ML20117A428

Application for Amend to License DPR-22,requesting Authorization for Changes to App a of Plant License as Shown on Attachments Labeled Exhibits A,B & C

ML20117A428
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	08/15/1996
From:	Hill W NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20117A131	List: ML20117A127 ML20117A155 ML20117A428
References
NUDOCS 9608260161
Download: ML20117A428 (9)

Text

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 LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST DATED August 15,1996 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 Significant Hazards Consideration and an Environmental Assessment. Exhibit B contains current Technical 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.

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY By MFINA~ 7 /

William J Hill d Plant Manager Moriticello Nuclear Generating Plant N

On this h day of kmsT [3% before me a notary public in and for said County, personally appeared William J Hh , Plant Manager, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, and being first duly sworn acknowledged that he is authorized to execute this document on 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, l

s d i SAMUEL L SHIREf

~ Samuel I. Shirey asparruaut.eeusseen Notary Public - Minnesota '

u rc a n s o.J m st asso l Sherburne County --

1 i

My Commission Expires January 31,2000 l

9608260161 960815 PDR ADOCK 05000263 l p PDR j

Exhibit A MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT License Amendment Request Dated August 15,1996 Evaluation of proposed changes to the Technical Specifications for Operating License DPR-22 Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.59 and 50.90, the holders of Operating l License DPR-22 hereby propose the following changes to the Monticello Technical Specifications:

Proposed Chanaes:

8-hour Vs 12-hour Day Section 6.1.F.1 of the Monticello Technical Specifications (TS) currently states:

"The objective shall be to have operating personnel work a normal 8-hour day, 40 hour4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> week while the plant is operating."

Monticello proposes the following change:

Revise the phrase "8-hour day,40-hour week" to "B or 12-hour day, nominal 40-hour week". .

u Typographical Errors Corrected Typographical errors are being corrected as noted below.

Page No. Currently Reads Corrected Wording 198t silica-Jel silica-ael 198y form from 233 Nothern Northem Superindent Superintendent 244a present preset A-1

Minor Clarifications or Corrections Page Proposed Change iv Correct page numbers 229 to 228b, and 246 to 246c. Delete "3.14 and 4.14 Bases 229e", and add "6.8 Environmental Qualification 253".

vi Correct page number 57 to 56.

vii Correct page number 227c to 227d.

22 Correct recirculation pump case design pressure value as listed in this Basis section from 1400 psig to 1380 psig.

31 Revise wording in paragraph e. to make it more understandable.

69 Revise Basis wording from " starting and running loads during a loss of coolant accident", to "a steady state LOCA load that maintains adequate voltage at the 480V essential MCC's".

89 Correct statements in Basis regarding most limiting transient.

99 Revise Basis wording on Standby Liquid Control to make it consistent with the USAR and design documents.

102 Add words stating the control valve may also actuate.

164 Add word " integrity" after containment.

188 Add in Bases, the specification number (ASTM D3803-1989) that is used for adsorbent testing.

190 Change date from 1983 to 1973 in this Basis section.

200 Revise specification 3.9.B, so th&t all subsequent sections of 3.9.B apply.

227c Revise wording to clarify when the ASDS panelis required to be operable.

227d Correct zone from 2E to 2G/2H, and change " Fire Zone" to Fire Detection  ;

Zone".  !

227e Correct zone from 15A to 15A/15C, zone from 15A to 15B/15D, and change i

" Fire Zone" to " Fire Detection Zone". l 229b Correct branching error from 6.7.B.2 to 6.7.D. I 229ff Delete section 4.15.A.2. J 229i Correct branching error from 6.7.C.3 to 6.7.C.2 l 244a Revise wording of 6.5.B.1.b. to make it identical to Regulatory Guide 8.38, section 2.4. (bullated paragraphs).

247a Delete reference to Environmental Qualification Records being retained for  ;

life of the plant.

252 Change " morality" to " mortality" Administrative Titles On pages 232,233,234,240,241,243,244a, and 246b, various titles are being revised to reflect current titles as follows:

A-2

Old Title New Title

! Site Superintendent Shift Supervisor

Superintendent Radiation Protection General Superintendent Radiation Services General Manager Nuclear Plants Plant Manager or Vice President Nuclear Superintendent, Security and Services Superintendent Security

.i i Also within these pages, on page 233, two spelling errors are being corrected, l j and on page 244a,"present"is being corrected to " preset". l i

Reason for Chanaes:  !

