Text

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 104 to License DPR-22
	ML20198M822
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	12/24/1998
From:	; NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20198M809	List: ML20198M802; ML20198M822;
References
	NUDOCS 9901050366
	Download: ML20198M822 (9)
	v • d • e

. -

.. - ~. ~.

-.-. ~.--_

... -.~ - -.

\\

UNITED STATFS 1

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

WASHINGTON, D.C. 30006 0001

\\*****./

j SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.104 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE RO. DPR-22 i

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT l

DOCKET NO. 50-263

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated August 15,1996, as supplemented March 19 and October 12,1998, the Northern States Power Company (NSP or the licensee) requested an amendment to the i

Technical Specifications (TS) appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-22 for the i

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. The proposed amendment revises the TS so that either 8 or 12 hour1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months shifts will be considered " normal" cnd 40 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months will be considered a " nominal" week, changes the wording for surveillances required "once per shift" to "once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months ," clarifies the "once per hour" wording related to fire watch patrols, and makes a number of other clarifications and typographical corrections.

The October 12,1998, submittal provided additional clarifications and provided new TS pages.

This information was within the scope of the original Federal Register notice and did not change l

the staff's initial proposed no significant hazards considerations determination.

i 2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Chance in Shift Lenath The licensee proposes to change TS 6.1.F.1 for the normal working hours of unit staff who perform safety-related functions from "a normal 8-hour day,40-hour week" to "a normal 8 or 12-hour day, nominal 40-hour week." The change, in effect, would enable the licensee to establish unit staff work schedules that average 40 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months per week using 8-or 12-hour shifts.

(

The NRC staff has previously approved the use of 12-hour shifts at other U.S. commercial l

nuclear power plants and has found no evidence of adverse effects on plant safety resulting l

from the use of such shifts. All other provislons of the speciiication concerning consecutive j

hours of work, overtime, and breaks remain unchanged. Thus, the proposed change does not i

alter the intent of the existing specification with respect to the number of hours that should norrnally be worked per week, and TS 6.1.F.1 will continue to provide adequate assurance that i

routine heavy use of overtime will not be necessary to provide adequate shift coverage.

The NRC staff finds the proposed change to be consistent with Section 5.2.2.e of

~

NUREG-1433, Rev.1, " Standard Technical Specifications, General Electric Plants, BWR/4,"

4 (STS). NUREG-1433, Rev.1 provides licensees the option of specifying either an 8-hour or a 9901050366 981224 i

PDR ADOCK 05000263 P

PM 4

.._.,..--s

s.

2-e i

12-hour shift. Although the staff notes that the licensee has alternatively proposed a specification that allows both 8-and 12-hour shifts, the staff finds no safety concern with the proposed specification which affords the licensee the flexibility to establish shift lengths of either 8 or 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months . Accordingly, the staff concludes that the proposed change to TS 6.1.F.1 is acceptable.

i i

2.2 Hourly Fire Watch PatrolInterval j

With regard to fire detection instrumentation, TS 3.13.A.2 requires that, "If specification 3.13.A.1 canr.ot be met, within one hour establish a fire watch patrol to inspect the zone (s) with inoperable instruments at least once per hour." The licensee proposes to change "at least once per hour" to read "once per hour (+25%)." Deleting the words "at least" and adding "(+25%)"

will require patrols on an hourly basis while providing flexibility to complete patrols within a 15-minute window. Similarly, TS 3.13.G.2 requires hourly fire watch patrols when penetration fire barriers are inoperable. The licensee proposes to change the frequency from " hourly" to i

" hourly (+25%)." The changes to clarify the frequency of the hourly fire watch patrols by defining the intervals as 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months with a margin of 15 mirutes are consistent with other TS surveillance frequencies that allow margins of 25%. The changes are acceptable to the staff.

