ML20202E848
| ML20202E848 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202E840 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8607150028 | |
| Download: ML20202E848 (5) | |
Text
._._.
f;gegk UNITED STATES i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
g 1
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 46 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-22 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY f
MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT' DOCKET NO. 50-263
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, on August 19, 1983, in Federal Register, Volume 48, No. 168, amended its regulations, 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73, to revise immediate reporting requirements and to establish a new reporting system for significant events at nuclear power plants. On December 19, 1983, the Division of Licensing issued Generic Letter No. 83-43, Reporting Requirements of 10 CFR 50, Sections 50.72 and SU.73, and Standard Technical Specifications (STS), informing all licensees of the revision to Section 50.72, Immediate Notification Requirements, and the addition of a new Section 50.73, Licensee Event Report System. The licensees were requested to update their Technical Specifications (TS) to include the new require-ments and model STS were provided showing the revisions that should be made in the " Administrative Control" and " Definition" sections. The letter also requested the licensees to review and update other areas of the TS concerning reportability, as required.
On September 14, 1984, Northern States Power Company (the licensee) sub-mitted a proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) of Facility License No. DPR-22 for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. The proposed amendment incorporates the recommendations of Generic Letter 83-43, by changing or deleting reporting requirements and terminology to agree with 1
the generic letter.
The application also includes changes to Table 6.1.1, Minimum Shift Crew Composition, to bring the TS into agreement with the exemption to 10 CFR 50.54(m)(2)(iii), which allowed modifications to the shif t supervisor's office to be considered part of the control room, granted by the staff on November 14, 1984. This part of the application was later revised by a submittal dated January 10, 1986.
I Other changes proposed in the September 14, 1984, submittal included position title changes and the addition of a new organization position.
2.0 EVALUATION The proposed changes to the TS submitted by the licensee in response to Generic Letter 83-43 were similar to the model S Q provided in the
[
Oh p
P
',g i
j l
. letter.
In addition, the licensee had reviewed TS sections other than the Administrative and Definition Sections to update other reporting require-ments and references to bring them into agreement with the new regulations.
The imediate reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 are not cited in the TS since these regulations stand by themselves and inclusion in TS would be redundant. The new Licensee Event Report System of 10 CFR 50.73 has been included by providing the definition of the new term " Reportable Event,"
referring to the new reporting regulations in Section 6.7.B; and by deleting Section 6.7.B, Reportable Occurrences, including Subsections 6.7.B.1, Prompt Notification with Written Followup and 6.7.B.2, Thirty-day Written Reports and all references to these deleted sections. The Special Report in the Environmental Reports Section was changed to Environmental Special Reports and a new section, 6.7.D concerning nonenvironmental Special Reports, was added.
The above changes, including page number changes required by the deletions, were made by modifying the following TS pages: iv, Sa, 194, 195, 198, 198a, 198b, 198f, 223, 225, 227, 227a, 227b, 229h, 239, 242, 250, 251, and 252; and deleting pages 253, 253a, and 254. The staff has reviewed these changes and finds that they conform to the Model TS provided with Generic Letter 83-43 and are therefore acceptable.
In the above submittal, the licensee also included three organization changes. The titles of Director of Nuclear Generation has been changed to Vice-President, Nuclear Generation, and the General Superintendent, Nuclear Analysis to Manager, Nuclear Analysis. A new position, Assistant Plant Manager, has been added to the organization. These changes required modification to the organization chart, Figure 6.1.1, page 234 and title changes on pages 235, 237, 240, and 242.
The staff has reviewed these changes and additions and finds them acceptable.
On September 29, 1983, the licensee requested an extension for the implemen-Senior Operator (S0)gulation, 10 CFR 50.54(m)(2), the requirement for a tation of the new re to be in the control room during operations. As a part of the request, the licensee described plans for modifying the shift super-visor's office such that is would be considered as part of the control rocm.
The staff granted the time extension on December 30, 1983.
~
Oh March 23, 1984, the licensee further described its plans for modifying the shift supervisor's office and stated that it was served by the Emergency Filtration Treatment System in the event of a radioactive release and could also be isolated upon sensing a toxic gas. The proposed modifications included the installation of critical instrumentation and annunciators, comunications with the control room, videos of the control room panels, and the security of the office doors. The licensee also committed to having an S0 in the control room or shift office at all times in startup and run modes or at 212'F or greater and further, the 50 would physically be in the control room more than 50% of the time.
'.s
. On November 14, 1984, the staff granted the exception providing that a key to the security door between the shift supervisor's office and the control room be immediately available in case the security card reader failed to unlock the door and that after one year of experience a report should be submitted providing data regarding operations under the provisions of the exemption. Another condition of the exemption required the licensee's administrative procedures to include requirements that:
a.
The S0 spends at least some minimum time each hour in the control panel area so as to maintain a continuing awareness of plant
- status, b.
The 50 must be present in the control panel area during initial startup and approach to power, recovery from an unplanned or unscheduled shutdown, or significant reduction in power, and immediately following notification of an unplanned plant i
c.
The S0 must be present in the control panel area at all times during a declared plant emergency.
On January 28, 1985, the licensee submitted the requested report with all of the required data as follows:
a.
The response time of the S0 from the office area to the panel area was approximately 10 seconds.
b.
S0 assistance in the panel area was requested by a control operator 478 times during the 1-year period.
c.
The 50 proceeded to the panel area on his own initiative in response to alarms received in the shift supervisor's office 429 times during the 1-year period.
d.
The data provided the location of both the S0 and Shift Supervisor at the onset of the 12 emergency or significant off-normal events that occurred during the 12-month period.
It indicated that the 50 was in the control room for ten of the events, in the shift supervisor's office for one, and in the plant for one event. The Shift Supervisor was in the control room for two events and for the other ten events he was in his office.
e.
The percentage of time actually spent in the panel area by an SO is approximately 81%. This figure did not take into account the time spent in the control room by the Superintendent of Operations or other licensed staff personnel or Plant Equipment and Reactor Operators who have an 50 license.
It did take into account time spent in the panel area by Lead Plant Eauipment and Reactor Operators who have a senior operator's license.
0
.Y Note that the total number of times an S0 was requested in the control room or proceeded to the control room in response to alarms was 907 during the period. This is less than once per shift (1095 eight-hour shifts during the period).
In its :;ubmittal of September 14, 1984, the licensee also requested a change to TS Table 6.1.1., Minimum Shift Crew Composition, to bring the TS into agreement with the provisions of the granted exemption to 10 CFR 50.54(m)(2). The proposed changes added a note to the table which requires an 50 to be in the control room or the shift supervisor's office when the reactor is in the startup or run mode or greater than or equal to 212 F and for the 50 to be in the control room proper 50% of the time. A revision to this submittal dated January 10, 1986, changed Table 6.1.1 to agree with the regulations and the Standard Revi u Plan (SRP), NUREG-0800 to provide a minimum total number of four licensed operators and the note was also l
clarified to indicate the 212*F temperature applied to the reactor coolant.
In e telephone conversation on April 25, 1986, the staff pointed out that proposed Table 6.1.1 did not agree with the SRP in the total number of operators both licensed and unlicensed.
By letter dated May 7, 1986, the licensee corrected the total number of operators from five to six and also clarified the table for applicable plant conditions.
The staff has reviewed the 12 months of data provided by the special report and finds that the intent of 10 CFR 50.54(m)(2)(iii) is being implemented.
If the 50 is in the shift supervisor's office, he is cognizant of critical plant safety parameters and can respond within seconds by intercom and be in the control room in 10 seconds if needed.
In the event that the S0 is in the control room or the shift supervisor's office with the Shift Super-visor, who is also an 50, the instrumentation and communications improve-ments gives immediate cognizance to both licensed S0s. This is evident in the supplied data, as at the onset of the events that have occurred, both S0s were instantly aware in 11 out of 12 of the events.
The resident inspector has reviewed the requirements for administrative procedures as requested in the exemption and found that temporary instruc-tions were issued at the time of the exemption and these have since been incorporated into administrative procedures.
Our review of the 12-month history of operations under the exemption leads us to believe the benefits of the instrumentation and communication improve-ments in the shift supervisor's office exceed any deleterious effects of not having the S0 physically in the control room at all times and that the 50's response time from the office is adequate.
We therefore find that, since the required administrative procedures are in place and perfomance during the 12-month period has shown no weaknesses, the exemption is sound and the above proposed TS adequately reflect these changes and are acceptable.
~'_L n
e
. ~ The staff has further reviewed the minimum staffing proposed in Table 6.1.1 and finds that it meets the minimum staffing reouirements of Table 1 of Section 13.1.2 of the SRP. Therefore, the staff finds these changes to be acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment relates to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or adminis-trative procedures or requirements. The Commission 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)(10).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the aublic will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in ccmpliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the commen defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
K. R. Ridgway Dated: July 1, 1986
__.,.