes plant data for calculation purposes ,
only. Therefore, no margin of safety will not be reduced.
I' e
l I
SE No.: 91-109 Source Documents PAP-1912, Rev. 4, TC-1 PAP-1916, Rev. 4, TC-1 Description of Change These changes revise PAP-1912, " Burn Permits for Ignition Sources," and PAP-1916, " Duties of the Fire Vatch," with respect to the performance of fire watch activities during plant Burn Permit operations.
Summary I. No. The changes to PAP-1912 and PAP-1916 are administrative only. The changes are consistent with NRC and NFPA Guidelines. There is no impact upon any plant system design or operation. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. The changes made are only to the administration of portions of the overall Fire Protection Program. The changes do not impact the design or operation of any plant system. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. The changes made are consistent with the Fire Protection Program as described in Technical Specifications. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced.
m____-..___m____._m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
i
. , - - . - - . - . . . . . - . . - - . - - . - - . -. . . -.-- - _. . . -~.-.
SE-No.: 91-112-
- Source Document: DCp 90-189, Rev. 0: i SCR 1-91-1243 through 1-91-1248 !
Description of Change !
This evaluation analyzes the addition of a one second time delay relay to the main steam line isolation logic.
Summary I. No. This change adds a one second time _ delay relay to the main steam "
line isolation logic. This modifica lon vill eliminate spurious )
trip signals created when the circuit thermocouple monitors are tested. The modification is consistent with the recommendations of
- IEN 86-69. ' Associated trip logic for.the circuits in question have not been affected. There is no impact upon containment isolation valve closure times. Shutdown capability is not affected.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated is not increased.
II. No. This modification does not affect the design or function of the Leak
-Detection System.- ' Accident analysis has not been altered. .
Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a type different-than evaluated does not exist.
4
.III. No. .The design or function of the Leak Detection System has not been adversely impacted. The modification is consistent with Technical Specification 3/4.3.2. Therefore, no margin of safety will be
. reduced.
I t
- y ,, ,-,--,,r-.-..,, ,a
p i 1
1 SE No.: 91-113 1 Source Document: DCN 3568, Rev. O USAR CR 91-090
-Description of Change This drawing change revises P& ids 205-008 and 206-009; Loading and Unloading of Safety System Switchgear Divisions I, II, and III; to 4 indicate that equipment start times are nominal values, i
Summary I. No. This change is editorial in nature. The effects of sequence timer loading and response are detailed in calculation PSTG-20. This change does not impact this calculation. The equipment listed on
- these drawings vill still be able to perform their design function.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction- of equipment important to safety previously '
evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
l II. No. This change is~ editorial in nature. Normal equipment operation vill be maintained.- Therefore, the possibility of. creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. All operating requirements such as start time, loading, and sequencing associated with equipment described in the Technical Specificatfor.s vill continue.to be met. Therefore, no margin of safety vill be reduced.
b I
.. - -, - -- - . - - - - . . . . . _ - - . - ~ . . - ..- ~.- - . . - - .
Source Document: DCN 3601, Rev. 0 USAR CR 91-089 Description of' Change This drawing change updates USAR Figure 7.3-6, MSIV Leakage Control :
System,.which changes the way the IG33-F028 valve permissive is-depicted. !
Summary i I. No. This drawing change revises the way in which the 1G33-F028 valve permissive is depicted. It does not alter the function of the valve. -Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an-accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
- i. II. No. Tliis' change is essentially editorial. The function of 1G33-F028 has
- L not been altered. There is no impact on any plant system.
Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of l a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. This change is editorial. It does not make any changes to the
.plar. . Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill not be reduced.
P t
e
SE No.: 91-115 3 Source Document: CCN 3161, Rev. 0 USAR CR 91-088 ,
Description of Change This drawing change updates the P&ID 808-309 series, Residual Heat '
Removal System, by clarifying existing design information located on the drawings..
Summary -
'I. No. -This change is editorial in nature. It does not alter the E12 System design configuration. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously e.s nated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. This change only provides clarifying information on drawings which vill not alter or affect any plant equipment. Therefore, the-possibility of creating =an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. This is an editorial change. -It does not alter any plant equipment.
Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill not be reduced.
1
. ..-. . . - - . - . . _ - . --. . - . - . - . . - - . - . . ~ - - . . -
- Source Document TXI-123, Rev. O Description of Change This evaluation analyzes the use of non-precoated septa in the Condensate Filtration (N23) System Filter Vessel "B".
' Summary I. No. The design function of the N23 System is to remove suspended solids from the condensate stream. This function can now be accomplished without the ur-c of any precoat material. Vater quality has not been affected by~this change. Accident analysis has not been impacted.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated is not increased. i II. No. The function of the N23 System has-not been altered. Vater quality is-unaffected. If the new septa vould fall, its parts vould be collected by the Condensate Dcmineralizers. 'N23 System failure vill not' impact any safety-related equipment. Hence, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a type different than evaluated does not exist.
III. No. The N23. System is nonsafety-related. Vater quality is unaffected.
Therefore, no margin of safety as described in the bases for Technical Specifications vill be reduced.
4
}.
4 r ,
_ . . . . . . _ _ _ - _.- . _ _ . _ _ . - . . . _ _ . . . . .. 1 .. . _ - _ .._ . . _ - _ . . ._ _
l i
Source Document: USAR CR 91-075 Description of Change This evaluation analyzes an administrative change to USAR Section 17.2.2.7..e. The change vill bring'USAR terminology with regards
-to " changes to the OA program" into agreement with the terminology of i 10CFR50.54(a).
Summary I No. This change is administrative only. No plant systems or components have been altered. Accident analysis has not been impacted.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an i accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No.- See Item I above.
