ML20206D365

From kanterella
Revision as of 13:17, 6 December 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
1998 PBAPS Annual 10CFR50.59 & Commitment Rev Rept. with
ML20206D365
Person / Time
Site: Peach Bottom  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 12/31/1998
From: Doering J
PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:
NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NUDOCS 9905040074
Download: ML20206D365 (15)
v • d • e


Text

John Doering, Jr.

Vice President

. A Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station v

PECO NUCLEAR ecco coerov comaeov 1848 Lay Road

' A Unit of PECO Energy 7 9032~

Dejtag P Fax 717 456 4243 E-mait jdoenng@peco-energycom April 20,1999 Docket Nos. 50-277

' 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

SUBJECT:

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3 Annual 10 CFR 50.59 and Commitment Revision Report For The Period January 1,1998 through December 31,1998 Gentleman:

Enclosed is the 1998 Annual 10 CFR 50.59 and Commitment Revision

//

-/

i Report as required by 10 CFR 50.59 (b). If you have any questions or require additional informatior., please contact A. A. Winter at (717) 456- i 3598. i Sin ,}

ohn Doering Jr.

Vice President,

{

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station JD/ MEW /AAW/

hfW fW Attachment 4

cc: R. R. Janati, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania  !

H. J. Miller, US NRC, Administrator, Region l R. l. McLean, State of Maryland A. C. McMurtray, US NRC, Senior Resident inspector A. F. Kirby Ill, DelMarVa Power N. J. Sproul, Public Service Electric and Gas

~ CCN 99-14041

~

9905040074 981231 PDR ADOCK 05000277/

R PDR '

j

i bcc: J. G. Hufnagel Commitment Coordinator Correspondence Control Desk A. A. Winter 1

l l

l

I Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 1998 PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION ANNUAL 10 CFR 50.59 AND COMMITMENT REVISION REPORT j This report is issued pursuant to reporting requirements for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3 (Facility License Numbers DPR-44 and DPR-56 respectively). This report addresses tests and changes to the facility and procedures as they are i described in the Peach Bottom Final Safety Analysis Report. This  ;

report consists of those tests and changes that were implemented  !

between January 1,1998 and December 31,1998.

PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION

UNIT 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-277 AND 50-278 ANNUAL 10 CFR 50.59 AND COMMITMENT REVISION REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS (COLR f(hvisions.L. , , _ _.

COLR PB2C12 R4 i COLR Pl32Cl2 R6 1 COLR P132Cl3 Reload 12 1 COLR PB3Cl2 R2 i COLR PB3Cl2 R3 '

1 ,

[ Commitment Revisioni * ", _ , 1~ l T01754 Process Computer 1 l T02556 Revisions to M-710 1 T03780 2 E ECRi DCR;ISCRC ,

'Z_. ,

97-03269 2 l 98-00330 2 98-00356,98-00566 2  ;

98-01391 2 l 98-02774 2 l 1ECR MOD ; , , .

97-02956, 98-01420 2 98-00594,98-00728 3 98-00836 3 l SECRVNCR l 97-03476 3 98 00329 3 98-00550 3 h 98-00649 3 i j

98-00696 3 98-01339 4 l i

98-01471 4 98-01548 4 98-01668 4  !

98-01672 4 l

98-01909 4 ;

I 98-02376 4 98-32510 5 98-02552 5 98-02725 5  !

!{ ECRMTPA? j 97-00593 5 j 9P .01056 5

'~

[MODX m 1 >

P000469 5 l l

1

=.

P00350- 5 P00527 6  ;

P00685 6 P00694 6 P00720 6  !

P00769 6 i P00802 6 P05385 6 1 l PROCEDURE.]'7 AO 10.4-2, Rev. 7 tz e' ~ ? F , ; .2 ? .

, s, , , f y, 7

RW-C-100 7 SAMP-1, Rev 0 7 j SAMP-2, Rev. 0 7 i l

SP SO.003-2 7 SP-2137 7 SP-2138 7 T-101, Rev.17 7 T-102, Rev.12 8 T-103, Rey,12 8 l T-104, Rev. 7 8 T-111,Rev.10 8 T-112, Rev.14 8 T-116, Sheet 1, RIO & 2, R0 8 T-l l 7, Rev.12 8

.TRM -.2s; . ., _ f l, ' < j .,a _

', l .

l 3.18 and B3.18 SBO, R2 9 l Section 3.16, R1 9 l Table 3.8-1, R1 9 s-

=

l PECO ENERGY COMPANY j PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION '

UNIT 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-277; 50-278 ANNUAL 10 CFR 50.59 AND COMMITMENT REVISION l REPORT  !

JANUARY 1,1998 THROUGH DECEMBbR 31,1998  !

SAFETY EVALUATION SUMMARIES l

ll I

i 1

i l

, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station UNIT 2 and 3 )

Docket No. 50-277 and 50-278 199810 CFR 50.59 Report COLR REVISION .

l COLR PB2Cl2 R4 Unit Implemented' I Unit 2: X Unit 3: N/A This review evaluated the acceptability of the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), Revision 4, which was necessary due to the incorporation of revised and supplemental ARTS Power-Dependent MCPR and MAPLIIGR thermal limits curves and changes to the Operating Limit MCPR (OLMCPR) values for operation with the Turbine By pass Valves Out of Service (TBVOOS). This activity required no change to the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this ,

change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

{

COLR PB2Cl2 R6 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: N/A This evaluation reviewed the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), Revision 6, due to the incorporation of revised ARTS j (APRM, RBM Technical Specification improvement Program) Power Dependent MCPR and MAPLilGR thermal limits curves foi off-rated power and flow conditions during the cycle extension operation with a Final Feedwater Temperature Reduction (FWTR) of 90 degrees fahrenheit. This activity required no changes to the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined cat this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

COLR PS2Cl3 Reload 12 Unit implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: N/A This evaluation reviewed the acceptability of the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), Revision 0, for Peach Bottom Unit 2 Reload 12, Cycle 13. This activity required no change to the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a rc Juction in the margin of safety.

COLR PB3Cl2 R2 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: N/A Unit 3: X This review discussed the acceptability of the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), Revision 2, for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station U3 Cycle 12. This activity required no changes to the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

COLR PB3Cl2 R3 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: N/A Unit 3: X .

l This review discussed the acceptability of the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), Revision 3, due to the incorpration of l revised ARTS Flow Dependent MCPR and MAPLilGR thermallimit curves for off-rated fower and flow conditions assuming ,

the turbine bypass system is out-of-service (TDVOOS) with a nedv analyzed concurrent event of a single recirculation pump I runout. This activity required no changes to the l'FSAR. Based or. the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

COMMITMENT REVISION T01754 Process Computer Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X The original commitment was documented as a response to an unresolved item in NRC inspection 76 4 t/3102. The original commitment compved process computer data to an otTline bucle program. A process improvement has been maat and is implemented by FM-UG-270. This commitment is revised to state that FM-UG-270 verifies the 3D municore databmk to the source documents. This activity required no changes to the UFSAR. Dased on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

T02556 REVISIONS TO M-710 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X The original commitment was documented in PD NRC inspection report 92-26/26. The original commitment described the process for interim changes M 710. Changes to M-710 are now made in accordance with NE-C-Il0 and interim changes are not allowed. This commitment was deleted. This activity required no changes to the UFSAR. Das-d on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

Page 1 of 9

c

' Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 4

UNIT 2 and 3 l Docket No. 50 277 and 50-278 199810 CFR 50,59 Report T03780 l

Unit Implemented: i Unit 2: X Unit 3: X l This review addressed change to the SAR commitment T03780, an improved Technical Specification Relocated items Matrix commitment, which changes the current 18 month inspection frequency for the PB Emergency Diesel Generators (EDG's) to a 2 year frequercy. This will enhance the margin of safety as the amount of time the EDG's are out-of-service will decrease and the system will be single-failure proof for more clock hours when the nuclear reactor (s) are operating. This activity required no changes to the UFSAR. Dased on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction % the margin of safety.

l l

ECR - DCR, ISCR 97-03269 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X The review evaluated raising the Average Power Range Monitor (APRM) Scram Analytical Limit (AL) from 120% to 122%, and the Clamped Rod Block Design Bases from 112.0% to 112.5% . This provided the required margin for an increase to the APRM Gain Adjustment Factor (AGAF) tolerance from 1.0 0.02 to 1.0+/-0.02. This activity required changes to Section 14 and Table 7.5.4 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

98-00330 Unit implemented: I Unit 2: X Unit 3: X This review modified the UFSAR Appendix C," Structural Design Criteria" to reference and describe the latest design basis document regarding expected thermal fatigue usage of the PBAPS Unit 2 and 3 feedwater nozzles due to rapid cycling. This activity required changes to Sections C5.3.1.1 and C5.3.7of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

98-00356,98-00566 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X This reviewjustified the proposed activity of operation with a final feedwater temperature reduction (FFWTR) of up to 80 degrees Fahrenheit at full power for cycle extension and during coastdown operation of Units 2 and 3. This activity required char.ges to Sections 3.7.5,5.2.4.3,14.6.3, and Table 5.2 1 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evabation, it was determined that  !

l this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin ofsafety. l l

01391 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X This review evaluated the changes to Chapter 13 of the UFSAR for the ofTsite organizations. This activity required changes to ,

Section 13 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed l safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety. l

! 95-02774 Unit implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X 1 l

This review evaluated changes to the offsite and onsite Security and Emergency Preparedness Organizations. 't his activity l

required changes to Sections 1321.6 and 13.2.2.6, and Figures 13.2.2 and 13.2.4 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, I it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

ECR MOD 97-02956,98-01420 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3:

These evaluations supported the abandoning in place of the Reactor Recirculation Pump upper seal leak detection system flow l switches and provided the justific; tion to use other methods to determine Reactor Recirculation Pump seal leakage in lieu of the l method described in the SAR. This activity required changes to Sections 4.3 and 7.9 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety i evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of l safety.

Page 2 of 9

, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station UNIT 2 and 3 Docket No. 50-277 and 50-278 199810 CFR 50.59 Report 98-00594,98-00728 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: N/A This evaluation addressed the installation of a Unit 2 Noble Metals Monitoring System (System 15D) between the common suction and discharge line of the RWCU pumps to collect data associated with Noble Metals injection into the primary coolant.

This activity required changes to Section 4.9 and Figures 4.9.1 and 4.9.2 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

98-00836 Unit implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X This evaluation reviewed the modification to the Safety Relief Valve discharge piping to remove the 3/4 inch vacuum relief valves (VRV-2(3)-02 307A through 11, J, K, L) and cap the associated piping lines. Th!s activity required changes to Section 4.3, Figures 412A, Sheets I,2,3, and 4 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation , it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.- j i

ECR NCR 97-03476 Unit Implemented: i Unit 2: X Unit 3: X ]

This evaluation proposed a change to Unit 2 and 3 Technical Requirements Manual (TRM), Appendix B, which is associated with the surveillance testing requirements for Excess Flow Check Valves (EFCVs) XFC-2(3)-02-23. The proposed change would clarify the surveillance testing requirements for the subject valves by reinstating the originally approved Custom Technical Specification (CTS) note into the TRM, Appendix B, for the subject valves. This activity required no changes to the UFSAR.

