U-601048, Application for Amend to License NPF-62,consisting of 24 Separate Tech Spec Changes,Including Crvics Instrumentation, Remote Shutdown Monitoring Instrumentation & Containment Isolation Valves.Fee Paid

Application for Amend to License NPF-62,consisting of 24 Separate Tech Spec Changes,Including Crvics Instrumentation, Remote Shutdown Monitoring Instrumentation & Containment Isolation Valves.Fee Paid

ML20236K686
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	10/30/1987
From:	Hall D ILLINOIS POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
Shared Package
ML20236K690	List: ML20236K708 U-601048, Application for Amend to License NPF-62,consisting of 24 Separate Tech Spec Changes,Including Crvics Instrumentation, Remote Shutdown Monitoring Instrumentation & Containment Isolation Valves.Fee Paid
References
U-601048, NUDOCS 8711090311
Download: ML20236K686 (10)

Text

~

U-601048 ,

L47-87(10 30)-

1A.120  !

ILLINDIS POWER COMPANY CLINTON POWER STATION. P.O. BOX 678. CLINTON. ILLINOIS 61727 10CFR50.90 October 30, 1987 Dccket 50-461 Document Control Desk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Clinton Power Station Proposed Amendment to Facility Operating License NPF-62 Dear Sir Pursuant to 10CFR50.90, Illinois Power Company (IP) hereby appliee for an amendment of Facility Operating License NPF-62 Clinton Power Station (CPS). In accordance with 10CFR50.30, three signed originals and forty copies of this application are enclosed.

This amendment consists of twenty-four separate changes to the Technical Specifications. These changes represent clarifications and enhancements to the Technical Specifications. The attachments to this letter provide a description and justification for ecch of the recuested changes including bases for no significant hazarcs considerations. None of these changes affect IP's ability to safely operate CPS under its current license. These changes to the Technical Specifications are consistent in all material aspects with the FSAR as amended, the Safety Evaluation Report and its Supplements and the as-built plant. An affidavit supporting certification accompanies this letter.

In accordance with the provisions of 10CFR170.12 and 170.21, IP is enclosing a check made out to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the saount of $150.00 as payment of the application fee for this amendment.

S .ly yours, f

871109c31 u71030 PDR ADOCK 05000461 P PDR h

Vice President k l 0 KBR/cke g g lc6 Attachments i gg cc: NRC Resident Office NRC Region III, Regional Administrator NRC Clinton Licensing Project Manager Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety

n -_ - ._

' ' Attachment-1 >

to U-601048' '

w v ,

'V STATE l0F' ILLINOIS

-v COUNTY.OF'DEWITT DONALD P. HALL, Being-first

duly sworn,-deposes:and?

- says:.That he.is Vice President of. Illinois Power:Companyt..

i that;-the provided:information-to certify that these changes .i-i

'to Ehe Clinton Power Station (CPS) ~ Technical-Specifications.

U are' consistent with the CPS F.inal' Safety' Analysis. Report,

. the;;NRC Safety. Evaluation Report and the::as-built facility )

- has-been prepared.under his supervision and directions.that- 1 I

he knows/the' contents thereof; and-that to.the'best of his knowledge an'd' belief said request and the facts contained' ' .a 7 , .. .

s therein are true and correct. o DATED: ' Thia 76

d. day.of~ er, 1987

.+.

1 Signed: s DonaltrT . Hall ,

I

' Subscribed and sworn to before me this fg day of.0ctober I

.1987, i.

Sb)wt $ -S w d Notary Public i My commission expires:

~

^

^

^;^^^~^'

Debors L Bea My Commission Expires 10/1790

- ~ _ _ .