III. No. This change is administrative only. The plant has not been altered nor has accident analysis been impacted. The change is consistent with 10CFR50.54(a). Further the change does not reduce the effectiveness of the OA Plan. Therefore, no margin of safety has been reduced.
1
-rs..- . s -n.- .,~ v -
- - ,. -n, , , 4
SE No.: 91-121 Source Documents -DCp 87-715, Rev. 0 Description of Change l This design change makes several modifications to the Main Steam 1 Isolation-Valves _(MSIV) IB21-F022A/B/C/D and IB28-F028A/B/C/D. The 4
modifications include poppet replacement, stem replacement, and !
installation of Ilve load packing. i Summary -
I. No. The MSIV's vill continue to meet ASHE Section_III subsection NB standards. Valve operation and function are not impacted. Improved Local Leak Rate Test (LLRT) performance has been demonstrated.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluation is not increased.
II. No. The HSIV's vill still operate and function as designed. The i modification reduces the potential for stem leakage. LLRT ;
performance has been improved. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a type different than evaluated does not exist.
III. No. The HSIV's continue-to satisfy ASHE standards. Valve function and operation have not been changed. Technical Specifications have not been impacted. -Therefore, no margin of_ safety will be reduced.
h i
d i
i l-l-
.- ~ . - . -. -.. .- - . . . _ _ - - - _ . . . . . - . . . - _ _ _ ~ _ - - . - ...
SE No.: 91-122-Source Document: DCP 87-137, Rev. 0 >
Description of Change This design change replaces the Fuel Servicing (Fil) and Refueling (FIS) i Equipment Auxiliary, Monorail and Main Fuel Holsts' hydraulic load cells '
vith solid-state load cells.
Summary I . No . . This change does=not effect the operation of the hoists. The solid-state cell is designed such that all outputs are identical to the outputs of the hydraulic cell. Hence, there is no impact upon any control interlocks, load limits or rod blocks. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or the -
malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in l
the USAR is not increased.
1.
II. No. The solid-state load cell is designed such that if power is lost the hoist is pla'ced in a safe inoperable status. Holst operation or control is not impacted. Therefore, the possibility of creating an ,
accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. The load cells are nonsafety-related. There is no change to any Fil or FIS System function. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases-for Technical Specifications vill not be reduced.
o P
l e - n -
, ~ , , , - . ,
I SE No.'s91-125 Source Document: DCP 90-162, Rev. 1
- Description of Cha m This design change adds requirements for making a grout repair of a void made beneath the Circulating Vater Pumphouse truck bay slab. The original scope of work described in DCP 90-162, Rev. O is unaltered by this revision. (Reference Safety Evaluations90-121 and 90-122)
Summary
- 1. No. This repair does not impact any plant system or component. The alterations to the Fire Water (P54) System and the Potable Water (P71) System created by this design change are not impacted by this repair. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or a malfunction previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. This repair does not impact any plant system or component.
Therefore, the. margin of safety as described in the bases for Technical Specifications vill not be reduced.
l i
l-i 8
--r w w ,.,.y , .,_ _ . _. . . . , ,
1 __ ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , .
I E
SE No.: 91-128 Source Document: NR 91-S-077, Rev 0 1
' Description of Change . .
This evaluation analyzes the use-as-is disposition of the Suppression Pool Makeup (G43) System Valve 1G43-F030A. The valve opening exceeds its ,
specified opening time of 30 seconds. 3 Summary I. No. The G43 System vill still function as designed. Design calculation (Cale. G43-B) has conservatively assumed that there is no flov during the opening of the valve. This assumption mitigates the condition of the valve exceeding its opening time by 2 seconds.
There is no impact'upon the design bases of suppression pool level
-or dryvell vent coverage. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated is not increased.
II.-No. This disposition does not impact the design, function, or operability of the G43 System. Dryvell vent coverage and suppression pool level design bases have not been altered. Accident analysis has not been impacted. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accidentoor malfunction of a type different than evaluated does not exist.
III.,No. There is no' impact upon the operability of the G43 System or the Suppression Pool. Therefore, no margin of safety is reduced.
P y
4 4
- y - , , ---
- .- - -_ .. ~~ . . ~. -- . ._ .- - ~.
i SE No.: 130. ,
-PSTG, Rev. 1, TC-2 Source Documents-Description of Change This' evaluation analyzes defeating the Reactor Protection System (RPS) trips during the performance of the Reactor Control Guidelines of the Perry Specific Technical Guidelines (PSTG), Rev. 1.
Summary .
I. No. Defeating the RPS. trips vill not be performed until after RPS has been automatically initiated and has failed. This is an ATVS event.
Since the plant is~in an ATVS event prior to this activity occurring and that ATVS assumes RPS failure, the plant-remains in an analyzed condition. This condition is described in USAR Section 15.8. No '
other accident analysis is impacted. Further, performance of activity vill be administratively controlled by the PSTG, ,
! Additionally, there vill be no impact upon any other plant system or component. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction _of equipment important to safety previously evaluated is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. Defeating the RPS trips allows draining the scram discharge volume which will permit the insertion of a manual scram signal. This action is more conservative than that required by Technical -
Specifications for failure of the RPS. Therefore, no margin of safety vill be reduced.
i F -
F t
l-lI
W l
SE No.: 131 ,
Source Document: DCN 3587, Rev. 0 Description of Change 1
This drawing change revises P&ID 302-752, Offgas (N64) System, to indicate valves IN64-F082A/B are normally closed and to make several editorial corrections.
Summary I. No. These changes do not alter the design or operation of the N64-System. There is no impact upon accident analysis as described in
-USAR Chapter 15. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the i
consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment is not increased. ,
II. No. These changes do not impact the design or operation of the N64 System nor do they impact accident analysis. Further, these changes do not physically alter the plant. Ilence, ;he possibility of .
creating an accident or malfunction of a type different than evaluated does not exist.
III. No. These changes do not impact the Offgas System or accident analysis.
Technical Specification 3/4.11.2 has not been affected. Therefore, no margin of safety is reduced.
1 l
l l-l
?
58 No.: 91-134
--Source Document: 'USAR CR 90-085 Description of Change This evaluation analyzes clarifying'USAR Section 4.6.1.1.2.5.3 to state I that the scram times listed are the maximum scram times. i Summary I. This change is editorial in nature.- The change is consistent with the description contained in GE reference document, 383HA670AF Rev. 5. This ,
change does not alter the design, function or operation of a CRD HCU, and it does not alter the CRD scram times which are controlled by Technical Specifications. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously
-evaluated in-the USAR is not increased.
II. This change is editorial in nature. As stated in Item I above, the ,
design,-function or operation ot the HCUs or control rods has not been altered. Hence, there is no possibility for creating an accident or .
malfunction of a different type than previously evaluating in the USAR.
1 III. This change is editorial in natitre. It is consistent with Technical Specifications 3.1.3.2 and 3.1.3.3. Therefore, no margin of safety has
-been reduced.
h i-l 4
I l
l'
- . - . - - . - . - . .- - . - - - - . ~ . . _ . - . _ . . - - . - - - ..
SE No.: 91-137, 91-150 Source Documents- DCN 3571, Rev. O Description of Change This' drawing change revises P& ids 806-022 and 806-023, Plant Radiation '!
Monitoring; 912-621, Heater Bay Ventilation System; 912-622, Offgas
. Building Exhaust; and 912-613, Intermediate Building Ventilation System.
The-revisions include the addition / deletion of various component -
computer interfaces and clarifying pressure indicator configurations.
Summary
- 1. No. This drawing change does iat affect any plant system. The function or operation of the systems listed above have not been altered. ;
Off-site dose limits have not changed. Accident analysis has not.
been affected. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the
( consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment is not <
L increased.
II. No This change does not impact the plant or any system listed above.
Accident analysis and radiation _ analyses contained in the USAR have not been affected. Hence, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a type different than evaluated does not exist.
III. No. The plant has not been affected. The design, function, or operation of the systems listed above have not been altered. Technical Specifications has not been impacted._ Therefore, no margins of .
safety are reduced.- ,
s k
h l
~ _ - . . . . . - . . _ . _ _ , _ . _ , _ _ _ . - _ _ - - -
SE No.: 91-147 Source Document: DCN 3640, Rev. O Description of Change This drawing change revises Plant Radiation Monitoring P& ids 806-009, 806-010, 806-018, 806-019, and 805-024 to clarify design information contained on the drawings, summary I. No. These drawing changes do not affect the design or function of any Plant Radiation Monitoring Systein component. The Off-site dose limits are not altered. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or -
the consequences of an accident or aalfunction of equipment is not increased.
II. No. These changes are editorial. There is no impact upon the plant or any plant radiation analysis. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a type dif'erent.than evaluated does not exist.
III. No. These changes are editorial. The design or "F ration of the Radiation Monitoring System have not been impacted. Therefore, no margins of safety are reduced.
'SE No.: 91-149 Sourde Documents- USAR CR 91-074 Description of Change This evaluation analyzes clarifying the pressure Regulator Failure - Open transient analysis contained in USAR Section 15.1.3.
Summary I. No. The plant has not been changed. It vill be operated as designed.
The initial conditions and the initiators of this event have not been altered. The safety results of this event also have not been altered.- Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety is not increased.
II. No.- The plant has not been modified nor has the results of the transient analysis been modified. Analysis of the transient indicates a potentral for-exceeding the vessel cooldown rate.
However, administrative controls are in place which ensures that the cooldown rate vill not impact the structural integrity of the vessel. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or a malfunction of a type different than evaluated-does not exist.
III. No. The plant has not been altered and vill be operated as designed.
Transient consequences have not been changed. The vessel possesses a large design margin relative to operation under abnormal and accident conditions. This change does not adversely impact these analyses. Therefore, no margin of safety has been reduced.
1
. . - - - - 2 - ._ _ __ _ _ . _ . ~ . _ _ _ _ . . .. _ . _ .. _ -_. ._. - . . . _
l i
SE No.: 91-151 Source Document: USAR CR 91-079
- Description of Change- ;
This evaluation analyzes a modification to the USAR text which renames !
the Radiological Controlled Area (RCA)-the Radiologically Restricted Area (RRA).
Summary I. No. This change is editorial in nature. There is no change to the plant nor to accident analysis. Further, there are no changes in the radiological analyses contained in the USAR. Ther3 fore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. This change is editorial. .There is no impact upon the plant, accident analysis, or radiological analyses. Technical Specifications are not affected. Therefore, no margins of safety are' reduced.
f i
( -.
l
.:.~--, .. . . - . - , . ,- -
l l
SE No.: 91-155 Source Document: DCN 3637, Rev. O Description of Change This drawing chaage revises P&ID 302-221, Turbine Building Closed Cooling (P44) System, to delete the normal valve position of IP44-P575. The position for this valve is redundant since a downstream valve, 1P44-F616, is normally closed and provides the system boundary is,lation.
Summary I. No. This valve does not impact P44 System operation. The P44 System is nonsafety-related. Plant operation is unaffected. Accident _
analysis has not been altered. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated inot increased. t II. No. Plant operation has not been impacted. Accident analysis is unaffected. The piping in question is 3/4-inch. Valve IP44-F616 provides adequate system isolation. The P44 System provides no safety function. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a type different than previously evaluated does not exist.
