ML20216C993
| ML20216C993 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1998 |
| From: | Hammer M NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216C990 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9804150138 | |
| Download: ML20216C993 (6) | |
Text
f UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-263 REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO OPERATING LICENSE DPR-22 March 19,1998 SUPPLEMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST DATED August 15,1996 l
1 1
Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, requests authorization for changes to Appendix A of the Monticello Operating License as shown on the attachments labeled Exhibits A, B, and C. Exhibit A describes the proposed changes, describes the reasons for the changes, and contains a Safety Evaluation, a Determination of No Significant Hazards i
Consideration and an Environmental Assessment. Exhibit B contains current Technical l
Specification pages marked up with the proposed changes. Exhibit C is a copy of the Monticello Technical Specification pages incorporating the proposed changes.
This letter contains no restricted or other defense information.
I NORTHERN STA ES POWER COMPANY
. 'ufAdlG l
By Michael F. Efammer Plant Manager Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant i
On this N of fthoch M6 before me a notary public in and for said County, personally appeared Michael F. Hammer, Plant Manager, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, and being first duly sworn acknowledged that he is authorized to execute this document on j
behalf of Northern States Power Company, that he knows the contents thereof, and that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief the statements made in it are true and that it is not interposed for delay.
j l
AwM,
' Samuel 1. Shirey' SAMUEL 1. SHIREY Notary Public-Minnesota lNOW PU8UC.W Sherburne County
._ _ _ 64 comm Eppyhm My Commission Expires January 31,2000
~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~
~
9804150138 980319 PDR ADOCK 05000263 P
Exhibit A MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT March 19,1998 Supplement to License Amendment Request Dated August 15,1996 Description of Proposed Changes and Reasons for Changes 8 vs.12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> Shift Length Our license amendment submittal of August 15,1996 requested a change of wording to the administrative controls section of Monticello's Technical Specification (TS) to allow either 8 or 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> shifts. However, it did not address the implications of shift length on surveillance testing required once per shift. Since the number of shifts per day has been reduced from 3 to 2, the actual number of times the surveillances are completed has also been reduced. We are requesting that this matter be clarified by eliminating reference to "once per shift" and adopting the standard convention calling for these surveillances to be performed "once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />."
Completing the "once per shift" Sensor Checks and surveillances every 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> conforms to NUREG-1433, " Standard Technical Specifications (STS) General Electric Plants, BWR/4". The term " Sensor Check" used throughout the Monticello Technical Specifications is equivalent to the NUREG-1433 term " CHANNEL CHECK". NUREG-1433 requires CHANNEL CHECKS to be performed "once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />". This interval is supported by NUREG-1433, Bases section SR 3.3.1.1.1 (page B 3.3-25), which states:
"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."[ Limiting Conditions for Operation]
The requested wording also adopts the NUREG-1433 concept of surveillance intervals "once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />" on certain surveillances.
The following table shows where sensor checks and surveillances are required to be performed "once per shift", "at least once per shift", "at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />", or other similar wording.
Northem States Power (NSP) proposes to revise the various wording combinations to a consistent "once per 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />" interval in accordance with NUREG-1433.
For Note C of Table 3.14.1 on page 229c, a window of (+25%) has specifically been stated since this surveillance is in an LCO table not covered by the + 25% windcw which applies generically to the surveillance program as described in TS section 4.0 on page 25a.
A-1
i s
Current "Once Per Shift" Usage Section Topic Wording Additional Information Table 4.2.1 ECCS Instrumentation once/ shift 6 instances (pg. 61 & 62)
(Sensor Check)
Table 4.2.1 Rod Blocks once per shift Only required during startups and Note 2 (Sensor Check) shutdowns (pg. 63a)
Table 4.2.1 Reactor Building once per shift Only required during fuel handling Note 4 Ventilation j
(pg. 63a)
& Standby Gas Treatment (Sensor Check) 4.2 Bases Instrumentation once/ shift (pg.72)
(Sensor Check) 4.3.D Control Rod Accumulators Once a shift This surveillance notin NUREG-1433 (pg. 82)
(Surveillance) 4.6.C.3.(b)
Reactor Coolant at least once This surveillance not in NUREG-1433 (pg.125)
Chemistry (surveillance) per shift 4.6. D.1.a Unidentified and identified once per shift No exact match in NUREG-1433 (pg.126) leakage rates not to exceed (Surveillance) 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> 4.6.D.2.a Rx coolant leakage at least once 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> frequency in NUREG-1433 (pg.126) detection per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> (Sensor Check) 4.6.D.2.b Rx coolant leakage at least once 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> frequency in NUREG-1433 (pg.126) detection per shift not to (Sensor Check) exceed 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> Table 3.14.1 Torus temperature at least once This surveillance not in NUREG-1433 Note C (Surveillance) per shift Proposed window of + 25% specifically (pg. 229c) stated since this is a LCO table to which TS section 4.0 does not apply.
4.17. A.1 Control Room Ventilation at least once Not in NUREG-1433. Control Room (pg. 229u)
(Surveillance) per shift temperature is monitored by the operators continuous presence.
Abnormal temperatures would immediately be noticed.
"Once Per Hour" Usage in Limiting Condition of Operation (LCO) Section Page 223, section 3.13.A.2 (Fire Protection Instrumentation) requires the interval for fire watch patrols be "at least once per hour". Since this is a LCO section, the blanket + 25% statement of section 4.0 for Surveillances does not apply and should specifically be stated here.
