ML20238E290
| ML20238E290 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 12/22/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20238E277 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8801050083 | |
| Download: ML20238E290 (3) | |
Text
'
- g o a s e gc UNITED STATES i
/
l' j
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION y,
r WASHINGTON, D. C,2055s
]
\\
/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR PEGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.114 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-46 NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT COOPER NUCLEAR STATION DOCKET NO. 50-298
. J
1.0 INTRODUCTION
I By letter dated December 21, IcC7, the Nebraska Public Power District (the licensee) requested an amendment to facility Operating License No.
DPR-46 for the Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS).
The_ proposed amendment would change the Technical Specifications to extend the surveillance interval for the Groups 2 and 6 containment isolation system logic functional-
)
tests from 6 months to 18 months.
2.0 DISCUSSION The groups 2 and 6 containment isolation logics at CNS actuate isolation systems for RHR shutdown cooling, drywell floor and equipment drains, the TIP system, and secondary containment and, initiate the Standby Gas Treatment System.
The secondary containment isolation includes isolation of the Reactor Recirculation Pump Motor-Ganerator Set Ventilation System (M-G Vent Sys).
Isolation of the M-G Set Vent Sys would likely lead to a Recirculation Pump trip and subsequent reactor trip. Therefore it is undesirable to perform the secondary containment isolation logic functional l
test while operating.
The licensee has requested an amendment to extend the test interval to 18 months.
This would allow the test, which becomes
]
due January 2,1988, to be performed during the Spring 1988 refueling 1
outage (March-April 1988) and during each subsequent refueling outage.
This extended interval is consistent with the staff position as prescribed by NUREG-0123, " Standard Technical Specifications for Boiling Water Reactors" which provides guidance for Technical Specifications as referenced by Standard Review Plan Section 16.
The proposed amendment is therefore j
acceptable.
3.0 EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES Without the proposed amendment, the facility would have to be shutdown to perform the test. This circumstance was not readily foreseen due to.the fact that unplanned, mid-cycle outages have historically occurred permitting the test to be performed within the prescribed 6 month interval while shutdown.
1 8801050083 871222' PDR ADOCK 05000298 P
pyg
_______._m_.__._.
j :
4.0 NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION The regulations in 10 CFR 50.92 state that the Commission may make a final determination that a licensee amendment involves no significant hazards consideration if the operation of the facility in accordance with the amendment would not:
1 1
(1)
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from i
any accident previously evaluated; or (3)
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The evaluation in Section 2.0 shows that the extended surveillance i
interval would have no effect on the probability and no significant effect on the consequences of those accidents for which the isolation I
logic instrumentation is intended to mitigate.
The proposed change does-not create the possibility of a new or different accident and does not affect any margins of safety.
Based on the evaluation, the staff has j
concluded that operation of the facility in the proposed manner would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an i
accident previously evaluated, would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, and would not involve a significant' reduction in margin of safety.
Accordingly, we conclude the amendment involves no significant hazards.
consideration.
i
5.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, consultation was held with the State of Nebraska by telephone. The State expressed no concern either from the standpoint of safety or no significant hazards
.l conside,ation determination.
r
6.0 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 eff.luents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards 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.
m
_m__
i l
i
7.0 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 Commission'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.
Date: December 22, 1987 Principal Contributor: William Long l
I
_ _ _ _ _ _