ML13116A302
| ML13116A302 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 04/16/2013 |
| From: | Capps S Duke Energy Carolinas, Duke Energy Corp |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML13116A302 (19) | |
Text
@DUKE ENERGY.
Steven D. Capps Vice President McGuire Nuclear Station Duke Energy MG01VP 1 12700 Hagers Ferry Road Huntersville, NC 28078 o: 980.875.4805 f: 980.875.4809 Steven.Capps@duke-energy.com April 16, 2013 10 CFR 50.90 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy)
McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS), Units 1 and 2 Docket Numbers 50-369 and 50-370 Technical Specifications (TS) Sections:
3.3.2, Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation 3.5.4, Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) 3.6.6, Containment Spray System (CSS)
Removal of Superseded TS and Bases Requirements Letter from R. T. Repko to NRC, License Amendment Request for Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Water Management Initiative, dated May 28, 2010 (ML101600256)
Reference:
Letter from Jon Thompson to Regis T. Repko, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Issuance of Amendments Regarding Technical Specification Changes to Allow Manual Operation of the Containment Spray System, dated September 12, 2011 (ML11131A133)
Pursuant to Section 50.90 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) herein submits a license amendment request (LAR) for the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses (FOL) and Technical Specifications (TS) for MNS Units 1 and 2 to remove superseded TS requirements.
By letter dated May 28, 2010. Duke Energy submitted a LAR to modify the subject TS to allow the manual operation of the CSS in lieu of automatic actuation, and revise the minimum volume and low level setpoint on the RWST. Because the associated modifications were implemented on a staggered basis for each MNS Unit during refueling outages, the deletion or modification of these TS requirements was accomplished via the use of temporary footnotes. This allowed the requirements to be either applicable or non-applicable, depending upon whether the modifications had not been implemented or implemented, respectively. The LAR contained a commitment for MNS to submit a follow-up administrative license amendment request to delete the superseded temporary TS requirements within 180 days of the installation of the associated modifications for the final MNS Unit.
400(
www.duke-energy.com
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 April 16, 2013 By letter dated September 12, 2011, the NRC issued amendments regarding the TS changes requested in the May 28, 2010 LAR. Installation of the associated modifications on the final MNS Unit was completed on October 18, 2012. This LAR satisfies the MNS commitment to delete the superseded temporary TS requirements described in the May 28, 2010 LAR.
In addition, this LAR makes an administrative non-technical editorial correction by relocating NOTE 1 on TS page 3.3.2-15 to TS page 3.3.2-14. As part of the May 28, 2010 LAR and related amendments, a non-technical change moved this NOTE from TS page 3.3.2-14 to TS page 3.3.2-15. Relocating NOTE 1 back to TS page 3.3.2-14 is consistent with the reference to this NOTE in TS Table 3.3.2-1, Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS)
Instrumentation, Function 9, Containment Pressure Control System.
Included as information in the May 28, 2010 LAR submittal were marked-up proposed changes to the TS Bases that reflected the proposed TS changes and provided clarifications, corrections and editorial revision. Because the LAR's associated modifications were implemented on a staggered basis for each MNS Unit during refueling outages, following NRC approval of the May 28, 2010 LAR, two complete versions of each corresponding TS Bases section were utilized for ease of operator use. One version was applicable to the existing pre-LAR plant configuration and one version was applicable to the post-LAR modified plant configuration.
Subsequent to installation of the post-LAR associated modifications on the final MNS Unit on October 18, 2012, the version of the TS BASES applicable to the pre-LAR plant configuration was removed prior to the first entry into Mode 4 operations following the implementing refueling outage. As a result, the TS BASES now reflect only the post-LAR modified plant configuration and no further changes are needed.
Due to the administrative non-technical nature of the submittal, this LAR has received the appropriate alternate Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) review in lieu of the standard PORC review as allowed by Duke Energy procedure and processes. provides an evaluation of the changes proposed in this LAR. Attachment 2 contains a marked-up version of the affected TS pages. Reprinted (clean) TS pages will be provided to the NRC prior to issuance of the approved amendment.
This LAR contains no regulatory commitments.
Implementation of this proposed LAR will not impact the MNS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91, a copy of this LAR is being sent to the designated official of the State of North Carolina.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 3 April 16, 2013 If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact J. N. Robertson at 980- 875-4499.
