ML20127G414
| ML20127G414 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1984 |
| From: | Dale L MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| AECM-85-0111, AECM-85-111, NUDOCS 8505210060 | |
| Download: ML20127G414 (266) | |
Text
F G
GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION 1984 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT-d i
1 8505210060 841231 PDR ADOCK 05000416 R PDR J0P20RPT85030606
y -- ,
,C PREFACE This report presents the information an'd data obtained from .
the implementation of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station's (GGNS)
Environmental Protection Program, Appendix B to the GGNS
, Low-Power Operating License (NPF-29) for the period January 1, ,
1984, through December 31, 1984. Historical information has also Jbeen included where applicable for comparison purposes.
11 J0P20RPT85030606
e . -
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PREFACE................................................... 11
-LIST OF FIGURES............................................ iv
.-LIST OF TABLES............................................. v LIST OF APPENDICES......................................... vi SECTION TOPIC
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION.................................... 1-1 1.1 GGNS Site. Characteristics................... 1 1.2 History of Operation and Present Status..... 1-3 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES........... 2-1 2.1- Smoke Control.............................. 2-1 2.2 Erosion Control............................ 2-1 2.3 Transmission Line Surveys.................. 2-1 2.4 Chemical and Solid Waste Management.........2-3 2.5 Land Management and Wildlife................ 2-3 2.6 Groundwater Monitoring..................... 2-5 2.7 NPDES...................................... 2-6 2.8 Thermal Monitoring......................... 2-7~
-2.9- Cooling Tower Drift......................... 2-8 2.10 Meteorological Data........................ 2-10 2.11 Environmental Evaluations.................. 2-11 3.0 OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS.................... 3-1 3.1' Smoke Contro1.............................. 3-1 3.2 Erosion Control............................ 3-1 3.3 Transmission Line Surveys.................. 3-2 3.4 Chemical and Solid Waste Management......... 3-3 3.5 Land Management and Wildlife............... 3-5 3.6 Groundwater................................ 3-6 3.7 NPDES...................................... 3-7 3.8 Thermal Monitoring......................... 3-11 3.9 Cooling Tower Drift......................... 3-12
.3.10 Meteorological Data........................ 3-18
< 3.11 Environmental Evaluations.................. 3-19
~4.0 INCIDENTS....................................... 4-1 4.1 Reportable Incidents........................ 4-1 l 4.2 Nonreportable Incidents.................... 4-1 l
u 111 '
1 L JOP20RPT85030606
r LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE NUMBER PAGE' .
1-1. General Area Map.........................._l-6 1-2 Property Boundary........................ 1-7 2-1 Local Drainage Basins.................... 2-17 2-2 Transmission Line Routes................. 2-18 2-3 Regional Groundwater Well Locations...... 2-19 2-4; Location of Construction Dewatering &
Observation Wells (Perched Groundwater)... 2-20 2-5 Salt Deposition Station Locations........ 2-21 2-6 Salt Deposition Control Station........... 2-22 2-7 Meteorological System Location............ 2-23 iv J0P20RPT85030606
m 4
. LIST OF TABLES TABLE NUMBER PAGE 2-1 Regional. Groundwater Well Locations ,
In Figure 2-3.............................. 2-14 2-2' Perched Groundwater Well Locations In Figure 2-4.............................. 2-15 2-3 Salt Deposition Station Locations In Figure 2-5 and 2-6...................... 2-16 3-1 GGNS Runoff Data (1984).................... 3-20 3-2 Regional Groundwater Monitoring Data (1984).3-21 3-3 Perched Groundwater Monitoring Data (1984). 3-22 3-4 1984 Precipitation Measurement............. 3-23
~ 3-5 Salt Deposition Data....................... 3-24 3-6 Salt Deposition Rainfall Data.............. 3-28 3-7 Salt Deposition Data - Replicate Samples... 3-29 3-8 Summary of ANOVA (Based on Salt Deposition Rates)........... 3-32 3-9 Summary of ANOVA (Based on Composition).... 3-33 3-10 Salt _ Deposition Data (Single Sample).'...... 3-34 3-11 Summary of ANOVA (No Interaction Between Period and Location)....................... 3-37 3-12 Salt Deposition Environmental Factors...... 3-38 3-13 Salt Deposition. Summary of Regression Anilyses................................... 3-39 3-14 '1984 Joint Frequency Distribution, 50 Meter Level ............................ 3-40 3-15 1984 Joint Frequency Distribution, 10 Meter Level ............................ 3-41 3-16 1984 Percent Bad Data Report .............. 3-42 3-17 Environmental Evaluations -
1984 Summary Sheet......................... 3-43 v
J0P20RPT85030606
c.-
LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX' NUMBER PAGE ,
I Semiannual Transmission Line Surveys................................. I-i II Hydrographs for Perched Groundwater Wells...................................III-i III Environmental Evaluations............... IV-i t
I 1
1 vi J0P20RPT85030606
r SECTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-1 J0P20RPT85030606
r
-l ,
c-INTRODUCTION
[-:
The environmental impact of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station .
~
(GGNS) construction and operational activities between January 1 and December 31, 1984_was monitored by the Environmental Surveillance Program. .The results of the Environmental Surveillance Program contained in the following sections lindicate the environment was not adversely impacted in 1984 by the operation and construction of GGNS.
Factual.information about GGNS and its operation is
!provided in the remainder of this section.
1.1 GGNS SITE CHARACTERISTICS GGNS is a nuclear power station owned by Middle South Energy, Inc.'and-South Mississippi Electric Power Association (SMEPA) and operated by Mississippi Power &
Light Company _(MP&L). An area map showing the geographical
-location of GGNS is provided in Figure 1-1.
GGNS is located in Claiborne County, Mississippi, on the east bank.of the Mississippi River, approximately 25 miles south of Vicksburg and 37 miles north-northeast of Natchez.- Grand Gulf Military Park borders a portion of the north side of the property, and the small community of Grand Gulf is approximately 1-1/2 miles to the north.
The town of Port Gibson is about 6 miles southeast of the site. Two lakes, Gin Lake and Hamilton Lake, are located in the western portion of the site. These lakes were once JOP20RPT85030606 1
the channel of the Mississippi River and average about 5 to 7 ft in depth.
~
Site and Its Environs ,
The' site and its environs consist primarily of woodlands divided between two physiographic regions. The western half of the site is in the alluvial plain of the Mississippi Rivers the eastern half is in the Loess or Bluff Hills. The elevation of the site varies between 60 and 80 ft above Mean Sea Level (MSL) in the alluvial plain region,_while the Loess Hills portion varies from 80 to i
more than 200 ft above MSL.
l The property line shown in Figure 1-2 encompasses the 2376 acres originally purchased by MP&L. However, due to erosion activity of the Mississippi River along the western boundary of the site, this acreage figure continually decreased until the river bank from the barge slip to the north boundary of the site was stabilized through the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers shoreline modif'ication program.
The present acreage figure for the site due to erosion is 2300 acres.
The site boundary is the same as the property line except in the southwest and west-southwest sectors as shown in Figure 1-2. A 2-acre residential property within the southwest sector is privately owned.
There are no industrial, commercial, institutional or residential structures within the site boundary.
J0P20RPT85030606 2
rr 1-t
~
There are no railroads or waterways that traverse the-site. J61 unpaved county road runs-through the site in the south-southeast, south, south-southwest, and southwest .
sectors. This road.provides access to Hamilton and Gin
-Lakes and the-Mississippi River from the Port Gibson-Grand Gulf Road.
Access
~
The site area is accessible by two major highways:
U. S. Highway 61 and State Highway 18, which connect Port Gibson (6 miles southeast of the site) with Natchez, Jackson'and Vicksburg.
1.2 HISTORY OF OPERATION AND PRESENT STATUS Grand Gulf Nuclear Station consists of two boiling water reactors (BWRs) rated at 1250 MWe each. Unit'l received a Low-Power Operating License on June 16, 1982.
Fuel loading began on July 1, 1982 and was completed on August 6, 1982. Initial criticality was achieved on August.
18, 1982.
Low-power testing began on September 25, 1983 and was discontinued on November 8, 1983 with 995.3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> of operation at less than 5 percent power recorded for Unit 1.
Low-power testing resumed on April 22, 1984 and was completed shortly thereafter. The Full-Power Operating License was granted on August 31, 1984, and commercial operation is anticipated for the summer of 1985.
J0P20RPT85030606 3
The following list summarizes significant dates associated with the operation of Unit 1:
e Low-Power Operating License June 16, 1982 ,
e Initial Criticality August 18, 1982 o Began Low-Power. Testing September 25, 1983 e Discontinued Low-Power Testing November 8, 1983 e Resumed Low-Power Testing April 22, 1984 e Full-Power Operating License August 31, 1984 e Startup.After Full-Power License September 5, 1984 e First Synchronization October 20, 1984.
Unit 2 is in a construction phase and was 33.8%
complete as of December 31, 1984. The minimal Unit 2 construction activities occurring in 1984 were for the purpose of protecting the original investment.
Preoperational Study A preconstruction environmental impact study was initiated in 1972. This study was modit sd and expanded into an Environmental Surveillance Program in 1974 to determine the impact of the construction and operation of GGNS on the environment.
The preoperational Environmental Surveillance Program continued until June 16, 1982 when GGNS received a Low-Power Operating License. No adverse environmental impact was observed during the preoperational study.
1982 Annual Environmental Operating Report (AEOR)
The operational phase of the Environmental Surveillance Program began when GGNS Unit I received a Low-Power Operating License on June 16, 1982. During 1982 Unit I did not begin power ascensions consequently, 1982 J0P20RPT85030606 4
d operational activities were an extension of preoperational activities. No environmental- consequences of- GGNS operation'were~noted between June 16.and December 31, 1982. .
-1983'AEOR
. Low-power testing.of GGNS Unit 1 began in September 1983. No noticeable changes in the environment were detected by the Environmental Surveillance Program as a result of low-power testing. Results of_the Environmental Surveillance Program during 1983 remained similar to those of previous years. An assessment _of GGNS operation by Environmental-Surveillance Program personnel at the end of 1983 confirmed there was no adverse impact to the environment. 1984 AEOR The following sections present the Environmental Surveillance Program results for the period January 1 to December 31, 1984. Where applicable, the write-up provides comparisons with results from previous years. An
. assessment of the following information by Environmental Surveillance Program personnel indicates there was no adverse environmental impact due to the 1984 operation of GGNS.
JOP20RPT85030606 5
I e
I l- ; I j
' ~/ 4
.n.
, DlrHe WEST CARROLL / $ L YA200 L- ,
c; )
Ess U K ,
- --j -
S L __
mA0rson
,___ _ .3 : , +e ser i
. t
~~~
i
.Qs f
'g- T LLULAH _, .
y 0 I' ADISON
's TON
'V l G,,
/ s's -
eEDW
- q 0900 m g RAYMoM gaggin C' ,
/
98/
mimos h, - ,
4
'. O g
$ g C ALOW[LL gg g f WELLTON k l 4
, / a. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .
e.__ _
W T!Il3A3 g' L31 BORNE
, ,y,g i g SIMPSON j y SAI T JOSEPH. p e --
n (
TERPR CATAN ULA
.X gp b l 1
YT w
- g;
.5-w, /
1 0
I
- 1 taa'. 4 ._____ ..__ l 8 ' " " c" N ***Y g'
w h'^ .n4Te u > j.
'y, i C c0 A j ,
- 4 ADAMS ,. ,,,
"7 y Llaj>
l IV 5. . .. .
- p. '~
1
, l S' amitt% N LDUISIANA \ h. . e KINION M * -, M/MM/ \
-' , MISSI elPPI ;
/ ires / 3,f, 0 _ _6 e !) M o ire 1
MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 & 2 souncE: on :> # . , .L , n.a m o, on :># = , .m im u FIGURE l_1 GENERAL AREA MAP 1-6
~^ ~~
.r If i \ \
m f
r g,
y
- y s
s 7 E y l 4 -g I jf j ) ! ::
M l 0E I
l u
4
..e >
.. l.\ l a
~
..j
__t...- ,
i1 M%2hh .
I
/ ' VR4 anarf
<..q h Q: -
j ,..
g (- ;
^
\ I;/ i i / f NS ,
i 8 %
l ]7 i A
6 N 't /
I l
Nd & [/
\%
I l; \ ) -
8 lI' ij i K I I I
r;
~
. , . . . =
4 4_
A f
+
SECTION 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES 6
J0P20RPT85030606 1
2.1 SMOKE CONTROL Open burning of waste materials at GGNS is not permitted. Wastes are burned in a pit utilizing an air ,
curtain destructor incinerator which blows air over the fire to insure complete combustion of ignitable material.
This process reduces particulate emissions to the environment. Daily inspections of the burn pit are made by Environmental Surveillance Program personnel to insure compliance with the State of Mississippi's air pollution regulations.
2.2 EROSION CONTROL Erosion control at GGNS is a major priority because of the proximity of GGNS to the Mississippi River, the hilly terrain, the average annual rainfall of approximately 50 inches and the loess soils which are extremely susceptible to erosion. The methods utilized to control erosion are e Immediate revegetation of disturbed areas e Utilization of concrete chutes and flumes which channel runoff into two sediment basins, A and B (Figure 2-1).
Sedimentation occurs in the basins which helps to minimize the ecological effect on Hamilton Lake and the Mississippi River.
2.3 TRANSMISSION LINE SURVEYS The four transmission lines associated with GGNS (Figure 2-2) are o Port Gibson Substation Route e Baxter Wilson Steam Electric Station Route J0P20RPT85030606 1
, o Ray Braswell ENV. Substation Route to Franklin ENV Substation Route.
The 115'kV transmission line from Port Gibson, Mississippi, .
supplies construction power and' emergency power to GGNS.
The=500 kV Baxter Wilson and Franklin transmission lines
. terminate in Warren and Franklin counties respectively.
The Ray Braswell line, a planned 500 kV transmission line, will connect GGNS to an existing 500 kV transmission line in_ Warren County.
A semiannual aerial survey of these lines is conducted to observe vegetation growth and monitor erosion. When problem areas are identified, ground patrols make a closer observation. Recommendations are then made to the Mississippi Power & Light Company (MP&L) Engineering Department for corrective action. Problem areas are closely monitored during follow-up serial surveys to determine the effectiveness of the corrective actions.
Techniques designed to minimize erosion are used to-reelear and control vegetation on these transmission lines.
Highway, surface water and railroad crossings are hand cut, usually leaving buffer strips adjacent to the crossing. The use of heavy equipment in clearing right-of-ways is limited to piling brush and pushing brush piles.
Potential erosion areas are seeded and mulched. Synthetic erosion prevention material is utilized when necessary.
J0P20RPT85030606 2
F-
\
. The:long growing season in this area provides excellent
. early root formation which also helps prevent damaging erosion.. ,
2.4 CHEMICAL AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
' Liquid wastes, such as chemicals, fuels, lubricants,
- bitumens and flushing solutions, are deposited or
. discharged into tanks and/or containers for salvage or subsequent removal to appropriate off-site locations.
Adequate care is taken to avoid the handling or storing of liquids in close proximity of major drainage areas to avoid potentially damaging spills to site streams.
Construction scrap and debris are collected in designated on-site areas for salvage, incineration or burial. Unusable combustible materials are burned on site in a burn pit equipped with an air curtain destructor.
Emission levels and operation of the burn pit incinerator are in accordance with Mississippi Air Quality Regulations. Emissions and odors are kept at an acceptable minimum, and control devices are maintained in good working order. Noncombustible solid wastes are buried in designated landfill areas.
2.5 . LAND MANAGEMENT AND WILDLIFE Approximately 2300 acres owned by MPEL makes up the GGNS site: 94 acres are fenced in the immediate plant area, with an additional 37 acres set aside for permanent structures. The remaining acreage, which is excellent JOP20RPT85030606 3
u 1
I habitat for Mississippi wildlife, is pro'ductively utilized keeping wildlife enhancement in mind.
Agricultural leases with local farmers have been ,
established at'GGNS. Some lande have been leased to area
. farmers for grazing purposes and hay production. . The farmers-use every available resource to have a pro'ductive operation while meeting the GGNS objective'of wildlife enhancement.
Fringe areas and open fields are mowed a minimum of 1 two times during each growing season to keep open areas from being overtaken by scrub vegetation. After the growing season, a series of small food plots are planted in these open fields to help sustain wildlife populations through the winter and early spring. A small fruit orchard and two gardens are also maintained on site by Environmental Surveillance Program personnel.
Two lakes located on the site, Gin and Hamilton, are used for sport and commercial fishing. Utilization of the lakes and surrounding local lands by water dependent species (waterfowl) is seasonal, with most activity .
occurring during fall and winter migrations. [
Hunting on the site is limited to bow hunting for i deer. Other hunting activities are prohibited on the GGNS site, l
J0P20RPT85030606 4
r 2.6 GROUNDWATER MONITORING A groundwater monitoring program has been established at GGNS to: .
e Provide data on the seasonal fluctuation of the regional groundwater table o Define the cone of depression caused by GGNS pumping operations e Monitor the level of the perched groundwater table in the Unit 1 and 2 Power Block areas.
Location of Monitoring Wells Twenty-seven wells are used to monitor the regional and perched groundwater underlying GGNS:
e Twelve wells monitor the regional groundwater levels in the site area e Fifteen wells monitor the perched groundwater levels in the Power Block areas.
Locations of monitoring wells are shown in Figures 2-3 and 2-4 and listed in Tables 2-1 and 2-2.
Regional Groundwater Wells used to monitor the regional groundwater levels (Figure 2-3 and Table 2-1) are normally measured at least twice a month. Fluctuations in regional groundwater levels have indicated that maximum groundwater levels normally occur in June through August, with minimum levels normally occurring in November through January. These seasonal fluctuations correspond to those of the Mississippi River.
No indications of groundwater depletion have occurred since the inception of the program.
J0P20RPT85030606 5
e Perched Groundwater GGNS Units 1 and 2 have a monitoring and dewatering system (Figure 2-4 and Table 2-2) located around the Power .
Block and the Standby Service Water-Basins to monitor and dewater the. underlying perched aquifer. Seven wells (MW-1 through MW-7) monitor the water levels in the perched aquifer and eight wells are in place to dewater the aquifer if water levels approach or exceed 109 ft Mean Sea Level (MSL). Water levels in perched aquifer wells are observed and recorded once a month.
2.7 NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
PERMIT National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. MS0029521 was amended and reissued to GGNS on June 1, 1982. The permit was issued in accordance with the provisions of the Mississippi Air and Water Pollutant Control Law (Section 49-17-1, Mississippi Code of 1972) and the regulations and standards adopted and promulgated thereunder, and authority granted to the Mississippi Pollution Control Permit Board pursuant to Section 402(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
The permit as issued in June 1982 consisted of 15 outfalls, but was revised in May 1984 to add Outfall 016 and combine Outfalls 007, 008 and 009.
The Permit allows GGNS to discharge wastewater in accordance with NPDES regulations into Hamilton Lake and the Mississippi River. NPDES reporting requirements are J0P20RPT85030606 6
n established by the State of Mississippi. Monthly Discharge ^
Monitoring Reports (DMR) for~each outfall are prepared on-a
- quarterly basis'and sent to the Mississippi Department of ,
-Natural Resources'and the U. S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission'via NPDES Quarterly Reports.
-2. 8 THERMAL' MONITORING PROGRAM Grand Gulf Nuclear Station's NPDES Permit requires
.that GGNS effluents and the Mississippi River mixing area
-be monitored to determine what effects,11f any,Lwill result from GGNS' heated discharge into the river. The NPDES Permit states:
The' receiving water shall not exceed a maximum water temperature change of.2.8'C_(5.0*F) relative to the upriver temperature, outside a mixing zone not exceeding a maximum width of 60 feet-from the river edge and a maximum length of 6000 feet downstream from the point of discharge, as measured at a depth of 5 feet. The maximum.
water temperature shall not exceed 32*C (90*F)
.outside the same mixing zone, except when ambient temperatures approach or exceed this value.
Monitoring-is conducted semiannually (once in winter and once in summer) when at least one unit is operating at a minimum of 25% power.
To initiate the thermal monitoring program and obtain baseline data, the river bank was surveyed to establish-and permanently mark 72 reference points 100 ft apart. Sixty-
.six of the reference points are located downstream of GGNS' discharge into the river, and the remaining six are located upstream of the discharge.
JOP20RPT85030606 7
=-
. ,y
, s 3-
\ w g.. ]
ms., ,,s le Calibrated digital thermometers are used to.obtain
~
i temperature'siat a depth ofL5 ft and at the surface. At t T each_ reference p,oint,Imeasurements are taken 100 ft.from-
.theJriver bank,.then ht 10 ft intervals until reaching the bank.' This provides 20 temperature data points'for each reference point.
2.9.COOLINGtTOWER DRIFT PROGRAM The Environmental; Protection Plan requires that'a-e study'be conducted to determine the' environmental effects '
7 \ \
Sof salt deposition from cooling tower' drift. MP&L elected!'
- ,\- 'N ,
o to conduct a quantitative _and qualitative cool'ing tower +
.. u
^
'*~ drift study which would identify the ' sal'ts deposited on vegetation in~the surrounding environment and de'termine ;
the-quentity of-each salt. i' Salt Deposition Station Locations ;
y -Seven sampling sites _are utilized-to measure cooling. ,
y ;' L 3 V,
3 , tower drift deposition. Two-of the sampling sites have -l, two' duplicate sampling devices. Six of the's,even sampling )
. ~ .
sites"are located in areas where-maximum salt deposition is lgf ,
% +
.y predicted. These areas were extrapolated from the '
- a. g- $ t
\'4 .
t Bechtel Salt Deposition Model developed for the MP&L'Fitial "'
~
') -
gy ' ?! Env'i,ronmental Report. The seventh sampling site is a a '
i cdntrol-si,te; located south of Raymond, Mississippi.
\ ,
4 e h
~.
Lodations of saEt deposition sites are identified in
- Figures 2-5 and 2-6 and listed in Table 2-3.
- s. ,
- s 4
't g
\. ..
"~
J0P20RPT85030606 8
...,_._.__.._,___&.'._l2.._.__.,_,.;____
Fallout samples are collected on a quarterly basis using buckets with a known volume of deionized water. The buckets are located four to six feet above the ground, fitted. ..
with bird rings and covered with fine mesh screens to exclude leaves and insects.
-Sample Analysis =and' Collection-Samples are' collected quarterly and analyzed for ten constituents:-
e Calcium- e Magnesium o Sodium -e Iron e Phosphate
~
e Nitrate
.e Chloride e Fluoride e Sulfate e Total dissolved solids.
-These parameters were selected because past analyses have shown-them to-be prevalent in the Plant-Service Water System. Salt constituents are also determined for the
-demineralized water used in the initial setup.of the collection buckets. Rainfall data is recorded for each sampling site.
Screens are washed:with deionized water, and the wash water volume is measured and deposited in the collector on a quarterly basis. The volume of water in the collector is then measured, and a composite sample of the collector's contents is placed in a clean cubitainer, sealed and
- labeled. The date of removal, total volume in the collector, total rcinfall and location of the site are recorded on the appropriate data sheets.
, J0P20RPT85030606 9
v-
~
Salt Deposition Rate Calculation Salt deposition rates (SDR) are calculated on a constituent-by-constituent basis from: ,
e The total volume of; water contained in the sampling bucket ar The concentration of a constituent in this water e liua volume of demineralized water placed in the sampler initially e The concentration of the constituent in the demineralized water e The sampling area of the bucket.
Therefore, for a particular constituent, SDR = (VTCT) (VDCD)
A
-SDR = Salt Deposition Rate (mg/m2) where:
V T = final sample volume V
D = seeded volume of demineralized water C
T = final sample constituent concentration C
D = demineralized water constituent concentration A = collector area (m 2),
2.10 METEOROLOGICAL SYSTEM The GGNS meteorological tower, with base elevation of l
160 ft above MSL, is approximately 5000 ft northwest of the GGNS Unit I reactor building, which has a finished grade 132 ft above MSL. The location of the meteorological tower is shown in Figure 2-7.
1 Nun area around the meteorological tower is flat and
_ grass-covered. The nearest bluffs are 362 ft to the west of JOP20RPT85030606 10
(f ,
4 the tower with' trees 35 ft high along-the bluffs.
Approximately 400 ft to the' east are trees 50 to 60 ft high along with a. hill.about 30 ft: higher than the base of the .
-tower. 'o T the south, the nearest-trees 50 to 60 ft high are 690 ft:from the tower. A county road passes the meteorological. tower 400 ft to the north. .The tallest
-structure,.the GGNS Unit I natural draft cooling tower, is 522 ft high and is situated approximately 6000 ft south-southeast of the meteorological tower.
Due to.its location in a relatively open area and its
. proximity to GGNS, the tower site is expected to accurately represent the same-meteorological characteristics as the region into which airborne material will be released from
~
GGNS.
The following parameters are monitored at the 133 and 33 ft levels of the tower:
e Wind Direction' e Change in Temperature ( A T) e Wind' Speed e Dew Point-e Temperature e Surface Precipitation.
1Nue data for -the Meteorological Program is included in the Semiannual Effluent Release Reports submitted to the U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
2.11 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS The Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) for GGNS permits changes in GGNS design or operation and the performance of tests or experiments that affect the environment, provided they do not involve a change in the EPP or an unreviewed environmental question. This means J0P20RPT85030606 11
.nw-r that. changes, tests or experiments which do not affect the ~
. environment are not subject to the requirements of the
~
EPP. -Also, the requirements of the EPP do not relieve ,
GGNS of-the. requirements in'10 CFR 50.59, " Changes, Tests and Experiments," which address-the; question of safety associated with proposed changes, tests and experiments.
Nuclear Production personnel review changes in plant-
' design or operation and the performance of tests and experiments for the possible effects they might have on the environment. When the review determines that the change test or experiment may-affect the environment, an
- environmental evaluation is prepared and recorded before additional construction or operational activities associated with.the change, test or experiment are begun.
However, the EPP excludes changes, tests or experiments
- from the evaluation:
e If all measurable environmental effects are confined to on-site areas previously disturbed during site preparation and plant construction, or o If they are required to achieve compliance with other federal, state, or local requirements.
! Review of changes, tests and experiments at GGNS is conducted by one of three groups:
- e Nuclear Engineering and Construction o Nuclear Operations e Nuclear. Support.
- - All three groups perform an applicability determination of F proposed changes, tests or experiments to ascertain if the i
F J0P20RPT85030606 12
L activity might affect the environment. Only those which have the potential to affect the environment are required to receive environmental evaluations. ,
The' originator of a proposed change, test or experiment must complete an environmental evaluation or document that one is not required. Completed environmental evaluations are forwarded to the Radiological &
Environmental Services (R&ES) Section of Nuclear. Support ~
for a concurrence review. After providing concurrence review, R&ES reports the results of environmental evaluations to the NRC in the GGNS Annual. Environmental Operating Report.
J0P20RPT85030606 13
M i TABLE 2-1 REGIONAL GROUNDWATER WELL LOCATIONS IN FIGURE 2-3 LEGEND' WELL NUMBER SECTOR LOCATION DESCRIPTION 1 PS, OWS B NE'Laydown Area - Unit 2 Bluff behind Unit 2 2 OW209A, P209 D(E) Cooling Tower 3 OW202 E Bluff north of Switchyard 4 OW10 A West end Met Tower field County Road - Adjacent to 5 OW4, OW4A, P4 R Stream A West Laydown Area -
6 OW29A Q Unit 2 Field - Northside Haul 7 OW69A P Road Unit 1 Cooling Tower 8 OW7 N Across the south Plant Access Road and east of Basin B 2-14 J0P20RPT85030606 - TABLE 2-1
I TABLE 2-2 PERCHED GROUNDWATER WELL LOCATIONS IN FIGURE 2-4 ,
WELL NO. UNIT NO. LOCATION DESCRIPTION MW1 2 North end Unit 2 Turbine Bldg.
MW2 ,
2 Northwest corner Unit 2 Auxiliary Bldg.
MW3 1 Northeast of SST B (between fences)
MW4 1 Southwest side SSW A MW5 2 Northeast MP&L Maintenance Shop MW6 1 North of Condensate Storage Tank MW7 2 Eastaof Unit 2 Turbine Bldg.
DW1 2 East of Unit 2 Turbine Bldg.
DW2 2 Corner Auxiliary Bldg. - Turbine Bldg.
Unit 2 DW3 2 Northwest corner Unit 2 Auxiliary Bldg.
by electric panels DW4 2 Southwest corner of Unit 2 Auxiliary Bldg.
DW5 1 Between SSW A and SSW B DW6 1 In front of Diesel Generator Bldg.
(under man-hole) l DW7 .1 Corner Unit I Turbine Bldg. - Auxiliary i Bldg.
DW8 1 Behind Radwaste Bldg. - Unit 1 l
l l
l 2-15 J0P20RPT85030606 - TABLE 2-2
(
TABLE 2-3 SALT DEPOSITION STATION LOCATIONS. .
IN FIGURE 2-5 AND 2-6
' . LEGEND ID NO. SECTOR DESCRIPTION
.1' SDS 1 P Heavy Haul Road - adjacent to Basin B 2 SDS 2, A Fenced storage area by Met.
2A, 2B Tower 3 SDS 3 C Catwalk on truck bypass road 4 SDS 4 E Maggie Jackson residence -
Waterloo Road 5 SDS 5, J Old MP&L Training Center -
5A, 5B Waterloo Road 6 SDS 6 L Glodjo Residence - Waterloo Road 7 SDS 7 D Smith Residence - Raymond, MS (control) 4 7
i-
?
l 2-16 J0P20RPT85030606 - TABLE 2-3
I I- m l5u -
2
'a T
lti
.e t-
~
a g <
- M - e f,4%.s f5g e
N a
o
=4, , . . ,
lo l' ,. I- ,
p w g --g M , ce .g
- oco's 5
Q 9; { ~;
.:~
5o.
- = %
- y 'S,"-~
q
_ 9} ;
@Y %$.' 9 a
cq yMH -
W 4lL f L
^' -
o oo.,
- E ~, ,,,
yg , x.
g s .
- ~ ^ L J <L. . . ggy
~ w,
_5w4>.c- ?l ^m';Cp; f2
.q:n,M
, , (i .
6
?
~
; y g $, s . W, g: . p.
,,. E 3 a: WL'C s #\ h,~ n ,, 5 ,)-$ ,,ou- m ,5.*O I C,
,8-y ' ' , .' ; '- ' N
.. .. N -
t: :, ; .
4g h 7, , .
D .~ /5AE 4A ,,
kf. S* -a :-,
w 5 ~
1 g '. .
)%
e
,f -
S;gL,.,'
. i . ,' s, .-
'%.24.. n ~.
%v . .:.;
' p =ggo Q<., l' y~.,,;3.
s
, 3f.f'. y. Jw:}." %-s
- .s a ;
k -- . "
"O
,' 'k ' ,,., h' -
%~ ^ -;$%yf fif(Cu%Q-
' %.w
- i _& >f h sg
-\
'. ' f('g-( }ds
. / . ; ,, .,
- .- [. . j '
' '+ ' - 1 i;,
_y ", ..o .. g 1
,_q[;... '
d:<i.[ ...,,,
q, [ ,q. .
' :... ,~ m,.f , ~
. . . . ... . . . . . . . . x. ... . . *. ..s. , s .r e,
N ogk g
e,
., J
' i N/ffy
/ '
I~ ISS/Sg,y ,s '\ Ql -
-N-De//a Alehor10/ -
ren/
C
$1 g\b" l
y
- S 60 rnerwe C.9Wn9ftWto -%
==s TALLULAM l VI.ESsuno JACE r.
1%i1,JJ.S est s..r.; - n.i.'r.a**-
SAv8eoseo*
~
AY amAswtLL [ /P.y
- ,,",',", L .- !?
g htstfLLioN j . ... m .
til-MV LINE CRv57AL M DR98004 1 onescN R -a rarley pf,g SAINT JoStPHe
/
9 p == - p m,,,,,,, ;
g
' 'T-
% wessoas c #Avarts.
rannion enooanAvt=
l nse neocacnest(
- TC"'2 ,
- 4 /m49/ agw A 6t i
1 1 -
LOUISlANA / ,
5 M ana/
MISSI IPPI /sn/ ,
3,f, l
0 ,6 D M M nwke i
MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION UNITS 1 & 2 soonce: on e e , L - p ero, l
nern FIGURE 2-2
! on e w , , m TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTES I
2-18 L
1
\ a
/
\, 7
~ p Nl03
- '; l I A h$
i .. MV.)-t ..
'\
i cuu l EW -
, .] b _u .
Y, _
/T & xa f l' M&lithb satiserf 38Ww
, +e ,..- 7 A ?" f; -
[f i
~
\ gr l ,
f N(% ,
T s .
.. I" \ x I ,! l 1
, y i
/
i
)\I M I /
j "k ,
/ e I ,
Y_.
I I I
PLANT N DW 8
[ , l l GDw-8 7
MW-l' I'
OW-7 OW- 2 y
"n kl..h'T"*~'
MW- .
e eWW-5 a 9 DW -6
\ \
MW-4 l
i 0 200 400 600 SCALE IN FEET l MISSIS $1PPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY G AAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION I
' UNITS 1 & 2 FIGURE 2-4 LOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING AND ODSERVATION WELLS (PERCifED) l 2-20
, f%
$I i\
}i. \- ,~ gj
\, T CN "u
I .
//y 4 l
)_ !!
Ese b H .
I i .. , . co
!N I -
" t;
, + ..... . ,t f. . ,
83%
- 6h ' i. ' '
/ NM .. cM[_
J ..4WL ... f ,i,V'i4
~
..f;_
Nr' / %dF. ^
i N / / NM , i/ i N '
! A Ui
( _ \. $f '9i /
'\\ & II g '
- , /
- 8 t
l h \ j l
]!
I l
\
i I i
1 i
\
f t
T e
h e
- =< 6 n y '. AMe utst taanott ,) m ',, 's, -
g /, , ,
m ,
)4i L.& y -
L )
1
,gss ore;. .,
5 L.
maoissa 1
4
... p.. ner N,_
i I s '"
> AsmeN ortm f .. _
b----} *'"*""
Ame w I " -
- V "8 aoison .
~ . . -
1 '""
$j sf b(. o va /
< at.. , <,
()
,,, . [. tuto=q j i
- c. .
winnen m sas j g neues ,,,,,u ,,,,
g i k,
r S ri. '
7
., m. , if,i
~
Mar /
- ~ )
=
{
3,.,s..
catan u<a 78 **
i
- nr mon -
}
$ v7
'( .
saa' 4 .... . .... _' l' mysw a c u . rr L. ,
- f y
,c , ,
t to ia ,-
g to e, asass .
.. s.
^
I i .. . .
a
)
y* . . . . - . . . -
LOUISlANA ,. w ,
igg 4s
.A6wa=
4/4 MISS
.. .. s, IPPI M., .; 1.
terre / ,,,
Q)ooke M M MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY GRAND GULF NUCLE AR STATION
.m tim, UNITS 1 & 2 soonesi om.w w ,
on w w , . p.u tini FIGURE 2-6 SALT DEPOSITION CONTROL LOCATION 2 22
A g '.
1I i \\ 5
\ M t g I-
\' r-
?
/)
\
' \ A h!
I JM 1 %
1 M
8 "E
2 3 1 1,N '! - t -
/
l (l
. .::.' :;- y -
).. * = ....
,7 '
h I I fj t
j , .
- h. ,-
N (' , -
g ,' s ...*D.......s,
+t
\-
X
'~
, (f. t n ykg
\ j, ?g '
{
s n ,- ' l, }yl E
e ,r
\, "^
n N s r/ / in i
i r ,
- \
}\ j 1
i ny g 1
i '
V. '
ui
/
1 h -~~ ~
d
6 SECTION 3.0 OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION J0P20RPT85030606 1
3.1 SM0KE CONTROL Environmental-Surveillance Program personnel, who had been certified by the Mississippi, Department of Natural ,
Resources to evaluate visible emissions, conducted daily inspections of the burn pit in 1984. During the year, five opacity violations were noted. Timely corrections were made on each occasion.
No other smoke control problems were identified during 1984. Based on 1984 monitoring, the operation and construction of GGNS have contributed ~ insignificant smoke emissions to the environment surrounding GGNS.
3.2 EROSION CONTROL During 1984, 67.29 inches of rainfall were recorded at GGNS. Runoff samples were taken during periods of heavy rainfall at the influent and effluent of each basin to determine the sediment load and efficiency of each basin.
The results, reported in Table 3-1, generally indicate an overall reduction in sediment loading coming into Basins A and B.
Stabilization and revegetation of the majority of disturbed areas on site are contributing to a reduction in sediment loading. The only disturbed areas remaining which have not been properly stabilized are the laydown and Unit 2 construction areas. Major construction areas associated with Unit I have been properly stabilized.
J0P20RPT85030606 1
~- . - _ . . _ _ - ._ .__ _. . _ - - _ _ . _ _ - . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ __
As a result of GCNS Construction Permit Numbers CPPR-118 and 119, Amendments 7 dated December 23, 1981,
. monitoring and capacity requirements for the sedimentation ,
basins were transferred to the GGNS NPDES Permit.
Environmental Surveillance Program personnel elected to continue runoff sample collection on a voluntary basis for an additional period of time to gather supplemental data on
. basin sediment removal. Sufficient data has now been collected, and runoff sample collection was discontinued on January 31, 1985. Future monitoring of sedimentation basins will be conducted according to the parameters established by the GGNS NPDES Permit.
3.3' TRANSMISSION LINE SURVEYS (1984)
The semiannual serial surveys of the GGNS transmission lines identified no major problem areas during 1984. No herbicides were used to control vegetation on these lines in 1983 or 1984.
Minor erosion was identified on the Franklin and Baxter Wilson Transmission Lines during 1984 surveys. No
. remedial action was necessary, however, and these two lines, overall, have well established vegetation. The Baxter Wilson Transmission Line was recleared during 1984.
A detailed summary of the semiannual surveys is provided as Appendix I.
1 J0P20RPT85030606 2
( ..
I i
Stabilization of soil and vegetation in transmission
, line right-of-ways has progressed well, and sufficient ground cover is now available to' preclude future serious ,
erosion problems - Past and present semiannual transmission
-line surveys have established the following:
o Construction practices were effective in minimizing environmental impact e Erosion and vehicular damage caused by hunting and logging encroachment over the years has been minimal and caused no lasting problems e Past remedial action required to control erosion has
-been effective.
.3.4 CHEMICAL AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Solid Waste Solid waste generated at GGNS during 1984 did not present any-unanticipated problems or adversely affect the environment. Office wsste, rubble and debris were incinerated or buried on site without incident. Solid waste activities at GGNS during 1984 were in compliance with Mississippi Department of Natural Resource, Bureau of Pollution Control, " Nonhazardous Waste Management Regulations" issued September 1984.
Chemical and Liquid Waste GGNS did not incur any serious problems or incidents
- with' chemical and liquid waste control in 1984. Chemicals of a nonhazardous nature (resins, cement slurry, Fuller's earth, charcoal and filters) were successfully disposed of
'J0P20RPT85030606 3
e on site. Chemicals which were suitable for reuse were recycled through local contractors and nonprofit organizations. Nonhazardous liquid wastes (borated water, ,
chiller water, cooling water) were disposed of in the GGNS Resin Pond or discharged through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System outfalls and reported as appropriate. ,
Three items concerning chemical waste control in 1984 are identified belows e The Mississippi Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Pollution Control, on October 4, 1984 authorized the on-site burial of Sonolastic Two-Component Sealants. Before disposal the two components were mixed and cured to a solid rubber.
The first disposal of Sonolastic Two-Component Sealants took place on November 29, 1984 in the GGNS Burial Pit and involved approximately 6 drums of solidified material, e Three drums of calcium hydroxide were buried in the GGNS Burial Pit on February 17, 1984.
o Three drums of ultrasonic cleaning solution were disposed of in the GGNS Resin Pond on May 18, 1984.
Hazardous Wante The Mississippi Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) inspected the Hazardous Waste Storage Area and related activities on September 28, 1984. The purpose of the inspection was to confirm regulatory compliance before issuance of a Hazardous Waste Management Permit.
The only noncompliances identified by the MDNR were related to the sulfuric acid cargo tanker spill on May 15, 1984. These items had been previously identified and were J0P20RPT85030606 4
l f
!. )
resolved at a Show cause Hearing conducted by the MDNR on ;
July 6, 1984. An account of the incident is provided in ;
Section 4.2, Nonreportable Incidents. ,
On October 9, 1984 the MDNR approved the issuance of a ;
i
! Hazardous Weste Management Permit to Grand Gulf Nuclear ;
Station. The permit authorises the on-site containerised storage of hasardous waste. Hasardous waste treatment and disposal on site are not authorized by the CGNS permit. A copy of the final Part-B Permit Application was transmitted ;
to the NRC by AECM-84/0472. !
Two shipments of hasardous waste occurred during 1984. i The first was the sulfuric acid shipment described above f and in Section 4.2. The second shipment occurred on-December 7, 1984 and consisted of 17 drums of spent Rydlyne (MC1) cleaning solution and 3 drums of PVC cement.
These shipments were disposed of at permitted repositories in Livingston, Louisiana, and Emelle, Alabama, respectively. !
Polychlorinated Biohenyle (PCBs) !
Dielectric fluid units contaminated with PCBs have f t
been properly marked and identified. No known releases or j exposures related to PCBs occurred in 1984.
3.5 LAND MANAGEMENT AND WILDLIFE One endangered species, the American alligator (A111aator mississioniensis), was observed on or near ;
i J0P20RPT85030606 5
GCNS property during 1984. Alligators are known to inhabit both Hamilton and Gin Lakes and their tributaries.
During the 1984 bow hunting season (October 1984 ,
through February 1985) 18 deer were killed. There were 109.9 hunting hours per deer killed for a hunter success ratio of 3.3% for the season, Based on this data and field observations by Environmental Surveillance Program personnel, the operation of GGNS has had no apparent ecological effect on the wildlife population.
3.6 GROUNDWATER l
Regional Groundwater Regional groundwater monitoring data is presented in Table 3-2. Water levels occurred at expected elevations.
Fluctuations in well water elevations were attributed to flooding of the Mississippi River. The 1984 data was consistent with preoperational and previous operational data.
Perched Aquifer Perched groundwater data is presented in Table 3-3. A hydrograph for each perched aquifer well is provided in Appendix II.
The CGNS Architect / Engineer completed a study of high water levels identified.in the 1983 AEOR. The study was submitted to the NRC via AECM-85/0088.
As previously mentioned, no water levels exceeding 109.0 ft MSL occurred during the 1984 reporting period.
The course of action outlined in AECM-85/0088 is expected J0P20RPT85030606 6
l to control this problem and. maintain the integrity of safety-related structures at GCNS.
3.7* NPDES ,
A revision to the GGNS NPDES Permit Number M50029521 was received from the Mississippi Department of Natural l
Resources on May 2, 1984. This revision combined Outfalls 001, 008 and 009 for monitoring purposes. The revision also added Outfall 016 for a water softening unit serving the Energy Services Center. Other changes were L
predominately administrative in nature. A copy of the revised NPDES Permit was transmitted to the NRC via AECM-84/0287, dated May 14, 1984.
The 1984 monitoring results for all permitted outfalls l . were reported in the NPDES Quarterly Reports. The Mississippi Department of Natural Resources and the U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission received copies of these reports.
Several items noted during 1984 and included in the quarterly reports are summarised below l e Data for outfalls 010 and 015 was not included in the 1st Quarter 1984 NPDES Report for the period January 1-25, 1984. The monitoring for this period was
! performed however, the paperwork was inadvertently destroyed by the Sewage Treatment Plant Operator. The calculations for January were based on the period January 26-31, 1984.
e A report of the January 25, 1984 transformer oil spill into Outfall 013 was submitted to Mississippi Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) via APO-84/0207. A transformer valve malfunction caused l-J0F20RPT85030606 7
approximately 1140 gallons of oil to be discharged in the Unit 2 west laydown area. A small amount of oil reached Basin A but was contained and cleaned up.
Basin A effluent samples were within the NPDES Permit guideline of 25 mg/l for oil and grease. There is no ,
oil and grease limit for Basin A. No adverse environmental effects. occurred and valve failure should not be a recurring problem. Cleanup was completed on January 30, 1984.
e A valve misalignment on January 30, 1984, resulted in an unmonitored discharge of 10,000 gallons of water from outfall 005 into htfall 014. The samples collected to determine chlorine levels revealed 4 0.02 ppa chlorine. No NPDES parameters were violated and action was taken by Operations personnel to prevent a recurrence, o A Nalco 39L spill which occurred on February 21, 1984 involved one gallon of material spilled in the MP&L Warehouse when the container was ruptured by a forklift. The remaining 4 gallons of Nalco 39L, a nitrite-based chemical used in the closed cooling water systems, were disposed of in the Low-Volume Waste Basin and ultimately discharged through Dutfall 006. Nitrite levels in Outfall 006 were determined to be 0.08 ppa. There is no nitrite limit established in the NPDES Permit. Observations indicated that the release did not adversely impact the environment nor were any-NPDES parameters violated. Warehouse personnel were cautioned about using extreme care when operating the forklift near chemicals.
e During the first quarter reporting period five routine maintenance-required releases of diesel cooling water were discharged via Dutfall 007 into Outfall 014. The affluent samples collected revealed nitrite levels after release of <0.5 ppa. No NPDES parameters were violated and no adverse environmental effects were observed. The Mississippi Department of Natural Resources previously authorized this type of release.
e On April 10, 1984 an injection feed line leaked causing approximately 40 gallons of Betz 3451 water treatment chemical to spill onto the MP&L parking lot at Grand Gulf Nuclear. Station (GGNS). The leak occurred on the Plant Service Water side of the system around the threads of a valve which was not properly fitted. The feed line was repaired, pressure tested and examined for leaks as well as cther signs of igroper fitting or deterioration. The spilled Bets 3451 chemical was flushed into a nearby storm drain leading to Outfalls 007 and 014. These outfalls were J0P20RPT85030606 8
L observed for foaming, abnormal odors and discoloration, with none observed. Analytical results from routine sampling of these outfalls were within parameters established by the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station NPDES Permit. Here was no evidence of
- adverse environment effects from this spill.
e As a result of routine maintenance activities three releases of diesel generator cooling water occurred during the second quarter via Outfall 007 into Outfall 014. Effluent samples from Outfall 014 were analyzed for nitrite and found to be < 0.5 ppa, which is within the suggested guidelines. No adverse environmental effects occurred as a result of these discharges, o In June 1984 permission was obtained from the Mississippi Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to drain both Standby Service Water Basins via their permitted outfalls and one nonpermitted outfall. This dual discharge was necessary to facilitate repairs to the system. Chlorine levels during the discharge were nondetectable and no adverse environmental effects .
occurred, e on July 18, 1984 ten gallons of Bets 3451, a chemical dispersant, leaked onto the MP&L parking lot. The leak was caused by galvanic corrosion of a portion of the Chemical Addition System to Plant Service piping.
The chemical was flushed to the storm drainage system.
Sample collectione at outfall~007 and the influent end of htfall 014 revealed pHs of 8.37 and 8.44, respectively. No significant environmental impact was observed. Work was begun in September to isolate the sample point to prevent further corrosion occurrences.
e During the 3rd Quarter reporting period three routine maintenance-required releases of diesel cooling water were discharged via Outfall 007 into Outfall 014.
Effluent samples from 014 collected from two of the three discharges revealed no detectable levels of nitrite. No NPDES parameters were violated and no adverse environmental effects occurred, o Between November 30 and December 2, 1984, approximately 75,000 gallons of water overflowed from the Cooling Tower Basin (0utfall 002) to Outfall 014 via the storm drainage system. The overflow occurred because maintenance activities necessitated draining condenser water to the Cooling Tower Basin. The additional volume caused the Cooling Tower Basin to
- overflow into a nearby storm drain. Discharges of J0P20RPT85030606 9
this type should not occur frequently, but they are required by plant design to occur in this manner.
Chemical analysis of the affluent indicated the following results:
PH 8.6 Chlorine, Total Residual <0.1 mg/l Chlorine, Free Available 40.1 mg/l Except for the discharge route, the release was within the requirements of the NPDES Permit. No NPDES chemical parameters were violated and no environmental impact occurred, e on December 5, 1984 a film was discovered on the water surface at the influent end of Basin B (Outfall 014).
This material had been contained by an in-place boom and was quickly removed with absorbent booms and pads.
Based on visual observations, the film originated from Outfall 007 which enters at the influent end of Basin B. A sample collected from Outfall 007 revealed oil and. grease levels of 1100 mg/l which quickly lessened to < 15 mg/1 asi monitoring contint:ed.
Transformera", fuel storage locations and routine oil use 1.ocations were visually inspected.1 and no, abne nhalitien were noted. Inquiries unde to; s maf.ttenance, operations, wateritreatment'and. ,
cor. tractors 'were also unprodretive in determinitig the source of the problem,s cotidenser tube repairs were being made at this time,\but this 'uould not be
,p6sitively m
identified g as'thViceuse of the release., 1 .
This appeared to bl an isolated incident, since no '
incident of this type occurred priori to anr siitcc ,
December 5,- 1984. He released material was' ~
apparently organic in nature, but it'_was' not charndteristic of a typical oil-base' product. The ,s a released material was removed and no significant ?
environmental impact occurred..- .,
e On December 26, 1984 approximately 10,000 gallons of water from the Circulating Water System (WS) Pump Pit were' discharged through Outfall 014 vis the storm >
. drainage system. The permitted Outfall (002) for the
. CWS could not be used because gravity' flow from the .'
\
Pump Pit to the Cooling Tower Basin was,not possible .
because of physical differences in elevations.a -
Chemical analysis of the effluent indicated the . .
f J0P20RPT85030606 10
following results:
Total Suspended Solids 13.3 mg/l pH 8.59 Chlorine, Total Residual < 0.1 mg/l ,
Chlorine, Free Available <0.1 mg/l Iron 6.1 mg/l Discharges of this type are necessary for maintenance activities. No NPDES chemical parameters were violated and the environment was not affected.
3.8 THERMAL MONITORING Environmental Surveillance Program personnel performed monitoring to determine baseline summer thermal conditions on June 28 through 29, 1984. -All 72 points were monitored
~during summer monitoring activities.
The results were organized and plotted so that temperature changes could be noted at specific distances from the river bank. Additional information such as river flow, ambient temperatures and effluent temperatures were also recorded.
The baseline data indicates, as in previous years, that the turbulence of the river mixes the water such that only a small variation in temperature occurs between the surface and a depth of five feet. Since GGNS had not
. released a substantial heated discharge on a continuous basis at the time of monitoring, no differences in water temperatures between the mixing area and the areas beyond the mixing zone were noted.
I L J0P20RPT85030606 11
s a
- No winter monitoring was' performed because of ,
'{ inconsistencies in the condition of the Mississippi River. <
y Sufficient-data was obtained in the previous winter ,
i.
monitoring to establish winter b'aseline data. g
. L 3.9 COOLING TOWER DRIFT During 1984, cumulative salt deposition samples were collected-for four quarterly periods. Replicate samples 7c were taken at two locations (stations 2 and 5) as described in Section 2.9.
Table 3-5.gives the calculated salt deposition rates -
(SDR) for all seven monitoring sites in the GGNS Cooling Tower Drift Program. These SDRs form the bases for the statistical analysis which follows. Rainfall data f
collected.at each sampling site is provided as Table'3-6.
Statistical Development 1
Presently, the data base is not very extensive (on a year to year basis) and doubt can be cast on the validity 3 of some of the data. The latter is especially true for 7
. phosphate SDRs for the fourth sampling period, as can be t
seen by examining the phosphate rates in Table 3-5.
Nevertheless, data-analysis is possible to obtain quantitative estimates of the precision of the data and the relative importance'of the various factors which can
.potentially. influence salt deposition rates. The former
/ can be quantified by estimating confidence limits for the various data; the latter by statistically analyzing the
(- .e '
data by Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The present B' J0P20RPT85030606 12
statistical analysis uses a two-factor ANOVA which involves calculating F-factors and conducting significance tests for the major potential influences (period, location and the ,
interaction of the two).
Statistical Model The basic statistical model selected for the analysis is as-follows:
D ijk = As + Pt+L3 + PL1 ) + ek (ij )
Where Dijk = basic SDR (Salt Deposition Rate) data a = mean SDR P=f
=. contribution due to sampling period L = contribution _due to sampling location 3
PL = contribution due to sampling period and tj location interactions e - err r due to sampling, analytical, techniques k(ij )
and other, unaccounted for, factors.-
Interactions and " experimental" error can be separated in.a multiple-factors-experiment only if multiple observations are taken at various combinations of sampling f periods and sampler locations. Determining confidence limits for the basic SDR data depends on the estimate of
" experimental" error for the models this estimate, in turn,_ depends on the availability of replicate samples.
'Since the latter were obtained only for salt deposition station (SDS) locations.2 and 5, this statistical analysis l'
L p J0P20RPT85030606 13
i o
l will consider only these two locations. Also, the " wet" L( 2 , 2 A ,_ 5 a n'd 5 A ) and " dry" (2B and 5B) sampler results will be pooled in the model as providing comparable ,
estimate's. For simplicity's sake a complete balanced block
~
design will be considered;,that is, three replicate SDRs for each combination of periods (four) and locations (two) for a total of 24 SDR data' points for each constituent.
The actual. data block is incomplete since some SDR data are either not available or are obviously biased. Pseudo-data points have been estimated based on available data for the same sampler to complete the data block by minimization of the error sum-of-squares for the model. This is generally a good approximation for a data block with only a small number of missing data points. Table 3-7, giving the SDR data, includes these pseudo-data points.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
A computer program for the two-factor analysis of 1 variance (ANOVA) of the data according to the described model has been developed. Basically, the program calculates-the sum-of-squares for each of the factors of interest (period, location, period-location interaction, and error). The F-factors for period, location and period-location. interaction relative to basic error are
- determined as well as an estimate of the confidence limits for the average SDR for any given period and location. For the purposes of this analysis, 95% confidence limits and o 95% significance critical F-factors have been considered.
J0P20RPT85030606 14
4; Using standard student.-t and F distribution tables, other
. levels of significance are readily determinable, if n ~
- required. Table 3-8 summarizes-the results of this .
- analys is',
'As noted earlier, it is necessary to use replicate-SDRs.to separate " experimental error" (error between the replicates) from interaction influences. The use of
~
composition in ANOVA-instead of SDRs may aid in this-process.as well as provide additional information regarding.
potential sources of the salt. Composition for an
-individual parameter-(e.g. for sodium, for~1ocation 2, period 1, and replicate 1) is determined by. dividing the
, :value of the salt deposition rate for the parameter by the
[ sum of the corresponding values for all other constituents other than, total dissolved solids. A two-factor ANOVA with l
L L 3 replicates is.then conducted for 2 locations (2 and 5)
I' and 4 periods. Table 3-9 provides a~ summary of the-ANOVA L based on composition.
l Results of the ANOVA (Table 3-8) for sampler locations 2 and 5 (with replicate samples) show interaction of sampling period and location on some of the SDRs. As noted earlier,' multiple observations are required.to separate interaction and " experimental" o
error. Even when multiple observations are not available,
- ANOVA analysis ~can-still be performed to evaluate the main l
l effect of an individual factor. Therefore, the two-factor l-ANOVA'(without replicates) can be performed for the other l.
< J0P20RPT85030606 15
\
- a. .
i o
sampling locations (other than 2 and 5) to evaluate the
-effect of location and period. Table 3-10 shows salt deposition data.(five locations, four periods) for the .
ANOVA analyses without interaction _ A computer program ,
. (similar to-the previous program for ANOVA) calculates the
' ~
F-factors for the-simplified ANOVA.- Table 3-11 summarizes the results.
To analyze impacts of environmental factors such as rainfall, wind speed, prevailing wind direction and resultant wind-direction, regression analyses may be performed as follows:
(1) Cumulative rainfall-for.the period versus the salt deposition rate for that period (for all salt-deposition rates for sampler locations.2 and 5)
(2) Average wind speed for the period versus the salt deposition rate for that period (as above)
(3) Resultant wind direction for the period versus the salt deposition rates ~for that period (as above)
(4) Resultant wind direction for the period versus the salt deposition rate for that period (as above). ,
For each of the four sampling periods, data for rainfall and the frequency distributions for wind speed and-direction have been obtained by reduction of GGNS weather data. Table-3-12 summarizes these four environmental factors. Data points for a regression analysis on a SDR
_ parameter consist of data pairs as follows - an environmental factor for a period and corresponding SDR value_of the parameter for the period.
- The SDR data from
. sampler locations 2 and 5 were used for the regression J0P20RPT85030606 16
analyses. Table 3-13 gives the correlation coefficients (for each SDR parameter.with each environmental factor) as obtained from the regression analyses. ,
c . Conclusions t -(1) The data for phosphates for all but one' location (SDS
- 3) for-the fourth quarter is suspect because the
. deposition rates are zero.
(2) The results;of'ANOVA (Table 3-8)_ based on salt deposition rates indicate-the following:
e- Sampling period has significant influence on all SDR parameters except TDS' e e Sampling location has significant influence on sodium, calcium, magnesium, ph'osphates and sulfates ,
e Interaction of sampling period and location has significant influence on sodium,. calcium,-
magnesium and iron e Sodium (+/- 18%),-calcium (+/- 15%), and-chlorides (+/- 26%) data are relatively precise, while phosphates _(+/-'89%) and TDS (+/- 109%) are relatively imprecise e Due to many.zero values for fluorides, meaningful analysis based.on ANOVA is not possible.
(3) LIf sources of the deposited salt were the same and variations in SDR were only due to sampler location, period, and their mutual interaction, then the L composition offSDR samples for different periods and
! locations would-be similar to each other and ANOVA l based on composition would be expected to show no
~ dependence on the three factors. For sodium and calcium there are significant reductions in F-factors for period, location, and interaction, indicating less dependence on.the two main factors. However, no L clear trend has been established. Therefore, there are other sources.in addition to the cooling tower contributing to the SDR. The different sources of salt,.in addition to those from the cooling-tower, affect samplers.at different locations differently l for each period (see Table 3-9).
C
-J0P20RPT85030606 17 u __ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ __ __ _
o
--(4)- JANOVA :results (Table 3-11), assuming no interactio'n Lbetween period and. location and without. replicate
~
samples, show similar trends for the influence of sampling location on SDR but show no clear trends for sampling period. .
(5) Results of: linear regression analyses (Table 3-13) indicate the.following:
e -Unlike results for 1983 data, the 1984 SDR tends to increase with increase-rainfall during.a sampling period. /m opposite effect was expected, since rainfall tends to wash down the salts from the atmosphere.
e LCorrelation coefficients for sodium and calcium show significant linear-correlation with average wind speed. Both parameters also show significant correlation. coefficients for prevailing and resultant wind-directions during-the sampling periods.. . Sodium and calcium SDRs are relatively lower for the third period when the grevailing. wind direction is from the
-southwest. However, SDRs for these constituents are relatively higher for the rest of the year when. prevailing winds are generally from the southeast. This phenomenon-indicates the presence of sodium.and calcium source (s)
-southeast of these samplers.-
Future Considerations (1)- The phosphates data from the fourth sample collection period should be discarded if used for any future data analyses.
(2) . Based on SDR data from the past three years, MP&L could evaluate the possibility of reducing the number of sampling locations.
(3) Based on the comparison of results between wet and dry samplers, MP&L could evaluate making all samplers dry' collectors.
3.10 METEOROLOGICAL DATA Meteorological data for the 1984 reporting period was included in the Semiannual Effluent Release Reports submitted'via AECM-84/0438 and AECM-85/0054 to the U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission on August 31, 1984 and 4
-J0P20RPT85030606 18
February 28, 1985 respectively. Data contained in these reports-is summarized in the following tables:
o ' Joint-Frequency Distribution, 50 Meter Level ,
(Table 3-14)
- e. Joint Frequency Distribution, 10 Meter Level (Table 3-15) e Percent Bad Data Report (Table 3-16).
3.11~ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS During 1984,'no unreviewed environmental questions were found, and no changes were made to the EPP. With the exception of Environmental Evaluation SE-019/83, most 1984 Environmental Evaluations were made in connection with the 1984 internal review of-GGNS Technical Specifications and FSAR.
In many cases the originator chose to do an environmental evaluation when an applicability determination would have been sufficient. Discussions between'theLoriginators and R&ES regarding this' policy should provide for better management of 1985 environmental evaluations.
A-completed copy of each 1984 environmental evaluation recorded by R&ES is included in Appendix III. An analysis, interpretation and evaluation of the environmental impact of each change, test or experiment is made in each environmental evaluation. Table 3-17 summarizes each evaluated item.
J0P20RPT85030606 19
- . . - - _ - _ . _ _ _ _ ~ _
,~
n TABLE 3-1 ,
1984 RUNOFF DATA-Rainfall- Basin A EFF' Basin A Inf Basin B Eff Basin B Inf' DATE (Inches) TSS-(mg/1)' 'TSS (mg/1) TSS-(mg/1) .TSS (mg/1);
01-08-84 1.40"- 115.0. 209.0- 128.0 1185.0' 01-18-84 0.45" 9.0 42.0 37.0- 16.0 01-24-84 1.03" 25.0 127.0 144.0 18.0-02-13-84 1.85"- 301.0 68.0 - 89.0 15.0
.02-16-84 1.75" 388.0' 193.0- '
123.0 ' 3.0
- 02-27-84 1.48" 128.0. 130.0 82.0- 87.0, 03-05-84 5.15" 484.0 9282.0 232.0 145.0 04-03-84 1.29" 89.0 28.0 94.0 141.0 04-09-84 2.17" 294.0 102.0 454.0 12.0 05-01-84 0.29" 123.0 170.0 105.0' 54.0 05-08-84 1.50" 81.0 901.0 43.0- 22.0 06-07-84 2.30" 32.0 346.0 .41.0 65.0 4 07-13 0.95" 38.0 167.0 42.0. 3.0 l 08-08-84 3.20" 730.0 203.0 98.0 2.0
! 08-13-84. 2.27" 277.0 636.0 24.0 3.0 08-14-84 0.72" 272.0 334.0 27.0 11.0 08-23-84 0.38" *
- 26.0 12.0 1.21" '*
- 92.0 203.0 2
10-08-84
- 10-10-84 2.38" 220.0 416.4 168.0 82.0 2
10-15-84 1.74" 304.0 280.0 78.0 4.0
- 10-17-84 1.39" 117.0 82.0 96.0 4.0 i 10-19-84 0.38" 224.0 160.0- 40.0- 94.0
- i. 10-22-84 7.89" 508.0 702.0- 96.0 21.0 i 10-23-84 0.50" 322.0 302.0 .47.0 -9.0 l 11-02-84 2.16". 49.0 '95.0 153.0 10.0.
! 11-15-84 2.72" 305.0 333.0 72.0_ 14.0
- 57.0- 4.0 11-19-84 0.78"' ~
11-27-84 2.85" 423.0 288.0 370.0 34.0 12-05-84 0.05" '36.0 36.0 38.0 6.0 l
IN9runoffobservedinBasinAonthesedates i -
3-20 JOP20RPT85030606 ' TABLE 3-1
TABLE 3-2.
1984 REGIONAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA u8=so==================================================================================================================
2 2 Wall No. Year Formation 1 Min (Month) Max (Month) Average 3
============================================================_-==============================================
OW4 1984 A 69.0 MAY 74.7 ' JUNE -70.7 OW4A 1984 A 64.1 JAN 77.8 MAY 68.3 OW29A 1984 T 60.4 JAN 67.6 JUNE 64.4 OW209A 1984 T 88.7 JAN 89.8 JUNE 89.4 P5 1984 C 71.3 JAN 75.7 AUG 73.2 OW7 1984 T 67.4 JAN- 72.6 JUNE 70.7 P4 1984 C 60.1 FEB 65.6 JUNE '62.3 OW69A 1984 A 61.8 JAN 68.0 JUNE 64.8 OW202 1984 T DRY OCT 79.2 JUNE 76.5 OWS 1984 T 69.9 JAN 73.8 FEB 72.2 OW10 1984 C 87.4 FEB 142.7 MAR 112.3 P209 1984 C DRY JAN-DEC DRY -
DRY 1
A = Alluvium; C = Catahoula; T = Terrace Deposits 2
Water Level Elevation (Feet'Above MSL) 3 Average Elevation for Non-Dry Readings (Feet Above MSL) '
l JOP20RPT85030606 - TABLE 3-2 3-21
.a TABLE 3-3 PERCHED GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA I
YEAR 1984 MONITORING WELL-WATER LEVEL DEWATERING WELL-WATER LEVEL Month Date MW1 MW2 MW3 MW4- MW5 MW6 MW7 DW1 DW2 DW3 DW4 DW5 DW6 DW7 DW8 JANUARY 01-13-84 DRY 100.2 DRY 103.2 101.5 103.8 100.0 99.9 100.7 99.6 99.6 100.8 103.7 104.7 108.4 FEBRUARY 02-16-84 DRY 99.6 100.G 103.6 101.6 102.5 97.4 97.4 101.0 99.8 99.7 101.0 103.1 95.0 105.7 MARCH 03-08-84 DRY 98.6 100.9 104.8 101.5 102.6 97.3 99.4 100.9 98.8 98.0 101.3 103.1 94.9 105.7 APRIL 04-20-84 DRY 98.3 100.8 103.1 101.2 102.7 98.3 98.4 100.5 98.4 98.1 101.0 103.0 93.7 105.5 MAY 05-18-84 98.8 98.6 100.F 102.8 101.1 103.2 92.3 92.2 -100.0 98.6 98.4 100.8 103.4 93.6 105.7 JUNE 06-28-84
- 98.8 100.4 102.4 102.5 104.5 91.9 87.1 100.1 99.9 96.3 100.8 104.7 100.1 106.7 JULY 07-26-84 98.9 99.6 100.4 '102.5 101.6 104.5 97.1 92.1 100.4 99.8 99.7 101.3 104.7 93.6 106.1 AUGUST 08-23-84 99.1 99.7 100.5 102.9 101.8 105.0 92.1 92.0 100.6 99.8 99.9 101.0 106.1- 93.6 106.9 SEPTEMBER 09-27-84 98.6 99.7 100.5 102.5 101.7 104.6 92.1 90.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 100.9 104.0 92.9 105.6 0CTOBER 10-12-84 98.9 99.4 100.4 102.4 101.8 104.1 91.9. 91.9 100.5 99.5 99.5 100.7 104.5 95.0 105.6 NOVEMBER 11-29-84 99.2 95.6 101.1 104.0 102.6 105.5 91.3 91.5 100.7 98.4 98.7 101.7 105.7 94.9 107.5 DECEMBER 12-11-84 99.1 96.7 101.0 103.7 102.5 105.3 90.0 88.4 100.7 96.4- 99.2 101.6 105.3 95.0 107.8 1
Water Level Missing Data 3-22 J0P20RPT85030606 - TABLE 3-3
TABLE 3-4 1984 PRECIPITATION MEASUREMENT GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION l
OBSERVED AT SITE -
1984 MONTH INCHES JANUARY 2.88 FEBRUARY 6.17 1
MARCH ~ 5.86 APRIL 4.60 MAY 4'.75 JUNE 4.75 JULY. 3.23 AUGUST 8.30 SEPTEMBER 0.74' OCTOBER 15.86 NOVEMBER 8.68 DECEMBER 1.47 TOTAL 67.29
'I Rainfall measured by the GGNS Meteorological System 3-23 J0P20RPT85030606 - TABLE 3 .- . . -
TABLE'3 ,5 SALT DEPOSITION DATA C&E RESULTS SODIUl1 (mg/m sq.)
PERIOD ENDING 3-30-B4 6-29-84 9-28-84 12-28-84 sds! 183.17 224.29 139.73 268.41
- sds2 165.56
- 76.50 246.83
-sds2a 173.02 147.62 81.17 270.32 sds2b 171.90- 175.87 105.46 208.10 sds3 220.'63 622.38 282.38 320.16 sds4 158. .~ 5 246.51 67.34 231.40 sds5 129.68 217.94 81.02 292.22 sds5a 123.02 229.05 52.37 317.62 sds5b 196.98 217.46 129.25 297.62 sds6 185.71 260.79 45.57 235.71 sds7
- 453.49 202.06 236.98 CALCIUM (mg/m sq.)
' PERIOD ENDING 3-30-84 6-29-84 9-28-84 12-28-84 isii------- is5:55-- 295:57 - 35s s5--- ii5:55-sds2 256.03
- B2.50 224.60 sds2a 218.25 258.57 81.14 253.97 sds2b 203.97 193.81 105.71 244.60 ,
sds3 265.87
- 147.26 357.46 sds4 236.19 254.13 103.26 249.84 sds5 230.79 265.08 94.03 273.17 sds5a 213.97 246.67 96.67 351.75 sds5b 226.19 260.95 100.38 370.32 sds6' 224.60 265.08 174.38 315.24' sds7 373.97 332.86 67.90 -216.51 CHLORIDES (mg/m sq.)
PERIOD.
ENDING 3-30-84 6-29-84 9-28-84 12-28-84 isii------- 515:ii--- I59:55--- Ess!is-~~ 5Ei!i5-sds2 .267.46 239.05 276.02 510.95 sds2a 266.83 668.41 252.53 546.19 sdz2b 215.24 413.02 247.46 429.52 sds3 304.92 542.22 182.26 549.05 sds4 215.40 296.19 265.19 491.40 sds5 247.14 437.46 259.75 596.51 sds5a 266.83 437.46 291.90 603.97 sds5b 253.02 417.14 251.76 636.75 sds6 289.05 508.89 243.57 585.24 sds7 -390.95 598.25 294.44 523.49 L
- Biased 4 -
3-24 1
TABLE 3-5 (cont'd)
SALT DEPOSITION DATA FLOURIDES (mg/m sq.)
PERIOD ENDING 3-30-84 6-29-84 9-28-84 12-29-84 s i----~~--- 5 55-~~~ 5 5----- i 55---- 5 55-
- sds2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sds2a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sds2b O.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sds3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sds4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sds5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sds5a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sds5b O.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sds6 0.00 0.00 1.10 0.00 sds7 0.00 0.00 1.14- 0.00 MAGNESIUM (mg/m sq.)
ENDING 3-30-84 6-29-94 9-28-84 12-29-84 isii-------- is!35-- I53:55-- Iis!35-- I5Z!i5-sds2 46.35 29.52 29.50 40.79 sds2a 37.78 76.83 26.00 46.67 sds2b 34.60 61.59 32.57 36.35 sds3 66.35
- 37.94 96.19 sds4 45.87 87.30 27.66 44.89 sds5 38.41 72.54 27.04 88.73 sds5a 36.03 39.37 19.11 107.62 sds5b .33.97 100.95 25.37 '134.92 sds6 50.48 36.51 34.33 102.22 sds7 43.17 B6.98 32.44 41.11 IRON (mg/m sq.)
PERIOD ENDING 3-30-84 6-29-84 9-28-84 12-28-84 l
L sssi-~~-~~-- 94!96 --~~6 5:55-- i33:55-- i55:19-sds2 90.95 94.13 98.78 94.44 i sds2a 61.11 80.95 60.03 47.46 sds2b 56.03 88.25 109.08 104.29 sds3 102.38 164.46 153.57 B5.0B i
ads 4 71.59 72.06 66.14 96.32 sds5 39.05 73.33 50.25 225.08 sds5a 53.49 73.81 36.11 91.75
-sds5b 24.60 112.38 45.60 200.02 sds6 38.99 27.78 114.29 175.56 sds7 20.63 18.25 149.69 68.25 l
i
- Biased 3-5 L
TABLE 3-5 (cont'd)
SALT DEPOSITION DATA PHOSPHATES (mg/m sq.)
pgg7gg_______________________________________
ENDING 3-30-84 6-29-84 9-28-84 12-28-84
_g__________gg_gg_____g_7g_____7__g_____g_gg_ .
~
sds2 73.33 12.22 27.09 0.00 sds2a 38.10 31.75 33.44 0.00 sds26 19.05 20.95 20.60 0.00 sds3 107.94
- 93.29 300.48 sds4 18.48 10.00 54.69 0.00 sds5 13.81 7.94 11.72 0.00 sds5a 16.83 6.67 13.83 0.00 sds5b O.00 13.17 9.98 0.00 sds6 0.00 14.29 22.44 0.00 sds7 89.39 31.43 28.67 0.00 NITRATES (mg/m sq.)
PERIOD ENDING 3-30-84 6-29-84 9-28-84 12-28-84
_g_7________gg_gg____gg_gg____7g_gg___77g_gg_
sds2 86.67 52.38 56.40 111.59 sds2a 85.71 100.00 27.35 164.44 sds2b 79.37 9.52 54.29 178.10 sds3 79.37 68.73 21.79 1133.97 sds4 70.79 55.56 20.67 175.17 sds5 85.56 90.48 43.01 204.29 sds5a 78.25 69.52 13.59 97.14 sds5b 82.86 37.62 23.21 219.76 sds6 79.37 147.62 4.93 108.57 sds7 66.40 21.59 4.57 188.73 SULFATES (mg/m sq.)
PERIOD ENDING 3-30-84 6-29-84 9-28-84 12-28-84 ads! 989.52 627.62 346.57 1827.78 sds2 1142.54 184'.29 304.53 1496.83 sds2a 1085.40 647.14 237.43 2125.24 sds2b 796.51 404.44 380.00 1078.25 ads 3 948.89 2102.38 312.37 1048.73 sds4 1020.32 293.17 250.90 1423.21 sds5 779.37 466.67 285.93 999.68 sds5a 805.71 236.83
- 981.43' sds5b 950.48 542.70 283.33 511.98
-ads 6 1412.38 694.29 221.49 B61.75 sds7 887.46 431.75 176.83 473.33
- Biased 3-26
TABLE 3-5 '(cont'd)
SALT DEPOSITION DATA TDS (mg/m sq.)
PERIOD -
-ENDING 3-30-84 6-29-84 9-28-84 12-28-84 sds! 3642.86 5200.00 2217.14 2748.57 sds2 433.33 1326.98 1801.67
- sds2a 1111.11 6050.00 1799.60 2984.13 sds2b 9746.03 5314.29 1538.10
- sds3 5238.10
- 3558.33 6229.52 sds4 4033.97 3455.56 1963.33 2054.79 sds5 7705.71 3309.52 1578.89
- sds5a 6984.13 1247.62 146.60 2333.33 sds5b 1657.14 3465.87 798.73 3357.14 sds6 4190.48 2703.17 1040.48 1090.48 sds7 1404.68
- 1428.57 *
- Biased 4
3-27
TABLE 3-6 COOLING TOWER DRIFT. ,
RAINFALL DATA
'SDS l1 03-30-84 16.05
- SDS #2 03-30-84 15.75 SDS #3 30-84 15.50
- SDS #4 03-30-84 15.60 SDS #5 03-30-84 15.25 SDS #6 03-30-84 15.38 SDS #71 03-30-84
- SDS #1 06-29-84 13.40 SDS #2 06-29-84 13.65 SDS,f3 06-29-84 12.80 SDS #4 06-29-84 12.60 SDS #5 06-29-84 12.30 SDS #6 06-29-84 13.33 06-29-84
- SDS f7 f
SDS #1 09-28-84 9.45 SDS #2 09-28-84 13.23 r- SDS #3 09-28-84 11.15 i
SDS #4 09-28-84 10.00 SDS #5 09-28-84 8.60 SDS #6 09-28-84 7.50 09-28-84
- SDS #7 i
SDS #1 12-28-84 27.24 l SDS f2 12-28-84 29.94
- SDS #3 12-28-84 21.75 SDS #4 12-28-84 26.29-SDS #5 12-28-84 24.54
(. SDS #6 12-28-84 26.09 12-28-84 *
-SDS #7 I
No rainfall data available from SDS #7 l'
! 3-28 L .- lJ0P20RPT85030606 - TABLE 3-6
3 TABLE 3-7 SALT DEPOSITION DATA - REPLICATE SAMPLES t
Sedfem Calcfun Chlorides Fluorides i agM/ period m9M/Perted agM/ Period a9/mE /perfed i
pertod j- tastas Sesoter #2 Sampler M Sampler #2 '_Seavier M Saseler #2 Saseler #5 Saseler F2 5asyter M 165.56 129.6e 256.03 230.79 267.46 247.14 0.00 0.00 3/30/e4 173.02 123.02 21s.25 213.97 266.e3 266 e3 c.co e,co 171.90 196.99 203.97 226.19 215.24 253.02 0.00 0.00 161.75 217.94 2M.19 265.08 239.05 437.46 0.00 0.00 6/29/94 147.62 229.05 25e.57 246.67 66e.41 437.46 c.co e.00
- j. 175.97 217.46 193.e1 260.95 413.02 417.14 c.co c.00
- M.se el.02 e2.50 94.03 276.02 259.75 0.00 e.co j 9/2e/94 81.17 52.37 e1.14 96.67 252.53 291.90 c.co 0.00 i 105.46 129.25 105.71 100.38 247.46 251.76 0.00 c.co 246.63, 292.22 224.60 273.17 510.95 596.51 0.00 0.00 12/2e/90 270.32 317.62 253.9F 351.75 546.19 603.9F 0.00 0.00 2c8.10 297.62 244.50 370.32 429.52 635.75 0.00 0.00 i
l l
l i
I I 3-29 l
TABLE 3-7 (cont'd)
SALT DEPOSITION DATA - REPLICATE SAMPLES i
4 e
Hognesius tren Phosphates Rttretes f e9/of fy ,,g,g ,,j,2fy,,g,g ,,f,2fy,,,,g ,,f,ffy,,,,g Period fading sampler #2 Saseler f5 Sampler #2 Sampler f5 Sampler #2 Sampler f5 Saseler #2 Saseler 85 46.35 38.41 90.95 39.05 73.33 13.81 86.67 85.56 i 3/N/04 37.78 36.03 61.11 53.49 38.10 16.83 85.71 78.25 34.60 33.97 56.03 24.60 19.05 0.00 79.37 82.86 29.52 72.54 94.13 73.33 12.22 7.94 52.38 90.48 6/29/04 76.83 39.37 80.95 73.81 31.75 6.67 100.00 69.52 61.59 100.95 88.25 112.38 20.95 13.17 9.52 37.62 28.50 27.04 98.78 50.25 27.09 11.72 56.40 43.01 9/IS/94 26.08 19.11 60.03 36.11 33.44 13.83 27.35 13.59 32.57 25.37 109.08 45.60 20.60 9.98 54.29 23.21 40.79 88.73 94.44 225.08 0.00 0.00 111.59 204.29 12/28/94 46.67 107.62 47.46 91.75 0.00 0.00 164.44 97.14 36.35 134.92 104.29 208.02 0.00 0.00 178.10 219.76 3-30
1 I TABLE 3- 7 (cont'd)
SALT DEPOSITION DATA - REPLICATE SAMPLES i "
Selfates 195 ag/aIPerled
/ ag/aIPerted
/
l Perled
, ta4tae Sasyler 82 Sampler M -Sempler 82 Sameter M 1142.54 779.37 433.33 7705.71 3/30/94 1985.40 805.71 1111.11 6984.13 796.51 950.48 9746.03 1657.14 104.29 466.67 1326.98 3309.52 6/29/04 647.14 236.83 6050.00 1247.62 ,
! 404.44 - 542.70 5314.29 3465.07 a i
304.53 285.93 1801.67 1578.89 9/28/94 237.43 284.63 1799.60 146.6e 300.00 283.33 1538.10 790.73 i
1496.93 999.68 2984.13 2945.24
- 12/28/04 2125.24 981.43 2984.13 2333.33 1078.25 511.98 2964.13 3357.14 4
i
)
l j 3-31
i TABLE 3-8
SUMMARY
OF ANOVA (Based on Salt Deposition Rates) l Avere9e 955 Confidence FJactors 1
Depgsttlen Intgrval Tor reriod For Location For Interactlen Peremeter as/m / Period ag/m / Period Calc (2) Crit (3) Calc (2) Crit (3) (Calc (2) Crit (3)
- 3. Sedten 177.08 +/- 31.24 54.39 3.29 5.85 4.54 3.99 3.29 1
- 2. Calclem 211.64 +/- 31.85 61.65 3.29 9.01 4.54 3.91 3.29
- 3. Chlorides 376.35 */- 99.15 19.23 3.24 0.86 4.49 0.77 3.24 l 4. Floortdes 0.00 +/- 0.00 (4) 3.24 (4) 4.49 (4) 3.24 S. Itegnesten 50.91 +/- 20.16 11.42 3.24 7.88 4.49 6.68 3.24
- 6. Iron 84.13 +/- 38.75 6.35 3.24 0.10 4.49 5.76 3.24
- 2. Phosphates 15.45 */- 13.72 6.15 3.24 11.09 4.49 2.27 3.24 i
l S. Altretes 85.46 +/- 40.98 16.09 3.24 0.06 4.49 0.44 3.24 I
- 9. Selfates 700.01 */- 311.61 17.0 3.29 4.93 4.54 2.79 3.29 ,
~
- 19. 195 3062.64 */- 3341.31 1.5 3.41 0.04 4.67 0.41 3.41
- M5
- 1. For all samples (4 periods. 2 1ecettens, 3 replicates)
- 2. Calculated F-Facter (Relative to mean square for error)
- 3. 955 critical F-Facter 4 Not calculated. All salt depositten Petes mere 0.0 f
I l .
. 3-32 1
r__________.----__ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _
TABLE 3-9
SUMMARY
OF ANOVA (Based on Composition)
F-Factors For Perte4 For Location For Interectlen peremeter F_t, t g F-Cett R R F-Celt F1, g F-Crft
- 1. Seelem 54.39 2.00 3.29 5.85 2.18 4.54 3.99 0.48 3.29
- 2. Calefem St.65 7.79 3.29 9.01 4.15 4.54 3.91 0.81 3.29
- 3. Chlorides 19.23 ' 30.33 3.N 0.06 4.82 4.49 0.77 ,
3.45 3.N ,
1
- 4. Fluerfdes (4) (4) 3.24 (4) (4) 4.49 (4) (4) 3.24
- 5. Magnesten 11.42 6.74 3.N 7.88 7.68 4.49 6.Ge - 5.42 3.N
- 5. Iron 5.35 6.61 3.N 0.10 0.96 4.49 5.76 5.50 3.N F. Phosphetes 6.15 13.23 3.M 11.09 15.69 4.49 2.27 2.19 3.24 S. #1tretes 16.09 2.02 3.24 0.06 0.08 4.49 0.44 8.79 3.24
- 9. Selfates 17.0 21.52 3.29 4.93 5.68 4.54 2.79 4.97 3.29 notes
- 1. Ft is the F-facter for MOVA based on salt depositten rotes
- 2. F2 is the F-facter for M OTA based on compositten
- 3. F-Crft is 95s critical F-factor
- 4. Het calculated. All salt depositten rates were 0.0 3-33
TABLE 3-10 SALT DEPOSITION DATA
, (Single Sample)
Sodium Deposition Rate (ag/mI/ Period)
Perted Endine 505 81 505 #3 505 84 505 86 505 #7 i
l 3/30/e4 183.17 2M.63 158.25 105.71 239.16 6/29/84 224.29 622.38 246.51 260.79 453.49 9/28/M 138.73 282.38 67.34 45.57 202.06
- 32/N/M 268.41 320.16 231.40 235.71 236.98 j Calcium Depositten Rate (ag/siE/P=rted) i 3/30/94 468.75 265.87 236.19 224.60 373.97 6/29/84 298.57 273.78 254.13 265.08 332.86 9/28/84 406.00 147.26 103.M 174.38 67.90
] 12/28/M 412.00 357.46 249.84 315.24 216.51 ,
CMorldes Depositten Rate (ag/s5E/ Period) !
3/30/84 313.97 304.92 215.40 289.05 390.95 '
1 6/29/84 609.52 542.22 296.19 508.89 598.25 9/28/84 796.79 182.26 265.19 243.57 294.44 l 32/28/04 594.13 549.05 491.40 585.24 523.49 2
! Fluerldes Depositten Rate (ag/d7,,,g,g) i 3/30/e4 e.00 e.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 l 6/29/e4 0.00 e.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9/N/94 1.23 3.00 0.00 1.10 1.14 12/28/94 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3-34
TABLE 3-10 (cont'd)
SALT DEPOSITION DATA (Single Sample) l Magnesium DeposItIen Rate (eg/sI/perled)
Perled tadtaa 505 fl 505 83 505 84 505 #6 505 ff 3/30/M M.73 H.35 45.07 50.48 43.17 6/29/04 137.30 90.23 87.30 36.51 H.9B 9/26/M 115.75 37.94 27.M 34.33 32.44 32/N/M 136.83 96.19 44.89 102.22 41.11 tren Depesttien Rate (at/sI/Perled) 3/30/04 94.N 102.38 71.59 N.89 N.63 6/29/94 60.95 164.46 72.06 27.78 10.25 9/28/M 177.59 153.57 H.14 114.29 149.68 12/N/M 303.17 M.08 M.32 IFS.M 68.25 Phosphates Depositten Rate (at/sI/Perled) l 3/30/94 29.68 107.94 10.48 0.00 39.39
. 6/29/04 7.78 162.16 10.00 14.29 31.43
- 9/28/M 17.14 93.29 54.69 22.44 28.67 l 12/N/M 0.00 300.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 I
Nitrates Depositten Rate (eg/m/Perled) 3/30/M 72.M 79.37 N.79 79.37 M.40 6/29/M 33.33 68.73 55.M 147.62 21.59 9/N/M 18.48 21.79 N.67 4.93 4.57 32/N/M 160.00 1833.97 175.17 105.57 188.73 3-35
TABLE 3-10 (cont'd)
SALT DEPOSITION DATA (Single Sample)
I Selfates Depositten Rate (og/e/Perled)
Period Endine 505 #1 505 83 505 f4 505 #6 505 87 3/30/04 989.52 948.89 1020.32 1412.38 887.46 6/29/84 627.62 2I02.38 293.17 694.29 431.75 9/28/84 346.57 312.37 250.90 221.49 176.83 12/28/M 1827.78 1948.73 1423.21 861.75 473.33 I
TOS Depositten Rate (og/e/Perled) 3/30/84 3642.86 5230.10 4033.97 4190.48 1400.68 6/29/84 5200.00 6240.9 3455.56 2703.17 2724.5 9/28/84 2217.14 3558.33 1963.33 1040.48 1428.57 12/28/84 2748.57 6229.52 2054.79 1090.48 1642.9 l
l l
l l
i l
3-36
4
. TABLE 3-11 i
SUMMARY
'0F ANOVA
- (No Interaction Between Period and Location)
I 1
i
- t
- Averste 955 Conffdence F-Facters
. tlen Rste In For Perses For Locatten j parameter Deposj/Perled og/m og/m)erval
/Perted Calc (2) Crit (3) Calc (2) Crit (3)
- 1. Sedtem 241.16 +/- 84.59 7.19 3.59 4.29 3.36 i
i t. talttum 272.20 +/- 01.99 3.55 3.59 3.72 3.36
- 3. Chlorides '404.25 +/- 58.10 27.58 3.49 3.1I 3.N 1 '
i 4. Fluorides 0.17 +/- 0.35 5.97 3.49 1.0 3.N i
]
- 5. Itsgnestem 70.11 +/- 23.03 3.74 3.59 7.21 3.36
! 6. Iron 93.07 +/- 47.50 2.67 3.49 3.31 3.N t
I 7. Phosphates 49.39 +/- 57.41 0.10 3.59 6.41 3.35 l S. Altretes IM.63 +/- 238.90 2.45 3.49 1.04 3.N
- 9. Selfates 817.54 +/- 503.47 3.59 3.49 0.90 3.M j N. TOS 3140.52 +/- 1992.42 4.51 3.86 8.02 3.63 1
N0fts i
- 1. For all samples (5 locattens. 4 perleds) l 2. Calculated F-facters (relative to mean square for erres) 1 3. 955 critical F-facters i
i j 3 37 1
-l
TABLE 3-12 SALT DEPOSITION ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS-t period Ending Rainfall. In/ Period Average Wind Speed PrevellingWindDir.III ResultantWindDir.III 505 82 505 85 m/sec Degrees
+
Degrees
! 3/30/94 15.75 15.25 2.69 112.5 313.97 4/29/94 13.65 12.30 2.84 135 340.4 9/28/94 13.23 - 8.60 2.05 225 33.33 12/28/94 29.94 24.54 3.08 135 299.02 RBft$
I. Se9rees from North = 0 fn clockwise directten 1
3, '
i -
1 3-3@ ,
4
.3 b- TABLE 3-13 SALT DEPOSITION
SUMMARY
OF REGRESSION' ANALYSES i
i parameter CO MttAffW COEFFICitWTS BAStB SN Reinfall Aversee Wind Speed Prevailing utad Directfen Resettent Utad Streetten
- 1. Sodium 0.73 0.00 - 0.52 - 9.00 l 2. Coletum 8.s9 0.91 - 0.01 - 0.09
- 3. Chieredes o se e.se - e.se - e.st
- 4. risertdes (t) (t) (t) (t)
- 5. no,nestas e.ss o.se - e.37 - e.49
- s. Im e.es e.41 - e.it - e.rt
- 7. Phosphates - 9.40 - 0.34 0.04 0.22
- e. witretes e.st o.se - e.4s - e.sr
- 9. Selfates 0.71 0.5s - 0.50 - 0.s4 -
- n. m ..n o.ss - .. - e.
PERIUD OF RECORD: 1/ 1/84, 000 =.12/31/84, 2400
~
l WIND. SPEED (N/S) AT.50.M LEVEL -
i AB AVG 02 35 68 9 11 12 14 15 17 AND UP TOTAL SPEED
, N 2.7 3.9 2 0 0 0 .0 6.9 2
! hWE 2.6 2.5 0 0 .0 .0 . 0 5.1 .1 NE 2.8 2.1 0 0 0 0 . 0 5.0 .1
, ENE 2.1 1.7 0 0 0 0 . 0 3.8 ,1 DE 1.8' 2.8 .1 0 .0 0 .0 4.8 .2 i I' ESE 2.6 6.8 4 0 0 0 .0 9.8 4 l
R SE 3.5 7.0 9 0 0 0 .0 11.4 4 W E SSE 3.1 5.0 9 0 0 .0 .0 9.0 3 l ICS 3.4 3.3 5 0 .0 0 .0 7.2 2
- N T SSW 3.8 2.0 2 0 .0 0 .0 5.9 2
, D-I SW 3.9 2.1 .1 0 .0 0 . 0 6.1 2, l 0 WSW 3.1 1.1 2 0 .0 .0 .0 4.4 .1-
- NW 3.2 1.3 2 1 .0 .0 .0 -4.8 .1 l
WNW 2.3 1.9 4 .. 0 0 0 .0 4.6 ,1 NW .2.4 1.6 .1. 0 .0 0 .0 4.2 -
,1 NNW 2.7 3.0 -7~.4' .0 .0 0 .0 6.2 .2 CALM 2.7, _- .
6
..........................g...........................................
TOTAL 46.5 48.2 5.0 .3 0 .0 .0 100.0 2 374. HOUR'S OF BAD OR MISSING DATA OR 4.3 PERCENT FOR 8760 NOUR8
- s
'o a
ad < w 3-40
TABLE 3-15 1984 JOINT FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION (10 Meter Level)
TOTAL FREQUENCY DYSTHUBUYION PEHIOD OF RECORD: 1/ 1/84, 000 . 12/31/94, 2400 WIND SPEED (M/S) AT 10.M LEVEL
. 18 AVG 02 35 68 9 11 12 14 15 17 AND UP TOTAL SPEED N 6.5 1.0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 7.5 ,1 NNE 4.7 .1 0 0 .0 0 0 4.8 ,1 NE 4.7 .0 0 0 0 0 .0 4.8 .1 ENE 5.8 0 .0 0 .0 0 0 5.8 ,1 DE 5.7 0 0 0 .0 0 0 5.8 .1 I ESE 3.8' 1 0 0 .0 0 ,0 3.9 ,0 R SE 4.3 2 .0 0 .0 0 0 4.5 ,1 4
.2.2 W E SSE 6.5 .0 0 0 0 0 8.8 p2 ICS 5.9 2.0 0 0 0 .0 .0 7.9 2 N T SSW 4.2 5 0 ,.0 0 0 ,0 4.8 ,1 D 1 SW 4.9 .6 .0 0 0 0 .0 5.4 .1 0 W5W 3.5 2 .0 0 .0 0 0 3.6 ,0 NW 3.2 2 0 0 0 .0 0 3.4 ,0 WNW 3.4 4 .0 0 .0 0 .0 3.8 .1 NW 3.6 3 0 0 .0 0 .0 3.9 .1 NNW 4.7 1.3 0_ 0 .0 0 .0 6.0 .1
. CALM 4.7 , , 15.2 TDTAL 90.7 9.2 0 .0 0 .0 0 100.0 1 294. HOURS OF BAD OR MISSING DATA DR 3.4 PERCENT FOR 8760 HOURS 3-41
TABLE 3-16 1984 PERCENT BAD DATA REPORT t
PERCENT BAD DATA REPORT REPORT COVERS 8760HUURS
. HOURS PERCENT 50M DIRECTION 104. 1.19 50M WIND SPEED W3 .95 10M DIRECTION 36. .41 10M WIND,5 PEED 71. .81 TEMPERATURE 90. 1.03 DEW POINT 1693. 19.33 DELTA T , 2b9 2.96
- PRECIPITATION 7445 84.99 l
l-l I
3-42
~
- +
TABLE 3-17 1984 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
SUMMARY
Identifying Number: Subject FSAR CN 3000 FSAR Page 18.1-5 was revised to recognize allowances in NUREG 0737 for qualified SR0 applicants- to go ~directly to SR0 without one year as R0.
FSAR CN 3013 Changes were necessary to correct typographical errors and to make FSAR Sections 4.1, 3 and 4 adequately reflect core design and licensing bases.
~
FSAR CN 3017 This package changed FSAR Table 2.3-170 and Page 2.3-31a to reflect a change in sensors used on the main meteorological tower..
FSAR CN_3034 Exceptions to AWS D1.1-1972 for the installation of structural and miscellaneous steel were made on FSAR Pages 3.8-6 and 3.8-43.
FSAR~CN 3040 Fire detection zone designators in the_ diesel generator building provided on FSAR Figure 9A-22 were revised to correspond with Drawing E-0964.
FSAR CN 3041; Reactor. Core Isolation Cooling. Response to NRC question 031.60 now references GGNS. Technical Specifications such that the trip ~ settings in Table 7.4-1 are no longer required.
~FSAR CN 3045 This change revised FSAR Figure 3.8-60 to indicate.the suppression pool low water level was 111' 4 1/3" rather than 111' 5".
I FSAR CN 3046 This change updated FSAR Section 6.2.3.2 to accurately reflect methods used to maintain secondary containment.
FSAR CN 3047 Approximate locations of fire hose stations listed on FSAR l
Figure 9.5-4 were revised to be consistent with present-locations..
FSAR CN 3048 This change to FSAR Section 6.2.1.1.5.4 provided consistency with GGNS Technical Specifications which specify a drywell' leak rate test interval of 18 months.
L 3-43 L
h J0P20RPT85030606 - TABLE 3-17
e 1 TABLE 3-17 (cont'd)
Identifying Number- -Subject
FSAR CN 3052 This change in.FSAR Subsection 6.2.3.2 revised the description
-of the SGTS to indicate that it can drawdown the secondary containment when assuming leakage through the building and nonqualified lines two inches or smaller or through the building and one four-inch line.
.FSAR CN 3055 'This change revised the description on FSAR Page 8.3-8 to
. establish consistency with Technical Specifications.
requirements for periodic testing of low voltage circuit breakers.
J FSAR CN 3056 The SRM downscale trip setpoint was lowered from 3 cps to 0.7 g icps in FSAR Table 7.6-3.
FSAR CN 3058 This change of FSAR Table 3.11-1 increased the allowable containment normal differential pressure range.
FSAR CN 3059 FSAR Table 5.2-11 was changed so it would be consistent with-GGNS Technical Specifications and show that the RCPB was designed for 80 thermal' cycles.
FSAR CN 3060 This changed FSAR Tables 1.3-4, 6.2-1 and 6.5-6 to reflect the
' revised free air volumes of containment and drywell. The 3
-containmentangdrywellvolumeswererevisedto 1,400,000 ft and 270,000 ft respectively.
FSAR:CN 3063 FSAR Table 6.2-44 was revised to show containment penetration lines sizes.
FSAR CN 3064 This change' revised FSAR Table 6.2-44 to indicate'that containment isolation valves E12F344, E12F342 and E12F061 are
" locked closed" rather than " closed" during normal operation, shutdown and post-accident conditions.
~
~FSAR CN 3065 This change revised the minimum shutdown margin requirement provided on FSAR page 4.6-33 so it'would be consistent with GGNS Technical Specifications.
3-44 JOP20RPT85030606 - TABLE 3-17
TABLE 3-17-(cont'd)
Identifying Number Subject FSAR CN 3066 FSAR Section 7.1.2.6.22 was revised to include three ,
additional methods of wiring for thermal overload protection of motor operated valves.
FSAR CN 3067 ' Corrections were made to FSAR Table 6.2-44, Containment 3068 Isolation Valve Information, to improve accuracy and assure
-3069 the Table reflected the' as-built plant.
3073 3074 3077 FSAR'CN 3070 A revision of FSAR Figure 9.3-26 was made to reflect updated design information for the volume of sodium pentaborate required in the SLCS.
FSAR CN 3075 Misplaced Bundle Accident (MBA) analysis contained on FSAR
.Pages 15.4-15, 16 was revised to include latest General Electric Chapter 15 analysis.
FSAR CN 3080 Mainstream line high flow differential pressure transmitter and allowable setpoint were changed on FSAR Table 7.3-10.
FSAR CN 3081 This change updated FSAR Section 13.1 to reflect the current MP&L organizational structure.
FSAR CN'3083 This change revised FSAR Table 7.3-10 to ensure mainstream
'line high flow sensor channels were consistent with FSAR, GGNS Technical Specifications and the plant trip logic design.
FSAR CN 3084 This change corrected the description of the radiation monitor l channel check and channel functional test requirements on FSAR, Page'11.5-13 to make them consistent with GGNS Technical Specification 3/4.3.7.1.
1 FSAR CN 3085 This was additional changes to FSAR Subsection 6.2.6.5.1 describing the preoperational and periodic drywell leakage l tests.
FSAR CN 3088 FSAR Section 5.3.3.6, Item b., coolant temperature differential between the dome and bottom head was changed from-145 F to 100*F.
i-FSAR CN 3089' This FSAR change addressed the nominal APRM setpoints in FSAR Table 7.6-6 and made them consistent with General Electtic specifications and GGNS' Technical Specifications.
I FSAR CN 3091 This change revised the Small Break Accident (SBA) analysis on FSAR Page 6.3-27 to justify having one ADS valve out of service for an extended period of time, i
l 3-45 l
J0P20RPT85030606 - TABLE 3-17
TABLE 3-17 (cont'd)
Identifying' Number- Subject iFSAR CN 3094. This change to.FSAR Subsection ~7.3.1.1.8.2 revised the- '
~
description of-the events that.take place following SGTS initiation.
FSAR CN 3096 This change in FSAR Subsection 4.6.3.1.1.5.d deleted the
. requirements for verifying the accumulator level during operation.
FSAR CN 3099 Weight of one fuel assembly was revised from 600 to 699 pounds in FSAR Table 1.3-1.
'FSAR CN 3100^ This change-provided clarification for Mark III containment air temperature limit on FSAR Page 6.2-28, and Tables 6.2-4 and 3.11-1.
FSAR CN:3101 A clarification of the Safety-Related Display Instrumentation
.was provided in the FSAR to address the fact that the Suppression Pool Temperature Monitoring System may be temporarily interrupted in the event of a Loss of-Offsite Power.
.FSAR CN 3103 This change corrected a typographical error in the-startup test conditions defined in FSAR Figure 14.2-4.
FSAR CN 3104 This change deletes the " loss of preferred power source" from FSAR Section 8.3.1.1.4.2.10 as a condition which is blocked c- from tripping the diesel generator during a LOCA.
i FSAR CN 3107 This change revised FSAR Section 14 to correct inconsistencies discovered in the startup test procedures and program
- requirements.
l . .
U Deletion of reference to a 90-second. delay in initiating
~
FSAR CN'3108 Containment Spray B was made on FSAR Page 7.3-56.
FSAR CN 3120 This change added FSAR Subsection 8.3.1.1.5.7 describing the-Class IE uninterruptible power' system supplying power to essential. instruments and other 120'V loads.
FSAR CN 3129 This. change revised FSAR.Section 18.1.30.5 and allows'a-comprehensive 5-year report of ECCS outages instead of an annual report.
