ML20024G376

Application for Amend to License DPR-22,changing Tech Specs 3.11/4.11, Fuel Rods, to Adopt Standardized Wording

ML20024G376
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	04/23/1976
From:	Wachter L NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20024G375	List: ML20024G374 ML20024G376 ML20024G377
References
A00L-760423, AL-760423, NUDOCS 9102110392
Download: ML20024G376 (5)

Text

. ... . . . - - . . - - - ._.._.n. .

T

'G . ,

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT Docket No. 50- 263 REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR- 22 (License Amendment Request Dated April 23,1976)

Northern S'tates 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 Cai4PANY By .

O M IA)

.' M J Wachter-Vice President, Power Production &

System Operation On this 23 rd day of April

, _,19?f , before 'me a notary 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 Northern States Power Company, that he knows the- conten';s thereof and that to -

the best .of his knowledge, 'information and belief, the statements made in it are true and' that it is not interposed for delay, nN1b / 4 d da t.o h

• DENISE E. BRANAl.3

• l NOTARY PUBUC - ENNESUTA 3' HENNEPlN COUNTY

'[ Ny Commission Erpwes Oct 10. IMI {

%:::: : :::.- : . . :::- : w*****w w '

g21;ogg ;=gga P

-_ _u. . _ . . _ . . _ - _ ....._.,_ _ . _ ._._ _ - _ _ ___ _ .,_--.. _ ,._ , _ . , -,-

1 EXHIBIT A

}ONTICELIO NUCLEAR GENERATING PIANT DOCKET NO 50-263 LICENSE AMENDMENT. REQUEST DATED APRIL 23, 1976- i PROPOSED CHANGES TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX A 0F PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-22 Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.39, the holders of provisional- operating license DPR-22 hereby prooose the folicwing changes to Appendix A Technical Specificationar .

PROPOSED' CHANGES' T.S. 3.11/4.11.A. B and C (Pages 189,B. - C and D)

Replace the current pages with those included in attach =d Exhibit B. Changes are indicated.with sidelining. Note that the MCPR limits proposed are those submitted in .the " License' Amendment Request Dated December 1,1975" which is expected to be issued 'imninently.

T.S.33.11 and~4.11 Bases (Pages 189E. F and G)

Replace the current pages with those included in attached Exhibit B. Changes-are indicated with sidelining.

- Figures 3.11.1-A and E (Formerly Yages 189H and- L)

, Delete former Figure 3.11.1-A spage 189H) "MAPLHGR vs Planar Average Exposure, Monticello 7D225 Fuel".- Change the number.of former Figure 3.11.1-E (page 189L)

"MAPLHGR vs' Planar Average Exposure, Monticello 8D219 Fuel" to 3.11.1-A and shift it to page-189H.'

- FIRure 3.11.2 (Pare 189L) -

Insert the new' Figure 3.11.2, "LHGR vs Core Height", on the page 189L which was vacated by.-the above change.

^

Former FIRure 3.11.2 (Page 189M)

Change the' number of the figure entitled Factor versus-Percent of Rated Core Flow" from Figure 3.11.2 to Figure 3. 1.3 REASON-FOR-CHANCES

' A' February 25 1976 letter from Mr D L.Ziceann (USNRC) to Mr L 0 Mayer (NSP) requested that a standardized version of Specifications 3.11 and 4.11, Fuel 0

Rods, .be' adopted. This submittal takes exceotion to the following aspects of the standard-versioni '-

1-l 4

4

= = - - - =w-++ wrew - w * , s v w,v w we- ww*ew-e-y-w s,+e w v rw +we +ve e--e +w w r re- , + y: yew e-w- = y e-*v--"y-tr-+e w y +-ww w w ?Se

EXHIBIT A

.g.

1. The standard version specifies limiting conditious for operation on APUlGR, IJIGR and MCPR which are applicable "during power operation". The limits specified are steady state values which are selected with sufficient margin such that they can safely be exceeded during operational transf onts.

The requested changes clearly state that the LCO's apply to steady state operation.

2.

The standard version references " normal surveillance" in specifying action to be taken. These words have been omitted because they are unnecessary, undefined and ambiguous.

3. it is proposed that the term " Operating MCPR Limit" continue to be embodied in specification 3.11.C of the Monticello Technical Specifications. The numerical limits are only listed in 3.11.C; all other references refer to the " Operating FCPR Limit". As MCPR limits change fran one reload to another, the corresponding Technical Specification change can be made very simply. To remove this definition would needlessly com-plicate this and future changes.

4. The standard version of specification 4.11.C references

" limiting control rod patterns" as an action level for initiating surveillance.

This term, we understand, has recently been defined in the Standardized Technical Specificatipas as "A limiting control rod pattern is a pattern which results in the core being on a thermal hydraulic limit; i.e., operating on a limiting value for APIJIGR, IllGR or MCPR". The concept of a

" limiting control rod pattern" used in the Monticello FSAR, Reload Safety Evaluations, Technical Specifications and other references is grossly different. The Monticello 3.3/4.3.B.5 Bases state "...during reactor operation with certain limiting control rod patteras, the withdrawal of a designated single control rod could result in one or more fuel rods with MCPR's below the Safety Limit (T.S.2.1.A). Dering use of such patterns, it is judged that testing of the RBM system prior to withdrawal of such rods to assure operability will assure that improper withdrawal does not occur". In summary, the STS dsfinition per-tains to an Operating Limit while the historical definition pertains to a Safety Limit. To avoid this point of confusion, the intent of the STS definition has been included in proposed specification 4.11.C without using the term " limiting control rod pattern".

5. The last two sentences of 3.11.A and B and the identical sentences of 3.11.C are proposed in the reversed order of the standardized version to correspond to the order in which the required action is to be taken.

RAFETY EVALUATION This change was prompted by an effort of standardization and has only very remote impiteations on the safe operation of the plant. The thermal limits on fuel rods remain unchanged. Action levels have been more clearly defined. The Monticello

. _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ __

EX111 BIT A 3

specifications were initially proposed based on a reasonable balance between surveillance requirements and reporting requirements. This change represents a slight shif t toward increased reporting and decreased surveillance require-ments. It will make the requirements of Monticello uniform with other similar reactors.

PROPOSED O!ANGES

_ Table of Contents nages vii and viti Replace the current pages with those included in Exhibit B. Changes are indicated with sidelining.

REASON FOR GIANGES 1hese changes incorporate the above revisions to the figures in section 3.11/4.11.

i

. . - . - , . . , . . ., . - . .- sm_,-, _ . . - . . ._ ,, _ _ . . - . , - - ~ _ - - .........y... -.e .

,-_.r, - y -,

EXHIBIT B LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST DATED APRIL 23, 1976 Exhibit B, attached, consists of the folicuing revised pages of the Appendix A Technical Specifications which incorporate the proposed changes:

Pages 189B 189C 189D 189E 189F 189G 189H 189L 189M vii viii 4

_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _