ML20236V014
| ML20236V014 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1998 |
| From: | Kim T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236V017 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9807310243 | |
| Download: ML20236V014 (9) | |
Text
- .
UNITED STATES NUCI FAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-263 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-22 PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION. AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-22 issued to Northem States Power
~
Company (the licensee) for operation of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant located in Wright County, Minnesota.
The proposed amendment would revise Section 3.6.C, Coolant Chemistry, and 3/4.17.B, Control Room Emergency Filtration System, cf the Technical Specifications (TS),
Appendix A of the Operating License for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. The changes were proposed to establish TS requirements consistent with modified analysis inputs used for i
the evaluation of the radiological consequences of the main steam line break accident. This amendment request was originally noticed in the FEDERAL REGISTER on May 6,1998 (63 FR 25115). On June 19,1998, supplemented July 1,1998, the licensee submitted an application that superseded in its entirety the licensee's previous submittal dated April 11,1997.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required L the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the 1
Commission's regulations.
g7310243980722 p
ADOCM 05000263 PDR
2
- The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a ner., different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
1.
The proposed amendment will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
A limit is established in the plant Technical SpecifFcmtions for steady state radiolodine concentration in the reactor coolant iWNure that in the event c/ :
release of radioactive material to the environmem M 90 a postulated high energy line break up to and including a design u. ; main Steam Line Break Accident, radiation doses are maintained well within the regulatory guidelines.
The steady state radiolodine concentration in the reactor coolant is an input for analysis of the radiological consequences of an accident due to a Main Steam Line Break outside of containment and postulated high energy line breaks. In addition, requirements are established in the Technical Specifications for control room habitability. During an accident, the control room emergency filtration system provides filtered air to pressurize the Control Room to minimize the activity, and therefore the radiological dose, inside the control room.
A change is proposed for the steady state radiolodine concentration. This value is conservative with respect to the value used in the Main Steam Line Break dose consequences analysis and is consistent with the dose consequences evaluation of a postulated Reactor Water Cleanup (RWCU)line break. Changes are proposed to the limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements for the Control Room Emergency Filtration Train iodine removal efficiency. These changes are consistent with the inputs used in the analysis of the radiological consequences of the postulated RWCU line break and the Main Steam Line Break Accident. Changes to testing requirements are more restrictive and in accordance with the applicable regulatory guidance. These proposed requirements maintain operating restrictions for analytical inputs used in the analysis of the Main Steam Line Break Accident. Evaluation of these events has demonstrated that the postulated radiological consequences will also remain within the licensing basis established in the AEC [ Atomic Energy Commission) Provisional Operating License Safety Evaluation Report, dated
s 3-3-
March 18,1970, thus the propm.ed changes do not result in an increase in the consequences of previously evaluated accidents.
The analysis of the Main Steam Line Break Accident performed using a reactor coolant radiolodine concentration of 2 [ micro]Ci/gm dose equivalent lodine-131
{
and e control room ventilation filter efficiency consistent with the proposed Technical Specifications changes demonstrated that radiological consequences of the Main Steam Line Break are not changed significantly. The radiological j
consequences of the Main Steam Line Break Accident remain within the exposure guidelines of 10CFR100 and 10CFR50 Appendix A, General Design -
Criterion 19. The offsite dose consequences remain bounded by the original
]
licensing basis provided in the AEC Provisional Operating License Safety
]
Evaluation Report, dated March 18,1970. The control room doses calculated for j
the hot standby Main Steam Line Break Acident using the TID-14844 dose conversion factors remain bounded by tha dose consequences of the comparable design basis loss of coolent accident.
l I
The evaluation of the postulated RWCU line break, performed using a reactor coolant radiciodine concentration of 0.25 [ micro]Cilgm dose equivalent lodine-131 and a control room ventilation filter efficiency consistent with the proposed Technical Specifications changes, demonstrated that the radiological consequences of this event remain within the exposure guidelines of 10CFR100 an110CFR50 Appendix A, General Design Criterion 19. The offsite dose consequences remain bounded by the Main Steam Line Break as established in the licensing basis provided in the AEC Provisional Operating License Safety Evaluation Report, dated March 18,1970.