2.3 Surveillance Intervals j

Changing the shift length from 8 to 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months affects the frequency of surveillance tests required once per shift. There is not a clear definition of the term " shift"In the current TS or Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR). Since the number of shifts per day has been reduced from three to two, the actual number of times the surveillances are performed has also been l

reduced. The con ern with frequencies or time periods that are not clearly defined was noted and addressed Mng development of NUREG-1433, Rev.1. To avoid confusion in the STS, each completion time and frequency is specifically noted with incremental time periods. The licensee proposes to resolve the issue where applicable by eliminating reference to "once per shift" and adopting the actual value "once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months " as the required surveillance frequency.

z The term " sensor check" as defined in TS 1.0 and used throughout the Monticello TS is equivalent to the STS term " channel check." According to STS Bases Sunteillance Requirement (SR) SR 3.3.5.1.1," Performance of the CHANNEL CHECK once every 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months ensures that a gross failure of instrumentation has not occurred...The Frequency is based upon operating experience that demonstrates channel failure is rare. The CHANNEL CHECK

]

supplements less formal, but more frequent, checks of channels during normal operational use of the displays associated with the channels required by the LCO." Similar justification is used j

throughout STS Bases Section B 3.3," Instrumentation."

j On pages 61 and 62, TS Table 4.2.1, Minimum Test and Calibration Frequency for Core Cooling Rod Block and Isolation instrumentation," the licensee proposes to change the sensor check frequency for the fcilowing sensors from "once/ shift" to "once/12 hours":

j ECCS [ Emergency Core Cooling System] Instrumentation reactor low-low water level and reactor high water level, 1

Main Steam Line (Group I) Isolation steam line high flow and reactor low low water level, 1

Reactor Building Ventilation & Standby Gas Treatment reactor low low water level, and j

Recirculation Pump Trip and Alternate Rod injection reactor low low water level.

i

--y r.

e

.--e--..,

-r

-t The changes are consistent with the channel check frequencies of STS 3.3.5.1, "ECCS Instrumentation," STS 3.3.6.1, " Primary Containment isolation Instrumentation," and STS 3.3.4.2, " Anticipated Transient without Scram Recirculation Pump Trip (ATWS-RPT)

Instrumentation," and are acceptable to the staff.

On page 63a, Table 4.2.1 Note 2, the licensee proposes to change the phrase "thereafter check once per shift" to "thereafter check once par 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months ." The note applies to certain Table 4.2.1 Rod Block instrument channel sensor checks during startup and shutdown. The change is consistent with the channel check frequcncy of STS 3.3.2.1," Control Rod Block Instrumentation," and is acceptable to the staff.

On page 63a, Table 4.2.1 Note 4, the licensee proposes to change the frequency of the sensor check from "once per shift" to "once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months ." The note applies during fuel handling operations to the refueling floor radiation monitors for Reactor Building Ventilation & Standby Gas Treatment. The change is consistent with the channel check frequency of STS 3.3.6.1,

" Primary Containment Isolation Instrumentation," and is acceptable to the staff.

On page 72, in 4.2 Bases, the licensee proposes to change the last sentence to re

'Where applicable, sensor checks are specified on a once/12 hours or once/ day basis,"li J J of "once/ shift or one[ sic]/ day basis." The change is consistent with the changes requested for Table 4.2.1 above and are acceptable to the staff.

On page 82., TS 4.3.D, the licensee proposes to change the frequency to check the status in the control room of the required Operable control rod accumulator pressure and level alarms from "once a shift" to "once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months ." The change is consistent with the similar STS 3.3.1.1, " Reactor Protection System Instrumentation," scram discharge volume channc! check frequency and is acceptable to the staff.

l On page 125, TS 4.6.C.3(b), the licensee proposes to change the reactor coolant sample frequency during power operation when the continuous conductivity monitor is inoparable, from i

"at least once per shift" to "once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months ." According to the bases for Section 4.6, the I

sampling frequency is considered adequate to detect long-term changes in the chloride ion content. In accordance with TS 4.6.C.3(a), the routine reactor coolant sample frequency is at least once/96 hours, even when the continuous conductivity monitor indicates abnormal conductivity. Changing the frequency from once/ shift to once/12 hours when the continuous conductivity monitor is inoperable will not affect the ability to detect long-term changes in the chloride ion aontent and is acceptable to the staff.

