L-09-031, Application for Technical Specification Change Regarding Revision of Control Rod Application for Technical Specification Change Regarding Revision of Control

From kanterella
(Redirected from L-09-031)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Application for Technical Specification Change Regarding Revision of Control Rod Application for Technical Specification Change Regarding Revision of Control
ML090760866
Person / Time
Site: Perry FirstEnergy icon.png
Issue date: 03/11/2009
From: Bezilla M
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co
To:
Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-09-031
Download: ML090760866 (30)
v • d • e


Text

FENOC FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Perry Nuclear Power Station 10 Center Road Perry, Ohio 44081 MarkB. Bezilla Vice President March 11,2009 L-09-031 440-280-5382 Fax: 440-280-8029 10 CFR 50.90 ATTN: Document Control Desk U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-440, License No. NPF-58 Application for Technical Specification Change Regarding Revision of Control Rod Notch Surveillance Test Frequency and a Clarification of a Frequencv Example In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.90, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) is submitting a request for an amendment to the technical specifications (TS) for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP).

The proposed amendment would: (1) revise TS surveillance requirement (SR) frequency in TS 3.1.3, Control Rod OPERABILITY, and (2) revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 Frequency to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension.

The enclosure provides the evaluation for the proposed amendment.

Approval of the license amendment is requested prior to August 29, 2009, with the amendment to be implemented within 90 days following its effective date.

Regulatory commitments associated with this submittal are included in the attachment. If there are any questions or if additional information is required, please contact Mr. Thomas A. Lentz, Manager - Fleet Licensing, at (330) 761-6071.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March L\\,

2009.

Mark B. Bezillal/

March 11, 2009 L-09-031 10 CFR 50.90 ATTN: Document Control Desk U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-440, License No. NPF-58 Application for Technical Specification Change Regarding Revision of Control Rod Notch Surveillance Test Frequency and a Clarification of a Frequency Example In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.90, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) is submitting a request for an amendment to the technical specifications (TS) for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP).

The proposed amendment would: (1) revise TS surveillance requirement (SR) frequency in TS 3.1.3, Control Rod OPERABILITY, and (2) revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4 Frequency to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension.

The enclosure provides the evaluation for the proposed amendment.

Approval of the license amendment is requested prior to August 29, 2009, with the amendment to be implemented within 90 days following its effective date.

Regulatory commitments associated with this submittal are included in the attachment. If there are any questions or if additional information is required, please contact Mr. Thomas A. Lentz, Manager - Fleet Licensing, at (330) 761-6071.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March ___, 2009.

Sincerely, Mark B. Bezilla

Perry Nuclear Power Plant L-09-031 Page 2 of 2

Attachment:

Regulatory Commitment List

Enclosure:

Application for Technical Specification Change Regarding Revision of Control Rod Notch Surveillance Test Frequency and a Clarification of a Frequency Example cc:

NRC Region III Administrator NRC Resident Inspector NRR Project Manager Executive Director, Ohio Emergency Management Agency, State of Ohio (NRC Liaison)

Utility Radiological Safety Board

Attachment L-09-031 Regulatory Commitment List Page 1 of 1 The following list identifies those actions committed to by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) for Perry Nuclear Power Plant in this document. Any other actions discussed in the submittal represent intended or planned actions by FENOC. They are described only as information and are not Regulatory Commitments. Please notify Mr.

Thomas A. Lentz, Manager - Fleet Licensing, at (330) 761-6071 of any questions regarding this document or associated Regulatory Commitments.

Regulatory Commitment Due Date

1. FENOC commits to revising Technical Specification Bases based on TSTF-475, Revision 1 as proposed in Attachment 2 to the Enclosure.

Concurrent with amendment implementation.

