ML20078L178
| ML20078L178 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078L164 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-87-09, GL-87-9, NUDOCS 9502100225 | |
| Download: ML20078L178 (2) | |
Text
asog p
t UNITED STATE 8 s
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 30006 4001
.....,o SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.168 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-46 NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT COOPER NUCLEAR STATION DOCKET NO. 50-298 I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 22, 1994, Nebraska Public Power District (the licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-46 for the Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS). The proposed amendment would revise CNS Technical Specification (TS) 1.0.J, definition of " Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO)", consistent with the guidance provided in NRC Generic Letter 87-09, " Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of the Standard Technical Specifications on the Applicability of Limiting Conditions for Operation and Surveillance Requirements."
2.0 EVALUATION The changes proposed by the licensee have been reviewed considering the limitations set forth in Generic Letter (GL 87-09.
part, that standard TS 3.0.4, which correspo)nds to the CNS TS DefinitionGL 87-09 reco 1.0.J, undaly restricts facility operation when conformance to the Action Requirements provides an acceptable level of safety for continued operation.
For a limiting condition for operation (LCO) that has Action Requirements permitting continued operation for an unlimited period of time, entry into an operational mode or other specified condition of operation should be permitted in accordance with those Action Requirements. The restriction on change in operational modes or other specified conditions should apply only where the Action Requirements establish a specified time interval in which the LCO must be met or a shutdown of the facility would be required or where entry into that operational mode would result in entry into an Action Statement with such time constraints. However, nothing in the staff position stated in GL 87-09 should be interpreted as endorsing or encouraging plant startup with i
inoperable equipment.
The GL 87-09 itself states that startup with inoperable equipment should be the exception rather than the rule.
l The licensee has provided confirmation and certification that appropriate l
administrative controls and procedures are in place for limiting the use of l
the relief allowed by the TS Definition 1.0.J in conjunction with its proposed l
TS change submitted in response to GL 87-09. Additionally, no changes are proposed that affect plant configuration, setpoints, operating parameters, or j
the operator / equipment interface.
l
[pg k
l P
O.
I Based on review of the licensee's proposal, and confirmations related above, the staff concludes in granting the exceptions proposed in response to GL 87-09 that the licensee has in place adequate administrative controls and procedures which will ensure that it will be the exception rather than the rule that startup of the plant with important safety features inoperable will occur.
Therefore, the following change to CNS TS Definition 1.0.J proposed by the licensee is acceptable:
" Entry into an operational condition or nther specified condition shall not be made when the conditions for the Limiting Conaitions for Operation are not met and the associated action requires a shutdown if they are not met within a specified time interval.
Entry into an operational condition or other specified condition may be made in accordance with the action requirements when conformance to them permits continued operation of the facility for an unlimited period of time. This provision shall not prevent passage through or to operational conditions as required to comply with action requirements.
Exceptions to these requirements are stated in the individual Specifications.
This specification is not applicable in the cold condition or the refueling mode."
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Nebraska State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comment.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements. The NRC 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 is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a pro-posed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (60 FR 153).
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 environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the 1
public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, i
and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
T. Kim Date: February 3, 1995