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 . 200 Exelon Way Kennett Square, PA 19346 www.exeloncorp.com 10 CFR 50.90 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

SUBJECT:

License Amendment Request - Administrative Changes to the Technical Specifications In accordance with the provisions of Title 1O 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 10 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 w/attachments USNRC Senior Resident Inspector - NMP USNRC Project Manager, NRA - NMP A. L. Peterson - NYSERDA

ATT AC HM ENT 1 License Amendment Request Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-220 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED CHANGES

Subject:

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 Attachment 1 Administrative Change to Technical Specifications Page 1 of 4 Docket No. 50-220 Evaluation of Proposed Changes 1.0

SUMMARY

DESCRIPTION In accordance with 10 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 Attachment 1 Administrative Change to Technical Specifications Page 2 of 4 Docket No. 50-220 Evaluation of Proposed Changes TS Page 67 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 Attachment 1 Administrative Change to Technical Specifications Page 3 of 4 Docket No. 50-220 Evaluation of Proposed Changes

3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

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 1O 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 Attachment 1 Administrative Change to Technical Specifications Page 4 of 4 Docket No. 50-220 Evaluation of Proposed Changes

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 10 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 10 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

LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENT 3.1.1 CONTROL ROD SYSTEM 4.1.1 CONTROL ROD SYSTEM Applicability: Applicability:

Applies to the operational status of the control rod Applies to the periodic testing requirements for the control system. rod system.

Objective: Objective:

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

Specification Specification:

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

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

operational conditions shall be equal to or greater than: (a) Prior to each in vessel fuel movement during the fuel loading sequence, and 0.38% k/k, with the highest worth control rod analytically determined, or (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 0.28% k/k, with the highest worth control vessel or control rod replacement.

rod determined by test.

Move indent right for Delete unnecessary proper alignment (two space (two places).

places).

AMENDMENT NO. 142, 180 29

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 Move line left for operating condition, then a determination proper alignment 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 (see page 29) 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 AMENDMENT NO. 180 29a

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

(e) If Specification 3.1.1a(1)(a) is not met Move line left for while in the refueling condition, then: proper alignment (see page 29)

Immediately suspend core alterations, Move indent left for except for fuel assembly removal, and proper alignment (see page 29) 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 (2) Reactivity margin - stuck control rods Control rods which cannot be moved with Each withdrawn control rod shall be control rod drive pressure shall be considered exercised in accordance with the Surveillance inoperable. Inoperable control rods shall be Frequency Control Program after the valved out of service, in such positions that control rod has been withdrawn and power Specification 3.1.1a(1)(a) is met. In no case level is greater than the low power set point shall the number of non-fully inserted rods of the RWM. Insert each withdrawn control valved out of service be greater than six rod at least one notch.

during power operation. If this specification is not met, the reactor shall be placed in the This test shall be performed at least once per cold shutdown condition. If a partially or 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 fully withdrawn control rod drive cannot be continuing with two or more inoperable moved with drive or scram pressure the control rods or in the event power operation reactor shall be brought to a shutdown is continuing with one fully or partially condition within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> unless withdrawn rod which cannot be moved and investigation demonstrates that the cause of for which control rod drive mechanism the failure is not due to a failed control rod damage has not been ruled out. The drive mechanism collet housing. 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

Center header LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENT

c. The liquid poison tank shall contain a minimum of Remove the squibs from the valves and verify that 1325 gallons of boron bearing solution. The no deterioration has occurred by actual field firing of solution shall have a sufficient concentration of the removed squibs. In addition, field fire one squib sodium pentaborate enriched with Boron-10 from the batch of replacements.

isotope to satisfy the equivalency equation.

Disassemble and inspect the squib-operated valves C x 628300 x Q x E 1 to verify that valve deterioration has not occurred.

13% wt M 86 GPM 19.8% Atom (2) In accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Where: C = Sodium Pentaborate Solution Control Program -

Concentration (Wt %)

Demineralized water shall be recycled to the test M = Mass of Water in Reactor Vessel and tank. Pump discharge pressure and minimum flow Recirculation piping at Hot Rated rate shall be verified.

Conditions (501500 lb)

b. Boron Solution Checks:

Q = Liquid Poison Pump Flow Rate (30 GPM nominal) (1) In accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program -

E = Boron-10 Enrichment (Atom %)

Boron concentration shall be determined.

d. The liquid poison solution temperature shall not be less than the temperature presented in Figure (2) In accordance with the Surveillance Frequency 3.1.2.b. Control Program -

e. If Specifications "a" through "d" are not met, Solution volume shall be checked. In addition, the initiate normal orderly shutdown within one hour. 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

Add line 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 Delete limits.

b. Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR) b. Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR)

Delete During power operation, the Linear Heat The LHGR as a function of core height shall be Generation Rate (LHGR) of any rod in any fuel checked in accordance with the Surveillance assembly at any axial location shall not exceed Frequency Control Program during reactor the limiting value specified in the Core Operating operation at 25% rated thermal power.

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) c. Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR)

During power operation, the MCPR for all fuel at (1) MCPR shall be determined in accordance with rated power and flow shall be within the limit the Surveillance Frequency Control Program provided in the Core Operating Limits Report. during reactor power operation at >25% rated thermal power.