Based on the safety evaluation, it was determit.ed that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

98-00329 Unit implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: N/A )

l This evaluation addressed the acceptability of a ten-second response time for tripping the 2A feedwater pump turbine, plus I evaluated adding test taps and instrument valves for the purpose of troubleshooting and sampling oil on the 2A feedwater pump i turbine trip controls. This activity Tequired no changes to the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation,it was determined that i this change did i . t constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety. l 98-00550 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X This review determined if there were any unreviewed safety questions associated with adding t. sentence to Section 10.3.4 of the PB UFSAR that justifies application of the Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) criticality analysis results for operation of the SFP at a moderator temperature of 40 degrees Fahrenheit. This activity requires a change to Section 10.3.4 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluetion,it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

98-00649 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: N/A Unit 3: X This review supported the use-as-is disposition concerning an item which was lost in the U3 reactor vessel and could not be retrieved. This evaluation concludes that it is acceptable for this item, a 2" x 3 4" piece of red welders tape, stock code

  1. 11610932, to remain in the reactne vessel during normal operation, since it will disintegrate under those conditions (Valley Forge Labs test results included as attachments to the NCR). This activity required no changes to the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation,it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

98-00696 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: N/A Unit 3: X The review supported the use-as-is dispositioa for Core Spray Pump 3AP037 and downstream piping, and declaring all systems operable while not all foreign rnaterial has been recovered. This activity required no changes to the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unrevicwed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

Page 3 of 9

l l

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station I UNIT 2 ar.d 3 Docket No. 50-277 and 50-278 199810 CFR 50.59 Report i

(.

98-01339 Unit implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: .N/A This evaluation addressed the continued operation of PDAPS, Unit 2, following 2R12, considering the scope of the core shroud examinations performed during 2R10 and 2Ril, and the indications identified by 2Rl2 examinations. This activity required no changes to the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluatica, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

98-01471 Unit implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: N/A This review supported the temporary non-code repair of an ASME Class 2 drain line in the Unit 2 IIPCI System. The non-code repair will be installed following USNRC approval (Ltr from G. Edwards to USNRC dated June 17,1998, Docket No. 50-277) to restore the Unit 2 IIPCI system to an operable status. A final code repair of the drain line will be performed during the next refueling outage scheduled October 1998. This activity required a temporary posting to the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an uweviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

98-01548 Unit implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3:

This review evaluated the as-found condition of the Main Control Room Emergency Ventilation (MCREV) system train 'A' identified on June 20,1998, the use oflocal manual cperator actions to monitor MCREV system operation and to assure adequate MCREV sys:cm air flow, and the use of real time weather data to evaluate future as-found air flow rates to determine the ability of the MCREV system to maintain the maximum average control room temperature to 114 degrees Fahrenheit or less.

This activity required a change to Chapter 10.13 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety eyeluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

98-01668 Unit implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: N/A This review evaluated repair disposition of a gear set change to Suppression Pool Cooling Motor Operated Valve MO-210-34A(D). This activity required a change to Table 73 I of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that tkis change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

98-01672 Unit implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: N/A This evaluation reviewed updating the UFSAR and Technical Specification Bases to cicarly identify the design basis of the CAD System and the climination of the CAD System in repressurization mode. The evaluation was determined to satisfy the NRC request in the EPG Revision 4 SER. This activity required a change to Section 5.2 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

98-01909 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: N/A Unit 3: X This evaluation reviewed an interim solution for the modification of the switch assembly of Standby Liquid Control (SLC) to disable the key-lock capability until replacement parts become available. The lock mechanism for the Unit 3 SLC system actuation switch, RMS 3-ll A-S001, has jammed and the key is captured inside the lock assembly. This activity required a change to Section 3.83 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an ureviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

I 98-02376 Unit implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X This evaluation reviewed the acceptability of an update to the NSSS process computer databank for Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 to correct a problem with the application of the control blade history (CBil) peaking factor model for the fresh fuel. This activity required no changes to the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation. it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

I 1

i Page 4 of 9

~ Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station UNIT 2 and 3 l Docket No. 50-277 and 50-278 199810 CFR 50.59 Report 98-02510 Unit Implema.ted:

i Unit 2:. X Unit 3: N/A I Dis evaluationjustified the use ofslip-on flanges for the Unit 2 liigh Pressure Service Water (IIPSW) system This activity I required a change to Appendix A of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evatuation, it was determined that this change did not J constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety. l 1

98-02552 Unit Implemented: ]

Unit 2: X Unit 3: N/A l This review evaluated the foreign materials that are to remain in the Unit 2 Reactor Pressure Vessel following 2R12. This review required no change to the UFSAR. Based on this safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an l unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

98-02725 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: N/A This evaluation reviewed the continued operability of the Unit 2 Core Spray System through the next three operating cycles (Unit 2 Cycle 15) with cracks in the header T-box cover plate at the 120 degree Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) penetration. This activity tequired no change to the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation,it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

ECR TPA l

97-00593 Unit Implemented: i Unit 2: N/A Unit 3: X  !

This review supported the installation of temp >rary vibration and pressure monitoring instrumentation on the Unit 3 Main

- Steam Lines B & C and on the !!PCI Steam Si pply Drain. This activity required temporary changes to Figures 7.4.l A Sheet 2 and l t 1.2.1 Sheet 3, which were be posted against t ic affected UFSAR figures until the original configurations were re established.  !

Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

98-01056 - Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: N/A This evaluation reviewed the installation, operation and removal of TPA ECR PB 98-01056 which installs a temporary system to cleanup the Unit 2 Torus Water to improve and maintain underwater visibility in support of the ECCS pump suction strainer replacement during refueling outage 2R12. This activity required a TPA to be posted against Section 7.4 (Figure 7.4.4, sht I) of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

MOD P000469 Unit implemented:

Unit 2: N/A Unit 3: X This modification made several enhancements to the Control Rod Drive Flush cage located on 195' elevation Reactor Building.

The improvements included the replacement of the cage IIEPA filter, installation of permanent air conditioning, cage and lighting enhancements. This change atTected figures specified in the UFSAR. No new safety concems or adverse conditions were created as a result of this change.

P90350 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X

' This evaluation supported the ECCS Suction Strainer Replacement for both units at PBAPS which installs large capacity passivs strainers in the Residual 11 cat Removal (RHR) and Core Spray Systems. This activity required changes to Section 4.8.5 and 6.4.3, and Figures 4.8.1 and 6.4.2 of the UFSAR. Based on the saf..ty evaluation, it was determined that an unreviewed safety question existed with regard to the methodology used for determining the amount of debris that would be expected to be generated under LOCA conditions and the amount of material that would be transported to the torus. It was determined to be acceptable to return the units to service with the new strainers installed and remain in service while the methodology /model for debris generation and transport is under review by the NRC. There is no reduction in the margin of safety.

Page 5 of 9

J l

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station UNIT 2 and 3 l Docket No,50-277 and 50-278 199810 CFR 50.59 Report P00527 Unit implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X ,

This modification installed manual isolation valves around the High Pressure Coolant Injection system turbine exhaust line level switch. These valves would allow the isolating of the level switch without declaring the system inoperable. No new accidents or safety concerns were created as a result of this change. This activity required no change to the UFSAR. Based on the safety i evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety I P90685 Unit implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: N/A

)

l This evaluation addressed Noble Metals Chemical Addition at PB Unit 2 during 2R12 refueling outage to prevent crack initiation and to mitigate existing crack growth of RPV wetted internal components and piping. This activity required a change to l Appendix A 4.3 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an  !

unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety. l l

P00694 Unit implemented: l Unit 2: X Unit 3: N/A l l

This review addressed the design of the prefabricated reinforcement kit of the Unit 2 Core Spray T-box at the 120 degree azimuth of Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV), at nozzle NSA, to ensure the structural integrity even if the crack was to grow to the full circumference and through the entire wall thickness of the cover plate. This activity required no changes to the UFSAR.

Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

P00720 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: N/A This review evaluated the operation of the Reactor Recirculation System (RRS) at increase Recirc pump speeds greater than those currently allowed by station administrative controls. An increase in the allowed Recire pump speed is desired to maintain the capability to achieve rated core flow conditions (102.5 Mib/Hr) and to achieve extended core flow conditions (up to 110% of rated). This activity required a change to Section 7.9.4.2 and Table 4.31 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

P00769 Unit implemented: l Unit 2: N/A Unit 3: X This review addressed design and installation of a permanent modification for the cracks in the U3 rediredation inlet nozzle thermal sleeve tojet pump riser elbow welds at 150 degrees and 300 degrees azimuth locations. Revision 1 of this review was required to remove the administrative limit of 38 6 million ihm/hr total recirculation drive flow. Based on as-built d:mensions taken of the installed clamps on the N2E and N21 recirculation inlet nozzle thermal sleeve tojet pump riser cibow welds, sufficient clamp tongue engagement was achieved to allow for recire rerate increased core flow. This activity required changes to Section 3.3.5.2.1 of the UFSAR and SAR Augmented Inspection Program. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this chan3e did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

P00802 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3:

This evaluation reviewed NRC Generic Letter 96-06 " Assurance of Equipment Operability and Containment integrity during Design Basis Accident Conditions" and the modifications installation of te!;ef valves in the subject piping to prevent thermal over-pressurization of the penetration piping. This activity required a change to Section 7.20.4.11 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

P05385 Unit implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: N/A This modification replaced the obso:ete Radwaste and Recombiner Building ventilation radiation monitors with an improved device. This activity affected text and drawg in the UFSAR. The new system will be an enhancement to reliability and system operations. This activity required no change to the UFSAR. Dased on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

Page6 A 9

e Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station UNIT 2 and 3 Docket No. 50-277 and 50-278 199810 CFR 50.59 Report PROCEDURES AO 10.4-2, Rev 7 Unit implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: N/A This evaluation reviewed procedure AO 10.4 2 and the use of this procedure only during mode $ when the reactor cavity is flooded-up and the fuel pool gate is removed. This review required no changes to the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation,it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question.

RW-C 100 Unit implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X This review provided for annotation of PBAPS commitment in Radwaste Process Control Program and inclusion of several

" Limerick Only" items related to 10CFR 20.2002 requirements to ensure satisfactory waste forms (T03896). This activity required no changes to the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that the change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety. .

I SAMP-1, Rev 0 Unit implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X uis review evaluated the revision to Severe Accident Procedures SAMP 1 required as a result of the implementation of Revision I of the Boiling Water Reactor Owners' Group (BWROG) Emergency Procedure and Severe Accident Guidelines (EPG/ SAG).

This procedure replaced TRIP T-ll8, Primary Containment Flooding which was deleted. This activity required changes to Section 14.4.5 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation,it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

SAMP-2, Rev 0 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X g This review evaluated the revision to Severe Accident Procedures SAMP-2 required as a result of the implementation of Revision  !

I of the lloiling Water Reactor Ownerf Group (BWROG) Emergency Procedure and Severe Accident Guidelines (EPG/ SAG). i This activity required changes to Section 14.4.5 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation,it was determined that this i change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

SP SO.003-2 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: N/A This evaluation reviewed the startup of the flydrogen Water Chemistry System (llWC) after application of Noble Metals in Peach Bottom Unit 2 and addressed minor programming changes to the ilWC controller and impact of IlWC on dose rates in the plant during startup after the Noble Metal Chemical Application (NMCA). This activity required no changes to the UFSAR.

Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the marg.n of safety.

SP-2137 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X This evaluation reviewed SP-2137, Venting and Filling of the EDG Cardox Tank at Sub-Cooled Conditions, to be used to restore the system to normal operating conditions. His activity required no changes to the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

SP-2138 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: N/A This evaluation reviewed Special Procedure SP-2138, " Repair of Unit 2 'B' Loop Core Spray IIcader T-Box Using a Diver." This review required no changes to the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

T-101, Rev 17 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: X IJnit 3: X This review evaluated the revision to TRIP Procedures T-101 required as a result of the implementation of Revision I of the Boiling Water Reactor Owners' Group (BWROG) Emergency Procedure and Severe Accident Guidel.nes (EPG/ SAG). This activity required changes to Section 14.4.5 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

Page 7 of 9

' Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station UNIT 2 and 3 Docket No. 50-277 and 50-278 199810 CFR 50,59 Report l T 102,Rev 12 Unit implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X i This review evaluated the revision to TRIP Procedures T-102 required as a result of the implementation of Revision 1 of the Boiling Water Reactor Owners' Group (BWROG) Emergency Procedure and Severe Accident Guidelines (EPG/ SAG). This activity required changes to Sections 14.4.5 and 5.2.3.9.1 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety. 1 T 103, Rev 12 Unit implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X 1

This review evaluated the revision to TRIP Procedure T 103 required as a result of the imp:cmentation of Revision 1 of the i

Boiling Water Reactor Owners' Group (BWROG) Emergency Procedure and Severe Accident Guidelines (EPG/ SAG). This activity l required changes to Section 14.4.5 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not  ;

constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

T 104, Rev 7 Unit Impiemented: )

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X l I

This review evaluated the revision to TRIP Procedure T 104 required as a result of the implementation of Revision I of the ]

Boiling Water Reactor Owners' Group (BWROG) Emergency Procedure and Severe Accident Guidelines (EPG/ SAG). This activity required changes to Section 14.4.5 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

T.Ill, Rev 10 Unit Implemented:  ;

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X l

This review evaluated the revision to TRIP Procedures T Ill reqhd as a result of the implementation of Revision I of the Boiling Water Reactor Owners' Group (BWROG) Emergency Procedure and Severe Accident Guidelines (EPG/ SAG). This activity l required changes to Section 14.4.5 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

T-il2, Rev 14 Unit implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X This review evaluated the revision to TRIP Procedure T 112 required as a result of the implementation of Revision 1 of the Boiling Water Reactor Owners' Group (BWROG) Emergency Procedure and Severe Accident Guidelines (EPG/ SAG). This activity required changes to Section 14.4.5 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute on unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

I I l T 116, Sheet 1. Rev 10 & 2 Rev 0 Unit implemented: I Unit 2: X Unit 3: X j This review evaluated the revision to TRIP Procedure T il6 Sheet 1 Revision 10 and Sheet 2 Revision 0, required as a result of s l l the implementation of Revision I of the Boiling Water Reactor Owners' Group (BWROG) Emergency Procedure and Severe Accident Guidelines (EPG/ SAG). This activity required changes to Section 14.4.5 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did nm constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

T il7, Rev 12 Unit implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X This review evaluated the revision to TRIP Procedure T ll7 required as a result of the implemeritation of Revision I of the Boiling Water Reactor Owners' Group (BWROG) Emergency Procedure and Severe Accident Guidelines (EPG/ SAG). This activity required changes to Section 14.4.5 of the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

d Page 8 of 9

i

" Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station UNIT 2 and 3 Docket No. 50-277 and 50-278 199810 CFR 50.59 Report TRM 3.18 and B 3.18 SBO, Rev 2 Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X This review was to support a revision to the Technical Requirement Manual for the Station Blackout (SBO) Line. The changes add SBO testing requirements to TRM section 3.18 and B 3.18 for both units. The commitment is to test the ability of the SBO line and equipment once every two years to be connected to the station 13kV busses and to be capable of supplying blackout loads. This activity required no change to the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

Section 3.16, Rev i Unit Implemented:

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X This safety review providedjustification for a revision to the TRM Section 3.16, " Snubbers", The revision focused on the functional testing requirements of snubbers, and includes: Deletion of a secondary acceptance criteria for one attribute of the functional testing and the addition of the " Failure Mode Group" concept from the ASME/ ANSI OM. This activity required no change to the UFS AR. Based on the safety eve!uation, it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

Table 3.8-1, Rev i Unit Implemented: ,

Unit 2: X Unit 3: X l This review justified a revision to Technical Requirements Manual (TRM) Table 3.8-1 to more accurately describe the location of the triaxial peak accelograph for the reactor piping, as well as the location of the signal processing equipment for the scismic monitoring system. This activity required no changes to the UFSAR. Based on the safety evaluation,it was determined that this change did not constitute an unreviewed safety question or a reduction in the margin of safety.

l 1

i l

l Page 9 of 9

-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20206D365&oldid=3325030"