ML20138J293
| ML20138J293 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1997 |
| From: | Wetzel B NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138J296 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9702060383 | |
| Download: ML20138J293 (11) | |
Text
- -.
7590-01-P UtilIED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COP 94ISSION JgEJHERN STATES POWER COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-282 AND 50-306 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES. PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION. AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering I
issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60 issued to Northern States Power Company (the licensee), for operation of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Goodhue
]
{
County, Minnesota.
l The proposed amendments would change the Bases for the technical specifications and the licensing basis for the operating licenses relating to the cooling water system emergency intake line flow capacity. The licensee determined through testing that the emergency inte.e line flow capacity was less than the design value stated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (USAR). The proposed changes reflect the use of operator actions to control cooling water system flow following a seismic event. The proposed changes also reclassify the intake canal for use during a seismic event, which wouM be an additional source of c:oling water during a seismic event.
In its letter dated January 29, 1997, the licensee requested that this amendment be reviewed under exigent circumstances.
Prairie Island Unit 2 shut down for refueling on January 25, 1997, and is scheduled to restart on l
March 5, 1997. Without review and approval of this license amendment request 9702060383 970203 l
PDR ADOCK 05000282 l
P PDR
l.
. by the end of the Unit 2 outage, Prairie Island would be prevented from resumption of plant operation.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Comission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must det n ine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the i
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a l
1 significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a l
significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
1.
The proposed amendment will not involve a significant increase in l
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
l l
Probability l
The accident of concern for this issue is a seismic event. None of the proposed changes can have any effect on the probability of a seismic l
event.
Consea u,,ces (1) The intake canal has been evaluated for stability during a l
l postulated seismic event. The results of the evaluation demonstrates that the banks of the canal will not liquefy or lose strength during the event. Therefore, taking credit for the intake canal stability does not increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
T 4
(2) The use of operator action for systems important to safety to perform properly has been evaluated. There are adequate indications to allow the operator to recognize the occurrence of the event. A procedure provides guidance to the operator for reducing cooling water system demand. This procedure is available in the control room and all actions are accomplished in the control room. Adequate time is available for the operator to perfom the tasks and to get feedback on the actions' success or failure. The operators have been trained on the use of the procedure and continuing training is planned. Therefore, the use of operator action does not significantly increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(3) The potential for operator acts of omission or commission while reducing cooling water system demand has been evaluated.
An operator act of omission while initially performing the procedure to reduce cooling water flow could result in cooling water system demand exceeding the emergency intake line capacity. However, due to the long time period within which the procedure must be implemented, control room management oversight and control room indications and alarms, it is unlikely that this condition would not be corrected.
Three types of operator aets of commission while performing the i
procedure to reduce cooling water flow were considered.
(1) Acts which could increase flow and damage the cooling water pumps are not credible since the cooling water system flow is assumed to be near its maximum due to loss of the instrument air and non-safeguards power when the earthquake occurs.
(2) Acts which would reduce flow l
to systems required for safe shutdown of the plant were evaluated.
These acts would bo indicated by control room alarms and corrected j
or out-plant actions would be required which involves more than a l
simple act of commission, thus, loss of function of supportec systems due to loss of cooling water flow is not considered credible.
(3) Acts which isolate a cooling water pump incorrectly were considered. This is a long term wear issue, but not a pump failure issue.
Operator acts of omission or commission have also been evaluated probat:ilistically. This evaluation demonstrated that the j
probability of an act of omission or. commission is comparable to or j
less than other operator evolutions which have previously been licensed for effective perfomance of systems important to safety.
This compliments the conclusions from the deterministic evaluation j
that these changes do not involve a significant increase in the j
probability of a previously evaluated accident.
j Therefore, the potential of an operator act of omission or l
commission does not significantly increase the consequences of an j
accident previously evaluated.
i !
l 2.
The proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed.
The Cooling Water System is provided in the plant to mitigate act.yents l
and it is not a design basis accident initiator, thus these propoied i
changes do not increase the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
l The consideration of operator acts of omission or comunission is limited l
to those acts arising from performance of the cooling water load j
management procedure. The evaluation of these actions showed that a new 1
l or different type of accident is not created.
In total, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated would not be created by these changes to the plant licensing basis or amendments to the Cooling Water Technical Specifications.
i 3.
The proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety, 1
The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the current Technical Specifications requirements for safe operation of the Prairie Island plant are maintained or increased.
Plant margin of safety may be reduced by the reduced flow capacity of the emergency intake line. However, plant margin is restored by the remedial operator actions which preserve safe plant operation. Analysis shows that the intake canal will not fail during a seismic event and thus sufficient time for reducing cooling water system demand is provided. The procedure for reducing cooling water demand has been i
demonstrated on the plant simulator and operators have been trained.
This >rocedure can be performed entirely from the control room. Thus, the c1anges proposed in this license amendment request do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. Additionally, probabilistic evaluation compliments the conclusion that the likelihood for successful reduction of the cooling water system flow is very high.
]
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the l
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1 1
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comunents received within 15 days after the date of l
I l
r-
.. publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 15-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 15-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received.
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the FEDERAL REGISTER a notice of issuance.
The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, the l
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
By March 10, 1997, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility l
\\
l operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene.
Reqwsts for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Comission's " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2.
Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is available at the Comission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, l
DC, and at the local public document room located at the Minneapolis Public Library, Technology and Science Department, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Comission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Comission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors:
(1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
The petition should also identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the l
. proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such l
an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
l Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference l
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are 4
sought to be litigated in the matter.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted.
In addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner l
intends'to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the. petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion.
Petitioner must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention i
must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
i l
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the i
I
. opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
If the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no i
significant hazards consideration.
If a hearing is requested, the final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Comission may issue the amendment and make it imediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Docketing and Services Branch, or may be delivered to the Comission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by the above date. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the Comission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri l-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the following message addressed to John N. Hannon, Director, Project Directorate III-1:
petitioner's name and telephone number, date petition was mailed, plant name, and publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. A copy of the petition
' j should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to Jay Silberg, Esq.,
l Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC l
20037, attorney for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Comission, the presiding officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated January 29, 1997, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelr.an Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room, located at the Minneapolis Public Library, Technology and Science Department, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of February 1997.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION Q.
Beth A. Wetzel, Project Manager Project Directorate 111-1 Division of Reactor Projects -III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
~_
c
. E 4
Contribution
)
Docket File PD3-1 r/f
]
BWetzel i
CJamerson j
)
February 3,1997 1
MEMORANDUM TO:
Rules Review and Directives Branch i
Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services 1
Office of Administration FROM:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AtiN DMENTS TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES, PROPORED ho SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION & OPPOREIN 1Y F04 HEARING-PI NUCLEAR GENERATlhE R, UNITS 1&2 (TAC NOS. H97816/:4"^' 7) M97817)
One signed original of the Feders/ Register Notice identified below is attached for your transmittal i
to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. Additional conformed copies ( 5
) of the Notice are enclosed for your use.
l Notice of Receipt of Application for Construction Permit (s) and Operating License (s).
[ Time for submission of Views on Antitrust matters. Notice of Receipt of Partial Application fo)
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License. (Call with 30-day insert date).
Notice of Receipt of Application for Facility License (s); Notice of Availability of Applicant's l
Environmental Report; and Notice of Consideration of issuance of Facility License (s) and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing.
i Notice of Availability of NRC Draft / Final Environmental Statement.
Notice of Limited Work Authorization.
O Notice of Availability of Safety Evaluation Report.
Notice of issuance of Construction Permit (s).
Notice of lasuance of Facility Operating License (s) or Amendment (s).
Order.
Exemption.
Notice of Granting Exemption.
Environmental Assessment.
Notice of Preparation of Environmental Assessment.
Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
Issuance of Final Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
[ Other: ploam en11 Shirlov ne der 415-1340 or Beth Uetzel on 415-1355 with a 30 day date.
G DOCKET NO* 50-282 and 50-306
~l r'
Attachment (s): As stated
Contact:
h zel
)
Telephone:
1 DOCUMENT NAME:
G:WPDOCSbPRAIRIEPI97816.EXI
. Te seoehm a copy of this document, indicate in the x:
- C* =
py without ettechmentienclosure
'E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure
- N" = No copy OFFICE PD3-1/DRPW I
I I I I
I I
ME i
g 3== = g g, DATE l
C
- .y O_.
j 1
Contribution Docket File l
PD3-1 r/f i
BWetzel CJamerson j
February 3,1997 l
MEMORANDUM TO:
Rules Review and Directives Branch Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services Office of Administration FROM:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AM92DriENTS TO FACILITY OPERATING 4
LICENSES, PROPORED N0 SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION & OPP 0fiWEIY F0(
3 HEARING-PI NUCLEAR GENERATIrit RE, UNITS 1&2 (TAC NOS. t197816/:.Z7) M97817)
One signed original of the FederalRegister Notice identified below is attached for your transmittal to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. Additional conformed copies ( 5
) of the j
Notice are enclosed for your use.
1 Notice of Receipt of Application for Construction Permit (s) and Operating License (s).
Notice of Receipt of Partial Application for Construction Permit (s) and Facility License (s):
Time for submission of Views on Antitrust matters.
Notice of Consideration of issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License. (Call with 30-day insert date).
Notice of Receipt of Application for Facility License (s): Notice of Availability of Applicant's Environmental Report; and Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility License (s) and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing.
Notice of Availability of NRC Draft / Final Environmental Statement.
Notice of Limited Work Authorization.
Notice of Availability of Safety Evaluation Report.
Notice of issuance of Construction Permit (s).
Notice of issuance of Facility Operating License (s) or Amendment (s).
Order.
Exemption.
Notice of Granting Exemption.
[ Environmental Assessment.
Notice of Preparation of Environmental Assessment.
Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
Issuance of Final Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206.
i
[ Other: ploam call Shirlev nn M 415-1340 er Beth Uetzel on 415-1355 with a 30 day date.
C DOCKET NO. 50-282 and 50-306
/
Attachment (s): As stated
Contact:
g g zel Telephone:
DOCUMENT NAME:
G:WPDOCS PRAIRIE P197816.EXI Tm receive a copy of this document indicate in the ox: ' C' =
py without attachment / enclosure
'E" = Copy wtth attachment / enclosure
- N* = No copy OFFICE PD3-1/DRPW l
l l
l l
l NME ghcr cr.
- DATE, OFFICIAL RECORD COPY L_