If at any time during power operation it is determined by normal surveillance that the above (2) MCPR operating limit shall be determined limit is no longer met, action shall be initiated 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 within 15 minutes to restore operation to within testing as required in Specification 4.1.1(c).

AMENDMENT NO. 142, 143, 193, 222 66

Add line 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 d. Power Flow Relationship This power/flow relationship shall not exceed the Compliance with the power flow relationship in limiting values shown in the Core Operating Limits Section 3.1.7.d shall be determined in accordance Report. with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program during reactor operation.

If at any time during power operation it is determined by normal surveillance that the limiting Add line 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

e. Partial Loop Operation Under partial loop operation, surveillance During power operation, partial loop operation is requirements 4.1.7, a, b, c and d above are permitted provided the following conditions are applicable.

met.

AMENDMENT NO. 142, 143, 222 67

Add line LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENT 3.2.3 COOLANT CHEMISTRY 4.2.3 COOLANT CHEMISTRY Applicability: Applicability:

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

Objective: Objective:

To assure the chemical purity of the reactor coolant To determine the chemical purity of the reactor water. coolant water.

Specification: Specification:

a. The reactor coolant water shall not exceed the Samples shall be taken and analyzed for conductivity, 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 chloride and sulfate ion content in accordance with the temperature 200 degrees F and reactor thermal Surveillance Frequency Control Program. In addition, power 10%, or a shutdown shall be initiated if the conductivity becomes abnormal (other than short 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 term spikes) as indicated by the continuous and reactor coolant temperature be reduced to conductivity monitor, samples shall be taken and

<200 degrees F within 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />. analyzed within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />.

Conductivity 1 mho/cm* When the continuous conductivity monitor is Chloride ion 100 ppb inoperable, a reactor coolant sample shall be taken Sulfate ion 100 ppb 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 />.

• 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.

AMENDMENT NO. 142, 163, 169, 222 96

Center header LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENT

b. Any time irradiated fuel is in the reactor vessel b. The following surveillance shall be performed on and reactor coolant temperature is above 212F, each leakage detection system:

at least one of the leakage measurement channels associated with each sump (one for the (1) An instrument calibration in accordance drywell floor drain and one for the equipment with the Surveillance Frequency Control drain) shall be operable. Program.

If the conditions a or b cannot be met, the reactor will (2) An instrument functional test in accordance be placed in the cold shutdown condition within 24 with the Surveillance Frequency Control hours. Program.

AMENDMENT NO. 142, 222 102

LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENT 3.2.7 REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM ISOLATION VALVES 4.2.7 REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM ISOLATION VALVES Applicability: Applicability:

Applies to the operating status of the system of Applies to the periodic testing requirement for the isolation valves on lines connected to the reactor reactor coolant system isolation valves.

coolant system.

Objective: Objective:

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

Specification: Specification:

a. Whenever fuel is in the reactor vessel and the reactor The reactor coolant system isolation valves coolant temperature is greater than 212°F, all reactor surveillance shall be performed as indicated below.

coolant system isolation valves on lines connected to the reactor coolant system shall be operable except a. In accordance with the Surveillance as specified in Specification 3.2.7.b below. Frequency Control Program the operable automatically initiated power-operated

b. In the event any isolation valve becomes isolation valves shall be tested for automatic Align text inoperable whenever fuel is in the reactor vessel and initiation and closure times.

the reactor coolant temperature is greater than 212°F, the system shall be considered operable b. Additional surveillances shall be performed as 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 required by the INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM.

each line having an inoperable valve is in the mode corresponding to the isolated condition, except as noted in Specification 3.1.1.e.

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

TABLE 3.6.2m RPV WATER INVENTORY CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION Limiting Condition for Operation Minimum No. of Operable Instrument Reactor Mode Switch Minimum No. Channels per Position in Which of Tripped or Operable Function Must Be Parameter Operable Trip Systems Trip System Set Point 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 Minimum No. of Operable Instrument Reactor Mode Switch Minimum No. Channels per Position in Which of Tripped or Operable Function Must Be Parameter Operable Trip Systems Trip System Set Point Operable Shutdown Refuel Startup Run PRIMARY COOLANT ISOLATION (1) Low-Low Reactor Water Level (2) (a) Cleanup 2 2(c) 5 inches (a) (a)

(Indicator Scale)

(3) (b) Shutdown Cooling 2 2(c) 5 inches (a) (a)

(Indicator Scale)

(2) Manual 2 1 --- (a) (a)

AMENDMENT NO. 236 247c

TABLE 4.6.2m RPV WATER INVENTORY CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION Surveillance Requirement Instrument Instrument Channel Parameter Sensor Check Channel Test Calibration OPEN CORE SPRAY DISCHARGE VALVES (1) Reactor Pressure --- Note 1 ---

AMENDMENT NO. 236 247d

TABLE 4.6.2m RPV WATER INVENTORY CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION Surveillance Requirement Instrument Instrument Channel Parameter Sensor Check Channel Test Calibration PRIMARY COOLANT ISOLATION (Cleanup and Shutdown Cooling)

(1) Low-Low Reactor Water Note 1 Note 1 ---

Level (2)

(2) Manual --- Note 1 ---

(3)

AMENDMENT NO. 236 247e