Very truly yours, Steven D. Capps Attachments cc:
w/attachments V. M. McCree Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 J. P. Boska Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North, M/S O-8G9A Rockville, MD 20852-2746 J. Zeiler NRC Senior Resident Inspector McGuire Nuclear Station W. L. Cox III, Section Chief North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Environmental Health Radiation Protection Section 1645 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1645
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 4 April 16, 2013 Steven D. Capps affirms that he is the person who subscribed his name to the foregoing statement, and that all the matters and facts set forth herein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.
Steven D. Capp!,
ice President, McGuire Nuclear Station Subscribed and sworn to me:
I' Date
~1AL eC lotary Public
')/")
My commission expires: A U Lv/
SEAL Evaluation of the Proposed Changes
- 1.
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION
- 2.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
- 3.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION
- 4.
REGULATORY EVALUATION 4.1 Applicable Regulatory Requirements/Criteria 4.2 Significant Hazards Consideration 4.3 Conclusions
- 5.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
- 6.
REFERENCES
- 1.
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION Pursuant to Section 50.90 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy) herein submits a license amendment request (LAR) for the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses (FOL) and Technical Specifications (TS) for McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS) Units 1 and 2 to remove superseded TS requirements.
By letter dated May 28, 2010. Duke Energy submitted a LAR to modify the subject TS to allow the manual operation of the Containment Spray System (CSS) in lieu of automatic actuation, and revise the minimum volume and low level setpoint on the Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST). Because the associated modifications were implemented on a staggered basis for each MNS Unit during refueling outages, the deletion or modification of these TS requirements was accomplished via the use of temporary footnotes. This allowed the requirements to be either applicable or non-applicable, depending upon whether the modifications had not been implemented or implemented, respectively. The LAR contained a commitment for MNS to submit a follow-up administrative LAR to delete the superseded temporary TS requirements within 180 days of the installation of the associated modifications for the final MNS Unit.
By letter dated September 12, 2011, the NRC issued amendments and a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) regarding the MNS TS changes requested in the May 28, 2010 LAR. The associated modifications were installed on the final MNS Unit on October 18, 2012. This administrative non-technical LAR satisfies the MNS commitment to delete the superseded temporary TS requirements added by the May 28, 2010 LAR. In addition, this LAR makes an administrative non-technical editorial correction by relocating NOTE 1 on TS page 3.3.2-15 to TS page 3.3.2-14. As part of the May 28, 2010 LAR and related amendments, a non-technical change moved this NOTE from TS page 3.3.2-14 to TS page 3.3.2-15. Relocating NOTE 1 back to TS page 3.3.2-14 is consistent with the reference to this NOTE in TS Table 3.3.2-1, Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation, Function 9, Containment Pressure Control System.
- 2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION Proposed changes 1) through 8) below are administrative non-technical changes only and are consistent with the proposed changes in Duke Energy's May 28, 2010 LAR, the subject commitment in that LAR, and the changes approved by the NRC in their SER issued on September 12, 2011. Changes 1) through 8) support the commitment to the NRC to delete the superseded MNS TS requirements within 180 days of the installation of the associated modifications for the final MNS Unit. Proposed changes 9) and 10) implement an administrative non-technical editorial correction which relocates NOTE 1 on TS page 3.3.2-15 to TS page 3.3.2-14. Relocating NOTE 1 to TS page 3.3.2-14 is consistent with the reference to this NOTE in TS Table 3.3.2-1, ESFAS Instrumentation, Function 9, Containment Pressure Control System.
Proposed Changes (reference Attachment 2):
- 1) TS Table 3.3.2-1, ESFAS Instrumentation, FUNCTION 2, Containment Spray The asterisked Containment Spray FUNCTION, including FUNCTIONS a, b, and c, are removed and the FUNCTION changed to read:
- 2. Not Used In addition, the related superseded asterisked temporary footnote at the bottom of TS page 3.3.2-10 would be deleted.
- 2) TS Table 3.3.2-1, ESFAS Instrumentation, FUNCTION 7a, Automatic Switchover to Containment Sump, Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) Level - Low The ALLOWABLE VALUE is changed to >_ 92.3 inches and the NOMINAL TRIP SETPOINT is changed to 95 inches.
The related superseded asterisked temporary footnote at the bottom of TS page 3.3.2-14 is deleted.
- 3) TS 3.5.4, RWST, SR 3.5.4.2 The SURVEILLANCE is changed to read:
SR 3.5.4.2 Verify RWST borated water volume is > 383,146 gallons.
The related superseded asterisked temporary footnote on TS page 3.5.4-2 is deleted.