III. No. P44 System or overall plant operation have not been impacted.
Technical Specifications are not affected. Therefore, no margins of safety are reduced.
4
k SE No.: 91-157 Source Document: HRI-0001, Rev. 0-Description of Change This evaluation analyzes the creation of an administrative instruction '
which addresses the performance of the licensed operator medical
. . examination. Further, the instruction incorporates the use of ANSI /ANS 3.4-1983 as the standard for the medical examination.
Sur. mary I. No. This evaluation is administrative in nature. The medical examinations vill be conducted in accordance with ANSI /ANS 3.4-1983.
This standard is essentially identical to the standard (ANSI N546-1976) previously used to conduct the examinations. .
Accident analysis vill not be impacted by the creation of an administrative instruction or the use of an equivalent standard. The instruction does not direct any plant operation. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment is not increased.
II. No. .This activity only creates an administrative instruction. The instruction-does not alter the design or operation of any plant system =or component. As stated above, accident analysis is not impacted.- Hence, the possibility of creating an accident or
. malfunction of a type different than evaluated does not exist. ,
III. No. -This activity is administrative in nature. The plant has not been altered. The examination standards are essentially equivalent.
Hence, there is no reduction in commitment. Therefore, no margin of safety vill be reduced.
I f
. _ - - . . . - . _ - .~ . - . ,- .
Source Document: USAR CR 91-087
-Description of Change This evaluation analy:es the use of different resin ratios in the radvaste.demineralizers. This vill permit the selection of resin ratio based-upon influent water chemistry.
Summa ry I. No. There is no change to any plant equipment or to the radvaste demineralizers. Vaste water vill still-be chemically and isotopically analyzed prior to its re-use or discharge. Vaste vill -
still be radiologically monitored during.any release. Accident analysis is not impacted. Therefore, the probability.of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No.- The monitoring.of radvaste liquid effluents as required by Technical Specifications vill not affected. There are no changes to any plant or radvaste equipment.- Therefore, no matgins of safety are reduced.
b r
,, - - - - - - - , , . , .-- y
_._- . . _ _~ . , - . . . _ . . . _ __
SE No.: 91-162 Source Document: DCN 3629, Rev. 0-Description of Change
- This drawing change revises P& ids 302-107, 302-108, and 302-109, :
Condensate _ Demineralizing Syscem, by incorporating in-line strainers to the in-bed conductivity sample lines.
Summary, I. No. The in-line strainers vere added to remove impurities to ensure
_ proper closure of sample line isolation valves. These strainers enhance the: design function of these valves. Failure of the sample lines does not adversely impact any system important to safety.
Accident analysis is not impacted. Therefore, the probability of t
t occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of l- equipment is not increased.
l II. No. -Failure of the strainers vould prohibit sampling. However, the i lines are nonsafety and the inability to sample does not impact any plant safety-related system or component. Accident analysis is not impacted. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or nalfunction of a type different than evaluated does not exist.
-III.-No. 'The otrainers or their failure vill not impact any' safety-related system or component. Vater chemistry will;not be impacted, j Chemistry values vill remain consistent with Technical L -Grecification 3/4.4.4. Therefore, no margin of safety vill be
. reduced.
t
.)
f -
4 l '- -
s
)
i^ Ll
"" . - . - - =- . . - - - . . - ~ . . .
t I
SE !Jo.t 91-164 Source Document: DCN 3533, Rev. 0 l l
Description of Chany f This drawing change revises P& ids 302-052, Auxiliary Steam Systemi !
805-029, llotvater lleat Exchanger "B" Level Setting Diagrems and 814-143, ,
llotvater llent Exchanger "B" Level Instrumentation Installation Diagram; i to depict the physien1 relocation of level switches P61-N111 rnd P61-N115.
Summary !
14 No. The switch relocation was performed to eliminate a iuv level alarm from occurring during P9tmal hot vater heat exchanger operation. f HFI 1-90-092,was the activity which physically relocated the level [
switches. The f"nction of the level switches has not been changed. }
The function and operation of the Building Heating System has not been altered., Accident analysis has not been impe.ited. Therefore, y the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or j malfunction of equipment previously evaluated is not increased. !
II. No. The functica of the Building fleating System has not been altered. i This system is not required for safe shutdown. The operation of ;
the plant has not been impacted, llence, the possibility of creating [
an accident or malfunction of a type different than previously i evaluated does not exist. !
III. No. Technical Specifications 3/4.3 and 3/4.7 are not impacted by this !
change. There is'no impact upon the plant or the plant's safe i
- s. 'ovn capability. Therefore, no margins of safety are reduced. !
l I
i i
t l
t
.,--.-..c..__,-.-..-. ,-.m. . _ . . . . - . . , . _ _ . - . . _ . . . -
_ _ _ ~ . . . . . - . _ . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . - . . . - _ . - - _ , . . - _ - . -
SE No.91-169 Soutce Document: DCN 36411, Rev. O Description of Change This draving change tevises P&lD 013-005, final Plant 1.nyout, Plan C above 670'-6" - 624'-6" to indicate the removal of a concrete " knockout" within the vall between room 623-03 and room 623-08 in the Hadvaste Ituilding. The change also indicates the installation of equipment added by DCPs86-008 and 86-008B.
Summary 1 . 11 0 . This change does not affeet the structural integrity of the vall in question since original vall design assumed the " knockout" van removed (Reference rile 18:05.4). The added equipment is nonsafety, tionseismic. All loads remain within the original design capacity of the concrete slab (Reference rile #8:08.10). The radiological zones of the building have not been affected. The change does not itopac t any safety-related equipment. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated is not incteased.
11 . 140. See Item I above.
111. No. There is no itopact upon the structural integ.ity of the Radvaste fluilding. Technical Specil'eations are not affected. Hence, no margin of safety is reduces
SE No.: 91-171 5ource Document SP 2000, Rev. 3 Description of Change This evaluation analyzes a change made to the Piping and Mechanical Equipment Ins'allation Specification (SP 2000). The change adds Pipeline Spec. D25-1 which permits replacement of Reactor Vater Cleanup (G33-RVCU)
System SA106 Grade B carbon steel piping with electropolished,
_preoxidized SA-376 TP347 stainless s' eel piping.
Summary I. No. The new piping material meets all ASHE Section III and XI l requirements. Further, the nev material is more resistant to internal radioactive material alld-up. Any installation utilizing l the new piping vill be analyzed / evaluated for its intended appilcation, thus ensuring all design specifications and codes associated vith that application are satisfied. Therefore, the :
probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated is not increased.
II. No The new material satisfies all ASHE Section III and XI requirements for materials, manufacturing, in9tallation, quality, and testisig.
Use of the new material vill be analyzed / evaluated for its intended ;
application ensuring that the material satisfies the design criteria of the application. Therefore, the possibility of creating an ;
accident or malfunction of a type different than evaluated does not i' exist.
III. No. The new material meets all of ASHE Section III and XI requirements s for materials, manufacturing, installation, quality, and testing.
Any replacement or new installation utilizing this material vill be analyzed / evaluated for its intended application and vill meet design requirements as required by the application. This ensures that any -
system which utilizes this piping material vill function as designed i and remain operabla under all design conditions. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the basis of Technical Specifications is reduced. .
4 Y
)
i SE IJo.91-172 Source Document: DCl4 3682, Itev. O Description of Change This design change revises Pl.1D 302-753, Ofigau System, to add an interlock functio" (* ,m level switch 11164-1471 5 to inhibit starting the glycol agitatos v. % 'ensing lov tank level.
, Summary
- 1. tio. This change reflects the as-built condition of the glycol tank electrical logic. This change does not modify the plant. Accident analysis has not been affected. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment is not increased.
II. fio. There is no impact upon the plant or accident analysis. This change does not affect any radiation release analyses.. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident os malfunction of a type different than previously evaluated does not exist.
111. tio. The Offgas glycol system is nonsafet,. There is no impact on any plant system. Glycol tank instrumentation is not described in the Technical Specifications. Therefore, no margins of safety are reduced.
SE No.: 91-173 Source Document: DCN 3363, Rev. O DCN 3604, Rev. O Description of Change This evaluation analyzes updating various Emergency Service Vater (P45-ESV) System related USAR sections and plant drawings. The USAR changes include revising ESV heat loads, updating operating parameters, and clarifying the use of lay-up for the Residual Heat Removal System Heat Exchangers. The drawing changes include tevising operating parameters on P&lD 302 793, Emergency Service Vater Operating Data, and incorporating the LOOP signal and note clarification on P&lD 302-621, Emergency closed cooling System Unit 1, and 352-621, Emergency Closed -
Cooling System Unit 2.
Summary I. No. These changes are based upon previously evaluated and approved N design information (Reference Cale's G41-34 Rev. 2, P45-30 Rev. 4, P42-11 Rev. 2, P45-34 Rev. O, G/C 2.6.13.1 Rev. 13 DCP 90-0863 and Safety Eval's88-387, 90-155,90-213). The changes do not alter the safety function of the ESV System. Further, this change does not impact the current operation of the plant nor affect any plant equipment. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. This change does not modify the current operation of the plant nor affect equipment. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. This change is essentially editorial. ESV System availability is
-not altered.- -Radiation monitoring of the ESV System has not changed. Therefore, no margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specification vill be reduced.
SE No.: 91-17f>
[ourceDocument: USAR CR 91-125 Deseription of Change This evaluation analyres a modification of the USAR text which renames the plant ALARA Reviev committee the ALARA subcommittee.
Summary I. No. This change is editorial in natute. There is no change to the plant nor to accident analysis. Further, there are no changes in the radiological analyses contained within the USAR. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment pieviously evaluated in the USAR is not -
increased.
II. No. See 1 tem I above.
III. No. This change is editorial. There is no impact upon the plant, accident analysis or radiological analyses. Technical Specifications are not affected. Therefore, no margine of safety are reduced.
M
l l
SE 140 1 91-177 liource Document USAR CH 91-105 De"cription of Change This evaluation analyres incorporating Reload 2, Cycle 3 into USAR Chapters 5 and 15. (Reference Safety Evaluation 90-222)
Summay I. No. The fuel incehanical design, its thermal-hydraulic design, and its nutclear design do not impact any accident or transient. The reload does not alter the design or function of any plant system or component. Safety Evaluation 90-222 concludes that the MCPR and LilGR limits are not violated. The teload analysis results in a maximum vessel pressure of 1258 psig. The ASHE Code limit is 1375 psig. Therefore, the pressure boundary limit is not violated, llence , the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated in the USAR has not changed.
II. No. No plant changes are being made with the exception of the addition of a new fuel type. The fuel type has been accepted for use by the NRC as detailed in their safety evaluation for GESTAR II Amendment
- 10. Fuel fallute mechanisms as described have not changed.
Therefore, creating an accident or malfunction of equipment different than that previously evaluated in the USAR is not possible.
III. No. The reload does not alter the design or function of any plant system. The reload does not adversely impact the accident analysis contained in the USAR. The fuel design of the new fuel has been approved by the NRC. Safety F. valuation 90-222 and the responses above show that the reload satisfies all appropriate acceptance criteria. As such, the reload does not reduce any margins of safety.
l
t SE No.: 91-178 Source Document: DCf1 3604, Rev. O Description of Change This drawing change incorpotates clarifying design information on 1%ID 302-701,111gh Ptessut e Cot e Spray (1:22) System.