I~

Eh .2E:c_z_ ________1__._____

1

- oa-s HUNDIS POWER COM/%NY I0-02-07l 00160776 L c2cATwi. uncs '. 10 0 'a N160 SMXE /CRfDif MEMQ TYPE DESCR# TION GROSS Ot1 COUNT NET DATE l- , 1 I l- I .I I

012807 f 0'v2dd7 NROYS.Vk20 1 1d000 15000 I I

I

.p. l APPNICt. TION FEE E; U 4 . AMENDMENT'TO OPER ATING h!CE NSENPF-t>2l. ,

I l i I f.I i 1 l-l I

i- 1 1 I i i i

1 1 1 l'

l- 1 i  ! ,1 I I I I i 1 I I I' I i 1 I I I 4-1

'l l' I t 'l

'l1 i i t- l

'l- 1 I i 1

?l- I i 1 I i i i 74 difACHAD CHlC# JR IN PAYMENT FOR ITEMS Of SCRIAED A80VE-16OOO I i U8O csrex No

/LLING/B POWER COMPANY 00189776  !

I DECATUR. ILLINOIS 189776 l

.LPAY ONE HUNDRED FIFTY OOLLARS NO CENTS j TO THE ORDE R OF DATE CHECK AMOUNT NOCLEAR REGULATORY C OfW I S S I ON 10-02-E7 occ4*co****150 00 nASHINGTON O C-

~

205 % . il l

~

CONTINENTAL BANK OF OAK 0400K IIIP9 ACE OAABROC6 f(HMACE. lLi1 Nots 60181 OR'

1. DESzRED CONTINENTAL BANK CP6CAG^ IL 60007 km_. _ ... .....

1

{

ekB977Gn' i:0 ? A9 2 3G9 5i: 1,9 a' O L 5 2 5 n' l 1

l 1

1 i,

1 l

l

\ \

l J

i l

1 l

k

~

Attachment 2 to U-601048 Page 1 of 3 Summary of Technical Specification Chanzes This is a summary listing of all 24 change packages.

i l

Please refer to the individual package for a complete description and justification including the Basis For No Significant Hazards Consideration for each change.

Package Mo. Description 1 Figure 3.2.3-1: reconcile differences between plot and corresponding equations in determining MCPRf limit. Provide new figure.

2 Table 3. 3.2-1: clarify ACTIONS for the Reactor Water Cleanup System Reactor Vessel Water Level-Low Low, Level 2 isolation trip channels.

3 VARIOUS: this package contains seven changes that are corrections to typographical errors.

4 Table 3.3.2-2: revise use of inequality signs with respect to timer limits to match design specifications.

5 3/4.3.7.1, 3/4.3.7.11, 3/4.3.7.12, 4.11.2.7: Make changes to OPERABILITY, ACTION and Surveillance requirements to take credit and account for redundant Central Control Terminals at CPS; change Channel Functional Test requirements for radwaste discharge radiation monitor (PR040); revise Specifications 4.11.2.7.1 and 4.11.2.7.2 for consistency with ACTION 72; revise ACTION 72 for Specification 3.3.7.1; revise channel descriptions to ensure agreement between the Standby Gas Treatment System Discharge Radiation monitor and the HVAC Common Stack Radiation Monitor.

6 Table 3.3.7.5-1: insert 3.0.4 exemption to allow plant to enter applicable modes with accident monitoring instrumentation inoperable; revise ACTION 81 to resolve conflict with LC0; correct typo 5raphical error; delete safety / relief valve acoustic monitors from Specification 3.3.7.5/4.3.7.5.

??  ; d

~

o w ,

'j

. Attachment 2

~

t l

?'

to U-601048 :d

Page 2 of 3' l b; -

Description E

>Packade No. ,

- 1 '

7 ;3/4.3.8: delete turbine overspeed

S.j '

protection system specification.

L 4 t8

- 3.'4 ; 2. 2 : ' revise Esafety/ relief valve l low-low set function setpoint. tolerance

.jy

.to: match value in design specifications.

delete part of 9c 4.4.3.2.1.a',b:

surveillance referring to sump levels  ;

insert note 1to-indicate-that monitoring. 1 the:drywe11~ atmospheric particulate and.