- 4) TS 3.6.6, Containment Spray System, SR 3.6.6.1 The SURVEILLANCE is changed to read:
SR 3.6.6.1 Verify each containment spray manual and power operated valve in the flow path that is not locked, sealed, or otherwise secured in position is in the correct position.
The related superseded asterisked temporary footnote at the bottom of TS page 3.6.6-1 is deleted.
- 5) TS 3.6.6, Containment Spray System, SR 3.6.6.3 The SURVEILLANCE is removed and changed to:
SR 3.6.6.3 Not Used The SR 3.6.6.3 FREQUENCY is changed to:
Not Used The related superseded asterisked temporary footnote at the bottom of TS page 3.6.6-2 is deleted.
- 6) TS 3.6.6, Containment Spray System, SR 3.6.6.4 The SURVEILLANCE is removed and changed to:
SR 3.6.6.4 Not Used The SR 3.6.6.4 FREQUENCY is changed to:
Not Used The related superseded asterisked temporary footnote at the bottom of TS page 3.6.6-2 is deleted.
- 7) TS 3.6.6, Containment Spray System, SR 3.6.6.5 The SURVEILLANCE is changed to read:
SR 3.6.6.5 Verify that each spray pump is de-energized and prevented from starting upon receipt of a terminate signal and is allowed to manually start upon receipt of a start permissive from the Containment Pressure Control System (CPCS)
The related superseded double asterisked temporary footnote at the bottom of TS page 3.6.6-2 is deleted.
- 8) TS 3.6.6, Containment Spray System, SR 3.6.6.6 The SURVEILLANCE is changed to read:
SR 3.6.6.6 Verify that each spray pump discharge valve closes or is prevented from opening upon receipt of a terminate signal and is allowed to manually open upon receipt of a start permissive from the Containment Pressure Control System (CPCS)
The related superseded triple asterisked temporary footnote at the bottom of TS page 3.6.6-2 is deleted.
- 9) TS 3.3.2, ESFAS Instrumentation, TS page 3.3.2-14 The entire NOTE 1 from TS page 3.3.2-15 is added to this TS page.
- 10) TS 3.3.2, ESFAS Instrumentation, TS page 3.3.2-15 The entire NOTE 1 is deleted from this TS page.
- 3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION Proposed changes 1) through 8) in Section 2 - "Detailed Description" are administrative non-technical changes which remove temporary TS requirements added as part of the MNS May 28, 2010 LAR. These temporary requirements, which accommodated the staggered implementation of the associated LAR modifications on both MNS Units, are no longer necessary given that the associated LAR modifications have been completed on both MNS Units. Upon approval and implementation of proposed changes 1) through 8), the MNS TS will continue to reflect the changes justified in the Technical Evaluation associated with Duke Energy's May 28, 2010 LAR and approved by the NRC as part of their September 12, 2011 SER.
Proposed changes 9) and 10) in Section 2 implement an administrative non-technical editorial correction.
Given the above, additional Technical Evaluation of the administrative non-technical changes proposed in this LAR is not necessary.
- 4. REGULATORY EVALUATION 4.1 Applicable Regulatory Requirements/Criteria The changes proposed in this LAR are administrative and non-technical in nature. Upon approval and implementation of the proposed changes, the MNS TS will continue to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements and criteria discussed in the Regulatory Evaluation associated with Duke Energy's May 28, 2010 LAR and approved by the NRC as part of their September 12, 2011 SER. Therefore, additional discussion of the applicable regulatory requirements and criteria is not required.
4.2 Significant Hazards Consideration Changes 1) through 8) in Section 2 - Detailed Description are administrative non-technical changes only and are consistent with the commitment in Duke Energy's May 28, 2010 LAR and the changes approved by the NRC in their September 12, 2011 SER. Changes 1) through 8) support the commitment to the NRC to delete the superseded MNS TS requirements within 180 days of the installation of the associated modifications for the final Unit. Changes 9) and 10) in Section 2 implement an administrative non-technical editorial correction which relocates NOTE 1 on TS page 3.3.2-15 to TS page 3.3.2-14. Relocating NOTE 1 to TS page 3.3.2-14 is consistent with the reference to this NOTE in TS Table 3.3.2-1, ESFAS Instrumentation, Function 9, Containment Pressure Control System.
Duke Energy has evaluated whether or not a significant hazard consideration is involved with the proposed changes by analyzing the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c) as discussed below:
Criterion 1:
Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. These proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems and components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits.
Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed amendment does not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2:
Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The proposed changes will not alter the design requirements of any SSC or its function during accident conditions. No new or different accidents result from the changes proposed. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant or any changes in methods governing normal plant operation. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis.
Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 3:
Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
This LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by these changes. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a
configuration outside the design basis. The proposed changes do not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
4.3 Conclusions Based on the above, Duke Energy concludes that the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of no significant hazards consideration is justified.
- 5. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. Duke Energy has determined that the proposed amendment does change requirements with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area, as defined by 10 CFR 20. Duke Energy has evaluated the proposed changes and has determined that they do not involve: (1) a significant hazards consideration, (2) a significant change in the types or a significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, or (3) a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposures. Accordingly, the proposed amendment meets the eligibility criterion for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the proposed amendment.
- 6.
REFERENCES
- 1. Letter from R. T. Repko to NRC, License Amendment Request for Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Water Management Initiative, dated May 28, 2010 (ML101600256).
- 2. Letter from Jon Thompson to Regis T. Repko, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Issuance of Amendments Regarding Technical Specification Changes to Allow Manual Operation of the Containment Spray System, dated September 12, 2011 (ML11131A133)
Marked-Up TS Pages
TS Markup Inserts INSERT 1:
IINSERT 2:
Verify that each spray pump is de-energized and prevented from starting upon receipt of a terminate signal and is allowed to manually start upon receipt of a start permissive from the Containment Pressure Control System (CPCS).
Verify that each spray pump discharge valve closes or is prevented from opening upon receipt of a terminate signal and is allowed to manually open upon receipt of a start permissive from the Containment Pressure Control System (CPCS).
ESFAS Instrumentation 3.3.2 Table 3.3.2-1 (page 1 of 6)
Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System Instrumentation APPLICABLE MODES OR OTHER NOMINAL SPECIFIED REQUIRED SURVEILLANCE ALLOWABLE TRIP FUNCTION CONDITIONS CHANNELS CONDITIONS REQUIREMENTS VALUE SETPOINT Safety Injection
- a.
Manual Initiation
- b.
Automatic Actuation Logic and Actuation Relays
- c.
Containment Pressure - High
- d.
Pressurizer Pressure - Low Low 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3 2
2 trains 3
B SR 3.3.2.7 C
SR 3.3.2.2 SR 3.3.2.4 SR 3.3.2.6 D
SR 3.3.2.1 SR 3.3.2.5 SR 3.3.2.8 SR 3.3.2.9 D
SR 3.3.2.1 SR 3.3.2.5 SR 3.3.2.8 SR 3.3.2.9 NA NA
< 1.2 psig NA NA 1.1 psig 4
> 1835 psig 1845 psig Phase A Isolation (1) Manual Initiation (2) Automatic Actuation Logic and Actuation Relays 1,2,3,4 2
B SR 3.3.2.7 NA NA NA 1,2,3,4 2 trains C
SR 3.3.2.2 SR 3.3.2.4 SR 3.3.2.6 NA (continued)
The/equ-pmes /this untnap nap foilnin me tati ofhe
-4odiatio/s so./edith CC Wk Ma gent t th 'reslctiv UniV.
(a)
Above the P-1I (Pressurizer Pressure) interlock.
McGuire Units 1 and 2 Delete 3.3.2-10 Amendment Nos.
ESFAS Instrumentation 3.3.2 Table 3.3.2-1 (page 5 of 6)
Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System Instrumentation APPLICABLE MODES OR OTHER NOMINAL SPECIFIED REQUIRED SURVEILLANCE ALLOWABLE TRIP FUNCTION CONDITIONS CHANNELS CONDITIONS REQUIREMENTS VALUE SETPOINT
- 6.
Auxiliary Feedwater (continued)
- e.
Trip of all Main 1,2 1 per MFW K
SR 3.3.2.7 NA NA Feedwater pump SR 3.3.2.9 Pumps
- f.
Auxiliary 1,2,3 2 per MDP, N,O SR 3.3.2.7
> 3 psig 3.5 psig Feedwater Pump 4 per TDP SR 3.3.2.8 Suction Transfer SR 3.3.2.9 on Suction 95inches Pressure - Low
- 7.
Automatic Switchover Insert to Containment Sump
- a.
Refueling Water 1,2,3 3
P,S SR 3.3.2.1
>1
.8 180 nch Storage Tank SR 3.3.2.3(a)(b) i he!
