ML20206A991
| ML20206A991 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 11/07/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206A858 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8811150309 | |
| Download: ML20206A991 (2) | |
Text
.
l
'c, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
eg i wAsmotow. o. c. mss
- ...+
1 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULAT10l; f
RELATLD TO AMENDMENT NO.126 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DpR-46
)
NEBRASKA p00LIC p0WER DISTRICT COOPER NUCLEAR STATION DOCKET i10. u0-2,98
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Ouring the Cycle 10 refueling outage modifications were perforced to provice alternate shutdown (ASD) capability in accordance with i
10 CFF E0.48.
Ey letter dated January 15, 1987 the licensee was Surveillarce Requirener.ts (SRs) g Cor.ditions for Operation (LCOs) and advised that appropriate Lirnitin should be requested in light of the l
newly irstalled equiprent. This letter also forwarded generic guidance representir4s the staff position on LCOs and SRs for ASD instrur.entation j
and contrcls.
Ey letter March 25, 1988 the licensee forwarded an arer4rer.t appli.ation proposing LCOs and SRs for the alternate shutdewn j
sy ster. The staff ret witt the licensee's operations personnel at Cooper Nuc1ter Station on May 25, 1988 to discuss the proposed arsendrent.
j At this resting it was agreed that changes to the proposed surveillanct j
requiretents were riecessary in view of design liritations on capabi'ity i
of the equiprent to be tested durirg plant operation.
In a letter dated j
Aust.st ?6,19ff the application was revised in accordance with the staff prorcials ar.d recorrerdations presented at the reetir.gs 2.0 DISCl'SJ,1fL j
The ASD systen was installed at Cooper fluelear Station during the f acility's Cycle 10 refueling outage. The purpose of the ASD systera is to provide the capability to establish and reaintain hot shutdown I
of tte plant frocn outside the control room in the event of a fire which 2
disables both of the redurdant divirions of control and instrurnentation f
used to shutdown the plar t fror. the control roota. The ASD system is l
corprised of instrumentation and control panels in an ASD Room in the Rea: tor butiding, local controls for Diesel Generator No. 2, and various other panels. These par.els provide capability for manual operation of selected purps, valves, and circuit breakers. The Cooper ASD systern has been previously evaluated by the staff wherein it was concluded that it ret the requirerents of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R,) Sections !!!.G.3 a',d !!!.L (Ref:
Safety Evaluation dated April 16, 1984 The preposed amendtrent will require, for most ASD instruments, that an instrurent check be perforred monthly and a calibration once-per-cycle durirg shutdown, on each ASD instrur,ent. Operability of switches, controls, ar4 power supplies will be tested once-per-cycle during s
shutdown.
This is consistent with the generic staff guidance which the 8811150309 001107 PDR ADOCK 05000290 P
PNV
4 6
steff recorrended in its January 15, 1067 letter. However, the proposed anendner.t takes exceptions to the renthly testing requiren.ent for certain instrurents in which cases such monthly testing would require isolation of the norral contial room instronentation during plant operation. The staff deterr.ined that actuation of isolation Switches as necessary to perforr, operability "channel" checks during operation would pose unr+cessary ris)s by temporarily depriving control room operators of vital instru-nentation and control functions provided by the normal control room instrunents.
For these limited situations, once-per-cycle testing during shutdewn was detned ecceptable.
Based on our review the staff concludes that the revised anendnent application is acceptable.
3.0 Ehv!R0hMEh1AL CONSIDERATION 1he arencrent insolves a chance in the installation or use of a facility ccvporent located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that the anendnent involves no significant increase in the ancents, and ne significant change in the types, of any efflutt.ts that n4) tt released effsite, and that there is no significant increase in irdividual or curulative occupational radiation expcsures.
The Cerrissien tas previously issued a proposed finding that the arendnent involves nu significent hazards censideraticn and there has been nc public ccrrent on such finding. Accordingly, the amendnent nects the eligibility criteria for categcrical exclusien set forth in 10 CFF Section 51.22(c)(c).
Pursuar.t to 10 CFF 51.2P(h), no environmental inpact statentnt er enviren-pental assessrent need te prepared in connection with the issuance of the antndrent.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has cencluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) trere is reasorable assurance that the health and safety of the public will r.ct te endangered by operation in the proposed nanner, and (?) such ectivitist till be cerducted in ccnpliance with the Concission's regulations, and the issuar.ce of the acordnent will nct be inimical to the concon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Cate: November 7,1988 Principal Contributcrs:
k'. Long
_