FSAR CN 3130 This change revised FSAR Section 3.8.4.2 so it adequately
[ addresses the requirements for allowable weld undercut as it l applies to material less than 3/16 inch thick.
l 3-46 L
JOP20RPT85030606 - TABLE 3-17 t
TABLE 3-17(cont'd)
Identifying Number Subject FSAR CN 3131 This ch'ange revised FSAR Section.9.5.4 and response to NRC question 040.44 to take exception to Section 4.3 of
-ANSI-N195-1976 and show that the diesel fuel oil storage tanks and transfer pumps are in a " protected area" rather than a
" vital area".
FSAR CN 3138 The NSSS cassette, printer and CRT power feeds were switched r from 60 amp to a more appropriately sized 30 amp disconnect and so noted on FSAR Figure-8.3-7.
FSAR CN 3199 This change updated FSAR Figure 9.5-5 and Table 1.10-1 to reflect addition of a sensing line and an electrical manual pilot control valve.
~
SE-019/83 Revision of FSAR Section 18.1.4 describing SR0 on-shift training requirements.
l 3-47 J0P20RPT85030606.- TABLE 3-17
h SECTION 4.0 INCIDENTS J0P20RPT85030606 1
. .. . . - - - - . - -.-.- . _ ~ -. -
. ' 4.1 REPORTABLE INCIDENTS There were no reportable: incidents observed during the
- reporting period.- ,
4.2-'NONREPORTABLE. INCIDENTS Several minor ~ events which occurred during the
-reporting period are outlined below:
EHC Fluid Spill An' Electro-Hydraulic Control (EHC) fluid spill which occurred in the Turbine Building on March 26, 1984 was the result of operator error. The_ front standard main stop valve left bank control' rack was not tightened properly and startup of the system blew'the seals leaking the EHC fluid.-
All of the EHC fluid'was contained in the building. The EHC/ water mixture was-transferred from sumps into 55-gallon drums. Since the EHC is heavier than water, the water was decanted into the-resin pond. The EHC was then disposed of~in the Bechtel Oil Pit.
Sulfuric Acid Spill l'
.Mississipp'i Power & Light (MP&L) contracted to have-1000-gallons of a-95% sulfuric acid pickling mixture pumped out of'two acid tanks and to transaort and dispose of the acid.
The contractor subcontracted the transportation'and disposal.- .Using a two-compartment pumper tank, the acid was pumped out of the storage tanks and into-a tanker 1
=truci. Next they flushed the storage tanks with approximately 4000 gallons of water. The water was then-
, pumped into the. tanker truck. ~Upon leaving the site'the tanker truck contained a mixture of approximately 1000'
, gallons of acid and 4000 gallons of water. The tanker
- truck proceeded to the Grand Gulf.InnLin Port Gibson where the driver spent the night.
Early on-the morning of May 15, the Claiborne County Sheriff's Department, while on a routine patrol, discovered the tanker truck leaking. Claiborne County Civil Defense
~
Director, Mr. A. C. Garner,1was notified and together they located the driver of the truck around 0430 on May~15, 1984. The shipment manifest was reviewed and MP&L security was notified of the spill. MP&L Environmental personnel
=were notified of the spill shortly after 0630 by the Shift i
-J0P20RPT85030606 1 2 , - 2. - a- __ . . _ ... ._... _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ._ _. _ .. __-
Superintendent. HMP&L management proceeded to supply equipment and personnel to be used on an as needed basis.
HMr.: Bob' Rogers, Mississippi Bureau of Pollution Control, arrived at the scene and assumed control as the on-scene .
. coordinator. Sample schedules and sample locations were
_ established..by Mr.-Rogers. MP&L Environmental personnel e ' assisted on'an-as needed basis.
One liquid sample was taken from the tanker and eleven
! liquid samples were taken from various water sources.
- Parameters which were checked included-the following:
e Sulfates e pH e . Sulfides.
,The sample from the tanker was later analyzed and
. determined to.be 36.7% sulfuric acid.
Cleanup operations were led by Bob' Rogers (MBPC) and the transportation / disposal subcontractor. A representative of EPA, Region IV from Atlanta and a representative'from the U. S. Department of Transportation (Federal Highway
' Administration) were also at-the scene. The acid was
. neutralized-using lime and the acid / lime mixture was' loaded
.into covered dump trucks and hauled to the CECOS Livington, Louisiana, disposal facility as a waste material. Approximately 25 soil samples were taken for
'pH analysis. Excavated material was replaced, seeded, and Jmulched. No permanent environmental damage occurred.
Chlorine Gas Leak
^A-chlorine gas leak occurred at the Bechtel warehouse on the evening of June 27, 1984. A Bechtel' employee smelled'a-
' strong. odor and notified Bechtel Safety around 1900. When Safety arrived to investigate, a visible ~ cloud of chlorine gas was evident near a cylinder stored on the. receiving dock.. The area was roped off and'the gas allowed to dissipate.
The~ vendor:was notified on the morning of June 28, 1984.
The vendor was of the opinion that a small pinhole' leak developed, causing the escape.of the gaseous chlorine. An inspection of other. chlorine gas cylinders stored on site was-conducted by Bechtel Safety personnel and no similar
. problems were identified. No environmental damage was-evident and no serious personnel injuries occurred.
J0P20RPT85030606 2
7 ,-
e t
APPENDIX I SEMIANNUAL TRANSMISSION LINE SURVEYS b
I-i J0P20RPT85030606
i-MEMO TO: Mr. T. A. Dallas FROM: Mr. J. P. McGaughy SU8 JECT: Survey of Transmission Lines Associated with Grand Gulf NuclearStation(GGNS) .
FILE: 0290/15320 PMI-84/6728 The Semiannual Aerial Surveys of the Baxter-Wilson, Franklin, and 115Kv Port Gibson to GGNS Transmission lines were conducted on January 20, 1984 and May 4, 1984. The results of these surveys are shown in Attachments I and II, respectively.
If you have any questions concerning the results of these surveys, please contact Mr. G. O. Smith at Extension 672.
JPM 6/20/84 Attachment 2
cc: Mr. J. B. Richard (w/o)
Mr. T. E. Reaves (w/o) i Mr. L. F. Dale (w/o)
! Mr. J. E. Cross (w/o?
Mr. T. H.. Clonin er I;w/o) l' Dr. L. R. McKay w/a)
Mr. R. F. Rogers (w/o)
Mr.G.O. Smith (w/a)
Mr. J. D. Barlow w/a Mr. Bob Bankston w/a Ms. R. R. Jackson w/a)
Ms.
File G. R. Whitney) w/a)
Plant)(w/a File Project) (w/a) [ 3 ]
4 l -
I-1
ATTACHMENT I to PMI-84/6728 Page 1 SEMIANNUAL AERIAL SURVEY The first of the planned semiannual aerial survey was conducted on the morning of January 20, 1984 by John Bankston, Buddy Marsalis and Gail Whitney.
The purpose of the aerial survey was to identify areas which require remedial action from excess erosion.
e Semiannual survey of 500 Ky Baxter-Wilson Transmission Line from Grand Gulf Nuclear Station to Baxter-Wilson Steam Electric Station:
- Erosion evident at Tower 16. Erosion is minor but new.
No remedial action is needed in this area at this time, e Semiannual survey of 500 Ky Franklin Transmission Line from Grand Gulf Nuclear Station to Franklin Station:
- Minor erosion evident at Towers 30, 35, 115, 126. This area should be observed closely
- Deer hunter roads could cause some minor erosion at Tower 129 and 130. No remedial action is needed in this area at this time.
i- e Semiannual survey of 115 Ky GGNS Transmission Line from Port i Gibson to Grand Gulf Nuclear Station:
- No erosion was observed on this line.
e Semiannual survey of 500 Ky Ray Braswell Transmission Line from Grand Gulf Nuclear Station to Ray Braswell Tie-in:
- South Park Elementary School-erosion continues to be minor.
- Fisher Ferry Road - little erosion was observed.
These areas should be monitored closely during the next
. survey.
~
Another aerial survey is recommended for all lines during the month of May.
l
\
I-2 L
ATTACHMENT II to PMI-84/6728 Pag 2 1 SEMIANNUAL AERIAL SURVEY On May 4, 1984, the-semiannual aerial survey was conducted by Messrs. John Bankston, Buddy Marsalis and Gregory Smith. The purpose of -
the aerial survey was to identify areas which require remedial action from excess ero' ion. The results of this survey are outlined below:
e Survey of 500 Kv Ray Braswell Transmission Line from Grand Gulf Nuclear Station to Ray Braswell Tie-in:
- No observation were made on this line because of fog, e Survey of 500 Kv Baxter-Wilson Transmission Line from Grand Gulf Nuclear Station to Baxter-Wilson Steam Electric Station:
- Minor erosion evident at towers 15, 16 and 24. No remedial action is needed in this area at this time.
-- Minor erosion at Tower 26. This area should be monitored closely during the next survey.
e Survey of 500 Kv Franklin Transmission Line from Grand Gulf Nuclear Station to Franklin Station:
- Logging taking place at Towers 79-81.
- Willow trees have been cut at Towers 159 and 160.
- Minor erosion evident at Tower 126. No remedial action is needed in this area at this time.
- Tower 193 box culvert has been washed out.
Reconstruction needed at this site.
e Survey of 115 Kv GGNS Transmission Line from Port Gibson to Grand Gulf Nuclear Station:
- No erosion was observed on this line.
8 I-3 L.
MEMO TO: Mr. T. A. Dallas FROM: Mr. C. L. Tyrone
SUBJECT:
Aerial Survey of Transmission Lines Associated with Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS)
FILE:' 0290/15320
. PMI-85/0389 The Semiannual Aerial Surveys of the 500 KV Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS) to Baxter-Wilson, 500 KV GGNS to Franklin Substation, and the 115 KV GGNS to Port Gibson Transmission Lines were conducted on December 7, 1984. The results of these surveys are shown as Attachments I. II, and III respectively.
If you have any questions concerning the results of these surveys, please contact Mr. G. O. Smith at Extension 2672.
CLT 8'
GWG/GOS:ay Attachment cc: Mr. J. B. Richard (w/o)
Mr. T. E. Reaves (w/o)
Mr.'J.L.E.F.Cross Mr. Dale.(w/o))
(w/o Mr. T. H. Cloninger (w/c)
Dr. L. R. McKay (w/o)
Mr. R. F. Rogers w/o Mr. J. D. Barlow w/a Mr. Bob Bankston w/a Ms.R.R.ilackson(w/a)
Ms. G. R. Whitney (w/a)
File (NS)(w/a)
File (Central) (w/a) [ 4]
I-4
ATTACMENT I to PMI-85/0389 Page 1 Semiannual Aerial Survey 4
The semiannual aerial survey of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS)toBaxter-Wilson 500KVTransmissionLinewasconductedon December 7, 1984 by Jim Newman, Larry James John Bankston and Warren i' .. Guider.-
'The purpose of the aerial survey was to identify erosion areas along the transmission line corridor which may require remedial action.
- 1. GGNS to Anderson Tully Natural re-vegetation has eliminated erosion in this area. Tower sites in this area are stable. No problem-areas were observed. ,.
l
- 2. Anderson-Tully to Warner Tully Road
- Natural re-vegetation is excellent in this area. No problem areas were observed.
- 3. Warner Tully Road to Big Black
, Minor erosion was evident at Tower #31. There was erosion on the north slope near the tower footing. A closer look at the erosion by foot patrol should be made before spring greenout to determine if remedial action is necessary. Fast growing tree species in the Big Black River bottoms appeared to be under control.
- 4. Big Black River to Yokena Minor erosion was evident at Tower #52.- There appeared.
to be considerable erosion on the south. slope near the tower footing. A visual examination of the area should be made by a foot patrol to determine the extent of the '
erosion. Re-clearing crews were diligently working this
[
area when the survey was made. No other problem areas i were observed.
I
- 5. Yokena to Baxter-Wilson Steam Electric Station (BWSES) ,
i
! Re-clearing was complete in this area. No problems were i encountered.
- The Baxter-Wilson Transmission Line is in excellent shape. Another
. survey is recommended for the spring of 1985.
~
l 1-5 "
- i. .
, .., _,----m._
ATTACHMENT II to PMI-85/0389
' - Pag 2 1 Semiannual Aerial Survey The Semiannual Aerial Survey of the Grard Gulf Nuclear Station to .
- Franklin Substation _500 KV Transmission Line was conducted on December 7, 1984 by Jim Newman, Larry James, John Bankston and Warren -
. Guider.
, The purpose of the survey was to identify erosion areas along the transmission line corridor which may require remedial action.
- 1. GGNS to Windsor Road Natural re-vegetation is excellent in this area. No problems were observed. Re-clearing of fast growing species should be considered.
- 2. Windsor Road to U. S. Highway 61.
! Minor erosion was evident at Tower #35. However, no remedial action is needed at this time.
- 3. U. S. Highway 61 to U. S. High 28 Minor erosion was evident near Tower #126 and between Towers #129-130. A recent logging operating could be attributed as causing the erosion. The angle at Towers r #192-193 has been previously reported. No remedial action is required at this time.
- 4. U. S. Highway 28 to Franklin Substation (including Homochitto Forest)
Minor erosion was observed at Tower #203. No remedial action is needed at this time.
The Franklin Line is in excellent shape and another survey is recommended for the spring of 1985.
I I-6
_ _ _ . . , _ . _ _ . _ _ _ , - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ . . . _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . ~ - _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . -
ATTACHMENT III t3 PMI-85/0389 Page 1 Semiannual Aerial Survey The Semiannual Aerial Survey of the 115 KV Transmission Line from .
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station to the Port Gibson Substation was conducted on December 7,1984, by Jim Newman, Larry James, John Bankston and Warren Guider.
The results of th survey are as follows:
- 1. Port Gibson to Highway 61 Crossing Natural re-vegetation is excellent in this area. No problem areas were observed.
- 2. Highway 61 to Angle at Structure #13 Natural vegetation is excellent in this area. No problems were observed.
- 3. Structure #13 to Bayou Pierre No erosion was observed in this area. Willow trees in the three cypress brakes are not causing a problem at this time. No problems were observed.
- 4. Bayou Pierre to ICG Railroad Main Line l There were no problems with this agricultural land.
- 5. Joint Railroad - Transmission Line R.O.W.
The slide area north of the railroad appeared to be moving once again. However, since the mainline ICG line j has been abandoned, there is no reason to repair this area at this time. There was no additional erosion at the old civil war culvert.
I No erosion was observed on this line. Another survey is recommended for the Spring of 1985.
I-7
D I
4 4
APPENDIX'II HYDROGRAPHS FOR PERCHED GROUNDWATER WELLS s
r.
e II-i JOP20RPT85030606
4.-
=
k.
. WELL NO. M M _I.
E 169 e ___ __ .. . __. .._.. .____.__ ___ .
} .._
g . .__. _ .__
. 108
'-~~ "~'-
@, __-._.Z-".
~ . .___..
7:
p . _. .... _ . .__
s I. ' 106 9 -
h': I05 n
I p I04 ._..
W-__mi*. . mum.De .P.
1e u...m ._. . _. =. . .-- i_ .. .. ww . ... , . . ., m., ,,,,.,.
-. 4.m.-. _...>
- . . ,.,,. ,>. . ,., . .> . . .a g -__ .-- -.- .. . _b-. ___. .__ - ...-_
h - -'-~~~ ~ ~-- '-~~' ----'- - - ~~~~'- "- -'- '
g . _ . ..__ ._ _ .... . . . .__._ .
g, L .l00 ._ .. -_-_..
y
_ ppm-@P%.i4- WEse..S _.m. .. g...umF. beiie @>. mm.km-h as. em.p..**
i e-mu.mu6gu.um.E. Bun q e_> .e J -._ --,
_.w 'C_ L.
%-_ -... J >'
__%,c .
- . .- .-k... .. .
18 i., = ,i.. - m ms. .
.me.... .=-.
mm.emge d _6en. .
.-__ . . _. .. .. . . -, .... , , .ieu.l -,. . .
1 m W_ qse.m _immeu a .,i , . . -
>$ .q .pebe g .m. m e eum_p.e-4 -
> .4-pi.- be 1 m.q.m pe e e ..iieiie..e I
.u.>>&i4m.m,e,D.. @be.km.._ups -
e.-uh.._ m' .he>@.a e>&.eu>ie e. .,umai.ush- um .um .g i ..Im.p.pp 4p.>+
m_r .-.-
94 9 .___
a - ____ .
e .
...,_. . ,4. _ _
..._ pu4 .4*.
-,e >6um->..hme e. e .-"be b-im..-_ _ieneu._.mmi .6e.1_pe.
.h 4,i 93
.1 ___ _._ ... _____
( __
b kf _,f r.]rl_ _.D y ::Q _' l- ]M{___.. . .___ _._
p
~'~~~~"-~
m na-- im AM-- m au Jut 31 m m m a
< 1%4
NELL N3. M h[ 2, lH _--- _. -.. . . _ _. _ -. . ._..-. .._ .._ -._ . . -
~ ~~~~ ~~- '~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
I08 J, --_.
u .
1 ____. .
y -.
g . ._.__.
y -__- .
y . __.-
y .-.._. ..-..._ _ . . - . .
._._. -._. .__ . . . ._.. ; __~_._.
y ___._..-.. . . _ ___ .- _-.. ... . _. .
,y _-__._- -_.
sy ____ __ _. .__.__ .
._p
.<-+_== _.n y _. _.
.c .__._ . . .._
_m ..._._ ____. _____
y _ . .-- .- . -
y __---..__. .. __ _._. .._- .
J \
\.
2--
-' .A.__ _ .-- . .. . .__.. .
......h gi'.._, (__..
g t
.. \
y f.
f._-, p q
)/.__.
. a ._ .. . __,. ._...- ._....... . ,.
y .... .- . ___-._..._ ..._.
. S .
._D .d g ___.__. ..__.
92, ~
J ___
y _
2::: _: -r__:::::_~. .-~-'
j
- ~
_ :::_2 g __ ___ ._._ ... - __. . . _._. ._. ._ __..._ .. .._ _. . -
C'AW Ff.Il Mas ~ ~ ~K %~ ~ '~ MM 'hN
. M AE~ ~ "~s.'F ~ ~ "'6W ft0V M.
1%4._ II-2
f Wett N2. W3 109 j ..___._ . _ __..
r._.
I
> 106 0 .
y -_ ___._-_
l04 -._-_
g _ __ .
1.g ._____
_ _____..a_.._____
_a.
4.W. .
_ . e._.g _ m gg , . ___ ..._ . ._ .e._..p. .._. . ._
p .,-
g...-_ -___ _. - . ___.,
._, r
- 4A _ ."% ,, . . . .., .
_' f H'-- '
, ,_.._..._[
-a.u n.q
, p, .._., .._.. - .
..f.. . . . _ ,_,
y . . - . -___._ _ _._... . . --_..
) .._ ._. .. -. _.__.__ _. . ._
g
.6_ ._ .
y __. .___. . ____-.-. _. . . _ __. . . -- .
p g . ,_. .. __..._._.. _.. -
9 ._. . _ _.
---__ _. _... - ___ .__ .._ w._. ... . . . . . _- . _._..
g . . .-_-._.
RI ,
y _._.._ .
y -_ . . . . . _.. . _. . - .._ . . _ - . . ..___ -.-....
-. . .-_p, _
CAW Fth- _ _Mna,___ A %_ _ M.m... _ _ ,Jv N .M A36 .. 51.1___AT NV PC
.Iq B4. II-3
WELL No. M b m _ ._.._
d l wk
-ka..--- . _p. ...,. . .
.umh.4.e
..e u.4.amem.
Mpu.udp.4p@me=lr-.
,)
^
105
/ \
104 -
> a r
v ~
,( \ , mp
/ T /
./ \ j j~
& h_
m m <
.----i r ,
%.-.- ..- . a-.--.. ..:. n. -.- s
.--f..,-,,,
- u. . ..
o -.-, . . . ...,
NHmesF-'" " ~ ..a , . .u,. .. """5rauusa q ,
. . .. ,-b.4--.. - .-._..
i me -
em.eap.1b-gepu.ag- e<upig=msamig.e._ii.muiesps.usum. .apg..
4u.1beus-..m'W e6b-edI=.m emP-ui.>esbuhu .i--i e- a.d 4puedmagmau-e 4-pgig .
i& Ou-.upubgnamedien le19-1
.100
..~ ..--- .- .
M"4MMM.h's .--g>+eyepe . *-ImmeemIamp- e W eu.rw4-umemsei e ai-heimmuume admuum-pMuua eum-1.4
) --..-- -. -.- --- . ---- -- .
ab.es>@psre --h.iubeaur&-D- ee g __ ._ _.. _-_
3
' e +4e=d-pum i--p.4km9s>em'
. > lW'->lp-.1 .d.=mueiD.'>ID
-' >+
.r 4 4- >-
medi aim e.
delm.usFsu 4-og 4 e 1 .44 .eme imm.d -
6mm.a>+H me -em-e-
.9 u-_.. , .
. ,-, ,. ,_ .. -. .,,., - . ..u., .
... . ' . <. -- .,.s - . . - u,-. - -.-- .
u.---
.41===.sp.ono. .=ne -
@--pmle b.d e be ei @i>==l-bud 4DM .ebemudh@u*Wh@p amip. _ esmundimBWNO eei 4 . ph. haImD4medNEm4 e - O queie ed endkh>m - De e. l-- 4 4-***- Ml'aMk.' .*48 all edpuusthe imie-umbe <p&
y ..--..-. .. . .--- ..--.... ..---. . .
>*w meme u.mhansham M--i eumume p.s-m edse eb. -p==8 4 41*8p im-mbeube=mi esh>494i.-N' CAW FES Mall, A %-
~
~ W -'.h N JVL sr KT tW PK.
1%+gg
WELL ND. hj N[
169
.se.>.mp
- 108
~~
.-_m__
107 u .
105 104 103 h.yg ..--.
- n:3
.j. N_ .. .... . . . ..
,___z 7-----,
_::::. ..: : m :%pa. ::5;c==' '
--P.:;-_ . ~~~ N Z.!___
101 *._d_ ___.
=
e -.* mpm.'.r- @.eudme.mmuqm..mupund.. e.._.*
e1Mun emumpeupe-.
. 100 qu.._u_hmm.>-
..umepumin.em. ed>m e . e ume.i... aqi a>mummemmem.ma>. 4 esawe.uqmenm
- 6. 4N-m-ahemdum. e
- g. _._..
ll l
~~
_ E ~III :T~~~ - ._._.._.
gg .._ .. _ __ .,_. -. .
g a b e.Ph'* .ma-Mure> m t
g t
'e - ., -- .. .
-_ -- _ .m .- ,_.. . . .
k 91 e ep.W-le 9 -
4sh<
'W'..*..e4luhd.=' 44-ed-Wi,e .eg -..mma. ..m._kgmpum..-ehuma.am'is hauxpm.N.us. _wW-miie -.numag.ensamisqe>e-p CAW FEB MMI, A% MM JVN JUL ~~9:P OCT t#V M.
- 1984 I -
WELL NO. NMd 109 e hiunme.em... m og , ami ,,,,,epg,,,n.,,,. ,,a-.um g,, ,, g,, e,,,,,,, m g.
~ ~~ - -----'-
108 4g n$4 imsum
- ) ..----. - --.
In J .
m '
/ Hb
- + ,
,, wg f
%w /
lM ,
/ hr
'-\ /
\ /
103 \ #
N.37 e.___
____s __._. __
$ ., __L_,
.'.~ .l..--
+ gedn -1>e ee - esq- . m .- e euskmm-* - -umpsbegpie ipugumum-ie.ei> kwimme wIamPE'ud41>+-esegen>e4.-- p- ne i e4 iW enhumimmp.e.a a.numame-m..imi 6. s.=m--=i
...-p. _ . .,..- . p --
1ImPM@h e4MMmhuguiIesee e>u.miwp.,
eumImmusiqm,. .mits-pg> g4bumm .epinumanmuma
, <>-==.. .. -.- -, . . ---< . --,- -
. ,.i .
J --
mAshmb.mmu edeogm..1umumeuma>
(eum>e .e 10 g < , --,.<.-.--...,_.- - . .i . .-p. ...--
sl y
4 C ~~~~
tlg ..__. __
1h6*6m epuWE.Mp-el quidhe ei>mee m>94seedstW-6edeum>gp iemed _ meied O M>We-' age a eb-46m-ib gmumi
_1ImpuInutam. epm @m>1p. p e ed >p$> 4up=-meme4.e4se bem-4 - . ei.i mig eq+
peebgn=<iemMpm e e446luum i 94m luuRNhmDiume esbemWbe a
_gme ene -ep.geMihe>+-mandp--ine 91
@ ,e giq - meepg.un6abeuma =*.m e e emul >emme-i e>mhei.e->-. emD
_iIsepueshe g ke.. eu>.a -e .**>lMr-=.mdamPeg y
engm.ml>enheaps-eegua;-uim s eu emmme ammsm.neip..me ,e e i e-m e asthbe wme --amene-'* .i>@d*Drueuis h-*d ge e. end6 bepg6mamme.e *+
CAW FEB MOL AA~~~MM 3VN JUL AE~ '" ~$1.'E ~ ~ ~diT t#Y DC g II-6
WELL No. MM7 i 108 g's %
) . !
106 104 103
. em- .ip_D'.u.6.en .--.m > .-
.peiu. i > i e me me .> .. ,e. mi. mump _pum.p-._.m.p.mu__.
e_ u.he - .u>usu.m.aump.m
.100 e<
..... t l.W.__>_.m a .I - pa* . mpe. Op.ih.i.eaiem..i $1_..mbg. .. ep.m..- gIts o._.e.pgipg 6 s q . . _ . .. ___ _...___ _.
. __.._ ..p -p .
\ s i L / \ _......
' ~ ~# _. . _ . ..
- n. _ . .. .. _ _ __
i 7
4 . . __....
._... -... -- , ._I-._ .. _. _. . : . _ . .. .
- . .4......
\
- j. ,
..' _. _. ) ._. .
- i e
i \
L I \
, 94 '\ l
-__. _._-___+
g _
j.
g ( l 1.__._ ____
\ J \
1 i \
\
)g ..-)s ,c_]'
t_____
m --,
. N 91 Ts
\
j ,_ .. . ...
.,_.p_.._ _ .____. . _. _-.. -._. _._
g g
ma._-e e,g..yg.e .dpuma.s-,.u.mm e..e .>_.>
Me. _ .I e TAW FEB PWI, A%'" Nh J /L 3VN 1%+ g SllF OCT 19V D K.
L vs
, deu. No. ] W L
- i. .
__ i i
p_____ _ _.__ . . _.. ... ___.__ __ _ .._..
. _im.i -. .e.
3, m. --
) .
OW h k
_.i.m.
\
l ..
z___
< > 5 ' ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~"~~~'
%. , ~I .V ..__,_...
~~~ ~ ~~
.. . .. . .._.__.5 ./_/._
s.
nvJ . . . . _ _ _. . _ _
(- _ ..-_ -., . --- _, ._, ,,_,
j -~
- ~~
. .-TC~'
~~ ~
~.
'~
. _ ' .T_~~
-Z-". T-'-
~
~Z~~ _
.pm. mgump..p_qp_ n._ .e ._.seupm.__..
i emum='hi .h >.i.mpa.. mumbm.hui i u. 4..e.u . 4 im . .
..p.immD.p>.* m I=h= m ._._.. .'u >__
. ==..,_.... . .
. .._- _.ummum
_ _i-_ . . .hm.i . . . . - _ - . _ .. u- >
e - a ._> .m. man i_be-m.-mm. >ipeu,_humimmW- .m> e .mmamm.mhe. .m..
eggggg
._ _ ._ . .L. _._ _ . _ _. . ._ . ._ . . . ..
_\.. .-.._..
.. .> ., e. _..
O 1 ..me n. ... mumm._ ..i._ 'em._. ... . m.muumu.-_ . _ e.mm._um -... uu.. _W_i6i
_. D1_b. e .
I_..4umm.ui_ g
'_- e F -
- .- ._. .. e p_ .._ . _ .J \ h q
q I
C g __a__ . .
i i
f \ ;
t= .=3L 1 1 7_ ._. V / t
\ I . ___. 3g { \
qe t .
Y \
-1 / ..___. ._. \
g i I . , . ,_ . . _____. 1
__ l I __ t 1 / 1 g i r
~ ~-~
1 t n . -.. ____ t 1
22~'. 2_C27 2 'E' [.~ [~_" $ _ ^ ..~2.2._ $~I~~ 1-
'_~2
..p..- -__ _.--_. . --.
_ === d
_ .mo - i noi .e. .
> me _p . _ -
g -.._ . _ - . .... . _.__ - . ... -. .. _ _. . _- .
.. >e.ne... m. .G.s.Iu_i i'm W=.h.
e -in
.._he*_ .'.h_ ..un-ih.'e
'. e.. _ .e-. . .us.e-k. em .sq . -iO.__. i _....mp.>. ain..pe . .
1 e.i_ eh.-
jaw na nr. Ap, May ya Ja ig seg or.T rev tuc
WELL No. Dw 2.
109 er a'4>==4he elup,b. m 4i -4 .4 i ad>digmingmme Mpa apg.ime.
94m. Muh4me- *dme='dM. eire >mmidWbendname-dai. eux eumi g 84 e4 -Musumedimin
.d** +.1kW>-e- e-@we-4i ngie>-m. aaeig y .--.- - .-_ .__.
105' n.seummemieme.
y . ----. . . --_
ihemus = ledW>
<. ma. . <-. .< . . -
-.- b ..e.,,..
+_
T.' -ZZ
' ~ ~~~
g _ 1 Z.
22.~~~~y
_2D(__ nib [_
~~ ~ --~~~
r g -----
w-
-g - < [-p --.----.-q xp- / CE
.. -_ --_>. . e --.. . . - . . .. . -. -- -- - __., .
,...ekmee>,
gmqkm- ie iup.'he mewere d Mhe rammhe-t > i.e eiimp 6
.sg.- supa>
ehe> k. 4iWpe==pm-4m-.- e1se <- g + m e-eWum mei gagi,mm. >aq><igmg,q e.Pe-mps a e- g - >-ii edbehem. mare ab Guudbed 1kepu .4um.mid J . . --- -- -.
m._ wnummu. emu mnum==.*4mm, umei mmeunummqme
.46-D.-@W.mireneum i-he gi. em .mumsamm4um m 4.w.m.=i el 1iesda4me a epuu>ep4 >+ 4 gassi.
emue.m-I*
d a _
e _..
!I -,.. - _ .e .- . .<. . .. .
e,.,..e.-
,-.p_. .
>e
._ .e.. .l_.,
94 in
- g. ______...___ _...
UM --..-- .- -----
54m6m . ends emi gulW-edgIandm.mmemew ___
_ ~ .._ _. .__ p_. .. ._ __._._. .__ . . ___. . .>_e_, ..
'eImD.ipumump. 4 mn apqepimuume-.
4
-* geb. -muuuuimmW e= hump p emq e.a.gm. ,gy 91 6m.uD +mmm. nmummi.i eise 4> e . oui., - .a>apum=l.exa.* pm.4 4ummmmmp,. m e>e ne.pgumme. em .E'Sd- e 9-> . eeies.4p. . emim.
y -... . . -. - . .. - .. _ .._ --. . . ---... .-
euseausawi 4 m-- 4 mh* <>=aM.Whe-->4u.e pe+<mme km5" 4s=memem4memim-CAW FEB PWt~~k% MM JVN JLil EF OCT 19V DIC 19 R4
WELL NO. -
IM
___' 1 pus.
eu.peulum
'NI'**-. *1'em._1M-__.e._mm ign,i. msg > ap,pqpm,qpungm, j ...___._ . _ ___._
..._____ _._ .._._ ..___.- - g__. .___
mm me..
J ,
105 k
103 2._.
E*8'm e e .=_ _pemisu .., meg. gig.m.@si_kWu.hus.m
-- mes._. _== ==. mi.. .-.- _._.. ... ,, .
SE-k.Bui__ >. e pegm. gpg, -smg ging,esai aw,,,,gg,g,,,gg,,, ,,,, ,,gp e . 1-.e _ e4 e.ph.pu.s_ ee..* .4t.a-. muss.p ee - _.i <_q_..g e--y-g
- '.milkW _=1.. mg ,,m,,e-, , ,gg e ._kW.W> +4>.uu e g
. 100
~
._y__
,E_..,-__ .__ ...
L . - dr ,,,,
3
-N--- - .._pr- " . _. _.. %
MVC. .. ,_.- _ _ _ .. _ _
N6 q
s
_ _ b
.. (
..- __. . . b
.. _ _. .._ _.. _. _.__ b
,' 3 . -. - _ -,_,_ _.- _ .. _. _ __., \
3 - _.. _ ., _ __ _,__ . . .__ L g
.____+ _ _._.-
8*
_-+-. .-.. _ ._._ - _ -.,_ . .. _ -, __ .,
- g __- ._.
l, -
N -<__.-_ __ __ , _
M
/ 92.
91
- "' ' ' > 8.'_BA.--.' .,_en.p.m.g-4 w..e-in_es
_huulu.>= ebe e a,,q,,
@..G u.um_u. .1 menu 4 CAW FEB MMt. A% MAY JVN " 30L # # # *
- 19B4. IMO .
WELL No. b f lei -_-...-- . , -.- . ___. - _.. ._- -..._-._ ._ _-. _ . . . ._.. . .
103 Li . .
wr g "3% ,
5 105 T
104 103 E
g . __ _.. .._
gg .._ .
_+._. . ._._._.
gg .._ ..-._ . .._
. .J00
{
qr -dh-N y
,y
.,,.)
x >
Nx ,
j e 1 3Y
\ jp ._ ._... [ ._ ~
ig \. _. 7-- ; /
s ,
T I
- i. \ J_..
. -. Y__. ..j . -.- .- -._- _ . _.
, .2__ _ .._._____.__. . .__..
____Y.:
- l,
- ._. ...-__ . __ __ _T
~~- ~~ ~-
. :: :T- _
gg .__.. . . ___ .
i _. _..___ .._. ___ _ .._ ___. .._. __._.._ .
- ._.1__. ._ _ .._.._...
g __< ___.__.__. ._ ..___ _..
8 94 k
g _ _
9I - ,
y ~
y _-.._._____ ____
e1 _._.*
C 'AW FEB PWL, AA MM JVN JL/L A16 SI:F OCT fey DE
. 19 R4 11-11
WELL No. D d 109 g _.-.. -.. .._ .. . _ __._.,_. . .._.. __._..._.
y _. 1 ._._ _ __.
n -_.-_
b ,
4 105' 104 103
-___.._3__..
_._._ - - -_. . ._...._._-_ _~..- . ..- .
p_--
lgl s ::c 7%
7/%
. .Z.. S /
/
_.. . - . ._ _.__ .._ .. . _. --~ _...... . .. __... ..._.._.
/g .. ._. .._
_. . ._s_
j g
~~ ~-
_ ~~~-~1 -'-::- f :' :
" ~
(e p e ---- - - - ----
lI g
3 g 1 .__ _,___..._. __ . .. ._
4_.. . ._._._ __..
94 h.
C -
g __ _
y ..__-__ ..__.__
8 91 -
J __..__._ __ _.
93 CAW FEB PWI, A%-~~hm 3VN 3UL Al6 S.T OCT teV Dic iq g4. II-12
WELL N o . ) W lo Ib1
' met..m
-1'_ emileulP_>@4 *.=eDeW4mm1.emsi.p. ei.mg_ pies..m.
108 b
~
- _ g ._.____
-4 g , , ,
i \
.-,-. _ -._ .-,-_ / /2r 's,m>
'd \ /
\ j
(- \ sv lN / /
~
%- a f m y p e_ .' _m O .4><W.mm-m .__ + ggamma-
...._. _n in- -a
'kemium i_.e .e-.- umm -w.e>e qse emi . ,g__.eime
- m. '_.m4 .eiumm..up . _ mime.nes. _
^- ~~ ----
101 S
, - m..
. 100
- a. e..e->e. . gmm gm.spae J .. .. -_ ___-_ . . - _.._. - -.... . _ .___
mum u.Pe_ a4_s..m.amamm .'ul__*&@ u-u._immm_luh _e e Wbum eum_muie.-4p.. .m'._EDd- *.*_.h ^
.e4 u- .-
b
.p .
g p . __
., . .. - -.-e.. __.
.m- - _. ._ .
l : .____.
l 93 --
l
.D4.-he G i_ men .m.__ime se
__. -. _ . _ _.. . __. -_4 ._
g . . . .._ . ...__._. _. . _. ._ ____ .
_egm .e ammum.e..m e. 4mem.__umm.e...es_ime_
CAM FEB MhR. AA MM 3VN JVI. IM3 SL'F 8CT '#V DE
< rtGYiy1
NELL No. Dh/ 7 lei _ _..__. . ___ __.. ...._
9 t
D 106 j ,
105
-- o . _
104 i g l . . ~_..__ .
__.._. . . _ .J_
j .._-. ____-
gg _ . . .,_.__ . _ .
g ,
g.. _. _ _ .__..
{
-_-.__.Q.._..
'~~
t .
I ___.__.. _.
1 l {(_._..__. __
a ;
l i i 1 _ ._ _.___ __ __..__. __
is ! ! E_ --
! , I
. i ,
y i l _ f.
.,4__._
.g ._ .._____. . ..
~ ~
- l 1
. [.._._T_T.J' ~ .
. _ . ~T T'
~_~"_~T gg } _.. . _ .... . _ . ... _ _ _ _ __.._ _ _..
~ ~ ~~ ~~
~ ~ ~-~~"
f5 { !_~. _' M~T_T ._.::
.T--f,!-----
,g ,
lc $6 ~~
T- I
~ --- -'---- -
m l __._[ _._ .___/
_ n+ --
\ I \ >
\ ._._ _./_
$g k:::d l 1,
(--- j g 'q_./
w
~
___-... - .__...._ ~_^ .. . . .____ __
j 92.
.__.. ._._.__. _~_~ ..__
91 y _.- _ _.. .___ .-_._. ..__ . ..._ . . ._
CAW FEB MMt. A% MM 3VN JL/l. Alf, Sir DCT t#V DC 19 R4. II-14
W'm. Mo. Iw a
- g[ i12.
..- . ..._.- _ ._._ .e . .-._ ... _._ __._ _._._._ -.. .
y .____.. .._ .._.. .._.. .._ -.- ___-.
+
_um,=IN_uh
-. 4 -.. -m- em.. .umm.e-e .
c.
p* Mpeuh_p_.
.2 . ___
m.-=x.-
let \
i
, .,,,-,,, , - .. , , _,,,,,, ,_ . 2#
s k
' j lN I 1
/
\ '
Ik't IL' /
\
% / \ __ /
10(e k
\
h r <
f
~ .
v_____
" 'j
".._".- t' Nw.P -;_7.'Z- _,,,,____.
g , . . . _ _. .._ . _. .._..
. m e. um_n-- eim=l>.aa_ _
_mm._.Braq-4 _ . ..Ni.mi e,1- g -ih.g>eusem-ne.- . .enp.-g gunpg_6 enepuma.am,
.4Es e e c i.sp bqu.>_u. ..4mm.e+ 1._peim_. . e.g _..
__a______._ .. _.. . . _- . _.__. . ._._._. __.__ _._ .
i musss_hims. _h.e i .em-uthr.. p..e'E_pe >_ ='I=. . e e_Immise'Wuu>ame p-4 Demum . e m. .4ie mm.i-e- .. m._-<_ -.-. ... - . ,e _,_. ,... .. . ., . ,,
, __.. .___._.. ___ ___..___.e_._.__ ..- _._..._._
. _. ...,_.-. _ e ..e _.. . _.. _.- .
y . _ __. .____ _ _ ._.__ _ _ .
. h6 4_E4mdi_.e . ___m. pen.=_s..un-4.. .>-._ .= i... e gu_.
e.,
e, ese m .= og eq ,a,ssen, . . eg , Hmammmm.iggus,.g... .ums.me I,,
, _._ - . -,m...
au mamaalm.p.imapeni
..me =.ummnem.sq e- .
88p'W '_ _ e4' 'pm'.D .bdh >_ '. -
--- - _e
.lugan_..
.i_ e. * +edw remulmmes _..mm'-muus>-eumum.1p.1._hemu_-e y
ei u== g .e>. 6_6essameniums..ami>- m
.- M .
e.Dee_uhmei.
g_.* .ui u->
.>e--...d_ kg 1 e-IB__.uumu aus_.ulu,emDut=m pumu e.e-. hum..eamme.neim.m JAM na Man Arn rw Jm Jat * *
- M IN5 #
4 9
APPENDIX III ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS III-i J0P20RPT85030606
/wmuf sArarr Ann msvrRomturAt sVAGan05 7025 raar 1 y_nxx_uJ, soc. .sve =wn I SWv'F. 17, f . 4 _ IMoocno/ 'EVALDAn05.ND.- & @
/kxxzF/ urzxaczSNJA///RS d752 ,/wstSwor._ sYsTrxwFsczgo_
exscnmtonfs4R clw (dhebbY Ab,e M /L eidU/nau- aA nscoa
.. h uese, o ,s ,.t.,' e L D a l r wo
. us:- m .ss _
taJ 91 en ?&uMLBrio v. aiz/r$ .- . r r-man 4A nzeaa g , y yo, .,
/ ./31. rrn e " voe . ... . . ._.-
ag,, _ __
ae x n
.oArt 12 smn-mdun . . . ..sc.ro
- w. z_ n .Sa_
g NO_ ' IMPLDENTATION OR PERFORMANCE OF THE ACTIVITT DESCR13ED ABOVI:
1 (a) Requires a change to the GGNS Technical Specificat ons.
. SASIS A)(( N C- O 7 1 1 .I. A. 3. I E e / s. YLt &c
&n LA & a#
IncreIsas the probability of oc: dance of an accident previously X (b) h #-e d44/64#dt dA4 3 ASIS ~
.[J/
- I
/f y X (c) *:.- u ses he c=nse.q - ces :f ar. 1::iden: p:r ' usi- aluated in the FSAR.
3 ASIS h af
//
dru bb Jef Y.5~k5
% Y (d) creates the possibility of an accident of a different type than any evaluated
, EAS15 10 ,e AA 2 E fSA5 l -/9 Y. (e) Ine eases the probability of occu rence of a nalf .etion cf equipment .
impert to s faty evi usly evaluated the FS .
SASIS h ws e e 4*v 2x&. _s_ _"N_ 55 ll
!! y -
% 'f) Increases the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety - eviousi eval ted in the FS.Ut.
3 ASIS M wo f[ c m e I /m_e M M NIM ff 0 l
! 1 (3) creates the possibility of a malfunction of a different type than any 3 ASIS / o NAk U/ / _
A .1 (h) Reduces the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical BASIS d/ A4prk r-U' ' ~ f I f
t
I n .;TII ENVIEDIDENTAL' ETAL13ATIOR -
I HE EL. urLoa:nTArios on Fzuromuaz'cir Tsit AcTIVITT ptScanEn sacts:-
SCM 30bb
_ 1 (a) Za required to achiava compliance with Federal _,'Stata, or local
$ $ 14 b 2/AL>Y SASIS m ,a w -
s .
v-j (b) b ults in all measurable environmental effects being confined.to.onsita asas previously disturbed during sita preparation and plant construction.
RASIS dl M j (c) Raquires a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
1As15 !) / AD~7 Y
% (d) Ce :e.:ns a :.a :er which way result .in a sig .ificant increase in any adverse a:n:::ren:a.1 i=pc:t previ=usly evalua sd in the Fina.1 I=viremetal State: ment i (FIS) as medified by the staff's testi=ony to the Ator.ic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), . supplements to' the TES, environmental impact appraisals, or in-
?-- ft:iri::t f the A!"3.
1 ASIS d)/ ,-
- 2) r .
_ 3 (e) Concerns a significant change in e.tfluents or power level (in accordance with 10CT151.5 (b) (2) ). '
BASIS A) /[ M ,
Ce:cerns s .J::er :st previously reviewed and ' evaluated in the documents 3 (f) spec:.fied .in (d) above, which may. have a significant adversa enviremntal 1.paae. , ,.
-- aAsIs A>// MN i / //.
D. v. $ ' m ob3 DlY d6N TSRC
L i/MM DlIE "
' DATE
.?.CRIG/ ORIGINATOR .
s~ -
/
'9.l l I/3 fib!G3 7
p
- /? .. 4 . . ?,_. .
3Z D/JE SRC
, APPK0VID e /
(s.C 7 * '. L. f. l.i.?
s
.R
< ,/*.
. . T ~C
. . M*13-n __ . _._ ,_w a
susooo
. .. .. -. ---_.__f________._ _ _
7 .
.[
~ --
pgg,
[ SCR No. 30/3-FART I - ORIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was previously subjected to a Safety and Environmental Evaluation?
[ ] Yes - Attach a topy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III.
No - Answer Question B.
B. ~Is an evaluation of this change required?
K[ ] No Yes- Enter
- Complete Partcomplete basis and .II. Fart III:
1 PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into'the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: t~.#,
DQ No .,,gi7Com ,h, h Joc s m.J. b a -_Nn.- u.sh,a a
~
d4 c',~M.< C.c ,... ;in kl. ses f ont -VdMwe
{ b.
symps. u s k A w G Eincrease the' cohsequences/of an kccident previously evalua FSAR.
. ] Yes Basis:
~
fs a G . aea w:+L. wkL,
- GE des* k cJs:s g
& No r'n o--sdwh L, a '
- w e , _ , .j,,, y L_L as:, ,
n _
- c. create 'the possibility of an accident of a 'dif ferent type than any Kg,y already evaluated in the FSAR.
W [ ] Yes Basis: CE s psmt e_ _ _ . s ca.J s.;}t u L. I,,
. h= l}<15o fL m .k sif._L Wusa ,
,L r.L c , L s,.e ~a n.o~ s.d _ _ eb . _a -/
'-wg( d. increase the probability of' d malfunction of equipment import' ant to' I
safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
- Q [ ] Yes Basis
- e Ja, (<, _ GL
..- L a ew. dA t &t N]No Ok trn '
.m d o &, ~hs.s L s.ao.a se.A w c% a L s=cJd cAsis.
==4
- e. increase the consequences of'a malfunction of 4quipment important tb L l h.; safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
g^ l [ ] Yes Basis: LM Cr l
m %. vstu.-- w .s u G&L t Q No WL L., .se leie /~,.Ias:s.
- 6) }~ *% al.c. d i J ,a h r n <*se.J w c}= _ss
- f. . create th4 possib'ility of a' malfunction of eqtdpment importadt to '
l - .gl k safety different than previously. evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basia: cm,e , - .a_; mW u / ./A ,
- [
_)G No 08- m L 4 cn c
- d. , . w nn a,.c, K ne se.,.-l n cJ-,- es 4 s d fr 4 9s n
- g. reduce the margi% of safety as'def fhed in the basis for any tech' ical' l.
specification.
!-] Yes Basis: Tsu w s , s 4,,J . . . ;h. c J,, /vo.
O L _--.. L Le la z48, %, .s-m
% No Cc Le, - I,n, < A u a, a se A ~ cL _qes FSAR7sd1
Y $
Pcg/ cf/
B. ENVIRONMENTAL M30/7 Incorporation of the change into the YSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
[ ] Yes Basis: ;h C.cdeska & &.
Cl= = 1 L aa m cm.,Ja,J
.( f No u -v
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final g Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's b testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any
( decisions of the ASLB.
Q, [ Basis: re5U N]Yes L<L & vsML . A c.c d1L M y s'as .
k No 4-
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
k [ ] Yes Basis: wPk O des,&
g 1 - % No CL - -e s L A as r-s n cm s4A v h%3 gS '
- d. concerns a datter'not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-Lk 3 ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact.
- [ ] Yes Basis: d;E Q No (%_ ,, g L s ps u e, _ , nJ w,K L vDx v D v, :,
i PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE A. Origin &J:Ing Organization LeM } l W Aed -
Originatcf/Date ( Section Man ager/ Supervisor /Date i
B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance Safety Review Action Serial Number L- w ?mr-% 80$8) E-20-k Reviewer /Date Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date C. Radiological & Environmental Services Nk Nk Manager of Radiological & Environmental Reviewef/Date Services /Date D. Nuclear Licensing ResponsibleLicensingEnkideer/Date ManagerofNuclea{ Licensing /Date FSAR7sd2
Pag 2 1 cf 2 i FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION PORM
! SCR No./2S -1340 SCR No. AO n F~ PART I - ORIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was l
- pr(eviouslysubjectedtoaSafetyandEnvironmentalEvaluation?Yes
[ - Att equivalent. Complete Part III. ft- sst 4.. (F/gsyA3) h -
-[ ] No - Answer Question B. j, g, p, j,,, j, afg.cr e r 444*.raJ 1. paLepe, f t. s /,s c.e,*s!b 4 sg .y,ys y
Is an evaluation of this change required?
~B. -
l
[ ] Yes - Complete Part II.
[ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III:
i.
i
- ==========================================================================
PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFEIY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
[-] Yes Basis:
[ ].No
( b. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[-] Yes Basis: ,
[ ] No
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.
[-] Yes Basis:
[ ] No
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis:
[ ] No
- e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important-to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis:
-[ ] No
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of .rquipment important to safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis:
[ ] No ,
- g. reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification.
[ ] Yes Basis:
'[:] No FSAR7sd1 -
Fcg2 2 ef 2
- 5. ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation of the change into the FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
[ ] Yes Basis:
[ ] No
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any
~ adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final l Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's .
testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple- -
ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any decisions of the ASLB.
[ ] Yes Basis:
[~] No
< c.
concerns a significant change in effluents or power leve3 (in accord-ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
[ ] Yes Basist
- -[ ] No
- d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.I.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact.
I [ ] Yes Basis:
[ ] No b
MO ko G Cesbre.
'(
PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE Cet L' p g MO pe} #. t **)
A. Originating Organization d.4M S Section Manager / Supervisor /Date Originator /Date l
B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance, Safety Review Action Serial Number MM i
JW Reviewer /Date Vf 649'11 10 ~
eB/Dok4 Mapagero'fNucleirSafetyaW'dCompliance/Date C. ~ Radiological & Environmental Services sW age 8 7 f/
(o -
Reviewer /Date
' Pbnager of Radiologicg & Environmental V
l Services /Date i
.D. Nuclear Licensing
& YN- Manager of Nuclear Licensing /Date R6sponsibfelicensing Engineer /Date FSAR7sd2 ~
t
. ,, O E I V E I AUG zu M '
[
J.G. Cesare ne autWG IGM 0 TO: 3.FAsso.
FRGi: L.F. Daughtery
SUBJECT:
FSAR Change Request #3- t 0 This " Change Request" was returned to Plant Staff for lack of adequate Safety Analysis. The following is provided to satisfy this request.