Summary I. 11o. This change is editorial. There is no affect upon the design or function of the E22 System. !Jo radiological consequences associated with any accident are impacted. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the conset.uences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. This change is editorial. The design or operability of the E22 System have nct been impacted. llence, no margin of safety is reduced.
l
SE No.: 91-179 i Source Documents DCN 3701, Rev. O Description of Change !
This drawing change revises P&lDs 914-003 Fire Service Vater, and :
023-019, Fire Protection Evaluation Auxiliary and Reactor Buildings [
Plan-620'6", by correcting the fire hose lengths on several hose reels. i Summary f
- 1. No. This drawing change is editorial in nature. It reflects the I as-built configuration of the Fire Service Vater System. The change [
does not alter the design of the Fire Service Vater System. The j system remains in compliance with NFPA 14 and the Fire Protection ,
Program of PNPP. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the !
consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously I evaluated is not increased. !
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. This change is editorial. It does not impact the Fire Service Vater ;
Further, there is no impact upon the alternate shutdown System.
capabilities of the plant as analyzed in the Safe Shutdovn 1 Capabilities Report. Hence, no margin of safety is reduced. l t
I i
L I
w L
w k
-i I
I
.-e--,--.4_.dwi.-,-r ,,m-,-,e--,....y.n,mye-..,',,,, ..,n ---,m-y 4 c e.,, ..re,rm.-,p.w,. ,e,9<>. v.- .,
n ' e y- w y , --v.--ve,+w-----e-v-
SE No.: 91-180 l ' Source Document: USAR CR 91-107 Description of Change This evaluation analyzes a revision to USAR Section 9.1.4.2 which clarifies the plant's fueling activities. Additionally, a clarification vas made to the description of the cask pit.
Summary I. No. This change is editorial in nature. It does not alter the design, function or operation of any plant system. The changes are consistent with the design basis documents for fueling equipment.
Accident analysis is not impacted. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. This change is editorial. No plant equipment or operations have been affected. The change is consistent with plant design bases.
Accident analysis has not been impacted, llence, no margins of safety are reduced.
i- .
(
, SE No.: 91-183 i Source Document: USAR CR 91-122 l
Description of Change -
This evaluation analyzes replacing the existing Reactor Protection System [
Instrumentation and Electrical Diagram. USAR Figure 7.2-1, with an as-built figure. This is part of the GE drawing reconciliation program to replace existing GE drawings with Perry drawings.
Summary I. No. This change is essentially editorial. The design of the Reactor Protection System (RPS) has not been altered. Off-site dose analyses have not been impacted. Therefore, the probability of !
occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of !
equipment previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See item I above.
III. No.- This change is editorial. The design or operability of RPS is not -
affected. -No margin of safety is reduced.
t 5
f 1
)
N i
,4-.,. r - - - - ,n-.,o - , - m ,. --,, ,,m_,.. - . . , , - - . . - - , - - - - - - - . - . _ . _ __.__ ___ - > - _ _ - - _ . - _ _ _ - - - - +
l SE Ho.: 91-186 Source Document: DCN 3694, Rev. O Description of Change This draving change makes editorial revisions to the Offgas System P&lDs 302-751, 302-752, 302-753, and 302-754 by incorporating the GE drawing number as a reference.
Summary I. No. This change is editorial. There is no impact upon the design or operation of the Ofigas System. Accident analysis is not affected.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or a malfunction of equipment is not increased.
II. No. See Item I a..ve.
III. No. This change is editorial. There is no impact upon the Offgas System. Technical Specification 3/4.11.2 is not affected. Hence, no margin of safety is reduced.
- . - . - - _ - - . - _ . _ . . - - - - - _ . - . - - . - . _ - . ~ . . . . . - . - _ , - . . -
l l
I l
SE No.: 92-008 Source Documents USAR CR 92-004 Description of Change h
This evaluation analyzes revising USAR Section 2.5 to incorporate the !
results of the generic seismic hazard study (EPRI NP-6395-ND, April 1989) !
performed by EPRI.-
Summary (
I. No. This change is editorial. Analysis of the EPRI study states that i the plant seismic design is satisfactory. The probability of ,
occurrence of a large earthquake (similar to an OBE or SSE) has not changed. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or. malfunction of equipment previously !
evaluated is not increased. t II. No. 'The seismic design-basis of the plant has not been altered. The probability of an OBE/SSE-like earthquake has not changed. Hence, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a type i different than evaluated does not exist.
7 III. No. The margin of safety is not impacted as no design criteria are ;
modified, the seismic design bases are not changed, and the probability of-large earthquakes has not changed.
h 9
l a
t ir
. - -.= . . - . - .=--.--_ - - . - - . _ . _ . - . . . . . - - - . - . - .
SE No.: 92-009 Source Document USAR CR 92-005 Description of Change This evaluation analyzes various administrative revisions (correcting typos, spelling, grammar, etc.) to the USAR.
9ummary I . ;!a. This chanEe is administrative. There is no impact upon any plant system or component. No analysis contained in the USAR have been 4
affected. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III.-No. This change is administrative. It only affects editorial corrections or clarifications to the USAR text. The plant or any of the analyses contained in the USAR have not been impacted. None of the USAR modifications affects Technical Specifications. Therefore, no margin of safety is reduced.
SE No.: 92-010, 92-013 Source Document: USAR CR 92-006 l USAR CR 92-008 Description of Change This evaluation analyzes revising USAR Section 2.5 to incorporate updated information on local and regional seismicity.
