NMP1L3278, License Amendment Request - Administrative Changes to the Technical Specifications

License Amendment Request - Administrative Changes to the Technical Specifications

ML19169A105
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	06/26/2019
From:	Jim Barstow Exelon Generation Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NMP1L3278
Download: ML19169A105 (21)

Text

Exelon Generation.

NMP1L3278 June 17, 2019 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-63 NRC Docket No. 50-220 200 Exelon Way Kennett Square, PA 19346 www.exeloncorp.com 10 CFR 50.90

SUBJECT:

License Amendment Request - Administrative Changes to the Technical Specifications In accordance with the provisions of Title 1 O of the Code of Federal Regulations (1 O CFR 50.90), "Application for amendment of license, construction permit, or early site permit," Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) is submitting a request for an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS), Appendix A of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-63 for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 1 (NMP1 ).

The proposed amendment makes several administrative changes to NMP1 TS. These changes address pagination, redundancy, and number sequencing issues. When implemented, these changes will provide continuity and consistency throughout the TS. provides a description and evaluation of the proposed changes. Attachment 2 provides the existing NMP1 TS page mark-ups of the proposed changes.

There are no regulatory commitments contained in this letter.

Exelon requests approval of the proposed license amendment by October 31, 2019. Once approved, the amendment shall be implemented within 45 days.

The proposed changes have been reviewed and approved by the Plant Operations Review Committee, in accordance with the Exelon Quality Assurance Program.

In accordance with 1 O CFR 50.91, "Notice for Public Comment; State Consultation," a copy of this application, with attachments, is being provided to the designated State Official.

License Amendment Request Administrative Change to Technical Specifications Docket No. 50-220 June 17, 2019 Page 2 Should you have any questions or require additional information regarding this submittal, please contact Ron Reynolds at 610-765-5247.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 171h day of June 2019.

James Barstow Director - Licensing & Regulatory Affairs Exelon Generation Company, LLC Attachments: 1. Evaluation of Proposed Changes

2. Proposed Technical Specification Page Changes cc:

USNRC Region I Regional Administrator USNRC Senior Resident Inspector - NMP USNRC Project Manager, NRA - NMP A. L. Peterson - NYSERDA w/attachments

A TT AC HM ENT 1 License Amendment Request

Subject:

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-220 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED CHANGES Administrative Change to Technical Specifications 1.0

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION 2.0 DETAILED DESCRIPTION

4.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION

4.1 Applicable Regulatory Requirements/Criteria 4.2 No Significant Hazards Consideration 4.3 Conclusions

6.0 REFERENCES

License Amendment Request Administrative Change to Technical Specifications Docket No. 50-220 Evaluation of Proposed Changes 1.0

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION Page 1 of 4 In accordance with 1 O CFR 50.90, "Application for amendment of license, construction permit, or early site permit," Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) requests an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-63 for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (NMP1 ). The proposed amendment makes several administrative changes to NMP1 TS.

These changes address pagination, redundancy, and number sequencing issues. When implemented, these changes will provide continuity and consistency throughout NMP1 TS.

2.0 DETAILED DESCRIPTION The following is a detailed description, by TS page number, of each proposed administrative change:

TS Pages 29, 29a and 30 Page 29: Specification 3.1.1 a(1 )(a) contains text that is misaligned. This change will align the text by removing unnecessary space between words and adjusting the indentation. This is a proposed formatting change and is administrative in nature.

Page 29a: The vertical line separating the two columns is misaligned. This change will align the vertical line with the rest of the section. This is a proposed formatting change and is administrative in nature.

Page 30: Specification 3.1.1 a(2), Reactivity margin - stuck control rods, is improperly indented and aligns with Specification 3.1.3a(1 )(e). The proposed change is to align Specification 3.1.1 a(2) the same as Specification 3.1.1 a(1) as shown on TS page 29. This is a proposed formatting change and is administrative in nature.

TS Page 45 The header "SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENT" is left justified and should be centered. This change will center the header over the column. This is a proposed formatting change and is administrative in nature.

TS Pages 66 Specification 3.1.7b, Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR) - This specification spells out LHGR twice, once in the header of the specification and again in the first paragraph of the specification. The proposed change will remove the redundant use of " Linear Heat Generation Rate" in the first paragraph. The heading of this specification will remain unchanged. This proposed change eliminates redundancy and is administrative in nature.

The horizontal line across the top of the page underlining "LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION" and "SURVEILLANCE REQUIRMENT" is missing. The proposed change will add the line across the top of page 66 and 67 for consistency. This is a proposed formatting change and is administrative in nature.

