ML20053F102
| ML20053F102 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20053F100 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8206100442 | |
| Download: ML20053F102 (2) | |
Text
--
UNITED STATES I
d' g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E.
f g
,p WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 k
j/
'..g SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.10 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-22
~
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-263 Principal Contributor: K._Eccleston
~
INTRODUCTION As a result of numerous events involving similar failures of the Scram Discharge Volume (SDV) limit switches and SDV drain valve operability, the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued the IE Bulletin 80-14, " Degradation of BWR Scram Discharge Volume Capability,"
on June 17, 1980. After issuing the Bulletin, we sent a July 7,1980 letter to all licensees of operating boiling water reactors and requested that they propose the following changes to the Technical Specifications (TS):
1.
Surveillance requirements for SDV vent and drain valves; 2.
Limiting Conditions of Operation (LC0)/ surveillance requirements for the reactor protection system SDV limit switches; and 3.
LC0/ surveillance requirements.for the control rod withdrawal block SDV limit switches.
Model'. Technical Specifications were enclosed with the letter to guide licensees when preparing their submittals.
In a letter dated October 10, 1980 Northern States Power Company (the licensee) submitted the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications.
As part of our technical assistance program, Franklin Research Center '(FRC) compared the licensee's submittal to the NRC criteria and model TSs.
FRC has summarized its findings into a Technical Evaluation Report (TER).
We have enclosed a copy of the report (TER-C5506-60).
EVALUATION FRC notes in its evaluation that, in the following case, the licensee's response does not meet the explicit requi.rements of. paragraph 3.3-6 and Table '
3.3.6-1 of the NRC staff's Model TSs. However, the FRC report concludes that the technical bases are defined on page 50 of our report, " Generic Safety Evalua-tion Report on BWR Scram Discharge Systems" dated December 1,1980 which permit
~
consideration of this departure from the explicit requirements of the Model TSs.
We conclude that these technical bases justify a deviation from the explicit requirements of the Model TSs.
8206100442 820510 PDR ADOCK 05000263 P
2 After comparing the licensee's submittal and evaluating any deviations, FRC
'has concluded that the licensee's proposed TS changes (as modified by subsequent discussions) meet our criteria without requiring fprther submittals.
After reviewing and discussing the report with FRC, we conclude that the licensee's proposed changes to the TSs satisfy our requirements for:
1.
Surveillance of SDV vent and drain valves; 2.
LC0/ surveillance requirements for the reactor protection system and control rod block SDV level switches.____ _ _ _ _ _ _
ConsequenE1F, we find th'e licensee's proposed TS (as further modified
~
by subs'equent discussions) acceptable.
~ ~~ ~
~
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in efflu::nt types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR H51.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement or negative declara-tion and environmental ' impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
CONCLUSIONS We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve' a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
May 20,1982 e