ML20195E875
| ML20195E875 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195E460 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8806240149 | |
| Download: ML20195E875 (2) | |
Text
.
/
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
5 p
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO APENDMENT N0.121 TO FACILITY OPERAVING LICENSE NO. DPR-46 NEBRASI'APUBLICPOWERDISTRIE COOPER NUCLEAR STATION DOCKET NO. 50-298
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated February 2, 1988 the Nebraska Pub.ic Power District (the licensee) requested an amendment to facility Operating License No. DPR-M for the Cooper Nuclear Station. The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications to (I) change the instrument identification numbers (Tables 2.2.B and 4.2.B) for reactor pressure switches v:hich provide closing signals to the reactor recirculation system discharge valves and permissive input signals to the core spray and low pressure coolant injection systems, (2) change the instrument identification number (Table 3.2.B) for the residual heat renoval system crosstie valve position indicator switch, (3) change the instrument identification numbers (Tables 3.2.B and 4.2.B) for drywell pressure instruments associated with the high pressure coolant ir.jection (HPCI) system, and (4) modify the "Reactor Water Level Indication Correlation" drawing (Figure ?.1.1) to reflect mcdifications extending the range of reactor vessel water level instrumen-tation.
2.0 DISCUSSION t, EVALUATION l
Pressure Switch Identification Numbers: This change would reflect a j
plant modification in which two Barksdale duplex pressure switches (NBI-PS-52A, and 52C) for which spares are nc longer readily available would be replaced by four Static-0-Ring single element pressure switches (NBI-PS-52A1, A2, C1, and C2). The replacement switches will be seismic-ally and environmentally qualified and will serve the same function as those being replaced. The proposed change would have no effect on safety and is acceptable.
Instrument Identification Number for RHR Crosstie Valve Position Indicator Switch: The crosstie valve position indicator switch is identified as "RHR-LMS-8" in the facility desi p drawings. The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications identification number to be consistent with the drawings. No change would be made to the actual instrument. This change corrects a simple error, has no effect on safety, and is acceptable, j
i 8806240149 000613 PDR ADOCK 0500
}G P
0 HPCI Instrument Identification Numbers: The instrument identification numbers for the drywell pressure instrument channels servir.g the HPCT initiation instrumentation would be chdnged to be consistent with the general policy of identifying instrument channels by use of the sensor instruments ID numbers instead of the associated logic re'sy ID numbers.
This change is thus being made for consistency only, nr changes being j
made to the actual instrument channels. These changes would havt no effect on safety and are acceptable.
Reactor Water level Indication Correlation Drawiyqi Figure 2.1.1 would t'e revised to reflect modifications to be made to extend the range of water level instruments in acccrdance with the licensee's Regulatory Guide 1.97 accident monitcring instrumentatien cemitments to provide improved capability te monitor reactor vessel water level. The mcdifica-tions extend the range of water level monitoring down to 6 inches belce the bottom of active fuel and up to the tcp of the steam separator.
Pared en enfernance to previously approved Regulatory Guide 1.97 plans (Ref:
Letter from W. Long to J. Pilant dated October 27,1986) this change is acceptable.
It is noted that this change does not add, delete or modify any limiting conditions for operation or surveillance requirenents but serves only to update descriptive information contained in the Technical Specifications.
3.0 ENVIR0 MENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendment involves a change in the installatic,, or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that the amendment inycives 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 exposurs:.
The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideratinn and there has been no public coment on such finding. The amendment also invcives changes to adrini-strative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, the at.endrent meets the eligibilit criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Sections 51.22(c)(9 and (c)(10).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or envircrmental assessment need bc prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has 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 canner, and (2) such j
activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
June 13,1988 Principal Contributor:
W. Long