ML20041G344
| ML20041G344 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041G342 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-42227, TAC-47003, TAC-47004, NUDOCS 8203220104 | |
| Download: ML20041G344 (2) | |
Text
. -
5 o
a
/pR *f Ges n
UNITED STATES I ( ; en '%j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
,J
.E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\%6 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 77 TO LICENSE NO. DPR-46 I
NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT DOCKET NO.50-29T) s COOPER NUCLEAR STATION i
Author:
K. T. Eccleston Introduction As a result of events involving common cause failures of Scram Discharge Volume (SDV) limit switches and SDV drain valve operability, the NRC staff i
issued IE Bulletin 80-14 on June 12, 1980.
In addition, the staff sent a letter dated July 7,1930 to all operating BWR licensees requesting that 1
they propose Technical Specification changes to provide surveillance recuirements for SDV vent and drain valves and LC0/ surveillance requirements 4
on SDV limit switches. Model Technical Specifications were enclosed with this letter to provide guidance to licensees for preparation of the requested sutnittals. The Nebraska Public Power District (licensee) submittal dated October 21, 1980, contained the proposed Technical Specifications requested by the staff.
j Evaluation i
iechnical Evaluation Report (TER-C5506-69) was prepared for us by Franklin a
Research Center (FRC) as part of our technical assistance contract program.
l This report provides their technical evaluation of the compliance of the licensee's October 21, 1980 submittal with NRC provided criteria.
FRC has concluded that the licensee's response does not meet the explicit requirenents of paragraph 3.3-C and Table 3.3.5-1 of the NRC staff's Model Technical Specificatiens (TS). However, the FRC report concludes that technical bases are defined on p. 50 of the staff's " Generic Safety Evaluation Report BWR Scram Discharge System," DecEcber 1,1980 that permits consideration of this departure from the explicit requirements of the Model Technical Specifications. We conclude that these technical bases justify a deviation from the explicit. requirements of the Model TSs.
1 In addition, FRC has also concluded that the proposed Cooper TSs do not meet the NRC staff's Model TS requirements of Paragraoh 4.3.1.1 and Table 4.3.1.1-1 for channel Functional Test for SDV water level high instrumenta-tions. However, the FRC TER concludes that the proposed surveillance require-ments for SDV water level high are acceptable, since the licensee is installing a second Instrument Volume containing four additional level switches, for a total of eight limit switches for the reactor protective system. The Model TS 8203220104 820304 PDR ADOCK 05000298 P
. were developed for plants which only have one instrument volume (four limit switches); therefore, the installation of a second instrument volume by the licensee significantly improves the design and reliability of the SDV.
Taking this into account, we conclude that these technical bases justify a deviation from the explicit requirements of the model TSs.
Sunnary Based upon our review of the contractor's report of his evaluations and discussions with the reviewer, we conclude that the licensee's proposed i
TSs satisfy our requirements for surveillance of SDV vent and drain valves and for Limiting Conditions of Operation and surveillance requirements for SDV limit switches. Consequently, we find the licensee's proposed TSs 1
acceptable.
j Environmental Considerations We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact, and pursuant to 10 CFR Section Sl.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: March 4, 1982 i
i
- -,