8-hour Vs 12-hour day l On June 23,1991, Monticello operators proposed to change from an 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> shift j routine to a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> shift routine on a trial basis. Informal discussions with the l NRC determined the existing Monticello Technical Specification statement did i not limit the operators to the traditional 8-hour shift. The intent of this section was rather, to prohibit excessive overtime which could be related to unusually

long shifts. Studies by the NRC and others has shown operators can work 12-

] hour shifts without undo loss of efficiency.

This change is proposed to update the Monticello Technical Specifications to the

actual current practices of the plant. Since it is possible the operators could

return to an 8-hour shift in the future, this change proposes to allow either 8 or l' 12-hour shifts. This change will also clarify that 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> is the " nominal" work week. The proposed wording is consistent with the improved Standard

Technical Specifications.

i j Typographical errors corrected i i  !

j j Most of these errors were likely due to uncorrected typing errors at the time of i the original write-up. They are very minor changes and do not result in technical or substantial changes.

l i

! Minor Clarifications or Corrections I

! Pageiv This page was not previously updated when the affected sections l were revised. These changes do not affect the content in any way.

J

. Page vi Same as Page iv.

i i Page vii Same as Page iv.

A-3 i

f

1 i

Page 22 During the Design Basis Document program it was determine'd the correct value for the design pressure of the recirculation pump case is 1380 psig and not 1400 psig as currently stated in this Bases '

section. This change will make the Technical Specifications consistent with the original General Electric design value.

Page 31 The first sentence of paragraph "e."is poorly written and therefore hard to understand. This change will reword the sentence without changing the meaning or intent of the original wording.

Page 69 During the Design Basis Document program, it was determined that the degraded bus voltage setpoint basis was uniquely determined for MNGP using the steady state LOCA loading condition, not starting loads, as currently stated in this Bases section. This was previously reviewed and approved by NRC Safety Evaluation dated March 20,1985.

Page 89 Paragraph "C." incorrectly states that turbine stop valve closure with bypass valve failure is the limiting transient for Monticello. This is no longer the case, and this Bases section is being corrected to reflect this fact, l

Page 99 This change will correct a description discrepancy between text in l

the USAR, Technical Specifications SBLC Bases, Operations Manual, Modification 87M022, and a Bases calculation for the Standby Liquid Control System. The water in the shutdown cooling system was included in the original volume calculation and therefore there is no dilution when the shutdown cooling system in added.

I Page 102 This change will correctly reflect the system response for a safety / relief valve actuation in the case where the turbine is on line i and the bypass valve would not actuate because the transient  !

would be handled by the functioning control valve.

Page 164 Adding the word " integrity" after containment clarifies that it is the integrity of the primary containment that is important in these conditions.

Page 188 This Bases change adds the specification number that is used for adsorbent testing. Reg Guide 1.52 references methyliodide testing procedures that are no longer the most conservative. ASTM D3803-1989 is the most recent charcoal testing procedure and is endorsed by the NRC.

A-4

1 Page 190 The date of 1973 was verified correct by finding the original document. Therefore, the 1983 date should be changed in this Bases section.

l l

Page 200 Adding reference to specification 3.9.B.5 makes this section more l complete and more restrictive as it also ties in the availability requirement for the 24 volt batteries. For consistency, this section should be included with the other 3.9.B sections. This has been accomplished by stating 3.9.B applies, which implies all sections of 3.9.B (1 through 5) are included.

i Page 227c Revising the wording clarifies when that system / component is l

required to be operable.

Page 227d The fire zone listed as 2E was verified by the Fire Protection System Engineer as actually being zones 2G/2H. The column heading is being changed because of slight differences between l layout of detectors in physical and functional zones. This table is I based on locations of the fire detectors in their zones. Adding the word " detection" clarifies this.

Fage 227e The fire zones listed as 15A and 15B were verified by the Fire Protection System Engineer as actually being zones 15A/C and 15B/D. The column heading is being changed because of slight differences between layout of detectors in physical and functional zones. This table is based on locations of the fire detectors in their zones. Adding the word " detection" clarifies this.

