ML20093C911
| ML20093C911 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 09/21/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20093C910 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-53554, NUDOCS 8410100790 | |
| Download: ML20093C911 (5) | |
Text
AY
" '[pa **c; I, lk oq e
f!
UNITED STATES q
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION
)
P4
'jj WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
'l 7
%%.,( f
%,.....f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT 'NO. 88 TO LICENSE NO. DPR-46 NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT COOPER NUCLEAR STATION IDOCKET N0. 50-298 e
1.0 Introduction This amendment modifies *.he Technical Specifications related to the four
~".
following matters:
(1) delete the requirement during refueling outages.
for diesel generator operability in the Standby Gas Treatment System (SGTS) section of the Technical Specifications and to add the requirement that g
oh least one diesel generator be operable during refueling operations; (2) permit refueling operations with the suppression chamber drained provided an operable core spray or low pressure coolant injection. (LPCI) system is aligned to take a suction on the condensate storage tank; (3) incorporate y
surveillance operability requirements for the new suppression chamber water temperature instrumentation installed to satisfy the Mark I containment long-term program acceptance criteria; and (4) miscellaneous administrative changes such as, correcting typogrghical and grammatical errors, correction of errors of omission and commission related to low-low set relief logic modifications approved in Amendment No. 83, and adding snubbers to existing surveillance lists.
2.0 Evaluation t
4 2.1 SGTS and Diesel Generator Operability:
The current Cooper Nuclear Str.: tion (CNS) Technical Spec (fications are unclear and deficient in ti.dfollowingareas:
(L) Section 3.7.B, Standby Gas Treatment' System (SGTS), includes requirements for both diesel generators to be operable as active components of the SGTS. Although refueling is permitted for seven days with cne SGTS inoperable, no provisions are made for a corresponding diesel generator to be inoperable during refuelir:g outages.
(2) Section 3.9.A, Auxiliary Electrical Equipment, does not require h
either of the !.wa diesel generators'to be operable during ~
E refueling cgrations.
The need for clarification of the CNS Technical Specifications with v.
regard to diesel generator ogerability during refueling operations was
~
l O
P
reported by the NRC Resident Inspector in NRC Inspection Report 83-12 and by the licensee in Licensee Event Report LER-50-298-83-07.
In the documents it was identified that refueling operations were conducted without both diesel generators being operable to support operation of both SGTS as required by the Technical Specifications.
By letter dated January 18, 1984, the licensee proposed the following changes to the Technical Specifications:
(1) Delete the requirement for diesel generator operability as a limiting condition for operation (LCO) in the SGTS Section (3.7.8) of the Technical Specifications.
(2) Add the requirement to the Auxiliary Electrical Equipment Section (3.9.A) that at least one diesel generator be operable during fuel handling operations.
By letter dated June 29, 1984, the licensee provided a further clarifying revision to Sections 3.7.B and 3.9.A to ensure that if only one diesel generator is operable during refueling operations, the operable diesel generator must be capable of supplying power to an operable SGTS.
We have reviewed the licensee proposed Technical Specification changes.
and have determined that deletion of the diesel generator operability requirement from the SGTS Section (3.7.B) is acceptable, since this requirement is added to Section 3.9.A.
Because of the proposed changes to the Auxiliary Equipment Section (1.9.A), operability of an adequate number of dit;el generators is ensured for all modes of reactor operation including refueling operations.
Technical Specifications permit refueling operations for seven days with one inoperable SGTS.
Since the licensee has proposed to make available the corresponding diesel generator for the operable SGTS, the staff finds the proposed change to the TS to be acceptable.
The changes proposed to Sections 3.7.B and 3.9.A also meet the acceptance criteria of Standard Review Plan Section 16.0 in that they are consistent with the guidelines of NUREG-0123, Revision 3, Standard Technical Specifications.
Based on our review we have determined that the proposed Technical Specifications provide clarification of operability requirements and include additional restrictions that ensure that adequate SGTS and associated power supply equipment will be available during refueling which is consistent with the requirements in the Standard Technical Specifications and are, therefore, acceptable.
l
J
- e In addition, two typographical errors in the SGTS section of the Technical Specifications were corrected and format numbering changes were made in the Auxiliary Electrical Equipment Section of the Technical Specifications.