On page 126, TS 4.6.D.1.a requires that Unidentified and Identified Leakage rates shall be recorded once f.er shift not to exceed 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months ." The licensee proposes to change the frequency to "oiue per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months ." The change does not affect the periodicity already allowed by the TS and b acceptable to the staff.

On page 126, TS 4.6.D.2.a requires a sensor check of the primary containment atmosphere l

particulate monitoring systems "at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months ." Also, TS 4.6.0.2.b requires a i

sensor check of the primary containment sump leakage measurement system "at least once i

per shift not to exceed 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months ." The licensee proposes to change the frequencies to "once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months " to be consistent. The change does not affect the periodicity already allowed by i.

l t

l 4

the TS. The change is consistent with the channel check frequency of STS 3.4.6," Reactor Coolant System Leakage Detection Instrumentation," and is acceptable to the staff.

On page 229c, Table 3.14.1, " Instrumentation for Accident Monitoring," Required Condition C requires "When the number of channels made or found to be inoperable is such that the number of operable channels is less than the minimum number of operable channels shown, the torus temperature shall be monitored at least once per shift to observe any unexplained temperature increase which might be indicative of an open SRV [ safety relief valve]." The licensee proposes to change the frequency to "once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months (+25%)." The change to specify 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months does not change the capability of the licensee to detect an open SRV, and the change to clarify the frequency by adding a 25% margin is consistent with other TS surveillance frequencies that allow 25% margins. The changes are acceptable to the staff.

On page 229u, TS 4.17.A.1 requires "At least once per shift, check control room temperature."

The check is to assure control room ventilation system operability. The licensee proposes to change the frequency to "once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months ." The frequency is consistent with the channel l

check frequencies of STS 3.3.7.1, " Main Control Room Environmental Control Instrumentation."

Also, since the control room is continuously manned, operators would note any abnormal temperatures. The change is acceptable to the staff.

2.4 Tvooarachical Errors The licensee proposes to correct the following typographical errors:

On pages 61 and 62, in the title block of Table 4.2.1, add a comma after the words " Core Cooling."

On page 72, in TS 4.2 Bases, correct "one/ day" to "once/ day."

On page 198t, in Note i of Table 4.8.4 - Radioactive Gaseous Waste Sampling and Analysis Program, change " silica-Jel" to " silica-gel." In Note e, change " radio-nuclides" to " radionuclides."

On Bases page 198y, the change " form" to "from" has been made by a previous Bases revision.

On page 223, three errori, should be corrected. In TS 3.13 section Applicability, add a period at the erid of the sentence in TS 4.13 section Appfbability, capitalize the first word of the sentence (Applies). In TS 4.13.A.2, correct the spelling of " circuity" to " circuitry."

On page 227b, in TS 3.13.F.1, delete the phrase "a. Each valve (manual, power operated, or."

The phrase was inadvertently copied from adjoining section TS 4.13.F.1.a by Amendment No. 61 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-22, dated March 29,1989. Also, in TS 3.13.G.2 correct the word "if" in the phrase " verify the operability if fire detectors" to "of," so the phrase reads " verify the operability of fire detectors."

On page 227e, in Table 3.13.1, zone 130, change "evel" to "elev."

On page 229u, in TS 3.17.A.2.c, correct the spelling of "activies" to " activities."

~-

. _ ~ _

l 5-On page 232, in TS 6.1.B.1, change "responsiblities" to " responsibilities." In TS 6.1.B.2, change "responsiblity" to " responsibility."

On page 233 in TS 6.1.D, change "Nothern" to " Northern," to read " Northern States Power managemont." Also, correct "Superindent" to " Superintendent." In TS 6.1.C.4 and 6.1.C.6, change "on site" to "onsite!'

On page 244a in TS 6.5.B.1.b (2), change "present" to " preset," to read " alarms when a preset integrated dose is received."

On page 252 spelling of " mortality" had been corrected previously. No change necessary.

The corrections are editorial and are acceptable to the staff.