Application for Technical Specification Change Regarding Revision of Control Rod Notch Surveillance Test Frequency and a Clarification of a Frequency Example

1. DESCRIPTION
2. ASSESSMENT 2.1 APPLICABILITY OF PUBLISHED SAFETY EVALUATION 2.2 OPTIONAL CHANGES AND VARIATIONS
3. REGULATORY ANALYSIS 3.1 NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS DETERMINATION 3.2 VERIFICATION AND COMMITMENTS
4. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Attachments:
1. Proposed Technical Specification Changes (Mark-Up)
2. Proposed Changes to Technical Specifications Bases
3. Proposed Technical Specification Changes (Retyped)

Page 2 of 3

1.0 DESCRIPTION

The proposed amendment would: (1) revise the Technical Specification (TS)

Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.1.3.2 frequency in TS 3.1.3, Control Rod OPERABILITY, and (2) revise Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4, Frequency, to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension.

The changes are consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved Industry/Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification (STS) change TSTF-475, Revision 1. The Federal Register notice published on November 13, 2007 announced the availability of this TS improvement through the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP).

2.0 ASSESSMENT

2.1 Applicability of Published Safety Evaluation FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) has reviewed the safety evaluation dated November 5, 2007 as part of the CLIIP. This review included a review of the NRC staffs evaluation, as well as the background information provided to support TSTF-475, Revision 1. FENOC has concluded that the justifications presented in the TSTF proposal and the safety evaluation prepared by the NRC staff are applicable to Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), Unit 1 and justify this amendment for the incorporation of the changes to the PNPP TS.

2.2 Optional Changes and Variations TSTF-475, Revision 1 proposes three changes to the STS. The proposed change: (1) revises the TS control rod notch surveillance frequency in TS 3.1.3, (2) clarifies the TS 3.3.1.2 requirement for fully inserting control rods for one or more inoperable SRMs in Mode 5, and (3) revises one example in Section 1.4, Frequency, to clarify the applicability of the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension.

Only two of the changes are proposed for this amendment application. The change to TS 3.3.1.2, which is not included in this amendment application, would have incorporated the word fully into Required Action E.2, Source Range Monitoring Instrumentation, as follows:

Initiate action to fully insert all insertable control rods in core cells containing one or more fuel assemblies.

The word fully is already in PNPP TS 3.3.1.2, Required Action E.2, Source Range Monitoring Instrumentation. Therefore, no change is necessary to incorporate this aspect of TSTF-475 into the PNPP TS.

Page 3 of 3 FENOC is not proposing any other variations or deviations from the TS changes described in the modified TSTF-475, Revision 1 and the NRC staffs model safety evaluation dated November 5, 2007.

FENOC is proposing a variation relative to the proposed TS Bases changes contained in TSTF-475, Revision 1. The TSTF-475 proposed TS Bases discussion for SR 3.1.3.3 (previously identified as SR 3.1.3.4) would remove SR 3.1.4.4 from the listed SRs performed in conjunction with SR 3.1.3.3. Incorporation of this change would be inconsistent with TS SR 3.1.3.3, which includes SR 3.1.4.4 in the Frequency column.

3.0 REGULATORY ANALYSIS

3.1 No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination FENOC has reviewed the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination (NSHCD) published in the Federal Register as part of the CLIIP. FENOC has concluded that the proposed NSHCD presented in the Federal Register notice is applicable to PNPP without need for modification despite the deviation described in Section 2.2 of this application and is hereby incorporated by reference to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91(a).

3.2 Verification and Commitments As discussed in the notice of availability published in the Federal Register on November 13, 2007 for this TS improvement, FENOC verifies the applicability of TSTF-475 to PNPP, and commits to revising Technical Specification Bases based on TSTF-475, Revision 1, as proposed in Attachment 2.

These changes are based on TSTF change traveler TSTF-475, Revision 1, which proposes revisions to the STS by: (1) revising the frequency of SR 3.1.3.2, notch testing of fully withdrawn control rod, from 7 days after the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than the [Low Power Setpoint] LPSP of [Rod Pattern Control System] RPCS to 31 days after the control rod is withdrawn and THERMAL POWER is greater than the LPSP of the RPCS, and (2) revising Example 1.4-3 in Section 1.4, Frequency, to clarify that the 1.25 surveillance test interval extension in SR 3.0.2 is applicable to time periods discussed in NOTES in the SURVEILLANCE column in addition to the time periods in the FREQUENCY column.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION FENOC has reviewed the environmental evaluation included in the model safety evaluation dated November 5, 2007 as part of the CLIIP. FENOC has concluded that the staffs findings presented in that evaluation are applicable to PNPP without need for modification despite the deviation described in Section 2.2 of this application, and the evaluation is hereby incorporated by reference for this application.

