NLS8700330, Application for Amend to License DPR-46,consisting of Proposed Change 42,incorporating All Amends to OL Through Amend 108 Issued on 870420.Fee Paid

Application for Amend to License DPR-46,consisting of Proposed Change 42,incorporating All Amends to OL Through Amend 108 Issued on 870420.Fee Paid

ML20235J193
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	07/09/1987
From:	Kuncl L NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
Shared Package
ML20235J196	List: ML20235J216 NLS8700330, Application for Amend to License DPR-46,consisting of Proposed Change 42,incorporating All Amends to OL Through Amend 108 Issued on 870420.Fee Paid
References
NLS8700330, NUDOCS 8707150440
Download: ML20235J193 (5)

Text

_ _

-(

.\ ,

""" "?N$$%5 fbi *et*** '"

hh Nebraska Public Power District -

NLS8700330 <

July 9,'1987 1

l 1

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-  !

Washington, D.C. 20555

Attention

Document' Control Desk j i

Gentlemen:

Subject:

Proposed Change No. 42 to Technical Specifications 1 Cooper Nuclear Station; NRC Docket No. 50-298,  !

DPR l In accordance with' the applicable provisions specified. in- l 10CFR50, Nebraska Public Power District requests: that Technical Specifications for Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS) ' be revised to incorporate the changes listed below:

Attachment Subject 1 Criteria for Containment Air Lock- l Integrity Testing A discussion and the revised Technical Specification pages are contained in the attachment. Each modification to the Technical l Specifications within this proposed change has been- evaluated I with respect to the requirements of 10CFR50.92. The results of 3 the evaluation are included in the attachment.  !

, By copy of this letter and attachments the appropriate State of I Nebraska Official is being notified in accordance with j l

10CFR50.91(b).  ?

This proposed change incorporates 'all amendments to the CNS Facility Operating License through Amendment 108. issued April 20, 1987.

This change has been reviewed by the necessary Safety. Review l Committees and payment of $150 is submitted in accordance with 10CFR170.12. In addition to the signed original, 37 copies are also submitted for your use. Copies to the NRC ' Region IV -

office and the Cooper Nuclear Station Resident Inspector are also being sent in accordance with 10CFR50.4(b)(2);

'go p

h7150440870709 g [1 -

ADOCK0500gs g g g

l Page 2 July 9,.1987'~

l Should you have any questions or require-additional information, please contact' me.

Sincerely, H

/j, vg,, ..

L. G. Kunci Vice-President - Nuclear LGK/gmc:dmr29/2 Attachments cc: H. R. Borchert Department of Health  !

. State of Nebraska NRC Regional Office '

Region IV-Arlington,.TX D. L. Dubois NRC Senior Resident Inspector ,

Cooper Nuclear Station t i

l l

l l

1 l

l l,

1 1

Page 3 July 9, 1987 l

l l

STATE OF NEBRASKA) l

)ss i PLATTE COUNTY ) I L. G. Kuncl, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is an authorized representative of the Nebraska Public Power District,- a public corporation and political . subdivision of the State of Nebraska; that he is duly authorized to submit this request on behalf of Nebraska Public Power District; and that I the statements contained herein are true to the. best of his I knowledge and belief. i

/-

( / '

0 , >{c nv ,

L. G. Kuncl j

Subscri d in my presence and sworn to before me this 9 day of do. , 1987, i u - gi GElGALll0 Testa of krava <

l d'Lt UXAa Ny$$x?h*?Abd

// NOTARY PUBLIC --

_a l

l l

l w_____.__-________._ - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - _ _ . _

Attachment Page 1 of 2 Revised Technical Specifications for )

Personnel Air Lock Testing d I

Revised Pages: 162a, 178 i ll

Reference:

1) Letter from D. G. Eisenhut to J. M. Pilant dated September 3, 1982, subject being an exemption to Appendix J.

In Reference 1, the District received an exemption from certain requirements of Section 50.54(o) and Appendix J to 10CFR, Part 50, which allowed an extended interval between Type B tests for the containment air lock ~ doors at accident pressure. The District then submitted proposed Technical Specification changes related to air lock testing which were approved as part  ;

of Amendment 82 to the Cooper Facility Operating License. This change request i omitted stating what the acceptance criteria was for the air lock testing.

Appendix J to 10CFR50, Section III.D.2.b(iv), requires that "the acceptance y

~

criteria for air lock testing shall be stated in the Technical Specifications." Accordingly, the District requests to revise the CNS '

Technical Specifications to incorporate the leak test criteria for the Type B air lock test. This will be accomplished by:

1. Adding the airlock leakage criteria to Specification 4.7.A.2.f.5 on page 162a of 6.3 scfh at 58 psig test pressure or adjusted to an equicialent value at a lower test pressure.

2. Stating the bases for adjusting the leakage criteria for a test pressure less than 58 psig on page 178. .

W This leak test criteria is currently used in the Cooper Nuclear Station Operating Procedures as the acceptance criteria for the airlock leak testing.

It is consistent with the leakage criteria given in G.E. Standard Technical Specification (NUREG-0123, Revision 3) 3.6.1.3 of less than or equal to 0.05 La at Pa. La is 0.635% by weight of the primary containment air per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> at a peak accident pressure (Pa) of 58 psig for Cooper. Using the Cooper valves for primary containment volume, La - 316 sc fh . The airlock leakage criteria is, therefore, 0.05 x 316 scfh - 15.8 scfh which is greater than the proposed Technical Specification criteria of 6.3 scfh.

Evaluation of this Revision with Respect to 10CFR50.92 A. The enclosed Technical Specification change is judged to involve no l significant hazards based on the following:

l. Does the proposed license amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Evaluation:

The previously evaluated accident under consideration here is the Loss of Coolant Design Basis Accident discussed in Section XIV of the CNS Updated Safety Analysis Report. This amendment request deals with the leakage criteria of the primary containment air lock doors at both accident pressure (58 psig) and at reduced pressure 1

Attachment Page 2 of 2 testing, This air lock affects containment integrity and the fission product release to the secondary containment in the above-mentioned accident.

The proposed amendment incorporates the leakage criteria for the air lock doors for various test pressures into the Technical Specifications as required by Appendix J to 10CFR, Part 50. It does not involve any hardware modifications or allow any plant operations that will increase the probability of the Design Basis Loss of Coolant Accidtit (LOCA).

l The proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in j the consequences of a LOCA since the leakage criteria is consistent I with the acceptance criteria of Specification 4.7. A.2.f that the l total acceptable leakage for all applicable valves and penetrations l (including the Drywell air lock door) is 0.60 La. The leakage  !

criteria is also consistent with the 0.05 La criteria at Pa as given l in t?e G.E. Standard Technical Specifications.

2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility for a new j l or different kind of accident from any accident previously l evaluated? d Evaluation: l l

The proposed amendmant incorporates the leakage criteria for the j containment air lock into the Technical Specifications and does not I create any new mode of plant operation that will create the l possibility for a new or different kind of accident from any j accident previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a

! margin of safety? l l

l Evaluation:

The proposed amendment incorporates the air lock leakage criteria into the Technical Specifications and is consistent with the current specification criteria of overall leakage from containment from applicable valves and penetrations. The assumptions used in the

safety analysis are unaffected and existing ' accident evaluations remain in effect. It does not affect any plant operating limits or trip setpoints so there is no change in a margin of safety.

l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ -