ML20127P273

Notifies That Requirements of 10CFR50,Section 50.59 Have Been Satisfied Re Changes in Plant Design

ML20127P273
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	07/14/1976
From:	Snaider R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Ziemann D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 9212020176
Download: ML20127P273 (2)

Text

,. ._ -

j -

• l r JUI. 14 B76 Docket No 50-263 -

1 '

Dennis L. Ziemann, Chief, Operating Rosetors tranch f 2, DOR ,

I NORTHERM STATES POWER COMPANT, HolrTICELLO UNIT NO. 1 - SENI-ANNUAL OPERATING REPORT NO.10 FOR PERIOD JULY 1,1975 TO DECDiBER 31, 1975 l f f As directed by Reactor Licensing Operating Procedures, I have reviewed the subject report to determine if any of the reported changes in plant l i j design involve unreviewed safety questions, as defined in 10 CFR 50.59.

Porty-three individual modifiestions were described, most of uhich dealt with changes to the Modified Offgas System. I questioned the l

licensee concerning the Of fgas Systems modifications and received satisfactory responses. I miso calleui the Region III IE inspector to obtain clarification of two items. These items and their resolutions are:

J

1. Renoval of the reactor Vessel Bottom 11 cad Drain Line (H75-49)

! (Item 2 on PaBe IV-1) i I inquired about the hydrostatic test pressure waiver which had

} been granted by the State of Minnesota. Region III personnel were aware of this waiver at the time it was granted and they acknowledged the State's jurisdiction. OT and DSS personnel also acknowledged that the State has jurisdiccion in the absence of technical specifications or regulations, however, the NRC can certainly inject their views if deemed necessary.

2. Movement of Irradiated Puel Assemblies, Individual Fuel Pins, and other Irradiated Components within the Spent Fuel Pool i

(SRI 168) (Item 36 on Page IV-15)

My concern was that an additional technical specification might be necessary to assure a ininimum water Icyn1 above an irradiated component orffuel element to assure personnel safety especially since the water level above fuel during fuel handling operations I

was lower than the minimum level stated in the TSAR. The Region III inspector felt that, as long as satisfactory administrative controle are employed, including adequate monitoring by Radiation Protection personnel, the changes for' overexposure would be minimized. NSP's summary of this item does include the administrative requirement for taanual and automatit monitoring during refueling floor activities which may involve personnel exposure, and this program is satisf actory.

{

i

\

\

9212O20176 760714 PDR ADOCK 05000263 P PDR n

n' O d

. . - 2-1

} I l;

I I Based on the above and my review of the remaining reported changes

and associated safety evaluation eunesarise provided by the licensee,

• i j I have concluded that no unreviewed safety questione are involved

! and that the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Section 50.59 have been satisfied.  :

l  ; OriglMI. signed by , ,

,/

? ,.g4/t ~ c , ,, -

• ) g lJ Q / *v i ,

I Richard 7. Snaider, Project Manap,er Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Operating Reectors d

i i

DISTRIBUTION 1

^

Docket

! ORB #2 Reading I KRGoller

• , TJCarter RPSnaider RMDiggs VStello f

l I

t t

' t I

i

/JYl er. ic e , .J2 ort 0RB #2 ~

7  ;

j ,,,,,,,,, RPSnaidertro DLZiemann ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~

, . . ,

• 7//f/76 7/l%76 j ,

torna Al'C.318 (Rev,9-53) AECM 0240 W u. e.oovsnumant enstme optics tova.sas.ese i

l

. . _ , _ . _ _ , - . -. . _ - - . . - - ,