Page 1 of 9 PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES (MARK-UP)

Frequency 1.4 1.4 Frequency EXAMPLES EXAM PLE 1.4 -2 (cont i nued)

"Thereafter" lndicates future performances must be established per SR 3.0.2, but only after a specified condition i s ffrst met (Le., the "once" performance i n this example).

measurement o f both intervals stops.

New intervals start upon reactor power reaching 25% RTP.

If reactor power decreases to < 25% RTP, the EXAMPLE 1, 4-3 The interval continues whether or not the unit operation i s

< 25% RTP between perfownces.

As the Note modifies the required performance o f the Surveillance, it i s construed to be part o f the "specified Frequency." Should the 7 day interval be exceeded while operation i s < 25% RTP, t h i s Note allows 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> after power reaches 2 25% RTP t o perform the Surveillance. The Surveillance i s still consldered to be within the "specffied Frequency.

Therefore, if the Surveillance were not performed within the 7 day (plus the extension allowed by SR 3.0.2) Interval, but operatton was < 25% RTP, 3t would not constjtute a failure of the SR or fai'lure t o meet the LCO. Also, no violation o f SR 3,0.4 occurs when changing MDU, even with the 7 day Frequency not met, provided operation does not exceed 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> i t h power 2 25% RTP.

t C O R t 5 W $ d l I

PERRY - UNIT 1 1.0-27 Amendment No, 69

Frequency 1.4 1.4 Frequency EXAMPLES EXAMPLE 1.4-3 (continued)

Once the unit reaches 25% RTP, 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> would be allowed for ompleting the Survei 1 lance. If the Survei 1 lance were not hour i@erVtiJp there would then be erformed within t h j t a l lure t o perrorinsalhver I lance wqthin the specified Frequency, and the provisions o f SI? 3.0.3 would apply.

EXAMPLE 1.4-4 SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS SURVEILLANCE Verify leakage rates are within l i m i t s.

FREQUENCY 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> Example 1.4-4 specifies that the requirements o f t h i s Surveillance do not have t o be met u n t i l the unit i s in MODE 1. The interval measurement for the Frequency o f this Surveillance continues a t a l l times, as described i n Example 1.4-1.

However, the Note constitutes an "otherwise stated" exception t o the Applicability o f this Surveillance.

Therefore. i f the Surveillance were not erformed within the but the unit was not i n MODE 1, there would be no failure o f the SR nor failure t o meet the LCO. Therefore, no violation o f SR 3.0.4 occurs when changing MODES, even with the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> Fre uency exceeded, provided the MODE change was not that the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> Frequency were not met), SR 3.0.4 would re uire satisfying the SR, except as provided by SR 3.0.3 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> (plus the extension allowed by S R 3.0.2) interval, made into d DE 1. Prior t o entering MOD 1 (assuming again an 1 LCO 3.0.4.

1.0-28 Amendment No. 131

Control Rod OPERABILITY

' 1 1 2 3.1 REACTIVITY CONTROL SYSTEMS 3.1.3 Control Rod OPERABILITY LCO 3.1.3 Each control rod shall be OPERABLE.

APPLICABILITY:

MODES 1 and 2.

ACTIONS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ c _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

NOTE-------------------------------------

Separate Condition entry i s allowed for each control rod.

CONDITION A. One withdrawn control rod stuck.

PERRY - UNIT 1 REQUIRE0 ACTION

NOTE-------------

A stuck rod may be bypassed in the Rod Action Control System (RACS) i n accordance with SR 3.3.2.1.9 i f required to allow continued operation.

