ML20235X478
| ML20235X478 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235X473 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8903130474 | |
| Download: ML20235X478 (2) | |
Text
--
l f nec
'o UNITED STATES
} ' g v.q [,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
g.( M '
t WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l
%% u%l, l l
g.....,
\\
i SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION i
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 60 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 August 31, 1988, Northern States Power Company (NSP or the licensee) submitted an application for amendment of the Technical Specifications (TSs) appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-22 for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant.
The application proposed several administrative type changes.
The specific changes and the reason for each change are as follows:
Delete the period on the last line of page 16 of the existing TSs, relocate a.
the contents on TTpage 17 to page 16, and add a note on page 16 that the next page is page 18 (i.e., page 17 of the TSs is being deleted).
The reason for this change is that a period was inadvertently added to the last line on page 16 making an incomplete sentence; i.e., the sentence in question continues on page 17 of the existing TSs.
In addition, the entire contents on page 17 are being moved to page 16 in the interest of continuity and to make the paragraph easier to read, with page 17 being deleted, accordingly.
b.
In Paragraph 4.7.A.2.a, on page 158 of the TS, line 10, change "4.7.A.2.b.4" to "4.7.A.2.b.5," and on page 160, renumber Paragraph 4.7.A.2.b.4.d to Paragraph 4.7.A.2.b.5.
The reason for this change is that Paragraph 4.7.A.2.b.4.d is not related to the other items in Paragraph 4.7.A.2.b.4 and should be made a separate subparagraph to 4.7.A.2.b.
Paragraph 4.7.A.2.b.4 and subitems a., b. and c. describe the surveillance requirements for Type A tests to verify primary containment integrity, where existing Paragraph 4.7.A.2.b.4.d describes the surveillance requirements for Type B and Type C tests for verifying primary containment integrity.
Therefore, subitem d. of Paragraph 4.7.A.2.b.4 is being renumbered as Paragraph 4.7. A.2.b.5 to effect this separation in specifying the Type A versus the Type B and Type C test requirements.
c.
Add Paragraph 4.7.A.2.d to TS page 161 to read:
"The interior surfaces of the drywell shall be visually inspected each operating cycle for evidence of deterioration."
g903130474 80022G FDR ADOCK 0500 a
' The reason for this addition is that Paragraph 4.7. A.2.d was inadvertently deleted from the TS revision implemented by License Amendment No. 55.
d.
In Paragraphs 3.7.B.1.b and 4.7.B.].b, on page 167 of the existing TSs, change " Specification 3.7.C.1.(a) through (d)" to " Specification 3.7.
C.2.(a) through d".
I The reason for this change is that Specification 3.7.C.1.(a) through (d) do
- l not exist.
The Standby Gas Treatment System (SGTS) is required to be operable when Secondary Containment Integrity is required (per the definition in Section 1.0 of the existing TSs), and the correct action statement and surveillance requirement reference should be 3.7.C.2 and 4.7.C.2, respectively, which describe when Secondary Containment Integrity is needed.
i 2.0 EVALUATION We have reviewed each of the proposed changes discussed above, including the reason for each of the proposed changes, and agree that they represent changes that are purely administrative for achieving technical consistency in the TS sections (paragraphs) changed and for correcting obvious errors.
Accordingly, we find that all of the TS changes proposed and described above are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves administrative changes to correct errors in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and in surveillance requirements.
We have determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, i
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.
i 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 j
activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
f Principal Contributor:
John J. Stefano Dated: February 28, 1989 l
-