Summary I. No. The changes incorporated do not identify any new geologic structures with the potential for producing earthquakes at the site, at a ,
magnitude or frequency greater than the largest historically !
observed carthquakes. Additionally, no geologic structures that include capable faults, or which could produce volcanoes or tidal vaves, have been identified. Based on the above, use of the i tectonic province approach to determine the maximum earthquake potential affecting the PNPP site, as defined by 10CFR100, Appendix A, remains valid. As a result, there is no change to the basis for establishing the Safe Shutdown Earthquake and, therefore, there is
- no change to the seismic design criteria. Ilence, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated is not increased.
II. No. No new geologic structures with the po?ential for producing earthquakes at the site, at a magnitude or frequency greater than the largest historically observed earthquakes, have been identified.
Additionally, no geologic structures that include capable faults, or which could produce volcanoes or. tidal waves, have been identified. ,
Hence,-there is no change to the seismic design criteria. t Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a type different than evaluated does not exist.
III. No.. The margin of safety for the Safe Shutdown Earthquake has not been reduced as there are no changes to the expected largest earthquake in the region, as concluded in the analysis above.
l l
l l
, .,--f , , - - , 3 , -.- -, ,,,w- ,, , e
SE No.: 92-012 Source Document: USAR CR 92-007 Description of Change This evaluation analyzes making various editorial revisions to the USAR.
The revisions include administrative corrections to figure titleblocks and updating figure lists.
Summary I. No. The changes are editorial in nature. There are no changes to the plant or any plant draving. Accident analysis has not been impacted. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. These changes are editorial only. The plant has not been changed nor has accident analysis been impacted. Hence, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a type different than evaluated does not exist.
III. No. These changes are editorial. The plant has not been altered.
Accident analysis has not been impacted. Therefore, no margin of safety vill be reduced.
_ . . . _ _ . - _ _ _ - ~ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . __ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ - . _ . _ _ _ . _
I SE No.: 92-016 Source Document DCN 3710, Rev. 0 l l
Description of Change l This draving change tevises P&ID 912-618, Turbine Power Complex )
Ventilation (H42) System, to reflect the proper system airflows as established by DCP 89-189.
Summary I. No. This change is editorial in nature. It reflects the as-built configuration of the H42 System as established by DCP 89-189.
Overall, this change does not alter the design or operation of the H42 System. This change does not impact accident analysis.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an l accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated is not ,
increased.-
- II. No. See Item I above.
JIII. No. This change does not affect the design or function of the H42 System. There is no impact upon the plant. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the-basis for Technical Specifications is :
not reduced. 1 t
- [
i I
C
.+ w , ,. .,n-. , . - . - - - - g- ow -e--,--n,-e- , , . . - - - - - - , , - , , en,e - , , e,-r-
l Sr. No.: 92-018 Source Document: DCN 3719, Rev. O Description of Chang This drawing change makes an editorial revision to P&lD 912-613, Intermediate Building Ventilation (H33) System, by updating several MPL numbers and incorporating a note evaluated and approved in DCP 85-295B.
Summary I. No. This drawing change is editorial in nature. There is no impact upon the M33 System or any other plant equipment. This change does not affect any plant radiological analysis. Therefore, the probability -
of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunct:en of equipment previously evaluated is not increased.
II. No. This change does not alter the design or function of the M33 System.
There is no impact upon the Off-site dose limits. Accident analysis has not been changed. Hence, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a type different than evaluated does not exist.
III. No. This change is editorial. There is no impact upon the H33 System.
H33 is nonsafety-related. Ilence, no margin of safety as defined in the basis for Technical Specifications is reduced.
0 4
I SE No.: 92-022 Source Document DCN 3572, Rev. O Description of Change This drawing change revises P&lD 206-017 One Line Meter and Relay Diagram, Class 1E, 4.16 KV, Divisions 1 and 2; by listing the design specifications f or transf ormer Lil-1-A.
Summary-I. No. This change is editorial. The design specifications have not bcen changed. Operation of the equipment remains unchanged. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequence.1 of an accident or !
malfunction of equipment is not increased. '
II . No. . See item I above.
I III. No. This change is editorial. The equipment "atings have not been i changed. There is no isnpact upon the availability of the two !
independent offsite sources required by Technical Specifications. t
'llence, no-margin of safety is reduced.
k i
t 1
5 f-t I
f
- - -. - . ~ . ~. , - . ._.,w._,
..g,. ~ , .,...._..,y.,., ..v- .- ,,-.. . , . - _ _ . . . . . ,. . , , 3,-. , . , _ _ _ _ . , ,.. ,_..k
SE IJo.: 92-027 Source Document: USAR CR 92-015 Description of Change This evaluation analyres revising USAR Figure 8.3-18, Principal Cable Routes ESV Pumpheuse above 586'-6", by incorporating the as-built configuration of four nonsafety, seismic cable trays.
Summary I . 11o . These trays or their failure to perform their design function do not affect any safety-related system or component located within the ESV Pumphouse. The seismic capability of the trays has not been altered. Therefore, tray failure vill not impact accident analysis.
llence, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment is not increased.
II. No. This change does not impact the design, function or seismic qualification of the cable trays. Accident analysis has not been altered. Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a type different than eva.luated does not exist.
III. No. This change does not impact the design, function or seismic qualification of the cable trays. There is no effeet upon any safety-related system or component located in the ESV Pumphouse.
Therefore, no margin of. safety is reduced.
1
SE IJo.: 92-028 Source Docurnent : USAR CR 92-016 Descrip_ tion of Change This evaluation analyzes tevising USAR Pigure 7.2-1, Reactor Protection System Instrumentation and Electrical Diagram, by incorporating various editorial changes in accoidance with the GE reconciliation ptogtam, tio design or hardware changes were made by this figure change.
