ML20042F195

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 73 to License DPR-22

ML20042F195
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	05/01/1990
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20042F193	List: ML20042F192 ML20042F195
References
NUDOCS 9005070368
Download: ML20042F195 (3)

Text

_

l

..#"# syne \\'

umTe3 STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

{

WASHWGTON. D. C. 20M4

[

l

%.+

i SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REAUTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 73 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-22 i

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY i

MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATINS PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-263 j

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated December 18, 1989, theNorthernStatesPowerCompany(the licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-22 for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. The proposed amendment would revise Section 6.0 " Administrative Controls" of the facilit Technical Advisor (STA) y Technical Specifications to permit the Shift function to be performed by one of the two on-shift SeniorReactorOperators(SR0s).

This would eliminate the requirement for a dedicated STA to be on-site when one of the shift SR0s is qualified as an STA.

i 1

A discussion of the proposed changes and the NRC staff's evaluation are presented below.

2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION

\\

l The present requirements for minimum normal operating shift manning at Monticello, are specified by Table 6.1.1 of the Technical Specifications.

The table specifies, that during reactor operation, a minimum of six operators must be on duty. Of the six, at least four must be licensed and two of the four licensed operators must hold SRO licenses.

In addition to the six operators, a i

Shif t Technical Advisor is also required by the table. The table does not provide for the STA and one of the SR0s to be the same individual.

The STA position was implemented as described in the licensee's letters dated i

December 31, 1979, and May 7, 1982. This position is filled by plant staff engineers on a rotating 24-hour basis.

In addition to the operators and STA required by Table 6.1.1 of the Technical Specifications, the shift also includes a licensed " Lead Operator" who normally, but not necessarily, holds an SRO license. Also, a Shift Emergency Comunicator (SEC) is on-call and available-within approximately two minutes. The SEC will be on-site or just off-site at the training center.

As stated in the May 7,1982, letter it has been the licensee's intention, sinceimplementationoftheSTArequIrement,thattheSTApositionwould eventually (when sufficiently qualified, degreed operators are available) be filled by one of the on-shift SR0s. This intention is consistent with " Option 1" of the Commission's February 13, 1986, " Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shif t" (Generic Letter 86-04).

In its license amendment applica-tion dated December 18, 1989, the licensee indicates that, through programs to 9005070368 900501 l'

ADOCK0500g3 DR

obtain bachelor's degrees for operations personnel it is now possible to eliminate the separate STA position with no reduction of on-shift engineering expertise. Accordingly, the application proposes to modify the Technical Specifications to accommodate what has been its own, and the Commission's, long-stated intention.

The elimination of the separate STA would reduce, by one, the number of personnel making up the minimum required shift complement.

The staff review of the licensee's a) plication addressed two concerns: compliance with the S

)lan, Section 13.1.2, positions on n(uclear 1) plant operating organizations and (2) special concerns regarding the ability of the minimum on-site operating shif t crew / emergency response organization to cope with emergency plan requirements until augmented by the arrival of additional off-duty personnel.

The second concern is based on observations at the July 1988. Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) Inspection (50-263/88-200),

during which it was observed that the STA contributed significantly to the successful implementation of E0Ps. Personnel who observed the E0P inspection voiced concerns about the proposed amendment (Refs: Memorandum from P. Hartmann, Senior Resident Inspector, Monticello, to W. Axelson, Chief, Reactor Projects Branch 2, Region 3; and Note from S. Guthrie, NRR/RSIB to P. Hartmann, SRI, Monticello).

With respect to concern #1; SRP 13.1.2 specifies that single unit sites, with one unit in operation, have four licensed operators of whom two must be senior aparators.

The minimum manning level under the proposed Technical Specifications would satisfy this requirement. SRP 13.1.2 also specifies that an STA holding a bachelor's degree or equivalent in a scientific or engineering discipline, and having specific training, be included in the on-site operating organization.

Because the combined SR0/STA position will be filled by operators who are appropriately degreed and trained, the engineering expertise on-shift requirement will be satisfied.

1 To address concern #2, the staff reviewer advised the licensee that a control room or simulator demonstration of E0P implementation, without the separate STA, was desired and that an appropriate opportunity for such a demonstration would be during the March 1990, operator requalification examinations.

Requalification examinations had been previously conducted with a separate STA.

On March 27, 1990, during the simulator scenarios conducted as part of the requalification program, the reviewer and the three requalification examiners j

observed the scenarios being conducted with the licensee's proposed level of i

shift manning with the STA position being filled by the Shif t Manager (i.e., one

)

person less than for previous shift crew examinations).

It was the conclusion i

of the reviewer and examiner's that, based on the performance and observed workload, the level of shift manning, with the support of an SEC, would be adequate to implement E0Ps and Emergency Plan requirements during the initial phases of an accident (prior to augmentation by additional personnel from off-site).

The proposed amendment would also add a Note 5 to Table 6.1.1.

Note 5 would (1) cross-reference a related TS, and (2) allow the licensee to revert to use of a separate STA and Licensed Senior Operator in the event a shift crew lacks j

i

i i

i

-3 an individual meeting the qualifications of buth positions.

Item (1) clarifies STA requirerents specified in Technical Specification 6.1.D, is consistent with the Coms.ission's Policy Statement, FR 43623 (October 28,1985),andis acceptable.

Item (2)isconsistentwiththefacility'scurrentpracticeand is also acceptable.

Based on the staff review as described above, the proposed amendment is acceptable.

300 FNVIRONQE,N,TA,L,,CONSIDERAT_lg This amendment involves a change in a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or changes an inspection or surveillance requirement. We have determined that the an.endment involves no significant increase in the amounts and no significant change in the types, of any i

effluents that may be released offsite, arid that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

The Cone.ission has previously published a proposed finding that this amendn.ent 1

involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public corrent on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environn. ental impact statement or environmental assess.

ment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment, j

4.0 CONCMSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above that(1)there is reasorable assurance that the health and safet ofthepub1Icwillnotbe endangered by creration in the proposed manner, (y) such activitics will be 2

conducted in compliarce with the Cor.miission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of this amendn.ent will rct be inimical to the cormon defense ar.d security or to the health and safety of the public.

1 Principal Reviewer: H. Long Dated:

May 1, 1990 J

_ _ _