ML20072R322
| ML20072R322 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072R320 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9103250085 | |
| Download: ML20072R322 (2) | |
Text
_
__m
/[*eeg'g umTED stairs NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
WASHINoTow,0. c. povos
,1
%*...+
SAFETYEVAQATIONBYTHEOFPICEOFNUCLEARREACTORREGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.138 TO FACillTY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-46 NEBRASKA __PUBLIC POWER O! STRICT
-COOPER NUCLEAR STATION DOCKET NO.60-298 1.0 J.HTRODUCTION By letter dated January 11, 1990, NebraskaPublicPowerDistrict(the licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications appended to facility Operating License No. OPR-46 for the Cooper Nuclear Station.
The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification Table 3.7.4,
" to reflect a modification
'PrimaryContainmentTestableIsolationValvesIvesRCIC-AO-22andHPCI-AO18.
associated with air operated testable check ve The volves have been redesignated as RCIC-26CV and HPCI-29CV as a result of the removal of the air betuator.
In addition, reference to RCIC-M0-17 dnd HPCI-M0 57 has been deleted in reflect the removal of these bypass valves as part of the modifice 2.0 DISCUS $10N The air actuator end associated motor-operated bypes; valves for testable f
isolation check valves in the Core Spray (CS), Residual Heat Removal (RHR), Reactor Core isolation Cooling (RCIC) and High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) Systems were installed to allow remote testing of the check valves during power operation. Due to concerns related to the 6ccuracy of the tests performed using the air actuator and industry experience with check valve failures caused by the air actuators, the licen:ve removed tu actuators during the 1990 refueling outage. The motor-tperated bypass valves used to equalize pressure across the check volves t'uring on-line testing were also removed. The operability testing of the chick valves is not specifically addressed by the Technical
$pecifications but reference to the RCIC and HPCl valves is made in Table 3.7.4 which lists those valves subject to primary containment local leak rate testing. The amendment changes the designation for the RCIC and HPCl volves from RCIC AO-22 and HPCI-A0-18 to RCIC 26CV and hPCI-20 V to reflect the removal of the air actuator.
Reference to the associated bypass valves RCIC-MO-17 and HPCI-M0 57 is deleted since the modification has removed these valves.
The use of the air actuators to perform on-line testing of these check valves provides questionable results due to the excessive force applied.
The testing may not provide an accurate representation of valve operability under full flow accident conditions.
Following the removal f the air actuators, testing 'of the RCIC and HPCI check valves is con-ducted in accordance with ASME, Section X1, IWV-3522 requirements. Given 9103250005 910315 PDR ADOCK 00000298 P
. - ~
,a,
that the check valve operability testing is not specifically addressed by the Technical Specifications and is performed in accordance with ASME Section XI requirements, the staff agrees with the licensee that the Change does not involve a reduction in the margin of safety.
The modification may enhance safety by reducing the probability of check valve failures and the resultant potential for an interfacing system Loss ofCoolantAccident(LOCA).
The contrit tion of air actuators to the history of testable check failures was c,etailed in the NRC Case Study Report AEOD/C502, "Overpressurization of Emergency Core Cooling Systems in Boiling Water Reactors." The case study discussed the potential interfacing system LOCA concerns associated with testable check valves and on-line testing, The modification and related procedure changet, performed by the licensee is in accordance with the recommendations of the nE00/0502 reoort and therefore achieves the safety improvements identified in the report.
Based on its review, the staff finds the licensee's proposed Technical Specification change to be acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment involves a change in a requirement with respect to the insti.llation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area os defined in 10 CFR part 20.
The staff has determined that the omendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no signi-ficant chenge in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, andthatthereisnosignificantincreaseinindividualorcumulative occupational radiation exposures. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant horards consider 6 tion 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 S u ion 51.22(c)(9. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
l will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public (1) there is reasonable assur6nce that the health and safety of the L
such l
activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, l
and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense anct security or to the health and safety of the public, i
l Dated: March 15. 1991 l
l principal Contributor:
W. Reckley
-~
- -