- 2. This " Change Request" does not require a prompt notification of the NRC nor does it require a change to the Techn'. cal Specifications.
! /Q
.F.Dauskery.
f.' 08/22/83 LTD:rlh attachment's t
l l
l
) .. -- .
S, o,es
.)Y t, ,
GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION h FSAR/ER CHANGE EVALUATION REQUEST / CHANGE
- Sheet 1 of 2 08hGeseA7081 .
00CunaENT EvAtuATED
~
CWiu Ulw e 2 1.b c. F5R 4e r .... I 83 . 4 . 2 .
- 1. SAFETY EVALUATION Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- 1. Increase the pr ;bability of occurrence of an accident previ,ously evaluated in the FSAR.
C YES E. NO Basis: ( i ., _ inc.t uitvu # 3cf_O CsC., 'i'i WU t 114CFA.cu"" -_.#10 atJr te tJ u_ wer" m t.t> LLt w_ Cr3tAh t LM e4 h it.O CD4'"" I w.t t_
9.r_o me.se re -5 ff=*.u , y sat.t n 4 T- tat t.C5 Imf JL MPAsutm4 f.
W L tui.Gr.4 A4:.t_ Lt;)F t c/ t'a suW t L iW:'N L f L E't *.'th. DVt b
- 2. Increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR. tu ht Wu.es% Qt.ae.tnc.i C YES Z NO Basis: (r.c_ " I
- 3. Create the possibility of an accident of a dif ferent type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.
C YES 3 NO Basis: Iu El
(
- 4. Increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
C YES 7 NO Basis- I s 4. ei
- 5. Increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipmentimportant to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
l C YES E NO Basis: b 4_ El l
- 6. Create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
C YES jf. N O Basis: Iu_ O 8 t
l
- 7. Reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification.
l C YES / NO Basistb.m s%v 9Wite_ Lit.m M L 1.Mt) fA W f-a tt39 wu.r m .
GPD 3M3212 03 Eneei t e. 2 l
t w
,.<j' .e- -.., ,
- FSARIER CH ANGE REQUEST /CH ANGE NOTICE EVALUATION Sheet 2cf2 ll. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Incorporation of the Change into the FSAR
~ *
~
- 1. Will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
Basts: Ncn- 9AGT 0C Tm.af_ h wrw ,eA %
O YES E NO
%, r-w %
- 2. Concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmentalimpact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC Staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supplements to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any decisions of the ASLB.
D YES 5 NO Basis: de_t el
- 3. Concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accordance with 10 CFR 51.5(b)(2)).
, ('
C yds Gil NO Basis: Irf, 4 I
- 4. Concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the documents specified in 11.2, above, which m have a significant adverse environmental irnpact.
D YES pf NO Basis: btr 'l AprFW JD 8Y W A !
APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY:
APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY: (Enveron. Leconsang Engineen (Propet Engineen tGrog sev.) (Licensing Engineer)
_j g f/h k cjwX/r M. r:..; r :. - ,
een i
- oere Den .
/ / GPD 33S3212 83 shoei 2 on 2 W
. , . .- y
R E c di v'E D SCR No.
PART I - ORIGINATOR M1I A. Is this change the result of impleegghtsisf.can activity which was previously ' subjected to a Safety andYavisMdimtal Evaluation?
' [ ] Yes --Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluatiwi Form or equivalent. Complete Part III. .
gjt @ No - Answe,r Question 5.
- 3. .Is an evaluation of this change required?
fpff!)d Yes - Complete Part II.
[ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III:
FART II - IVALUATION A. SAFETY-Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
l
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis:
% No Se aN ukeA Beew 4el R,+. . sv PE - ss /z- ilz . s-s :- 85 .
Sum mam .> 'Cei erss.em s . ( m .. ., M sec4 be 2.c
, b. increase the consequences of an ' accident previously evaluated in the
!. FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis:
[)() No see a.
,c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis:
-[)QNo-see.s.
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated'in the FSAR.
! [ ] Yes Basis:
- % 30 see a s l
- e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[-] Yes Basis:
l' -QQ No see a.
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to
~
safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis:
QQ No A ce s .
! 3 reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification.
[ ] Yes -Basis:
% No see a.
FSARllsd1 W--.____
- - ~~
i
- Inccrysrotica ef tha chans] into tha FSAR. l
/,' ,,
- c. will rGquito o changs in th3 Environs:ntal Pretcetito Plan. )
[ ] Y:s 5:siss ;
N No i
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final
- (TES) as modified by the NRC staff's Invironmental Statement testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), suppla-ments to the TES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any
~
decisions of the ASLB.
[ ] Yes Basis: .
% 30
- c. concerns a significant change in affluents or power level (in accord-ance vith 10CTR51.5(b)(2)).
[ ] Yes Basis:
QQ No d.
~
concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in 3.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse i
environmental impact.
[ ] Yes Basis:
{p() No j .............................................................n.............
PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE MP&L - NPE Concurrence A. Originating Organization
(
( H> $195 f /7 L4 S V Cr sina or/Organizatio6/Date NPE Responsible Engineer
/ - 7//s4/ (vor Centractor oritinated TCR's)
S'ectiod knager/ Supervisor'/ Data B. Nuclear Saferv and Compliance .
Safety Review Action Serial Number /YM bY /2ll8l8Y p /f/////V
' k nager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date Reviewer /6afe .
C. Radiological & Environmental Services k nager of Radiological & Environmental Reviewer /Date Services /Date D. Nuclear Licensing
\
k nager of Nuclear, Licensing /Date Responsible Licensing Engineer /Date TSARllsd2
. _ _ - _ - - . _ _ _ . , - - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ - mm m _ . _ _ .
4 REVIEW 0F AWS D1.1-1972 AND BECHTEL ENGINEERING AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL AND MISCELLANEOUS STEEL
~
De
~
Report for Grand Gulf Project i
Prepared for M. D. Archdeacon l
- r ,
By . \ f.d l
M.F. 5tuchfield 4'
. Area Office Manager Materials and Quality Services Department
- Research and Engineering BECHTEL GROUP, INC.
GAITH:P.5 BURG. MD
'(.N Job No.-9645-061 May 1983 Log No. 130152 w.
, , 2 .0 SU N RY AND CONCLUSIONS The comparative review has identified eight areas where the Sechtel
/ implementation documents diverge from AWS D1.1-72 requirements. Each
,of these areas has.been addressed and appropriate explanations have been -
_. provided. kne of the areas of divergence cast any question or concern on
- ' the quality of the hardware, and all areas of divergence were invoked
. After prior discussion and knowledge that a divergent condition would occur.
Unfortunately, only two of the divergent conditions were included in the licensing documents, ie FSAR, and while the others knowingly occurred, they were never considered significant enough to be addressed as an exception
~
to FSAR comitments.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the comparative review:
. 1. The divergent conditions represent a software problem, and nothing in the review points to any concern on the quality of the hardware.
- 2. All the divergent conditions were pre-conceived, and were invoked to address situations where absolute compliance to AWS D1.1-72 requirements-
~
( was neither practically feasible nor economically justifiable.
]
l i
Pcg2 1 cf 2 FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. WS-#Y-65
(' SCN No. 30Y0 FART I - ORIGINATOR A. . _Is this. change the result of implementation of an activity which was
_ pre'viously subjected to a Safety and Environmental Evaluation?
1 ua son Form or .
[]Yes-AttachacopyoftheSafetyandEnvironE equivalent. Complete Part III.
pufj No - Answer Question B.
.JPDATE B.. Is an evaluation of this change required? _
(>$ Yes _- Complete Part II.
[ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III:Ajdb -
PART II - EVALUATION
. A. SAFETY l Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
l .a. increase'the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
! [-] Yes Basis: Fwi4 & M Ar raf M o[Mwa[de / awl ma V om au M f-
[pd No me addet e de
-- - y v
] b. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the
[.] Ye Ba ia: la 4 a. set /s a dam,9 4e A rsfiveu- T l:
w & M,
% No ore a w a u w . s a w to we. 4M au cod W c o' o/< m $
v i c. create the pbssibility' of an iccident of a dif ferent type than any already evalua ed in the FSAR.
-[ ] Yes Basis: _t' .22. A .h
>c] No
- d. ~ increase the probability of a. malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluatpd in the FSAR.
l l
[ ] Yes Ba is:'7)fiq k A c4acqc 14 a cAav~a /o M a. S/A-(>i No y .auot . o/w dAk o/oc.u.u,/c o# ewwWf a.J A 'ho_
l '
/e' ~ft Afd ea. A m 25u<e
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-g ance with 10CFR51.5 b) 2)).
[ ] Yes . Basis: /d 24 eras Mu u Me n
) b4 No _ Ae % &4/.
- d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-
.f 7 I
'h ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse k% o (g
environmental spact.
] Yes Basis: 8 /. 6 , AI m".
@ g
[M No 2 L
. u Q
======================================s================
PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE
( Originating Organization A.
/
Y Section Manager / Supervisor 1Date 1
Originstor/Date '
B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance Safety Review Action Serial Number
_Ad/ spg ab .Sk& 5-54h __ _ _
C. Radiological & Environmental Services Ao &
4 5:d cwe Y /kSY Managsf of Radiologf (il & Environmental j
Reviewer /Date
' Services /Date {f D. -Nuclear Licensing
- > ~
h Respdhsible Licensing Eny,ineer/Date Manager of Nucleft Licensfind/ Data l
f FSAR7sd2 l
_ _ . . . . . _ . . -_ h _. - . ~ _ . - . . . , - - . . , - - - . _ _ . , _ _ . _ . _ . - _ . . . _ _ -
P gs 1 cf 2 FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM i
SCR No. MMH 7 SCN No. .'o4/
PART I - ORIGINATOR
~'
A. -Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was pre'viously subjected to a Safety and Environnental Evaluation? . .
[ ] Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environo al Evaluation Form or- .
equivalent. Complete Part III.
pd No - Answer Question B. SAR UPDAtTE czrME9gr
~ ~
B. Is an evaluation of this change required?
D4 Yes - Complete Part II.
[-] No - Enter basis and complete Part III:
PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation of-the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in SAR.
[ ] Yes B3sis: Ff M -cla w M b e 4Cic M U r b 8M bd -
W No k ackE U/p>&As ~ are CAW 4k/ .4 '4 71c/. SA' M.C. MM '
nnL4k a >^ t- bs1ed m a d d c.a/ p . J s.'
~ ~
- b. increase the consequences of an'ac'cident previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: b M. A . A ~.
D9 No V
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any ,t ,
already evaluated in the FSAR. h-c
- [ ] Yes Basis
- fh 'IZ'. A . ct .
- l. [A No
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safetypreviousgao 1 evaluated in the FSAR.
[-] Yes Basis: u .2Z . A . ot .
[M No f e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to y safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
l ]'Yes Basis: O 2r4.a.
l [ No
-f. create the possibility of_a malfunction of equipment important to safety differe t than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
i [ ] Yes Basis: 2t. 4 . R -
j' [% No 3 reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical
[] s as a C kt#A It c d vt 8 Ta k. E/Jls. '
[9 No -
i l
FSAR7sdl neu u w _ _ _ . - . . _ - - _ - _ - _ , _ - _ -
Pcg2 2 cf 2 B.; ENVIRONMENTAL Incsrpsrcticn of th2 ch:ng2 into th2 FSAR.
- a. will
[ YesrequireBasis:a change in the 6 gerc Environmental w g gmdProtection A Plan.M 470 A No AAro, ra.a ' 2t . A. a .
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final
- Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's .
- testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-
'd ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any ,
decisions of the ASLB. M
~h A C iC .M.r dMN SvAN
.k , , ,
[ ] Yes B is:
.f No - a ie *. 2t . A .ot' .
k g
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-ance with 10C
'] [-] Yes Basis: 51.5(b)(2))M.
A da M. A C/W 76 4 4W '
p] No l"- '
- d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-g ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant advarse l
t
' yn g environmental impact.
-bI ' I 1 Yes Basis: 8ea M.B.A.
{4g % No PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE l
(. .
Originating _ Organization A.
sAJX% rMM aR , Ashc-Section Manager / Supe (viso'r/Date Origli'nator/Date B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance Safety Review Action Serial Number Ale s 5bd/f /f
/
.Y. K-l0 Fqnager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date Reviewer /Date" '
C. . Radiological & Environmental Services Reviewer /Date Manager of Radiolog3 cal & Environmental Services /Date D. Nuclear Licensing
& M1 sh/4 Responfible Licensing tngineer/Date m se tw ManagerofNucleafLicensi/g/6ste FSAR7sd2 ).u, QJtR._.fL9
Pcga 1 of 2 o
FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. #f- f /- //
SCN No. ca,s seat 3-b Joy r O
PART I - ORIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was previously subjected to a Safety and Environmental Evaluation?
[ ] Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or
- equivalent. Complete Part III.
[dNo - Answer Question B.
B. Is an evaluation of this change required?
[ ] Yes - Complete Part II. 1 proposed che., -fo
[d No - Enter basis and complete Part III: i.u.or Ms+e,4 v w c1% k.UL Goee 3.8-4o coereds o. n H$2. .T+ is -the re. -fo r n 6,Js+ra-hik. eb .
====...............===============================================
PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously 1 i i evaluated in FSAR..
Ia . [ ] Yes Basis:
//
le [ ] No (t/t\
- s f j 1 j b. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR.
f..I l 1 i
[ ] Yes Basis: A //1 -
~, pl., .f l ] No / " /V
,) , t create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any
, c.
]! already evaluated in the FSAR.
- [
{: ,' h4'w
.- ] Yes Basis:
[ ] No jf //J -
/m R;
. h'i. .y' y t,
- d. ~ increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to 4'I l safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: , // _
[ ] No /v/V
- e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: /4W
-[ ] No i,
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: A [ ] No /*N
- g. reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical I
specification. [ ] Yes Basis: A/// [ ] No /"R FSAR7sd1 nsut_nra
Pcga 2 cf 2
~ -
B . ENVIRONMENTAL. Incorporation of tha ch ngs into th2 FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
[ ] Yes Basis: 0 6. . (A a.t u c A 4,u*,,.d to A. 4. kin.x e CG*eL.' a + e - G VD' sr. 's- o - ur. a m A --
- ( [5] No w- ,
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any .
adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final " Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any . decisions of the ASLB. y_, i - ,[ ] Yes Basis: soo _ A dao o Lu [1$ No
.[-, I \
c . concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-c'f* i f 'i ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
-(j
[ ] Yes Basis: s ,_. , A A.b.or f j), ' I
! [P4 No s.. 1 Jd. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-
,. c f I; .l ~ ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact.
[i V7 k.;
&C AL.a , ,
] Yes Basis: A.
* ((19 No f:,
- k. %8/ tpk
, PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE A. Originating Organization bOriginator'k /Date L 4 te+ % [ Au Section Kanager/Supdrvisor/Date l
I B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance l I I Safet ' Review Action Serial Number l ylf % htT 8WfM3' s;pM. Reviewer /Date Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date C. Radiological & Environmental Services l casaw 416 Revywer/Date MMax. ManagerofRadiologi[a1& Environmental M/rY Services /Date l
~-l D. Nuclear Licensing l
1X N i i S0$/ Y Manager of' Nuclear icensing/Da'te t l ! Responi/ibleLicensingEngin'eer/Date FSAR7sd2 m m . __ _ __ _______ . _ __ __ _ _ __ - _ _ _.
- - . _ -+
30 % .!
' PcgJ 1 of 2 f I
l FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM b SCR No. M6 (*2.- SCN No. 3o46 PART I - ORIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was previously subjected to a Safety and Environrnntal Evaluation?
' [ ] Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or -
fequivalent. Complete Part III. - i s. Q 1 j,,,(..* I" < i . . .: .- ,, ] ] . [d. No. - Answer Question B. B. -Is an evalu'ation of this change required? I b # 2,, _,,,, ,,,, ,. [ dyes-CompletePartII. G lord ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' -- --- -
.[ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III: f rie n//W- - - . . . __
=..
PART II - EVALUATION + A. SAFETY Incorporation of-the change into the FSAR will:
> 's. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR. swers.
[') Yes Basis: ~7k.a., pro v esel okw reve'ses -f k Fs AF +. [/] No ccur4cLf ' dacri 6c N.U -sn duso,-$ usd - f. U W4-4 c. 6.ry unlo insa d. (eadu.as4L) 1 J O e. s-kudd e.<- A.<*nL.t k increase the consequences 6f an accident previously evaluated in the
~
4 b.
.FSAR. ,
R. F - [ . ] Yes Basis:- "IL ckms do sof ,sesco 54 tk, n u eave u ,.s of [ No eA e.s. e.e e sis..d Gowe L do mT t % c- 4k Wh %+,isul pe.
\
- msvre.s a Iv4 ,k. us e. i,J.+w oto. 2 .fo' '
- c. create the possibility'of-an accident of 'a different type than any
.g already evaluated in.the FSAR.
$' I Basis: h8e.< . h M% "b"af>ose..
- [d]Yes
[ No
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to
" safety previously evaluated in the FSAR. m [ ] Yes Ba, sis: 'Mo c.4l.a o,ud- /s 6d., eko.m d so b is a no i [ A No u sa.ms e ,U'& pro % b, l mQ cf a.%s % e.+>o n of
. -etuio w.a+ o k co r%.s+' +e, dabAv . Geo d. e. as,d b.
- e. increas# the consequehces of a malfuncffon of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
- [ ] Yes Basis: Oc.-f e_v- fo ide w " 8
- 4.6 e se. .
[A No
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than previously evalueted in the FSAR.
[-}Yes Basis: M e r- d o ~.- few " d " 4.b ose_ . [/] No . y .p;
- g. reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification.
f"> , ~l'ad a. Ice l $ < .- [G .ds,'n , 3/f. 6.6./ [ ] Yes Basis: ~ik Ba.sa.s e, 4 of e ,v;onG. A
'[ .4 No ,..it r',.s:. -f Lu. w.i;e+e na u c, cf 4,E "
of ks.- secase s.ey en +a .4 .ek ( i. e . OInsf (ced.:[.) k+<.3 r.%
'i FSAR7sd1-i M - . .___ - _ - _ -
3046'
~
Pcg2 2 cf 2 i B. ' ENVIRONMENTAL- .
-Incorporation of the change into ths FSAR. < a. will require a change _in the Environmental Protection Plan. y sys b
[ J' Yes Basis: %. pape<.44. ch % A,4s d ek.%4 l{ lv) No &ht h %'. es,e+ rol M <fS tuad s ov- LYow r ' leva.Is . "
~ Leu-F.<e ;+ M J 4fce+ % E9P.
- b. concerns a metter which may result in a significant increase in any
? adverse. environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony. to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-ments to the FES.~ environmental impact appraisal', or in any -
decisiotis of the ASLB. "
' [ .1, Yes' _. Basis: E4 f4.< -to [4c~ " d- dovc .
[/] No ' concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-( l I c.
-)' 3 ance with -10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
Yes Basis: Euf e 4 a Iic u- "* ' Ab'%
-:,9 ,
;-['
. .'..1 4 - ;
l[ 3 No j.t ~ j ? d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-1, ss .. l. ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse te I . environmental is act. " Y
~
N; Yi b 1 Yes Basis:- 84 e# h> 'i 44.- 4- 4. $>o vo .
*I b '[dNo [
-g. W, @A-.k k-- m i
LM L Y: V q ;i ...l ...... ....................................................................,
~s PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE
( l A.- Or$'ginating Organization
&LN WL +(clu 30riginator/Dste 22wk/ vb7f4-Section Manager /Supervis6r/Date e
B. . Nuclear Safety and Compliance w
'k- Safety Review Action Serial Number fMY W $l Reviewer /Date Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date f-I h
C. Radiological & Environmental Services _ hf / Manager of J ologi 1 & Environmental eviewer/Date
- D. Nuclear Licensing
- j l Sb lV!$h Manager of Nuclepr Lic'ensing/Uste Resppfble licensing Engine'er/Date
'FSAR7sd2 e -- - - . .
~
~ ~ .. .. . ,
P;;g i f 3 f FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. A 5'94~LT SCN No. 7047 - PART I - ORIGINATOR
- A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was' pre'viously subjected to a Safety and Environnental Evaluation?.
['] Yes - Attach a copy of-'the Safety and Environstntal Evaluation Form or' , equivaient. Co.,1ste eart 111. FSAR UPDATE '
. % No - Answer Question B. c27)WM B. Is an evaluation of this change required? ^
[>Q Yes - Complete Part II.
-[ ] No'~- Enter basis and complete Part III:AFA _
t-PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the PSAR wi11:
-m. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
[-] Yes Basis: X1. - I,)d No
- b. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the
[ h []Y ~ Basis: ~ Oo - [)o] No
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in tpe FSAR.
- [ ] Yes Basis: fes A s/. l
@] No
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evalua ed in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis:' & , [M No
- e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previo sly ev ted in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis [>o] No
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
o [ ] Yes Basis: So M, D4 No
- g. ' reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical
. j' . specification.
[ ] Yes Basis: M d veel #//# w d " n b V[e d wur I)ci No cvWJ- 0 74 . %j. Ein . 3/% M. r, wu,J W' 4a .4,4 focatst, da, sp a+:. s 14B 4 MC ma tv4f 4 %L s>L. Nw.& D' e ntwQs % Q ~ 4 eMawd i- nd. ryd. FSAR7sdl R5uts
Prga 2 of / ,,$ B. ENVIRONMENTAL Inctrp2rcticn cf th2 ch .nga into thi FSAR. Icn. , l
- a. willrequire&changeintheEnvirone?elPrtcetion M dW M ac U doce c hm I
[ ] Yes Basis: j Odl No Mash { 7
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final
- Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's )
- testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-
'g I ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any
)
" decisions of the ASL . ,d, 4 M$95 I .r darf "o
~
[ ] Yes' Bas 1s t, /cs4 A M ( .<//xf u /wtx .fdtvd % .4G %swd I o , , , Q0} No c. n concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-1 - ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)). [ ] Yes Basis: L 6, [y:i No 5\ () h (g f, ( o h 4 g
- d. concerns a ustter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.I.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact.
[ ] Yes Basis: k f. t 4
. y- @) No
/
PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE I A. Originating Organization A. A s%& snz/a e f 14VKc-
' Se'ction Manager /Supervia6r/Date
'OriginaYor/Date /
B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance Safety Review Action Serial Number MA f/fJfff . dY Reviewer /DataV F Mar, agar of luclear Safety and Compliance /Date C. diolpgical & Environmental Services
.dS~,e1$ C-/F//
I Reviewer /Date Fbnager of Radiolo cal & Environmental Services /Date l D. Nuclear Licensing
- , p ~
Manager 'of Nucl[ ear Lic'ensing/Date l RespohhibleLicensingEngineer/Date FSAR7sd2 m
l 1 M Ae mu, 4 A .zr,4..,4,d .m.e.<< _ _. - r
.. .- - -*e - .=m- .. . --e-,. -.- .
M*y/ y/48
. 9. T-4 "Q -//.!" % .s.e -.__ _ _
yMr . d /4C w Jd . M[a i Jacakhs A <- y~ ~ a 4 p- w as & A m.d Tde. L xsd L- p % f a y 9p.Ac M dm..~f g s eM skan < s a a %$4_'SL a wm e.4/6. %*LA.u ksh,._.. m _ ks _.A+swy% eRu a 4.
.i'a-il,.i".A wi-a ptJ M w h- ..& - A._.~4 % MM .
w _+ :..- 4 Adfg ....dRN A 4 &_Aaa._.. _
.. . +r. loe k a. enu- @ 4 o<l V A se & . 'W'h.--_ - .
vfe s . d u c.o 4 p% 6 d 4 .co / A . A & ht- dm e. g ~& v v M9 , fyA% .
$ 4u . :/4. a d d- f _.. d -. . .q . . - . . .
2+ p a .4 s 4 4 hw i t c~_ 4. eadoL.A s u 2/x_c pn.. y d n__.<4
$ AJ gi.. A p...u+y uk mase N 6mh m - es. nee . - . emee em .- m e- w. mmm... p. - emmem-e
%,,.,.-.y e. e
, -- ._ _ . n cd 38Y L - ..
~
as 4Vns-
* *6#
**'O* e emmwwe eW - 6 m e .*
t - . . . { __. l g * 'N* Oh66 M *
- h F
Pcg21 cf- 2 FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. 45-ff-/Y SCN No. sovr ?-
.( .
[_ . PART I - ORIGINATOR
- A.: Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was previously subjected to a. Safety and Environmental Evaluation?
[ ] Tes --Attach a copy of the Safety and Envirpamental Evaluation S Form or - l'* / equivalent. Complete Part III. . $. 1 - Q'[. . r r ..g Q ? ' 3 L. { d No- - Answer Question B.- 5~U-O'. G2Lf8 4+$y.- m ,yy-
.B. ' Is an. evaluation of this ch'ange required? ~ -- ----------- '
. [d Yes - Complete Part II.
[ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III: --*h __ PART_II>- EVALUATION A. . SAFETY _ Incorporation of the change into the FSAP will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrenc9 of an accident previously-evaluated in FSAR. 4be loel( }-es-)-rore wrll-f ) Tes Basis: Mab$v rnu }lre sebewlvle s roLbr/,% a+- ' l-
'redere +he l \d No e5 au -teid +. 'sinie He'surveillwe is more frop e r
>wr rente
- b. . increase the consequences of an accident' previously evaluated in the -
e:k
~
s FSAR. ( } Yes basis: Sinre }-),e leek }esh is a survetllonte E 5 ha s.e >r o tuned arr
. ld No se}ron 1 ifs ' f rentwouJ+v w an ill are rolpa h '
' H,e 'ro m avemr%s
- c. create _ the possibilfty of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.
l 1 Tes Baeia: "r),e F.$ A R ' elrensee is }e +4e fred urowv e-f er e w rverliaorie nefron a[dnef Ms oe'e es aff ' e'reale lVT No tf+erear+- a<e ded
+1,e o ossis /,*/v aF a d; increase thd probabili(y of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the e:konge FSAR.
I
/e o/sn t eauto mn.nl~ or-r ko
( } Yes Basis: The re is in sil, edule V L- olawetl .
' (W No eenfreu<a frou . +-), e e4- o.fm
+1,e oroh h:1,L a + > alfm/rors lea /&' + es+r.,e arti oral- rnSrme j -increase the consequ6nces of a malfunction of equ'ipment important to j
e. i safety previous 1 evaluated in the FSAR.o-f etvir] men $ nrolfvYbn - are l ) Yes^ Basts: Ye eohseawares ble ssY e yeesoe, es 'wiveu th
fe e
- EvT No ~ nol- in erease d a bo ve-
~
create ~ (d) the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to f. safety different.than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
't 1 Tes Basis: 'r-he oossib,*/,*/ v of a oft-ffere ,<-I,s nea/C<.w/>vn on1,s do is hof
+4e tvT No e yew}w/ sidee +1,p / /~S A A' / Jrone o '
+ rco ven v o+ dr vwell lee k Ms+ree -
- g. reduce the' margin of safety'as defined in the basis for any technical I ~
specification. t } Yes Basis: The mo reio, d sa-fely associe$aol *s,'N, 'fe~t$ nite l . Snet($rea+,a,,, f3 /q . r, . 2. 2. is' n o+- ,,edua.ed h o-ea.s e +4e fresv (vi No urore toursecre}i II!r snor,+L uAedule is snore -Frear n,+. a ed +4ve F.SM roremll m en+" la, " fest p er-Ajoprotoirg H,*n +lre elol l FSAR7sd1 loCFR 50, h J of mut m
F:g2 2 cf 2 B. ENVIRONMENTAL' Incorporation of-the chtng? into tha FSAR.
- a. will' require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
l } Tes Essis: The En yryo n mes,6 / /%> &re., Plan does Mah (ANo 2]ve-ss lee k fesh ee af the ofrv va ti and Herre fore' ~ we'll no+ y e e c ~r e in s c h e.,v e.t. '
- b. concerns a matter whic'h may result in a sfgnificant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-ments to the FES, environmen_tal impact appraisal, or in any
- decisions of the ASLB.
(') Tes Basis: 71,e -Frevairnev oh le*A' }es hin f4e d p il (W No will have no V anloferse ins ene./ ear 4Ae enviramywf. t T- I . ! l i' c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-c T .i ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)). _j \ Tes Basis: There is no cbonne is, c'Wlvrorl5 or Dewer tl]
- \b No l,* vel assac ra h af wi}fA FLir FSAR elum b.
- ,1 -
j s' t
'I. -
i d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse {* 1.[lf w '
'I i
environmental impact. ( ] Yes Basis: Aedwine (d No - +e_s ).;,, a wf71 Noe nof inh'rvef for 1,n e en ofrvwe$ lNh adver/e enviros,,,ref {
' /s.r oadIP_
t o I i
;a+
4: u(
- p u. r. Il.
3 gf b ART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE i .
'A. Originating Organization
, b. h b Y~V Y d4sl$ VV V Originator /Date / Section Manager /Supervi' sot /Date l I B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance , I a Safety Review Action Serial Number
& II{lf - h j M *f ' QOF S .' M .%
Reviewer /pate Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date C. Radiological & Environmental Services Y bh 4te*6ver/Date ManagerofRadiologi[al& Environmental i Services /Date l _________________________________________ ____________________________________
- l. D.. Nuclear Licensing !
( 1 l t M'* $r{/ Respons$ble Licensing Engineer /Date MahagerofNuc1&arLicensin(/Date l-FSAR7sd2 UULJB
y, - - . - . - .
'm Peg 21 cf .2 FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. NS- %+ /[a
- i SCN No. h5o -,
l PART I - ORIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of' implementation of an activity which was I previously subjected to a Safety and Environnental Evaluation? 'l [ ] Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation - Form
. - or
- -- - )
equivalent. -Complete Part III. p ~. ' n
-[)G No - Answer Question B.
M-17 /4 Is an evaluation of this change required? , B. ()d Yes - Complete Part II. E.M . . _ . . . _ . . l [ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III: /N /rfrv E' PART II - EVALUATION ,- A. SAFETY ' Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will: a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR. [~ ] Yes Basis: 6MM.
. [)d No b.
increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR. [ ] Yes Basis: md. [)d No ' c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any the FSAR.
-M
[ ] Yes already Basis:evalusted 3 e.cin, M . l 3,,, - . [f() No a
< < d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previous 1 evaluated in the FSAR.
^ [lh.'}.
[ ] Yes Basis: 64 [JO No
}- t to
. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment importan
,-v e.
safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
- r j
(( [ ] Yes Basis: M eM . IXl 8* ~ G) create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to k f. safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR. [ ] Yes Basis:~MM, [)Q No
- g. reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical
'( s
' specification. /
-[ ] Yes Basis: 4 W,
[)0 No FSAR7sd1
.- . . - . . - . . . . m
Pcg2 2 cf 2 B. ENVIRONMENTAL _ laccrp2rstien of th2 ch:ngs'into th3 FSAR. ha
- a. will Basis:
require a]a ~d.~nge in the Environmental Protection Plcn. [ ] Yes _ [X] No ( b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's l testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supp e-
, jj - ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any .
- ] ?
g , decisions of th ASLB.
.* [ ] Yes Basis: ____ M.
()(]No d
- .c.
concerns a significant change in ef fluents or power level (in accor - i { ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)). i [ ] Yes Basis: d hfM.
~
- !IX]No o
- i d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may h
, ANficantadverseUPDA y4 (4 * [ ] C "*;"! 2 *"*; u . _
[]Q No
..n %
PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE _ A. Originating Organization
-YV Y / '
+' 'Section Manager /Supeip446or'/Date Originator /Date B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance
,J4 Safety Review Ac on erial Number
. .h W %i L W !ks !"# Revi44er/Date
%L2nah Managet of Nucinar Safety and Complian'ce/Date C. Radiological & Environmental Services _
XW /6M Qhwu dvf/wer/Dati
~
ManagerofRadiologipf1&Envirdnmental Services /Date 1 i D. Nuclear Licensing ( b $l
'_ Manager of Nuclear 10 censing /D' ate Respo@ible Licensing EngineW'r/Date l
FSAR7sd2 i M
soso 4 ( zusene re Arer E / 4 4. fouecQ ' / a.<er tad /L nrg f a.
< f=& .
et n : sass wr' m+ e23 k 4eAe/i:p p/sf v & ua a. y f/4 Ab S My ad. f 1 1.: . a s;, ne ; s m aae untes -ossI 6 M , a M /p s W y 64 A ,f/r/) pp 1-r p .s y <.4.,,bpoat & , ,s, assoc;.4/wk
" . . . +4.+ or A., M ed y;W af)s.d A
~ o pp.,.s.
6M s A.;, eb4 +ayyb.sa,A,ks n s, n yn i
~L y/4.e</,as,*d.
Q M s / w s e y . ,' ,+ 6 y a , < s ,
, asp. s 4 y n , u a u.so p d.4s ,
p.J :, -u.rr wa saa4 , 7.a) e < d 4..a6
. rp m .: 4a.s.,,;,,dru < s e p 4,x au L;.a+ 744 </~~u.
pa.~&.x C m p uma .: p% u aa a y Arne ,~.a.- -- se pad '
. s .La a4 cad < d
- pc4A(JA, /s u , /4<.< k M ed M. 4 % ,.~.,
*p y
u (L-< L w M s a t<< ~ r & sc A.<p/J4 ,
, a. v=:, e
& ov. sr as u.co, a n a y 9..sc sa ,
.. m e , a 4 ..- ..... ;., &
so / / % fas we' / ult M
" 1 % M m p as. 4 4 *.e t-a + w pp. ww/~4a
. < . p w, ,.: n. .e < a ,u. As 9. cs . r
""</~ , - % An< 4 ., a A 44 pt.s r~. '+/
~u . ,b-u-< tuss, sk 4 t,e a wn M'9 < .
pecf tc
~w,~ %,in
'; 34 +ck,aAc< m m.
' ~
4 FSAR UPDATE /6-rr-p
- ' 7. ~ '
.JPty/f'f } ~.~ ~ ~ '_. ,
Pcgs 1 of 2 FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. 464f-/S SCN No. So.s*A k
.PART I - ORIGINATOR A. Is.this change the result of implementation of an' activity which was
'previously subjected to a-Safety and Environnental Evaluation? ,
[.-] Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or. equivalent. Complete Part III. ;,.. .pg . g. , , 3 p . . . , .,
.f_
[/] No - Answer Question B. F .' ' - . ' J i' M 3 ;M B. I n evaluation of'this change required? .NE b . Y .-.. .
-[ Yes - Complete Part II. _
4u MTE
.[ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part IIII'/M edr8}~~ ' ~~ ' ~ ' ~ ~-'-
. .L ' . . _ .._.. .. _ ... ___
e
-... .....................................................t...................
'PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
increase the probability f~ occurrence of, an accidept pr
' fde.asswp M M ro seJviously
- a. - h?S evaluated in FSAR. O b d % d s,a- v&ok
[}Tes' Basts: % vropas cons.t.tv ch. usa
.[v] No 4o rai+is de.' -We W+.u s of An- us.:ide.vCC. %. ;%J5 dor.s dbf oe.r %rw r>4 Le+ o n. feJsfeL +. (contiwed )
- b. increase the consehuences of an' accident previously evaluated in the L . (-
[~ FSAR. [ Yes Basis: 4ecidt-.E e+ lyses L4.ve. do. Leu creS t -for filfe.cle 44 ra.ie wtsu reti. s e bv %. %T5 Trow -huo w/McY is +w +ctide nt vaM t i+1 M etus ain. ika u 4 +s es (en+< d [ No
.c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.
[:,, Yes Basis: ?, f c 4 o +La- ~6 o.s e's -fo r ide w " ' .~ Ab.ve . [/ No
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR. av e quipwd
[-] Yes Basis : ~~i'Le, proposed elet4 de 5ct c6c
+Lt. or.bi b /,'he'd Isi-
[v1 No sioorte at '-fo %44e +v . ~7kh+ ore . ' e.t'vi pns+t al VvseWon rs u+' se redsad . e, increase the consequences of a malfunction of. equipment important to t. safety previously evaluated in the FSA)iew ,,d,, Ake.. !- [ ] Yes Basis: E4.fer 4o +Le. Bo sis Grt l [dNo l l
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than previously evalust.ed in the FSAR.
[ 1, Yes Basis: Ecler fo 4L4 Esis fev efe-ia, " d
- 4 6 eve .
I l ! [/ No I 5 reduce the margin of_ safety as defined in the basis for any technical { specification. w
] Yes~ Basis: "lk propod hee. is eenAsfcd' .re.NL 4ke lv,s/s
' Tie +e e e-- -fir
(( d No' war in c4 s,Se.4v is set r b ut.d .
-fo e ~T,.ch ea hFe %J' 3/46.4..I l
L .FSAR7sd1 ann w.x
Pcg2 2 of 2
'B, ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation of the change into.the FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
[ ] Yes Basis: %. oroposedL ebs de uh AFed hv seu*-ses 0582 [ No h> pro +ut L ' eeuf rowk &ve.k a & opaatun. M re&r.
.k We. i s o ,Wt .~ h EP9 8 en <Klu'ed valusce-
- b. concerns a matter whleh may result in a significant increase in any
- adverse' environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as. modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-
- ments.to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any decisions of the ASLB.
[ ,Yes Basis: Me.r fo I4e~ "a ~ do ve. . [d No i
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-II l [I f ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
_(.) : [ Basis: E elt< +. Me~ "t-" dwc . [ d] No Yes i E...4,. *
- d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-
' _Q~ - ments specified in B.I.b. above, which may have a significant adverse k.
!- f environmental impact.
Basis: Mee da de m., M 46en .
'} ' '
' l (( d] Yes No
(*. * . , ri, k j .............................................................................
.,- h t--; o
% PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE
. k 'h.
Originating Organization
- A;~'H' L +W -
AM . </rr Originator /Date Section Manager /Supervisot/Date B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance Safety Review Action Serial Number J
' Reviewer /Date V g7 kbo u clear Safety kn'd Compliande/Date
#Av Mans,ger ~
6lIs/w C. Radiological & Environmental Services 4 [(p ' i f Jebiewer/Date ManagerofRadiologip1& Environmental Services /Date D. Nuclear Licensing ( M o ( 6 / T'/ / a , # u rk/rF 4 Respons{$leLicensingEngin6er/Date ManagerofNuclea1[ Licensing / Bate FSAR7sd2
. . - .. - __. . m
E ': '
. . . .. . . . . - . - - . . . .7,'ij*r..>p).,.I.,p,~..-... .
i P,.r+ 1 . .Ev ni u S. o n.._.._. _a f,,4.g gp0 "f&f..
. . m . . _
~~ -
.- JELggry _.
(\v re Sore _, 9 -.. A.- .g. g,ko thz $WA c.ovlA not' l . 40 - . _.. - s .
. _ . _ Yc 60 (Y U- AM...I%r<^5"A . probekilff _
7 c_f _ _ __. s +- sec Ecd'or crede a . di5%.ek4ygc. n O o.ccIduN- - . . . . . . . . . _ _ . _ _ . . . . .
- b. 66 4 h : J il ~+ be_ effud*d 6-. . y -H a s ..
_ cQe- becase % fq5 w;il paSoa,~ s-s __ _ __ tss v4 p re. v i o sy-3 l . h. assumPf A J~. N FsArt md ud,2 A sces 6lY & c,f e,% g . . --
--/--
+c %Jla. , L.Qu 6 con L. hu;laQ _ .
- p\v.s o.(l u w- unl,-(;ca Ieus 4wo udeks a J. v>Acc plus o,v- -fc'or- la L to k wnsl cuerl y cossavdhe , d suppdeL by rec-
~
rep lr<nds a. J as nd cons s+<k wRL.
d' 4Lu weg .,.+L pcessvc?*Y<a gvl<<~.ds Tcc.Laico.1 5p ,.cifA%. 3/4. . c.c. . Saco
[ 4Lo pro posa cL q of 4.~y _._.
o.cciacd Myses , +Lt.y o.<c cmskderug. __
<tect.pM,l e_ . .
n ., . - -- . . ., . - - - -- -- . - __
~
Pcg2 1 cf 2 FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. MS- S4- Z l 1{i SCN No. 3055 z PART I - ORIGINATOR A. .Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was previously subjected to a Safety and Environnental Evaluation? *
.[ ] Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III. { ~~ q 4, p;3 yyy j
- [d No :
r Answer Question B.-
^' r ^ - *. vi LJ. bja !
iB. Is an evaluation of this change required? "DS~ ~ ~ ~-I
" - -t'-zL -- -- - -
[VT Yes - Complete Part II. ftf 2 f f f. . _ , _, ,
. [ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III: ept y/v$st. - ., ... -
PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- =
- s. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
[~l Yes Basis: 'See 4"ldet[ar/ Sfee'[ t [vf No
- b. -increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the h ~
FSAR. [ ] Yes Basis: ' Refer M Me reSveaSe for- 1/em M om ev%ehd < heef.
~
z [vf No +L ,
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.
[ } Yes Basia: ApSee L +$e reshorJe
&r ib=m [e) eh id No +4e a flee.b d < L*of.
l-
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: See A/Mre/cw/ $/,ee/ l [pfNo !' e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR. [ ] Yes Basis: 8efer lo A/es mso ese kr /M [d)ou a /fac bed sWA'
~ [vi no +L,
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to 4
safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR. [ } Yes' Basis: Rder W fbe~ renuse [or ih*m Y en i
. [W No +4e a /kef:d s fr -o f. /
g.- reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical
' {. specification.
\ [ } Yes* Basis: T G Aneses for 7" r ebnicel Soeriffrol/un 3/'i. 8. 4.1 [vf No onlv ten astre Ma+ sur ret flanms ' be nerforared +L ee./ eto e m' ar JJ' e Itars C.e +ke +es +- o rw&we . L . +'Ae ' o ,aryin
**'**' of sifefy essacralent wifk lhe freknrcel Spreifrel}-ra,s is '
i avl rekred by +fis,s/ wye _ lc>_ afK o y0.5.
- soSS Fcg2 2 of 2 B. ENVIRONMENTAL.
Incorporation of the change into the FSAR.
- s. will require a change in the Environmental Frotection Flan.
i . [ ] Yes Basis: //o e4,ws l'5 rerc fred S/erre ' / Se ferrirde.orrede/ L. (d No Pro +etlio s P%n o%*s V o,c /- addroers so e v er//ent e i of erres N- k .:/(ers.
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any
- adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in'the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as. modified by the NRC staff's
. testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple- ,
- -- - ments to the FES ' environmental impact appraisal, or in any
'r'77 L !.
decisions of- the ASLB.[aspee /rSh crordreS be /ow-([t ] Yes Basis: 7'%s c fn
~~
] ; {W No vollese circufW hrewkers wili l M o* no advers e rf i d'Mrifen w.* /*I im me f.
g 'j! ,
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-e.g ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
{~ ' Basis: The crocosd cboner does broh~ (derfern F. l ) Yes ok . l8 No a sicrniL ' eh./ I thoee' e inf e=-ff/venis oe ' wee / eve l. e.d i. : ;. f i 4 concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-I I. ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse 8 environmental impact. e lurker in besh dro& pres &r-
... 3
'N *
, \ ) Tes Basis: The
.Dl k*; LW No lo w- vol-hese ' erMit b redkers n, f/) k n e bro adverse En vironme.r}e/ in.on f. -
y*'kq'k- v,-
/
PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE g - A. Originating Organization
- 15. 1 % &,
Originator /Dat f 9-r-sY W vsbf S'ection Manager /SupervYsorfDat'e B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance Safety eview Action Serial Number RevieweT/Date
)04I-f Q 5702 , &n Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date
~C. Radiological & Environmental Services k Manager of Radiologic (1 & Environmental llevie%gr/Date '
Services /Date D. . Nuclear Licensing ( G ' ). Y h C/MlM
-Respons$ble Licensing Engineer /Date
$ / 7Cc r) r b -
Manager'of Nuclepr Licensi:fg/Ifate FSAR7sd2 -
FSLR UP :3e55 . -.?tt!.x.ct$f% _.e.ncri. .e/ge s GATE fl@& .
. N A.e The d occ urrence- o r.
A probabiki{+ are ns+ increan d con by sep+.e*<es any accide Le. poposed sA nye 4 qRR oso.s . 74e eAanye . . . only .invoIves percodit +es}io,y af ctree,+ . .
. breakees. TAe yropo.sd eA.nye is an is,provemeat in . Jho +e.s) +4 7 demons / rah s +Ae alth/y
~ of eircut+ hrew ker.c -). rale < rep + sAor+ cireatF
& J,=d=.h..
carren k Regulak<y Gurde I. 63 , pe<aan I. is f rey m ved by The iniproved i Q sar <edian<e +es+ rs J seJ upo,, .
- Ac~kerk
__ inskn Joneous / rop sdyoinf, ad mo<e ea u radely . . ofefern,ines if fla f bra ker n,eeis Re Gurde ld3 erdeeter. T4e proposer] cho*y pula/ory e lo tAe QsR on17 afhd:s +es/ rap c rrout+ beakers -,,J in L / yerrod,z (,. o-F r pnes tJa.f .
+es+;ny.
(- l.Er. A .ol The proposev/ revisten lo QAR o 90.S~ cl**yes l tie an o+ tes/iny. fo e yeSereuce desersp}k N,e%4ntialpertodec. Specifreahms. The Tednreal SpecrFrc< hon surud4, <e p,aedere ;s hased an
, PAe insknArnews +r,y se+yorn+. o+ +A a ba,,ker.
- .. Tha is an impene me /- in +4e circar+ brenbe ksi. T'h e proposed clonye a ooy! k the -
J perredte +esfr7, oF eguup,nen/. The<< a ao slay e ,_ . J. +4e yla d ag u y ~le,,+ oe ronf,yurdon.. .. . . . l for- the (msoks Jv.s f s = /evi f1,e cofe.scol cbenfe wlll no+ increase fhe yreb*4/ ly o r~ - ....-. ..
.<onsqu ares oF a ma%,e/ron aF e 6 o r- .
. crer7e f4e passibAtJy a-F a en H e<gmyniened nw/R,,chw m' @*S =
$ 9 4
.m,.4e.-e,ee.-e* . - e. e .# . . wm.. -4 a , . ..e .,
...-,_,..,.,,,.,,,g , , ,
6W G O' e$ M 9 +N-4 D@ peamw g geg ,. go g .me 68. 66 @ $ goN.g+g h e gge4 eGH e a e maa - a 6 =& -.um==@ e s em . ee.n..e e m e. % gm 4
r Pcg21 cf 2 FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM
~' h SCR No. // S-$4-7--2. -
SCN No. So% f PART I - ORIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was previously subjected to a Safety and Environnental Evaluation? - N L . - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III. g D4 No - Answer Question B. b B. Is an evaluation of this change required?
' D/} Yes - Complete Part II.
{ l' No - Enter basis and complete Part III: , PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previou=1y evaluated in SAR. , ,,j
[ ] Yes Basis: _ e 7-m [4 No
, t .' (\l ,
j b. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the i [
' I1 e Basis: Oa . M '
-~6". . , l bd No o
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any 3
*]
f5 b,ll' t
. [ ] Yes already evaluated Basis: _Qo Aged.
~
in t)e FSAR. M 4 [ k'] No C, ! , N, k h d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to
' k! vf {] s Ba s ' N
[d No increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to
-?
e. [] es Ba s a . A [1() No -
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different th n r3viously,/avsluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: OtA g, l i,
$ No
- g. reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical
(_ specification. ' ' ' [ ] Yes Bajis: . Q] No M over eo KadL /;She CaH MW s'd TR( . SA4dS,
/
G'WTfYh - _ - . _ .
' 3o% : Pcg2 2 of 2
.B. ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation of the change into the FSAR.
- s. will require a-change in the Environ ntal Protection Plan.
[ ] Yes Basis: .,
-( h(3 No @M Duld *M.t-
&= 4 am(@asce# A & M'A
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any
- adverse environmental' impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's
. testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple- ,
.ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any
' decisions of the ASLB.
I ] Yes Basis: . Me Adn Ovn /2 - SM dweell- hM 7 . b , [>l No s- &V dd/Amir Q% Aas " s
- h 'i
. k,s i js 8 c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-
.' ' ! ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
t
-l]
i I [ ] Yes Bajis: M_ 4as % edC/ m
' [2fl No - (hM &
l .5AA hem % '
,${*
s WA&Mr oe Wu .(linJ.
- d. conceftis a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-
,, ; g, l ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse
- l, environmental impact.
, {[ b'!
- : [ ]-Yes Basis:
Da '2t~8. b .
. i [W No .j,- ,- ,.
m (; ., ,............................................................................ PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE ( Originating Organization A. 2 llh$ - Sec'i:fon Manager /Supervirifr/ Fate OriginFtor/Date // i- ________________________________________________.. i B.- Nuclear Safety and Compliance (' (- l A Sa ety Rev e Action Serial Number /tl
$ 'fT l ~.1 - r J- ,
[ oLILR ~ (TM7f08 W QWL l5 V f Reviewer /Date Manager of Nuclear Sifety and Complian6e/Date C. Radjological & Environmental Servicts did& d'Ar4Y / Reviewer /Date Manager of Radiologic & Environmental Services /Date D. Nuclear Licensing (
&J. W V!YAV ResponMbleLicensingEngineer/Date 21 ManagerofNucleafLicensing/D(td 30 rkl+
FSAR7sd2 ann _m
{'/. "- . .c. 7p p . . , , ,
.m u l
14 ~.Ef[43
~ ~ ~ - - - - - . .
~ " ~ ' ~ -
TRANSMITTAL OF PROPOSED CHANGES agg , l TO GRAND GULF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
- . . 1. (GGNS - X44) v _
gUBJECT: Technical Specification 4.3.7.6.c and Table 3.3.6-2, pages 3/4 3-73 and 3/4 3-52, respectively. - DISCUSSION: The surveillance requirements of 4.3.7.6.c require that prior to withdrawal of control rods, the Source Range Monitor (SRM) count rate be verified to be at least 3 counts per second (cps) with the detector fully inserted. Table 3.3.6-2 requires a SRM downseale trip setpoint of 3 eps for the control rod block function to be considered operable. Based on the current SRM count rate, MP&L estimates that the antimony-beryllium source strength will be insufficient to maintain 3 cps by November 1, 1983, due to normal decay of the sources. The sources cannot be reliably regenerated until power levels reach 25% which is not scheduled to occur before December 1,1983. Other means of meeting the 3 eps requirement include installing new sources or reactivating the current antimony pins in a test reactor; however, either method would result in significant delays in the startup test schedule. The delay is due mostly to the fact that the reactor vessel must be opened and part of the fuel removed in order to replace the sources. Therefore, MP&L proposes to lower the minimum SRM count rate to 0.5 cys. Also. in order to provide consistency between 4.3.7.6.c and Table
- ('- 3.3.6-2, MP&L proposes to lower the downscale rod block setpoints to 0.5 eps for the allowable value and 0.7 cps for the trip setpoint.
