ML20205E028
| ML20205E028 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205E006 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8510170176 | |
| Download: ML20205E028 (2) | |
Text
.
pmg je UNITED STATES p,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7e
- j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 33 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 February 15, 1983 Northern States Power Company (NSP/the licensee) proposed revised Technical Specifications (TSs) to Section 3.13/4.13, " Fire Suppression Water System" to change the term " screen wash pump" to " screen wash / fire pump" and to reword the bases section accordingly. This proposed amendment would incorporate clarification of the screen wash pump's use as a fire pump.
By letter dated February 6,1981, the licensee provided an analysis of the maximum fire suppression system plus hose streams demand based on a fire condition. This analysis showed that the maximum demand could be provided by any two of three 1500 gpm pumps. This condition required the licensee's screen wash pump to be available for fire protection duties if one of the fire pumps became inoperable.
2.0 EVALUATION The specific requirements for the water supplies for suppression systems are stated in Section III.A of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R.
For a back-up pump to be acceptable as a fire pump, the staff concludes that the back-up is required to meet the maximum fire suppression system plus hose streams demand.
Therefore, on the basis of the licensee's analysis, the staff concludes that the screen wash pump is an acceptable backup pump. Thus, the proposed amendment is consistent with existing NRC Standard Technical Specification criteria and is found acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S 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 and changes in surveillance requirements. The staff has detennined 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 8510170176 85 263 PDR ADOCK O PDR P
= - -.
. cumulative occupational radiation exposure. 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)(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 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 Contributors:
J. Ulfe and K. Ridgway Dated: October 7,1985
~+y..
m
+ o r-m w-