ML20058H015

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 109 & 102 to Licenses DPR-42 & DPR-60,respectively

ML20058H015
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	12/03/1993
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20058H005	List: ML20058H002 ML20058H015
References
NUDOCS 9312100231
Download: ML20058H015 (2)

Text

,

n I.

guavg i

UNITED STATES

$33[).. j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.Ii WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055E4001 sy... +,j SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. im AND w TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-42 AND DPR-60 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT. UNIT NOS. I AND 2 t

I DOCKET NOS. 50-282 AND 50-306 r

1.0 INTRODUCTION

i By letter dated July 29, 1993, the Northern States Power Company (NSP or the licensee) requested amendments to the Technical Specifications (TS) appended to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60 for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2.

The proposed amendments would incorporate references to the revised methodologies described in WCAP-13677 and NSPNAD-93003 into the Prairie Island TS.

2.0 EVALUATION The proposed administrative change to TS Section 6.7.A.6.b would incorporate references to two revised core analysis methodologies. The first methodology, WCAP-13677-A, "10 CFR 50.46 Evaluation Model Report: )(COBRA / TRAC Two-Loop Upper Plenum Injection Model Updates to Support Zirlo Cladding Option m

(April 1993)," is an update of the original Westinghouse COBRA / TRAC two-loop t

t upper plenum injection large break loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) model which supports the ZIRLO" cladding option. This method was approved by the NRC staff in a Safety Evaluation (SE) dated November 26, 1993. The second methodology, NSP report NSPNAD-93003-A, " Prairie Island Units 1 and 2, Transient Power Distribution Methodology," was developed by NSP to generate V(z) curves applied to cycle specific or generic operations. This method was approved by the NRC staff in a SE dated July 16, 1993.

Accordingly, the proposed amendments are acceptable.

3.0 STATE CONSULTATION

In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Minnesota State Official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State Official had no comments.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a i

facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR 9312100231 931203 PDR ADOCK 05000282 P

PDR

i Part 20. The NRC staff his determined that the amendments involve 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 significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (58 FR 43929). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance i

of the amendments.

5.0 CONCLUSION

i The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:

(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor:

C. Bajwa Date: Ibceter 3,1993 I

o I

I l

--