ML20059F489

Forwards Listing of Changes,Tests & Experiments Completed During Month of Aug 1990 for Plant

ML20059F489
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	09/04/1990
From:	Robey R COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
RAR-90-67, NUDOCS 9009110226
Download: ML20059F489 (11)

Text

m. w  !.-

)

~ '

, Commonweem Edison 7 i  ? Quad Otes Nucioat Power SDtion

~* 22710 206 Avenue North

,- Cordova, Illinos 61242 9740 k Telephone 35654 2241 AAR-90-67 September 4, 1990 U 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk  ;

Washington, D. C. 20555 i

SUBJECT:

Quad Cities Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2  ;

Changes, Tests, and Experiments Completed >

NRC Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265 Enclosed please find a listing of those changes, tests, and experiments  !

completed during the month of August, 1990, for Quad-Cities Station i Units 1-and 2, DPR-29 and DPR-30. A summary of the safety evaluations. q are being reported in compilance with 10CFR50.59 and 10CFR50.71(e).  !

-t  !

Thirty-nin6 copies are provided for your use.  !

Respectfully, COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY QUAD-CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION L ,

R. A. Robey l: 4 3

Technical Superintendent e

L b-- RAR/LFD/do L.p , Enclosure

+'- A.B.' Davis, Regional Administrator cc:

T. Taylor, Senior Resident Inspector

L, i

l 5

0027H/0061*' 9009110226 900904 ADOCK 0500 4

{DR 7gg '

A

. IG

'~

, .' i 7l j :#: '

p

[ Special Test,#1-136 Saiety. Evaluation #89-395  ;

[ Unit One Cycle 11 Startup Test j l

~ Description '!

,-- 1 t *

.. Special, Test No. 1-136 was completed on-July 27, 1990. The purpose of l this test was to perform the required cycle 11 startup tests on Unit 1 following

~

refueling outage number 10. The following is a list of system and components- .

~ affected:

L n  ;

0201 Jet Pumps j i.

0202 Recirculation System  !

0280 Rod Position Indication System I

0300 Control Rod Drive Hydraulics and Scram Air System l r

0703 TIP Drive Mechanism 075$ SRM/IRM Neutron Monitoring i 0756 LPRM's and APRM's ';

a 1279 Reactor Cleanup Filter Demineralizers ,

1904 Filter Demineralizer System -!

3200 Feedwater  :

5500 Condensate Demineralizer .i 9900 Computer (PRIME Process) i Evaluation '!

1. The procedures in this Startup Test are the latest revision of:the .[

j approved : station procedures or an approved temporary change to the ]

procedure. No changes have been made to any of the procedures without 4 a proper evaluation with regard to the FSAR.

r  !

L y 2. The normal function and intent of all systems involved in the test -

r' will not be altered. No unusual or unanalyzed equipment configurations -;.

[

s ..

are called for by any of the test procedures.  ;

t 3.; The purpose of the Startup Test is'to satisfactorily demonstrate -' '

b  : that the; current Technical Specifications can be met for the upcoming  ;-7 cycle. No Technical Specification change is therefore necessary.

Q

.4 D .

+

.q g y

9

\

t,

> ;ll '

)

h.q5 ,

)

f'j f _

f -'

-)

w- '

a_ . ,

'(-, --

W, ' ' 1 Special Test #1-141-Safety Evaluation #90-280 sf Monitor Control Room, Control' Panel Temperatures o

p' , ..

Description.

3.

P < -

,. _Special Test No. 1-141 was completed on August 1, 1990. _The purpose.

,- , ofJthis test.was to record pertinent control panel temperature data.and. determine ~'

r - control panel temperatures at various control room operating temperaturesi, ws

• Evaluation -,.s

. It was determined that no 10CFR50.59-Safety Evaluation was required for l.1 " ,

- this special' test. ,

3

/

V

'p.

yr lt ~ . il j ;.

'h ' s _'j _.

'l-

.f ([ ,f

'^

f/ s

( . r[I i p /.4 I' l 2 c

. i!

.i' . '

Q\

h, o f , t 4 '

i e n-I t

T

~'

f, . "

P !! , i q-.

a-

,a; a 2,4, , .r c ly; s c' k. [ 7 41 fi.i;._o

.):

r n s ,

f

q q

I di >

., ! ~

1

. k ..(.

,  ? b fL; ,, ,

t 4.x : 5 .

b-  ?l

w

, p.

10-

?![ , L* . ...

+

, n<

N >

, Safety Evaluation #90-547 Program Change to the Data Bank Dump Program e

Description ,

L' _

This_ change was due to a program error. . Exposure information was not F being~ automatically. transferred. The program was modified to make the correct.

h transfers every month.

g M Evaluation-

1. The' probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously. evaluated-in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not increabed because the

' data generated by CMC will not be altered. It is currently supposed s to be transferred once per month. Correcting an error that is pre-venting' transfer will not affect safety as previously evaluated.

. 2. The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis-Report is not created because the software. change has been tested,and controlled.

.No changes have been made that will affect accuracy of data transferred to NFS.

"E 3. lThemarginof. safety,asdefinedinthe.basisforanyTechnicalSpeci-s fication, is not reduced because this change has no effect on the operating thermal limits discussed in the Tech Specs.

l h,

o si b'[y i + 's n 'f- -

^

4 f p_.

4 T-s,4 . -

3 i r

[{~! s ,

if s

b.

J i$

si ,

- -ev.

h g ,

-P n .  %', s 1 <

j

[I d/

Lp

[6 * ^

o , Safety Evaluation #90-551 i- Proposed Technical Specit'ication MCPR Safety Limit Change F, 4 Description ThischangedtheMCPRSafetyLimitforQuadCitiesUnit1Cyclejl2from-

.l.07 to 1.06.

Evaluation h'

L c 1. The. probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident,

.or malfunction.of equipmentLimportant to safety'as previously evaluated ~

L ~in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not increased because the

1.06 safety limit MCPR value preserved the required margin of safety L

for clad integrity. .This. safety limit MCPR ensures that 99.9% of .!

-the fuel rods would be expected to avoid boili"3-transition during t- steady-state or transient conditions with.a-95% confidence level.- .; '

The n,w fuel type (CE8x8NB) and analytical methods for establishing L the safety limit have received NRC approval..-Thus, this change did not increase the probability or consequences of.a previously l p evaluated accident in the Final Safety Analysis Report. ,

i

2. The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type j than any previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report '!

ll 1s not created because the primary fission product barriet will ,'

cont.nue to be protected during.nonmal and transient operation.

, Operation-of all secondary fission product barriers are u.4affected t: -by this change. No new operational modes are introduced by this '

]1

,. change.. Therefore,1the possibility for.an accident or malfunction  !

of 'a different type than any previously evaluated in the Final Safety a o 'Analysia. Report'is.not created. .

h, 3. The margin of safety,<as defined in the basis for any Technical Speci-

+.

fication, is not' reduced because.the margin of safety is not-reduced. .

b The proposed Technica1' Specification change reflects the required'  !

safety-limit for GE8x8NB fuel specified-in GESTAR. GESTAR ensures. . a that'99.9% of the fuel rode would be expected to avoid boiling transi-tion during steady-state or transient conditions with a 95% confidence L F - lev.e1.

k- '

6 jF

\

'b a

f y~

1:

..-w , , .w.- y - -

r

3.

16 , 6.- , 'b. .L ,

g

4 Safety Evclustion-)90-576.

, 'Feedwater Pump Minimum Flow Line to l/.77f f ,; Candenser Isolation.

.l$

g?^ ' -

Description.

/

, .This change .aantified the leakage past PCV 1+ 3201A. . Temporarily closed op' .the 1-3213A valve, which is a manual - normally open, S-locked isolation valve

to the condenscr.

N[

g

_ Evaluation I*

,, ' 1. . The probability of an occurrence or the consequence bf an' accident,

g .or'w.alfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated JL "

- in the Final Safety Analysis Report.is not incresced because the.

worst case would be the loss of theE1A-3201 feed. pump and the FSAk "I ~ ~

. evaluation is for the. loss of all three feed pumps. In addition,-

the feedwater system is not safety related. Finally, the unit operator

.will be awarc.of the situation and an operator will be available to open the valve as needed.

