ML20137L526
| ML20137L526 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137L519 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-83-02, GL-83-2, GL-83-36, GL-86-2, NUDOCS 8601280010 | |
| Download: ML20137L526 (5) | |
Text
.
8 4
UNITED STATES
[
N, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20565
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 37 TO FACILIT Q PERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-22 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET NO.-50-263
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Following the accident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2, the staff developed the NRC Action Plan, NUREG-0660, to provide a comprehensive and integrated plan to improve safety at power reactors.
Specific NUREG-0660 items, approved by the Commission for implementation at power reactors, were issued as NUREG-0737. NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements" specified that new Technical Specifications would be required for several of the items. Generic Letter 83-02, dated January 10, 1983 provided guidance on Technical Specifications for those items which were scheduled for implementation by December 31, 1981 and Generic Letter 83-36,
, dated November 1, 1983 provided guidance for those items which were scheduled for implementation after December 31, 1981. The Northern States Power Company (the licensee) in their letter dated June 24, 1983 submitted proposed Technical Specification changes for several of these items. The staff's evaluation of these proposed Technical Specification changes are provided in Section 2.0 below.
2.0 EVALUATION A.
Generic Letter 83-02 Item 2 - Limit Overtime (I.A.I.3.1)
On June 15, 1982, the staff issued Generic Letter 82-12 which contained a revised version of the Commission's Policy Statement on nuclear power plant staff working hours. Generic Letter 83-02 requested that the administrative section of the Technical Specification be revised to implement the Comission policy.
On October 7, 1982, and November 11, 1982, the licensee requested a deviation from the NRC 72-hour workweek limitation to allow 84-hour workweeks during plant outages, with a further restriction that employees would not be required to work more than 15 days without having two consecutive days off.
In addition, the licensee requested that onsite rest time for the Shift Technical Advisor and Shift Emergency Coordinator not be counted as hours worked. The staff responded to this request, on March 17, 1983, concluding that this would not result in increased risk to the health and safety of the public. The licensee requested to amend the license incorporating this policy in Section 6.1.F of the Technical Specifications.
8601280010 860122 PDR ADOCK 05000263 P
_0
We have reviewed the licensee's proposed wording to incorporate the Coninission's policy on overtime limits and find it acceptable.
B.
Generic Letter 83-02 Item 17. Reporting SV and RV Failures and Challenges (II.K.3.3)
Generic letter 83-02 requested that the administrative section of the Technical Specification be revised to require that any failure of the relief valves or safety valves be promptly reported to the Commission by telephone and followed up with a written report. Additionally, all challenges to these valves are to be reported to the Consnission on a monthly or annual basis. The licensee proposed a change which will add reporting requirements as specified in Technical Specifications (TSs)
Section 6.7.A.6, documenting all failures and challenges to the Safety Valves in an annual report. We find that the changes as proposed meet the proposed TS format and are acceptable.
C.
Generic Letter 83-02, Item 8 - RCIC Restart and RCIC Suction Transfer (II.K.3.13 and II.K.3.22)
By letters dated October 1 and December 29, 1980, the BWR Owners Group submitted evaluations on the separation of HPCI and RCIC initiation setpoints on the same low water level signal and provisions for RCIC automatic restart after a high level trip. The staff reviewed these evaluations and concurred with the BWR Owners Group and the licensee that the separation of initiation setpoints was unnecessary. The staff also concurred with the modifications necessary to allow automatic restart of RCIC following a high level trip.
By letters dated December 31, 1981, September 8, 1982, and April 21, 1983, the licensee submitted information for the modifications l
necessary to provide automatic RCIC suction transfer from the Condensate Storage Tank (CST) on CST Low level indication to the Suppression Pool. These changes were accepted by the staff by letter dated May 3, 1983.
In their letter of June 24, 1983, the licensee proposed the followup TS changes.
1.
A new Table 3.2.7 which specifies trip settings, minimum number of operable trip systems, total number of trip systems, and minimum number of operable instrument channels per trip system
.for RCIC initiation on low-low water level, HPCI/RCIC turbine shutdown on high water level, and HPCI/RCIC *"ction transfer from CST to Suppression Pool on low CST level.
2.
Additions to Table 4.2.1 which include required surveillance of CST level and reactor high water level instrumentation.
i
3.
Additions to Table 3.2.7 which include allowable trip durations i
in high reactor water level, low-low water level, and low CST level.
4.
Additions to RCIC Limiting Conditions for Operation which add the i
requirements for automatic pump suction and automatic restart on subsequent low water level after a trip on high water level and the action statements for inoperability.
