ML13198A009

Cooper Nuclear Station - Correction to Safety Evaluation Pages 6-7 for Amendment No. 246, Revise the Updated Safety Analysis Report to Reflect Changes to Fuel Handling Accident Dose Calculation (TAC No. ME8992)

ML13198A009
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	07/24/2013
From:	Wilkins L E Plant Licensing Branch IV
To:	Limpias O A Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)
Wilkins L E
References
TAC ME8992
Download: ML13198A009 (6)

Text

UNITED NUCLEAR REGULATORY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 July 24, 2013 Mr. Oscar Vice President-Nuclear and CNO Nebraska Public Power District 72676 648A Avenue Brownville, NE 68321 COOPER NUCLEAR STATION -SAFETY EVALUATION CORRECTIONS TO AMENDMENT NO. 246 RE: REVISIONS TO THE FUEL HANDLING ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION IN THE UPDATED SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT (TAC NO. ME8992)

Dear Mr. Limpias:

By letter dated June 26, 2013 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML 13148A225), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) issued Amendment No. 246 to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46 for the Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS). The amendment revised the description of the Fuel Handling Accident (FHA) in Section XIV-6.4 of the CNS Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR). The revised USAR FHA description is based on changes to the Design Basis Accident FHA dose calculation, to reflect a 24-month cycle source term using a Global Nuclear Fuels (GNF) 10 x 10 fuel array, a reduced Radial Peaking Factor, and inclusion of a calculated shine contribution to the total dose. Two errors, on the part of the NRC staff, were identified subsequent to issuance of Amendment No. 246, as documented bye-mail dated July 8, 2013, from William Victor (Nebraska Public Power District, the licensee) to Lynnea Wilkins (NRC). Page 6, last paragraph states: "The EPU radiological dose consequences of an FHA are shown in Table 3.2." This dose calculation was not associated with an Extended Power Uprate, so the reference to EPU should be omitted. Page 7, Table 3.2 lists the 24-hour decay period EAB dose as 1.459 TEDE. The value provided in NEDC 05-031 (enclosed with the license amendment request) was 1.4499 rem TEDE, which rounds up to 1.450. These errors are administrative in nature and do not affect the NRC staffs overall conclusions associated with Amendment No. 246. Enclosed are the corrected pages 6 and 7 of the safety evaluation to be included with the issued amendment. We regret any inconvenience this may have caused. If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-1377 or via e-mail at Iynnea. wilkins@nrc.gov.

Sincerely,.f{t/r;I. J .' L/ Lynnea E. Wilkins, Project Manager Plant licensing Branch IV Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-298

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv ENCLOSURE CORRECTED PAGES 6-7 OF SAFETY DATED JUNE 26, 2013 RE: AMENDMENT NO. COOPER NUCLEAR DOCKET NO.

-RADTRAD was also used by the licensee to determine the total amount of activity that was loaded upon the CREFS filter during a FHA release. Also, the licensee assumed higher parameters to be more conservative with regard to the total source term accumulated on the filter. These changes included: CREFS Flowrate -increased to 990 cfm versus using 810 cfm. The use of a higher flowrate results in higher halogen accumulation onto the CREFS filter versus the base case. This is conservative as it results in higher shine contribution. Filter Efficiency -a value of 100 percent filter efficiency was used for all halogen species as that also maximizes higher halogen accumulation onto the filter versus the base FHA calculation. The licensee calculated the value of 114 mrem for cloud and CREFS filter CR shine. This value has been added to the dose consequences of the 24-hour decay time case to provide the most limiting dose consequences for the FHA event. The NRC staff concludes that this calculation is acceptable because the methodology and assumptions used are consistent with CNS current licensing basis and the regulatory guidance in RG 1.183. NRC Staff Conclusion The NRC staff has evaluated the licensee's revised accident analyses for the radiological consequences of a FHA and concludes that the licensee has adequately accounted for the effects of the proposed changes to the CNS FHA analysis. The NRC staff further concludes that the plant site and the dose-mitigating engineered safety features remain acceptable with respect to the radiological consequences of a postulated FHA since the calculated TEDE doses at the EAB, LPZ, and in the CR are within regulatory limits. The radiological dose consequences of an FHA are shown in Table 3.2. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the licensee's proposed change is acceptable with respect to the radiological consequences of FHA. Table Cooper Fuel Handling Accident Atmospheric Dispersion Factors (sec/m3Ground Level Release from Reactor Building Exclusion Area Low Population Control Room I Time Period Boundary Zone Intake 0-2 hr 5.2 x 10.4 2.9 X 10.4 4.15x10*3 2-8 hr 2.9 x 10.4 3.24 X 10.3 8-24 hr 7.3 x 10.5 1.32 X 10.3 24-96 hr 2.5x 10.5 9.01 x 10.4 96-720 hr 5.2 x 10.6 7.22 X 10.4

-7 Table Calculated FHA Radiological EAB LPZ CR Calculated results, TEDE 24-hr decay period 7 day decay period 1.450 0.622 0.809 0.347 4.568* 4.393 Dose acceptance criteria, TEDE 6.3 6.3 5

• Includes 114 mrem due to gamma shine from external sources 4.0 STATE CONSULTATION In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Nebraska State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The 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 NRC 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 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 published in the Federal Register on April 16, 2013 (78 FR 22570). 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. 6.0 CONCLUSION The Commission has 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, (2) there is reasonable assurance that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) 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 Contributors: D. Duvigneaud L. Brown Date: June 26, 2013 If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-1377 or via e-mail at Iynnea. wil kins@nrc.gov. Docket No. 50-298

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION: PUBLIC LPLIV r/f RidsAcrsAcnw _MaiICTR Resource RidsNrrDorlLpl4 Resource RidsNrrDraAadb Resource RidsNrrPMCooper Resource RidsNrrLAJ8urkhardt Resource RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource DDuvigneaud, NRR/DRAlAADB LBrown, NRRIDRAlAADB

Sincerely,IRA! Lynnea E. Wilkins, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch IV Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation NRRlDORLlLPL41 RLlLPL4/LA NRR/DRNAADB/BC NRRlDORL/LPL4/BC NRRIDORLlLPL4/P LWilkins dt TTate BSingal for MMarkley KKalyanam for LWilk 07/18/13 07/18/13 07/24/13 07/24/13 OFFICIAL RECORD COpy