A. 1 Verify stuck control rod separation criteria are met.

A. 2 Disarm the associated control rod drive (CRD).

AND COMPLETION TIME Inpnedi ately 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> (continued) 3.1-7 Amendment No. 120

Control Rod OPERABILITY 3.1.3 ACTIONS CONDITION A.

(continued)

B.

Two or more withdrawn control rods stuck.

C. One or more control rods inoperable for reasons other than Condition A or B.

REQUIRED ACTION A. 3 3.2 for each withdrawn OPERABLE control rod.

AND A.4 Perform SR 3.1.1.1.

B. l Be i n MODE 3.

c.1

--_----- NOTE---------

Inoperable control rods may be bypassed i n RACS i n accordance with SR 3.3.2.1.9. i f required. t o a1 low insertion o f i

nopera bl e control rod and continued operation, Fully insert inoperable control rod.

COMPLETION TIME 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> from discovery o f Cond-ition A concurrent w i t h THERM1 POWER greater than or equal t o the 1 ow power setpoint (LPSP) o f the Rod Pattern Control System (RPCS).

72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> 12 hours 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> 4 hours C.2 Disarm the associated CRD.

(continued)

PERRY - UNIT 1 3.1-8 Amendment No. 1 20

Control Rod OPERABILITY 3.1.3 Two or more inoperable control rods not i n compl i ance with banked pos i ti on w i t hdraw 1%

sequence (BPWSJ and not separated by twu or more OPERABtE control rods.

E.

Required Action and a ssoci a t ed Compl et i un Time o f Condition A.

C, or D not met.

Nine or more cantm3 rods i noperabl e,.

PERRY - UNIT 1 D. 1 Restore cornpli&nc-d t h BPMS.

OR D.2 Restore control rod t o OPERABLE status.

E.1 Be i n MODE 3.

4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> 4 hours 3.1-9 Amendment No. 112

Control Koa UYLKH~Z~LIII 3.1.3 SURYEICLANCE REQUIREM,ENTS SURVE I lLAElCE Insert each w i thdrawn control rod a t least one no c SR 3.1,3@

Verify each control rad scram time frum fully wjthdrann t o notch positton 13 i s d L 7 seconds.

PERRY - UNIT 1 3.1-10 FREQUENCY 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 31 days In accordance w# t h SR 3.1.4*1, SR 3.1-4,2, SR J,Z,4.3, and SR 3.1.4.4 (continued)

Amendment No. 69

PERRY -

3.1-11 Amendment No, 69

Table 3.1.4-1 Control Rod Scram Times (a)

Maximum scram time from fully withdrawn position, based on de-energization o f scram p i l o t valve solenoids as time zero-(b) Scram times as a functlon of reactor steam dome pressure when < 950 PSig are within established l i m i t s.

( c ) For intermediate reactor steam dome pressures, the scram time criteria are deterrained by 1 inear interpol ation.

PERRY - UNIT 1 3.1-14 Amendment No. 69 Page 1 of 7 PROPOSED CHANGES TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS BASES (PROVIDED FOR INFORMATION)

Control Rod OPERABILITY B 3.1.3 BASES satisf the intended reactivity control re uirements, s t r i c t control rods i s required t o satisfy the assumptions o f the DBA and transient analyses.

(cont i nued) contro r over the number and distribution o 8 inoperable LCO APPCICABI L IN I n MODES 1 and 2. the control rods are assumed t o function durin a DBA or transient and are therefore required t o be O P E d L E i n these MODES.

In MODES 3 and 4, control rods are not able t o be withdrawn since the reactor mode switch i s in Shutdown and a control rod block i s ap lied. This provides these conditions.

Control rod re uirements i n PKIDE 5 are located i n LCO 3.9.5. "Control Ro 1 OPERABl[LITY-Refueling.

adequate requirements for control rod E PERABILITY during ACTIONS The ACTIONS table i s modified by a Note indicating that a separate Condition entry i s allowed for each control rod.

