ML120620396

Request for Additional Information, License Amendment Request, Revise Technical Specifications to Implement a 24-Month Fuel Cycle and Adopt Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-493, Revision 4, Option a

ML120620396
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	03/02/2012
From:	Lynnea Wilkins Plant Licensing Branch IV
To:	Mccutchen E Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)
Wilkins, L E, NRR/DORL/LPL4, 415-1377
Shared Package
ML120620391	List: ML120620392 ML120620396
References
TAC ME7169
Download: ML120620396 (1)

Text

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR IMPLEMENTING A 24-MONTH FUEL CYCLE AND ADOPTION OF TSTF-493, REVISION 4, OPTION A NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT COOPER NUCLEAR STATION DOCKET NO. 50-298 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-46 By letter dated September 16, 2011 (Agencywide Documents Access and Mangement System Accession No. ML11264A165, Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD, the licensee) submitted a license amendment request (LAR) to revise the technical specifications (TS) for Cooper Nuclear Station (Cooper). The proposed LAR would implement 24 month fuel cycle and adopt TSTF-493, Revision 4, Option A. Specifically, the change addresses certain TS Surveillance Requirement frequencies that are specified as 18 months by revising them to 24 months in accordance with the guidance provided in NRC Generic Letter (GL) 91-04.

1. TS SR 3.8.4.8 provides a surveillance requirement of 18 months instead of 12 months for completing the performance discharge tests. It is the NRC staffs position that SR 3.8.4.8 should be consistent with industry standard IEEE 450-1995, Recommended Practice for Maintenance, Testing, and Replacement of Vented Lead-Acid Batteries for Stationary Applications, Section 5.2.(c) which recommends Annual performance tests of battery capacity should be made on any battery that shows signs of degradation or has reached 85% of the service life expected for the application. Degradation is indicated when the battery capacity drops more than 10% from its capacity on the previous performance test, or is below 90% of the manufacturers rating.

Please provide the technical basis that justifies why an 18 month surveillance requirement is acceptable as opposed to at least once per 12 months.

2. Sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 of Attachment 1 to the LAR describe emergency core cooling system and Low-Low Set instrumentation whose current setpoint calculations do not bound the projected 30 month drift values and require revised allowable values.

Calculations were not provided for these new allowable values.

Please submit one of the revised setpoint calculations for review. In addition, please submit the corresponding drift analysis with sufficient supporting documentation as to confirm adherence to the Instrument Drift Analysis Design Guide in Enclosure 1 of the LAR.

3. Please provide additional detail on the surveillance test history for the emergency core cooling system (ECCS). Attachment 5 page 16 of the LAR provides details for five ECCS Technical Specification failures. Please provide the total number of surveillance tests considered or the percentage of the surveillance tests that those 5 failures represent.

ENCLOSURE