ML20126F572
| ML20126F572 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 05/28/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126F556 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8506170540 | |
| Download: ML20126F572 (2) | |
Text
.
p itcy o
y UNITED STATES y
3 -cq [ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
L *'
E Yb ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%/
g SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLFAR REACTOR PEGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDWENT NO. 32 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-22 NORTHEPN STATES POWER COMPANY MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-263 1.0 Introduction By letter dated September 24, 1982, Northern States Power Company (NSP/the licensee) proposed revised Technical Specifications (TSs) which, among
-~
~ -other things, specified the allowable tolerance on intervals between surveillance tests and clarified surveillance testing requirements. This Safety Evaluation is concerned only with Part 2 of the September 24, 1982 submittal which proposes the addition of a new Section 4.0, Surveillance i
Requirements.
2.0 Evaluation The licensee has proposed a new TSs Section 4.0, Surveillance Requirements, Part A of which will require that TSs Surveillance testing of specified safety-related equipment will be carried out at the designated frequencies. Part B requested a plus or minus 25 percent tolerance to the surveillance frequencies and specifies a two-year maximum on tests scheduled for refueling shutdowns to allow operational flexibility in meeting schedules. Part C requested relief from surveillance testing on equipment or systems not required to be operable and specifies that testing must resume less than one test interval before establishing plant conditions requiring operability.
As a result of discussions with the NRC staff, the licensee agreed to modify the proposal by removing reference to the minus 25 percent tolerance and the provisions for delaying surveillance based upon plant conditions which were originally proposed to be included in Part C of Section 4.0.
The plus 25 percent tolerance in surveillance frequency provides additional time for performing surveillance activities beyond those specified in the nominal surveillance interval. These tolerances are necessary to provide operational flexibility because of scheduling and performance considerations and are thus acceptable. The minus 25 percent provish: :s unneces.sary because the licensee is not prohibited from more stringent testing.
In Part C, deletion of provisions for delaying surveillance based upon plant conditions brings the proposed Technical Specifications more closely into agreement with requirements found acceptable to the NRC staff.
8506170540 850528 PDR ADOCK 05000263 p
1
. The licensee states that Monticello's surveillance program is on a fixed schedule which prevents repetitive addition of the 25 percent tolerance.
In this schedule, the tests fall on the same month, week, and day each cycle, resulting in a routine surveillance program. The NRC staff concludes that the proposed change clearly defines the surveillance requirements and is acceptable.
3.0 Environmental Considerations This amendment involves changes in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part P0 and changes in surveillance requirements. The staff has 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 occupational radiation exposure. The Cammission has previously
__ -issued 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 Conclusions We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public -
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.
Principal Contributor:
K. R. Ridgway Dated:
May 28, 1985 e
_ _ _ _