Since these changes are purely administrative in nature we, therefore, find them acceptable.
2.2 Core and Containment Cooling Systems: The current CNS Technical Specifications do not specifically address the ability to conduct refuel-ing operations with the suppression chamber drained.
The changes proposed by the licensee would permit refueling operations with the suppression chamber drained provided an operable core spray or LPCI system is aligned to take a suction on the condensate storage tanks.
These systems at CNS are designed such that these proposed changes meet the acceptance criteria of Standard Review Plan Section 16.0 in that they are consistent with NUREG-0123, Revision 3, Standard Technical Specification 3.5.3 which permits refueling operations with the suppression chamber drained.
We have reviewed the licensee's proposed Technical Specification changes and determined that the use of the condensate storage tank in conjunc-tion with either the core spcay or a LPCI system provides adequate emergency core cooling capability during refueling operations with the suppression pool is drained. Therefore, we have concluded that since the proposed changes are consistent with our current requirements and provide adequate cooling they are acceptable.
2.3 Torus Temperature Monitoring System: The current CNS Technical Specifications include surveillance requirements for existing suppression chamber water temperature instrumentation installed in the plant.
Suppression chamber modifications, to satisfy the requirements of the Mark I Long Term Program, have recently been completed that include a new torus temperature monitoring system and, therefore, necessitate a Technical Specification change.
The changes proposed by the licensee would replace the surveillance requirements for the existing suppression chamber water temperature monitoring system with surveillance requirements for the new torus temperature monitoring system.
The licensee on April 29, 1982, submitted a plant unique analysis report (PUAR) related to the Mark I Containment Long Term Program modifications.
This submittal included the suppression chamber water temperature monitoring system modifications. The staff and its consul-tant, Brookhaven National Laboratory, have reviewed the licensee's PUAR submittal for compliance with the acceptance criteria contained in I
NUREG-0661 " Safety Evaluation Report - Mark I Containment Long Term Program." The staff issued a Safety Evaluation on January 20, 1984, which concluded the licensee's PUAR verified that the containment modifications made were acceptable. This. evaluation also included the acceptability of the new suppression chamber water temperature monitoring system.
This new monitoring system contains more sensors than the original system and these sensors are placed in strategic locations, based on in-plant and test facility test results, to assure that the highest local bulk suppression chamber water temperatures are measured.
As a result this system provides upgraded post-accident monitoring capability.
We have reviewed the licensee's proposed Technical Specifications and determined that since the new temperature monitoring system: a) provides improved aids for the operator in mitigating the effects of a LOCA; b) is in compliance with the acceptance criteria contained in NUREG-0661; c) provides upgraded post-accident monitoring capability; and d) does not degrade the function of any safety related system, the proposed changes are acceptable.
2.4 Miscellaneous Revisions: The licensee has proposed miscellaneous CNS Technical Specification changes that involve the correction of errors to the current Technical Specifications or constitute additional limita-tions (i.e., add components to lists).
The specific types of changes are:
correction of typographical and grammatical errors; correction of errors of omission and commission related to low-low set relief logic approved in Amendment No. 83; miscellaneous editorial corrections; clarification of the bases section related to control rod drive scram (CRDS) system; and the addition of snubbers to the surveillance lists.
The correction of typographical and grammatical errors, the correction of errors of omission and commission, the editorial corrections, and the clarification of the bases section of the CRDS system are purely administrative in nature and, therefore, are acceptable.
The addition of snubbers to the surveillance lists constitute an additional restriction by requiring operability of these additional snubbers and, therefore,.is acceptable.
Based on our review we have determined that all the Technical Specifications proposed by the licensee in its January 18, 1984 submittal are acceptable.
3.0 Environmental Considerations This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
b
e....
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 is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 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 this amendment.
4.0 Conclusions We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (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 activi-ties 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.
Principal Contributor:
- 8. Siegel, E. Sylvester Dated:
September 21, 1984
.