Summaty
- 1. lio. ' Ibis change is editorial. The only changes were revising matchmarks to follov Pt4PP philosophy and properly teferencing Table 2 on the drawing. tJo changes vete inade to the design or configuration of the Reactot Protection (C71) System. Offsite dose analyses have not been impacted. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previously evaluated is not increased.
II. tio. See item I above.
III . fio. This change is editorial. tio C71 design or configuration changes were made. Technical Specifications have not been impacted. Hence, no matgins of safety vene reduced.
l
Attachmant 4 PY-CEI/liRR-1458L t
PERRY NUCLEAR POVER PLANT SAFETY EVALUATION
SUMMARY
PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 50.59(b)(2)
SUPPL.EMENTAL REPORT
i l
SE No.: 88-467 l Source Document: DCP 88-072, Rev. O Descri_ption of Change ;
This design change makes several modifications to the Division 3 High !
i Pressure Core Spray (HPCS) Diesel Generator (DG) start circuit. This Safety Evaluation is the first Revision to Safety Evaluation 88-467. ;
Summary
- 1. No. The change makes two major modifications to the HPCS DG start circuit. First, a parallel set of manual engine control switch contacts were added. This ensures that the Control Room switch must be in the " start" or " auto" position in order for the engine to receive / maintain any start signal. Second, the generator cutput breaker. auxiliary contacts were replaced with the output breaker's !
cell switch contacts. This eliminates the breaker "open" lockout in the start circuit. These changes do not affect the function of the '
HPCS DG vith respect to its respon.se to a plant emergency.
The change also adds a relay in the start circuit which provides
-isolation of the lube oil recirculation pump, the jacket water keepvarm heater and the generator space heater. The prelubrication and prevarming functions of the isolated components is not required during the short period of time between receipt of any start signal -
and operation of the DG at rated speed. Prelubrication as provided by the static pressure head from the lube oil cooler which is kept full during standby conditions by the circulating pump. Due to the mass of the DG, no appreciable temperature decrease vill occur during this time period. Hence, isolation of these components ,
during any engine operation vill not impact the function of the -
-HPCS DG. 1herefore,'the probability of the_ occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment-previously evaluated is not increased.
II. No. All of the components installed as the result of this change meet all of the original system equipment qualification requirements. -
Additionally the physical installation of these components and their associated viring is in accordance with the original installation requirements. This change does not affect the function of the Division 3 DG. Hence, the possibility for an accident or malfunction different than previously evaluate is not created.
4 4
_ _ , ,_ , ~. ,. , _ _ - - , . . . . _ _ _ _
II I . 11o. The margin of saiety as defined in the bases of Technical Specification Section 3/4-8 tefers to the reliability of the on-site power supplies. As described in Items I and 11 above, the function of the Division 3 Diesel Generator has not been altered by this design change. llence, the margin of safety described in the Technical Specification bases is not affected.
iu uu lll
Source Document: DCP 88-364, Rev. O Description of Change This design change installs 2 three-inch pitot tube tapa in the fiberglass piping of circulating Vater (N71) System.
Summary:
- 1. No. The N71 System is nonsafety-related. Failure of the pitot tube taps could create a-flooding hazard. Ilovever, this condition is bounded i by the flooding analysis contained in the USAR for failure of the N71 piping. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the ,
consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to '
safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. The-vorst case failure of the circulating Vater System pipe, the condenser vould loose vacuum. This vould cause a turbine trip as well as a reactor scram. This transient sequence is analyzed in the USAR. Therefore, the possibility for creating an accident or malfun previously in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. The circulating Vater System is not addressed in Technical Specifications. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill not be reduced.
l t
t h
SE tio.: 89-171 Source Document: DCP 88-339, Rev. 6 Description of Change This design change returns the existing Offgas (N64) System loop seal (N64) Barton level instrumentation to service and spares the previous system modification in place.
Summary I. No. The replacement of the insttumentation for monitoring level in the hold-up line, prefilter, and cooler condenser moisture separator loop seals vill not be completed at this time. All control and _
alarm functions vill be returned to the original differential pressure switches. There is no change to N64 System function. The level probes connected to the N64 System piping pressure boundary meet the requirements of the Standard Review Plan relative to design for hydrogen explosion limits. Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated !.n the USAR is not increased.
II. No. As stated above the system vill operated as originally designed.
Therefore, the possibility of creating an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previousiv in the USAR does not exist.
III. No. This installation vill not affect the Technical Specifi-cation 3/4.11.24, since system function has not been changed or reduced. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill not be reduced.
a
SE No.: 90-024 Source Document: USAR CR 90-011 Description of Change This evaluation analyzes testing valves 1E61-F549, 1E61-F550, 1E61-F551, 1E61-F352 in the reverse direction of flov. Additionally, a note vill be modified ta state that gate valve through seat Icakage is not considered bypass leakage.
Summary I. No. This change meets the requirements of 10CFR50 Appendix J and ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for differential pressure tests in this manner if the valve's the functional differential pressure is 15 psi or less. This is the case for these valves. A test pressure of 15 psi or less does not provide a sufficient force to alter the seating characteristics of the valves. Further, this test pressure applied to either the inlet or the outlet of the valves vill provide equivalent results. The note is just an editorial clarification.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the USAR is not increased.
II. No. See Item I above.
III. No. Operability of the tested valves is not affected. Leakage criteria as stated in Technical Specifications is not chaned. Therefore, the margin of safety as defined in the bases for Technical Specifications vill not be reduced.
1
_--___-_-__- __ _-__- ___________ __ _ _ - _-___ - - _ -_.