JUSTIFICATION: Several factors justify a minimum allowable count rate of 0.5 cps for the SRMs including:
- 1. The SRMs are not required to perform any protective or mitigative safety function in the transients or accidents analyzed in Chapter 15 of the FSAR.
- 2. The SRMs are capable of monitoring count rates as low as 0.1 eps,
- 3. The negligible offeet of a lower count rate on the Rod Drop Accident (RDA) Enalysis peak fuel enthalpy, and
- 4. Lower count rate with requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.68 Revision 2.
As described in FSAR Section 7.6.1.5, the SRMs provide neutron flux information during reactor startup and low level flux operations until the IBMs are well on scale (Range 3 of 5 1RMs). The SRMs also provide an upscale rod block at 10 cps and a downscale rod block trip setpoint at 3 cys. These rod blocks prevent control rod withdrawal until the cause of G79sp1 wl m - - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
unusually high or low count rates is determined by the operator. Bowever, the SRMs are not required to perform any ( protective or mitigative safety function in the transients or accidents analyzed in Chapter 15 of the FSAR.-
- The only important consideration in lowering the minimum count rate requirement and the downscale rod block is that sufficient ,
' monitoring capability be maintained to detect positive reactivity insertions from the initial suberitical condition in a smooth and continuous fashion. Since the SRMs are capable of measuring count rates as low as 0.1 cys, the proposed value of
' 0.5 cps is well on-scale and will provide adequate monitoring capability. The 0.7 cps trip setpoint for the downscale rod block was chosen as an appropriate value above the minimum allowable value of 0.5 cys. With regard to reactivity addition transients, the limiting fault at low power conditions is the Rod Drop Accident (RDA) which is analyzed by General Electric (GE) in NED0-10527 and its supplements and is described in Section 15.4 of the FSAR. It should be noted that only the 120% APRM scram and the Rod - L ] Pattern Control System, which limits the worth of any control rod which could be dropped by regulating the withdrawal sequence, are required to be operable in order to mitigate the consequences of the RDA. The SRMs have no safety function in the RDA analysis. In April,1974. GE performed a reanalysis of the RDA (based on NEDO-10527 and supplements) in support of a similar Technical l l, Specification amendment for Cooper Nuclear Station. For the - Cooper amendment. GE indicated that the original 3 cps minimus count rate requirement was based on the assumed initial power j level (10~8% of rated power) for the RDA. They then evaluated i the sensitivity of the RDA rod worths and peak fuel enthalpy to lower power levels and associated lower count rates. The reanalysis indicated that no significant change in RDA results occurred with count rates as low as 0.3 cys. Cooper subsequently requested a minimum count rate of 0.3 eps (J. M. F11 ant to V. A. Moore letter, dated April 4, 1974) and received approval for this Technical Specification amendment (Moore to Pilant letter, dated April 17, 1974). GE has confirmed that the reanalysis performed for Cooper is valid for Grand Gulf. l Also, the proposed changes are consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.68. Revision 2. " Initial Test Programs for Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants" which states:
"A neutron count rate at least 1/2 count per second should register on the startup channels before the startup begins, and the signal-to-noise ratio should be known to be greater than two."
( b . i .. / b E-# .E - - . _ . . . . -
* " ?f1 4. ... _. ... -
G79sp2 WM.
' This requirement is reflected in the Level 1 Acceptance Criterion of GE Startup Test Procedure 6 for GGUS which ( requires an SRM signal-to-noise ratio of at least 2 to 1. ' Since the SRMs are calibrated to have a noise level below 0.1 cps, a minimum count rate of 0.5 eps is sufficient to meet
- Regulatory Guide 1.68 requirements. (This is equivalent to a 1
signal-to-noise ratio of greater than 5 to 1). . Based on the justifications given above which show that the SRMs have no safety function, that the SRMs are capable of . monitoring count rates as low as 0.1 cys, and that count rates as low as 0.3 eps will not invalidate RDA analysis results. j-MP&L believes that a minimum allowable count rate of 0.5 eps is acceptable. SIGNITICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION: Given the justifications stated above, it has been determined that these changes to the Technical Specifications do not involve a significant reduction in safety margins. Also, no increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated is involved nor is the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated created. Thus the proposed changes to the Technical ' Specifications do not involve any significant hazards
. considerations.
d p~".::r r' 7,7u rs rem
....r u e., s G
#fdf.~?2 l
w sof-f
/% __ _. ..
l l l 4 i t G79sp3
Pcg21 ef 2 FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. N S-Id- [ SCN No. 1P; o 63
'~
PART I - ORIGINATOR
.A. 11s this change the result of implementation of an activity _which was
.previously subjected to-a Safety and Environmental Evaluation? ,
'[-) Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III.
- [d No - Answer Question B. [-]% .%4. P.s.f,(s 0L 7t.,3. T..
B. :Is an evaluation of this change required? p f-t y-p { ~~~ ~ ~ [ Yes - Complete Part II. - [ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part IIIt WY - - --... -- -
#w s,491 - . .-
PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
[ Yes Basis: % or.oosed ch.% does rot' ek %s e.or.cOfion.s or [C No avism+ ' wiu's. c.o v soit.e-e id h.ss e. -ha.- i ~ +iska b es a.~ dc % a. Th a Feee. ' sk(4od a eveh is re- ye+(cochi.ve).-)
- (. b. increase the consequences of an accident preViously evalueted in the FSAR.
'[ ],Yes~ Basis: h vIsih + h. uppu ID of nor d e d +o i s.o a pslee Md.
[v) No pre-ssur. a -Frek. - c.o o - in.. w s ( ~ o. c o 4 vsia. )
%s t,.m J de r@A to 4tet re sut4 ii. incrused ( e.,d;ived)
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already' evaluated in the FSAR.
i l [ ] Yes Basis: 5,6 +kis c.L 4c. 's 4- reds,'o~ 4. pressure- Isaf.s ' i [d No i4 doos not ch +r, ed. AWoa e 6r iM's.1ht s.r vi c & w U c 6 4v ps. (c.ontasseL3 laooIcl eanse. o.s. %c;g.e..it e 4 A.
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment $Wportant to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: 'S proo.s eA <A.x e . d.o e s M eff,.ed M etE9 M [/] No e be e e-h, .t ' to' <detv . ik Nfo ec. if wIII at ke ru.s'c. -tk' r,4 t><_L # J+v .f o. b4t,'o- o& tLis < t vipet.
- e. increalse the cdnsequences of a malfunction of &quipment important to i-safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[-] Yes Basis: IE,.f e r to ife w " 4 " s b. ove, [d No-1. f.- create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than previously* evaluated in the FSAR. [ 1 Yes Basis: Efev +o Ms.nu "A o.6 o s e. . , [d No - k 3. reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification. [ L Yes ' Basis: % er.p.stJ ek.%,, s's eus.' sled s'tl. tke- crop d eb [/ No -fu +Le, L d s' -fo LA,L( S,,.ci Ge 4.b., W .6.tM /s deser*et4L
.i T,2We .-l specif.i.td~ funeMist Ht- Ts PS lo7.
I L- FSAR7sd1
30N Pcg2 2 cf 2 B. ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation of the change into the FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
[ .,,Yes Basis: "Tk orvoesed cbe. m ., to nef ec@ed sei y 5Ys/t ** v.5 e2 [( No la esa ni+. < be 'coctral -HZ n.lene. e4 <ZCluads . ~1hre.f.,re' tk. ek.ss. (_ do s t effeet tLt. EPP.
- b. cc,acerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple- ,
ments to the FES,' environmental impact appraisal, or in any-decisions of the ASLB. [_] Yes Basis: 6.fe.v- Yo Eter~ a. " Abese. . M c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord- {g, ' ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)). k, j[1,Yes Basis: P, der F id< "o." a.b.ve .
.) ;
- [d No h-S i d .- concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse "9 ' '
l I environmental impact. f I l i [ Yes Basis: &fer do 'fe- "6 " e b es e. . {u V l . [ No (
.y
., O'.
t i
?- k .
k;h,................................................................e............
~ PART III _ REVIEW / CONCURRENCE i A. Originating Organization
- -b~D9kt #Mn- / r o/r/At-Originator /Date Section Manager /SupervisoV/Date B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance l
Safety Revie Action Serial Number l D-<- M/-N/r. tor & lugmde D wC h h 4/n.IH Reyjgw33[ga33,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Ma3 age 3,g{ Nu3}3ar Sa{337,and g3mp}}ancefDage C. Radiological & Environmental Services Wu ghtd Reviewer /Date M WV %hy ManagerofRadiologeal& Environmental Services /Date ( ___ __ ..______. ____________ ____________ _ ___.___..__ _____. l D. Nuclear Licensing [
- AP shM a debe Manager of" Nuclear Lic(nsing/Date l RespoMible Licensing Engineer /Date l
FSAR7sd2 ___ _ _
3 o59
. ... p.; - x. y . . ,.,
": +
- i _ k+ 1 ..Evnt ud,c...~.. 1.' - " a
,,g sy_g y.p- ....... _ _ . ,
MfAt.
~
A. s; _. .... _ . 0-- (co~+kuuL 1.1._ dfeef el , 4k<' is ~ acrws!- is +% erob&li47 d.. A ~ scc A d - _ . - . _ - _ . . . _ . . . Ice ~+tbub 3 .
. . . _ . . - . .h. % c A ~t eoese.gvees. .A enve<~ o v c.. _ . . .
+Lis iarc~s a prcssore. _ .n , L, +3 A put __ .
co , d o.; d pressucc- S u n,9 ,~. s.ca s.4-__ _ y~s +R<c~sd in re syone +o .__ _ _ _ - .- Mvwfkrcy Iisvesb( (Gr Acfts h R$~ 5) ik. ..._ f (~ MPGE - sz/re sme -sz/n4- o->4 wa - a/oa. . ~ Issac La posfuldte -fbt
% h krcy p l h,&t!!
4Lt- co leuk +ia ynL scc lLt ycasurc AaNpig ) .
\
couIL b e- exceaAul by .i.o Psi . i-F & ... con.-h 6 . d getssvre- m . ok h Tuima! , . Gg d&han Id,+ G.o fsit) . ska. o4 __' A TsArc I,ait (-o.co4 os @ sL~r . i ........q Tate- 6.2- 4 L 4k<u. &c Icttcvs ref - e d 6 bove- 4c-56 t<A +Ld ecJsM. versos co~s a v d k hou A sni ysa < so R inC7esk. _ .._ co d a. a d p<<ss vrc J 4 s psig less 4L ~ ._
. . _ .+k vs s isi g 4L los c ll4,t .
bw - 1.o ti.e psig( - o. " F5 A)* - P5I'0 i LfN i. wg% J c M fc ,j =I4 i N(
, .- .. . ~- ? n .-. . + ~ .
. . .~_ - -n ._ - . ~_ ..,o n.. .,-
( 7 i i.. .+.
.. ,,. n.
ii
, t, ,, .-
.n, . ..n. u. o ._
aruta __
_ _ _ 4 . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . __ . . _. 4 f~,',',.,;'.7...}..E.?'S6'(*7 .
.: s- ~. .
Mdytv -- . ... . .... .. .... ...
- MM
, busAl . - *- ~~~
---~_
, %yo bn deles. 'A - fo r
~
n ~i~~W L k
& e, t-b 6e &&
MMd. t%J um lu h'al 0.1 skl,1 % W. l lo f.2 Im f M 'a. L - W ene #44++/4+# M d- ersf ued ik M u '
't a
ma s sQahiL}. Mit mal NewR L .
, Wo isuva.~u d &sccD &
L h c_ . e.6Lah 4L q a ; A nm_. Mt e ene see.e a *. W . m gesp-.+- e ee omeb e M* . - * *- -e .. *w e emm ee -= .. .
'M 9 ** ( mg agli W4 e- ^& M*
6 .Nm6e 6eg as .e 4 .g.g a
-.e
*-'Sh
- m ,e gM ee
( .
* M .p 6NM M@OO MM# -M9 *- 4-M ## 4me - M 9 9 99'Whe*e$
f e We g.e ,,g p g a e .m ew Gilm d' e *Gw am e e . .m ee ,es, y e4 == e m 4 ewe h*'eu@*' e = e 4 e* ..e >
^ = - - . - ^ -
- c. -,
Pcgs 1 cf 2 PSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM i ' I' -
. SCR No. WI-IT- M SCN No. SoE4 ~
- FART I - ORIGINATOR.
~
~A. -Is this change the result of' implementation of an activity which was previously subjected to a Safety and Environnental Evaluation?
~
< [ ] Yes'- Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III. . . . F e.. ,~' . . s 4 . 12- .p,0./.".,ng k No - , Answer Question B. j_ B.. s n evaluation of this change required? hi.P~N Yes - Complete Fart II.- - p~W~P ~ '~ ~ ~~~ - -" - - - i ) No - Enter basis and complete Part III:
- /E' YdrF.C . __ _..... . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
mesmenemesmemame==mmmmmmmmmmmmenemmensames.....massamanesessen............. i FART II - EVALUATION - A. -SAFETY ! Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will: ,- : a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR. [ ) Yes' Basis: rMgr Mstw ANALYSES og pg/gr kCAB pgAlg N No ;8 HEED on rs/f' - neAttT* V4& tA G af 8%1 A e s.s I
-OF- FCn75t. p/Gffant. Ov6MC NOT* 90 e
- (- .
- . b '. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: 8M S44.7 3Z:M. 4 , AAbvF. -
.[)( No f'
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any.-
U .already evaluated in the FSAR. 2E'*/fi4 i A apv r.
~
[ ] Yes Basis: 8EF ,*'.47" p ~ ! Cpd No y
'd. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to-safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
7 j~ [ 1 Tes Basist 84V Pl$/T' 2D.4sti 48pvF. !, Cpl No i- e .- increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important-to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR. [ Yes Basis:8EF ^'f7 .32*.4.e , 48cvF. ' K No .
- f. create the possibility _of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
#-l Yes Basis: 8er .WT T.4.4 A&V8; "
M No-
.( g. reduce the margin of. safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification.
'[-] YesJ Basis: 7Mr s*3M 4 Se7d6 codMt7F# 7e ASWF use# ra W8N/
;pd No ' TMF retN. 4/Vcs. Ana ynne Astone vAwe nte erttu ANAs v.sas av ~rwo- ScPS, f D TDT 17Ddt m ,
30T9
- Pcg2 2 cf 2 B. ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation of the change into the FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection w,37 Plan.
geygg Tys. ,cg4,( 7g Agggy [ ] Yes Basi s : CafAFC.Pw$ sjesc r. gAve ao ( yrc#, w,t s,
% No Doc uMa9uTs Ace o 7p/s7p/s-EnNrAoHHenSh AffEtT' ca
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB). supple- .
g g ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any - }M,, . decisions of the ASLB. j,3. i 'l [ ] Yes Basis: SEE /%G-7" S. 8. Q. ) 48cW . I No l r<, i ; (*t * '
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-
'/? ! ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
Yes Basis: SAT ~ & .Jr.8.8% M F_ lI L-J . l[] i Q51 No
.I '
I d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-f/ ments specified in B.I.b. above, which may have a significant adverse
'f? *y I L *4 environmental impact.
, S. 4 k. [ ] Yes Basis: h M;"7- . ZII. 8. *; /(80V6 d.* Y kt k%g[_g'96No PART III - REVIEV/ CONCURRENCE A. Originating Organiza_ tion
* - f Originitor/Date '/ Section Man'ager/Supervi'sof/Date B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance Safety Review Action Serial Number o
Reviewet/Date Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date C. Radiological & Environmental Services
&%A aIneM Reviewer /Date h%Yh7lfY Manager of Radiolcif cal & Environmental Services /Date D. Nuclear Licensing
(
? ' Y /) $$ h Respon(/ble Licensing Enginee'r/Date Manager of Nuclearglicensing/pate/
f7VO7Cd2 m
Fcg2 1 ef 2 i FSAR CHANCE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. MS-F4 2 0 , ( SCN No. S o foe .,
~-
PART I - ORIGINATOR A. -Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was ' previously subjected to a Safety and Environnental Evaluation? ,
~
[ ] Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or w - equivalent. Complete Part III. f .[ g No - Answer Question B. .- B. -Is an evaluation of this change required?
- n r s nd omplete Part III: 86- A O.g[- $/;
PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR. '
[ ] Yes Basis: Go . j y No J !! ^
.y r--
J, l increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the t, ]s. , I b.
, []Ye Basis: ~h_o 2 , a *
' 5 b [y No -j jf < ft . a y ' 7v- . ll. j- c'. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than J3ny .
"" already evaluated fry t e JSAR. o *
** l
. t- [ ] Yes Basis: E. d8ftte. ag. _a
{ p) No 4//T { ,.'yb -
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important tov
.'.,, safety previously ev bua e in the FSAR. ;
j Y(? [ ] Yes Basis: Bs
. I---, ' 4 *h ' 1 [/] No 4: -
- A / /?
(v i
- e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipnent stoportant to >
safety previogsly ev lu top in the FSAR. ' [ ] Yes Basis: Un s/f. ..
- 5 r- A l 'k
~
ly*] No <-i
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different th ev ously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: fa. .
~ t A,
[f No /V Y) .- __ reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical
~
g.
.(
[] 'i'a " h $w $ CM Jf@ YT .
~
/ , , , . -
[4:1 No /M v . _3 (, s. FSAR7sdl nnfLA9 _.- - __
- 9660
' Pcg2 2 cf-2
'- N -B. ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation of the change into the FSAR.
V ' s. e in the Environmental Protection Plan.
' will require Basis:a W diF # 484 4 caddare M. #_+
chang
- ( -
^
y[ ]} no.
b. Yes in e . .- concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in.any
..,A adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final i Environmental Statement (FES) as~ modified by the NRC staff's
(> testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple- . ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any decisions of't eco-Aa ( .] Yes Bas s: ASLB. k s -/g d ,/f3%2 as @ w,I meIa8 l 5 d! W {'1 e
* ,'QQ No Oe . t* 4 , -
'h:
-l :
g?f , # [ i!c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-Y i ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2))M.r , cM. d4. Am.a m .al M m A,m f .' ' { ] Yes Basis: S_a .2E 8 6 4 :" '- ..
'V I Awt$,
[';. i. , [yR No <- ma (, concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-
~,
{ )l ed.
.s ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse
, f,. ,, g . *:
r' [ *} environmental Yes Basis: Mimpact. ' T. 6 $. q*.; g kg ** [/") No N 4 *
- 3 go . y l W' ,f k i ' .......... .
.y n r'
/ PART III - REVIEW /COUCURRENCE L P. A. Originating Organization
- b. 4~ 3~ ~$Y fa)N ~
Y Or,1ginator/Dat4 Section Manager /Superviso'r/Date i .. ' i. j B. Nu Q ar Safety and Compliance Safet Review Action Serial Number [ 6M-
' ' Yj P*"?j,1&a(OA hu V//1/f%/
gg ' cf i
'tr 4 // s/ V /
1ReviedEr/DaFegf
'/ Manager of Nuclear pfety and Compliance /Date e'
C.s.Radiologi, cal & Environmental Services k h/le&Y l
, Reviewer /Date Manager of Radiolog al & Environmental
~ * % Services /Date D. Nuclear Licensing
{ b f 2W chh Y, fcc th Respoddible Licensing Eng'neer/Date i ManagerofHucliarLifensing/Dati /
~
+ M _
5oso
- r. - . - - , -
-,..w
.L ' s - . . s' ^ 1. . '!- L . S. ,
. . ?. ~ - - - -
g Besi.s Pac + I.B u? . .m_Y'.c192n w
- 4N--
The con /a>>me,d <s6me in ~& Ale J. 3 -y inddes +1e . ofrywell vehme. The chany e k 5ble / 3-4 - co rreds thi.s error [ 7he ' n/umes i +1. 7khie G.2 -f
-. ere corrtal owl- 4. six aird .seven symfrer~f 'Y d, Ns.
y rhis level of rs us + neees.rary k y
< Rey +e17 desc ribe tAeawareey// drywr o<- conhr>%m en +
vol>>,es - The rev.ston 4 ~5Lle 6.2 -l enna/s o FF t-hese numbers. .h TaAle 6.5-6 +Ae eon kinmen+
. . . . volume line/valiny drywe//) was m is ! k k / J,y e lypoy rephtra / e rror- k be I,640,000 f+3 ~ Em-li of
.. fAe yrepos& c beny e.s is an esfr/ ore l cbey' e .
lC ro rrec'l* q 4- error- Or lo C l*ri
.... - unnece.ssa den!ly,ooy%refl>rta - o I!.2 /ria. =,, = e :^= !' A'0h Sf
. ts -ep r ..
$/dum, 5 of/de' calcola& 5 N FW
- 6.2.././. gci w frde s 4 t w seau- w are cow rs'sQ
. & " "'M <r<-ar a ca/eudaM . .. .
.*4t n -,u mk L 4a' DSS ,see xfMseen &f 6fa 6, ima w &a-/-.
(&atk- car /,9,l8/) . .. . . - . . _ - ...
~ ^
rn 4 an m, ./w mt Ge ~~n. 49 ~ :??+ AA-e u
.y A nsAtaAMg
,y..n r 4-M' ~
m f y w ,. y e' - #
/E A 3
+ * * *. . - - . . . * . - = - _ . . - - ..
*".M .* *^.me =wM8 *-4
- gem w o - e m=gagg,. g h m e pe o e.
_ _ __-_z__----____- -- _ _ . _ - . 9 9 9 -(X.T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fcg2 1 cf 2 FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No NS- $4-14 C SCN No. 30M PART I - ORIGINATOR
.A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was previously subjected to a Safety and Envirotmental Evaluation?
[ ] Yes - Attach a copy of~the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or , equivalent. Complete Part III. . [d No - Answer' Question B. . ,_.- -
.... . .4 B. Is an evaluation of this change required? - - *' - '--~ ~~~* -~
' [d Yes - Complete Part II. - --
'[ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III: _.
T i FART II - EVALUATION A.- SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will: + a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR. *
,p ro p o s,J. c6 4 corrced error.s ,L & (, s4,*%
[]Yes. Basis: A ef p, a tri.U m f . 6 <,We.s. .:.o tM 4t n.vkul 6.6fe. O [wl No u:Il' acun.NeIn raktuk 4ke ackt Ioh size.. ('codiswei ) g
- b. increase the consequdnces of an accident previously evaluated in the i FSAR.
[. Yes Basis: Ee/4.v- fo Nw "6 # above.. [/ No
- c. ' create the possibility of an- accident of a dif ferent type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.
Basis: ' Edev 4. 'de.~ # a." a b sc. . [d]Yes [ No (. L d.- increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety'previously-evaluated in the FSAR. l . f.4de.v- 46 We ~ "5" 46.n [ ((#)[No Yes Basis:
-e. . increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ Yes Basis: Erhr to Ife "a." abas4 l- [ No
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to
' safety different than previously" evaluated in the FSAR.
[jYes Basis: PJe.< to ~4e m " a. bose. . [G No
- 3. : reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification.-
[: Yes- Basis: ~TL. pro p o s 4J. cim.., elo rof erffted Ao
~Pc/w'6J
,.o+ Meef %
! l{ No <; cec :.Ger+a w' s/d . f. 4. , 'T w i. 41u.<o h re.
- h. .s -G r -W. s L L . M b u K e'd rL4 .
~
FSAR7sdl retug
" Sot >3>
. Pcg2 2 ef 2 :
B. ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation of th2 ch:ng2 into ths FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
( ) Yes ' Basis: ~ik-ch m do d offee.+ e.(fisad reJuses 1% n fan . [V) No 4La.a don'+ of M & S e- E P f.
- b. ' concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in'the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-ments to the FES.. environmental impact appraisal, or in any -
decisions of the ASLB. d, e ~ "e- alm ve-- []Yes Basis: Cs/v- Y [q No
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
[ ]'Yes Basis: fa l v fo Ne_~ s " a b se . [d No d.. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact. [ ] Yes Basis: - Cele.;r - b Ife~ ' e *
- E>bt .
[d No - -.
'~'
2' - 1 i
....a...
.# FY .? L - . _ . . ... _,
PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE e,. m y
~ ~-'~~~ ~ - - .... ...._;. ,
. l, A._ Originating-Organization LC"U[f.if _
bW alw Originator /Date ssx d Vik-Section Man'a'ger/Superv'isor/Date B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance Safety Review Action Serial Number Q Reviewer /Date-A)41-Pl sie & gh Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date C.. Radiological & Environmental Services Y% f V E% 4hd Reviewer /Date / l e ManagerofRadiologicaf)&Environm'ntal <" Services /Date ( D. Nuclear Licensing t
. ^- Y //h{ $ _.
Respons%1e Licensing Engineer /Date Pfaiiagerof'NuclearLpensing/ fat (' FSAR7sd2 M
3e
. .. . - . . . - - r, . .-
(; '
- Q7.{ "TT ..Eva [vbn rt.-
'I -*'
,s .7y.,,
. ,.~.~~....._ - - - ~ - -'
A. 54+y . . .. E.fdr. :- ___ . ._. Z.~_T___T___ . . .-
~
[ N. (codw S: 5c ^ eole rN regN rl, .. ._ . . . - c.ods.;m~4 ya~deda.~s 4'oeus ce ._ _
. . _ _ p AadaI -Co e c. raa,Laave . a.k.se. L g .__ _ .
flose As oto+ea . k SR P c. z . 4. , . f es drzWs . .
% M% ev&& s aIva. eto s uw Gs ,._ _....
isoIcdto& $ Is a.d redvudt c-f __ _
'soldton aw us , %y ao ,rd u svaJun-te- __ _
la sacs w a L n4ge.ct -h> m Y cosecr % . HL a 4 ;,.cfi aA.us.. s,a A. i po go ceJ. efq t. e do- u f e k.~g o.~y of ._._.
. . . . .% iks wi+L wLaL u. uec th eorua.cn d) .
M s u.c.YL4.S c, h.4.-
~
, . .-. k Cd-A.w<3g do '> ro b e b f 7' . . .. .
._ o r e a n s a. y v<..t w o f s.~ s.u.; dud, cred u n
- d.%& h, ea.~ d i a a. & , o r dFuk s.Y .
< v;9n~+ ,~p ch.
- s c~ u .
A a home * - * *
- e . **m ULL##
. Fcg1 1 af 2 TSAR CHANCE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION A- m -n/oozs- FORM SCR No.*Nf-fY " 3 6 SCN No. 'Bo fo 4-i
- .PART I - ORIGINATOR
~A.
Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was previously subjected to a Safety A C /and
- t.N., Environmntal v, .' , f r., , A - Eva equivalent. Complete Part III.
bgf No - Answer Question B. /0. -- . . . . . - Is an evaluation of this change required? ~ ~ ~ ~~'~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ B.
)4 Yes - Complete Part II.- Enter basis and complete M- Part III: - --
[ ] No i PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation a. of the change into the FSAR will: increase the pro evaluated in FSAR. _ [.) Yes Basis:ft.S 7WE DETCM AAA Mid IMD! CANT MT- yygsf
>d No VA4Ih'3 AGE 4eckED ceasEO. As- t=SAE. C.HAA!&d' JEFLECT5 increase 'D+f PtofAArt" the consequences an accident 6_Desaf/t/QA.vQA6 previously evaluated in AWthe D&D
( b. FSAR.
/7'EA4. _ ;J r A . d.j Afa/E.
[ ] Yes Basis: 843-
>4 No c.
creat'e the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR. .'Jr. 4. e, Agave [ ] Yes Basis: 8/F irFA , hd No l.
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previous 1 evaluated in K. thedFSAR.
a , 48WF. l. i [ ] Yes Basis: E r7 eat - ' Pf] No
- e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previous 11 evaluated in .2Z~ the FSAR.A8dVF, dia .
l
} Yes Basis: JEF /1FA1 "
l No l create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than previous 1 evaluated in the FSAR. f. l> 4.0 , AgaM. ! Isr M A4 ! [ ] Yes Basis: ' _ D() No g. reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical
- i. I specification. 7e As#dF FIM /.f 86*G CoAAst7FC 74 SPfts. , AND Ma CHANGE is
[-) Yes Basis: 77s(d' yp W r i 4{. 4Yt^J MADB Cy] No W t'TM PoANr en To ofstG N DecbMav!T5 /14 5 FSAR7sd1 MiLBS
F,g2 2 of [ F
;7 B.- ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation of the.ch ngs into tha FSAR.
- a. will require a chang88 /e87Pe*J in the Environmental
# 724pyr t/44 Protection V4T cAef Plan.
MM [ ] Yes Basis: "7?M~ Nd Mff2~ & & @ M d FI G A WAbese*F M - g b!Q No '
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a,significant increase in any adverse environmental' impact previously evaluated in the Final
- . Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB). supple-ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any ,
decisions of the ASLB. .2r.[.dt j AgCVE:
'l Yes Basis: 8t"r /7FAr ~
t [W No c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord- . ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)). 7WE - vat VM MS N07'
. I ) Tes Basis: AS 7WE POSIN0N is No of C";Gf M ,myENT1 et W No 'OAyyggt >v62Vs b TW-d--
' A&YEL,
> d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact. 22.],% M VF, Basis: ,5%.e . @ '
[W]YesNo' - .. . . , ,.
.~:.'. . /. u ^;
L.
- a; ; , ,,
............................................ 42.;!1'.l.' M f54* $. .................. .
t ~ & NW PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE tN yf -=f Originating Organizagion A. c'* 2 M e M )' stk e4/rn \ Origin # Eor /Date // Section Manager / Supervisor 1Da'te i B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance Safety Review Action Serial Number l_ L I L Reviewer /Date
/3/1/4'/ 't773 -Pt 4*M Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date-p C. Radiological & Environmental' Services _
7 b ..T Reviewer /Date 4 /f. ' Manager of Radiolo ical & Environmental Services /Date 1 i- D. Nuclear Licensing lY ).f f'p Responsible Licensing Engineek/Date M4nagerofNuclearpcensing/Date I FSAR7sd2 ruut an
.f-Pcg') 1 of 2 FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. NS4Y- Y/
SCN No. sos r ( PART I - ORIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was previously subjected to a Safety andn--Environnental Evalu , - .; . ..% equivalent. Complete Part III. 1' .
- . I , .'
. ' '", .5 -
M No - Answer Question B. - lFht -- -- . _ . . . _ . . . B. Is an evaluation of this change required? N Yes - Complete Part II. d, g AW"~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' A/ .,fm [ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III:
,_.m
= ,.yetu ... .-..-- .. _.._ .
f PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:of occurrence of an accident previo
- a. increase the probability /50 GMM5N* Af8hY evaluated in FSAR. S* *
- SAff?'y ANALXSES case 9 7Nr
[ ] Yes Basis: A(AAf7* ColtAtt-7~ P
- Nth (AM VALME" or 0.JLW% AK/K Ne7~ TMF
/W /=ssW '94 2e tal.7, _
}<[ No KAAo*JEDU 2 VAs uE PA&Vio w y GovFN b.
increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the
^
PSAR. [ ] Yes Basis: fEF /A#.7* .2r. A. o , 480VE ' g No c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.X 4. a , AfbVF.
^^er
[ ] Yes Basis: .5si!!r ~ j>s No
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previousy evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis
- M
" 7- RM E a 48#VC.
f>fNo
- e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previous 1 evaluated in_the FSAR., NWG'i a=.dset I ] Yes Basis: M^r '
QMf' No f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than previously'.u.evaluated
. A. a , 48#Ve, in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: 64k- #A47- '
)hT No
- g. reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical 70 WAM I
specification. is EEIN G CoRAEr72D
] Yes Basis: YtVE ffY /S 1M T7/F VA L.tA &~ . >/F/tCJ/
7M )_ G o 77/G" CoRAEC 7~ 0boec S/41"S. Se+ ,fa w & JT . A.Q iSAR7sdl asu u o - . - . . . . - . -- . - .-
. ,o Pcg2 2 cf 2
~
B. ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation of the change into the FSAR. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan. a. V 4 sA E of 7WF D/U.7Dd WN M4td/N QC ( ) Yes Basis: THE CaME HM No ff=f*s r Mf 7M6;' ( t>< No nsf ABTC7oK fxWRoHMENT,'
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final
-Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple- -
ments to the FES, en:fronmental impact appraisal, or in any decisions of the ASLB. [ ] Yes Basis: [Ar / TEM JZ'. A % Adavr. W No
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
[ ] Yes Basis: 794f" H4d4F O' -/W4C.M N /b WM v4at. M l>d' No 4C No f f.=_i cN f fft.us N T5 ed
' EVEL.
- d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact.
[.] Yes Basis: 8FE rrfM 2Ce 4* b A 08#.
>4 No 4
M T Y . V . 9 ftf r fm e.- . . . . _ PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE -g, gy-- -~ -- . . . . . . . . (- I . h h.. , ,, A. Originating Organization ,_ , _ , _
~ !b .
- Y$ f <
ect;f en Manager /SuperVis6r/Date OJi /
/g&gifr6 tor /Dat I ey /Wr+-
- i. B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance l Safety Review Action Serial Number p g ) - 8tf f tl 7 3 h pures)
Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date Reviewer /Date i C. Radiological & Environmental Services _ D 4 (o Manager of Radiolo cal & En'vironmental Reviewer /Date Services /Date D. Nuclear Licensing Ll.dA= &M an ru khe kanag%rofNuc1[arLicensing(Dite ResponEible Licensing Enginee'r/Date l FSAR7sd2 ruut_rw
r . .. J*lk ( , . p . w L .... .. _.- - _ _-- ter _. . . . - .. . . .---
.( .adq/$.
JM -.--
~~~ ~
b '>a Manc/1, /919 vew/aar
. g & T A s i c.d.(t '
I& w
- c%w2, %)- % A2 'Oc ak.d, B n , k l .ff ,5r. l.l. 5 xa.qk .d_ 9 A 4 w % s bu
& 9 l m ,.
~4v6e :
2 5A S. Ic> r 'e 1 & r. W .
.. dc A ' .====v w \ % Mw'ikx gl7 -M vzbd9m. 2% M y , v ahp
% s
%v/6t -ho ima o%%vU ab to d T- h' hv M1 LG2Licl~ ans- i vvii L Td. 5-e.0 4 h 34 ^ w /./
ovvJ Gi E's N &
%L Ale . 957/+Mo% R?v. 2 -R>aau, W
{- 5kb 'en W J
. rwvenp% a.+ ,L o.2ey J.%;y' <
A
%.> VVOhren a.h[0 c o >t. 4 c h Q l ech vtrilk8s foix &bts s1 f
~
aM I ax
- a. t
-cb h jue>Je3
. 5 emi-hw 34 is imb&m- 7A&F
- 1. . h ~
g he icns i D ahwcyt ctl.Avo h do p fanA 6 ~ cowhc 11 0 s wa D%LL
' flus ty ' fipriv
%^T haAq h obt@m e '
~i- e%u 1LL l'k o'rted . patin era.c r " r -
0; jl.2 'T4to UTTzr . kao bm d, eleted . 4 .
; , , , , - , , _ _ . ._.,.n... . . - . . . - - ~ - - . - -~~c a_... -- . - , , . ~ . ~ - - - - . - . ~
Pcg2 1 cf 2 t FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No.Alfr.-E2 ( SCN No. god G
- PART I - ORIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was previously subjected to a Safety and Environnental Evaluation? .
[ ] ies - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III. .--
. ~ 1 Answer Question B. i.1 , i., , , g
[d No - t '.'? tit ~. . - . t)s**[.J f-n ! t-B. Is an evaluation of this change required? p~ j' - - - - _ _
/- -
[ d Tes - Complete Part II. [.] No - Enter basis and complete Part III: PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
t 3 Tes Basts: See Afhubeef Sheef
'[d No k b. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR.
( ) Tes Basis: See reswnSe k llem (er) on t/e ld No a-ffge/ reef s jy ,m e t.
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.
( ) Tes Basis: See rescosse -/o $&m (a) on [lre id No o-Hee hec / 'sfree /-
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: See Afhu/eo/ 5/ree/ [d No
- e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
l} Tes Basis: See f-],r. yeSponse -/c ik*m (cb on -l-be
\d No <>-ffoe fec{ .s),ee // .
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than previously resoonse evaluatedvo i in the T-lem FSAR.& on I 1 Tes Basis: See +-Ire ld No +1, e ahe hec / ' s li e e f .
I g. reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification.
\ } Tes Basis: 7*he sm rein of sahebe definecl in +be basis 7ee k ,,; cal </Soecifreaf on '3/q.8.4.2 is Hol- reducev{. 71-
\f No So c bases Soc + his Yechnu=1 Soecinea fron reovires <omohance Wilh Replelory Gade I.ld. Each mellod of theronol' okr/o*d TSAR 7sd1 profesfron bypass in fle chenje wiH, la FSAR secfron 7.l.2.S.22 ggde f.to g, cornp/res }{gfloryy
i 90bw
- Pcga 2 of 2 B, ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation of the ch:ngs into th2 FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
}w / Pro-}erha >> Pl*n does
( ] Yes Basia: TLe fe viron a,
+L e enoo / overla.d - rokh coso unf address +1 e
.{. lN No ,. as.. a :- ,~. rcot.
us,s - b. concern 6's matter which may result'in a signifidsnt increase in any adverse environmental fapact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any decisions'of the ASLB. [ ] Yes Basis: ' 77,e orooosee/ cdanee w/// jfsve tro (W No adverre % {tironm a*rrle l' forrose / f c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)). e dvorsf, do-s u,/
/~.548 1 ] Yes Basis: /~4e a'orosasec/ L-4sora e -;or +4e fr FF Jsais o r-
\d No e reo fe /
oower Juel. concerts a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-d. r ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact. f ] Yes Basis: 74e k ooss c/ar f[/P,[for, of fle -/ dernw a*+ [ here f/r e FSA R w ill lvT No oyee / sad , ,, adversf ' enviro n nrerr la / im oo+A en /..~. ,- . y g n p , "' ' ~ 7 e fI
.....................................................4....;....d.'.......
MIN ---- ' ~-" PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE -- - { M2.t4.t.- - A. Originating Organization //k -.-- 4-5-8Y Fds!V f~ - f Y. Originator /Date / Se'c t i on Mana ge r/ Supervi'sor /Date - r B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance Safety Review Action Serial Number h l Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date Reviewer /Date C. Radiological & Environmental Services
' lG(kf A bY ]W ManagerofRadiolofical & En'vironmental
~
.Revf~ ewer /Date Services /Date U D. Nuclear Licensing u h- a C6W a8 fiwIr/R-M'nliIger a of Nuclear Licensing /Dat'a Respons%1e Licensing Engineer'/Date FSAR7sd2 m . __ .. .
. s-,--y
. , ..1 ..
- g. . : ...
.g -C Y. 3% C.T_ftf Q , ,_ _____
.p>. u" . . . . . - . . . -.. -
- (! .!apf.Z . . . . -
- 17. A. n The ju ropos4 cla,,ye /o F.SAR. Sed,>n 7.l.2.6.22 will oral increase de probabilily J erturre,ree oc ca .se & an ouden + l .
evale 44.. yenees Noe ds a tAe c4e~ pre e <to ereny/e s the possrbr/ily of en acedea't oF e 2rfferenf +y7 4 The ela ye7hhnte/ brin ysS the e c r- F re + F.5AR rak hae wi+4 p 3/v. s. 't.2 -J tAe ac /ea/ p/<n+ desiyn anal anayses. The F3AR . revision will clacify tad ad J/ nioke opee +<>l alee a/iltxes , con +in vous +4ern,a / ave < /~deirea;}br byr s sehe,,.,e.rg,w,,, W Som e n .-a;':. ,:,,-s 3 A can be nrannlly bye.ssevl fo p/ete the valve in ils safe >, rode. one, n/res are on recei;of of a LOCA a v /o m o2./ r e :.:lype.ssd aQ a da ,, /y . na orof k I
};::: :g? siy}no/-3-. +:j, g: rp , !<ca , nag =g ft1
. (.~
,,e >-i. - ri v i - , , na i n,a ,r-i i n ,-,, . ,
.ia, :.;.!d? ,,,r/:p lr:;. . 7~he proposed cdesaye 1 claeifres fhaf Me p4d has seven l diife<erf
( types oF ther,,,a/ ovecload bgpess circvi+ry. AII mdes o-F Lypuss discussed tor tle eirce,9ry+4 l wr [ F>aR re<iston eo~py Reyela/ery Grole I. Io6. H. A. d The probalilily or- ros,seym< -s d e era /% fun af epipmen+ inryorle d 6 sa Fely a<e n.F ineressed by H,is F.SAR c4anye. Stu<e ofr6ernf i va/<es here o/rFFe<<J se<nre reyire ,,re,.}s l ./iffeeen+ +yyes o5 +Aer,-/ a<erlod yroL-hon l overrrde a1e needeel. 7'be cbooyr e k F.SAR { seeloan 7.1.2 6 22 deseribes +he deffaren+ .
+heo,,a l averload hypass erreur+ry H,af is wn,( ~
i,, de y lad. There is no eLao,ye ,te +4e ? '(. plad egups, red oe ros, f,y era -f ton. See also .27.A.w. L- cown _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -
" Pega 1 of 2
+ FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. 45-#V-D ((. . SCN No. '>m 7
~
PART I - ORIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was previously subjected to a Safety and Environnental Evaluation? .
'[ ]'Yes - Attach a copy f the Safety and Environmental Evaluation *
Form or ' equivalent. . Complete Part III. { ,'""" [ No - Answer Question B. , ~.B Is an_ evaluation of this change required?
. ).Wh. .
[d Yes - Complete Part II. - - - - - - -- [ ] No'..- Enter basis and complete Part III: _ _ _ . . _ PART II - EVALUATION A. . SAFETY < Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of.an accident previously evaluated'in FSAR. *
! Basis: ~N, cf ,v e. +o o lv e. Ezt Fos 2- A ,s et,Veral su.ec, [d]Yes [ No .4 corce ts u " obvious -fvp. mv4 W <-crer . m
' 4 (emf,ised.)
1b. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR. , [ Yes Basis: f e f e v' d o i .Y W "d- a bove .. [ No
- c. create.the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR. ~
.[ J Yes . Basis: Palt.r -fo ' ds.~ 6-" dove /.
[/] No
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safetypreviousJyevaluaijted in the FSAR.
l [ ] Yes Basis: 6 7 4.c do Tew "A " do ve. . [/] No
- e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to the FSAR.
safety previously evaluated C<-+e r fo ife ,.vin"d " d 6= a. . [ Yes Basis: [ No .
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than previously" evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: &J'er do Idei~ % ebouc_. [ No ( g. reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification. [ ] Yes Basis: ~L.- amoosed eMa6 cEo d *Nd tLa T4cd [ No **poc.% d';oh ' a A +WMore - <La part- f* 4ve e- % m;~
- of sonehy L % TecLe iw % sT.h+ ion
'FSAR7sdl rungs
Peg 2 2 of 2 B.'. ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation of the change into the FSAR. La. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan. [ Basis: %. ch s, 84 uf 4.&cf &. con.frel oc reic#se ef
.j -[d]Yes No effIutst3 . nX EPF' e's M.uch,n. wt 44F<dc4-
.b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final.
Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple- , ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any decisions of the ASLB... [ ],Yes Basis: Rides 6 .'fe~ "< " du<- . [d No
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
Basis: M er -{ m 'da,aa- "6 " duc . [d]Yes [ No
- d. concerns a matter.not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact.
i SYes Basis: IZufe.c 4o [le ~ (~Mo/c. .
~[d'No
[ , . .. . ... ... , . mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmma
- d'VU. . -
I4 PART.III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE 60.. #7 w . (.. A.. Originating Organization
-~IFAY - -= -- -
bM
~
htL 4W Originator /Date s1Y .. . Sec t i on'Mana ge r/ S'upervi so4 /Ditte ' 1 B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance i. Safety Review Action Serial Number f l' Reviewer /Date Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date , C. Radiological & Environmental Services
%D k ahM Reviewer /Date hhWO9Yt1/W Manager of Radiolggical & Environmental Services /Datd/
D. -Nuclear Licensing , j. h.2lL </ & />M Manager of Nuclear L censing / Dale
& ddu -
-ResponspleLicensingEnginedr/Date FSAR7sd2 RRR-l.W
e c.A 2P. .. I._ICT.'.' ATIE
-~ ~ ~
K,t E - Eva.luda;,n .- M.-n' * " . m_ p y $ .-.- - - (4.Yfl A . Lf a.. L codavJ )- % . ,*nned fwa- suef y...- I _ us;g,J L a. A. . % wsMM
. vJ ve __ .
Iocdas o.a % q L A +a re & d
& gbj p krd acs,g' ~3 . hc. e6 gc3 . ....
....w;t( at aLa 4L epada~ d +ksa. . _ . _ .
vs.lves oc %'c A:Id1 +v Perfoc ~ - % {c solchl Gndan. 'T h . rc5~ L L a:ser M7 ..... of 70.ua oc <eane a.ay e-Y isoldion _ s b cn < es, 6 d be ek 3J. 56 .. .
-k Lys ao J a.m A L odvaI va.Iaes ,nsl a. h L ~ s ra M 4L uP.e +c d L utzc ceguir ds, L pr. p os J &y .....
ao ~#.n<_ m praa9 ,_s3 ~ of~~ i a Q cr.A o- w lyp d n .u ., ~~~ u aw,ua ,L _ z vxin. n L A ;~.. sGm.e. . gmM
.e we .y.
=
e ,.
* $Ob$
Pegs 1 of 2 l FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. A/3-kY - '? l
"[~ SCN No. & vo69
- ' PART I - ORIGINATOR A. Is.this change the result of implementation of an activity which was previously subjected to a Safety and Environnental Evaluation? ,
[ ]-Yes - Attach a. copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III. [d No - Answer Question B. {agR UP:,..,c'TE B. .Is an evaluation of this change required? [gYes Complete Part II. I-----_.....__ , [ l'No - Enter basis and complete Part III: - _. PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrsnce of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
[ ] Yec ~ Basis: _ Tee- a/Nys/r/ S[ pef [vfNo
- b. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: $re aMaeMM s/ree[ [d No
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a dif ferent type than any alreadyevaluatedintheFSAR.M.
See Mc/ Sdre[ [ ] Yes Basis: [d No
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ 1 Tes Basis: s-e a bshed' x4eef
. [d No
- e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in'the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: See ,pfse/r/ sfre/ [pf No
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
54re/ Basis: see a&4d
'[d]Yes
[ No 3 reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical (- specification. Basia: 6e e aMaffr/ r/fre[ [d)Yes [ No U FSAR7sd1 - - . . - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.- 3od Peg 2 2 of 2 B. ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation.of the change into the FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
l ) Tes Basis: Isole} ion ve/re oower s e rreS a re hu f
- ^'
(. ld No o N ress & ro, +4e En viedn~rorlof no thees e a veesirerl. Pre +ac/>e*< P/ror so
'b. concerns a mattfr which may" result in a significant increase-in any ' ~
adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as' modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple- .
.ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any decisions of the ASLB.
1 -) ies Basis: Tjoe toyyelmm lo Hre oower Snvres wr /l noY
- lWNo Jrore o ra adverse purivoo, eren W/ r**,roer f.
< c. ' concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)). l ] ies. Basis: 71re oroposra l cbeers do' - Moh (konge !
. lyf No }-/ e e4;FJa/eso/s ee ,powd'r le ee /.
J
- d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.I.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact.
1-] Tes Basis: The correebrons k dbe oew er souret=S (VT No will su o}- Ju n ,.e tr o, derr.re eor h r**s rer en /w / h.starcf.
..... ....... . ... .. ... .. .. ...... . . ... .... . . ......... ..p.gp 3 . . . .:.;m 3 PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE ./4N 60 3ddW~ - - - - - - - - - - - -
A. Originating Organization d *Nh
~6. A fautforV M-6'-81 Adf l- l W i lf f ~'~ ~ ~
^ Originator /Date Section Manager /Supervis6r/Date' c.
- i. B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance i
- f. Safety Review Action Serial Number /Nh J Al leviewer/Date (/ p/
sq'ts Myag AL 6 -rl AN
'f Nuc14ar SaYety and Compliance /Date l
C. Radiological & Environmental Services l-
%D%.sk Reviewer /Date 6.(rf $LA %IW ManagerofRadioygical& Environmental Services /Date
( D. Nuclear Licensing j[f,'7lffm '/'?/h! 3 y ( O f T Y'"
~
~ T hl*
ResyMnsible Licensing EngineeV/Date Manager 6f Nuclear Licensing / Data f L fTfGZO_d2 _ _ _ _ _ _
peg.tyq UPT.> TIE-osfl % ~' ( Par + 3. A ~a y@g_g.eF. ... - - -
]hy/pL - - -
TAe proposed eLayes J. F.SAA PLle C 2-W . torrN-l - Jypograpkcal erro r and u, b erle d omasmn e-f power soques . T4e power .sonces for RefvcI,up W lec 7%sfe< )%p Le/,on a<e e everse l. 7% power sov<ce for de f( M & biose ExLossY
~
8naAe< o,,,rWed. Vanvm wn inde<%+y '73ese M eorreci,vn.s re % -1 H,e ask/ ph,-f oferry. T%e cor red,o n eF He reversal of power sou<ces mais,hns the reguired redundancy of the isolafico valves. TAese e4anyes will a o+ a % }- He aj;/;}y & tl,ese s/,es lo perform fleir se-Pefy Rac/ron. 7%e t.s 1,o chaye la +4e ph d eo 4,y ra h ,, oe eyi;se6 ad
& chanjes esft.e eF 6fu- a <Jua t plan t- desey a ~ d an dy se s .
& L da m b FML c),su,-a hu -
aug~ as A As , J/ AeM.%A n '1g%' c R . J Y Pa TS r 8tw k .d k M SW -w T $ gPgfr$g L a, tu%L w s. sav ~' k ___ _ m_
- Peg 2 1 cf 2 4 .
FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM f~ SCR No. bS-8t V
\ SCN No. ye 4 PART I - ORIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was -
4 .previously subjected-to a Safety and Environnental Evaluation? . [ ) Tes.- Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. . Complete Fart III. [v[No - Answer Question B. , , , ,, F e,n, , _M l n, 1. : 3 c:.