We believe the original intent of this requirement was that patrols be run as normal surveillances every hour with the standard +25% tolerance. The words "at least" indicate if an interval exceeds 60 minutes, a violation of TS would have occurred. Deleting the words "at least" and adding "( +25%)" will require patrols on an hourly basis, while providing flexibility to complete the patrols within a 15 minute window.
A-2
Page 227b, section 3.13.G.2, " Penetration Fire Barriers" is also proposed to be revised to add
"( + 25%)" after " hourly" for the same reasons described in the previous paragraph.
Correction of Typographical Errors and Spelling Errors The following typographical errors and spelling errors are being ccrrected:
On pages 61 and 62, in the title block, a comma has been added after " Cooling".
On page 72, "one/ day" is being changed to "once/ day".
On page 223, three errors are also being corrected. In section 3.13 Applicability, a period is being added at the end of the sentence. In section 4.13 Applicability, since " applies"is the first word in the sentence, it should be capitalized. Also, in section 4.13.A.2, " circuity" should be spelled " circuitry".
On page 227b, section 3.13.F.1, a line of text was inadvertently introduced in Amendment
- 61. The phrase "a. Each valve (manual, power operated, or" was inadvertently copied from adjoining section 4.13.F.1 and should be deleted. Also, in section 3.13.G.2, the word "if" should be "of".
On page 229u, in section 3.17.A.2.c, "activies" is being corrected to read " activities".
Safety Eva 2..on:
The revised wording is consistent with similar Monticello surveillance intervals, industry practice, and NUREG-1433 intervals. NUREG-1433 use of the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> frequency for CHANNEL CHECKS (Sensor Checks), is based upon operating experience that demonstrates channel failure is rare. The proposed amendment will require checks on the basis of a surveillance interval of 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, and provides clarity and consistency within the Monticello TS.
In addition to Sensor Checks, intervals of several surveillances on pages 82,125,126,229c and 229u are proposed to be reworded from "once per shift" to "once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />." Due to the availability of backup means of parameter verification, and operating experience which indicates good instrumentation reliability, it is NSP's judgment that once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> is an acceptable interval.
The 12-hour interval conforms to NUREG-1433 which either lists these surveil lances as requiring a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> frequency, or does not require the surveillance since they do not meet any of the four criteria specified by 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) for inclusion into improved Technical Specifications (ITS). NSP has conservatively chosen to continue these surveillances at the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> interval.
Proposed clarifications to the frequency specified for fire watch patrols requires patrols at an interval previously recognized as reasonable and safe, and will provide the flexibility of a + 25%
performance window. This willintegrate fire watch patrols with other assigned duties without decreasing the overall effectiveness of the fire watch patrol.
A-3
l No Significant Hazards Consideration:
l L
The Commission has provided standards (10 CFR Section 50.92(c)) for determining whether a
{
significant hazards consideration exists. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a j
facinty involves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility in accordance with l
i l
the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
After reviewing this proposed amendment, we have concluded that:
- 1) The proposed amendment will not involve a significant increase in the probability or
)
consequances of an accident previously evaluated.
j This change does not affect the physical configuration of the plant or how it is operated. As such, it is not the initiator of any plant event. This change clarifies the intervals in which
)
Sensor Checks, Surveillances, and fire watch patrols must be completed. As described i
above, the 12-hour interval has been determined acceptable for the specifed Sensor Checks and Surve" lances based on Monticello and industry experience which demonstrates instr mentation and channel failures are rare. This change conkins the Monticello TS to '
<EG-1433 and clarifies the intervals in which checks must be completed.
Completing fire watch patrols on a one hour + 25% interval will require patrols on an hourly basis, while providing flexibility to complete the patrols within a 15 minute window. In addition to the Technical Specification required fire watches, additional individuals are often in the plant proper, so the required hourly fire watch patrols are only part of the entire program for fire detection.
l Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in a significant increase in the probability of l
an accident occurring.
l
- 2) The propcsed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of l
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Revising the wording to "once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />" or "once per hour (+ 25%)" does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. No new or different surveillance activities are proposed, nor are any being deleted. As such, it is not the initiator of any plant event.
- 3) The proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
This change does not affect the physical configuration of the plant or how it is operated. The level of expertise on shift will not be diminished or changed, nor will it reduce the functionality of plant equipment. This change requires Sensor Checks, surveillances, and fire watch patrols be completed within industry guidelines.
l A-4 J
t j
The 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> interval has been determined acceptable based on industry experience which demonstrates channel failure is rare. Tne one hour interval for fire watch patrols has also l
been an accepted industry standard. In addition to the Technical Specification required fire watches, additional individuals are often in the plant proper, so the required hourly fire watch patrols are only part of the entire program for fire detection. The proposed change simply defines the acceptable interval during which the task must be performed. Therefore, this change does not constitute a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
l Based on the above, we have determined that the proposed amendment will not involve a significant hazards consideration.
i l
Environmental Assessment-i Northern States Power Company has evaluated the proposed changes and determined that the changes:
l 1.
Do not involve a significant hazards consideration, 2.
Do not involve a significant change in the types or sign:ficant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, and 3.
Do not involve a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
j Accordingly, the proposed changes meet the eligibility criterion for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 Section 51.22(c)(g). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51 Section 51.22(b),
an environmental assessment of the proposed changes is not required.
I A-5