This i s acceptable, since the Required Actions for each Condition provide appropriate compensator actions for each may a1 low for continued operation, and subsequent inoperable control rods are governed by subsequent Condition entry and application o f associated Required Actions.

inoperable control rod. Complying with t z e Required Actions A.1, A.2. A.3, and A.4 A control rod i s considered stuck i f it w i l l not insert (using a71 available insertion methods) by either CRD drive water or scram pressure. With a f u l l y inserted control rod stuck. no actions are required as long as the control-rod remains f u l l y inserted. The Required Actions are modified b a Note that allows a stuck control rod t o be bypassed i n t K e Rod Action Control System (RACS) t o allow cont-inued o erati on. SR 3 3.2.1.9-provides addi ti onal requi rements den control rods are bypassed i n RACS t o ensure compliance with the CRDA analysis. With one withdrawn control rod stuck. the local scram reactivity rate assumptions may not be met i f the stuck control rod separation criteria are not met. Therefore. verification that the separation criteria (continued)

Control Rod OPERABILITY 8 3.1.3 BASES ACTIONS A. l. A.2, A.3. and A.4 (continued) are met must be performed immediately. The stuck control rod separation criteria are that the stuck control rod ma not occupy a location adjacent t o a 'slow" control rod. {he description o f "slow" control rods i s provided i n LCO 3.1.4 "Control Rod Scram Times".

I n addition, the control rod must be disarmed within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. The allowed Completion Time o f 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> i s acceptable, considerin the reactor can t o insert. and provides a reasonable amount of time t o perform the Re uired Action i n an orderly manner. Isolating control rod can be still be shut dorm. assuming no additiona 3 control rods f a i l the control r 4 from scram prevents damage t o the CRDM.

The (cont i nued 1 PERRY - UNIT 1 B 3.1-15a Revision No. 4

Control Rod OPERABILITY B 3.1.3 BASES ACTIONS A.1. A.2. A.3. and A.4 (continued) isolated from scram by isolating the hydraulic control unit from scram and normal drive and withdraw pressure. yet still maintain cooling water t o the CRD.

A control rod can be hydraulically disarmed by closing the drive water and exhaust water isolation valves.

Electrically. the control rod can be disarmed by dlsconnecting power from a l l four directional control valve solenoids.

Monitoring o f the insertion capability for each withdrawn_

control r d must a l s o H r f o r m e d within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. A7 3

erforflperiodic tests of the control rod( insert%

caDa E i l i t y o f withdrawn control rods.

SR 3.1.3.2 Testing each withdrawn control rod ensures that a. generic problem does not exist. The allowed Completion Time of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> provides a reasonable time t o test the control rods, considering the potential fur a need t o reduce power t o perform the tests. Required Action A.2 has a modifjed t i m e zero Completion Time.

The 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> Completion Time for this Required Action starts when the withdrawn control rod i s discovered t o be stuck and THERMAL POWER i s greater than the actual low Ower set i n t (LPSP) o f the rod pattern control fer (RPC P, since !? he notch insertions may not be co atible with the re uirements o f rod pattern control (LE 3.1.6) and the RP 2 (LCO 3.3.2.1, Control Rod Block Instrumentation 1.

To allow continued operation with a withdrawn control rod stuck. an evaluation of adequate SDM i s also required within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />. Should a DBA or transient require a shutdown. t o preserve the single failure criterion an additional control rod would have t o be assumed t o have failed t o insert when required. Therefore. the ori inal SM demonstration may not be valid. The SOM must there s ore be evaluated (by measurement or analysis) with the stuck control rod a t i t s stuck position and the highest worth OPERABLE control rod assumed t o be fully withdrawn.

The allowed Completion Time o f 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> t o verify SDM i s adequate, considering that with a single control rod stuck In a withdrawn position, the remaining OPERABLE control rods are capable o f providing the re uired scram and shutdown

. Failure t o reach DE 4 i s on1 likely if an 51 d

additiona reactivitl control rod adjacent t o the stuc control rod (continuedl PERRY - UNIT 1 B 3.1-16 Revision No. 4

Control Rod OPERABILITY B 3.1.3 BASES ACTIONS A. 1. A.2. A.3. and A.4 (continued) also f a i l s t o insert durin a required scram.