>- gaseous radioactivity will.not be a -)

means.of quantifying leakage. l

(

10 3/4.6.1.8, 3/4.6.2.7,. Table l3.6.4-1: u

. Delete operability and~ surveillance  ;

requirements for h3* stops add note to Table'3'.6.4-1 to allow applicable valves j

' to be opened under administrative 1 s

control (for testing) insert wording to i 1

exclude surveillance test time from J cumulative system operation time. . 1

'll 3/4.5.1: provide specific ACTION for 1 inoperability of Automatic- 1

Depressurization1 System Accumulator Low

Pressure annunciation.

4.8.1.1.2.a.5: revised' associated' j

'12 footnote'to comply with. guidance l

]

provided in NRC Generic Letter 84-15. l

.13- 4.8.2.1.'d.~2.b: revise load: profile'for- ~{

' Division II batteries. j 14 3/4.9-12: revise "* *" footnote to j comply with condition in license _

1 regarding use of fuel handling system. .j 15 Figure 6.2.2-1: remove asterisks and j note associated Delete with SRO License l requirements. Assistant Manager l

- Startup and Director - Plant J Maintenance positions. l l

J l

l I

l 1

l 1

1

4

' Attachment 2 to U-601048  :

Page 3'of 3 )

Packaze No. . Description'  !

16 6. 3.1/ 6. 4.~1 : remove exemption to ANSI /ANS 3.1-1978 requirements for Supervisor - Control and  ;

In'strumentation, update to comply with 1 March.1987 version of 10CFR55. On figure 6.2.1-1, change Director -

Nuclear Training to Manager - Nuclear Training and replace " Operations" under Manager - Scheduling and Outage Management with " Staff." l 17 6.8.2, 6.8.3.c: revise to account for-  ?

- appropriate responsible manager.'s  ;

approval of applicable procedures. >

18 6.9.1.8: revise to comply with new version of 10CFR50.4.

19 3.6.4-1: add list of test connections for excess flow check valves.

20 3.6.1.4: add a footnote to allow an i i

MSIV-Leakage Control System instrument (s) to be placed in an inoperable status for up to two hours to allow performance of surveillance provided other channels are OPERABLE.  ;

21 4.11.2.7.2: incorporate exemption to Specification 4.0.4.

22 Table 3.3.7.1-1: change the name of the  ;

ventilation mode from ' recirculation" to l "high radiation" under ACTION 70. This more accurately represents the operation of the ventilation system. Also delete "downscale" from wording in ACTION 70.

Table 4.3.,6-1: delete unnecessary notes 23 and frequencies associated with channel functional testing requirements for the rod pattern control system low and high power setpoints.

24 Table 3.6.4-1: correct ty i errors regard!ag Note "(a) geographical and clarity l existing requirements.

)

_ _ _ = _ _- _ _ . - l

Attachment 3 _]

a to U-601048 l Page 1 of 157 PACKAGE NUMBER 1 i

J Description and Justification l The purpose of this proposed. change is'to replace Figure 3.2.3-1-(MCPRf Versus_ Core Flow) on p. 3/4 2-8 of the CPS Technical Specifications. '3 The new figure is being provided due to small but noticeable graphical errors discovered on the original figure.

Substitution of the old curve with a new curve has no impact on plant operation since the new curve, as supplied by G.E., is' based on approved analyses and since the new curve bounds the values of the old curve,

~

determined either directly from the plot or by use of the associated equations which also appeared on,the original figure. ]

1 Add 1tional Background The original figure contained a plotted curve of REQUIRED MCPRf versus CORE FLOW (% Rated) as well as corresponding equations that were te be '

used in the Precess Competer. Small but noticeable differences between the plotted values and the values determined from the process conputer r equations for a. given core flow value were noted. _ The equations' tended to yield slightly higher required limit values than the. original curve.