.B.- Is an evaluation of this change required?
' [d Yes - Complete Part II. -
_IM._. _ -_ _ [ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III: ._n - ~ . . 1 ..........................................:............................... PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability.of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
. [>] Yes. Basis: See ahae/M s/2eef [d No
- b. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basia: $er a Of[m/ 5/er/ t [d No e
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any
'L already evaluated in theaFSAR.[M [ ] Yes ; Basis: .6ee &t 6d(Y'[ [ d No
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: ' .5 m e ffaeffd S/fec[ [d No o
- e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to
- i. safetypreviouslyevaluatedintheFSAR.[
See e nr4 M sfee L [ Yes Basis: [ No'
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[. Basis: .5 m a & 4,d sfeef ((]Yes No 3 reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical
- (. specification.
[ ] Yes Basis: Ipe aMae/rc/ S[re/~ [v( No e~vrGwe m . - . - - - _ _ _ _
'- Pags 2 of 2
. B.. ENVIRONMENTAL
.i Incorporation of thS change into the FSAR.
- s. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan. ,
} Yes Basie: T/re fn vlvon me,clal Pro fewfinn P/on sloes !
(( W No no ' e-),orere [; no-}- vere fred ado {ress no lafran &/ow 3o is
- b. concerns % matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final
' Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic. Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple- .
ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any decisions of the ASLB.
') Yes Basis: 7b eJ,,,,eer /. /J//c 6.2-V4 w/// bee -
[d
\ No no asfypas e fen /iren nrr*>fa/ iyt
- i. . c. concerns a significant change in. effluents or power level (in accord-ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
L 3-Tes Basis: 7~),rs FSAR el,ee r dos no}~ rorwern er ik No e /repre e
/
in MFlereb 'o' r-m er- len /. d.- concerns a matter not previously reviewed and, evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.I.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact. ( ) Tes Basis: The Nonges k Nble 6. b 4 V w ill bore ' 115 No. no adverse W'envo'ren orsen kl r kwe f.
}_s4. . . . e.s t..i es i )l 's-.
((. *t7 JS-[f.~ W PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE g _ A .' Originating Organization . Avf b.Y 9-$~0Y & ~ Section Manager /Supervisof/Date fb Originator /Date / 2- --_---------------------------------------------------------- s B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance
' Safety Review Action Serial Number /1/
/I -
MW . WE s- b -l'l~ lleviewer/Datf g ' Panage@fNuclearSafetyandCompliance/Date C. Radiological & Environmenta_1 Services f I
. Reviewer /Date. ManagerofRadiolpical& Environmental Services /Date
.D. . Nuclear Licensing
'(
w/# M sn Aev ResponM ble Licensing Engineer /Date v Minnager of Ifucleaf Licensing /Date AR7sd2 qg g ,g __ _ __________ _________
[' N.""; [ ,:,; .~ . - xter cu. ,g ape"E
^^--
( Par + H.A - M d'/5 '~~~'~ - - - _ The clayes k FSAR Table C2-H a<< evidors/ dwayes n,ade &c m nsis k y <,i/ </ art fra-k. The noen,a / 4toa atira-l,an &c son,e sp %,s 4 is torreshet k clen <ly 1,,heda whef e /<<s in tM system ha<e ,Jrc4 abreefion A f/w. The norn,al Plow altresk J,as . a. ryd o,1 any asped af conhis,,, red isol M. 77,e +alle i.s chnyd ( k ;reflmf -fle askal p/,a+ s/esyn ea a,,alyses . There . is no change k tk pla.,+ conf,peatro., oc eg uigment l g A) Y NS gw& FAC/J m T" J' ' N Ve, l p "h l g
, g n u gJ y .-
-d-%.u A Tal sP".,"
l J 4v
& n, w S k' k~ M, A4 & f Wy a .(
L _ --- -., m. - _
Pcg2 1 af 2 l F_SAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. AlS-VY-%
'( SCN No. 3c7dP
- PART I - ORIGINA' LOR
-A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was
- previously.eubjected to a Safety'and Environmental Evaluation? *
-[-] Yes - At_ tach a copy of-the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III.. t , ..._ 5 r' ' - "'
. K No, - Answer Question B. J. -
.t . L . r r_
I
. . , . . J B .' Is an evaluation of.this change required? N ...~.- - s.-- ---
[Yes - Complete Part II. _. ,, _ , _ _ , _ , , , , _ ,
-[.] No - Enter basis and complete Part III:
sammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmme
, PART II - EVALUATION 3 I
A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously e
evaluated in FSAR. [ ] Yes . Basis: 7~& owy Act"odagwr ArdLuiA#N6 cast 477on er M Acg
)>{ No ^ts A FAosude . fctut. . cart 1Act RoOc in intatr, TNr Mattgaspy
.(? cf 74rS AcPDerFor bcniG Nor OSAF"D *H nov Ves**id' of 20s UT30M.
y b. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the i FSAR. . [ ] Yes Basis:ffK A#WIFA AA4 /'8 Gods 4 M 8EFJ FMF AC7944-VALUW3 (a395> IN TNg PsAt AcceetNr UAMIATF0AC. l y No k c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR. [ ] Yes Basis: SEE re E'Ak A8WF
% No
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: 54F /rFAs 3E. A.8, AgavF; M No
- e. increase the consequences or a malfunction of equipment important to l safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[] Yes Basis: M erFPt .3r".A. k A S W F, M No
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to ,
' safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR. [ ] Yes Basis: .IEF rFFe4 ."ZZ'. A.h 4 seWF,
><3 No r
! ( g. reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical L specification.
.[ } Yes Basis: '71/f /~SAA JS RFodG #QOVIS!D 70 AGottY h4 No W t 7>l rGeH. SMt. 119. /. S' AND /T3 BA So.t'.
FSAR7sd1 asunsa
- fo 1o
- Pcg3 2 cf 2 B. ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation of the change into the FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
[ ] Yes Basis: 7kE MCS J:b F.r ,wer sarstAcr- ev ers/ frykr Y No 4'N vin o M E N T' roe st+I y >t M . f
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any
. adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-
- ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any decision'softhefSLB. v4F s 7FN. 2. 8.a, 4StVI'e
] Yes Basis:
No
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
[ ] Yes Basis: ~77/g- .5'4c f por.r w o7- p ic7- 479Cigm dd
$4 No /bWEK sEVEL.
- d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impget.
{ ] Yes Basis: c.d4'ar trFM R. 8.% 4 M F. M No
', " ~ "
.....................................................'........i.'...;.;.....i......" ,' .; . i ," . . .
j~a-N44 ' ' ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~ ' PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE ( A. Originating Organization 4D0W fragr
- - - - ~ - - - -
O A Y S 5V W A/// , Y//ff Section Manager / Supervisor /date Origiffator/Da te B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance Safety Review Action Serial Number (L h^l44 4973 & Q m Reviewer /Date Manager of Nuclear Tafety and Compliance /Date C. Radiological & Environmental Services il (o b'Y ' llev3 ewer /Date Manager of Radiologij:al & Envirodmental Services /Date V D. Nuclear Licensing [gf,C ( Respons%1e Licensing Enginedr/Date Manager of Nuclear Liensing/Date FSAR7sd2 M . _ _ _ _ __.
Pcg2 1 of 2 FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FDPli h ' SCR No. MS-94 -3 h SCN No. 8&T % ; r.~~ PART-I - ORIGINATOR. A. Is this change tiie result of implementation of an activity which was
~
previonely subjected to a Safety and Environmental Evaluation? . [-] Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental' Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III. 3 ,. , , , , , . ,, b (dNo - Answer Question B. h_,.?;;
, I; , , .. f . , i ;
e, , B.- Is an evaluation of this change required?
~~
E [ g.Yes - Complete Part II. .
; [ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III.
lF# Y/'Ytt .. . .._ . .. i PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. . increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
f 3 Tes Basis: .See ANetbe $ beef (VI No i b. . increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR. Tes. Basis:- See N}dckh Skeef
.Ev[ ]f No i
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any t
alreadyevaluatedintheFSAR.lm/ t ),Yes Basis: See Af}m S/ reef n [v] No
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
. f 3 Tes Basis: See A Hubd Sbeef
[vf-No 7
- e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to the FSAR.
l j'^ safety [ ] Yes previously Basis: See evaluated Mwf4 it)d Shaef' [V) No.
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to
- l. safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
Basis: See Alleibd Sheet ( f)No (V Tes , 1 3 reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical L specification. L -[ ] Lyes Basis: See A#wcAM .$ #re[-
\A No i FSAR7sd1 "L~P _.__..___.__
Pcg2 2 of 2 So7 3 1 .. B. ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation of the change into the FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
Basis: No+hina in ;-he E w,ron menl.,1 Prok-/ron L (d)Yes ( No is bes& % ise k h n , vehe closure lire,es m ( >so e bar en is re.eadrec/.
- b. concerns a mat (er which may# result in a significant increase in any
- adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-
- ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any decisions of the ASLB.
Basis: TJ, o mod,*$rea bon.s }o elosere lin,e.s wo ll * (W)ies ( No no-l- Yesul+ ir, a s tor,1* ftra n'f' aalverse e>svo'rzw o., eor }e l imDeck
- c. concerns 'a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-
' ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
( ) ies Basis: Tl,e elio nee.s k feble d 2~4"f do >< o $~ lyf"No rentern a sto f,,1rea r-i- ebener s'n M/veufs o r-txwer~ level. '
- d. concefns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact.
l ) Yes Basis: 71, e e l,y,.ws -}r> 13 0lel* san yalVe cbspre (VT No }-;,s,e s w ill 4s o + have me ste n o-f ree n aa lverse en y o%*, wren k/ i m' o re /. ~..- f.. [ s . , .., ..,,,'m,.;.~gA sammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmanusmaandeness.d I
~ - - . . . . . , ' ' ' ~ ~ * * * ' ~
PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE . . . . . . . _ . i ' ( A. Originating Organization
~
[.
- b. 4-7 z9Y ,_ -
'/ [Y Originator /Dat/ Section Manager / Supervisor /Ifad l
t B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance Safety Review Action Serial Number fN $ 4 3 Q b ~~~ Reviewer /Date Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date C._ Radiological & Environmental Services f p Y-M-$f '
/
ManagerofRadiol[gical& Environmental I eviewer/Date Services /Date D. Nuclear Licensing j h0 hW Manager di Nucle ir Licensir[g/Date j Respondble Licensing Eriginder/Date l FSAR7sd2 __ _ . . - - . - . _ . - _ _ _ _ - - e __ , . _ _ . _ . _ . . . _ _
So73 F D C. G. . :...T C. p... .. T ::.
- ~ --.
_ p,,.) g 3 --~ .
. ~ .- _. .
wa %& _- T~ lie cbangea lo nsAR 7~able 6J-W o/o nof inerense ' ,+4eyro p>e.babr/Ny wsrolaf c>aur re>,ce ae coias p es 4 an a c a al e , d o ,- 1,,alfs ,chan .+- med. s-de fense of + bis ros,cks,an is prev,de below far- . ew4 co-feyory of ch,ye +o He i.so/dios, va/re closove frarres. 4lre eksure /in,es sbod/ de snar/cd "N/A" [or con}<issa,r / rsol hun vales wA,z4 do wf
. flose .. .
yecerre a & 6 ,. h t. rsol-han /s. 7%rs is consa-led w ,+1, ri, Teen dan . provdd Esawhere - is, 7' Ale. c.2-Vy . ad bs no ssprf~,<e. fo e - wrH, co,,st.shug' n.MI, f- rad,n,.</ fAe 7ni>,rea/ speeifedm s, Ives . . _ _l closure k es kre been roodd 6 the nearest The valves do s.d kre analyh< lp x wl, ole >,u ,bre. basd elosere +im es, so no sofe17- as,-lyses ere
- ._ a Fredd.
~
For- consah,,y wrf4 fAe 7kinu,/ Spar &<ahan,,& yefaee,,eas i. w J.,is, " do.sure +i,,,es are re<rs
- 4 . spec,-Fx<lIy address +Ae ra ,,ye .+ <-/ve.s. jvo .
- seMy wnalyses e re imy d d therefeee +4ese ore aoJ srynr.Fwan+. ; 71re yerissa>, o+ yalve. _
- <haoryes closere /imes k eyree wN1, t4e 7a~ 4,,xe / .
. Speerfecdros T.c those valves what are 1,a +_._ .. ._.
addvessd in sofely es.alyses is not 7h~ e re<a,an of closure /imes Sec Esi>,rfin,A es w4n4 . . r,,p, ad' SoMy analyses hve hen snade i>> . _ . _ _ . . .
- tompkasae with +4e kse.s and a.ss+,,p, k.s of tiese.. xnalpses. Revised valves a<e coasafe,,-f __ _ ..
\ waff, f4e b 4 eal Spesifreahans anel do aot .
- g_ isrsvease +4e p ro b M ') on consepences of as, -
i . _ .
, acerolen-}- o <- epsyme &y malfu,,chen.
l . ._ .. .. .. . . . . . . .. t' g . _ .
Pcg2 1 ef 2 Q
; FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION' FORM SCR No. Aj6-94--kO
. h.
~
SCR No. 36~14
~
PART I - ORIGINATOR 4 A.: Is this change the result of implemen'tation of an activity which was previously subjected'to a Safety and Environnental Evaluation? - , [ ] Yes - Attach a copy of the. Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III. 7.. c., 7.._, , , , , , j, l , y , ,G ,tj [-
, , , 7,
[ [ Ne - Answer Question B. _,
.B. Is an evaluation of this change required? . JFl? / ..- . . . . . _ - .
.IgYes-CompletePartII. cy r/ g3f$.
-"-- - - ~ ~~~- ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~
[ ] No' - Enter basis and complete Part III: - f PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change.into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR. .,
54yt
~
'[ ] Yes Basis: Se A#,,4d
, -[V1 No. L(
- b. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: See A& ele / 54mf ,= [vfNo
- c. ' create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.
- f. [ ] Yes Basis:- See AffaeM Sher /
l' [vfNo
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis:- se AetAd Shes-/ L [W No g
- e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
l [ ] Yes Basis: See A#seM 54ref l- [vfNo-l ll f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to
- safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
I t 1 Tes Basis: See A Hoedd Sbeef l [vf No reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical f3 i 3 specification. l4 , []Yes.Basjs: $r c 3b/c/ $3 ^^I ct4\at- 2a V Ccw4.u [vf No wl M t b elh . . 3/O 2.&. g l N ,
- s. .
m.. 30$ Paga 2 cf 2 I B. ENVIRONMENTAL. 7 Incorporation of the change into the FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
l
., \.} ies Basie: Tb e Envirea,menJ / Prok/ tan P/en e/oes hof stena / so ho el,snee is _
.( & J
' \ d no address ree virrel-valve iso /* hen ' '
'b. concerns"a matter which may result in a significant increase in any
- adverse environmental. impact-previously evaluated in the Final
- j. . Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staf f's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple- .
-ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any t } Tes decisions Basis: of *Th thee~ASLB.e boners -}o Nble d.] ~ W w ill l rare
- m. \WNo Ho adverse % irm oe*ro,4eI inoeed.
- w
[_ c. concerns .a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-(2)). f ) Tes anceBasis: with 10CFR51.5(b)
'rfr e r do M k forrrern -e cboned hones '
i \8 No. In effIven4s ' o r- ,mw er- leve /. e e
,~
,d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-
'ments specified in B.I.b. above, which may have-a significant adverse
- .ienyironmental impact.
l 'l ) Yes Basis: The tlsonees is Table 6 2-H wr/l I,are l 14 No* no adverre 4ntironmerr+* / im poe t.
.L. . /K.i E t a - L.' A T E 1
. . . . ~ . . _ . . . _ . _
j '/ PART III - R'EVIEW/ CONCURRENCE ~~ --~~ - - - - . - . .. A.
- A. Orig'insting Organization 8? N .
Y. A. ' DOM 0er 't- 6-8Y . fW Originator /Date ' Section Manager /Supervi'sdr/) ate t.
- 3. Nuclear Safety and Compliance l' ' Safety Review Action Serial Number /d4 f n
<f/f M . $~ 0 -
C. Radiological & Environmental Services e91'iReer/Date e,n W\08% S188Y Manager of Radiological & Environhental Services /Date l D. Nuclear Licensing A LSL] ResponMble Licensing Engineer /Date dd ,J.L Ls* ManagerofNuclear/ Licensing /Date N cuut.sr2
P 30~/4e U. z.~. ,
. i.w []o _ _
~
4 Subjecf o'f C %any e .'..:. ._ T ~ '- - - ~ -- - - mjg _ . - . - ..... -
~
6.2-9y maci, in lo' r m J , ,n an FSAR Table provides a . ton-lainme f 1.so/ahon volve.s. A nua,1b er c4 clo"le.c' are neealed k +4e 1.salal,on s,ynal for e . are proyd below. nuonhec of valves. TAe eAayes eles-lrrc moloc o} era f d y a le vwfees
. a. 4Losy,e from ' "yemofe manual" lo "N/A* (toki of 6+)
m a,1< ily valres fro,<> __. b. Chasaye opecaled y/ ode . ren/e maaval, ni,, sk.,
"h,yh A v pres.s v< e , 1,,y1. . . . . frie p, essure, h,y4 m a,s sM line ftw " k "N/A (ku.t 4 , _
- 4. Add t.,olahan d yneu,,,dically operahd y lole valee
.; on to w -. main toe,sleasee varav,,
" (kA,/ofl}
!I.
af elafrre nok, ye fd y Ae
..I d. Delete isokhon valve on " R V 10 < lee level- le<el I ,
eenhis,,,e,,+ yrmreIp(4hLI .+ 2.)
.._+ d<y-ell pn-ssv< e , L,y4
~ ~
- e. kne as ,J. <e psh o/e/ ele isdehon on
" d oiaa.,end spray
.: . . sysle,n ai+vahon " (+ok/ of 2) eledr,z e,,d-e opr H yd e -la twa,%
~
- E alek on "high RV pressure" and add "h,y4 aliywet/
pressere " (to+al of 2)
- y. Deleh iso 6 hon af elec/re <>w/oc ye W yd e wlae o e, " pax y,p e rama l " rad as/d "w/>"
ofesJn,,Gokt -f 3). Flow norm
~
- h. h] ele i. soman of einfrre mdoc oer-2%f y/obe A valve on "R V lo w ~ fee le<el g' level4ry 2l+dow l, o
ol<ynell pressure, line. bread ..in. . RNL. sL _ and heed .cooltny" ead add "N/A
- llol I of]~).
.- e . . .m-
F:::.?' C P r(c> 'n .;, _ . ,
.. 307 &
4
~ ~ ' .c
- i. Delele isolelson & ele-ha e $~oMke. oper _._..__ h T 'yole wlve on 4 remole maml" a.d
. add "N/A "Ag(kki of1)TRV level, .
~ ~
- j. . Delele "N/A " iwI-hon d pro <ess fiv d c/w ic valves ed add " reverse -% w" (kkl of 3) .
~
isold,on of eldNa mole < operdd
~
. X. Dele /e 4 wlee on v Ji,y1, h!PCS e/actory e flow /ow M dachrye p reswre , renrole me-I" $d add "//v A' ' [$h T L pelek e/<eha mo6c operald yale valve
-. ~1,,y 1, M ,p era L ee d od/d o-f c/mnap sysM
- yeyenerafr<e h& as6,,yer, s t cs acEJJ"(i.y a5)
~
- m. Delek elaha valve on
( " sus adeded " mokc C/d 5erdd .-F s) lde
~
~
n- Delete elahz mlor ope hd y/obe valve . Oh " l]i b kh5d fV 30 ry& -flo W, ver#fc
.~
manuel ^fa,d add '
" (loki sft)
~
_. o. Delele reference k " N / A [o e jnoress flvid .N _ opera}& refreS val <es ad add "non a " (lokia-fS)- . g_ - -
.wa,. eemime * * = = . -
me-=. g,, ge g m w i h gM M6 a
.@6 4e p W h 9 M* 446.,.Sw yt-- M.*
.m.e w=w== **es >W-ee.*hwee d.$mm e e 4,e a m
....-e.. -~
ct. Sat.520
FEARUcpf qh
, p,,. .j- y , , - - - - - - -
.2s f/*1- --. .-. _ . .
~
The clonyes /o FSAR 7~rble 6~. 2- YY hee no daru. 1,,,pc/ . os, : ar,y aspec/ o f con hin J rsdden. The . chanyes a<e mde h reflec/ the a c 4 . / p /a J destyn ad arralyses- The dapes will have n o <hm impesf on +Ae propee perfor n,esice 0-F ech salves'
. . safelp b elmn. Mwh of the i>rformdion in Table 6.2.-4Y is also todated in FSAA Table ).7-/.
Table C.1-yy merely pcves e smmary of e64 prone /w/ else wisere. 7'he<e is no e-La e k tAe yad l roufryvralivn or- ogui;omed. $c thes e _. reesons fhe ebon es k AsAR &Lle G.2-VY here
>, o . ehed on e p+robeb,Wh y o a- cor,seye>rces of an o r- he Irrse hbooc/ of on
- arem rded, /ron.
__ eg u,p men-I- alfunc . ._ . . __ ( . .
'-4-6 9 etisme M e .
w & ame m+,
~
b
-a , ens,e en 66 '9 med,4 44We a N., am6em ~** g M*elFm. M'a 64*
6.m.a a -6
=
- - . - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - -
- g sw 4 -e ege W -4 # *
- t Gnn_5Mi
e Pcgs 1 of 2 FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM
- SCR No. AJS 4-l -( SCN No. So 76 ~
PART I - ORIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was previously subjected to a Safety and Environnental Evaluation? ~ [--] Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Fobs o ~r .7" 7
" --7 -~
equivalent. Complete Part III. NS-tv.W
% No - Answer Question B. . -. .. . . ~ ... . . . . _
B. 'Is an evaluation of this change required? - cu Jo?r - - - - - . . . . _ . . . . -
) d Yes Complete Part II. l%y[pM __
[ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III: A//N PART II - EVALUATION
-A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. i & resse the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
( } Yes Basis: T//F AfVIS&D AAEA AsuntVSr3 ASSUMES No CA64NGE ol' THE Accuperir N No m '7mc- PAV8484or:f of occ uotswe r
'/Ron -rHE ca.o uskysis, increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the
( b. FSAR. ( } Yes Basis: T)ME~ AGVISED A$kt.yfiS $c$cW6 7MW S3bwG~ CoNea usseN pQ No AS 1Me" all? C N F . I. e . N a Ettff DAMACF octuks 41 A~ Ra35t r os~ rwi.r 'Ac c ounr.
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.
( ) Yes Basts: 7#/S s.5 A* AEVIClan ya AAI Accioper AndlyS/.t' M AEMDY oh TWF M A Q . Artp 7MF CoM5EQUkwCtX nWCG" N No fcurs O -m t r - A10 had.6* 30VGW9:
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
-( l Yes Basis: SEE- s7FA .27.4,e. 4mve, C4 No
- e. increase-the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
I 1 Yes Basis: Ske- rrem rzr.A.6 2 AAM,
$d No.
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than previously evaluated'in the FSAR.
] Yes Basis: I43- rrarm .33 . A . c . 4-dov t .'
No
- g. . reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical
( specification. & A774cdEb.
. [ ] Yes Basis:
>$ No FSAR7sd1 UUL-E@
f:. -
~
Sc'l5 Pcg2 2 cf 2 B. ENVIRONMENTAL. Incorporation of the change into the FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
['] Yes Basia:' 77dF JPV V/40MMGU74d. /3E0T8t. hon #4447 AGE 3" [ '
}. N No alo f AceweeVT AU 44 >'SFS.
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any
~
adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in_the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple- .
' ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any i'
decisions of the ASLB. [ ] Tes- Basis: 'IME AcVISED Aces armsT' AMhaYSos $4AcMF3 7MF te*6, WWecM 13 '7N47' N0
@ No SAAe6 CONC L U S*eN A5 tnt
- ELD fdGL OAMAGE occ 0AS MD 7 M 0tel% e W ',*FMt9t f /S N 0 saryAct, e
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or p"ower level (in accord-ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
[-1 Yes Basis: 5.e /rcier r.r.4, 4 dom
- QQ No
- d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.I.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact.
[ Yes Basis: .5'4w- /trM .2r .8, L 4ervs; [N No e .~ _ . , _ _ . _ ,, a * 'x %-: . : . . ',
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ns.tv.w.r..
~ - .. - .
l PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE - cu go>r (- lA. -Originating Organfration E' - - S. 0. & 9/7/W '/ K/ W9f4 Se'ction Manager / Supervisor /Cate Originator /Date d B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance Safety Review Action Serial Number n
~
Reviewer /Date Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date i C. adiological & Environmental Services 2 m.g b M &blq , 'Yh h V v W er/Date ManagerofRadiolfgical& Environmental Services /Date D. ' Nuclear Licensing (
} ~ ~ - R( h$/h Manager of Nuclear Licensing (Date ResponsipeLicensingEngideerl'Date
-- rruem _ _ _ _
T .- :' c.; - p e ., . .. g- 3pg
,e S- rf-w ea sorr .
12Kik!I _ _ _ _ __ . . . . . ___ j vws pace of overy see k
\ - 'lt.A.q. .. . .. .
IN . A&!E Fof- _ TE%'/. TA't. ff.2.,3 /3 _. 1
.;.. 8AStk_ ON . '/WG" P !f f&itEa!C F /N 7>ff' M cy & _ ~
. . . . W . A IP IT!*'& .fA&S!W W.. 4-cc up fNT W _ g_
SA M Y 4 th'r *F. . l. olo. rsse- seevtsso /st[ _ _ ANAs Ysts HAT DE7k?epauEP tW47- is rwe Aeterat_ _ _ _ 13 det47Eb 47 pHE . 72'c4 Wec. 4(Atr ex_ .. NN = / /Y) -rrffsv - 71/f Lowest AcM mve a de f* _ _ _ . M WW /* Ye _ ~I5f.AW. .e' .j 7ME M$k.. t5 -_N.or ... .- .
. .. 7)Yf J.(N IflA G CNf. f*d _. 7;VIS /2cs,f. SArt. /tshtG_th)). ----..
. . AMP __.
7?ff s*Al. Gin a of Siffe77 foR _ TMLc / /E p et*t. .
--.._ loswr...
is R AtNTAtMEP. .. . . _ . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .
..g .
We g. e e.e..>mh.uam..a e$ s w
. *.4'.e l
l
. 9m 4'E4e .we' &
.e3.as.6ig' pee . s+. e he e .
ee
.'*' 'T m.*
1 I s a a
Pcg2 1 cf 2-FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. # 8" N ^ N O 4 ' {> SCN No. S o P"1 Sa.
~'
PART I - ORIGINATOR ,, i A. - Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was l' previously subjected to a Safety and Environmental Evaluation? .
, [-] Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part 117. r-* ~ 5 m t "-.~.e. vw gNo . -- Answer Question B. A s'E '
2 " '. '/' ' 1 T .
~ ' * ' - " - - - - - -
B.-- Is an evaluation of this change required? - M Yes - Complete Part II. - [ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III: W ..___ - P/RT II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY 4- Incorporation of the change into the FSAR'will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously
+ evaluated in FSAR.- [.] Yes Basis: 7J9/f c#AN4F ce4 Aft 75 7MF F#36#_ 70 ' E#t3*J >ggnr
'W nGyg
- >G No AL4NT Ag Dft%nerp , goosT; Ang AAtAs ygrD, f esef*6uRA110 M Adv / ** ~ Accetthtacc vonw .- suAc Gosseso* set.
;\ b. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the t= FSAR.
- [ ] Yes Basis
- SEF /4M7" 2.4 8 ,48o VF.
- PC] No c.- create the possi5111ty of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basist SAF /A47* Tr.M.A 4deVF, U ' . PT No
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
I ~ [ ] Yes Basis: SdF A44T 14 m . AdeVE. '
!>4 No
- e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
F [ ] Yes Basis: Sggr pAdy= '33,A au AdrvE N No. j f. create-the possibility of a malfunction of equipment faportant to i safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR. j ! ] Yes Basis: ' fsar mar m A.=. AfeVe. N No'
- g. reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical
! '( ~
~ specification.
[ ] Yes Basis 7*/J ( cVANSd3 /$sfE Coes te4 73wP Ws?P/ W. M No DQt . Af% (e. *f A+1 O JTZ BASIZe i I m _ ..~ _ FSAR7sdl,
. 3 Pcg2 2 cf 2 B. ENVIRONMENTAL I Incorporation of the change into the FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
[ ] Yes Basis: T,fE INV/40BMidr44 gd7R7mW jg44 podT acT
>4 No. 40 Mast consAtMMgwr es0LAnoM VMWr AND ,7MewRmAE M '
uer tensas newsrow. l
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any
. adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-
- ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any decisions of the ASLB.
() ies Basis: Wf CHAN6F M '?Mr Abit cod $ents 9t'A06C To Movioussy, thQ No AtREtr TWr Assum. Drsosso 4s Aq4yago ppfg VAwfs concogs vn HM s. Gyrogsopft,
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
[ ] Yes Basis: 78vF Pe3 e r, * ** 3 of 7wess Wfav43- iA#bn A Arnese 1F*l No LOSS VJ oal Mor Affect 4WesumT3 est A wnt .
- d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.I.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact.
{ l Yes Basis: Edv A4vt.T 2E.I.dj A & F.
>d No
.. . . -.,_.. .._.s u l ~~ .. N I 2, 44.~f.Y d ? . . . ._. ._ _ _ _ ._.
PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE p. . yo p ? - - - _
~
A. Originating Organization IM Y-- . 2: A 446 Origi(ator/Date
$&dY
/ /
T r./ f - Section Manager / Supervisor /Date B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance Saf y Review Action Serial Number 1 m ve7s eiy#,o_) , Reviewer /Date Manager of Nuclear Safety and tompliance/Date C. A diological & Environmental Services u . + , eW r/D' ate
#W%r %kY Manager of RadioWgical & Environmental Services /Date
.D. Nuclear Licensing
( 2 J.s de Respon$,bleLicensingEnhinker/Date A /. M a c # Mkniger of Nuclear Licensing /D&te FSAR7sd2 e
m o P 321 cf 2
! FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. MS-94-45 SCN No. 7o90 PART I - ORIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was .
previously subjected to a Safety and Environmental Evaluation? i [ ] Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III. [y No - Answer Question B. .---~ ,..,, ,
* * - =
B. Is an evaluation of this change required? [)0Yes--CompletePartII. . p [nh ' --" * * ~ [ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III: - - - . . - . . . . - . _ . . . . . . _ . _ . .
............................................................................=.
PART II'- EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis : -/3 44.u., 4 *_.M //w d 4 d AI6 o gs. / a , M [f'] No sbuk/ a:Joeb/. Th Mi- k/coM;,4*/Z6: ' ' C sr d beh<.a r u iso V
- b. increase the clinsequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basist fu 4 [J() No
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basist h4 [j() No
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basist fee 4 [j() No
- e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basist,_ h er . [J() No
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to
-safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basist he e . [X] No k 3 reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical [ ] Yesspecification. Basist 7 /4 edsna ee"It & <*'546 he b ()() No c jd( 713 f T a t e T . 3 . 'E - / .
- 30SO.
- P gt 2 ef 2' B. : ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation of the change into the FSAR, t' s. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
g [ ] Yes Basis: h_m_/ mm d.A 44 s pp. F
\ [pNo
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any '
adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple- . ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any decisions of the ASLB. . [ ] Yes Basis: M e d asucu L- +wa f)() No m M A = ~ ev- f> >_ 4 -
- c. concerns a significant change in ef fluents or power level (in accord-ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
[ ] Yes Basis: ,/x.,s4- e ' _ ( M e m w , /as e m" dM M (KlNo mws-ns " J. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.I.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact. ed,v 4 I l Yes Basis: A 4 .4 . ~ 4 . [/]No ,. s- ~
- . " . . . ,,q
..................................................A./[.'.l.V-W ....................
ca uso~ - - - - - - - - - . _ ( PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE
~O" h" W A. Originating Organization KW yAb / '
MV / $ Reviewbr/Date Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date C. fological & Environmental Servicen t { $/7ff EWiewer/Date Manager of Radiologifal & Environmental Services /Date D. Nuclear Licensina SL chrki AW ruspas Responshle Licensing Engineer /Date M'anager of )Iucleak Licensing /Date N mut_ew
- 1 5
l
- l I CPMD GLIF 15.OTJJt 5TATIG3 LIIT OE '
.=
CllR4ES, 'ITSIS On 12'I-Lie.1M12.TS ! SAF'!*1Y N.D ar;11 UNE2flE, !?!ALUATIul fVIH Oriainator W. E. Edge t> ascription The Operational Quality Assurance Ma ual Doewent. Eraluattyi OOMt. Rev. 3 (OQMI) was reviewed (Revision 3) to update tne ya rrogram Pcferences FSAR Chapter 17.2 based on expertened at GGNS. This OQMI controls all 10 CFR 50J App. B safetv-related activities at GGNS and is described in Atta '..=4.s . I Chapter 17.2 of the FSAR. l
! I I b - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______ ____ _____________ _
j i I. SAFi'iY I.VAIUATIQi f
. TECl231CA1, SPECIFICATIO!S !
A 3M Gr:0 ,1.t Inp1 mentation or perfornancer cf the actiori descrifed in the evaluated docunent will
! ' require a change to the CCt!S Unit One Technical Scdeifications.
Basis: No changes made which are covered in CGNS Technical Specifications I except an interpretation of T.S.6.5.8 (Policy 18.).13) . LINREVID.'ED SAFI'IT QJEST104 E. Inplenentation or performance of the action described in the evaluated document will: O YES G tKi 1. increase the prcbability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in the ' FSAR. Basis: The changes' made do not alter or diminish the basic controls;; on'ly' alternate methods of accomplishing required activities have been specirled ' O YES Q NO 2. increase the consequences of an accident previous 1v evaluated in the FSAR. Basis: Since the manner of controlling activities which could af fect systems remains equivalent, no change in systems will take place. O YES Q No 3. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously e k luated in the FSAR. yg Basis: In each case, if controls were altered, equivalent controls were established. Thus the probability of malfunction should remain the same. $g O YES O NO 4. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equivir.ht inwr tant to safet.y vi ;r previously evaluated in the FSAR. o5 Basis: No changes were made to systems.
- - ** "' S n
o
;g
. m . n. m g...; gon - -
u.n g. t:. , g . 3.
'. . tf% 4-!T S4 _ _ -
[. E cp f oJ( _ _ _ _ c2 d5~.M O-
i
^
l O YES S No 5. create the possibilaty of an accident of a different type than my already eval-uated in the ; Basis:The controls PSAR. Mich could af fect systems. remain' unchanged or were replaced with equivaledt controls. O YES G NO 6. create the Sohstbility c,f a malfunction of equipmnt irrportant to safety dif fer-ent than prev)cusly[ evaluated in the FSAP. Basis: No chadges were made to systems. , 1 i- ' t t O YES G NO 7. reduce the trarain tion. 3 of safety as defimd in the basis for any technical specificaj Dasis: No chadges welre made to systems. l i ; 1RIIBCNfNTAL EVAIDATICN l DWIROrc2NTAL PPortrTICN PLAN j ; ; A. O YES [3 NO 1. will recuire a change in the Envircrwental Protection Plan. Basis: Not' included in the Environmental Protection Plan.
- h D. UNREVIENED DWIRCMNIAI, QUESTIN
- O YES [3 NO 1. concerns a tratter which inay result in 'a~significant increase in any adverse envirornental inpact previously evaluated in.the Final Envirorsrental Staterrent (FES) as nodified by, the NPC staff's testinony to the Atcznic Safety and Licensing Board (Asis), supplements to the FES, enviremental inpact appraisal, .
or in any decisions of the Asia. Basis: 00AM does not cover these activities. O YES Q NO 2. concerns a significant change in ef fluents or power level (in accordance with my 10CFR51.5 (b) (2)) . p,4; Basis: OQAM does not address these areas. **
*s P,8
...===*e** tt r3 0
a P ,e ". 9 U P D A T E 7 ie
- t FT. 4- m 34 -.
N coos.t . .__
,. E 5
Cf.-n=1l4 -4 6
-o ,
I_ j -- - . l ~ C Yrs lD NO 3. cormens a natte : not previously reviewed arul evaluated in the doctments rpecifiUI in D.I. above, which coy have a significant adverse 'envirormental M MCt. . . Bahis: 00AM does not af fect th'e environment. - t I [ /2/83 . Dialuated by/Date - Reviewed / Approved: M/vm ~ d/'M/S l Supervitor/Ddte' ,
! Revicwed/ApprJ/Ed:[ !//)t)J'8 l Funager/Date '
l sArrrr mD LICnisnc ar.vnw ! Reviewed: ' Beviewed/ Approved: Peviewed/Approted: p Beviewing Supervisor of Nuclear Vianager of Safety and g Ehgineer/Date Safety /Date . Licensing /Date RADIGIOGICAL & DWIBOcerrAL SERVICES RE. V IDi , ,, Reviewed: Deviewed/ Approved: Reviewed / Approved: Beviewing Supervisor of Manager of Padiological & Digineer/Date , Dwiromental Services /Date , Dwirarmental Services /Date i , '.
- { e i ,
, 'e >n 5Ea I
! ~~ , . . s
',~., s k f 4
', P., 3
- : - . . - - . - n
., , 3 -
t u
..r.
")
$ o
.i. 9!
rk
*-i ,
r.L e : $n a (i "o' i -
.h t-
' ' en%
{L , Ty
~
e
Pcg2-1 of 2
; e. FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. O N ~
SCN No. 3o9'5 PART I - ORIGINATOR SA. Is this change theLresult of 1splementation of an activity which was , previously subjected to a Safety and Environnental Evaluation? [ ] Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III. [ No - Answer Question B. re - 1[,6"] (,5{fp]( B. Is Ievaluationofthischangerequired? [ Yes - Complete Part II. [ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III: WSM __ n 100 M
.....................................................I..N.......................
PART II - EVALUATION h b gM gQ A. SAFETY' Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will
- a. increase-the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
[ ] ,Yes Basist b o_4_bi. # _ [d No ( increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the b. FSAR. [ ]'Yes Buis: _4 M M. [vf No
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ],Yes Basis G M2d. , [v]' No
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment 1sportant to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
l [ ] Yes Buis ~ s _4M_ [J No
- e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment toportant to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ )..Yes Basis: C _ [vf No 4 j f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR. [ ] Yes Basist de * *1J . [vfNo . i reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical , s. . specification. w & , s /ch ../( [ ] Yes Bests: Ma e L e. dia ,hd cAAr.f. el AM. e_ I [v) No r
-w M _ _ _ _ _
' 3 oG *)
I . B. ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation of the change into the FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Epvironmental Protection Plan. ,
c4 iwi /u ').03 [% % henvieve&kt<M
'3 d / C
(-
- (( (] No Yes - Basis: 'PyW/ Am PLe% ~
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's '
testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB). supple-ments to the FES. environmental impact appraisal, or in any [} s as a { & /Y O] % Cff * [ki' No Ti
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-5 anceBasis:
with 10CFR51.$(b)(2)).
'3 < d U n h.i< in W, .df &
[ ))es 2 n.o s ~ [d No 'yGJe m suo, ei ~J A snJ.L h ' LAAAtl .
/
- d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse t .
environmental Basist impacY f u b>64 rnsr[ d ca u _ 6 h s, u d M [ ] Yes ~ b wLeu AL 1 [WNo AA v4.hu m icy *9xi A t
/
PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE ( A. Originating Organization 1 77 A&w vW
' Originator /Date I (
d , 4MW Section Manager /Superv(sof/Date
,.m t . __-----....--.. .. ....------... .-__-.............----.... ----.
t.3 l s B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance 3 f Safety Review Action Serial Number M
- o. I b !!l O U wm g .
$ shb4 ni k. ,
Reviewer /Date (/ 9 M (na.!d.L:AD ger of Nuclear Safety an0 Cdapliance/Date i Radiological & Environmental Services f.I ' $ .
% [7/by eviTwer/Date Manager of Radio gical & Environmental Services /Dat D. Nuclear Licen ina gg
~i i JN $hd' Respobdible Licensing Ehgideer/Date Manager oi' Nuclear Licensing /Date UUL-A9
- 3cs3
( 7&a- r ocA c i h s A R T G.unA 7. 8 - lo wiwe A MsM W ax s.J F3 dsa nR' }pb - 7k fcra.*(- C- it;, .dbM s' o e Ovd., 7<r f <~ m s ic~ 7t~e)- si & led twv . odf en'9(cf
. a w ,' 4. he W , h&
,J M S L. L' m. .c m c fri sy M . % '.c C W ' S Y~ 6f1tc &
<?wt4~i W 4[h i'~ 7b 7 M~
.- W 6 4-.h % F. GAR. -_. L
._ p__ -
IT,. p ?.' 6 _1~i D.r" Q "i" p L.
- 4 : a s 'v. U.--:n'"
^
- * * ~ ~
t . ,e
}hftff ._
b% M, &h
.. d t" *' * - k oft 2 *t k f *W j # Y $ 5M N bCWyY'Y k w & dn h. .
{M t
#* * * * ' * , eg., w w 44 me .
l .. . .... _.. .
~ . . _.. - . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . _
L . g . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ . . .
P:g2 1 c.f 2 FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. NS-49-W v;(' SCH No. SoM PART I - ORIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was previously subjected to a Safety and Environmental Evaluation? [ ] Yes - At. tach a copy of the Safety and Environ utp1 v lys o Form equivalent. Complete Part III. CT RNo - Answet Question B. - - B. Is an evaluation of this change required? , _ J>f Yes - Complete Part II. . [ ] No -EnterbasisandcompletePartIII:/VM - PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated
[ ] Yes Basis: in FSAR.[#F Arr4c#fD SWary, (>4 No
- b. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the
(' PSAR. [ ] Yes Basis: 8sy A rrdeMrs gm
>d No
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basist fsy- ArrAWD swer, [M No
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: 5sr ,4ndew, svare, [ 4 No
- e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basist d"Trv ArrAeWe sveur, ts$ No
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ iee Basis: .Ser A r rsteMR rMvr, No
- g. reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical
( specification. s Basis: .95- ArrA*W8 SMrFr: FSAR7sd1 asut_ m
i Paga 2 cf 2 B. ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation of the change into the FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
[ ] Yes Basis:SEE- AicSo M.rs J 7e< AMP 2Z.A. ~ M 4~M ( 1p<fNo Jb f.5 Nor A chtess sarAvesL W er of wr m omes.
. b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's
' ' ' testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple- .
ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any h [ decisions of the ASLB. Yes Basis: 8' ear Afrit M /mer.2P.M. O'<; concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-g- c. ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)). .T. s, AvvisM
& ] Tes Basis:.S9" AUa 94 sis ska
[b d No oc sust men nAls won nor AAcrer~ Awat Levn. AMr .3c'. A. e W a. I d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-
', 4
@f4 [ ] Yesments specified environmental impact.
SEF EM83in B.1.b. #WG above, A441' .3C which may hav g "{ 6 gNo Basis: i PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE ( A. Originating organization h
/ /
Y $)AkY ... Section Manager /Supfrvisor/Date Y/YY Origidtor/Date I I B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance 1 ' Safety Review Action Serial Number /d4 e u S//1l8'{ Q.w , _ '5 $fiGN'
~ Mety add Cotip'11ance/Date
'R'eviewer/Datef f M
.._____f
___________ ......_.....___ _n. a
. . ge
. . _Q. Nu
. _ _c'l. .e. .a_r_S_ _ _ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
C. Radiological & Environmental Services \ l eviewer/Date 1.,w f6t% "li1/ct ManagerofRadiol$ical& Environmental Services /Date l ( D. Nuclear Lice g t [ l 2'. l .h C& Y Respor#1ble Licensing E6gtheer/Date U. LhT6L Manager 6f~NucleapLicensing/Date TSAR 7sd2 111,94 . - - - . _
FSAR UPDATE ns-av-v crfcfn6r
/ -ca JoPV _ , .
/a g _
~
.. . . . .. ... . 8 Asis fon fher E. A. l .. .
7-bc R AA cHAnc.c ca y eers rye usexipraa oc . psaAmn n o n aron. cgene cgock . M o c:M==' Fuive rioH4t. 7trsr AEQusArm P r-r ye BF~. causos Mr worry .
. . - . %. Gac . 3/'/.3.7;/,wui.x i.r e.axacr- 72r . - .
__ - - . _ Aram**Me"s. . .** rwr -rns . Gecs. . M r A **.c wc =e&'"
.. Jac4n. v. .. . rNr . 1
- r'"4~cv >"W h= d& .***.% 7Meer._
B X - - ... . G ' VI.4. % . _ 4 diGMt cox P **"c" **t- N dr- .
. . 7# c e..... e*~' " ' ... svn.'. Er ... opee nty. _
. ew ) dee 41 64-4
~m y 4.
~ .- .
e ey s . n % . J.
- 2. . 6a.A Q - ytd 1. .
.(_. A 77,4 A zu.
5 4 #gWW. _ . . _ . _ _. ..... __ _ _ . ;; _fp. E m JJ . _ .. d'. --7
. . m Me m e.
.&^ - ' "-
t
- s. ....g - ,e . ...e,w..,w*.ee.es6 em he e w 4e-M 6* wh a we ade e_*e..
u> w e M Mese m.D a
.r e ew4 l
l _ . _ . . _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . . . . . . i I . . . . . . l _ . . . I ( as m en . .p. e .e
*" " O"# # *.'
, e Pcg31 cf /S FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM < l SCR No. gS RV -10.^
SCN1;o. en 3o85
- e FART I - ORIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was '
previously subjected to a Safety and Environmental Evaluation?- []Yes-AttachacopyoftheSafetyendEnvironment4Egay?ptiottFormor. equivalent. Complete Part III. i*' 6../ us U bd3 ' No - Answer Question B. DATE B. Is an evaluation of this change required? , M Yes - Complete Part II. [ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III; ,dd _ _ PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR wills
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basist f4F Afb aI hM
., l>d No
- b. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the
[]Ye Basis: bo . Dd No
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated i the FSAR.
l [ ] Yes Basis: . . ! D<] No
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to '
ev safetyBasist previously_ r.aluated
. in/44 the FSA .
- [ ] Yes . ,
[w] No
- e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment faportant to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
! [ ] Yes Basis E .J/W M. ( las'] No ' f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment 1sportant to evaluated in the FSAR. safety different than Basist f; previously/ d.ehi chap, [ ] Yes [g] No ( g. reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification. l [ ] Yes Basist b M/ M l [M No l
~ cauten
Pcs) 2 ef /J B. ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation of the change into the FSAR.
- a. willrequireachangeintheEnvironmentalProteytfonflan.
[ ] Yes Basis: 780t- EwvA.eMI Adk aim e/eyu ( (% no ad/m dwwdl hf.se -+ A , r. -. clwan ' a V ' su_te> h /.
. b. concernsVa matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's
- testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-ments to_the FES, environmental impact appraisal,4 or in at.y
' decisions of the ASLB.
- k. ( ) Yes Basis: % Mosal lS44 c/waK had dll ) luvA
.Q < <
(6T No em solvv 4 'Qd e b ~
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
]' 1
[ ] Yes Bayis: % c/a.,c4 cm % 7I4d
, j 3 f61 No cfo, met ala,r ss ,Ka A fa #
47/krfn n ' A>wAA-r ., 1s<el. o d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-
% y,gjI'4 4
ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact. g G. jl% .2z . 8 4 A/ eve . 2('g A { Yes Basist PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE A. Originating Organization b ). Origindtor/Date Y /
$ .--Y Section Manager /Supervisoi/Date h
B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance Safet Review Action Serial Number w n nIn Revishrer/Date n 4 t-Matiager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date C. Radiological & Environmental Services r Yl'idY AV ]!b eviewer/Date ManagerofRadiolopcal& Environmental Services /Date ( D. Nuclear Licensing f 2 D. O ResponsNble Licensing Engtheer/Date chQ W adtb + MaWager of Nuclear L1 censing /Ddtd
.nedale crves w o afut/19
s Pey 5 (3 FSAR UPD' ATE MS-t4ne - t_N 30tf - , s#n t'dv .
~__. . . - _ . _.Ct9WNG05 79 .54$SACY/*" heSe ho S'* l _
- p. _ mr iavos ve 4a uawarw** .:4pery avesrw __.
gotAose _ easy soorenoAs cHAnser Age 44tne mor. ._ .
/Z S '*314E Wi*! J65ttl865 7th' /We0t*00t4710NAL o4MO pnyurst pletosorc. A sanguAer ress-1 ANO Aff644'U *f3 reve sxctw^**c4L il stl0ctftCs4 Tier *E AS eg Pon*
- 4 ype- Atersstas seen yptosy TGETs 43 N/5bi 42 TNr. prCisM sggscA66 /swpr.g __ _
.... ...04360 0A /0 Ye of Y &
- Ce9 W ***d. sr< A * * . tAOfK ..
_ . h** * * *" T3.. .. AN p. . Y .? . A. .'S .W. M . 063'6" 2AS43 _
. Aesoe0Mrf. $wer 7N! '7e~~conotAt Snn ierterstArroNs . so.. n.e?' '
._ Aome rsz rve i*we a*een m
- w . v a rs ,4*e s. nw- rwur . . _
_ .._. verrs . A<a Aerao4rrsy . asr,A essp sesew#885 eae ma Mj , Ag/entewers W 4't1 ~r977 AND W4 cal rStInn . _ent' . _ . JA f _* . Y'S. N . ..
N 0*Y .. . sWJ**'*T. 7' ?'.. W A. Y
__ . . 7ETT
~
sVAM AdF'i N311TP fpen PAC
- 6*3~.N* -__..-. .._.
i EC4A? susseerrows 6. A e 6. .R G . d.6.'f, som 6. .?. 6, S . . . _ . rd'j*GAsree J6 , area w&z r. a . ,,s. sacee _ ..______. _ .. . wa resn.<* . .%a. arr.n s ; rwso- xerwa~ce:# _ser
@N . c.oAAft7F@ .. MWe7N888..(l~4A48F8CA778.M,___sJ.. s4ede#~ #C
... 64 fMIsa NTE _ , .@ Y_ . c ona $.Utt0N_.._ A$dU T~ JAfMCAL _ d 6fet4G6 _ _
_. ... ~rf37.r.. _ hgy H.QL_. W ,et_A9.(___=rstrS _ ANO ,_ pAyu!6% ^- syoroeruys. . . _ _ < c Anc A G E _ _y e s ts M c _ e a v ._ A eto _ _ y st r 2oMc,
..-. . . b ._. A Vo !D. .. cwP.!* & A.!$4**''S . . re. OAYM.&** 31'tu.c1oAAL
_ t.EAetAGF TEETS }((r Cn*f84GO*0 '7
- N *".. " Y W E.. _. .
n
. 72TTI, . . _ . . . _ . . _ . . . . _ . _ _ _ . _. _ _ _ . _ _ .
cdAners perns #44,q ya_ &f__ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ &reer Ass _ _ . . . _ . 4488fE IF 8 *88.. heA*be h h*Mobe Ad@ h. Ash *I . . . . . . _ _ 49879&144. C g M s Cot.A ttenG , 7)pltr' )%e644/itry est ceafg13usMCGS ,_ _
*A ANY AccopeN1' o+dE' hey tNtAEA5fb y not, it res!r . . _ . .
weruMoon oc A4 roonfunnT sneA<se n c rr*** s c4catrec, o
\ ,
Pcg2 1 cf 2
- TSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. JUS-I4 b(
hRR SCN Wo.
-PART I - ORIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was '
i previously subjected to a Safety and Environmental Evaluation? [ ] Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Fom or equivalent. Complete Part III. [ No - Answer Question B. [^[ ',".~...~~.".~"~ B. Is evaluation of this change required? _ pay ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ " - ~ ~ - [ es - Complete Part 17. ~ ~ ~ - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - [ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III: PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY M b . Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will: i a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously [ evaluated s Basis: in FSAR. b S M M A * ( increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the b. FSAR. Ys Basis: _4 M /'J .
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a difforent type than any ,
already evaluated in the FSAR. [] es Basist b = >Mes /> A . [ Wo
- d. increase the probability of a as1 function of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the DAR.
i I ] Yes Basis: - As M_ /._ d_
- e. incresse the consequences of a malfunction of equipment $sportant to
! safety previously evaluated in the F .
! s Basist __ _ SN/-#.
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment toportant to f safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
I [ ] Yes Basis: A ul _d_4 ! [ Wo i 3 reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification. ' A u*n$ Basis: *fWE3 bro'es N MM the fo s l /c. / r ((]1es [ No ML JerA k ~ --)
i 3o88 Pcg2 2 cf 2 ~ B. ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation of the change into the FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
Basis: e J. ;s M /<we),,1 d 1% zu p ,tviy Q ' ( [W}Yes [ No 't+vshs s JK Pi n \
\
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any ,
adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final l J Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple- - ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any i decisions of-the ASLB. [ ] Yes Basist 3/ dA d,4 M N.14 hh /Y M [ } No & a ..ahk M % EPP i J
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-anceBasis:
[ ] Yes with 10CFR51.5(b)M(2)). 94 % _vd/M&%4d.<,[ ta/$dl
- M
[4 No 4.c b M L4yd , /
/
concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-
~
d. ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact. [ } Yes Basis: 94 ,'s d J W d )% EE_ EPP. . . . . . . . [vt No .
. .L
....................................................A.r.$..V.f..r./................_.
~ &W
~~~~*~''"" ~ ~.
FART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE
/* &
A. Originating Organization Ash vMn idV dmtv Section Manager /Supervisof/Date
/Giginator/D(re /
/ .
B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance Safety Review Action Serial Number
! MI h 443 m M Reviewer /Date Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date C. Radiological & Environmental Services
( {/Tevrewer/Date my MI Y/7/tY ManagerofRadiologgcal& Environmental Y Services /Date ( D. Nuclear licensing Mc rNd ad se rh#- Manager of Nucleaf Licensing (Date Responsible Licensing Engineer /Date
Fora ( o$ % dd JLis J 6.e.ho.ee.s, L erahste. di w 'k fferb obu Ja a9 kain fa >>~ l4 F h /oo"F is &2erutA fa Le em.crs t.e ns'<vadi ve. je>v -de.M>u *eneAsu 4 Mi~' & e-; L J
+c u.>Q a e >v Je % o' F* vs aa.l a u.3 7Asc ve) w n v.ea.ehv v .s/r i
&'D,4NS$h' ibi .eD-}- do es M7 A e dM[ Web "'Q lty.
/M
. ono b 0) n MA ref d p
%&7.evi%
II w a-uevahmts/4 M' Shri /ps ,
% '<>u.i Yi n 'n . .
( -,,. -g p.- r-... . . . , . . .
....~
.MS'fY'N I
f l I.M .. . . . .. . .. ' m (W ..__.. . . . _ . . :.___ I I l _ _ - . . . . - . nfowst._-. . ._l_._ . _ E_Z:1_'..~~_ 1
*
- F:go 1 cf 2
. FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM
( SCR No. AlS-S + 9 SCN No. 302Q FART I - ORIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was - previously subjected to a Safety and Environmental Evaluation? [ ] Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III. ,m .* c ,,)
",, .p-gg C r .3 ,,
y - [vf No - Answer Question 5. ..
- 3. Is n evaluation of this change required? I. ~4 .k
[ Yes - Complete Part II. C.M 3o $9 [ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III:ar_th;_h-E'~ ~'~ 8F b d Incorporation of the change into the FSAR wills
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
[ ] ,Yes Basis:
. [M No
- b. increase the consequencen of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR.
es Basist
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.
s Basist
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[] es Basist [ No
- e. increase the consequences of a salfunction of equipment 1sportant to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
s Basist f create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR. [ Yes Basist [ Wo (
- g. reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification.
[ ] Yes Basis: [ No N T f f.1()?
g.-_. .. r
-=
Pcgo 2 cf 2 u B. ENVIRONMENTAL
. Incorporation of the change into the FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
( { ] Yes Basia: M lJ M M 4 M [ov & EM)pM r l No 44Afdifarm., P/ &
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as' modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple- ,
ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any decisions of the ASLB. t ]}es Basis: na.. -bahh- dA tA? & RhbV b e*A4e.ast s'b /3 L (vf No ow+ & w EPP. ,
~
I e . concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-c.
- ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
Basis: 95 /m M [AAfd. N
- IS/)- N JJ
[l d]NoYes o121. u i h v wAth louvl .
~
CT i Jff ' ' f
- d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse
!. environmental impact. , f ] ies Basis: %4 : .n & n >A a s) k bLGPP. [ ( No i i
~ ' "
f 2 . . ( PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE I A. Originating Organization '
. Ah Originator /Date WinitV/
&# N:Ss/r4 Section Manager /Supervisdr/1 Fate l_ /
- ..--. .~-- .--- ._.
i B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance A - g Sf g Safety Review Action Serial Number ~ it , E$ . pel-6}96 fn Reviewer /Date Q& N Manager.of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date
~
h h a ~ ~ f1!. Radiological & Environmental Services
- 3 I'
A fewer /Date neev /LMNV//1/iY' Manager of Radiolog(fal & Environmental [3 Services /Date r.J._... L, W.Noeleartie.nsin MAh sNM Respons nie Licensing Engineek/Date sA/ Mansger'of Nuclear 1sa c rA<p censing /fatt ,
< s
$.$S* Y ..._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
-(
jus FS AR. a.2Bcm n
- & se.//e4>A +PR+1 -M
% tesa?LM 'KAGE -
r:a N
&M TA'ca.L W>- *
.M-
% T & 'cx.l n va.lue o cc ' .m n&h- - L, s
~mae
.~- & w al k.r -
- >n44 m o. pf m- '
w l not.- A s 'y Me ac.cd2.e ud- A c. w_-j4=2 I l =. ' w s . e 's .. . wQ ' E lr> v c2re b'W T4.s/odtal k y vah.u * , S . i6 b & rr**6 .. e ~. , m."
~
s - . f l l 1 p %- 4 l,.. . 9 .v
. - . ~ - - . .
- *-~$---.. . . . . . . _ . . . . .
', g .-
\( '
.o
\
l --
\.
~~
r
. - -. # II1 104 . - -
l
' Page 1 of 2 I Fl@_CBAPCI REFIST/CRANGE 50TIG. TVAUAT10p Mgt
. . . . . gcn no, MarfsM-tsf 3 3 SCE No. Jo f / ,
PART I - OR181NATOR
. A. Es this change the result of implementaties of en activity whf ah was . i previesely subjected to a Safety and Beviresseetal Tvaluatient , ., _ l
[ ] Yes - Attack a espy of the Safety and Envireasental Eve.luaties Foss,or ['.)
-equivalent. Complete Part III. * * - .- ,
J M pe - Amewer $aesties S. ;
//#4ff%--.-
. 3. Ze as evaluaties of this thanSe requireet . .__
^
- l lp4 Yes - Ceeplete F' art II. g - '
Mo
~
[ ] We - Enter beste and toeplete Port III __ I -- 3 1 l e . .. ... _ t PART ff - EtALUATION peraties of the thange into the FSAR wills
- s. focrease the probability of eesurrence of as accident previsuely ,
evaleeted in FSat.
, t Yes Baste:
.H , Be 11Hs alarar a:k sh.e dat hie af m m heweme--- amA sta Mr.a L - s data e de messedr/.
- b. faeresse thf costeguances of an accident previevely evaluated is the FSAR.
[ ] Tee Bestes ( % H Be Anna ./ un nas ., ta .,:n s o e sa asnarae:n,4:
- m. eor.o em eno /iae sea t a l. ddle 4.se r. K.**
L* -
-a e
- e. erests' the possibility of en sesidest of a different type thes may 4 . already evaluated is the FSAR.
[ l Yes Basis: V no Ke nos ese t.wt... Ju A. ir a saas e m r. 'F* n /. 's a 4 a/ Aar n.12 at r! . /he in.en s .:es t'ea asw deJ .meen d'.e a L 'n A d/ e-a.r.4ne.
- 4. facrease the probability of a asifuncties of equi'puient importdhs se estety previenely evaluated is the FSAR.
- 4
(-l Tee ^ Basies -
% Be A>;ol s .nar e4 Jos .nhen .a n n. ez adw ./ *ne Mt a.V nl:N er L+ a e - 1 , a.a = & .,'seet m > s :a
- 4e :a * .am =J to
- e. increase the~eensequences of a selfunction of equipsest tapertant to safety previously evaluated is the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Beets: t>t ne _9 e/ red m.i A t % 6eo.4.as tk7)sa.t -r:// m/ er ame.w e a* e / na.ar _ L .a G .d> M a.'s e a'. - .La
- m
- f. ereste th4 poseihility of a selfuncties of equipsest important to esfety differest thes previously evaluated is the FSAR.
Ll Yes assia , g ne A,ner J m dos sin .s N '
- _7-- a Me RW Aman r:sshe Ano == = 4 '
e aA,, A., ..e aces n. A e e n.e.en* . mad.u A= r:
- g. redvee the marSin of safety se defined is the basse'for any teshatsal
- specificaties.
- 1 Tee seste:
ne ,n:o w e ,s...a is u - .a. :n a:.1 i es o s a-. nu.s./ h at 4 Ais, e _ Apr .ont.re e.d el sarder de st A n - ., e.* : nanseds .g
*l,E NOj.500H B3"ItlS SHQn0WWnB x !Od 9'/:91 60/70*t8 i
- - . . . _ _ . _ . _ . ~ . _
.__. _ _.__..___.. __._____ _ .._,,pg L.g@(3_ ______ __ _,._ _
Pete 2 of 3
.d 3. ENTIBOWENTAL Isserporation of the change into the FSAR.
- a. will require a ehenge in the Revisonnestel Protection Flaa.
[ ] Tee assies w
% 9e Ask tra., smo. A r> 1/ na,o se asamosa ! n. f.a t ah...
_ _ + . . .. a. s .. ..a.r.a.
- a. s.a. .,:a .:e a. .
- b. eescerse a netter which say result in a signifttatt increase is say
-- - adverse environmental aspect previeve17 ovaluated is the Final ;
Envitessental Statement (FES) as modified by the ERC staff's
% testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASL3), supple =
( sests to the 718, environnestel impact apprates1. or is say detiefene of the Asta. O
' ! ] Tee Saeise m.9 es >L Se 22./.h . ,,,:11 ne 6e e ssa:aa th ,,:oA ear por .et.* o.* of a, a LL. a.asi,, nr . ..< -. - a st. _t ,, s , .,.o . u.
- c. eencerse a elssificent change in effluente er power level (in assere.
asse with 10CTRS1.S(b)(1)). [] Tee Baedes W mA [ *S
>{ 5e #t#
- A., . #,,4
- 4. < s, , .< , , 4,.
= 'me.,e e a,,,,.Ju.a.<
#s.4 k ,g(' *s -
- d. eenterne a master set previously reviewed and evaluated in the deem =
seats specified is 3.1.b. above, which any have a significent adverse h k i, , envireesental tapaet. c i vea saeis: Wk, ,g A ne Art red Joe. s. ,,: tr 3,,
- so .,.sa:er d at o s Aue of ano aos au 4e a J H:4.6 t sa s see arar a.* ,,s.te k a4:e . t. .
. PART !!! - REVIEV/C05CURREIICE A. Oriainatina Ortesiastien HFAL = WFF. Gescurrense 2}}., W SL /yor/s.ns Origib or/Organisation/Dete WFI Respessible Iagiseer M crer ce.tra ter Orial.sted vet's)
Bection Manager /Superviser/Date
- 3. Dueleer Safety and Consitance Safety Review Acties serial Wumber Q- h&Rh{9B [ez clq W -
Rettswer/Date Eger of Nuclear selety and Compliance /Date C. Radielenical 6 Environmental Services Obl l
- Reviewer /Date Manager of Redselegical & Envirensestal Services /Dete N
- 3. 1.ar ti.
m, sp hat dklM Responethie Licensing Enginee(/Dat6 Manager of poclear Liseneisg/Date dk FSA111sd2 , ... . . u
- 7. r. J C D C T
- F n ~/ *r tT
- 9 A ,
e r.z a n T a n n w R '4 "l R R E R fi n n W a n n x
- ~ ~ . . - - - - _ __ _ ___ __
III-ID6, _ ,_
Fcg2 1 cf / Y FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. )l$-St- N ( SCN No. 3 044
. PART 1 - ORIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was previously subjected to a Safety and Environnental Evaluation?
- l
[ ] Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evalugtfon Form or ' equivalent. Complete Part III. , j , ]~ '5 "{^F';" [d No - Answer Question B. N M " N. ._. .... . = B. n evaluation of this change required? qu gog Isp] Yes - Complete Part II. [/ g,yg [~~~~- [ ] No - Enter basis and complete Fart III: ----.--.--.__..m PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Q 'j' g g g
- incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
[] es Basis: Su edd4 [ No
- b. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the
( FSAR. [ ],Yes ' Basis: see 4::rMrd[ ' [d No
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.
Basis: Sr.fa de/J ((]Yes [ No
- d. increase the prcbability of a malfunction of equipment 1sportant to safetypreviouslyevaluatedintheFSAR.dd 4 a A(rce
[ ] Yes Basis:
-[ No 1
- e. -increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to
[ safety previously evaluated in the FSAR. Basis: G 44dchef . ((]Yes [ No
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to n the FSAR.
safetydifferentthanpreviouslyevaluated}d es . Basis: su s/Mc- [] ;
- [ No l
3 reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification. Basis: bo i ((.]Yes [ No 1 1 . FSAR7sd1 q2R_mp
~
Pas 2 o E # B. ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporaticn cf th2 ch:ngs into th2 FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
} m e/22 3 d [ w ~ h t Cav)qPWa/
Basis: 9f IS d (\vf]No Yes 'Hla d? 3R n W f PP) (.
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any -
decisions of the ASLB. I l yes Basis: 96 !s w/ a- ,1 , o f, 1 m tPP 1 - (1 (W No .
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
t 1 Tes Basis: %E ,.tw J affo Jedi,k/
}- % a f f bd., x
. \v)' No 1sud &_ J) 7
.d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed.and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact.
merd L haA[ l.l Yes Basis: (N <. 6) MP
\ W No i %
V 4 PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE b A. Originating Organization 8' V V '/A f~ Au$aAA> & 4 I7 0W Section Manager /Supervis6r/Date
/'
2n% T it *? e -
< Originator /D6te /
$ 48 *-
I B.. Nuclear Safety and Compliance
, !.# **a sg '
ft
, , 4 j [ ,, Safety Review Action Serial Number g{' Reviewer /Date&
M )-@{ 5708 &Nw Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date o t i y:
- e v
C. adiological & Environmental Services 0 /, S-m Reviewer /Date W W5 ManagerofRadiologal& Environmental Services /Date (( D. Nuclear Licensing
- 0 Y h6lE4 Respon$ble Licensing Edgine'er/Date Y[ h3Gtfl17l(4-Manager of NuclearfLicensing/Dath FSAR7sd2-3 V VMB - - - - . - . _ - - -
y
,. 3 (9t,(_ir-84 . . _ _ , , _ , , , _
r bl 5 09 . _ _. . _ _ - - NS P .. -
...--.....-__..f_5_-..- . . . . .. ... - ... .. . ..
.E - .%. . Iud. .;. n. . _ f < 6_4.._T5 _ C_L..ga_ $u.s_ _+
^
_enp.s 4 c L fo..__M s g ...su6s,.gi,:. TL 7.s. i. e. r. 2 _ .__ n.vik u L. ,c,.,,-ll+a~ J 4L_ , v,. ts_. -L+ 4. 6 of.c c. , fo ll -.' 5(,Ts ; .d+s.+6 ~ +o c(.rl6 At 6.+L +r.l 5 '
. w,5 t. s5<+ gi.ve._5.... ._ '._ wa J.a.I .
. . . . . . S. & S h5+ +S. n . . . . -
' _l._.- T + t .
.._ .. s. .gg. ..
....L. . o. is.+..i 7 . d 3.c..v.ijf a.
.. .. . .i y I4. .. -_L. .,
.w l s&Ts 'a L K.~ ./i.(.( . 349s. .
- 6. +L 4r.lu. fo
._.. Ska.r.i.J Iu..w s.ua.c....d..
.-..s .ru.Sua.( Ai4 's.I .o. .~. . . _._ _c_.f._o.
. . _ __.c._n. f.. M t. . . _ _
;t
._. . %. T. s. _.c.o d.. r.1_.. s_y s.+. . .... . ;.( I e._s.. t..y. . sh.r+ fL.. .
... . p . .. .. . .
95 oa.M. .. ...._._w..i.+L - 4L. t_ codrol <> ste,~ 4r_..~. ... 1 L. _. pro.p sa.. . . . .c. _t g _ +., A__ __. F...s.A_e.
. . _._._ ._ _ - ... . is. _ m. ..+ C. ._ r s_v (+ = . _ . _ _ . . .
J g .,3 m c6. p 4, .. +..k.._ sais . T. L 54T6 loeic-d L.s.. . A_. 6t, m cL.g,a .
%+L s&Ts +r..i_s will_ sf.A .. _. .
. . _._..o m.; s ~ .
- d o n s k b 'OS*O~ .
s' h _. *-s- d'*5 bd 'N.. -. 4L FSA 2. . .. . . . . . . .. 5,.4 A frf . 3.., a. . . ..
- c. .L.. Q. ..t_ . .. Joe s ..J.. ..... eff< <* +6. . -- ..
u . . f < 4. ....;. ~. . . ..( +L_ _. s crs.p4._* : s ., 6..+L. n .tes.f
+ra i-5 5 +6r+ e~ a ~ s.v t o d ic- '.44/544 ~
5% *J .... e w ."r.i~ sfo.c+3 s_~ - _ 4_. _w.~u. I . . 5.<_g -. l...If 5s4 4.r . . . . _ _
.._ . . . _ 8.6 k. , ,y pro c[.4.. Y a 404
_ 5. -. .h.e
.. . .c..h.., . .e Yb.e. .. .-...
. m.,Lt . . . .
,ss.. , s.l, a.f.o o
. . . .. 5 v46 a
. J .d .c. . . . . c._L.. . x__ . - _4 . a m _ . .
.. . . . . . . .. . .. [$a O [e., N i. . . M __ t. . . . . .Q $ g,.
' ' * '. C . O_C4.u f r a;_A44. , , o r C.e M e.. .Weah O ,AA w., a &
_. __ _ _ . . _ _ _ .. Tit _ino. _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _
'l'f Y A
. w
. ru._ fr2p_s_.L.. ...
- a. Les n+ a t.+. e_c a~y__w;.e.n. ..t.. __
- i. A 56Ts . I+ h e.h % Ao t ,a.a ,.i 4 -.~ ~
wifuu.R o d - -
~<es_.. o(
w b o. b i. U 4f ac.. cowseeu _.. . . <yi M, ik. g..<b.. .~44= s fch, ,e craf< L .. -.
..posi bi l.i... e s a. d._i4.4a.r._snt' k < of...eec.',A_ _d ar .
g
. nI 4vs.cta . __. . . . _ . _ b . roy=si_ 4U 4..s ce+ s %d b. 66MS TuL.'u.I __
G x.e; _EL.. .K.ou . T.k %_..A.ce. Soa s... se+ca.bc.s. L....u...rgln. b .- - d_.' sA -- _
;~ L. T.u%.. eal ..
Se a.e;Gh...as . . .
. ..___NoYc . ..
IE -.
- 6. 2 . 2. de.scrib s 4L, be.s(s used b y__ & . . . _ . _ _
M Ec. +o ace p+ L. _S6Ts A .s.in o.s Le.k _ . . . . .
. u
.. .. .d. a.. .~+e...+ . par.4 ~ h E.v.a4 ;~. ' L_. .. .u Mec
. _ _ ,~1y...ssu d -k J e.,. s&Ts 4r ;~ ws . . . . . . . .
. . . . owdli. . - vecv'*I t.6 . u~.El+c<4 slus <-.
en c s
- a. . _. _
c+;u:
-f.tt.-.k_.,n. ._.u. .ca.& . .. s. : .
sGTs o,,.c +. i.~ . 7. tt o /,_
. h.. .. .
,.< . a ,. +. , . .--
_. . .. tkt is . eat . ,kO an ai.~Se. . . .;atah;~ ..
.syt is daaudh bse4 L. L PSA._e4 . . . .
Y ..
'% pr.ofos.A .
Ne L Asser.sf.k h of.. ... SkT6 unv o.l.. l~ . $"' 5II W *-$* $ L
, h, J & sTs . '
~
. 6. .'s= 4 S ne.c.
(. .. IFR, +->T-94
. ctv. - .3044
~~ ~
~-
_III.
4 _ _ _ _ _ .
' Pcgs 1 of 2 FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM
( SCR No. SCN No. PART I - ORIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was
. previously subjected to a Safety and Environtwntal Evaluation? ,
[ ] Yes --At. tach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III. _[ o - Answer Question B. B.- Is ja evaluation of this change required? [ 4 Yes - Complete Part II.
~
[~] No - Enter basis and complete Part III: PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY $JL b 3 Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will: .
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
es Basis: Sac 4[c[re8
- b. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR. s
[ ] Yes Basis: b e /d e/>d) [gNo
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any -
already evaluated in the FSAR. [] s Basis: du mZMM g [ No i,, 3 increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to
-;eo E .> d.
safety previously evaluated in the FSAR. I. + gl I I [ ] Jes Basis: G d4ed
%.Oo '[(f No AVh'f1 -
- e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAJt.
'l] es Basis: b d4/
)*
t-
-[
No, '
. I. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to i -
safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
'[ M es Basis: d', A McM
. ,.l_ Tl No
(
' I 's . reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification.
s Basis: GM L l FSAR7sdl- p p pag 9 _
Pcg2 2 of 2 B. ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation of the change into the PSAR.
- a. will require a change'in the Epvi{onmental protect; ion Plan.
Basis: N- i J, rwa 4 s<msp h id i,vv'&o _ _ ( [$]Yes [ No L-ru1TW Wk!w nAA}wL ~D, WJ112Ahu %Mf 9PPP1 y
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's -
testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB). supple-ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any decisions of the ASLB. [ ] Yes Basis: 9M /C OtAd- L b d.h l- *f T P P [ No 4 l
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-2 anceBasis:
[ ] Yes with 10CFR51.5(b)(N))u. 9J La rha p /lv;p / h .% [4 No e MJueA A /2 A A on A.s s . Ilfdst/L s
- d. concernsamatternotpreviouslyhaviewedandevaluatedinthedocu-ments specified in B.I.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmentalimpbt
[ ] Yes Basis: is M <1 hd d DP. g [d No J
==============================================================================
FART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE A. Oriminating Organization
, Vf 7 d-kbManager /Supervistr/D6te Au gri4fnator/Dsy4t Y/ ll bf Section -
~
I O yg _ __ _ __ _ _ ___________ _ _ _ ______________ _ ________ ytw B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance Dd1 Safety Review Action Serial Number E Reviewer /Date
@AlSY QCR h&h Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date
'C . . Radiological & Environmental Services 5 .& S-/F-Af Mahager of Radiologi 1 & Enviro 6menfal IWyfuGer/Date Services /Date i D. Nuclear Licensing f j p b '
WM 5 Respons1Me Licensing Engi'neer/Date INI. ManagerofNucleajLicensing/Date
.n t FSAR7sd2 iiT.119
i -( Jus i ~ m . F. SAL R. M % l
- 4. 6. a . I . I . 5.d elekh~o Mw & & --- \
+
a.c.ewnu.lh ,vfIs% n w wi waGr.pahevs n; i !~ . M '
. re45= Sd Fed A h',@ c y L e le+tr h !
, A/, dr > J e.A - is b
.t ,o w.>u ,
i 9;g% m% o.v iG G3
~~ - - - - - .
up a.22h. eu. a
' fattuo sam., is af %
~
a., i.s % bellwc~. s, is b g& J --lD be, vt.td,7Lve,&
'8 ,
I w <0 aler-b . . i
. oM .
[ Cf%fe.x, bis
..~ . .
~~
& yFSA'R m'.s /< sl/- uri&
~
p g 44.ec. s.ex.6' A 4. / . 3. 3 a , eebcl.
~
da.* M b o I % " MVlE aL a: [ h p5r e Q . x et ;, e te i ji ' w rLu., ).s a. /.svd. .w i+el -,ra,iJ e Lwoe, c. . hs 3. f sh w ala.n n J s ;s hauial.-{ a4w aRx wxuis /*&
;; > M abr t ~ o&% '
ll ' ;0:: : i,, ipa +
;+ u , a:, s.., ,<h<h s askin~T <
g
- ; dou oud ^ ) a <. a a s _ n -
_ e4 h- M- I
-oa .
I 6 y$ fig %>b b[n'MWsMk _ 9u 4 , - m ~[ _ -.
,, = -- _
Pag 2 1 ef 2 FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. NS-F 4 0
'SCN No. h 4t3 FART I - OitIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was . ~
1 4 previously subjected to a Safety and Environnental Evaluation? [ ] Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. . Complete Part III. D( No' - Answer Question B. B. Is an evaluation of this change required? M Yes - Complete Part II. [ ] No - Enter. basis and complete Part III: N/A PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously t
evaluated in FSAR. AMhWCtf AftN E Al**lt 7nT AdfL [ ] Yes Basis: T MF .DESICMS ANb as Pur Herr usen A e rrs w M No 4tendly wrtG M es Ad IN fxe155 aC 6T1 /Lt. 7
- b. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the s t M FSAR.
b 4[4W.. l" $gg [ ] Yes Basis: l .4 g i ) M No
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any
.g rh alreadyevaluatedintheFSg
-[ ] Yes . Basis: _C . - cA i
, l' .:, M 30 '
i -l d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment faportant to l
'y21e the FSAR.
i.) safety previously evaluated [ ] Yes Basis: 92 1. y;0 M No . 1 ** 1 increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to [*] e. 1 a safety previously evaluated in the FSAR. C.' ajeva.. I ] Yes Basis: M No 4-
- f. -create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than reviously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: ek s . M No 3 reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical (- specification. oC A Pett- ArtCMeti is fue7' rhcN'adur l ) Yes Basis: -rys- u/C1G W CM$ No AoAtnerD By 7ECW. Spars'. Smer A caseuArrie wEI6H uM Z^^^' h46 Y11NG fuGt $64af0te4 6 25Fo / M g4T* Th*f M Ant DESK M AG c,,.cgir#P, W AeMfWTF 7Jtd. .pge, f(Sd5 Aes-FSAR7sdl s? v <3 * - _ - - - .. _ ..,. - .- _ - . . - - . - .-
Pcg2 2 cf 2
.B. ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation of-th2 ch:ngs into ths FSAR.
- a. ' will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan. we er 4 # err Ars4=<ta y #fs
[ ] Yes Basis: 7PN er* WETy r
. b4 No O!Kr W ffR
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final
. Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC. staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any decisions of the ASLB. etutk emn- Bounos
[ ] Yes Basis: Lost wf HK!CM ek ruft u ? -Ni nua,s. r. e se war seat ^ * .-C Ace w .* daedersar Jou e 6ff /k. twl No yWr _ isseder- wu eted, 7s 094 w e.s.n; se meArnte on anwodoasem*M
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
.[ ] Yes Basis: ~ Jas Y 4dev8'.
>d No
- d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact. p a
[ ] Yes Basis: .SPF b AGa#, QN! No . . ' PART III -- REVIEW / CONCURRENCE
-A. Originating Organizatien ud,/r+
P *&% Originitor/Date
@/M V Ssetion Manager /Supervis6r/ Bate T ~ - Y h .$ B. :.-,,.
Nuclear Safety and Compliance , j eye tL:o:4hi ',..', Safet'y Review Action Serial Number g De. . .! ( f 4
-] (
Reviewir/Date Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date fr+
-f I..a adiological & Environmental Services _
l i .-g. [
*
- gg I evtwGer/Date ManagerofRadiologicg14Ehvirodsenthi y
jb Services /Date D. Nuclear Licensing { ResponsiWle Licensing Engiheer/Date (C JV / }l. ff Mana"gerofNuclejrLicensing/ Data FSAR7sd2
??? 192" ,
~'.
~ '
- Pass 1 of N i
FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. NS-I'If - S / SCH No. 3/00 (' PART I - ORIGINATOR
. A. . Is this change the result of faplementation of an activity which was previously subjected to a Safety and Environnental Evaluation?
[ ] Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or - equivalent. Complete Part III. ((No - Answer Question B. B. Is an evaluation of this change required? [ dyes-CompletePartII. 4 7'; v - Enter basis and complete Part III: N. A_ l V c ...................................... ............... ............. PART II - EVALUATION !' A. SAFETY . Incorporation of the change into the FSAR_will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously
! evaluated in FSAR.
r- a s_ CC ML [ ] Yes Basis: h_ w secrun mim R. sow e_ oa . [Mo ,-n ass tuv. r-w e e.a n a w nu ee e v--a , w em.e uv-ss e et,-mue wru re . a
.-_.s._*, -r.n
- b. -increase the consequences of an accident previously evalus'ted in the '
{- FSAR. s a.o ano w j [ ] Yes Basis: T 2 w.,m m e m s i-a w [-d'No
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.
g [ ] Yes Basis: T% w=_ , a. w re rA i o tet u e.-t w a arra.m t n [-T No aa su.a a w . w .,3 i,4 v.v e w %+ A a m o u- r-e sv c & A e. C , ,- - A
!' m i 6 r ,m <
r, at an esto i- m. r_ IW% ~'d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment impor' tant to I y :. safety previously evaluated in the FSAR. ! '.o [ ] Yes Basis: "T w. . a r. e m e ,w o naw _t e r, e a,mi a ,=>- I{ idI.h [.<TNo r- s w e, s a se u e- w e,s h
- aso m.c taw to an ae,-r-sa a ca n_ . m snm.t A , o a e ir-
- v Ge3
! , J m u= - r hio- s,ri-3 incresse the consequences of a malfunction of equipment importaht to l .
, e. .. safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
-, j 8 1 [ ] Yes Basis: 'El am t om t ,,- a m-me ,,u a c.u A,aren t insus tws_ A ,2_ in u .rv . r m ,o t e A s a r . t .
! ,. -)3[(No I ,m w tc e se
l ,j ,,
U
'~
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment faportant to safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
i I ed [ ] Yes Basis: 4 wp e. ., - a r-- a m At_ e w e r m Tn c.a c.pe. i-= n i u v.ar 5=c m.m. a t m u m e I {} [ g No t- g n, u ce = sin,m_
- r. a w,-
i t_ m e a, e
- e. tt ki w i_u
# g. reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical
_I specification. u e . ,m r-w, me w wa, [ ]Jes Basis: r-e,. e u - r u .= [-f No i m_sa . , < h n 1. <u . = s m a,me rw m a 7 .u. . . - ig a uc twaw t( l l FSAR7sd1
- - _ _ _ _ , _. _ ,_ _ _ JTT .116
1 Pcg2 2 of J Y B.- ENVIRONMENTAL-Inccrparction of th2 ch ngs into th2 FSAR. l'
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
[ ] Yes Basis: A) n r u u r e s. Amm. sam une uneua e nw a [ PNo k omm.ce- a = =. = n e m tus.m.s e n. wow v.a s noeiA m m m -,- u n s co u ,- % n % = = ==ce. m ,- s:pp I
-_ ( b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final
~ Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony to th's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any .
! decisions of the ASLB. [ ] Yes Basis: S s. a. . t se "af mht. t [ s.Tho
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-
- _ . ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
[ ] Yes Basis: Se e t,-m ~ Y u nom [ }-No
- d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-i sents specified in B.l.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact.
[ ] Yes Basis: S t.t w. w 'M A m eum [@o I ======================================ammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmme============= i PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE A. Originating Organization d.he 4m + Originator /Date 64 Law Section Manager /SupervMoor/Date 4 B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance i Safety Review Action Serial Number i
- h3. Q f-he Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date s .
[ Rev1Wer/Date 3 4
'l .- C . M iological & Environmental Services ,
l^ .,- g=gg h . RevfTwer/Date Manager of Radiolo cal & Environadntal ; l . Services /Date ' j I . Nuclear Licensing
- /[w/ /k G ResponWible Licensing Engineer /Date MdnagerofNucleargcensing/Date l
1 i FSAR7sd2
- L __ __, . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . - . _ __3TT_555 __.. _ _ - - _ _ . _ _ _ . _ - - _ _ -
. .. Ae244 i l t
(~ 'lT E o A.t w g r ted A Se-S. W M ..
! . (c.s ~w-w w.w cbf A u s s we pe =v- T * =. -'iw.<_u u ic a s .
. T:, p n.c. t t=.( c w r t o . 4 (T Sh c. ow. s r- oe *( e
- f: hPs *w.ch
.I T (4L c w a -, t t T* a.o eo s % a te Ebl4,IE P an.s.. G .7 -Z6 e_ s.a.m s n s n.5 r w A r- A % a.m. R.a.a c w ? it, e o a v a.,a e t.ut
, n s.t $tio r. w m.s a.s u s s. M a.i v s 6.s a e s, ans.N Pseroa .co
.;r-o s we e o <= t-- r
- w. *\0*F s r.a,vs.s a w TS, 2/'t .C.1.B .
. , T ww, A,i s.x s e.s sa As e. ~ m we vn.o <e m.m.s e o ~ s e.
. ,To kt Too -a N a- m 4 ~2) oA t- ver E. M A/a se. k
$ Ce~ s- msu r \ s s. w s b4uw an.e.q Cowsraush -
.:r-w.~ ~ wesa w u. N e. c ., ~ A.e.c.m -s 1.hs1
.. m m u c. n., a s z. . t~ u:, o, m._,
. .w,_ w - um, ~,. co- m ,- - ~1.- r~
,: o 5:-
3 tes c , s, s, - , a . = r. s % s, i ms s. ~ <=.
. . . . . . h.M At.Q $ Ek ThE 45'-D#E N E b F 04- T W-E. N'st. s9 A e. E 4
., teC.%.ru 4 , t Nr t h Tuch b Ao e o 4 E. O C ti, AN t t,
. %)
- o~s q - .- =, s s s. r--*.s. i m.y i s. c.o~ s n %= a ff t .,, -
im T.ws u a t.9. s, t.s ,, d e m.a <o or i
- c et s a w.
'7gg ~ i r- ',~i .2 4' . .vs y noe,naiutw en Aa A .c c.t o w v -. e . L ; .a.
! '., .j. C . I S_ . s, .* TT '- A. ~ e6 s.v.s t.s , 5 < >c e r-wv. W S A R. ss
.. D'A.ND bNb k b k I m T N #%) Ob b NEM ..
*J,.,
.I % NDY (,D 4% \DI.Q.I. D b hkbbkbk. .. .
' . . . . b Of bD % f%3Y l
( N. ..
**a
&O N of'l l
l
- 1
._i _. . . _ . , . _ . _ _ _ _ . _
._ . . . . . _ ..__ _ _ . . . . __.__j
_ _ . _ . . -. 3. (C.o 4 T- + 14 Se ctL.E S F- o A - M f4a % A E.No tacpoms.h __ TW t ._. R.R. L w s T h % e4ew T 14-vb. T T Ws. S. s t.% r-J eJ4 _ _ _ _ a .
..'T* W w e % sb s D e 6 s= Lt ft 3, .t 4.* u t - t ** C t u o su. o swer a s c. i sg._ _
_ . . h^ A E 4. a e4 . . F 0 fA A e4 t PJ C .W.t m. b E teJ C b*0T-A.8 M h.dt a.3%'__.____._ .. l A t a. T E A e u.a hv-c a t. o I:- 8% C
- A . . .. . . . _
.. Y*%- N e(AFA A.L C.e-J M tM Mtt M . A L m. "T-E W t.fs A ten. s fuWE
. . . . O ft % O " N ___ LAJ 8b b AstO 9.w.o u s.i ) t. o pora . s T $ __ __.
_ . I
- 9 A t T- 8 -J V G.w t A %u. eJT- Gl.k4t : A 4so 4- I F Ilt..
. . . . . b e %1. A.C.t E.L- %.4 m.~t R O WA O A. ES,w t A mm.W_ _ .
. .. . . LAJ t (.( O C. e. u. e O %.t. tO T H.L.S __ f 80 C. G.t41 C., , A Nflb _.
__ .. ... . T' Ws. a t v.oe E , T A v. E Q. A e o a m. % LAs i. t.t . n.a.aw ia s. . ._..
. . . 9.%.c 5.% (In . 4 TO _. F A t.;t-O tit. T H-4 I M CiP. Et,se.% C o _...____ _ __
.. _ .'T-R.4%.4 m T Ma t tr4 T o r w.t. M. t0 S. N uA E-6.--OS- 6.@
._.fG,,tes, e e ec em.m_._ %
- s st. n eJ r-* E A 2on
. . ALA&MA tc m.'t-N Ar4 h -rt4.E. M b o 85 tc.m.*cc 4 .T5 T M fit,.
[ _._ __ . _ . . E ,G. Ai% 9 R.O 4.e a w ht. . P acek a fik a t. tvy- oA . _ .
. _ _ _ _. . 8b-. m .h.L.
- w e t,v t,e 4 e n. E m . w .L p % s N t-- (4> t. L t . Ne t-
_ _. 469 t +3c 9 T a.ht.D C st 0% 't-st 8pv R u A.t.,%.an.v s e i.u TM.C_ .
- f
-_ .. .I. . __.. N S A S.. _ . . . .. _ _ . . . . _ . _ . . _ _
. 1 I'
l 7a; ' s': 1 --_. . . . . ,. _ _ . . .. . . - . -_ _. - - . _ . . I ce
, - i..
yi E. . . . l (, .. ' t .hs _ . _ _
.p _ . . . . .
l mf .a . .. l l
._ _ _ _. _-..III Il9_ a
Fcg21 of 2 i FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. /I N ' N SCN No. 370 i
'b
~
FARY I - ORIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was previously subjected to a Safety and Environnental Evaluation? , [-) Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III. [K) No - Answer Question B. B.* Is an evaluation of this change required? [%) Yes - Complete Part II. [ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III: N/h i FART II - EVALUATION A..-SAFETY nce AN Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will: h '
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
. [ ] Yes Basis: AccibiuT occu1ER M t M MOT AGS'icTLD &T
[$ No- 'v4 ts c d A+C1. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the
-( b.
FSAR. [ ] Yes Basis: Kl.mg MeusTeg w C NA% Et Lc6T WITH A DffA. g [A] No ETF ric w t/t c_rw tts MsTtRGt> w wt utfT Ns /Ws wus g' n3 TNa m u.TettiM c. 11 }tp r. .c. create the possibility of an accident of a dif ferent type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.
, .yQ A ,..'
[ 1 Yes Basis: Acci u r wen ute mer eftcrtA ss 3'y . Wut mewrcat ' 'c- v [y() No ! . 11 i $[ i
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
! [ ] Yes Basis: Co.mDcutMTS Mtt ouALiFitb . 95tcRMttuTf
[ arre r tsn Mt ' ems l ,
; [J: [ A} No
. es MA e p u ncJri ou ts uc.T l ~l 1 a c om ic A r ic>a increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to j
I( *l I.' (v;,e. safety previous 1 evaluated in the FSAR. I **,[ ] Yes Basis: 0 tTcici CC swTCM suouth 4 A et 90 1EFFELT l- , mat s:unc r tem ccmstc:at ec15-
~ils) No cu >
l' j j I'Q f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to i safety different than previously evalueted in the FSAR. [ ] Yes Basis: Tuit c ^^ a > 5 9 is A Mou .'ecQ. aduC. % STEM Mb tv-n acT ceuYmTE D Ec Rur [Sl No MALP t.tur r i e M f~ reduce the margin-of safety as defined in the basis for any technical l 3 specification. mu THis ca.E t Dets uor etiwet rgt em [ ] Yes Basis: [f] No cc- sMs r9 At 7nt htA sufTLM % 'TMt teu iTc RS i% MT AOD Rt5S CT) iu M 'rELM stYCT.
--_- _ .._ .FSAR7sd1 - - _ _ _ ._._ .- _TTT 19n
Ptss 2-of 2
'B. ENVIRONMENTAL Incorporation of the change into the FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
4 4.PP [ ] Yes Basis: W 4 als b r u t.4 [ 64 No s
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Envitonnental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-
'ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in a '
decisionsoftheASLB. 6 b 4._AOCCO A [ ] Yes Basis: b w4tle 4 MM " A^ [v3 No secwLn .+ csms&cs (Lkow JR nA sMno swaaw% 'didai,eu.Wc.M k%
< L - #1
- c. concerns a sitnificant chante in effluents of power level (in accord-ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
[ l'Yes Basis: 95 (M [d No 4
- d. concerna a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.I.b. above, which may have a significant adverse anyironnental impaet.
[ ] Yes Basis: ">"- (0 ' . [/] No PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE A. Originating Organization-rY l0k h N b Drigindtor/Date
/
Manager /SupeYviso(/Date l
% feet k _q 3 B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance fI th 'N " ~ ' Safety Review Action Serial Number f
??':._
h ?M $ WO Reviewer /Date I et knEM Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date , !1- - I ! C. Ladiolotical & Environmental Services l _i ,
< d'-w 1 Manager of Radiologffal & Enviro 6 mental l je Reviewer /Date
. ,, y Services /Date y l
g 1..1.
-D. Nuclear Licensing [7
. & hj ,i/ b0b Manager of Nuclear Licensing /Date ResponsEble Licensing Engineek/Date one om
ATTACHMENT TO SAFETY EVALUATION FOR FSAR CR ON I SUPPRESSION POOL TEMPERATURE MONITORING SYSTEM This change clarifies the fact that the suppression pool temperature monitoring system is powered from the RPS Power System. ' This power system is . fed from the RPS motor-generator sets with the capability to be alternately fed from an ESF MCC. In the event of the motor generator sets becoming unavailable (maintenance, failure) the operator can switch, from the control room, to the alternate feed as long as offsite power is available. In the event of a loss of offsite power, however, re-establishing power to the RPS bus requires additional manual actions at local panels to realign breakers. This action is estimated to take less than 10 minutes and the procedure is outlined in the plant procedure for loss of offsite power. Because power and thus monitoring capability can be restored in a short period of time and because no operator action is assumed to occur in response to the indication for 10 minutes, this change is not considered to increase probability or consequences of an accident or equipment malfunction. lE e lY *s $ 32te!*~ - ilgm 51 $f . lf . t , i i e
; e .., ,
.. e t . :
l - , t . l l :
'A .
! l ' "i l E!l l S140rgl RRR-RR@
s
. .In support of this change notice safety evaluation various accident i
. evaluations have been reviewed. The intent was to determine whether the analysed accidents produced vessel pressure-suppression pool temperature combinations which exceeded the heat capacity temperature limit (HCTL) of the suppression pool. The HCTL curve may be found in GGNS Emergency Procedure 05-5-01-EP-3, Figure C.
For a large break LOCA the vessel depressurizes rapidly. For a small
' break LOCA the vessel depressurization is slower and the suppression pool temperature has time to respond to the heat input from the accident while the vessel is at high pressures. The accident response curves showing reactor
. vessel pressure in Section 6.3 of the FSAR (specifically, Figures 6.3-15, 25, 33, 41, 45, 49, 57, 61, 65 and 75) cover a range of break sizes and failure assumptions. In each case except the stenaline break outside containment, the reactor pressure is below 150 psig well within 10 minutes. During this period
-no operator action is assumed. At the end of this period, further k
-depressurization which would be the action taken based on exceeding the HCTL, would not be required (i.e., at low vessel pressures operator action is not required regardless of pool temperature).
In addition. FSAR QO21.7 requested additional information with respect to the pool temperature limit. In response to this question three new sets of curves were developed:
- a. SORV event 1 b. depressurization from isolation event
- c. small break event l
For each event, curves of vessel pressure and suppression pool l temperature versus time were developed. .This information can be used to l demonstrate that the temperature limit will not be exceeded during the initial l 30 minutes following the event. While some operator action based on pool . temperatures is assumed in the event descriptions (i.e., additional SRV's are opened w'aen the pool gets to 120*F) the curves demonstrate that safe limits as defined by the HCTL are not exceeded. Based on a review of these analyses results the possible loss of suppression pool temperature monitoring for approximately 20-30 minutes should not compromise plant safety.
.g..g. . ,,.Jq, l}n, p:.. .wf."'":~"
cr 4h/.tV_f. ._..-. -- - __ =
"wwww- _.w. _. - . , ,
Page 1 sf 2 l c . l l FSAR CHANGE REQUEST /CRANCE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM j 1( SCR No.MS 84 -M
. SCu No. sion FART I kRIGINATOR A. Is thia chanSe the result of implementation of an activity which was l
previously subjected to a Safety and Environmental Evaluation?
.[ ] YeT - Attach a copy of t e hSafety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III.
()Q No - Answer Question B. ,
- 3. Is an evaluation of this chanSe required?
[%]Yes-CompletePartII.- [ No Enter basis and complete Part III: FART II - EVALUATION , I A. SAFETY Incorporation of the chanSe into the FSAR will:
- a. -increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously ;
evaluated in FSAR. c:, s a.m.a c r- E wsTv44 c . W a At t ( [ ] Yes Basis: T at vacPatan
# V. 2.aV "S rA. -om E tenat e AJ 5: 5At Ciums ,
%) No r wa.mu Phwa. um E.am m. hm" M4*.
T = r- e-e m - I
- b. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the Gi;ew?1 MM.
- o '.g
[ ] Yes Basis: Sss A mnos A k ! T. w-. l$ No s t. so a. 6I ..
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any-4 .
lO ~ slready evaluated in the FSAR. l
; e ,
.,,-([]Yes Basis: Su *8a manos A n.? IN No
!S increase the probability of a asifunction of equipment important to ,
; l
; fog h . [y^ d. safetypreviouslyevaluagedintheFSAR. :
j g j [ ] Yes sesis: su .* amavs
' IM I*
increase the consequences of a as1 function of equipment important to
)D e.
. r=! safety previously evaluated
- m)' in aAnds the FSAR.
Yes Basis: 54.1 e F 31,[g]}3,
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safetydifferentthangreviouslyevaluatedintheFSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: S u. ' a." atw I [p.)no 3 reduce the marSin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification. gg [ ] Yes Basis: 1llLw_e_ a. Ah [fJ Bo
. . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - _ nr r
I l tage 2 of 2
- 5. ENVIR0lOENTAL Incorporation of the change into the FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
.I [ ] Yes Basis: So "A , o. " m .o paa o.m m s- l , [JQNo
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any advkrse environmental 1spect previously evaluated in the Final . l Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's l 4 .
teggdaony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB). supple-meets to the FES. environmental irpact appraisal, or in any [ j
]
decisions of the ASLB. I ] Yes Basis: [f4 No
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-f ance with 10CTR51.5(b)(2)).
[ ] Yes Basis: K] No
- d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in 5.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact.
[ ] Yes Basia: [)Q No ( PART III - REVIEV/ CONCURRENCE A. Originating Ormanisation _ % 45' 1.A k gru Id4 Originator /Date Vection Manager 7 Supervisor /Date ! Z ----------- _ -- - _ ----------------- -_ --- __ gp, -- i TT. . -1 , ico,%:! i. Nuclear Safety and Compliance ! '* ' o , Safety Review Action Serial Number A)A I gd 'u) 5 ,
.g., ,
Y ,
>JddI ofty 4.4.L G-II k T Mayager of6 Nuclea'r Safety-and Compliance /Date l t, , Reviewer /DateV gf I j -
l ,4c,..)t . l .t C Radiolonical & Environmental Services l Y.)
'"l h), h . k. .
Manager of Radiological & Environmental I {fjteviewer/Date Services /Date D. Nuclear Licensina
,. i ) 14 -
%_ b w n.,,1e b - e ar .f m ,
i
FSAF UPDATE __.% s-u-at
'Pa s t- E A,~ (com.a_,g cu 31o3 =-
ps 64-
,' ( .
6/Wc L -'T- YA A E y t 5 7-s M 4 b4d Ettat-AE.
.; IN s1"' 9 1 in. i N t oM t l.T A
- t- sa.* LTM
- Tl+E .
iN TWE EMR an R C. T t O N IN*1 -'P - E w."F j Ard Eb tae if-M
- t. W 4 K T Ace o A es D b 4.cJ 9. *A b- f 4-K.C T A L(
9ew =. <= Rw O P e es + r.tus M t% * [._4_ r r ac.a 5c), r-wt p ae c. s.s. o c wa iv e n. w> w ce. u. c o mm.c c T4. TV E ' S 9t. o A mb a a L t r y eA o C C 4 A A N c.at. O F-A4 A.t L,s o s e sT- ?Aeoto 4 s.Y p.U46 M4 TS-D j tM % s. Pda A P.t.. D w s. ro r-n s. tV b AC (. os ,-a. a. e a s ~ s. c. No e r n.a ssaesry e a. w.~ o,a. ~ ~ . ~ n v us r-a, ~ sacn a arm t_ A, p pt c_Ts e , k gs.uat.La s _ , T HE. M484- *4 l I i % AP %74 4% %T. F( AJ E D IN ' t-R R. % 45 L.f. OF 7T4E
~~T~rs c wn a.s S PEctALL4TC.tNS to t L %, eVeT- R Al.