Even with the rod t o insert, sufficient reactivity control remains t o reach and maintain MODE 3 conditions (Ref. 7).

postulated additional sing 9 e failure o f an adjacent control With two or more withdrawn control rods stuck, the plant should be brought t o WDE 3 within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.

Isolating the control rod from scram prevents damage t o the CRDM.

The occurrence o f more than one control rod stuck a t a withdrawn sition increases the probabi 1 i t y that the reactor cannot control rods eliminates the possibilit.of an additional failure o f a control rod t o insert. Tie allowed Completion Time of 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> i s reasonable, based on operating experience, t o reach MODE 3 from f u l l power conditions i n an orderly manner and without challenging plant systems.

C.l and C.2 With one or more control rods inoperable for reasons other than being stuck i n the withdrawn position, operation may continue, provided the control rods are f u l l y inserted within 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and disarmed (electrically or hydraulically) shutdown and scram Inserting capabi i t i e s are not adversely affected.

w i t h i n 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />.

The control rod i s disarmed t o prevent inadvertent withdrawal during subsequent o erations. The control rods can be hydraulically disarmed E y closing the drive water and exhaust water isolation valves.

Electrically, the control rods can be disarmed b disconnecting ower from a l l four directional control va 7 ve solenoids. R i t h a control rod not coupled t o i t s associated drive mechanism, insert the control rod drive mechanism t o accomplish recoup1 ing.

Verify recouplin by withdrawing the control rod and instrumentation and demonstrating that the control rod drive w i l l not go t o the overtravel position. Required Action C.1 i s modified b a Note that allows control rods t o be ino erable control rods an continued operation.

SR g.3.2.1.9 provides additional requirements when the control rods are bypassed t o ensure compliance with the CRDA analysis.

shut down i f required.

Insertion o f all insertable a control rod ensures the observing any i n i icated response o f the nuclear bypassed i n t z e RACS i f re uired t o allow insertion of the 1

(continuedl

Control Rod OPERABILITY B 3.1.3 SASES (continued)

SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS SR 3.1.3.1 The position of each control rod must be determined, t o ensure adequate information on control rod position i s available t o the operator for determining control rod OPERABILITY andecontrol 1 ing rod patterns. Control rod osition may be determined by the use o f at least one gPERA6i-E position indicator, by moving control rods t o a position with an OPERABLE indicator, or by the use o f other appropriate methods. The 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> Frequency of this SR i s based on operating experience related t o expected changes i n control rod position and the availability o f control rod position indications i n the control rm.

SR 3.1.3.21ki;6&$R fll.Y&J Control rod insertion capabilit i s demonstrated b least one notch and observing that the control rod moves.

The control rod may then be returned t o i t s original position. Observation o f changes i n indicated control rod position provides evidence that the control rod osition stuck and i s free t o insert on a scram signal. When plant rocedures permit, these SRs may also be met by rod scram.

hese Surveillances are not required when THEWL POWER i s less than or equal t o the actual LPSP o f the RPC since the notch insertions may not be cmatible with the reauirements inserting each partially or ful T y withdrawn contro T rod a t indication i s OPERABLE.

This ensures the contro P rod i s not ew@iede relawd t o thdchamedin CRD d r f o r d c e an&he

'awn control rods are t i? Frequenck based on the Dotential - m e r rxxhctim n t w c o ~ d d ; i m f J Furthermore. the atins exDerience related to'changes in CRD performance'.

A t any t h e, if a

control rod i s imnovable. a determination o f that control rod's tri pability (OPERABILITY) must be made and SR 3.1.3.w appropria e e action taken.

Verifying the scram time for each control rod t o notch position 13 i s s 7 seconds provides reasonable assurance that the control rod will insert when required during a DBA or transient, thereby completing i t s shutdown function.

(continued)

~ZnformatM? +! j PERRY - UNIT 1 B 3.1-19 Revision No. 3

BASES (continued) in conjunction with the control rod SR 3.1.4.1. SR 3.1.4.2, SR 3.1.4.3, SYSTEM FUNCTIONAL TEST i n SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS LCO 3.3.1.1. "Reactor Protection System (Rps)

InstrumentatJon." and the functional testing o f SDV vent and drain valves in LCO 3.1.8. "Scram Discharge Volume W I V )

Vent and Drain Valves." overlap this Surveillance t o provide complete testing of the assunred safety function. The associated Frequencies are acceptable, considering the more frequent testing erformed t o demonstrate other aspects of control rod OPE RA[1 ILIiv and operati ty e y i e n c e. which shows scram times do not slgnlficant y c ange over an operating cycle.

Coupling verification i s performed t o ensure the control rod is connected to the CRDM and will perform i t s internled function when necessary. The Survei 11 ance requi res verifying that a control rod does not go t o the withdrawn overtravel positi it i s f u l l y withdrawn.

The ture rovides a positlve check on the coupling i n t pity, since on P y an uncoupled CRD can reach overtravel posf ti the overtrave 7 position. The verification i s required t o be performed anytime a control rod i s withdrawn to the "full out" position (notch,posltion 48) or prior t o declaring the control rod OPERABtEafter work on the control rod or CRD System that could affect coupling. This includes control rods inserted one notch and then returned t o the "full out" position durtng the performance of SR 3.1.3.2. Until the control rod reaches the " f u l l out" position where coupling can be verified, the nuclear Instrumentation i s observed for any indicated response duri withdrawal.

This Frequency 1s acceptable, consideri the 7 ow probability that a control rod will become uncoup 7 ed when it is not k i n g moved and operati ng experi m e re1 ated to uncoupl i ng events.

PERRY - UNIT 1 8 3.1-20 Revision No. 1 Page 1 of 7 PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES (RETYPED)

Frequency 1.4 1.4 Frequency EXAMPLES EXAMPLE 1.4-2 (continued)

"Thereafter" indicates future performances must be established per SR 3.0.2, but only after a specified condition i s f i r s t met ( i. e., the "once" performance i n t h i s example).

measurement o f both intervals sto s.

New intervals s t a r t If reactor power decreases t o < 25% RTP, the upon reactor power reaching 25% R 4! P.

EXAMPLE 1.4-3 SURVEILLANCE REOUIREMENTS PERRY - UNIT 1 SURV E I L LANCE Perform channel adjustment.

FREQUENCY 7 days The interval continues whether or not the u n i t operation i s 25% RTP between performances.

As the Note modifies the required erformance o f the Frequency." Should the 7 day interval be exceeded while operation i s c 25% RTP, t h i s Note allows 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> after ower reaches 2 25% RTP t o perform the Surveillance.

The urveillance i s s t i l l considered t o be within the "specified Fre uency. 'I Therefore, i f the Survei 1 7 ance were not SR 3.0.2) interval, but operation was < 25% RTP, it would not constitute a f a i l u r e of the SR or f a i l u r e t o meet the LCO.

Also, no violation o f SR 3.0.4 occurs when changing MODES, even with the 7 day Frequency not met, provided operation does not exceed 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> (plus the extension allowed by SR 3.0.2) with power 2 25% RTP.

Surveillance, it i s construed t o be +

part o the "specified per 9 ormed within the 7 day (plus the extension allowed by (continued) 1 0 27

Frequency 1.4 Only required t o be met i n MODE 1.

Verify leakage rates are within l i m i t s.

1.4 Frequency 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> EXAMPLES EXAMPLE 1.4-3 (continued)

Once the u n i t reaches 25% RTP, 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> would be allowed for completing the Surveillance. If the Surveillance were not performed within t h i s 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> interval (plus the extension allowed by SR 3.0.2). there would then be a f a i l u r e t o perform a Survei 7 1 ance within the speci f i ed Frequency, and the provisions o f SR 3.0.3 would apply.

EXAMPLE 1.4-4 SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY Example 1.4-4 specifies that the requirements o f t h i s Surveillance do not have t o be met u n t i l the u n i t i s i n MODE 1. The interval measurement f o r the Frequency o f t h i s Surveillance continues a t a l l times, as described i n Example 1.4-1. However, the Note constitutes an "otherwise stated" exception t o the Applicability o f t h i s Surveillance.

