ML20210B442
| ML20210B442 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210B412 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-63580, NUDOCS 8702090156 | |
| Download: ML20210B442 (2) | |
Text
_ _, _.
m_.
3 Ktty%
UNITED STATES
~ #
i 8
i, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'h WASHING TON, D.'C. 20655 '
~~
\\...../
SAFETY-EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.107 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-46 NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT-COOPER NUCLEAR STATION i
DOCKET N0. 50-298 I
e 1.0 -INTRODUCTION i
By a letter dated November 6,1986, the Nebraska Public Power District (the licensee)~ requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
i DPR-46 for the Cooper Nuclear Station. The proposed amendment would.
l change the Appendix A Technical Specifications to indicate that the primary containment isolation valves for the Main Steam Line (MSL) Drain g
Header are normally open.
l 2.0 EVALUATION l
Table 3.7.1 of the Technical Specifications presently indicates that the MSL Drain Header primary containment isolation valves (MS-M0-74 i
andMS-M0-77)arenormallyclosed. The purpose of indicating the normal valve position is to identif i
Technical Specification 4.7.D.b.(1)y those valves which are subject to Technical Specification 4.7.D.b.(1) requires nomally open power operated primary containment isolation valves to be cycled fully closed and reopened at least l
quarterly for maintenance purposes.
In order to provide continuous drain paths for the HPCI and RCIC steam i
lines it is plant practice to operate with MS-M0-74 and MS-M0-77 open. This reduces the risk of damage to the HPCI and RCIC turbines during a cold start. The proposed change would revise Table 3.7.1 to reflect this fact. Because the valves are subject to ASME Section XI r
Pump and Valve Inservice Inspection requirements which require the quarterly cycling action the proposed change would have no effect on i
maintenance requirements but serve only to clarify the Technical Specifications. The proposed amendment is therefore acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S l
This amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as t
i defined in 10 CFR Part 20. 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 i
that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative j
occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards j
l n
2-consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, the 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 the amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
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 activities will be conducted in compliance with the Com-mission'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:
W. Long Dated: February 3,1987 I
o O
9 1
r---,-
m-
-m-