ML20114D073

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 101 & 94 to Licenses DPR-42 & DPR-60,respectively

ML20114D073
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	08/20/1992
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20114D069	List: ML20114D067 ML20114D073
References
NUDOCS 9209040125
Download: ML20114D073 (3)

Text

- -.

l a

i' i

/pa nicg1 i

3" UNITED STATES 3

E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t

Yo

[

WASHINGTON; D C. 2M55 4.....h 4

SAFETY EVALVATION BY-THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIQH l

REl ATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.101 AND 94 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-42 AND DPR-60 f-

@ RTHERN STATES POWER C6MPANY PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT. UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 i

l DQ KET NOS. 50-282 AND 50-306 t

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated June 15, 1992, Northern States Power Company (the. licensee) submitted an application to amend the Technica'. Specifications (TS).

The application requests-changes that-would implement Generic Letter 87-09 provisions relating to missed surveillances and applicability of action requirements.-

2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALVATION Discussion: Generic Letter e7-09, " Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of the Standard j

Technical Specifications (STS) on the Applicability of Limiting Conditions for i:

Operation and Surveillance Requirements," identifies. improvements to Section 4.0 of the Standard Technical Specifications which may be requested by j

licensees as amendments to facility Technical Specifications. One of_the improvements described in Generic Letter.87-09, revised-Standard Technical' Specification-4.0.3 to clarify when a missed surveillance constitutes a -

violation of the' operability requirements of a Limiting Conditions for i:

Operation (LCO) and to clarify the applicability of the-action requirements l-and the time during which the limits-apply.

L Tha proposed changes to the f rairie Island Technical Specifications requested-in response to Generic Letter 87-09 are described below.

A.

In the Table of contents,_ the page number for "4.0 SURVEILLANCE l

REQUIREMENTS" would' be changed from _"4.1-1" to "4.0-1"' to reflect the new Section 4.0 described below.

B.

Section 4.0 would be relocated.and reformatted _to be consistent with-Section 3.0,~which was~ incorporated.into the Prairie Island. Technical Specifications by License-Amendment Nos. 91.and 84.-

The' requirements of.'

the current Section 4.0 would be relocated to Specification 4.0.A and be-expanded to include a statement similar to Standard Technical F

Specification 4.0.2 which states' that surveillance-requirements shall be

. performed within the specified time intervals.

The curret Section 4.0 J

requirements would be incorporated, with only editorial changes, into the-I 9209040125 920820' DR ADOCK 05000282-

.PDR

.a.

..a,_

..u...~.

.. ~..

t 1 new Specification 4.0.A as exceptions to the requirement that surveillances shall be performed within the specified time interval.

These exceptions allow a plus or minus 25% to accommodate normal test schedules, with the further exception that intervals specified as refueling shutdowns not exceed two years.

The proposed Specification 4.0. A will more clearly state the requirements for completion of surveillance requirements and the allowed exceptions to those requirements.

A new Specification 4.0.B would be incorporated into Section 4.0 to add Standard Technical Specificction Section 4.0.3 requirements, as modified by Generic Letter 87-09, to the Prairie Island Technical Specifications.

The incorporation of the proposed Specification 4.0.B would allow a delay of up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> >

Tre implementation of action requirements following discovery of a mi

rveillance, thereby, giving the licensee time to complete the overu.o arveillance. Also, 4.0.8 would clarify that Surveillance Requirements need not be performed on inoperable equipment.

Standard Technical Specifications related to mode changes, also identified in GL 87-09, are not included in the proposed amendment.

Evaluation: The NRC Staff concluded in Generic Letter 87-09, after taking several factors into account, that 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> would be an acceptable time limit for completing a missed surveillance when the allowed out-of service times of the action requirements are less than this time limit or when shutdown action requirements apply.

The NRC Staff concluded that the 24-hour time limit would balance the risks associated with an allowance for completing the surveillance within this period-against the risks associated with the potential for a plant upset and challenge to safety systems when the alternative is a shutdown to comply with action requirements before the surveillance can be completed.

Based on the conclusion of Generic Letter 87-09 cited above, and the licensee's satisfactory past performance recor:i with respect to timely compliance with Technical Specifications surveillance requirements, the staff concludes that the requested amendments are acceptable and should be granted.

3.0 STATE CONSULTATION

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

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The amendments change requirements with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves 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 (57 FR 30254). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth ir. 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 of the amendments.

4

5.0 CONCLUSION

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

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

Principal Contributor:

W. Long Date: August 20, 1992 i

h 1

,.. - ~. -

,