The proposed Technical Specification changes do not introduce new equipment operating modes, nor do the proposed changes alter existing system relationships. The proposed changes do not introduce new failure modes. The system improvements to reduce bypass leakage during postulated accidents do not have an adverse effect on control room habitability. Therefore, this amendment will not cause a sigr,ificant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated for the Monticello plant.
l 2.
The proposed amendment will not create the possibility rs a aew or different kind I
of accident from any accident previously analyzed.
The proposed Technical Specification changes do not introduce new equipment operating modes, nor do the proposed changes siter existing system relationships. Operator action to mitigate the consequences of the postulated RWCU line break is conservative based on the simple action required by the operator to close the containment isolation valves within 10 minutes. Isolation at 10 minutes is very conservative since a safety related RWCU containment isolation system that was installed during the 1998 refueling outage wo"Id effect en automatic isolation within one minute of the RWCU break.
1
J A
_4 The proposed change to the specification for reactor coolant dose equivalent radiolodine is conservative with respect to the re-evaluation of the Main Steam Line Break Accident for the more conservative hot standby initial condition for the postulated accident. The proposed change to the specification for rasctor coolant dose equivalent radioiodine is consistent with the postulated high energy line break of a Reactor Water Cleanup line. The proposed changes to the limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements for the control room emergency filtration train iodine removal efficiency are consistent with the inputs used in the evaluation of the radiological consequences of the postulated RWCU line break and the Main Steam Line Break Accident. The system improvements to reduce bypass leakage during postulated accidents do not have an adverse effect on control room habitability. Therefore, the proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3.
The proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Surveillance data has demonstrated the proposed requirements are within the current capability of the facility. The proposed changes maintain margins of safety. These proposed requirements maintain operating restrictions for analytical inputs used in the analysis of the bounding postulated high energy line break of a Reactor Water Cleanup line and the Main Steam Line Break Accident.
The proposed change to the specification for reactor coolant dose equivalent radioiodine is conservative with respect to the re evaluation of the Main Steam Line Break Accident for the more conservative hot standby initial condition for the postulated accident. The proposed change to the specification for reactor coolt'nt dose equivalent radioiodine lis consistent with the postulated high energy line break of a Reactor Water Cleanup line. The evaluation of these postulated events determined that the radiological consequences remain within the exposure guidelines of 10CFR100 and of 10CFR50 Appendix A, Genera! Design Criterion 19 and within the original licensing basis cor:tained in the Provisional Operating License. The proposed changes to the limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements for the control room emergency filtration train iodine removal efficiency provide assurance that the system will perform at the filter efficiency as used in the evaluation of the radiological consequences of the postulated events. Therefore, the proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
l i
l l
l
. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received by close of business within 30 days after the date of publication of this i
l notice will be considered in making any final determination.
]
Normally, the Commission win not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 30 day notice pehod. However, should circurastances change during the notice period such that failure l
to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the i
l Commission may issue the license amendment 12efore the expiration of the 30-day notice I
period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will conseler all public and State comments i
received. Should the Commission take this action, it will pub!ish in the FEDERAL REGISTER a l
notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Rogulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North,11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written comments race!ved may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, the Gelman Building,2120 L Street, NW., Washingtqn, DC.
l The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
By August 27,1998, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to 1
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose l
interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene.
1 d
6 Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the
)
Cominission's " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2.
Interested persons should consur a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is available at the l
Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building,2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at the Minneapolis Public Library, Technology and Science Department,300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or 1
petition; and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board willissue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shell set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) the nature of the petitioners right under the Act to be made party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioners property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the i
possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioners interest.
The petition should also identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted ts a party may ament l the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, j
l l
but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements desenbed above.
l l
l C-.
m
i Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner I
must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle l
the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
if a hearing is requested, the Committion will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
l If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards L
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective,
._-___________._m_._______
_m_-_____
4 notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to inte.rvene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commiss!on's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building,2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by close of business on the above date. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to Jay Silberg, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge,2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037, attomey for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensiry) Board that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 4
CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
l l
l l
I
l i i
.g.
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated l
June 19,1998, as supplemented July 1,1998, and the licensee's letter dated May 5,1997, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building,2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at the Minneapolis Public Library, Technology and Science Department,300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401.
~
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of July 1998.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
Tae Kim, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate ill-1 Divis. ion of Reactor Projects - lil/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
t 1
I l'