(RWST) Level -
SR 3.3.2.8(a)(b)
Low SR 3.3.2.9 Insert Coincident with Refer to Function 1 (Safety Injection) for all initiation functions and requirements.
> 92.3 Safety Injection inches (continued)
Delete (a) If the as-found channel setpoint is outside its predefined as-found tolerance, then the channel shall be evaluated to verify that it is functioning as required before returning the channel to service.
(b) The instrument channel setpoint shall be reset to a value that is within the as-left tolerance around the Nominal Trip Setpoint (NTSP) at the completion of the surveillance; otherwise, the channel shall be declared inoperable.
Setpoints more conservative than the NTSP are acceptable provided that the as-found and as-left tolerances apply to the actual setpoint implemented in the Surveillance procedures (field setting) to confirm channel performance. The methodologies used to determine the as-found and the as-left tolerances are specified in the UFSAR.
(NOTE 1:
The Trip Setpoint for the Containment Pressure Control System start permissive/termination (SP/T) shall be > 0.3 psig and < 0.4 psig. The allowable value for the SP/T shall be > 0.25 psig and < 0.45 psig.
Add McGuire Units 1 and 2 3.3.2-14 Amendment Nos.
ESFAS Instrumentation 3.3.2 Table 3.3.2-1 (page 6 of 6)
Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System. Instrumentation APPLICABLE.
MODES OR OTHER NOMINAL SPECIFIED REQUIRED SURVEILLANCE ALLOWABLE TRIP FUNCTION CONDITIONS CHANNELS CONDITIONS REQUIREMENTS VALUE SETPOINT
- 8.
ESFAS Interlocks
- a.
Reactor Trip, P-4
- b.
Pressurizer Pressure, P-1I
- c.
Tavg - Low Low, P-12
- 9.
Containment Pressure Control System 1,2,3 1,2,3 1 per train, 2 trains 3
1,2,3 1,2,3,4 1 per loop 4 per train, 2 trains F
SR 3.3.2.5 SR 3.3.2.8 Q
SR 3.3.2.5 SR 3.3.2.8 R
SR 3.3.2.1 SR 3.3.2.3 SR 3.3.2.8
< 1965 psig 1955 psig NA NA
> 551*F Refer to Note 1 on Page 3.3.2-14 553°F Refer to Note 1 on page 3.3.2-14 Delete McGuire Units 1 and 2 3.3.2-15 Amendment Nos.
RWST 3.5.4 SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY SR 3.5.4.1 Verify RWST borated water temperature is > 70'F and In accordance with
< 1000 F.
the Surveillance Frequency Control Program S R 3.5.4.2 Verify RWST borated water volume i In accordance with the Surveillance 383,146 gallons.* Insert Frequency Control Program SR 3.5.4.3 Verify RWST boron concentration is within the limits In accordance with specified in the COLR.
the Surveillance Frequency Control Program Delete McGuire Units 1 and 2 3.5.4-2 Amendment Nos. 2&5/245
Containment Spray System 3.6.6 3.6 CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS 3.6.6 Containment Spray System 1CO 3.6.6 APPLICABILITY:
Two containment spray trains shall be OPERABLE.
MODES 1, 2, 3, and 4.
ACTIONS CONDITION REQUIRED ACTION COMPLETION TIME A.
One containment spray A. 1 Restore containment spray 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> train inoperable, train to OPERABLE status.
B.
Required Action and B.1 Be in MODE 3.
6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> associated Completion Time not met.
AND B.2 Be in MODE 5.
84 hours9.722222e-4 days <br />0.0233 hours <br />1.388889e-4 weeks <br />3.1962e-5 months <br /> Verify each containment spray manual and power operated valve in the flow path that is not locked, Fsealed, or otherwise secured in position is in thew SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS correct position.
SURVEILLANCE insert FREQUENCY SR 3.6.6.
erif e h on in en sp y a al Po er pe te In accordance with an au m tic alv i he lo p
t at' n
lo e,
the Surveillance s le, o ot se ec re in osi on s i th co ec Frequency Control Os ioI Program (continued)
Delete McGuire Units 1 and 2 3.6.6-1 Amendment Nos. 2&1245
Containment Spray System 3.6.6 SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY SR 3.6.6.2 Verify-each conhtainment spray pump's developed head at the flow test point is greater than or equal to the required developed head.
I.n accordance. with the Inservice Testing Program
-Not UIse
,Insert Delete McGuire Units 1 and 2 3.6.6-2 Amendment Nos.-26t45