ML20235S085
| ML20235S085 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235S078 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8903060088 | |
| Download: ML20235S085 (3) | |
Text
-
a; N '*.j
,,, 4 f
'c, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3e!
lC WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\*
+/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 59 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-22 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT i
DOCKET NO. 50-263
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated February 16, 1987, the licensee proposed changes to the plant Technical. Specifications-(TSs) which would: (1) reference the NRC approved Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) for Monticello in lieu of specifying the radiation environmental program control locations for monitoring airborne radioiodine and particulate; (2) delete page 251a, incorrectly retained, and which should have been removed by the issuance of License Amendment No. 46 on July 1, 1986; (3) delete.Section 6.8 which was superseded by the publication of 10 CFR 50.49, " Environmental qualification of electric equipment important to safety for nuclear power plants"; (4) standardize reports and correspondence to reflect addressees set forth in 10 CFR 50.4; and (5) identify the current standard for operations personnel qualifications referenced in the updated Monticello Operational Quality Assurance (QA) Plan, replacing " Paragraph 4.4 of ANSI N18.7-1972" with " ANSI N18.7-1976 as modified by the Operatir.,nal Quality Assurance Plan", on page 239 of the TSs.
The change proposed in the February 16, 1907, application to revise the plant organization chart figures in Section 6 of the TSs was withdrawn by the licensee's letter dated August 17, 1988, and is not being considered for this license amendment. The August 17, 1988, letter also furnished additional information in support of the change noted above pertaining to the referencing of the ODCM in the TSs.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION Proposed Change No. 1 In Table 4.16.1 of the TSs, under the column entitled " Number of Samples and Sample Locations," replace the statement "...and 1 sample from a control location 8-20 miles distance and in the least prevalent wind direction" with "...
and 1 sample from a control location specified in the 00CH."
The control location in question for monitoring airborne radiciodine and particulate is identified in Figure 5.1-1 of the ODCM as " Air Station M-1,"
which is about 11 miles northwest of the plant.
The prevailing wind is from i
8903060089 890216 PDR ADGCK 05000263
_________P PDC i
~
r
. the northwest direction.
Since the control location is about 11 miles from the plant in the general direction of the prevailing wind, the licensee believes that
]
the current control sample meets the intent of NRC requirements; however, since wind patterns may change slightly from year to year, the licensee maintains that a literal interpretation of the existing requirement as specified in the TSs could result in an unnecessary change in control location each year. Since the control location should remain fixed, the location specified in the ODCM is a
" fixed" location, and referencing the ODCM in the T5s is a change which serves to clarify the control location for monitoring airborne radiciodine and particulate.
The change in no way alters the intent of the TSs to be consistent with the plant's environmental monitoring program, nor does it reduce the level of protection provided to the environment.
We agree with the licensee's basis for this proposed change. The sampling control location should be consistent with past sampling and not be dependent upon prevailing wind direction, which historically has been found to change slightly from year to year. Therefore, we find this change to be acceptable.
Proposed Change No. 2 Delete page 251a from the TSs.
We have reviewed the licensee's amendment request dated September 14, 1984, which resulted in the issuance of license Amendment No. 46 on July 1, 1986, and agree that the reporting requirements delineated on page 251a are no longer in force due to the issuance of license Amendment No. 46 and should have been deleted. We therefore find the deletion of page 251a to be acceptable.
Proposed Change No. 3 Delete Section 6.8, page 253, from the TSs.
We agree with the licensee that the publication of 10 CFR 50.49, " Environmental qualification of electric equipment important to safety for nuclear power plants" addresses the requirements set forth in Section 6.8 of the TSs and that deletion of Section 6.8 from the TSs is therefore considered acceptable.
Proposed Change No. 4 Incorporate the following changes to pages 248 through 252 of the TSs:
Page 248 - replace " Director of the appropriate Regional Office of Inspection and Enforcement" with "U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555",
Page 249 - delete "to the Office of Management Information and Program Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consnission, Washington, DC 20555",
Page 251 - delete "The reports listed below shall be submitted to the Administrator of the appropriate Regional Office or designate:",
p.
c.
Page 252 - delete " Written reports for the following items shall be submitted to the appropriate NRC Regional Administrator:", and Page 252 - delete "to the appropriate NRC Regional Administration".
i The changes proposed are acceptable since they are consistent with the standardized mailing address for any correspondence with the NRC and the transmittal of TS required reports as reflected in 10 CFR 50.4.
- Proposed Change No. 5 On page 239 of the TSs, replace " Paragraph 4 of ANSI N18.7-1972" with " ANSI N18.7-1976 as modified by the Operational Quality Assurance Plan."
The proposed change is acceptable to us since it updates the TSs to indicate and be consistent with the more stringent and current ANSI standard implemented in the Monticello Operational Quality Assurance Plan regarding operating personnel qualifications.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves enanges in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or changes in surveillance requirements. The amendment also relates to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements.
We have 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 published a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accorclingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and (10).
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, j
and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense i
and security or to the health and safety of the public.
1 Principal Contributors:
F. Allenspach J. Stefano Dated: February 16, 1989 l
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -