ML20086Q091
| ML20086Q091 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 12/13/1991 |
| From: | Parker T NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20086Q086 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9112270377 | |
| Download: ML20086Q091 (3) | |
Text
-
4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION NORTilERN STATES POWER COMPANY PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET NO. 50 282 50-306 REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO OPERATING LICENSES DPR 42 AND 60 LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST DATED December 13, 1991 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, describes the reasons for the changes, and contains a significant hazards evaluation.
Exhibit B are copies of the Prairie Island Technical Specifications incorporating the proposed changes, Exhibit D contains the Control Room liabitability Toxic Chemical Study.
This letter contains no restricted or other defense information.
NORTilERN ATE PO R OMPANY M/m
~/M/
By / 'Thom'al'14 Parker Manager Nuclear Support Services
/ N before me a notary public in and onthis/8 ay of adC for said County, pTrsonally appeared Thomas M Parker, Manager Nuclear Support Services, and being first duly sworn acknowledged that he is authorized to execute this document on behalf of Northern States Power Company, that he knows the contents thereof, and that tot he best of his knowledge, information, and belief the statements made in it are true an that it is not interposed for delay, L.
v mwww:::::::::::::::: ::::::::s MARDA K La00Rf NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA i
4CNNEP:N COUNTY My Con acn Erpires Sept 74,1933 W ;;;;;;::::::::::::::NAwwwewa 0112: 7 077 11: 1,
DO ADna: 00.OO r.c; i
T' PDR
4 Exhibit A
' PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT License Amendment Request dated December 13, 1991 Evaluation of Proposed Changes to the Technical Specifications for Operating Licenses DPR 42 and 60 Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.59 and 50.90, the holders of Operating Licenses DPR 42 and 60 request the following change:
Proposed Chance Delete Section 3.13.B. Chlorine Detection Systems Reason for the Change Chlorine is no longer stored on the Prairie Island site.
Cnlorine was used as a water treatment to minimize biological growth in the plant cooling water systems. A new hypochlorite and sodium bromide system has been installed to treat-the cooling water system.
The two chemicals are combined before injection to the cooling water system to form hypobromous acid which provides an effective biocide control.
The chlorine detection system has not performed well.
The system' has _ not been as reliable as required for a Technical Specification system.
The monitors have required extensive maintenance, The chlorine detection system has been the subject of many Licensee Event Reports as.well as the subject of many discussions with NRC Region III. Therefore, following the removal of the chlorine source from the site. a new toxic chemical study was performed (See Exhibit D) toisee if there was justification for removal of the detection system from the Technical Specifications.
The new Control Room Habitability Toxic Chemical Study concluded that no chlorine detection system is necessary.
The study included a new survey of use and transportation of hazardous materials near the Prairie Island plant.
Two chemicals (chlorine and anhydrous ammonia) could not be eliminated with the use of standard conservative regulatory guide methods.
For these two chemicals, the study. concluded that Prairie Island could meet the requirements of NUREG 0800, Standard Review Plan, Sectior. 2.2.3 without the Chlorine
-Detection system.
The probability of exceeding 10 CFR' Pe-t 100 release
. requirements was. calculated to be approximately 10'7 per year.
This
. probability meets the' requirements of NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan, Section 2.2.3 and Regulatory Guide 1.70. - The analysis is conservative althaugh more realistic than standard regulatory guide methods.
If this change is approved, the Chlorine Detection System may be lef t in place, replaced'by a different system or removed altogether.
At this time a l
l
Exhibit A December 13, 1991 Page 2 final decision has not been made.
The proposed Technical Specifications are written with the assumption that the detectors are removed.
Determination of Sicnificant liaratps Considerations The proposed changes to the operating License has been evaluated to determine
. hether it constitutes a significant hazards consideration as required by 10 w
CFR Part 50, Section 50,91 using the standards provided in Section 50.92, This analysis is provided below:
1.
The proposed amendment will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Toxic chemical releases have been shown to have such a low probability of occurrence that they are not a safety concern.
The attached analysis demonstrates compliance with the NRC Standard Review Plan, The lack of chlorine detection might impact a toxic spill accident if it were to occur but the probability has been shown to be below established levels of concern, 2.
The proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or differenc kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed, The removal of toxic chemical instruments will not create the possibility of a new kind of accident or different kind of accident.
3.
The proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction'in the margin of safety, The. margin of safety will not be significantly reduced by the removal of
-these-instruments, Established margins--of-safety have been met or exceeded as demonstrated by analysis, Based-the_ reasons discussed above,- we have concluded that the proposed changes do-not1 involve a significant hazards consideration.
Environmental Assessment-I This-license amendment request does not change effluent types or total effluent amounts nor does it involve an increase in power-level, The changes are administrative in nature.
Therefore, this amendment will not result in any environmental impact.
-