2.5 Clarifications and Corrections The licensee proposes to make the following minor clarifications and corrections:

On page i, the licensee prepcnec to corre.*t page number 41 to 42 and page number 25a to 25b in the Table of Contents. Currem ( Nge 41 was changed to page 25b under the licensee's TS Bases Control Program on April 30,1998. As a result, the notation "next page is 42' was added to the bottom of page 40. The chan?os are editorial and are acceptable to the staff.

l On page iv, the licensee proposes to correct page number 229 to 228b. The staff found that this error had already been corrected by letter dated July 14,1989, from J. Stefano (NRC) to T. Parker (NSP); therefore, no change is required. The licensee proposes to correct page number 246 to 246c. The licensec proposes to change 3.16 and 4.16.A from " Sampling and Analysis" to " Sample Collection & Analysis," and 3.16 and 4.16.C from "Interlaboratory Comparisen" to "Interlaboratory Comparison Program." The licensee proposes to change 3.17 and 4.17.A from " Ventilation System" to " Control Room Ventilation System," and 3.17 and 4.17.8 from " Emergency Ventilation System" to " Control Room Emergency Ventilation System."

In its October 12,1998, submittal, the licensee withdrew its requests to delete headings for 3.14 and 4.14 Bases and to add a 6.8 Environmental Qualification heading. The changes are editorial and are acceptabb to the staff.

On page v, the licensee pioposes to delete reference to Figure 3.5.1. The figure was deleted by Amendment No. 97 to Facility Operating License No. DPR 22, dated September 17,1996, but the Table of Contents was not updated. The change is editorial and is acceptable to the staff.

On page vi, the licensee proposes to correct page number 57 to 56. The change is editorial and is acceptable to the staff. The licensee proposes to change Table No. 4.6-1 to 4.6.1. The staff notes that the correct table number on page 132a is 4.6-1; therefore. no change is l

required.

On page vii, the licensee proposes to correct page number 227c to 227d. The licensee proposes to add "(LLD)" to the title of Table 4.16.2, to read, "REMP - Maximum Values for the Lower Limits of Detection (LLD)." The changes are editorial and are acceptable to the staff.

{

i.

1 j

6-On page 22, the licensee proposes to correct the recirculation pump casing design pressure in l

Bases Section 2.2 from 1400 psig to 1380 psig. The error was discovered by the licensee during the Design Basis Document review program. Changing the Bases numbsr will make it consistent with the original design value and is acceptable to the staff.

i On page 31, Table 3.1.1, " Reactor Protection System (Scram) Instrument Requirements,"

1 Allowable Bypass Condition e, the licensee proposes to revise the wording of the first sentence to read "The high drywell pressure scram functions in the Startup and Run modes when necessary during purging for containment inerting and de-inerting only by closing the manual containment isolation valves." The original wording was hard to understand. Rewording the sentence does not change its intent or meaning and is acceptable to the staff.

On page 69, Bases Section 3.2, the licensee proposes to change the sentence, "The degraded voltage setpoint corresponds to the minimum acceptable safeguards bus voltage for starting and running loads during a loss of coolant accident," to "The degraded voltage setpoint corresponds to the minimum acceptable safeguards bus voltage for a steady state LOCA (loss-of-coolant accident] load that maintains adequate voltage at the 480 V essential MCCs (motor control centers]." During the Design Basis Document review program, the licensee determined that the degraded bus voltage setpoint basis was uniquely determined for Monticello using the steady-state LOCA loading condition, not starting loads, as currently stated in this Bases section. This setpoint basis was previously reviewed and approved by letter and enclosed safety evaluation dated March 20,1985, from V. Rooney (NRC) to D. Musoif (NSP);

therefore, the change is acceptable to the staff.

On page 89, Bases 3.3 and 4.3 Section C incorrsetly states that the turbine stop valve closure with bypass valve failure is the limiting transient for Monticello. This is no longer correct, as documented in USAR Appendix 14A, Section 5.1.1. The licensee proposes to correct the Bases to read, "Under these conditior.s, the CPR (critical power ratio] safety limit is never exceeded during any transient requiring control rod scram, and therefore MCPR (minimum CPR] remains above the Safety Limit (T.S.2.1.A)." The change is acceptable to the staff.

