ML20024G280

Application for Amend to License DPR-22,requiring That Initial Insp of Hydraulic Snubbers Be Performed within Six Months from Date of Issuance of Tech Spec

ML20024G280
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	08/15/1975
From:	Wachter L NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20024G276	List: ML20024G275 ML20024G280 ML20024G679
References
NUDOCS 9102080474
Download: ML20024G280 (4)

Text

_ - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

6 l'NITED STATES NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION NORTRERN STATES POWER COMPANY MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT Docket No. 50-263 REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR- 22 (License Amendment Request Dated August 15, 1975)

Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, requests authorization for changes to the Technical Specifications as shown on the attachments labeled Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Exhibit A describes the proposed changes along with reasons for the change. Exhibit B is a set of Technical Specification pages incorporating the proposed changes.

This request contains no restricted or other defense information.

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY By YQ db)

' t J Wachter

) Vice Prasident, Power Production &

System Operation On this 15th day of August , 1975, before me a notary i public in and for said County, personally appeared L J Wachter, Vice President, Power Production & System Operation, and first being duly sworn acknowledged that he is authorized to execute this document in behalf of Northem States Power Company, that he knows the contents thereof and that t.o the best of his knowledge, information and belief, tue statements made in it are true and that it is not interposed for delay, h Los t) ;W - /) A d ji n i

\

l

~

l

DENISE E. BRANAU

' a une rusuc-unatsmA <

' HENtiEPIN COUNTY mycamsdemonRoseson.as.itst '

'=

1 9102000474 750815 PDR l P ADOCK 05000263 l pop l

A EXHIBIT A MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-263 LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST DATED AUGUST 15, 1975 PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX A 0F OPERATING LICENSE DPR-22 Pursuant to 10CFR50.59, the holders of License DPR-22 hereby propose the fo11 ming changes to Appendix A, Technical Specifications:

1. Table of contents. Page lii Proposed Change Add the follwing entry to the Table of Contents:

Under 3.6 and 4.6, Primary System Boundary, add H. Hydraulic Snubbers, P. 121.

Reason for Change New Technical Specifications 3.6.H and 4.6.H are added to the tabic of contents.

2. Specifications 3.6.H and 4.6.H Hydraulic Snubbers Proposed Changes Add new technical specifications and bases 3.6.H and 4.6.H covering safety related hydraulic snubber operability and surveillance require-ments, as contained in attached Exhibit B.

Reasons for Changes These additional technical specification requirements are submitted in response to a letter dated July 11, 1975, from Mr Dennis L Ziemann of the NRC Division of Reactor Licensing to Mr L 0 Mayer of Northern States Power Company.

2 Several minor modifications have been made to the model technical specifications and bases proposed by the Regulatory Staff to adapt them i to the Monticello format and in accordance with discussions with repre-

, sentatives of the Regulatory Staff.

The model t"

hnical specification suggests the inclusion of a table listing those snubbers that are not safety related. We object to 4

h

. - - , - - . , . - , . - - - . - , , , , . . . - ; ,. - - _ . - , - , = - . - . . , - , , . - , - , - , , - . . - .

{ EXHIBIT A 1 this on the basis that if new snubbers are added to non-safety related systems they rust be inspected and if found inoperable, counted to determine the next inspection interval; this paradox  !

will exist until a license amendment request has been prepared, t submitted, reviewed and approved by the NRC. We believe that the licensee for operating plants should establish a 4Q" list of those I snubbers that are safety related and the technical specification simply require that all safety related snubbers (as established by the Q list) meet the proposed operability and surveillance require-ments. For new plants, the safety related snubbers could be tabulated in the FSAR. In either situation, snubbers could be added or removed by the normal 10CFR50.59 process without requiring the formal and time consuming license amendment process to revise the list of snubbers. It is our understanding that such a procedure is not acceptable to the Regulatory Staff at this time. We have chosen the alternate of listing those snubbers that are safety related; however, thic introduces the paradox of finding the need to install a safety related snubber, but having completion of the design review and installation. process thwarted until the license amendment requirements have been fulfilled. We have also experienced a case where revision of piping during an outage resulted in the removal of a snubber which wculd, under the proposed technical specifications, require a license amendment. To permit a reasonable solution to these difficulties, we have added Technical Specification 3.6.H.5.

Technical Specification 4.6.H.3 has been changpd from the NRC model to allow entering the inspection schedule in TS 4.6.H.1 as though the facility had been on a 12-month inspection schedule. We believe this is justified on the basis that 1) ethylene propylene seal materials were installed in all snubbers in February,1974; 2) all safety related snubbers located within containment were inspected during an outage in June,1974, and those outside containment were inspected in August, 1974, with none found inoperable; 3) all snubbers were inspected during outages in November, 1974, and January, 1975, with none found inoperable; 4) one snubber in an isolable line outside containment was found inoperable in February,1975; 5) all snubbers were inspected during an outage in May, 1975, with none found inoperable; 6) no other inoperable snubbers have been found to date. All safety related snubbers will be inspected during the 35-day Monticello outage planned to connence en September 12, 1975. Assuming no inoperable snubbers are found during that outage, we believe that lengthening the inspection frequency to 18 months at that time is fully warranted. If the results of the September inspection detect inoperable snubbers, the inspection interval will, of course, be adjusted in accordance with the technical specification requirement.

4 1

l D. HPCI System 103 l

E. Autornatic Pressure Relief System 104 l

F. RCIC System 106

, G. Minimum Core and Containment Cooling System Availability 107 i

H. Deleted -

i i 1. Recirculation System 108A i

! J. Average Planar UICR 108A

• f K. local U~ 1 1988 3.5 Base- 109 4.5 Br <

114 ,

i 3.6 and 4.6 Prims 3oundary 115 A. imitations, 115 B. Pressurization Temperature 116 . t

~

C. Coolant Chanistry 116 -

[

i D. Coolant Leakage 118 [

E. Safety / Relief Valves 119 F. Structural Integrity 120 -

]

] . C. Jet Ptaps 120  :

11 . Ilydraulic Snubbers 121 I'

3.6 and 4.6 Bases 130 5

, i

~

iii j REV

e v_ ___ _ _ _ _ ____ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _