ML20196A959
| ML20196A959 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196A955 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8806300164 | |
| Download: ML20196A959 (3) | |
Text
-
pC CICO 8
o o
UNITED STATES l'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
)
WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 s
a
%,..... f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NL' CLEAR REACTOR REGULATION PELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.122 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-45 NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTkICT COOPER NUCLEAR STATION DOCKET NO. 50-?98
~
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 25, 1988 the Nebraska Public Power District (the licensee) requested an atendment to facility Operating License No. DPR a6 for the Cooper Nuclear Station. The proposed amendment would change the Technical Specifications to specify revised Limiting Cenditions for Operation and Surveillance Requirements for the 125 VDC batteries. The 125 VDC System supplies power to essential motor operated valves, instruments and centrol circuits.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The original 12E VDC lead acid batteries at Cooper Nuclear Station are being replaced during the 1988 Cycle 11 refueling outage due to age and deterioration. The licensee is replacing the lead-acid batteries with lead-calcium batteries having a higher ampere-hour rating. The existing 150 ampere chargers are also being replaced with 200 ampere chargers.
The si:ing criteria for new battery and charger irsta11ations were selected on the basis of system load profiles prepared by the licensee's centractor and verified by the licensee.
In support of these changes, the licensee has requested changes to the Technical Specifications as fo11cws:
A.
In Specification 4.9.A.3.a.3 (weekly pilow cell surveillance test),
change the 125 VDC battery pilot cell minimum voltage from 2.0 to 2.15 Volts, and the temperature-corrected minimum specific gravity from 1.190 to 1.195.
l b.
In Specification 4.9.A.3.b.2 (quarterly surveillance test of all I
cells), change the minimum voltage for each cell from 2.0 Volts to 2.15 Volts, and the minimum specific gravity for each cell from 1.190 to 1.195.
In addition, a requirement for a minimum average specific l
gravity of 1.200 fcr all connected cells would be added.
C.
In Specification 4.9.A.3.c (once-per-cycle battery charger capacity test), the minimum charger capacity would be increased from 150 amperes to 200 amperes, a
!!O
$0 0
P l
l
8 7
The IEEE Batter) Korking G c g has prepared draft Standard Technical Specifications ict tattery installations at EUR facilities, lhe IEEE draft criterie reccarerds (1) a minimun float voltage of ?.13 for the weekly and quarterly tests, (2) a minimum cell specific gravity of 1.195 for the weekly pilot cell surveillance, (3) a miniturr individual cell specific gravity of 1.190 for the quarterly surveillance, (4) a minimum everage s cific gravity of 1.200 for the quarterly surveillance, (5) a battery service test at least once every 18 mcnths, (6) a performance dischar and (7)ge test in 11eu of a service test at least once every 6C months, an annual performance discharge test for a battery exbihiting signs of degradation.
These IEEE Working Crcup's recomendations, while not yet endersed in the Stancard Review Plan, have been adopted by the staff and included in the Technical Specifications for recently-licensed facilities.
In addition, the battery vendor, CAD Power Systems, Inc., has recomended the draft IEEE recomendatic: s fcr the Cooper application. Changes A, B & D have bees, reviewed against the IEEE draft criteria and have been determined to be conseintive v'ith respect to the criteria.
The Staff also believes them tc be conservative for the proposed use of the batteries at the Cooper Nuclear Staticr.. Change C is consistent vith FSAR criteria that the chcrgers have adequate capacity to restore completely discharged batteries while carrying the nomal steacy-state Icad.
Rased on ccnfomance to the IEEE Workine, Group's reccrrrrendations ar.d to the original licensino criteria, the licensee's proposed amendrent is ecceptabic.
3.0 EtNIFCMiENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendment involves e char.ge in the installatier cr use of a facility ccmpcnent located v:ithin the restricted area as defined in 10 CFP Part 20.
The staff tas detemined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the arrounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released effsite, and that there is re significant increase in individual er cumulative occupational radiatien exposures.
The Comissien has previously issued a proposed finding that the amerdrent involves rc significant hazards consideration and there has been no g blic com ent on such finding. Accordingly, the amendtrent reets the eligibility criteria for categerical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(S).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or envircn-rnental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendrent.
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 will not be endangered by crer6tien in the preposed manner, ar.d (2) public such I
)I
' activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will nct be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health'and safety of the public.
Date: June 16,1998 Principal Contributor:
W. Long 4
l l
l
.I l
h I
i
,,-, -,--,.,.,,... -..,,,, -....,-.-,,.