On page 99, the licensee proposes to reviso the first paragraph of Basis 3.4 and 4.4 Section A to be consistent with USAR Section 6.6.1.1, the Operations Manual, end Design Bases Documents Modification 87M022 and a Bases calculation for the Standby Liquid Control System. The water in the shutdown cooling system was included in the original v.olume calculation; therefore, there is no dilution when the shutdown cooling system is added to the standby liquid control system. The last sentence of the paragraph is corrected to read,"and an additional 25% boron concentration margin to allow for leakage and imperfect mixing." The change is acceptable to the staff.

On page 102, the licensee proposes to revise the note in TS 4.5.A.4 to read, "and observing a compensating change in turbine bypass or control valve position." The change will correctly reflect the system response for an SRV actuation in the case where the turbine is on line and the bypass valve would not actuate because the transient would be handled by the functioning control valve. The change reflects actual system response and is acceptable to the staff.

e

_-,,,m

. _ - _ l gi fd On page 164, the licensee proposes to revise TS 3.7.A.4.a to read, "When primary containment integrity is required." The addition of the word " integrity" clarifies that it is the integrity of the primary containment that is important in these conditions. The change is editorial and is i

acceptable to the staff.

On page 188, Bases Section 4.7.B and C, the licensee proposes to revise the sentence

" Replacement adsorbent should be qualified according to the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.52 Revision 2 (March 1978)" to add "except testing should be IAW ASTM D3803-1989." Th6 change adds the specification number that is used for adsorbent testing. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D3803-1989 is endorsed by the staff (see NRC Information

. He 87-32," Deficiencies in the Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal," and SEGY-97-299 dated December 24,1997). The clarification does not reduce any requirement and is acceptable to the staff.

On page 190, bases Section 4.7.D, the licensee proposes to correct the date of the report submitted to the AEC from "1983" to "1973." The correct date was verified on the original l

document; therefore, the change is editorial and is acceptable to the staff.

On page 200, the !icensee proposes to revise TS 3.9.B to read "the availability of electric power shall be as specified in 3.9. A, except as specified in 3.9.B, or the reactor shall be placed in the l

cold shutdown condition within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months ." The current wording is "except as specified in 3.9.B.1,3.9.B.2,3.9.B.3 and 3.9.B.4 or the reactor shall be placed in the cold shutdown condition within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months ." The revision clarifies that 3.9.B.5 (availability requirement for the 24V batteries) should be included with the other 3.9.B sections. The revision does not change any existing requirement and is acceptable to the staff.

On page 227c, the licensee proposes to revise TS 3.13.H.1 to read,"The system controls on the ASDS (alternate shutdown system] panel shall be operable whenever that system / component is required to be operable" instead of "The system controls on the ASDS panel shall be operable whenever that systems (sic) controls are required to be operable from the contro; room." The change clarifies the operability requirement of the system. The revision does not change any existing requirement and is acceptable to the staff.

On page 227d, Table 3.13.1," Safety Related Fire Detection Instruments," the licensee proposes to correct the fire zone listed as 2E to 2G/2H, and on page 227e, Table 3.13.1, correct the fire zone listed as 15A to 15A/C and the fire zone listed as 15B to 15B/D. The actual zones were verified by the licensee. In addition, change the column heading," Fire Zone," to read," Fire Detection Zone." The column heading is being changed because of slight differences between layout of detectors in physical and functional zones. Table 3.13.1 is based on locations of the fire detectors in their zones. Adding the word " detection"is for clarification.

The corrections and clarification do not change any existing requirements and are acceptable to l

the staff.

On page 229b, Table 3.14.1, " Instrumentation for Accident Monitoring," the licensee proposes to correct Required Condinon A to read, " submit a special report to the Commission pursuant to Technical Specification 6.7.D," instead of, " pursuant to Technical Specification 6.7.B.2." This change corrects a branching error in Required Condition A. TS 6.7.D is a requirement for l

special reports. There is no TS 6.7.B.2. The correction is acceptable to the staff.

i l

p ie

. On page 229ff, the licensee proposes to delete TS 4.15.A.2. The two welds at Monticello that were identified as susceptable to intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) la accordance with NRC Generic Letter 88 01,"NRC Position on iGSCC in BWR Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping," were replaced in 1989, as documented by Licensee Event Report 89-23, dated October 10,1989, and letter and enclosed safety evaluation from W. Long (NRC) to T. Parker (NSP), dated December 7,1989. TS 4.15.A.2 is no longer applicable and should have been deleted after the welds were replaced. The change is acceptable to the staff.

