ML20073P826
| ML20073P826 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20073P825 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9105230157 | |
| Download: ML20073P826 (2) | |
Text
.
l
@e%
s
\\
i UNITED STATES
[, 3 g
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
wumwaTow, o, c. rosss
%...* /
3 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO APENDMENT NOS. 96 AND 8 Q FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-42 Afg DPR-60 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-282 AND 50-306
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 30, 1991, Northern States Power Company (NSD or the licensee) requested amendements 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 revise the TS Section 6.2.B.4 requirements for Operations Committee review of maintenance procedures. The requirements for preparation, review, and approval of maintenance procedures will be included in a new Section 6.2.C.
which will be referenced by TS Section 6.2.B.4 2.0 EVALUATION The Prairie Island TS currently require review of maintenance procedures by the Operations Committee and also allow the use of Operations Committee subcommittees.
The time demand for the multiple responsibilities of Operations Committee members led to the use of an Operations Committee subcommittee for the review of maintenance procedures at Pr6irie island. The Prairie Island use of subcommittee review of maintenance procedures could be interpreted as being outside the requirements of the Prairie Island TS as currently written. The proposed changes are intended to meet both the neen for appropriate review of maintenance procedures and the need to restrict the time demands on the Operations Committee, and to eliminate the divergent interpretations of the existing specification.
One component of the change is the addition of the requirement for the Operatiors Committee to review safety evaluations for procedures or procedure changes to verify that such actions do not constitute an unreviewed safety question.
Previously, there has been no TS requirement for the Operations Committee to review safety evaluations related to procedures or procedure changes. However, all safety evaluations have been reviewed by the Operations Committee and the requirement for such reviews has been in the Prairie Island administrative controls associated with safety evaluations.
Safety evaluations for procedures or procedure changes will be prepared as required by 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.59.
bfboN P
i 1
l.
l The proposed change provides a review process for maintenance work requests and their associated procedures by a qualified individual and approval by the appropriate superintendent. Appropriate controls are included to assure proper qualifications of the reviewing individual and a determination of whether or not an unreviewed safety question is involved.
The staff has reviewed the proposed changes and finds that the process provides reasonable assurance that an adequate review of safety-related maintenance procedures will be available and the changes will not cause a decline in the effectiveness of the reviews of safety-related maintenance procedures.
3.0 STATE CONSULTAJ10!!
In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91(b), a state consultation was attempted. We were informed, however, that our contact no longer has any official interest in the activities of Minnesota's nuclear power plants.
By memo dated January 4, 1991 from L. B. Marsh to C. Kammerer, the NRC Office of Governmental and public Affairs was requested to identify an appropriate Minnesota contact so that state consultation may resume.
Accordingly, there was no state consultation as to this amtndment.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments involves a change in recordkeeping, reporting or administrative procedures or requirements. The Cnmmission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(10).
pursuentto10CFR51.22(b),noenvironmentalimpact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The staff 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:
A. S. Masciantonio, HRR Dated: May 9, 1991
- - -_ ______ _ _ __ _ _