ML20214P241
| ML20214P241 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214P222 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-57634, NUDOCS 8612040125 | |
| Download: ML20214P241 (3) | |
Text
.amg UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8
o
{
- E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 104 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-46 NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT COOPER NUCLEAR STATION DOCKET NO. 50-298
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 26, 1985, as modified July 3, 1986, Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) submitted a request for amendment of the Technical Specifications, Appendix A to Operating License DPR-46, for the Cooper Nuclear Station. The proposed amendment would revise the 125/250 volt DC station battery surveillance requirements.
2.0 DISCUSSION During inspection (84-26) the NRC observed that NPPD had apparently failed to demonstrate the operability of the Cooper Nuclear Station 125/250 volt DC station batteries.
NPPD proposed the revisions, to the Cooper Nuclear Station Technical Specifications, contained in their July 3,1986 letter, in order to: 1) improve the demonstration of the unit battery system operability, 2) incorporate appropriate guidance from applicable industry standards, regulatory guides, standard technical specifications and the battery manufacturer's recommendations.
NPPD has proposed changes to the Cooper Nuclear Station Technical Specifications for both the 125 volt DC batteries and the 250 volt DC batteries to provide for:
1.
Weekly measuring and recording of the absolute value for the total battery terminal voltage on float charge.
2.
Weekly measuring and recording of the electrolyte level for each pilot cell.
3.
Weekly measuring and recording of the voltage and specific gravity for each pilot cell corrected for temperature and electrolyte level.
8612040125 861124 PDR ADOCK 05000298 p
r r
. 4.
Quarterly measuring and recording of the electrolyte level for each connected cell.
5.
Quarterly measuring and recording of the voltage and specific gravity for each connected cell corrected for temperature and electrolyte level.
6.
Quarterly measuring and recording of the electrolyte temperature of a representative sample of cells.
7.
Once per operating cycle testing of the battery charger.
8.
Once per operating cycle performance discharge testing of battery capacity.
The staff has found that the above proposed changes are consistent with the guidelines contained in IEEE Standard 450, " Recommended Practice for Installation Design and Installation of Large Storage Batteries for Generating Stations," as augmented by Regulatory Guide 1.129, Rev.1,
" Maintenance, Testing and Replacement of Large Lead Storage Batteries for Nuclear Power Plants."
Based on the above, the staff has concluded that the proposed changes to the Cooper Nuclear Station Technical Specifications for 125/250 volt DC station battery surveillance are consistent with the SRP Section 8.3.2 acceptance criteria and, therefore, the proposed changes are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S This amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation 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 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 Comission has previously issued t
a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards l
consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for I
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.
l
4.0 CONCLUSION
l 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 i
.-.,.m
_.~...-._..,._m._
inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: B. Marcus Date:
November 24, 1986 I
I