ML20065U449
| ML20065U449 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20065U440 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9101020347 | |
| Download: ML20065U449 (3) | |
Text
.
- /os aan\\
UNitt0$TA128 8'
,,. c NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
I
~
wAssiNo ton. o. C. 20$bb ki*...+/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMEN 0 MENT NO. 76 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-22 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-263 1.0 _ INTRODUCTION By letter dated October 4, 1990, the Northern States Power Company (the licsinsee) requested an amendmen' to the Technical Specifications (155) appended to facility Operating License No. OPR-22 for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant.
The proposed amendment would correct errors made in previous amendments.
A discussion of each requested change and the NRC staff's evaluation and findings relative to each are addressed in Section 2 of this Safety Evaluation Report.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION 2.1 Page 39 - Corrections to Bases for Specification 3.1; The proposed change corrects errors made in Amendment 66 fssued on May 30, 1989.
Text wnich was inadvertently dropped by Amendment 66 would be restored ano minor editorial corrections made.
These changes have no safety significance and are therefore acceptable.
2.2 Page 127 - Safety / Relief Valves Action Statement:
The original Monticello
{
overpressure protection system included four safety valves and four safety /
relief valves (SRVs).
Technical Specification 3.6.E specified the operability requirements for both the sa.ety valves and the SRVs.
In April 1974, the four safety valves were replaced with SRVs.
Technical Specification 3.6.E was amended by Amendment 3 to the Provisional Operating License to eliminate the safety valve operability requirer.icnts and expand the SRV operability requirements reflect the additional SRVs.
The amendment deleted the " Action Statement" which specified that an orderly shutdown be initiated if safety valve or SRV operability requirements are not met.
It should have provided a new Action Statement applicable to the safety (self-activation) function of the SRVs.
The requested amendment will correct this deficiency and is acceptable.
(Note: Operability requirements and action statements for the relief and low-low-set tunctions of SRVs are provided in other Technical Specifications).
2.3 Page 127 - 3. 6. E Cross-reference to 3. 2.H:
Specification 3.6.E requires the low-low-set function of three non-automatic depressurization system SRVs to be
- operable, lhe operability requirements for the low-low-set instrumentation which actuates SRVs are contained in Specification 3.2.H.
The requested 9101020347 901219
{
PDR ADOCK ObOD0D63 l
p PDR i
.g.
amendment would add, to Specification 3.6.E, a cross-reference to Specification 3.2 H.
A corresponding cross-reference to 3.6.5 is already provided in 3.2.H.
Tiis amendment is editorial in nature and is acceptable, 2.4 Page 151 - Delete Reference to Thirty Day LCO in 3.6.r Bases:
The Bases for i
Specification 3.6.E presently states tha;. a thirty-day period is ellowed for r
flexibility in shutting down for a safety-relief valve bellows repair.
This b
statement was included in the original Technical Srecifications but was never incorporated into the associated Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO).
Tho requested amendment would delete the statement.
This will bring the bases into consistency with the associated LCO and is acceptable.
- 2. 5 Page 169 - Wind Conditions _ for Secondary Containment Surveillance Test:
The proposed change would correct a typographical error made in Amendment No. 3, wherein "(2 < u < Smph)" was inadvertently replaced by "(2 < u < mph)." The missirig "5" would be restored.
This change corrects a typographical error made in Amendment 3, issued March 27, 1981, and is acceptable.
2.6 PJa.e 189 Reference to USAR for Isolation Valve Closure Time Limits:
Amendment No. W, issued October 19, 1989, relocated a Table specifying isolation valve
~
closure time limits, from the Appendix A Technical specifications, to the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR).
Due to oversight, Amendment No, 71 neglected to change "4.7.D Bases Primary Containment Isolation Valves" to reflect the new location of closure time limits.
The requestad amendment would change "The closure times specified herein" to "The closure times in M AR Table 5.2-38." This change corrects an administrative error and is acceptable.
2.7 Page 189 - Delete Paragraph Regarding Steam Line Break Dose Consequ-The propnsed amendment would delete a paragraph (second paragraph) entes:
f rom "4.7,0-Bases Primary Containment Isolation Valves" which discusses the basis for e 5-second minimum MSIV closure time.
Isolation valve performance requirements were relocated from the Appendix A Technical Specifications to the USAR in Amendment 71 as noted in paragraph 2.0 above.
The information to
% deleted from the Technical Specifications is contained in paragraph 5.2.3.6.2 of the USA 9, and consistent wit! the intent of Amendment No. 71, may be deleted from the Technical Specifications.
2.8 Page 189 - References Relating to Primary Containment Isolation Valves:
The third paragraph of Page 189 cross-references FSAR Section 5.2.2.4.3 and FSAR
~
Table 5.2.3 for additional information relating to primary containment isolation valves.
The requested amendment would change the references to "5.2.2.5.3 and Table 5.2-3b USAR." This is an editorial correction and is acceptable.
2.9 Page 198b - Reference for Isotopic Analysis:
The requested amendment would revise Specification.4.8.8.4.a. changing a reference to "4.8.B.5.c" to "4.8.B.5."
This is consistent with Amendment No. 40, which renumbered the 4.8 B.S.c text to 4.B.B 5, and is therefore ccceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20
t
)
3
]
L i, or changes an inspection or surveillance requirement.
We have determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupa-tional radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously published a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment 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 environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities aill g
be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance tl of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor.
W. Long Dated:
December 19, 1990 t
4
-