License Amendment Request Administrative Change to Technical Specifications Docket No. 50-220 Evaluation of Proposed Changes TS Page 67 Page 2 of 4 The horizontal line across the top of the page underlining "LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION" and "SURVEILLANCE REQUIRMENT" and the vertical line separating the two columns is missing. The proposed change will add the horizontal line across the top and the vertical line separating the two columns of page 67 for consistency. This is a proposed formatting change and is administrative in nature.

TS Page 96 The horizontal line across the top of the page underlining "LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION" and "SURVEILLANCE REQUIRMENT" is missing. The proposed change will add the line across the top of page 96 for consistency. This is a proposed formatting change and is administrative in nature.

TS Page 102 Page 102 header" LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION" is left justified and should be centered. This change will center the header over the column. This is a proposed formatting change and is administrative in nature.

TS Page 108 Specification 3.2. 7b contains one line of misaligned text. The proposed change would correct the one line of misaligned text to align with the remainder of the text in the specification. This is a proposed formatting change and is administrative in nature.

TS Page 247c Table 3.6.2m, RPV Water Inventory Control Instrumentation, lists Parameters spanning over two pages; 247b and 247c. Currently, Parameter 1, Reactor Pressure, is located on page 247b.

However, page 247c has a duplicate Parameter 1 for Low-Low Reactor Water Level and has Parameter 2, for Manual. The proposed change is to revise page 247c to identify Parameters 2 and 3 for Low-Low Reactor Water Level and Manual, respectively. Page 247b will remain unchanged. This proposed change corrects a numbering sequence issue and is administrative in nature.

TS Page 247e Table 3.6.2m, RPV Water Inventory Control Instrumentation, lists Parameters spanning over two pages; 247d and 247e. Currently, Parameter 1, Reactor Pressure, is located on page 247d.

However, page 247e has a duplicate Parameter 1 for Low-Low Reactor Water Level and has Parameter 2, for Manual. The proposed change is to revise page 247e to identify Parameters 2 and 3 for Low-Low Reactor Water Level and Manual, respectively. Page 247d will remain unchanged. This proposed change corrects a numbering sequence issue and is administrative in nature.

License Amendment Request Administrative Change to Technical Specifications Docket No. 50-220 Evaluation of Proposed Changes

3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

Page 3 of 4 The proposed char:iges described in Section 2.0 above correct known minor discrepancies in the NMP1 TS. These changes pertain to pagination, formatting, redundancy, and number sequencing issues. The proposed changes do not adversely alter the current TS or introduce any new TS requirements. When implemented, these changes will provide continuity and consistency throughout NMP1 TS. No further technical evaluation is needed to justify these changes.

4.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION

4.1 Applicable Regulatory Requirements/Criteria Title 1 O Code of federal Regulations 50.36, "Technical specifications" 4.2 No Significant Hazards Consideration Exelon has evaluated the proposed change, using the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92, and has determined that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration. The following information is provided to support a finding of no significant hazards consideration.

1.

Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Response: No The proposed changes are administrative in nature. These changes do not affect possible initiating events for accidents previously evaluated nor do they alter the configuration or operation of the plant.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2.

Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Response: No The proposed changes are administrative in nature. These changes do not alter the design or configuration of the plant. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. The proposed changes do not alter the types of lnservice Testing performed. The frequency of lnservice Testing is unchanged.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

License Amendment Request Administrative Change to Technical Specifications Docket No. 50-220 Evaluation of Proposed Changes Page 4 of 4

3.

Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No The proposed changes are administrative in nature. Since there are no changes to the operation or physical design of the plant, the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report design basis, accident assumptions, or Technical Specification bases are not affected.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Based on the above evaluation, Exelon concludes that the proposed license amendment request presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 1 O CFR 50.92, paragraph (c), and accordingly, a finding of no significant hazards consideration is justified.

4.3 Conclusions In conclusion, based on the considerations discussed above, (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or the health and safety of the public.

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

Exelon has determined that the proposed amendment would change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation." However, the proposed amendment does not involve: (i) a significant hazards consideration, (ii) a significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluent that may be released offsite, or (iii) a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, the proposed amendment meets the eligibility criterion for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22, "Criterion for categorical exclusion; identification of licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or otherwise not requiring environmental review,"

paragraph (c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 1 O CFR 51.22, paragraph (b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with the proposed amendment.

6.0 REFERENCES

None

ATTACHMENT 2 License Amendment Request Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-220 PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PAGE CHANGES 29 29a 30 45 66 67 96 102 108 247b (Provided for clarification) 247c 247d (Provided for clarification) 247e

AMENDMENT NO. 142, 180 29 LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENT 3.1.1 CONTROL ROD SYSTEM Applicability:

Applies to the operational status of the control rod system.

Objective:

To assure the capability of the control rod system to control core reactivity.

Specification

a.

Reactivity Limitations (1) Reactivity margin - core loading (a) The Shutdown Margin (SDM) under all operational conditions shall be equal to or greater than:

0.38% k/k, with the highest worth control rod analytically determined, or 0.28% k/k, with the highest worth control rod determined by test.

4.1.1 CONTROL ROD SYSTEM Applicability:

Applies to the periodic testing requirements for the control rod system.

Objective:

To specify the tests or inspections required to assure the capability of the control rod system to control core reactivity.

Specification:

The control rod system surveillance shall be performed as indicated below.

a. Reactivity Limitations (1) Reactivity margin - core loading The SDM shall be verified within limits:

(a) Prior to each in vessel fuel movement during the fuel loading sequence, and (b) Once within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> after criticality following fuel movement within the reactor pressure vessel or control rod replacement.

Move indent right for proper alignment (two places).

Delete unnecessary space (two places).

AMENDMENT NO. 180 29a LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENT (b) If one or more control rods are determined to be inoperable as defined in Specification 3.1.1a(2) while in the power operating condition, then a determination of whether Specification 3.1.1a(1)(a) is met must be made within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />. If a determination cannot be made within the specified time period, then assume Specification 3.1.1a(1)(a) is not met.

(c) If Specification 3.1.1a(1)(a) is not met while in the power operating condition, restore compliance with Specification 3.1.1a(1)(a) within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> or be in a shutdown condition within the following 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />.

(d) If Specification 3.1.1a(1)(a) is not met while in the hot shutdown condition or the cold shutdown condition, then:

Immediately initiate action to fully insert all insertable control rods, and Initiate action within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> to restore secondary containment to operable status, and Initiate action within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> to restore one emergency ventilation system to operable status, and Initiate action within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> to restore isolation capability in each required Move line left for proper alignment (see page 29)

LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENT secondary containment penetration flow path not isolated.

(e)

If Specification 3.1.1a(1)(a) is not met while in the refueling condition, then:

Immediately suspend core alterations, except for fuel assembly removal, and Immediately initiate action to fully insert all insertable control rods in core cells containing one or more fuel assemblies.

(2)

Reactivity margin - stuck control rods Control rods which cannot be moved with control rod drive pressure shall be considered inoperable. Inoperable control rods shall be valved out of service, in such positions that Specification 3.1.1a(1)(a) is met. In no case shall the number of non-fully inserted rods valved out of service be greater than six during power operation. If this specification is not met, the reactor shall be placed in the cold shutdown condition. If a partially or fully withdrawn control rod drive cannot be moved with drive or scram pressure the reactor shall be brought to a shutdown condition within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> unless investigation demonstrates that the cause of the failure is not due to a failed control rod drive mechanism collet housing.

(2)

Reactivity margin - stuck control rods Each withdrawn control rod shall be exercised in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program after the control rod has been withdrawn and power level is greater than the low power set point of the RWM. Insert each withdrawn control rod at least one notch.

This test shall be performed at least once per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in the event power operation is continuing with two or more inoperable control rods or in the event power operation is continuing with one fully or partially withdrawn rod which cannot be moved and for which control rod drive mechanism damage has not been ruled out. The surveillance need not be completed within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> if the number of inoperable rods has been reduced to less than two and if it has been demonstrated that control rod drive mechanism collet housing failure is not the cause of an immovable control rod.

AMENDMENT NO. 142, 180, 200, 222 30 Move indent left for proper alignment (see page 29)

Move line left for proper alignment (see page 29)

LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENT

c. The liquid poison tank shall contain a minimum of 1325 gallons of boron bearing solution. The solution shall have a sufficient concentration of sodium pentaborate enriched with Boron-10 isotope to satisfy the equivalency equation.

C x 628300 x Q x E 1 13% wt M 86 GPM 19.8% Atom Where:

C

=

Sodium Pentaborate Solution Concentration (Wt %)

M

=

Mass of Water in Reactor Vessel and Recirculation piping at Hot Rated Conditions (501500 lb)

Q

=

Liquid Poison Pump Flow Rate (30 GPM nominal)

E

=

Boron-10 Enrichment (Atom %)

d. The liquid poison solution temperature shall not be less than the temperature presented in Figure 3.1.2.b.

e. If Specifications "a" through "d" are not met, initiate normal orderly shutdown within one hour.

