ML19332E218
| ML19332E218 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1989 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19332E205 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8912060381 | |
| Download: ML19332E218 (2) | |
Text
m 1
i 9
4,
4 i
boron concentration with the predicted value. The TS was
. modified so that the comparison will be done monthly, thus, defining the word " periodically" existing in the TS.
.The staff concludes that all proposed changes to the surveillance require-j ments in section TS 4 as described above will not alter or adversely j
affect the LCO's in section TS 3.0.
In addition, these proposed changes
)
will not adversely impact the margin of safety nor change the results of 1
the hazards analyses associated with the potential accidents addressed in 4
the Prairie Island updated. safety analysis reports. We also find the-proposed changes are consistent with the STS, On this basis, the staff j
finds the proposed changes to section TS 4 acceptable.
XVI. Section 5.0 -- Design Features The licensee, by letter dated December 18, 1987, submitted an amendment request
-that would change the description of the design features in section TS 5.0 of l
the TS.
The design section TS 5.1 (Site) describes the emergency procedure that will necessitate plant N tdown for flood water levels above +692 ft mean sea level (MSL).
The emerge a proceoure is to assure the proper erection of flood i
L protection panels and assure an orderly shutdown of the plant and protecting i
i the safety-related facilities. The TS 5.1 describes the procedures requiring i
periodic drills to test the flood protection measures.
The periodic drills l
were described in the 15 as including the erection of flood protection panels.
The licensee has proposed to change the emergency procedure to require the L
inspecticn of flood protection measures instead of performing periodic drills.
l Consequently, the description of the emergency procedure in section 5 of the~ TS would be changed accordingly.
By letter dated March 31, 1989, the licensee withdrew the amendment request as requested by the staff, since the proposed change would be within the scope of this amendment request. The change to the TS is an administrative change to reflect the change.to the emergency procedure.
However, the licensee will treat the safety evaluation of the emergency pro-
-cedure within the scope of 10 CFR 50.59.
The safety evaluation subaitted to justify the amendment request would also serve as justification for changes to the eniergercy procedure under 10 CFR 50.59.
The staff has reviewed the emergency procedures and has determined most of the tasks that would be executed are typical operating steps that can normally be carried out by plant personnel without the need of drills. We agree with the
' licensee that sandbagging and installation of bulkheads are not considered typical operations that would be frequently carried out by the plant personnel.
Sandbagging is considered a basic task that will not require drills and the installation of the bulkhead will be adequately addressed in the annual inspection of the flood protection measures.
In addition, the licensee has committed as part of the periodic inspection of the flood protection measures to develop and implement detailed procedures that will list each bulkhead individually and provide step-by-step actions necessary for bulkhead installation.
Based on the above evaluation, we find the proposed change to TS 5.1, involving the replacement of the reference to periodic drills with the inspection of flood protecticn measures, is acceptable.
89120603e1 993399 fDR ADOCK 05000282 PDC
pn >
XV11. Section TS 6.7 - Administrative As part of the TS upgrade the licensee proposed changes to section 6.7 G
" Reporting Requirements" which is part of the adn.inistrative section.
The f
following _ evaluation addresses the specific changes proposed by the licer.see.
- 1..
NSP_has reorganized Section TS 6.7, Reporting Requirements. The reorganiza-tion revised section TS 6.7. A by establishing a separate category titled "Anr.ual Report" and including within that category two other reports that were required annually and adding a third item that was previously in sectionTS3.1.D.4(seebelow).
No reports currently required were
' deleted by this proposed change. We find this change acceptable as no reports were deleted and the reorganization of this section conforms more closely to the Standard Technical Specifications, i
2.
HSP has noved the Primary Coolant Iodine Spike Report requirenent from section TS 3.1.D.4 into the new category of Annual Report. This change also rmoves the requirement to shut down if the 1.0 raicrocurie per gram Dese Equivaler.t.1-131 limit for a-cunulative time of 500 hours0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br /> in any six-conths is exceeded, and revises the reporting frequency from a 30-day report tc the annuc1 report.. We find this change acceptable since it meets the guidance provided in Generic Letter 85-19, Reporting Requirements en Prirary Coclant lodine Spikes.
3.
MSP has also made several editorial changes to update to current NRC titles. We find these changes acceptable es they are editorial in nature.
XVIll.
Bases Sections 2,,,3 3,d,4 The Bases norcally serve to interpret and to technically justify the require-L rents nf the TS related to the LC0 and the surveillance addressed throughout the body of the TS. The licensee proposed changrs to the Eases of the TS to reflect changes propcsed in TS sections TS 2.0, TS 3.0, TS 4.0 and TS 6.7 and cther adr..inistrative changes serving to assist plant operators to inter pret l
requirercents of the TS. Ttt Eases that rcw appear throughout various secticos l
cf the TS have been consolidated into three sections and relocated behind l
Sectior 6.0 in the back of the TS. Typical administrative changes update I
references by using the USAR rather than the FSAR title and ed iguous state-l rents have been removed or modified. The staff reviewed all of the proposed-changes for possible misinterpretation that could lead to a relaxation of the TS requirements. One proposed change involves relocating the requirement appearing in TS section TS 3.1.B (heatup and cooldown) to the Bases section.
Specifically, TS 3.1.B.3, requiring the secondary side of the steam generator i-must not be pressurized above 200 psig if the temperature of the vessel is beloy 70*F, would no longer be considered a requirement since under the proposed change this requirement would be transferred to the bases section. A L
relaxation of the TS would result since this will no longer be considered a requirement if located in the bases. The staff considers TS 3.1.B.3 an LCO and requested that it remain in the TS section as TS 3.1.B.3.(c) with the appro-priate action statements. Several rinor editorial changes to further clarify the Eases were also requested by the staff.
Other minor editorial changes to the Dases were necessary to assure compatibility with modificaticn to other sections (i.e. LCO's surveillance, etc.) of the TS. The n.cdifications and the minor editorial changes were agreed to by the licensee.