(See Table-1) G.E. vas consulted, and it was agreed that the differences were insignificant but that a new curve to reflect the exact Clinton j specific values should be provided. It was noted that no matter which~

method was used under the original figure however, the values determined according to the original figure were within the values that would.be determined using the new curve for the REQUIRED MCPRf limit values. )

It should be noted that the differenecs were also insignificant with  !

respect to the fact that at no time so far haslimit Clinton been operatad determined from Figure )

with an MCPR that even appcoached the MCPig 3.2.3-1 by either method. l l"

Comparison of MCPR, Values Determined From the Original and Revised Figure 3.2.3-1 j Core MCPR Originalhigure New Figure f Flow 0

(%) Plotted Calculated Plotted 3

1.54 1.55 1.55 l 30 40 1.48 1.49 1.50 1 1.44  !

50 1.42 1.43 1.36 1.37 1.38 60 1.30 1.31 1.31 l 70 1.22 1.23 1.24 l 80 1.18 1.18 1.18 I 90 )

1.18 1.18 1.18

! 100 Table-1 1 i

Attachment.3 .

to U-601048 .

Page 2 of.157 Basis for Mo Significant Hazards Consideration t According to 1]CFR50.92, a proposed change to the license (Technical' Specificationti) tuvolves no significant hazards consideration if .

operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed change would  !

j not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the l; possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident l previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin' of safety.

(1) The proposed change involves no significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because no. changes to the MCPR analyses and the associated required MCPR limits are involved. The purpose of the change is to clarify i f

existing requirements by providing a cleaner, more accurate figure for determining the minimum required MCPRg (as a function of core flow).

'I Past performance under the figure originally provided has been acceptable on the basis that the new curve boiuds all of the values that could possibly be determined from the original figure.

(2) It has been determined that the proposed change does not create the '

possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated since the proposed change does'not involve any design changes, new requirements, or new modes of operation. .The scope of the proposed change is confined only to the correction.of .l graphical errers and the clarification of wxisting requirements. )

j i.

-(3) The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of saf ety because .the MCPR analysis remains unchanged and f limit ]

becauce the'new curve allows the determination of a MCPRf i that is still consistent with the analysis. No setpoint, design or analytical limit assumed or required by any analysis is affected by the proposed change. The intent of the existing Technical Specification requirements would remain unchanged.

. 1 l

1 i

4 i

i

, )?

j y

I,

-Attachment 3 to'U-601048 Page'3 of 157 ,

}

I s

hh M 1

l

\

1.9 , i . t , i i.1 .i , . )

i t ,

i t t-' l i 1 ..

1 i i .! r r- <, i1 i i i = i rr i i ii i i i r r '

e , j i  !

t i .

i i  ! l 6 t  ! ^

3 I I l j l 6 1 1

i i , , 4 1 i .

1

' I I

!  ! t I i (

3

,' s

'  !  ! [

i l

' i + l-  ;

3 1.8 ,

1 i i f I t . t t ,

f I , I

{ '  ! [ [

I I i i i t

' i i i i i i i > i 1 ,

1 l i i I t ] . I l

! I 1 .

t 1 1 I  !  !  ! 3 1 1 '

t ,

q

! . ! (

r, i  !.

1

&i , ,

_ i i I l -q

'i 4

t . < t i . .

l i  ! ( j l i i i I ! 1 3 I i L Ii g ~

' ' ' ' '  !  !  ! l ji )

1.7 . -

t i i i i i i i .  ;

e  !

g .

i i I i i 1~

r F -

I i

' . I I i i  !

j

p. 1 i

i's ,,. 0 i , <

6 I J I I f r

! i  !  ! I f

' l

' y 1.6

, , i L 30% CORE R.OWIMCPRp= 1.55 l I I 1 i j i i ., o . _

o st I ,

^

i I #I f  !

i

/

( . i . I

( r

=

I i _Y f l

! X I e 1 i  ! ') -

[ [

i l XI t t

';ts._u 3 >

w 1.5 i t

g .j x,

, , i i i

, , i 4 , . , 4 a.d. I I i 4 x i

% i a ,

1 seJ

.Nx i s , > .

i ,

o . 1 i ix i 11 l\! l ( (

j O _i  !