Remove the squibs from the valves and verify that no deterioration has occurred by actual field firing of the removed squibs. In addition, field fire one squib from the batch of replacements.

Disassemble and inspect the squib-operated valves to verify that valve deterioration has not occurred.

(2) In accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program -

Demineralized water shall be recycled to the test tank. Pump discharge pressure and minimum flow rate shall be verified.

b. Boron Solution Checks:

(1) In accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program -

Boron concentration shall be determined.

(2) In accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program -

Solution volume shall be checked. In addition, the sodium pentaborate concentration shall be determined and conformance with the requirements of the equivalency equation shall be checked any time water or boron are added or if the solution temperature drops below the limits specified by Figure 3.1.2.b.

AMENDMENT NO. 142, 166, 222 45 Center header

LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENT not returned to within the prescribed limits within two (2) hours, reactor power reductions shall be initiated at a rate not less than 10% per hour until APLHGR at all nodes is within the prescribed limits.

b.

Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR)

During power operation, the Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR) of any rod in any fuel assembly at any axial location shall not exceed the limiting value specified in the Core Operating Limits Report.

If at any time during power operation it is determined by normal surveillance that the limiting value for LHGR is being exceeded at any location, action shall be initiated within 15 minutes to restore operation to within the prescribed limits. If the LHGR at all locations is not returned to within the prescribed limits within two (2) hours, reactor power reductions shall be initiated at a rate not less than 10% per hour until LHGR at all locations is within the prescribed limits.

c.

Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR)

During power operation, the MCPR for all fuel at rated power and flow shall be within the limit provided in the Core Operating Limits Report.

If at any time during power operation it is determined by normal surveillance that the above limit is no longer met, action shall be initiated within 15 minutes to restore operation to within

b.

Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR)

The LHGR as a function of core height shall be checked in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program during reactor operation at 25% rated thermal power.

c.

Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR)

(1) MCPR shall be determined in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program during reactor power operation at >25% rated thermal power.

(2) MCPR operating limit shall be determined within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of completing scram time testing as required in Specification 4.1.1(c).

AMENDMENT NO. 142, 143, 193, 222 66 Add line Delete Delete

LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENT the prescribed limit. If all the operating MCPRs are not returned to within the prescribed limit within two (2) hours, reactor power reductions shall be initiated at a rate not less than 10% per hour until MCPR is within the prescribed limit. For core flows other than rated, the MCPR limit shall be the limit identified above times Kf where Kf is provided in the Core Operating Limits Report.

d.

Power Flow Relationship During Operation This power/flow relationship shall not exceed the limiting values shown in the Core Operating Limits Report.

If at any time during power operation it is determined by normal surveillance that the limiting value for the power/flow relationship is being exceeded, action shall be initiated within 15 minutes to restore operation to within the prescribed limits. If the power/flow relationship is not returned to within the prescribed limits within two (2) hours, reactor power reductions shall be initiated at a rate not less than 10% per hour until the power/flow relationship is within the prescribed limits.

e.

Partial Loop Operation During power operation, partial loop operation is permitted provided the following conditions are met.

d.

Power Flow Relationship Compliance with the power flow relationship in Section 3.1.7.d shall be determined in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program during reactor operation.

e.

Partial Loop Operation Under partial loop operation, surveillance requirements 4.1.7, a, b, c and d above are applicable.

AMENDMENT NO. 142, 143, 222 67 Add line Add line

LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENT 3.2.3 COOLANT CHEMISTRY Applicability:

Applies to the reactor coolant system chemical requirements.

Objective:

To assure the chemical purity of the reactor coolant water.

Specification:

a.

The reactor coolant water shall not exceed the following limits for > 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> with the coolant temperature 200 degrees F and reactor thermal power 10%, or a shutdown shall be initiated within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and the reactor shall be shutdown and reactor coolant temperature be reduced to

<200 degrees F within 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />.

Conductivity 1 mho/cm*

Chloride ion 100 ppb Sulfate ion 100 ppb During Noble Metal Chemical Addition (NMCA), the limit is 20 mho/cm. Post NMCA, the conductivity limit is 2 mho/cm for up to a 5 month period at power operation.

4.2.3 COOLANT CHEMISTRY Applicability:

Applies to the periodic testing requirements of the reactor coolant chemistry.

Objective:

To determine the chemical purity of the reactor coolant water.

Specification:

Samples shall be taken and analyzed for conductivity, chloride and sulfate ion content in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program. In addition, if the conductivity becomes abnormal (other than short term spikes) as indicated by the continuous conductivity monitor, samples shall be taken and analyzed within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />.

When the continuous conductivity monitor is inoperable, a reactor coolant sample shall be taken and analyzed for conductivity, chloride and sulfate ion content at least once per 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />.

AMENDMENT NO. 142, 163, 169, 222 96 Add line

LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENT

b.

Any time irradiated fuel is in the reactor vessel and reactor coolant temperature is above 212F, at least one of the leakage measurement channels associated with each sump (one for the drywell floor drain and one for the equipment drain) shall be operable.

If the conditions a or b cannot be met, the reactor will be placed in the cold shutdown condition within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

b.

The following surveillance shall be performed on each leakage detection system:

(1) An instrument calibration in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program.

(2) An instrument functional test in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program.

AMENDMENT NO. 142, 222 102 Center header

LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENT 3.2.7 REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM ISOLATION VALVES Applicability:

Applies to the operating status of the system of isolation valves on lines connected to the reactor coolant system.

Objective:

To assure the capability of the reactor coolant system isolation valves to minimize reactor coolant loss in the event of a rupture of a line connected to the nuclear steam supply system, and to minimize potential leakage paths from the primary containment in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident.

Specification:

a.

Whenever fuel is in the reactor vessel and the reactor coolant temperature is greater than 212°F, all reactor coolant system isolation valves on lines connected to the reactor coolant system shall be operable except as specified in Specification 3.2.7.b below.

b.

In the event any isolation valve becomes inoperable whenever fuel is in the reactor vessel and the reactor coolant temperature is greater than 212°F, the system shall be considered operable provided that within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> at least one valve in each line having an inoperable valve is in the mode corresponding to the isolated condition, except as noted in Specification 3.1.1.e.

4.2.7 REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM ISOLATION VALVES Applicability:

Applies to the periodic testing requirement for the reactor coolant system isolation valves.

Objective:

To assure the capability of the reactor coolant system isolation valves to minimize reactor coolant loss in the event of a rupture of a line connected to the nuclear steam supply system, and to limit potential leakage paths from the primary containment in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident.

Specification:

The reactor coolant system isolation valves surveillance shall be performed as indicated below.

a.

In accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program the operable automatically initiated power-operated isolation valves shall be tested for automatic initiation and closure times.

b.

Additional surveillances shall be performed as required by the INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM.

AMENDMENT NO.142, 145, 173, 181, 197, 222, 227 108 Align text

TABLE 3.6.2m RPV WATER INVENTORY CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION Limiting Condition for Operation Parameter Minimum No.

of Tripped or Operable Trip Systems Minimum No. of Operable Instrument Channels per Operable Trip System Set Point Reactor Mode Switch Position in Which Function Must Be Operable Shutdown Refuel Startup Run OPEN CORE SPRAY DISCHARGE VALVES (1)

Reactor Pressure 2

1(d)(e) 365 psig (a)(b)

(a)(b)

AMENDMENT NO. 236 247b

TABLE 3.6.2m RPV WATER INVENTORY CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION Limiting Condition for Operation Parameter Minimum No.

of Tripped or Operable Trip Systems Minimum No. of Operable Instrument Channels per Operable Trip System Set Point Reactor Mode Switch Position in Which Function Must Be Operable Shutdown Refuel Startup Run PRIMARY COOLANT ISOLATION (1)

Low-Low Reactor Water Level (a) Cleanup 2

2(c) 5 inches (Indicator Scale)

(a)

(a)

(b) Shutdown Cooling 2

2(c) 5 inches (Indicator Scale)

(a)

(a)

(2)

Manual 2

1 (a)

(a)

AMENDMENT NO. 236 247c (2)

(3)

TABLE 4.6.2m RPV WATER INVENTORY CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION Surveillance Requirement Parameter OPEN CORE SPRAY DISCHARGE VALVES (1)

Reactor Pressure Sensor Check Instrument Channel Test Note 1 Instrument Channel Calibration AMENDMENT NO. 236 247d

TABLE 4.6.2m RPV WATER INVENTORY CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION Surveillance Requirement Parameter PRIMARY COOLANT ISOLATION (Cleanup and Shutdown Cooling)

(1)

Low-Low Reactor Water Level (2)

Manual Sensor Check Note 1 Instrument Channel Test Note 1 Note 1 Instrument Channel Calibration AMENDMENT NO. 236 247e (2)

(3)