Therefore, i f the Surveillance were not erformed within the but the u n i t was not i n MODE 1. there would be no failure of the SR nor f a i l u r e t o meet the LCO.

Therefore, no violation o f SR 3.0.4 occurs when changing MODES, even with the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> Fre uency exceeded, provided the MODE change was not made i n t o M 8 DE 1. Prior t o entering MODE 1 (assuming again that the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> Frequency were not met), SR 3.0.4 would 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> (plus the extension allowed by S g 3.0.2) interval, r e u i r e satisfying the SR-, except as provided by SR 3.0.3 an !

LCO 3.0.4.

PERRY - UNIT 1 1.0-28 Amendment No.

ACTIONS CONDITION A.

(continued)

B.

Two or more withdrawn control rods stuck.

C.

One or more control rods inoperable for reasons other than Condition A or B.

REQUIRED ACTION

~~~

A.3 Perform SR 3.1.3.2 f o r each withdrawn OPERABLE control rod.

AND A.4 Perform SR 3.1.1.1.

B. 1 Be i n MODE 3.

c.1

- - - - - - - - NOTE---------

Inoperable control rods may be bypassed i n RACS i n accordance with SR 3.3.2.1.9, i f required, t o allow insertion o f inoperable control rod and continued opera t i on.

Fully insert i

noperabl e control rod.

COMPLETION TIME 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> from Condition A concurrent with THERMAL POWER greater than or equal t o the low power setpoint (LPSP) o f the Rod Pattern Control System (RPCS).

discovery o f t

72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> 12 hours 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> 4 hours c.2 Disarm the associated CRD.

(cont i nued 1 PERRY - UNIT 1 3.1-8 Amendment No.

I

Control Rod OPERABILITY 3.1.3 Not required t o be performed u n t i l 31 days after the control rod i s withdrawn and THERMAL POWER i s greater than the LPSP o f the RPCS.

Insert each withdrawn control rod a t least 31 days one notch.

SR 3.1.3.3 Verify each control rod scram time from f u l l y withdrawn t o notch position 13 i s I 7 seconds.

I n accordance with SR 3.1.4.1.

SR 3.1.4.2, SR 3.1.4.3, and SR 3.1.4.4 PERRY - UNIT 1 3.1-10 (cont i nued 1 Amendment No.

Control Rod OPEM8ILITY 1 1 7 3.1.3 SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS (continued)

SURVEILLANCE SR 3.1.3.4 Verify each control rod does not go t o the withdrawn overtravel position.

FREQUENCY Each time the control rod is withdrawn t o

" f u l l out" position Prior t o declaring control rod OPERABLE after work on control rod or CRD System that could affect coup1 i ng PERRY - UNIT 1 3.1-11 Amendment No.

Control Rod Scram Times 3.1.4 Table 3.1.4-1 Control Rod Scram Times

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N O T E S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1. OPERABLE control rods with scram times not within the l i m i t s o f t h i s Table a r e considered "slow."
2.

Enter a plicable Conditions and Required Actions o f LCO 3.1.3, "Control position 13, These control rods are inoperable, i n accordance with SR 3.1.3.3, and are not considered "slow."

Rod OPE i ABILITY," f o r control rods with scram times > 7 seconds t o notch

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ c _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NOTCH POSITION SCRAM TIMES(a) (b)

(seconds 1 REACTOR REACTOR 950 psig 1050 psig STEAM DOME PRESSURE(c)

STEAM DOME PRESSURE (C)

(a> Maximum scram time from f u l l y withdrawn position, based on de-energization o f scram p i l o t valve solenoids as time zero.

(b) Scram times as a function o f reactor steam dome pressure when < 950 psig are within established l i m i t s.

(c)

For intermediate reactor steam dome pressures, the scram time c r i t e r i a are determined by linear interpolation.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=L-09-031,_Application_for_Technical_Specification_Change_Regarding_Revision_of_Control_Rod_Application_for_Technical_Specification_Change_Regarding_Revision_of_Control&oldid=5318832"