On page 2291, the licensee proposes to correct TS 4.16.A.4 to read, " submit a special report to the Commission within 30 days from the end of the affected calendar quarter pursuant to Specification 6.7.C.2" instead of " pursuant to Specification 6.7.C.3." This change corrects a branching error in TS 4.16.A.4. TS 6.7.C.2 is the requirement for Environmental Special Reports applicable to 1 S 4.16.A.4. The correction is acceptable to the staff.

On page 244a, the licensee proposes to revise the wording of TS 6.5.B.1.b(1), (2), and (3) to match the wording of Section 2.4 (bulleted paragraphs) of Regulatory Guide (RG) 8.38," Control of Access to High and Very Hth Radiation Areas in Nuclear Power Plants." The proposed wording is,"(1) A radiation monitoring device that continuously indicates the radiation dose rate in the araa. (2) A radiation monitoring device that continuously integrates the radiation dose 4

rate in the area and alarms when a preset integrated dose is received. Entry into such areas with this monitoring device may be made after the dose rates in the area have been determined and personnel have been made knowledgeable of them. (3) An individual qualified in radiation 4

protection procedures with a radiation dose rate monitoring device. This individual is respordble for providing positive radiation protection control over the activities within the area 4

and shall perform periodic radiation surveillance at the frequency specified in the radiation protection procedures or the applicable Radiation Work Permit." An exception to the RG 8.38 wording is that the licensee proposes to keep the Section (3) wording "shall perform periodic radiation surveillance" rather than "should perform periodic radiation surveillance." The "shall" is consistent with the wording in NUREG-1433, Rev.1, " Standard Technical Specifications, General Electric Plants, BWR/4," and is more conservative than "should." The proposed revision does not change any existing requirements and is acceptable to the staff.

On page 247a, the licensee proposes to delete current TS 6.6.B.11. Current Section 12 would become new Section 11 due to renumbering. The requirement to retain environmental qualification records for the life of the pbot was superseded by 10 CFR 50.49 and removed by Amendment No. 59 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-22, dated February 16,1989. TS 6.6.B.11 should have been deleted at that time. The change is acceptable to the staff.

2.6 Administrative Titles On pages 232,233,234,240,243,244a, and 246b, the licensee proposes to update various administrative titles. " Site Superintendent"is updated to " Shift Supervisor,"" Superintendent,

?

Radiation Protection" is updated to " General Superintendent, Radiation Services,"" General Manager Nuclear Plants" is updated to " Plant Manager" or "Vice President Nuclear Generation,"

and Superintendent, Security and Services"is updated to " Superintendent, Security." The staff found no titles on page 234, so no change was necessary on that page. Also, on pagec 232, 237,239,240,242, and 250, "Vice President Nuclear Generation" is changed to " President, NSP Nuclear Generation," and on pages 241 and 243, " General Manager Nuclear Plants"is updated to " President, NSP Nuclear Generation." The proposed changes are administrative,

fa g.-

.g.

reflect current organization titles, and do not reduce the level of pNnt responsibility. No requirements are revised by the changes, and they are acceptable to the staff.

j 3.0 STATE CONSULTATIQN in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Minnesota State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The amendment changes 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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (63 FR53951). The amendment also changes recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR j

51.22(c)(9) and (c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or

{

environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment for the above items.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21,51.32, and 51.35, an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact has been prepared and published in the Federal Register on December 24, 1998 (63 FR 71316) on those items relating to administrative clarifications, corrections, and title changes, and typogtaphical corrections.

l Accordingly, based on the environmental assessment, the Commission has determined that these proposed changes will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

5.0 CONCLUSION

The Commission has 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) 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 Contributors: D. Desaulniers F. Lyon Date: December 24,1998

_

ML20198M822

Text

1.0 INTRODUCTION

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

5.0 CONCLUSION

Navigation menu

Search