ML20129E352
| ML20129E352 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129E316 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-56614, TAC-56615, NUDOCS 8507160791 | |
| Download: ML20129E352 (2) | |
Text
.
aux f"
L k
UNITED STATES
.f 7,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' r.
8 wasHWGTON, D, C,20555
.,.....,o SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION J.
. RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 74 AND 67 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-42 AND DPR-60 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY I
PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-282 AND 50-306 I
Introduction By letters dated December 21, 1984 and March 14, 1985, Northern States Power Company (NPS), the licensee for Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2, requested changes to the Technical Specifications appended to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60, which would j
remove the temporary restriction on transporting a spent fuel shipping cask over the southeast corner of spent fuel pool No.1 or placing it in that i
quadrant. We have reviewed the existing Prairie Island Technical Specifications 3.8.B.1 and 5.6.A B, and C as well as the proposed change j
and supporting documentation to these Technical Specifications. Further, we have examined the applicability of the staff's previous findings regarding handling (of a spent fuel shipping cask as stated in the staff's safety evaluation SE)datedMay 13, 1981 (License Amendment Nos. 48 and 42 for Prairie Island Units 1 and 2, respectively).
Evaluation l
In the May. 13, 1981 SE, the staff imposed a temporary limitation on the movement of heavy loads, which included the spent fuel shipping cask, over spent fuel pool No.1 (i.e., "No heavy loads will be transported over or placed in either part of the spent fuel pool when irradiated fuel is stored in that part."). The primary purpose of this restriction was to protect the fuel assemblies located in pool No. I from damage due to the potential dropping of heavy loads during the construction period of the spent fuel pool expansion. This construction period is now over and the movement of heavy loads has been reduced to the movement of the spent fuel pool shipping cask. By letters dated December 21, 1984 and March 14, 1985, the licensee provided a load drop analysis for the shipping casks to be carried 1
over the spent fuel pool. Further, the licensee stated that the postulated drop of the spent fuel shipping cask was evaluated in accordance with the guidelines of NUREG-0612, " Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants."
This analysis included a confirmation that a postulated cask drop will not result in 1) fuel damage which causes an unacceptable release of l
radioactivity 2) a criticality condition within the storage racks, 3) uncovery of stored spent fuel, or 4) damage to safe shutdown equipment as i
i prescribed in Section 5.1 of NUREG-0612. Additionally, specific procedures
}
0507160791 850626 PDR ADOCK 05000202 P
ppg
-, - - ~ ~ _,
.._,,m__-,-_,.,..,,.,--...--,,,,,,,-,,m,,,--,.~-~_-,-,--.-4.---.,
--- -,--.,,~.,. _
, and safe load paths have been developed for movement of the shipping cc-over pool No.1. The staff has reviewed the licensee's cask drop anal
.s c
and identified safe loads and finds them to be in accordance with the acceptance criteria of SRP Section 9.1.5 and the guidelines of NUREG-0612 and are acceptable. Therefore, the restriction on the movement of a cask over the spent fuel pool is no longer necessary. The staff concludes that the proposed changes to Technical Specifications 3.8.B and 5.6 are acceptable.
Environmental Consideration These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has 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 Comission has previously published a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 651.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 551.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
Conclusion We have 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: June 26, 1985 Principal Contributor:
A. Singh
.