4 Tr b wc.g.b y Sf M C. T W ' Sa C M 4 eJ5.E. I5 A. C. o a E.4 c;q: t e 4 Te A.ed E y.c k r-i. ^> q FSAE c o r p ts.
- s.
V 9-e-cre. . l (
- . _ _ - _ _ - . _ _ _..__.__III-_126_ _
- Fcan 1 ef gy D v4
. FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No.PLG- $40Z.
SCN No. 4 s o 4L PARY I - ORIGINATOR , A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was . previously subjected to a Safety and Environnental Evaluation? [ ] Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III. [X] No - Answer Question B. B. Is an evaluation of this change required? ,
. [X] Yes - Complete Part II.
[ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III: Nk PART II - EVALUATION
-A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase-the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis:The subiect trips are bypassed upon an ECCS actuation signal. [1] No 'The ef fects of the trips not beina bypassed is of concern af ter
.[Ngi ng j. -
b. the LOP has occurred. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the g . +
"' MM.
Al 8 [ ] Yes Basis: In the Loss of AC Power (15.2.6) operation of ECCS (HPCS) was not simulated on the analysis since its operation occurs De-
~
Q,+ (g $ [X] No vond the concerns of fuel thermal margin & over pressure etracts. 8
*N 4 f. c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any .
i-i already evaluated in the FSAR.
, [ ] Yes Basis: See b.
, [X] No r h . d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment feiocreant to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
l r , [ ] Yes Basis:The automatic trips not being bypassed does not increase j . 2 . [ X] No the probability of a malfunction. (see e)
. u ..
. e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment faportant.to
d safety prev 2ously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: During a LOP the probability of a D/G trip as a result of a (1 [1] No malfunction is increased. However actuation of HPCS was not at=ulmeed in the accident analysis (see b).
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
l [ Yes Basis: (een e) [X]) y , 3 reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical
. specification.
[ ] Yes Basis: Tech Snec 4.8.1.1.2.d.8 only requires the listed automatic [X] No erina to be hvnassed unon an ECCS actuation signal. FSAR7sd1 m gn
- . . .. . .. . ._ . . . .-. . - - .. . - - ~
3 io+- Paga 2 of f# fC
- 5. ENVIROIOGNTAL #W, '
.-, Incorporation of the change into the FSAR.
i s. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan. + [ ] Yes Basist ( % No l
- b. concerns a matter which any result in a significant incrgase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NBC staff's ,
- testfeony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB). supple 2 monts to the FES. environmental impact appraisal or in any i i
decisions of the ASLB. l [ ] Yes Basis: [f]No
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord- l ance with 10CFR$1.5(b)(2)). l
[ ] Yes Basis: [g] No
- d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in 5.1.b. above, which any have a significant adverse
- environmental impact. i [ ] Yes Basis: [p] h e PART III - R$ VIEW / CONCURRENCE A. Orizinatina Organization i n /*2P$$ # 2S Originator /Da~te / Sdet'16nManasqg/S~upervidor/Date / 1 n) 2^ -
!e 3. Nuclear Safety and Compliance 7 *w
~. 8 O +el f' Safety Review Action Serial Number o '
Y+N
\
! Reviewer /Date Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date 6
l k C. Radiolosteal & Environmental Services e '. + i
}} Reviewer /Date Manager of Radiological & Environmental j }
- . . Services /Date D. Nuclear Licensina Responsible Licensing Engineer /Date Manager of Nuclear Licensing /Date PSAR7sd2 ITT-1?R _ . _ . __
& W
- Pcgsf cf /
FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. M"'b dD- t ( SCN No. 9tw NATOR F ' A. Is this chan e result of taplementation of an activity was pre'viously subject o a Safety and Environnental Eval on? [ ] Tes - Attach a copy he Safety and Envir Evaluation Form or , equivalent. Comple rt III. [ ] No - Answer Question B. l B. Is an evaluation of this se required? [ ] Yes - Complete F I. [ ] No - he is and complete Part III:
- ~ , .
., , N . , . _ -
t ,
- i. N; '.
.PART II - EVALUATION CI fl f~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~
M/ - A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously i
[]i Bes 04L : Caeed N 9Akn brr e/ Anh #a.L f] No an4+- NC( ha'r M
#odAh. , W a/AJ'- en'
.a 8 f4J ,
4 O / ( b.- increase the tonseque6ces of an accident previously evaluated in the []Ye sis: h a M v' A asa 4 4. M A4 ! [)o) No Mr % (A Toastad - e a tocA 4dr d R 4 M4.S-b: '.r .t M-4 -A knewaAss .a+hm.
- c. creat's the possibility df an accide'nt of a dif'ferent type'tifin auf already evalua ed in he FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basist tL M I. Iorr' # N ' t
- [y] No a 2_.a,
.ae a d, ' "
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to
[] s a s_ *
#R de': e. der e/
I- >] No yer .nsf u*:W.e/'.n ++rs.fVA d94k W* K f4 hvhM4'%
%'nand" x,[+ ' *L.. ML ,
e
-6 L rG D A L
- e. increase the consequences of a maffunction 61 shuipment iniportant to r l
safety previously evaluated in the FSAR. , [ ] Yes Basis: C- h 4 C. l [yd] No
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety diffe nt thap prpviously evaluated in the FSAR. l j' [ ] Yes Basis: _ * ~ b VC.
[ P*] No
- g. reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical
[]i e 5~e,Y. 0. Y llAA.$ _
$0]no n. . t' M <r' A kn MDe. rad M o ! BCC a*I+@= -
l -' sa.
\
FSAR7sd1
-- - - - - - - - - - _ ,- .. _ __ _ _ __.TTT.194__ ___ _ _ _ _ ,
B. ENVIRONMENTAL Inecrp:rotion of th2 chtng2 into tha FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
[ ] Yes Basis:
)
M No f
- b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final
~
Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's
- testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any ,
decisions of the ASLB. [ ] Yes Basis: . fgf No
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
[ ] Yes Basis: (M No
- d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact.
[ ] Yes Basis: I- - *
,a Qr] No f,,t f/# 7 . . . . .. . . .. . - -
............................................. g g ...................... . _
PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE __ A. Originating Orzanization
- _m l OrigiqVtor/Date '( ' Section Manager'/ Supervisor /1) ate
______________________________________________ j l I B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance Safety Review Action Serial Number /dA
" M/f[
OAAA - b b~ of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date Reviewer /Date F na C. Radiological & Environmental Services Reviewer /Date Manager of Radiological & Environmental Services /Date D. Nuclear Licensing 6 db all.I w ra rh1/W-Ma' nager of Nuclear (Licensing'/ Data RespopbleLicensingEgin[er/D4te FSAR7sd2 UUL-MT61 k
Fase 1 of 2 n y r.s%
%.lal .m .'CLGCi
, r k ../\g FSAR CRANCE REQUEST /CEANGE WOTICE ETA 1.UATION FORM
{ ..CR so.
- SCN No.
PART I - ORICINATOR II Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was - previously subjected to a Safety and Environmental Evaluatten?
; ) Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III.
No - Answer Question B.
- 3. Is an evaluation of this change requi_ed? t
[ ] Yes - Complete Part II.
% No - Enter basis and R f cu.c.go Pe ,i complete Part III: SMcw
, c., e p .t n.y, 43 ea .u E Awm~ .t s aNex s ,, , . . ,
H.i C) I'> (ea 9t,.**a.co. EtWe f( A Gt m - 63/ C 3GI,7 21 2 ) cv s if a ut 6 1* 2 3 e 1 Wawn Astefhr. Op NfL fr NEC l3/c. s. 7e -s S:
............6.a.............
. J Arc *s - E 3/c,4 k ) , s l .. ................. . . ............
e rre c.<
*a.c/nrwves.;
FART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETT Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR
[ ] Yes Basis: ( [ ] No
- b. increase the conseguences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: [ ] No
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: [ ] No
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to fn
.i r, safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
@jt [ ] Yes h eis:
8 - I [ ] no O
-k e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to
.E safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
t I [ ] Yes Basis:
. [ ] Eo .
i
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment taportant to l safety different than previously evaluated in the 75AR.
I I ] Yes Basis: ( ) no l (
"i reduce the margin of safety as defined la the basis for any technical S.
I i -- sFecification. [ ] Yes Bester [- []m num - ,
;N
~
~ page 2 Cf 1
- 3. ginogeGNTAL' Te nrporation of the change into the FSAR.
si.,will require a change la the Environmental Ptetection Flan.6y fi.a er"Tetw Spec.J [- Yes Basis: G.c f u4.s taisessic.c bei.,s As 5fet,r cc ( No \ u. i s s BE ens Nmc.ws h rouc,aT Au feef5 TM Tde hJia cU 5.c '. S T *4c EPP .s eo .
~
D. soscarse a matter ubich may result ta a significant incretase in any adverse environments 1 in act previously evaluated in the final Environments 1 Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's s tess.imony to the Atomic Bafety and Licensing Board (ASLB). supple- - ments to the FES. environmental fapact appraisal. er in any
. decisions of the ASL3. . e . t . u d c. 4 e n 't i. a d R.r, se,..Se c A chv.a. 3
[ ] Yes Basis: -t s c.a.i.$ e u
-L_ 3 e ' r. u t . 4 4 s . -
" ubu, ** r . \ Al a DQ Wo
- a. concerns a significant change in affluents or power leve3 (in accord-
~'
ante with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)). w r.t ,. ~3 tt w I 1 Yes sesis: rcatw n v.s t.uc n 456414:. 4co.o s ,- 4 S .2 s + s +. . , ) c. s e=,r.stLL M We 'TFst- W' s(-4 n4
- r si , . L. s i t ,
- s. s 4'.% s .
.4 ... . . A b e s. .ul 3 CJ p.i s.s.s!, e wL (4* d
- d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.1.b. above, which any have a significant adverse environmental impact. s c r,s .T,s < Aee %r
[ ] Yes Basis: A4 i' t a. ., c 4' 4 4 ,.eeat ou.es , ~r ts. s. ne.cus e N No II eMv PE t i t ta A FY a u T tfat t A c e Cast / A ~ att y k t # e a. /R T" A 4$ C (f_GATEL N s i,s. ..u J t ( PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE A. Originating Organisation . W l L U <h M
> & LIAN 2h ev Te,sfion' Manage r / Supe rvi sor /D4te Originator /D4te g.__ ,
- 3. 'Buelear Safety and Compliance hQ+
ao Safety Review Action Serial Number f do /s - Eda+ Manager of nuclear safety and Compliance /Date Reviewer /Date j C. Radiolosteal & Environmental Services l
'I i . ~
~
Manager of Radiological & Environmental Reviewer /Date
- Services /Date
; i -
i l - k D. Nuclear Licensina Manager of Nucisar Licensing /Date Responsible Licensing Engineer /Date
- - - TTT 119
Pega 1 cf,2 FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. 4-8Y~hb
- L SCN No. -h~ @ '
.' 3Io9 PART I - ORIGINATOR A.. Is this change the ' result of implementation of an activity which was
~ previously subjected to a Safety and Environnental Evaluation? - [ ] Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III. 'h'-I f' % i
. N No - Answer Question B.
I hQ
^ " - -
Is an evaluation of this change required? B. -
'N Q4 Yes - Complete Part II. u N/I
[ ] No. - Enter basis and complete Part III: -= , . . . . .. .- PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously
. [- ) B s corduk-'_a .&sy M e M M ' Ak
' p0] No sosf -40cA #_ ' -Na, "?k Vh-s.ne. %% 4%saa., atAnk'
';4 " el "B Au %e _aM e. WF &M%.
increfse the consequences of-an'iccident previously evaluatd'd in the
'(' b.
- []Ye Basis
- #f4/6 a_al M A ycet in d a 4 4 m.st.t.
b4 No &%Afw.aw s how :_W-% '= . Ard:ok" 4/~-- . h(a f M a
. cm%--d cm 'wur.?,'J s Am 4 A-4s..
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.d M k Ad
[ ] Yes Basip: Shdbre-g an ' ' A /d APM , [A No de Lew <
/ .
- d. increase the probability of a. malfunction of equipment important to I
safety previously evaluated 1.r- in the FSAR.'h." d "$ . ahJt .
.[-] Yes Basis: [a-
.p1 No e
- e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment faportant to
. . safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
h ',6",aAeWJL.
.[ ] Yes Basis: A_ '
QMi No
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment faportant to safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
,[ ] Yes' Basis: _% & *e ". 84
% No
- g. reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical
.orecification.
[ d I '7 = - d . 8 4' 8.t.. M%I8 ce -'t l . [ ] Yes Basis: [M'No n'_Af~-m_ nfaaf2.' . od 73eL: Csne. 73A0 L33"e2 '
^ ^" ^ z + D aa n osse ' a n h % .
v FSAR7sd1
---__ - ___._ ______.__ _ _ . . __ _ r r r _t to_
Pega 2 cf 2
.B.. ENVIRONMENTAL ~
.: Incstysrction of th2 ch:ngs into tha FSAR.
- a. will require a f ange h in the Environmental Pr tection F1 n. cA ; ,
[ ] Yes Basis: -fKA d%0 M ,_. J_ . _m ' De] No (.
- b. ~ concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental S'tatement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-ments to the FES, anvironmental impact appraisal, or in any d
l-
< [aUla"he/**df w N. s
' t' w .=
s A.,//
.u m M cd d x
- q . . .
- e. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-ance with 10CFR515(b)(2)).
[ ] Yes Basis: d.s./ h /n e A#l M = W s// l
-]- l
()e] No 64 /eWAA Ad" '"' " ge= I
- d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu- I C; lA ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse i
[ e: environmental impact. [d,n. . 1 [ ] Yes Basis: b $ ,e,AbC, b ll4 ho) No , PART III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE k A. . Originating Organization
- h. L !!:h - -
Section knager/ Supervisor 7Date WWW Originafor/Date // B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance Safety-Review Action Serial N aber
~
(f M Reviewer /Date k nager df Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date
--___--_________._--___________..j. _ _____-_____ ___-_-_______-__
C. Radiological & Environmental Services h eviewer/Date C.-fg k nager of Radiolog@al & Envfronmental Services /Date ] D. Nuclear Licensing Se } . 4sl6 $jk0rlh knagerofNuclear{icensing/Date Responsible Licensing Engineer /Date FSAR7sd2
- - . _ _ _.. _ _.. _ _ _ __ _ _ .III-_1 _34 __.-.__a..
..: .. ! p ,s g y ma s p g ,te.
n,e L L. Ny MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Helping Rulief Mississippi ( P. O. BOX 1840. JACKSON. MISSISSIPPI 39205
^Pri2 7. 198'
,,,,,; ,=,
E UPDATE U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Consnissi- M S -P4 G Office of Nuclear Reactor Reguistion - ~ - - Washington, D. C. 20555 CO*F Attention: Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director _
Dear Mr. Denton:
SUBJECT:
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1 Docket No. 50-416 License No. NPF-13 File: 0260/0840/L-860.0 Proposed Amendment to the Operating License (PCots-84/05 & -84/06) AECH-84/0216 In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CTR 50.90, Mississippi Power & Light (MP&L) requests an amendment to License NPF-13, for Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GCNS) Unit 1. ( In accordance with provisions of 10 CFR 50.30 three (3) signed originals The attachment and forty (40) copies of the requested amendment are enclosed. i I provides the complete technical justification and discussion to support the This amendment has been reviewed an d accepted by the l requested amendment. Plant Safety Review Committee (PSRC) and the Safety Review Committee (SRC). . Based on the guidelines presented in 10 CFR 50.92, it is the opinion of MP&L that this proposed amendment involves no significant hazards considerations. In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 170.22, we have determined that the proposed amendment is considered to be administrative in nature. Based on the guidance provided by the Project Manager (NRC), we have determined that the total fee is $1.200. A remittance of $1.200 is attached l to this letter. Y urs truly V JPM:rg Attachments: GGNS PCOLs-84/05 & -84/06 (S.. nest a..' c., FOR INFORMATION Member Middle South Utilities System
--- - - - _ _ _ _ . . ll88-135
[~* -
N,.,:l,Qm & Q"'*
i pr-Fv-(4
'( 4. CONTAINMENT ISSilES (Continued) h { ' ' ~~~--
C. (Mp4L P/L Ites No. 033) l
SUBJECT:
Containment Spray Timer Setpoints. Technical Specification Table 3.3.8 and Bases 3/4.3.8. , l DESCRIPTION Revisions to Technical Specification 3.3.8 and Bases 3/4.3.8 0F CHANGE: are proposed to ensure that the technical specifications specify containment spray timer setpoints and allowable values that are consistent with the analyzed minimum and maximum containment spray initiation times.
- 1. Table 3.3.8-2 should be revised to require that both containment spray system timers have a trip setpoint of 10.85 1 0.10 minutes and an allowable value of 10.26 -
0.00. + 1.18 minutes. In addition, the System B timer should be footnoted to indicate that the Systen B timer actually consists of two timers (E12-K0938 and E12-K116) and that the trip setpoint for E12-K116 is not to exceed 10.00 seconds of the total 10.85 2 0.10 minutes. (Fase 3/4 3-99) b 2. Bases 3/4.3.8 should be revised to refer to the analyzed minious and maximum time delays between the initiation of e- 3 the accident and containment spray initiation, which are 10 ( d""5 minutes and 13 minutes, respectively. (Page 3 3/4 3-6)
- .) The containment spray system is a subsystem of the residual heat removal (RHR) system. Two of three RRR trains provide the JUS YFICATION:
===p containment spray function. As described in FSAR Section
- abn 6.2.1.1.5.5 the safety analyses assume that containment spray Q*
initiates no sooner than 10 minutes and no later than 13values These 8 minutes after a loss of coolant accident (LOCA). F constitute the analytical limits for the initiation of ( containment spray. The lower limit of 10 minutes is based on directing RHR pump flow via the low pressure coolant injection (LPCI) function. E to the reactor vessel for at least the first 10 minutes of the postulated accident. This limit is established to ensure an O adequate post-LOCA core cooling capability, consistent with the associated safety analyses. Af ter 10 minutes, the analyses 1 permit function. the diversion of RHR pump flow to the containm
""""" containment spray is related to minimizing post-LOCA containment pressure.
2**** '"' '" *** O '"' '"'*" different. Train 3 logic'*' *** varies *"*from
'" 'in TraA in that it has an b additional timer to delay the initiation of that train for up a
j to 90 seconds following the expiration (tripping) of the This additional time delay is initial 10 minute timer. presently provided to prohibit simultaneous spray train initiation.
['...~
'i- ;- ~ lb ," d k [ {
n N WN-66 L4. CONTAINMENT ISSUES (Continued) C. (MF&L F/L Ites No. 033) It has been determined that the calculations necessary to - establish the overall loop accuracy do not accurately reflect all parameters. With the present timer settings the possi-bility of exceeding the analytical limits for containment spray initiation exists. To ensure that this does not occur, calculations have been performed to determine new timer set-points.- These new setpoints are shown below: Trip Allowable Setpoint Value i Timers System A 10.85 2 0.10 min. 10.26 to 11.44 min. l. 10.85 2 0.10 min. 10.26 to 11.44 min. System B These proposed setpoints and allowable values reflect theThe elimination of the 90 second time delay from Systes B. current safety analyses (FSAR Section 6.2.1.1.4.2) include p consideration of the containment response to simultaneous spray train fattiation. The results of this analysis demonstrate g
===ll that containment design requirements are met during this
( g anximum depressurization transient, thus the 90 second time C delay for Systen B initiation is unnecessary. m The bases for the new setpoint and allowable values were d determined by General Electric and reviewed and approved by MP&L. For the purpose of calculating the new values, an upper-Q analytical limit of 11.70 minutes was used. (f.e.,13 minutes minus the maximum allowable containment spray isolation valve The new trip setpoint of 10.85
', opening time of 1.30 minutes).
2 .10 minutes is aidway between the lower analytical limit of' l Q 10 minutes and the 11.70 minute upper Ifait. q[uecS $ ' Implementation of this trip setpoint and corresponding b allowable values ensures that the containment spray system will actuate withour exceeding either the upper or lower analytical Q l limit. O The proposed footnote for the Systes B timer will clarify that the new trip setpoint for System B is the sua of the two timers in that system. In addition, the footnote will specify that the present 90-second delay is to be set at a value not to i exceed 10.00 seconds. O The proposed addition to the bases will clarify that containment spray initiation is bounded by both an upper and b== lower analytical ifait. 777 1 *J7
-i p<c--,JrDATE
. o: i
- ^
( 4. CONTA110ENT ISSUES (Continued) grot --
- C. (MF&L F/L Item No. 033) _
SIGNIFICANT RAZARDS CONSIDERATION:
- These changes have been proposed to render the technical specification and bases consistent with new containment spray '
timer trip setpoints, allowable values, andImplementation analytical limits of as presented in FSAR Section 6.2.1.1.5.5. these new values will ensure that containment spray will actuate only after the core has received at least 10 minutes of LPCI flow. The new values also ensure that the upper limit of 13 minutes, for containment spray actuation, will not be exceeded. MP&L considers the change in timer values necessary to correct an error that exists in the present Technical Specifications. The new timer values are consistent with purpose of the containment spray systes and therefore are not considered to: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of a new or diffarent kind of a,ccident from any accident previously evaluated; or ( (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Thus the proposed changes have been evaluated and determined to > involve no significant hazard, as defined in 10 CTR 50.92. FOR $FORMALe"g
l M e 2
.(- 3 y
** ji ! E' .
UPDATE ! T- j ~i:1 8 !PfL s w...
- ' e gs?a,..,.
=1 , . .
?gq* =: :. . .
.5 w
y;g3E=7; g g. . i L- 8 h I Z
~
e, a .. = I O l m . fv _I.8.
- C &
O a 8 1. -
- -e _I i E peng< i. ..
' t' t l;l y
g 4 4 p te .
,E C l
vi.i as !!;: vi ( & I %
# b d
e g I = og p-W
- 8 +i -
. w
$h h " f si a - CC r
i 1 I O E ! E ! 4 2 *! w I I. ~ R y b C E = E$.- =..- a a. ct It-8 3* il 4 O I -a!I
=
e
- 5i.g3.::ly- A s
.: v i g>
8.! 5"a! a .I ; l l -}-}sexxl sj l l < uo. =, na a ,n GAMD GULF-UNIT 1 3/A A_-t{g _ _ - _ _ _ _ ,_ _ _ _ _ _
FOfR UPDATE _p3 tV46
'~
-INSTRUMENTATI'ON c4 Jfop SASES
,( f 3/4.3.7.11 RADI0 ACTIVE LIQUID EFFLUENT MONITORING INSTRUMENTATION i The radioactive liquid effluent monitoring instrementation is provided to- l monitor and control, as applicable, the releases of radioactive saterials in l liquid effluents during actual or potential releases of liquid.effivents. The t alare/ trip setpoints for these instruments shall be calculated in accordance l with the procedures in the 00CM to ensure that the alare/ trip will occur prior ; l to' exceeding the limits of 10 CFR Part 20. The OPERASILITY.and use of this ~ fastrumentation is consistent with the requirements of General Design CriteH a 60, 63 and 64 of Appendix A to 10 CFk Part 50. 3/4.3.7.12 RADI0 ACTIVE GASEOUS EFFLUENT MONITORING INSTRUMENTATION The radioactive gaseous effluent monitorin0 instrumentation is provided I to monitor and control, as applicable, the releases of radioactiva materials in gaseous affluents during actual or potential releases of gaseous effluents. The alare/ trip setpoints for these instruments shall be calculated in accordance with the procedures in the ODCM to ensure that the alarm / trip will occur prior to exceeding the limits of 10 CFR Part 20. This instrumentation of potentially explosive gas mixtures in the waste gas holdup system. The OPERASILITY and > use of this instrumentation is consistent with the requirements of General Design Criteria 60, 63 ad 64 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50.- ( I 3/4.3.8 PLANT SYSTEMS ACTUATION INSTRUMENTATION The plant systems actuation instrumentation is provided to initiate action to mitigate the consequences'of accidents that are beyond the abil.ty i of the operator to control. The LPCI mode of the RHR system is automatically initiated on a high drywell pressure signal and/or a low reactor water level, level 1. sinna1. The containment spray system will then actuate automatically following h gh drywell and high containment pressure signals.P A 10-minute aeM m i n
-> time delay exists between initiation of LPCI and containment spray actuation.
A high reactor water level, level 8, signal will actuate the feedwater system / main turbine trip system. . G - m ir w t e. vwa.simm
= x.,.a > .- . +, -
. ,.- . n . . _ w +
a ne &y .sefrosAr ana' a//oahts o# ekes spaalto;nd for
+,- .~ a . a ,,-c. s.,, .
( FOR INFCRI\/ ATION DNLY GRAND GULF-UNIT 1 8 3/4 3-6
----_ =--________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ Tit _-140 _._ _ __
FSAR CHANGE REOUEST/ CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. Mf8,a94- E9 l SCN No. 362a PART I - ORIGINATOR A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was
~' previously subjected to a Safety and Environmental Evaluation?
[ ] Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation For= or equivalent. Complete Part III. kNo - Answer Question B.
- 5. Is -: evaluatien of this change required?
Yes - Complete Part II. [ [ ] No - Enter basis and complete Part III: h . 3 PART II - EVALUATION
- -A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the' probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluatec' in FSAR. aufs,a Joa.a.:. A s scu.
] ies Basis: -rk,n 22e a L,22,u d a,,
O=a W ,:. L Jion,- W NoEncerLa J k af an .cfef !ne, .dk Aa '1, (( a-., wL 0n *- 'l a I il n0,0
;,, W rent an2 '.cr at sa. -~ et, a uhk -= -
- b. increase the consequences of an accident pr'aviously dvaluated'in the
'(- FSAR.
[ ] Yes- Basisi Su vudest In L' i b as
/
[V7No O c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any O m O already evaluated in the.FSAR. Sa, sash,,a t, #1 14,,, A , Basis:
$ jE ' $ [ W] [ Yes No I to
' increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment i=portant l
%.d. safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
(" [ Basis: J., <u b,,c, f, L ;h,r a, - I l ' No / l"1((]Yes increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to
, 5.le. safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ k [ ] Yes Basis: .Fp vol.,,a 1. O f 4 ,,, a , I
% ( T No b' f. create the possibility of a =alfunction of equipment important to safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR. ,
[ ] Yes Basis: Jo wl.1,4 o A ,,
/
[ Q'No
- g. reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical
( specification. ~lla C d nee, is n/oManual h mal- or b e.ud % &nM-l ) Tes Basis: & % 4 nard AAlo:1, rJhs. . [ } No Lh 1 I
/
FSAR11sd1 UUL-AGd
. B. C.EIO'O'.E'C.C )20 Incnrpsracten of th3 chcnga into ths FSAR.
- a. will rcquiro o chang 2 3min*,;;;
tha Envircngntnl d af rrifa } &Prote}p,ticn t % m Pirn.& nd 9Nrad Busiot tail e L - -qT s,c no cms n* L 1 ; :-! up.s (W)Too ( No Mrs g myg AI: ; ^ r v b, concerns s'(natter which may result in a significant increase in any _[ adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's
\
- testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any decisions of the ASLB.
I 1 Tes Basis: ~Tia b.chse/ ouldllin. us2ll b.on ma tmelnva (Q6o a e ujnu, w A '] 'i b d . -_
- c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level un accer:-
ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)). () es Basis: In
~f t. e L.<+4scoef d )*/in fotL d reed & cdaY l No .offlu o,Je ! o b w ,. Io,a L Ii /
- d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact. w;R *sd .)sa.ve one
% bdsg/ d,),* /h
( )Jes Basis: 3,Ju: M J J , L J. lWNo nil ma. PART' III - REVIEW /CONCPRRENCE Orieinatine Organization MP&L - NPE Concurrence A. k k j I4 NPE Responsible Engineer D Originator /Organizati n/Date (For Contractor Originated FCR's) E I w k]'y ' 'j hM Section $1hdfpf Manager /Supekvisor/Date r I f 0s i hg,,1,h a B. Nuclear Safety and Como11ance
. .i
' Safety Review Action Serial Nu=ber
!l-?
.s Manager of Nuclear Safety and Ccmpliance/Date
, j Reviewer /Date t
C.. Radiological & Environnental Services q ' Ul vA aA Reviewer /Date Manager of Radiological & Environ = ental Services /Date D. Nuclear Licensing _ ManagerofNuclearLicensit.),[Date Responsible Licensing Engineer /Date TSAR 11sd2
,. -. -. --.IllddL_-_ -- - -- . . . - -
F:ge 1 cf 2 FSAR CHANGE REQUEST /CRANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORN ( SCR No. PLS- RA - l 1 SCN No. 3:29 PART I - OR CINATOR A. Is thit_ change the result of implementation of an activity which was previously subjected to a Safety and Environmental Evaluation? J. [ ] YeT~~ Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III. 1% No - Answer Question B. B. Is an evaluation of this change required? [>4 Yes - Complete Part II. [ l No - Enter basis and complete Part III: f PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: ( [XI No ha anack.A ucGr.*eA* G vnw ch y
- b. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the y FSAR.
5gj [ ] Yes Basis:
' . [4 No see 2. akan o t.
2 ? ,f '
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any
.- already evaluated in the FSAR.
g [ ] Yes Basis: [K) No see 6. 1L%eoe
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes sesis: [ d No see s. abaoe i e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR. j* g ' , , (( 4] 50 Yes Basis:
,cee a. sbau em
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis ( [ 4 50 A ce 6. 1hb ou e 3 reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification. [ ] Yes Basis: sbaoom [ A Bo see si T T T_tM - . - - - . ,
' I
, '. Faga 2 ef 2 l
- 3. ENVIRONMENTAL incorporation of the change into the FSAR.
- a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Flan.
-( [ ] Yes Basis: ;
[%l No )
- b. concerna a matter which may result in a significant increase in any advbres environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FIS) as modified by the NRC staff's ,"
teggimony'to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB). supple- , meets to the FES, environmental impact appraisal or in any decisions of the ASLB. [ ] Yes Basis: [>d'No
- c. concerns a significant change in affluents or power level (in accord-ance with 10CTR51.5(b)(2)).
[ ] Yes Basis: [ A No i d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in 3.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental fapact. [ ] Yes Basis: [$ No (' FART III - REVIEW /COECURRENCE A. Originating organisation i 3 D&A$m i 7-7.-84 Section Manager /Supervisfor/Date Driginator/Date
.. Qj B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance AM jf g Safety Review Action Serial Number i
'ps .
btL A. Y ')b ih Reviewer /Date * ' ' f/$e//f[Fanager of Nulle$ Safety and Complidace/ C. Radiological & Enviroceental Services
. Reviewer /Date Manager of Radiological & Environmental i Services /Date --
l( , D. Nuclear Licensinz Responsible Licensing Engineer /Date Manager of Nuclear Licensing /Date TTT.1dd
l IFR (, 25,14- l l (- JUSTIFICATION Felt pfAR A Ah.73l7ff M $lE4 Cha gst 4o TSAR Section 1 1.30.5 fd- N l l This response is much more in line with the requirement as stated in ' NuReg 0737 Section II.k.3.17. The NuReg does not mention an annus1 report. It only requests data from 5 years of operation. Also, with the present response, MP&L is commited to submitting an annual report for the life of the plant. This is beyond what the NuReg asks for. It says that the NRC wil'1 use the- data to determine if a change to Technical Specifications is necessary in this area. There are several advantages, to both MP&L and the NRC, to submitting a single report af ter 5 years instead of annual reports for several years and then obtaining permission' from the NRC to stop. A single report would en-sure a single report format for ease and consistency in analysis of the data. It would also ensure that any subjective considerations in the report would be identical over the 5 year span so that egivalent problems would be con-sidered as equal. A single report would require less administrative effort and paperwork f or MP&L and less ef fort for the NRC to track the several reports and combine them f or the final evaluation. The advantage of using the first five years of commerical operation for the report is that it would be more representative of the conditions which will be experienced during the lif e of the plant. ECCS outage frequency and duration during the initial startup and testing program will normally be much greater than can be expected ([\ during the rest of the plant lifetime. In support of this position, other nuclear power plants were contacted to learn how they satisfied this requirement. -Hatch Nuclear Plant had already been operational for several years when NuReg 0737 made the requirement. In January '1981 Hatch sent the NRC a report covering the previous 5 years da ta . In August 1983, the NRC forwarded a safety evaluation saying that "because their outage times fell within the industry average, there was no need f or Technical Specification admendment". No annual reports were sub-mitted or considered during the entire time frame. Susquehana Steam Electric Station had initial criticality in September 1982, a more similar position to that of Grand Gulf. In response to NuReg 0737, Susquehanna commited to make The a single cumulative 5 year report af ter the first 5 years of operation. The NRC . commitment made no mention of any additional reports af ter that. accepted this position. Since there is no requirement or reason to submit continuing annual reports, and a single report would be more meaningful and efficient, and since other sites are only submitting one report MP&L should change this commitment by implementing the proposed FSAR Change. , k
*I .
l GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION (' l FSAR/ER CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE '
- =.m E 1 C EVALUATION 1 i
Sheet 1 of 2 ORIG 4NATOR DOCUMENT EW ALUATED
\QtL Mtf . 4. f, D J * #_ e ,b (( y noI . h. .b
- 1. SAFETY EVALUATION l incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- 1. Increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR. !
O YES 2LNO Basis: ( i .*_ Nc.Lt.16 t utJ 6'# S V1 t C\ C W(A6 (ANCC.t c.u" 19.O Js f>>6 fe i'i '
- 1
(&LL Mh"f" NC.MA'f T4_ Cf'MLB t Li t-t of- AM 1.LLit&MT" lW.t r_ ' 9.ro ne_m f+ m_ s m retsatat riev.T- tAEL05 iWf_. A W45ut.#rt .f Ir+.ib tui.Ge*J ,- tAtt.t Lt.Jr t C#. r:t JLLtW M lRTr> 8W L ET
- Tt.*1DMt b
- 2. Increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR. lH Cu.
wu.ot% Qt.u nc . O YES S NO Basis: b c_ 'd- 1
- 3. Create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.
O YES 3 NO Basis: u_ El (.
- 4. Increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
g, O YES QC N O Basis: b *A 4I
$ T
- Y '
l*8 y ,0.d 5.' increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR. O YES E NO Basis: bs_ nl
~
i i i l - i : . [
- 6. Create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than previously evaluated
; , in the FSAR.
,.O YES 7. NO Basis: Iry_ O3
; .-i
- 7. Reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification.
O YES 7 NO Basis: ( % .i n e_. , a n.L. C t.od t t t_ thhm matt Li'Ed f.A.fM_f' ( es ?LD9 is m 2.r_cr v . GPS 3353212,g3 $neet 3 of 2 a.. e. .k .. ' +medsw. b
t .' -. .. . FSARIER CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION Sheet 2 of 2 11.~ ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Incorporation of the Change intO the FSAR:
- 1. Will require a change in the Environmental Protection Plan.
t- - O YES S NO Basis: N cn- PA G~t- /W- T :7 b Dr_m.:ter.v- d i:r-s~-. ? - w 'h.: ~
- 2. Concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC Staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supplements to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any decisions of the ASLB.
O YES (il NO Basis: b_e_ &l ( 3. Concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accordance with 10 CFR 51.5(b)(2)). bA 'M O YES GLNO Basis: 2 R i
! m g *;9 -
(o pj ,
- 4. Concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the documents specified in 11.2, above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact.
l 'O YES % NO Basis: bu Ol i 4 i
. r
)
i: I , l .a pp;.geva ey en: ( APPROVED BY: (Group supv) APPROVED BY: (Ucensing Engineer) APPROVED BY: (Environ. bconsing Engineen APPROVED BY: (Propct Engineen f 1 f.//.fy fk WW x . . , s .
.J_ .im.. /. , ,!. ,
x 1 1 o.~ j j oi - c..
'r s s ,n _ __r:_ n "_*"***?"*Y
Pass 1 of 2
\
FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANCE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. # S- 84 ~7 '7 SCN No. ~5 I 4 I
= . l
)
FARTI-ORkCINATOR A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was
.previously subjected to a Safety and Environmental Evaluation?
, [ . ] YeT~- Attach a copy of the Safety and Environmental Evaluation Form or equivalent. Complete Part III. [)4 No - Answer Question B. B. Is an evaluation of this chanSe required?
! Yes - Complete Part II.
[ Wo - Enter basis and complete Part III: d}i[use.L'TI4. MM l e u h h a>ut ad Ia rGel 6 % AL(h1 a n N.. hdA> fru M - nLJ ro-L f at _z 4: s m Aust mer-in 1t, . E% + ' dr 1 m... .....d...P.^..'.,.o.fy.Fa.r.y. s.r..c.e).Ci.La4. A %.. 4. r..h.'P..c.h.A..h. *..l i-FART II - EVALUATION 4 A. SAFETY Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
-a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously ,
i
- g. evaluated in FSAR.
t
,' [ ] Yes Basis W No *
- b. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR. l
, 1 [ ] Yes Basis: [M No
-] create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any I- c.
l i-b [ ] Yes Basis: already evaluated in the FSAR. ( ,9 - k n ()Q**
.* 7 a increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to k8T 5 i d safety ,reviously evaluated in the FSAR.
' d g [. ] Yes Basis: ()Qno
- e. increase the consequences of a as1 function of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
! ] Yes Basis *th n - n u n. %
- l A no Sot 1em -t'b / O 80 4 d.11ack A e&B;6dri -
ou,A w as 19 n a ' aJa nn0 m u r:ttDa
- f. create the possibility of a malfunctidh of egdipdent important to safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR.
l [ ] Yes Basis: IN I* i
- g. reduce the marSin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical '
specification. [ ] Yes ~ Basis: , [ A No . V em
--+--w,4w.s., - , , . _ _ . _ _ _ _
' CA1313l Faga 2 ef 2 I
B. INVIR0letENTAL Incorporation of the change into the FSAR. j a. will require a change in the Environmental Protection Flaa. [ ] Yes Basis: [A No '
- b. concerna a matter which may result in a significant increase la any
~
i i advbres environmental fapact previonaly evaluated in the Final Esvirosenental Statement (FES) as modified by the WRC staff's , teggdaony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB). supple-asets to the FES. environmental fapact appraisal, or in any decisions of the ASLB. i [ ] Yes Basis- j [)4 No ; I
- c. concerns a significant change in affluents or power level (la accord-ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
[ ] Yes Basis: [)Q No . l ! d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in 3.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental tapact. [ ] Yes Basis: [N No l FARY III - REVIEW / CONCURRENCE 1l A Originating oraanisation k sht w, "]-11 $$ phrvihr/Date/ ' Originator /Date Section Waagey/Ss l f a@ 3 - ._ .. . _ 3 . Nuclear Safety and Compliance l] i Safety Review Action Serial Number [g kY M h 5 x (n 2
- lL 1y E E K-C. *Radiolonical & Environmental Services Soviewer/Date Manager of Radiological & Environmental
)
Services /Date D. Nuclear Licensing Responsible Licensing Engineer /Date Manager of Nuclear Licensing /Date fif 1do ,
,i FSAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCR No. gApay-e25'
- i. . .
SCN No. .713 5' PART I - ORIGINATOR _ A. Is this change the result of implementation of an activity which was previously subjected to a Safety and Environmental Evaluation? ' [ ] Yes - Attach a copy of the Safety and Env lonnental Evaluation Form or ~ equivalent. Complete Part III. w No - ins.e ouesti - 3. J-SAR UPDATE __o FA st.o.pf Is an evaluation of this change required?
~
B. __
, M Yes - Complete Part II. -- _
( 1 No - Enter basis and complete Part III.- __ PART II - EVALUATION l A. SAFETY j Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will:
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.-
l \ 1 Tes Basis: "[Nd PfodA8!Lon/ ef dCCtJAEMCC $f /d Alt."iDEdr'is [ M No dor /MtAEMsab Be't PAdvsDiM6 Afe/f frffertWK C/ACusY Planrcried Fed 7ME Nck few/drfL flk/o/Merar ApsdEL /masas.
- b.
- increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the
,C TSAR.
l 1 Tes Basis: #fot/idG YWS6 e/JCsh7.5 75 SnMAtt.4210sagb ptwnhJrcys j N No fdMAWeg.$ -rWgs4. FAcrac7 sod 4WD UML WOT /WLAEAw i ~rWC con /$fdufA/CE.S OF 4W AM'MW.
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.
, t 1 in sasis: cWHedCs.b cideutr PAcrreriod of 7atestalcair.s >
! M No 4/sLL.Herf/MArd "THf PossiAsss7v oc 44 4ct./MM7~ oc ^ ! A .avFFFAsdr YVPc ~rH4M P/s(/sousty rude udrsn .
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of eq61pment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
l 1 Tes Basis: PfoytDsW& AfdAf ffb'YCrit/f C/Aept7 f/07EC7/Od i H No hs/tt.L. A/Bf JAl[ASA$$ YNK SA080/LirY Of thWM$d/T ' i otAtfdpcried. ,
- e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to
- l. safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
; t 1 Tes nasis: rMt conseoved- of A Awiruneriod osroasacar i M No tdict Me7 Af iMt'AEAsEb RW AtoAE EFFIC/fdTL.V FE*rATsd&-
~rHE NSGS l'e#A/77A. EidgeNstEN7~ PcWit fee uG-
- f. create the possibility of a malfunction of equipment important to safety different than previously evaluated in the FSAR. ,
t 1 ies Easia: do Possidisiro of 4 n/JtA.wened dC fMPArcdT" l- M No 2>>FrfL'ar~ 'TNAd P/hevrt ss fuAlunrED Luodsh AF/herEb Ry
'Tkf E-Math *z b f/A*>>sr~ JMr7A' hr70d DF YNAsE Pk)dfl. M -
3 reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical
,( specification.
i 1 ies aasis: piscouterfrase psorcersoJ , cot udiarrffu/>ndLE I4
% No ~ PdedEA ' Dis 71/8(/71oM P4ntfL. /s/76 /s A/o r ADDec*='="2:> b
- /N 'rNC 4 gds ~7ECff. SfEC..
l FSAR11sd1 fft 1Ch * .*=
Peg) 2 cf 2 ,
, 3. ENVIRONMENTAL
.' incsrpureticn of thn chr.ngs into ths FSAR.
.o. will r quiro a chango in tha Environmental Frstectica Plan.
C l 1 ies Baeie: 7Hos c:H4 Weir Affect.5 A f/ Gulf /M 7?ff s Ss4R 44/d/CM t.
>4 No $ NOWS LcVGD5 Dn/ L/W/WTEAft#7/8t.C PFA4.rA PMdEts AafD MAS Ma ffffCr BM TNE EWVedA/M6474L MO7wersed PtAsl.
,h b. concerns a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final
. Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's testimony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-
-ments to the FES, environmental impact appraisal, or in any
- N decisions of the ASLB.
( 1 Yes Ba' sis: RELocAr7eal of 7WE56C/ACskys Ar/ As*AdoPX/A
' '$y >Q No S/E6b 2wscoddECTE Ldes/t.D MAVE de /MA4c7~ CAJ t F/A/Af ENVsedNMansrAL <rrArmeWNT~.
h , i c. concerns a significant change in effluents or power level (in accord-
' g ance with 10CFR51.5(b)(2)).
( } Tes Basia: fMMAntfD ffo7"fenesi of 77$65fC//cus73 bees M07~ D >4 No foA/CsVfA/ A CH4e/66 /A/fffLVfs/r.$ est ArWEL.LgvCt /d AcceAD4wCE nhrM s e e F A S /. 3* / B )( 3 ) - ,
- d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the docu-
{[ h hi ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact.
-&? E es E l } Tes Baeis: Art.etAMod aF 7sV456 t/ACd/r.E DWs9400AJACA477Lt/
>4 No $s t Eb DosceWWECT;5 MAS JVO fMV/A9MMfdf*AL k 5 '
t }~1 /M P A CT*. PART III - REVIEW /CONCITRRENCE - L i A. Originating Organization MP&L - NPE Concurrence JWWoo5 7. lAlsLEs/dPW/o-3-B+- a8 Originator / Organization /Date- NPE Responsible Engineer U atu b 18 (For Contractor Originated FCR's) Section Manas Supervisor /Dats B. Nuclear Safety and Compliance - i Safety Review Action Serial Number 1 Reviewer /Date Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date
]. C. Radiological & Environmental Services h N4 44 Reviewer /Date -
Manager of Radiological & Environmental Services /Date
! D. Nuclear Licensing i ; Responsible Licensing Engineer /Date Manager of Nuclear Licensing /Date FSAR11sd2
- ttt $c' t___
m--.
' ySAR CHANGE REQUEST / CHANGE NOTICE EVALUATION FORM SCE Bo. 'A/ N - M -d/oC
.SC5 No. 3/97 FART I - ORIGINATOR ~
A. Is this enange the result of implementation of an activity which was previously subjected to a Safety and Environmental Evaluation?
.[ ] Tes - Attach a ecpy of the Safety and Enviren= ental Evaluation For= or equivalent. Complete Part III.
)<] No - Answer Question B. --
E/d UPDATE 9 A. nz >{ .. - . . - . _ B. Is an evaluation of this change required?
* ~
><] Yes - Comolete Part II.
---[-] No-- Enter basis and--complete--Par 4-III: . --- --
PART II - EVALUATION A. SAFETY , Incorporation of the change into the FSAR will: i
- a. increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in FSAR.
[ ] Tes Basis:
><3 No T/. s e'ss. e ? Sch. a , ' <. ii s nd s
- o ..-r . fa hr-a r.* rn e ocSM +r> .;/r -E ist '
er ,w, r. i,.. .
- b. increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the
~
ESAR. ( [ ] Yes Basis-m sr.< .. .e . +- .ir u ,e . v . .: . i,i. -: e ds-3. ?a ~~. wi. :, 1 -r: s i-r o r VQ So r,.,...--
~~;>i .e - o :, . . ,; . r :, . . ri
- c. create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any already evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Yes Basis: b() No /le e,dd,4,; ,/ ~ i..n a e,n .er- t,,;.., ,o44e f e o. +3 re., n m v +e e, -en. s vm n . 7s. osaseas .u 4... 'rI:.~d rs l'irr#M ce/?ia.'r e -. r!!Mcd/ u;//r;<r i 4 ekee . ., r eado;he. r.dsla#< *sc
- d. increase the probability of a malfunction of equipment important to safety pteviously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Tes Basis:
><] Bo yer zen, n a e. e-...,,.n ,re+-Y....,,a 4 n #*s.in.,,..rna Mao , tan M a ns nera ;.,it r. r..exe e !. i. ~. s.nes . .
- e. increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
[ ] Tes Basis: [>d 5o Ah
- e wne ,,n o- /> iw a-t' red n t.rrea maa v 6. ,. r! . eo<i_w* a t 4 e foes t.1 No 115 e/.sas. . k <&s,an t../v. Ah ivorien/ssr tras ivr4edsehm.vesi. !'.- r.u
' r 4;iwa heda, <,r-e in tred.'eod.
B. reduce the =argin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification. ( [ ] Tes Basis:
>Q So 7he _-tmsu 4,-?it edst r. , r*- ,lMrd / - + Awr.w ev/ nit. ,4 ner ,4..,-
.ts % e: /&J en ;.nn.a,?r r s l FSAR11sd1 fii-152
.,- u. sa Dmmx2% ,
Inc:ry: ration cf th3 chansa into ths FSAR.
- (,' . c. will requira a changs in ths Environmental Protection Tica.
[ ] Tcc Bacio: g 3.
- b. concerna a matter which may result in a significant increadi 1n ant-
[_ adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) as modified by the NRC staff's [
~.
testimony to the Atonic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), supple-
'ments to .the FES . environmental. impact lippraisal, or in any ..
d 'decisionii of ~th'e' ASLB'. -
~~ '
% .[ ] Yes Basis: 1 1
M No 4 . C _
- c. ' concerns a significant change in affluents or power level (in accord-ance, with 10C7R51.5(b)(2)). ,
[ ] Yes Baafs: -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
) Nh .
{ d. concerns a matter not previously reviewed. and evaluated in the docu-ments specified in B.1.b. above, which may have a significant adverse 9-y U environmental impact.
.@A ,tm [ ]-Yes Basis:
(' .
- - .g g g N No a
PART III 1tEVIEW/CONCL'RRENCE t A. Critinating Organization - MPSL - NPE Concurrence (
- i. .
.n$RI&wlAIPEl: -as ed Originator / Organization /Date NPE Responsible Engineer. -
6
- 1 ll8 #
' 5f + 14/ (For Contractor Originated FCR's) l Section Manager / Supervisor / Data i
! 3. Nuclear Safety and Comoliance - l Safety Review Action Serial Number Reviewer /Date Manager of Nuclear Safety and Compliance /Date
- C. Radiological & Environmental Services pk #
Reviewer / Data Manager of Radiological & Environmental , Services /Date - - - t D. Nuclear Licensing 8
- l Responsible Licensing Engineer /Date Manager of Nuclear Licensing /Date FSAR11sd2 l T T T-1.8i3 ,
MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMhlXL CO Helping Build Mississippi RAMMdiddB P. O. B O X 164 0, J A C K S O N, MIS SIS SIP PI 39215-1640 3 A
'5 l,lpril 30,1985 A J' f ,
NUCLEAR LICEN$ LNG & SAFETY DEPARTMENT , U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission O Region II 101 Marietta Street, N. W., Suite 29 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Attention: Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator
Dear Dr. Grace:
SUBJECT:
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1 License No. RF-29 . DocketNo.50-416 // File: 0260 5322 Annual Environmental Operating Report for 1984 AECM-85/0111 In accordance with Grand Gulf Nuclear Station's (GGNS) Environmental Protection Program, attached is the Annual Environmental Operating Renort for the period January 1 through December 31, 1984. Questions concerning the technical content of this report should be referred to Mr. G. O. Smith, Acting Manager, Radiological & Environmental Services,at(601)969-2672. Yours truly, L. F. Dale Director JDB/G0S:ay Attachment cc: Mr. J. B. Richard (w/a) Mr. O. D. Kingsley, Jr. (w/a) Mr. R. B. McGehee (w/a) Mr. N. S. Reynolds (w/a) Mr. G. B. Taylor (w/a) Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director (w/a) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Document Control Desk (w/18) U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 [ 8g
)\
h,[ Member Middle South Utilities System J0P20AECM85040203 L}}