ML20070D838
| ML20070D838 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20070D836 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9103010257 | |
| Download: ML20070D838 (3) | |
Text
- - - -.
+f UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
I w ash waioN.p.c.to66s A...../
$AFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.13E, TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-46 I
NEBRAbKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT COOPER NUCLEAR STATION i
DOCKET NO. 50 298
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 8, 1989, Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)
=the licensee) requested an amendment to the Tech:11 cal Specifications (TSs) appended to facility Operating License No. DPR-46 for the Cooper Nuclear Stationi The proposed amendment would:
1.
Increase the surveillance interval from once per year to once per i
18 months for three surveilunces that are normally carried out during refueling outages, 2.
Reduce the face velocity inlet ?:ondition for the Laboratory Carbon Sample Analysis Test to > 27 FPM, and 3.
Other minor editorial changes that provide clarification to the wording of the existing specifications.
- 2. 0 DISCUSSION 2.1-Surveillance Intervals NPPD has requested that the surveillance interval for the following Specifications be changed from once per year to once per eighteen months:
i 1
Table 4.2.D Steam' Jet Air Ejector Off Gas Isolation, T.S.3.7.B.2.b-Standby Gas Treatment System tests and sample frequency, T.S.4.12.A.2.a Main Control Room Ventilation System tests and c apie analysis.
At the time that the original Technica1' Specifications for the Cooper Nuclear Station were issued, the plant was operating on a one year operating cycle with an annual extended outage for refueling, maintenance, and surveillance.
Beginning with Cycle 14.-in May 1990, Cooper has been operating on an IB month fuel cycle that does not provide a plant shutdown to carry out annual surveillances.-
91030102579Q%99 PDR ADOCK O PDR P
.. _. -. _ _ _ _... _ _.,. -. _._.- _ _.. _._.. _.-. _ _ _ _. _. _ ~. _._ _ ~. _.._,,.
i5
^j j
e.
\\
{
The staff intended that these turveillances be carried out with the plant i
in a shutdown condition because the risk to safety is lower in that mode i
of operation.
Although the plant could be shut down after twelve months j
]
to carry out these surveillances, a plant shutdown, no matter how i
carefully carried out, involves some additional risk of initiating an i
unanticipated transient or challenging a safety system.
j Since 1974, the NRC staff has utilized NUREG-0123, " Standard Technical Specifications for General Electric Boiling Water Reactors" (STS) to determine the format and content of the technical specifications that are issued to newly licensed plants, similar in design to the Cooper Nuclear Station.
The surveillance intervals for these three specifications in the STS are set at eighteen months to assure once per cycle surveillance for plants that are operating on an eighteen month fuel cycle, i
-Based on the above discussion the staff finds that an eighteen month i
surveillance interval is acceptable for these three surveillances.
2.2 Laboratory Carbon Sample Analysis face Velocity Technical Specification 3.7.B.2.b specifies various test parameters and performance criteria that are applicable for the laboratory tests that c
I must be ctrried out to assure the operability of the charcoal adsorbers in the (.taldby Gas Treatment System (SGTS),
NPPD has recently modified the sGid to increase the amount of charcoal in the SGTS filter banks.
This modification increased the iodine removal effectiveness of the SGTS by increasing the total charcoal adsorber face area.
The increased face area results in a reduced face velocity at the charcoal filters.
One controlling parameter for the SGTS charcoal test is that the face velocity used in the laboratory test must be equal to or greater than the actual face velocity of the charcoal adsorbers in the SGTS thus assuring that the test results are representative of the conditions in the SGTS charcoal trays.
The result of the increased amount of charcoal is to reduce the actual face velocity in the SGTS charcoal adsorber to > 27
~
feet per minute (FMP).
NPPD has requested that the face velocity requirement in Specification 3.7.B.2.b be changed from 3 42 CFM to 1 27 CFM.
This change conforms the Technical Specification to the actual condition that exists in the plant'and is acceptable to the staff.
2.3 Editorial Changes NPPD-has proposed to modify the wording of Technical Specifications 3,7.B.2.b and 3.12.A.2.a which relate to the test methodology used for the Standby Gas Treatment System and the Main Control Room Ventilation System, respectively.
The changes are editorial in nature and result in a clear u and more easily understood statement of the staff's requirement.
The modifications do not change the requirements or the manner in which they are met and are acceptable to the staff.
l
_. _ _. _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _.. ~. _
In addition, NPPD proposed to modify the Bases for the surveillance requirements for the Standby Gas Treatment System and the Main Control Room Ventilation System to document the use of American National Standards Institute Standard ANSI N509-1980 as the test methodology rather than the earlier Regulatory Guide 1.52.
The use of ANSI Nb09-1980 is in conformance with the NRC staf f's standard Review Plan and is acceptable to the staff.
- 3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendment involves a change in a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there 15 no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposures.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendmont involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51,22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environ-mental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
4.0 LONCLUSION The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
l (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 Commission's regulations.
and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: February 25, 1991 Principal-Contributor:
Paul W. O'Connor l
I
. ~. -
~
-