L-75-399, Letter Comments on Proposed Snubber Technical Specifications

Letter Comments on Proposed Snubber Technical Specifications

ML18227D864
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	08/21/1975
From:	Robert E. Uhrig Florida Power & Light Co
To:	Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-75-399
Download: ML18227D864 (4)

Text

NR DISTRIBUTION FOR PART 50 DOCKET MATERIAL

{TEMPORARY FORM)

CONTROL NO:

FILE'ROM Florida Power

& Light Co Miami, Fla.

33101 RE UIL'O:

Mr. George Lear CLASS UNCLASS PROPINFO DATE OF DOC 8-21-75 ORIG 1 signed INPUT DATE REC'D 8-26-75 CC OTHER NO CYS REC'D 1

LTR SENT I OCAL PDR DOCKET NO:

50-250/~

TWX RPT OTHER DESCRIPTION:

Ltr fu'rnishing comments on proposed snubbers Tech Specs.....

ENCLOSURES:

f P

vl I

Q pj IIII>'LANT NAME: Turkey Pt. Units 3 & 4 FOR ACTION/INFORMATION V

III'i BUTLER (I)

W/ Copies CLARK (L)

W/ Copies PARR (L)

W/ Copies

'KNIEL'(L)

LV/ Copies SCHWENCER (L)

W/ Copies STOLZ (L)

W/ Copies VASSALLO (L)

W/ Copies

'URPLE (L)

W/ Copies ZlEMANN (L)

~

W/ Copies DICKER (E)

W/ Copies KNIGHTON (E) kV/ Copies YOUNGBLOOD (E)

W/ Copies REGAN (E)

W/ Copies K.EAg (L)

W/copies SPXES W/ Copies LPM W/

opies REXD(L)

W/

COPXES INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION EG Fll OGC, ROOM P-50GA GOSSI CK/STAFF CASE 4/GIAMBUSSO BOYD MOORE (L)

DEYOUNG (L)

SKOVHOLT (L)

GOLLER (L) (Ltr)

P. COLLINS DENISE REG OPR PHILE & REGION (2)

MXPC TECH REVIEW SCHROEDER MACCARY KNIGHT PAWLICKI SHAO STE LLO I.IOUSTON NOVAK ROSS IPPOLITO TED ESCO J,COLLXNS LAINAS BENAROYA VOLLMER DFNTON GR II'AES (iAMMILL KASTNER BALLARD SPANGLER

~ ENVIRO MULLER DICKER KNIGHTON YOUNGB LOOD REGAN PROJECT LDR HAR LESS LIC ASST R. DIGGS (L)

H. GEARIN (L)

E. GOULBOURNE (L)

P. KREUTZER (E)

J ~ LEE (L)

M. RU".:IBROOIP/L)

S. REFD(E)

M. SERVICE (L)

S. SI.IEPPARD (L)

M. Sl ATER (E)

. SMilTH (L)

. TEETS (L)

G. WILLIAMS(E)

V. WILSON (L)

R. INGRAM (L)

M.

DURGA?3 A/T IRKED

~

BRAITMAN SALTZMAN MELTZ PLANS A@CDONALD CHAPMAN DUBE (Ltr)

E. COUPE PETERSON HARTFIELD (2)

KLECKER EISENHUT WIGGINTON EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION IltI LOCALPDR M<<mi Fla 1 TIC {ABERNATHY) (1)(2)(10) NATIONALLABS 1 NSIC (BUCI.IANAN) 1 W. PENNINGTON, Rm F-201 GT 1 ASLB 1

CONSULTANTS

'ewto?1 A??(Ierso??

NEWMARK/BLUME/AGBABIAN

/g ACRS+Hb4H ~SENT 1 P D R-SAN/LA/NY 1 BROOKHAVEN NAT LAB 1 G. ULRIKSON ORNL

goc<<a<

~.I (pygmy)gXv<f, I

~rylAQ~Q

,;,<'0

@C 9 g $97~

g(j.(gIIOIIt D~ q gaItg QQIII P. O. BOX 013100, hIIAhlII, FLORIDA 33101 FLORIDA POWER 5 LIGHT COMPANY August 21, 1975 L-75-399 Mr. George Lear, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No.

3 Division of Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

- U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission washington, D.

C.

20555

Dear Mr. Lear:

Re:

Proposed Snubber Tech 'Specs-'for Turke

'oint'lant- Dock'et'o's.50-25'0

'6

-'2'51 Florida Power 6 Light Company has reviewed the Nuclear Regulatory

'Commission's model Technical Specifications 'concerning the operability and surveillance of hydraulic sho'ck suppressors (snubbers).

Me wish to thank you for the opportunity of'ommenting on this, Ve would like 'to present changes'h'ich we feel would improve this Technical Specification.

The 'suggested charges are as follows':

1.

Section 3.6.X.3 states:

"From and after the time that a hydraulic snubber is determined to be inoperable, continued reactor operations is permissible only during the succeeding 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> unless the 'snubber is sooner'ade oper'able."

For the case of only one inoperable

snubber, we,suggest that the Plant Nuclear Safety Committee be given 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> to determine whether safe reactor operation can or 'cannot continue.

Reactor shutdown should be.required only if safe operation cannot be assured.

2.,

Section 4.6.I.l states in part:

"The required inspection interval shall not be lengthened more than one step at a time."

Ne suggest that the return to longer inspection intervals be dependent on the cause of snubber inoperability.

For example, if the cause was improper installation, the interval between inspections should be increased more quickly than if the cause was some time'ependent function directly related to the snubber and/or its environment.

HELPING BUILD FLORIDA

8r. George Lear August 21, 1975 3.

Section 4.6.?.2 state':

"Allhydraulic snubbers whose 'seal mater'ials have not been demonstrated to be.compatible with the operating enviro'nment shall be visually inspected for operability every. 31 days."

We suggest that the inspection interval for such snubbers,not

'e

'restricted to 31 days but that it may be 'lengthened according to the 'schedule in Section 4,.6',X,,l.

4, Section.4..6'.l."4 states'n part:

"For. each unit and subsequent unit found inoper'able, an additional 10% or 10 snubbers shall be so tested until no more failures 'are found or all units have been tested."

We sugges't this sentence be 'revise'd to read:

"For, each 'unit and.subsequen't unit found-inoperable, an additional 10% or 10 snubbers-,'hiche've'r

'is

7,'.'

11 1

. d:1 are, found or all units have 'been,.tes'ted."

5.

Table. 3.6I lists non-safety rel'ated snubbers whi'ch are exempt 'from the *snubber specifications.

We suggest that such a list be eliminated, otherwise, a formal techni;cal specification change* will be needed whenever a non-safety related snubber is added or.removed from the list.

Yours, very truly, Pobert E., Uhr'ig Vice Pres'ident REU:JAD;nch cc:

Jack R.

Newman, Esq.