5.
The bases for these new specifications were included.
We have reviewed these TSs additions and revisions for PCIC Restart and RCIC Suction Transfer and, with the following change which was also discussed with the licensee, found them to be acceptable and consistent i
with the existing TSs.
a.
In Table 4.2.1, page 61, ECCS Instrumentation Minimum Test and Calibration Frequency Once/ Day Sensor Checks was added to Item 9 Reactor High Water Level.
D.
Generic Letter 83-02, Item 9 - Isolation of HPCI and RCIC Modifications (II.K.3.15) 4 By letters dated December 30, 1980 and December 22, 1981, the licensee j
submitted plans ~and schedules to provide modifications to the RCIC system to add a time delay of 5 seconds on the RCIC isolation logic system to prevent. unwanted steamline isolations during RCIC startup.
Modifications to the HPCI system were not required.
In a letter dated j
January 6, 1983, the staff concurred with these modifications.
In their letter of June 23, 1983, the licensee submitted proposed TS changes. The change added a 5-second i 2-second time delay to item i
Sa., of Table 3.2.1, RCIC High Steam Flow. Surveillances of the time j
delay relay will be carried out with the regular RCIC High Steam Flow i
Trip surveillances specified in Table _4.2.1.
This is also consistent l
with HPCI High Steam Flow surveillances in the same table. We, therefore, find this change to be acceptable.
1 E.
Generic Letter 83-36, Item 3 - Noble Gas Effluent Monitors (II.F.1.1) l The licensee supplemented the existing normal range monitors to l
provide noble gas monitoring in accordance with Item II.F.1.1.
The l
l i
i
. proposed TSs are consistent with the guidelines provided in Generic Letter 83-36 and therefore, the staff concludes that the TSs for Item II.F.1.1 are acceptable.
F.
Generic Letter 83-36, Item 4 - Sampling and Analysis of Plant Effluents (II.F.1.2)
The guidance provided in Generic Letter 83-36 requested that an administrative program should be established, implemented and maintained to ensure the capability to collect and analyze or measure representative samples of radioactive iodines and particulates in plant gaseous effluents during and following an accident. The licensee has proposed TSs that are consistent with our guidance and therefore, the staff concludes that the TSs for sampling and analysis of plant effluents are acceptable.
G.
Generic Letter 83-36, Item 5 - Containment High-Range Radiation Monitor (II.F.1.3)
The licensee has installed two in-containment monitors in the Plant that are consistent with the guidance of TMI Action Plan Item II.F.1.3.
Generic Letter 83-36 provided guidance for limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements for these monitors. The licensee proposed TSs are consistent with the guidance provided in Generic Letter 83-36, and therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed TSs for Item II.F.1.3 are acceptable.
H.
Generic Letter 83-36, Item 6 - Containment Pressure Monitor (II.F.1.4)
The Monticello Plant has been provided with two supplementary channels for monitoring drywell pressure following an accident. The proposed TSs for drywell pressure monitor contain limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements for the monitor which are c8nsistent with the existing TSs for other accident monitoring instrumentation at the Monticello Plant. The staff, therefore, concludes that the proposeo TSs are acceptable as they meet the intent of the guidance contained in Generic Letter 83-36.
I.
Generic letter 83-36, Item 7 - Containment Water Level Monitor (II.F.1.5)
The suppression pool wide range water level monitors provide the capability required by TMI Action Plan Item II.F.1.5.
The proposed TSs for suppression pool water level monitor contain limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements for the mcnitor which are consistent with the existing TSs for other accident monitoring instrumentation at the Monticello Plant. The staff, therefore, concludes that the proposed TSs are acceptable as they meet the intent of the guidance contained in Generic Letter 83-36.
J.
Generic Letter 83-36, Item 8 - Containment Hydrogen Monitor (II.F.1.6)
The licensee installed drywell and suppression pool hydrogen monitors that provide the capability required by TMI Action Plan Item II.F.1.6.
The proposed Technical Specifications contain limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements for these monitors that are consistent with the existing TSs for other accident monitoring instrumentation at the Monticello Plant. The staff, therefore, concludes that the proposed TSs are acceptable as they meet the intent of the guidance contained in Generic Letter 83-36.
i
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements. The staff has 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 signi'icant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant.
hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding.
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusionsetforthin10CFR51.2c{c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or erivironmental 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 cf the public l
will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and therissuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
K. Ridgway and C. Patel Dated: January 22, 1986.
i i
l
_ _ _. _..