2.:=The possibility for an accident nr malfunction of a different type than'any previously evaluated in the Final: Safety Analysis Report

, is not created because the loss of feedwater accident is the only potential. accident scenario for this work. Not allowing mininum flow '

for.the-feed pump could cause a pump malfunction but it is also covered in'the evaluation for loss of feedwater.

g!?s ;

%$ D3.. The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any. Technical Speci-

. 1 fications, is not. reduced because the'feedwater system does.not con-

, $,E stitute the: basis for any. Technical Specifications; f f p'.

i,

)

(

)

f,..

J f..

l 1

.sti 7

. ' i E

f.[

7:

y k5 4

S t t

n~ n 4 .

c r .:

g. t 9

0 9i..

' 4

.~

7.g e s ., '

.E , .;

'I b' ,f- ' Safety Evaluation #90-585  ;

FSAR. Change (Seitions Listed on QTP 200-S6)

]

Ls

-- De scrip t ion -

i j( -Thii change corrected out-dated information contained in the FSAR.-

r-

'l  !

h. . Evaluation  !

5

' 1. ' The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident. l 7 or malfunction of equipment important to safety,as previously evaluated- .i

! .. in the-Final Safety Analysis Report is not increased:because it does l E ,,3 not involve equipment. 4  ;

L e 3 i

2. LTh'e possibility.for anLaccident or malfunction of a different' type. .I

{b[.

F than any previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not created because this change does not affect equipment or l

{

operation-of plant. j 7 ,

3. The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Spect-

,' .-[

- fication, is not reduced because this is an Administrative type change-  !

p. ,

only.  ;

l i  ;

,'i- i , 1 .

b/+, 4 . -!

F ti M' b

+  ;

. f b/

( ew t i e

1-

n fi e@uO m*

j ma Jc CN; ;.

u i

e

'I , b' 'i b 'uAi  ;

hNi! ' ,

7 d, ,

l'll  ; t Ih$

m or)

, i4 0 'i I

, _ W: ,

h ,- I

+

ll 'N ;f -

Y!x ': 1.':r ;

gi- .,

.-4,. < ' , ,

t i

, ! 'II  !

+t; 9/ LY c

, at i- .

I i

- , 5' 5

",_i I h i < n1 4 '

,JL  ; t

' E ...

] ,

Y R '

L '

(;M;;f%@$j-:$'y" .-

1. a '< ~

n'.

AM c f } . < lk,.

. m e N i

w.

,l W  ?,2 L;.; L ,', t y;'

~

y- <-

cc:

y, L

y , c Procedure Changes QOS 300-1 and 300-12

[!'_ . Revisions =8 and-5.

l' CRD Weekly Exercise 1

fj S = . --

!F Description

/P I' _

.These changes addresst.'l) Credit for the procedure.in the Inservice Testing, Program, 2) Additional precautions and data taking from Deviation Report 4-1-89-14 and Special: Test 1-142, 3) Incorporation of QoS 300-12 into

~

L1,~ .

QOS 300-1 for additional and more accurate data taking, and 4) Clarification of a mispositioned control rod.

T Evaluation .>.

I

1. The probability of an i occurrence.or the consequence of an accident, n .or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis l Report is not increased because the

+ changes do not affect the function of the procedures nor do they-g affect the FSAlt Section 10.5. , .

~;

2 The. possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type n .than any previously~ evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report is not created because the' changes to the procedurea do not affect the FSAR, therefore,the possibility of a different type of accid &nt has not been created.

3. 'The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technicai 1 Speci--

L fication, is not reduced because the purpose of the' procedure is to identify any inoperabJe control-rods by exercising them once per week'(T.S. 4.3.2). The: changes to the procedure do not affect this function, therefore the margin of safety has not been-reduced.

I y-/.:

b :p Y-; c h.

i f 4 l

1-vp l

4

'4

[4 i

L - o

's: }

r . m

b. ,?.< ~- ;_ .}

e

..-;.e.

S L,  ; Procedure Change QOS. 1600-14 Revision 10 g Pressure Suppression System Power Operated. ,

Valve Testing - Quarterly Description l <

-The.1601-20A and 1601-20B valves are now tested quarterly as a part of this procedure and deletes the QOS 1600-29, which tested.them at cold shutdown.

p <

Evaluation-

1. The probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident,

!: or malfunction-of equipmentLimportant to safety as previously evaluated-L in the Final Safety Analysis Report.is:not lucreased becaust' existing if E

operating steps were added to procedure from QOS 1600-29. No new?

h methods t.re introduced:which would increase'the probability of an.

occurrence;' consequence'of 1m accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety.

I

2. The possibility for aa accident or malfunction of a different. type than any previously evaluated in the Final. Safety Analysis Report.

is not. created because revision uses existing operating steps from QOS 1600-29 and does not introduce any new or different methods which would create the' possibility for'an accident or malfunction of a different. type than any previously evaluated'in the FSAR.

h 3.~ The margin of safety, as defined in the basis-for any.Technica1'Speci-fication, is not reduced because the change just moves existing operating y._ _

steps from one procedure to another. The margin of safety remains unchanged.

o ,

1)'c -

e t h ', #

9 fi ii c f.

I p:i e

r. :-

s it j

} r:

. . F

~ ' *-\

4

y

' - ii

s -

\l 8

?

[k( -

1

[g

" . ' Wi

.?}  :

d Nha .

i. -

I . S t. . q. ;

' '- 4 4

>D- Procedure Lhange QOS 2300-1, Revision;20 120I Monthly and Quarterly Test

Des:ription n

-This revision provided steps to time the HPCI stop valve in open und closed' directions and also added a a step to_ verify that check valve-2301-40

.. p strokesito the full open position.

p Evaluation

1. The' probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident, or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously-evaluated in.the Final Safety Analysis Report is not increased because the HPCI system _ valve line up and operating methods added does not affect the~way HPCI is'run and does not subject the HPCI to any adverse c'onditions which would increane the probability of an occurrence or accident..

2. The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the' Final-Safety Analysis Report

'is not created because the HPCI system will not be placed in any unusual modes of operation which would= create a possibility of an accident-or malfunction, s - 3 .' The margin of safety, as defined in the basis for any Technical Speci-fication, is not reduced because the HPCI will not be.placed in any

. unusual modes of operation.

~

. N '

& GM;~cl iud %$$$ hY ' 1 g; 4^ M , y .

12 .

+

.~

hp 'i ww' ,3,3p

.- i r .J .>

4x ,

a UN , '

Redundant Acr.ess Control System (RACS)l y

, n ib Lk , gf Description-R .

Q

~

. _ ,Thisichange upgraded the existing RACS software to successful 1y pass:

f" ' The' card reader control test, the: alarm monitoring. test,' transaction storage-ctest. and random selection test. These functionaln requirements are' described'.

,1 n ,. <

s :1n' software activity request-#559,-dated July 23, 1990.-

r e- .

G >

Evaluation d n

'l. The probability of an- occurn : , e or the consequence of an accident, (M, iig L or malfunction of. equipment important to-safety'as' pre _viously evaluated-

[<'T in'the Final Safety. Analysis Report'is not increased because' reliability.

I -

of1the entire access control.systen 1s increased after the upgrade.

$U This,.however, has no bearing on the probability or consequence of 0

an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety since l

' analysis-take.no' credit for this redundant security system.-

-2. 'The possibility for an accident or malfunction.of.a different type' than any'previously evaluated in the Final Safety. Analysis; Report is'not' created because.this upgrade does not alter the description:

0 "'

fofanyequipment-orsystemsimportanttosafetyaspreviouslyevaluated by the FSAR.- Installation of this software involves non-safety related.

W +

equipment'which-is located remote from any safety related equipment.- <

?

g M <

'3. ;The.rargin of safety, as defined in the basis for.-any Technical Speci-

, fication is not. reduced because this upgrade does not alter'or affect l- any-equipment described in the TechnicaluSpecification. Therefore, y

'w ,

the margin of safety.will not beireduced. d l

, , ;):

f

- y

, s $

x 1

, r u  ?

, i

t Mr! .

L

< t i

)) . e A.; _ ~ i i d Er:;p j J

? .

y q > <

s-i*

E ?. k '- j g

t D '

+

tI 3

lh

' I

.- l _,

y ,

1 me --_:_ _ . . - - . - - - .