Page 229b This corrects a branching error. Section 6.7.D is titled "Special Reports" which is what note A of Table 3.14.1 is referring to.

Page 229ff The two welds at Monticello that were identified as susceptible to IGSCC by Generic Letter 88-01 were replaced by modification l 89M087 during the 1989 refueling outage. Section 4.15.A.2 is no longer applicable to any welds in the plant and should have been deleted after the welds were replaced.

Page 229i This corrects a branching error. Section 6.7.C.2 is titled

" Environmental Special Reports" which is what specification 4.16.A.4 is referring to.

Page 244a Revise wording of 6.5.B.1.b. to make it identical to Regulatory Guide 8.38, section 2.4. (bulleted paragraphs) except for section l 6.5.B.1.b.(3). In this section, Reg. Guide 8.38 says ".... should I

perform periodic radiation surveillance ...." We have elected to A-5

keep our current wording "....shall perform periodic radiation surveillance ....", which is identical to that in NUREG 1433,  !

Improved Technical Specifications and is the more conservative approach.

Page 247a In Amendment No. 59 (2/16/89) the requirement for retaining Environmental Qualification Records for the life of the plant was removed. Section 6.6.B.11 should also have been deleted but was not. Current section 12 becomes 11 due to renumbering.

Page 252 Changing " morality" to " mortality" corrects a spelling / typographical error.

Administrative Titles (Section 6)

Over the past few years, several reorganizations have resulted in changing titles and responsibilities. This revision will update this section to the current titles.

Several spelling corrections are also included.

Safety Evaluation:

Monticello operators, and othar operators throughout the power industry and in other industries have been working 12-hour shifts for years without adverse impact on their performance. Working a " normal" 12-hour shift is no different from working a " normal" 8-hour shift with 4-hours of overtime which has been an accepted and approved practice for years. Working a 12-hour shift just means fewer shifts are worked each week.

With 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> shifts, the normal work week now varies from 36 to 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> due to the differing number of shifts worked each week in the standard shift rotation.

However, overall, the length of the " nominal" work week is still 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />. This is consistent with the Improved Standard Technical Specifications (section 5.2.2.e).

The typographical errors, clarifications and title changes do not involve technical issues and as such doe not involve safety issues.

These changes are purely administrative in nature. There is no change to the i physical configuration of the plant or how the plant is operated.  !

i 1

A-6

No Sianificant Hazards Consideration :

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 facility involves no significant hazards consideration if 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;(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 orocosed amendment will not involve a sianificant increase in the probability or consecuences of an accident oreviousiv evaluated.

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. Working a

" normal" 12-hour shift is no different from working a " normal" 8-hour shift with 4-hours of overtime which has been an accepted and approved practice for years. Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in any increase in the probability of an accident occurring. The intent is still that operators will not work excessive overtime either on a daily, or weekly basis.

The typographical errors, clarifications and title changes do not involve technical issues and as such do not involve safety issues, and therefore do not effect the chances or consequences of an accident.

2) The proposed amendment will not create the oossibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed.

. This change does not affect the physical configuration of the plant or how it is operated. Therefore, revising the length of a " normal" shift or correcting j minor errors does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of l accident from any previously evaluated. As such,it is not the initiator of any plant event.

3) The prooosed amendment will not involve a sianificant reduction in the marain 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 as a result of this change. Therefore, this change will not reduce the margin of safety.

A-7

. --. . . - - . - . . - - _ - . = _ .

j 4 J j I Based on the above, we have determined that the proposed amendment will not involve a significant hazards consideration.

! Environmental Assessment:

i

~

Northern States Power Company has evaluated the proposed changes and j determined that:

1. The changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration,

! 2. The changes do not involve a significant change in the types or significant i increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, or

3. The changes do not involve a significant increase in individual or

. cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

i l Accordingly, the proposed changes meet the eligibility criterion for categorical l exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Part 51 Section 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant j to 10 CFR Part 51 Section 51.22(b), an environmental assessment of the l proposed changes is not required.

i l

4 L

i i

i i

i A-8