ML20059L356

Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-42 & DPR-60,revising Tech Spec Section 6.7.A.6.b

ML20059L356
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	09/13/1990
From:	Parker T NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20059L347	List: ML20059L343 ML20059L356 ML20059L358
References
NUDOCS 9009260260
Download: ML20059L356 (3)

Text

..

" ~,.

{.-

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NORTHERh STATES POWER COMPANY s

PRAIRIE ' SLAND NUCLEAR VF"'r2ATING PLANT DOCKET NO 50 282 50-306 REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO OPERATING LICENSES DPR 42 & DPR 60 LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST DATED September 13, 1990 Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, requests authorization for changes to Appendix A of the Prairie Island Operating License as shown on the attachments -labeled Exhibits A, B and C.

Exhibit A describes the proposed changes, reasons for the changes, and contains a significant hazards evaluation.

Exhibits B and C are copies of the Prairie Island Technical Specifications incorporating the proposed changes.

This letter contains no restricted or other defense information.

NORTHERN STA S POV R M ANY By 7F 2

Th6 mas M Parkei-Manager Nuclear Support Services on this /3 day oM /ggoefore me a notary public in and for said County, personally a{ipeared Thomas M Parker, Manager Nuclea-Support Services, and being first duly sworn acknowledged tha 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.

Y m A-d y

,a

~~ - sses - s _.

f7 ED) L u@PIR;CK NOI3t h14 0.M %IS01A ll AMA MATV ll Wy Commin:ori bran Sept 29,19919 a -::::. ::.. ::m.sswvw.v:::::::::;

9009260260 900913 PDR ADOCK 05000282 P

PNV

~

., - ~..

'l Exhibit A Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant License Amendment Request Dated September 13, 1990 Evaluation of Proposed Changes to the Technical Specifications Appendix A of Operating License DPR 42 and DPR 60 Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50, *ections 50.59 and 50.90, the holders of Operating Licenses DPR 42 and DPR 60 hereby propose the following changes to Appendix A.

Technical Specifications:

Pronosed Chances

. Westinghouse topical report 'WCAP 10924 P A, Westinghouse Large Break 1DCA Best Estimate Methodology, Addendum 4 to Volume 1, October, 1990" has been added to Technical Specification Section 6.7.A.6.b.

Reason For Chances The documents that describe the NRC approved analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits are specified in Technical Specification Section 6.7.A.6.b.

Westinghouse Topical Report WCAP 10924-P, Volume 1, Addendum 4, describes model revisions to the approved WCOBRA/ TRAC code to address an error found in the WCOBRA/ TRAC decay heat model. The topical was submitted for NRC review and approval by Westinghouse Electric Corporation letter dated September 5, 1990.

Following NRC review and approval, Westinghouse will f.ssue a revised topical report with the NRC Safety Evaluation Report, WCAP 10924 P A, Volume 1. Addendum 4.

We expect this to occur in October r,f this year.

This license arendment has be.,n submitted to incorporate a reference to the revised methoGologies described in WCAP 10924 P into the Prairie Island Technical Specifications following their approval by the NRC Staff. The revised er chodologies must be incorporated into Section 6.7. A.6.b so the model revisionr. can be used in the deterniination of the core operating limits.

S.afotv Evaluation and Determination of Sicnificant Hazards Considerations The proposed changes to the Operating License have been evaluated to determine whether they constitute a significant hazards consideration as required by 10 CFK Part 50, Section 50.91 using the standards provided in Section 50.92.

This stjsis is provided below:

1.

'the proposed amendment will not involve a significant increase in the_ probability or conseauences of an accident oreviousiv evaluated.

The proposed administrative change to Technical Specification Section 6.7.A 6.b incorporates a reference to a revised core analysis methodology reviewed and approved by the NRC Staff.

Because the proposed change is administrative in nature and because the revised methodology referenced in the change will have prior NRC review and approval, the proposed change will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, q

l Exhibit A Pop 2 of 2

(

i 2.

The proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident oreviousiv analyzed.

As stated. shove, the proposed change does not contribute in any way to the probabi'.ity or consequences of an accident. No safety.related equipment, safety function, or plant operations will be altered as a result of th" proposed changes. The cycle specific core operating limits will be calculated using~ the revised NRC. approved methods and submitted to the NRC. The Technical Specifications will continue to require operation within the required core operating limits and appropriate actions will be taken when or if limits are exceeded.

Therefore, the proposed amendment does not in any way create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

3.

The proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

The margin of safety is not affected by the addition of a reference to an NRC approved core analysis tuethodology to the Technical Specifications.

The margin of safety provided by the current Technical Specifications remeins unchanged.

The Technical Specifications continue to require operation within the core limits obtained from NRC approved reload design methodologies. The actions to be taken when or if limits are violated remain unchanged.

Therefore, the proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not impact the operation of the plant in a manner that involves a reduction in the margin of safety.

The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards in 10 CPR 50.92 for determining whether a significant hazards conriderstion exists by providing certain examples of amendments that will likely be found to involve no significant hazards considerations.

These ev,emples were published in the Federal Register on March 6,1986.

The changes to the prairie Island Technical Specifications proposed in this amendment request are equivalent to NRC example (i), because they involve purely administrative changes intended only to clarify existing Technical Specifications.

Based on this buidance and the reasons discussed above, we have concluded that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

Environmental Assessment This license amendment request does not change effluent types or total effluent amounts nor does it involve an increase in power level.

Therefore, this change will not result in any significant environmental impact.

1

---_---__--.--___-..-_----a__=_,___

n_.,____

,,,,__u_,a_w,,

__u____

_ _ _ _ _ _