,- i i i W ' I

. A, ,

c 1.4 .1 1 . 1 , <

l' ,

l l lN1 i -

es% core FLOWNCPRF= 1.34

, rr 4 i r i  ! .d I f i

' ..N# l i i 3 I .\

i 3 1  ! r 1 i i

' (' i !  ; .

! I  ! 1 t i y r ,

i r T y 9

~

L i 1 t

1.3 . .

. 1 x >

.r, i i i i

!! i# , , i i i s

i i I i f iT i 1 I

i f 1 i i i f A . i i i

' L I i r i I 1 i i i ' t i i I it t  !

f 11  !

It I  ! .

i 3 i

't i

!  : r ! J i '

! . t Il lI \ I ~t i i i

! i  !! l i  !

1 F  !

< 3 1

+ I i

,f ,I i

a,, i , ;;, i ,

1.2 i , , , , , . ,

J t i I

i I

, i , I i :

J (

, j } [ [ y , t . ,

I r  ! .

!I i f,,

! i t a_A_a...t h .t u L . a ,_A ~ ,f- '

r

' RATED  !

i i

' ' 86.5% CORE FLOW /MCPRp = 1.18 ' -j-i ,

OLMCPR = 1.18 H +

i . , r- 1  : .

! I I i I I t i i  !  ! _! i

! I i  ! i  ! i

+1 I i I i i ia i i I L 4i i I i r i i i i r I- T

' i a 1 i i '

2 i

i 5. g I

i l i i e a .

^

j k

.1 l

. , 1 i i ,

i I i ,

jl 1

, l T , . !

i > . !

1.0. 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 o

CORE FLOW ; percent of rated)

Figure 3.2.3-1. Clintcn MCPR fVersus Core Flow l

1 CUNTON - UNIT 1 3/42-8 '

g n ,.

a <

Attachment 3

,E

, .i o ,

to U-601048 Page 4 of 157 PA'CKACE NUMBER 2

~ Description and Justification of Change The proposed change is required'as'a result of an oversight and the resultant typographical error that occurred when changes were proposed for the Clinton Full Power L'icense Tecl}nical Specifications. The l changes were cubmitted in January 1987 (IP letter U-600785) and were approved by the NRC as documented in Appendix Q of Supplement 8 to the q Clinton Safety Evaluation Report. The approved changes.specifically addressed ACTIONS 21, 25 and 29 for Technical Specification 3.3.2, Table 3.3.2-1, which are applicable to Item 3.e of the table.

k The ACTION numbers identified for Item 3.e (The Reactor Vessel Water - 4 Level-Low Low, Level 2 channels for Reactor Water Cleanup System isolation) should have been thanged in accordance with the approved )

changes but were not. This is evident by the fact that Item 3.e currently refers to an ACTION (21) which has been deleted (per the approved changes). Under the changes proposed previously it was ~

intended that ACTION 29 should apply to Item 3.e for OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1, 2, 3 and that ACTION 25 should apply to this item for OPERATIONAL CONDITION "#". These ACTIONS were to replace ACTION'21.

This is consistent with the other-items listed on the table in which ACTION 25 applies to those isolation channels required to be OPERABLE in OPERATIONAL CONDITION "#" because they effeet an isolation of a system or valves which constitute a potential secondary containment bypass path and in which ACTION 29 applies to those isolation channels required to be OPERABLE in OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1, 2, 3 which effect isolations of a small number of valves or single systems.

l Basis For No Significant Hazards Consideration

~

According to 10CFR50.92, a proposed change to the license (Technical Specification) involves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed change would f not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; -(2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

(1) The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

This is an administrative change to achieve consistency with '

previously approved changes and does not affect any existing accident analyses.

(2) The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or dif f erent kind of accident f rom any accident previously evaluated.

This is an administrative change and does not affect plant des 1gn.

Therefore, no new accident scenario has been created.

I (3) The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin cf cafety. This is an adatinistrative change and does not l-affect a margin of safety.

L  !

L l L l