ML20199J473

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amend to License DPR-42 & Proposed NSHC Determination & Opportunity for Hearing.Amend Would Initiate one-time Only Change for Pings Unit 1 Cycle 19 Allowing Use of Incore Detector Sys

ML20199J473
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	01/26/1998
From:	Wetzel B NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20199J479	List: ML20199J473
References
NUDOCS 9802050324
Download: ML20199J473 (8)

Text

.

4 7590-01-P UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REray1AT.ORY COMMISSION NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-282 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF lhSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO EACILlW OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR 42 PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDEBATION. DETERMINATION. AND OPPORTUNIN FOR A HEARING The U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Fac!Iity Operatina i iconse No. DPR-42 issued to Worthern States Power m mpany (the licensoe) for opcration of the Prairio Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1 kn mtal a t Goodhue Cot.nty, Minnv>vta.

ne propowd monndment would initiate a one-time only chance for Prairie island Unit i CA 19 that would allow tha usa of tho movoabla incore detector systern for measurement of tha.om pnking factors with low than /S% and greator than or equal to 50% of the detector 4,imbhn wailable.

Befare inuanco of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made -

findings iequired by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commiulon's regulatians.

The Commhsion has madu a proposed determination that the amendment request imers rm.ignifiwnt harants consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR no.0<, this means that oporation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment l

would not (1) involve a 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 frorn any

~

9002050324 990126 PDR ADOCK 05000282 P

PDR

-2o I

l*

aooident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a 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 i

j significant hazards consideration, which is presented beinw:

1.

The proposed amendment will not involvo a significant incrosse in the probability or consequences of an accident previoucly evaluated, d

j The proposed changes do not involve an increase in the probability of an accident i

previously evaluated. The moveable incore detector system is used only to provide i

confirmatory information on the neutron flux distribution and is not required for the daily safe operation of the core. Tim system is not a process variable that is an ir Itial conGica in the accident analyses..The only accident that the moveable incore detector system could be involved in is the breaching of the detector thimbles which would be i

i enveloped by tha small break, loss of coolant accident (LOCA) analysis. As the proposed changes do not involve any changes to the system's equipment and no equipment is operated in a new or more harmful manner, there is no increase in the probability of such an accident.

The propose' d [ amendment) would not involve en increase in the consequences of an j

accident previously evaluated._ The moveable incore detector system provides a monitoring function that is not used for accident mitigation (the system is not used in the

- primary success path for mitigation of a design basis accident). The ability of the reactor protection systoni or engineered safety foetures system instrumentation to i

mitigate the consequences of 'an accident will not be impaired by the proposed changes.

The small break LOCA analysis (and thus its consequences) continues to bound l

l potential breaching of the system's detector thimbles.

With greater than or equal to 50% and less than 75% of the detector thimbles available, core peaking factor measurement uncertainties will be increased, which could impact the core peaking factors and as a result could affect the consequences of certain accidents. However, any changes in the core peaking factors resulting from increased measurement uncertainties will be compensated for by conservative measurement uncertainty adjustments in the Technical Specifications to ensure that pertinent oore -

design parameters are maintained. Suffiebnt additional penalty is added to the power distribution measurements such that this change will not impact the consequences of -

any accident previously evaluated.

Therefore, based on the conclusions of the above analysis, the proposed changes will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2.

The proposed ame?,dment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed.

4 J

l

.__.__.u.a._-.,_

r 3-The proposed [ amendment) wouH not create the possibility of a new or different kind of a

accident previously evaluated as [it) only affect [s] the minimum complement of equipment necessary for opembility of the moveable incore detector system. There is m

no change in plant configuration, equipment or equipment design. No equipment is q

operated in a new manner. Thus the chan ges will not create any new or different 4

accident causal mechanisms. The accideric analysis in the Updated Safety Analysis Report remains bounJing.

Therefore, based on the conclusions of the at,ove analysis, the proposed changes wl:1 not create the possiblirty of a r- # or different kind of accident.

[

3.

The proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

\\

}-

The proposed changes wi!! not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safe reduction in the mMimum complement of equipment necessary for the operab3' moveable in: ore detector system could only impact the monitoring /c~libration 1 of the system. Reduction of the number of available moveableine

.etector t. iioles to the 50% level does not significantly degrade the ability of the sp m to measure core power distributions. With prsetcr than c eqtial to 50% and less than 75% r.f the detector thimbles available, core peaking factor measurement uncertainties will be increased, but will be compensated for by conservativa measuiement uncertainty adjustments in the Technical Specifications to ensure that pertinent core design parameters are maintained. Gufficient additional penalty is added to the power distribution truaurements such that this change does not impact the safety margins wh'ch currently exist. Also, the reduction of available detector thimbles has negligible impact on the quadrant power tilt and core average axial power shape measurements.

Sufficient detector thimbles wlIl be available to ensure that no quadrant will be unmenitored.

Based on these factors, the proposed changes in this license amendment will not result in a significant reduction in the plant's margin of safety, as the core will continue to be adequately monitored.

The NRC staff has tsviewed the licanses's analysir and, based on 'his review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.g2(c) are satished. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the emndment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

i F

f i

4-The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publica"on of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

Normally, the Commission will not issue ihe amendment until the expiration of the 30-day notice perbd. 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 30-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 commants received. Should the Commission take this action, it wi'l publiah in the FEDERAL REG.3TER a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequentiy.

Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Admir.istrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite fw publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER not;ce. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two WhP Tiint North,11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m.

to 4:15 p.m Federal workdays. Cop!es of written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, the Gelman Building,2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.

The filing of requests for Maring and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.

By March 2,1998, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participe.te as a party in the

5 proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene.

Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission'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 availabic at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building,212') L Street, NW., Washington,

.)C, and at the local public document room located at the Minneapolis Public Library, Technology and Science Department,300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401. If a request for a heering or petition for leave to interve.ie is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atoinic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atemic Safety and Licensing Board Pane!, will rule on the request and/or E

petition; and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Lice : sing Board willissue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene t. hall set fe th with panicularity the iriterest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affec.ted by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to tha following factors: (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioners p.operty, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioners interest.

The petition should also identify the specme aspect (c) of the susject matter of the proceang 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 mu m m

6-of the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing confererice 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 sought to be litigated in the matter Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or feet 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 intends to rely in provir,g the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is i

sware 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 must be cno 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.

Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceecling, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervsne, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to preseni ev;dence and cross-examine witnesses.

a

• If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the maring is held.

W the final determination is that P.e amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstan: ling the request Sr r. hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the enendment.

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 Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulator Nmmission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attentior.. Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building,2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by close of business on the above date. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the-Office of 4 e General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to Jay Silberg; Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037, attomey br 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 Commission, the presiding officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that f.he -

petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the factors spec;fied in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).

M

(....

l 8-0 For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated January 15,1998, which is available for public inspection at the Commitsion's Public Document Room, the Gelman 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, Minneipolis, Minnesota 55401.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of January 19E8.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (da O.

Beth A. Wetzel, Ser.ior Project Manager Project Directorate lil-1 Division of Reactor Projects - til/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

(

__