ML20072F419
| ML20072F419 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 08/12/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072F414 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9408230328 | |
| Download: ML20072F419 (3) | |
Text
.
p* c%'o J
/,%
UNITED STATES y
2 I Y
c
((%'3h)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D.C. 20555-0001 ys SAFETY EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 76 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-42 WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-482
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated October 27, 1993, Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (Appendix A to Facility Operating License No. NPF-42) for the Wolf Creek Generating Station. The proposed changes would revise Technical Specification 4.6.1.2.a, Overall Integrated Containment Leakage Rate, to provide one-time relief from the requirements to perform the surveillance at intervals of 40 months plus or minus 10 months.
The schedule for the third Type A test is extended to the eighth refueling outage, approximately 54 months after the second test, in order to have it coincide with the 10-year inservice inspections.
2.0 BACKGROUND
Section Ill.D.l(a) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 establishes the required retest schedule for Type A, Overall Integrated Containment Leakage Rate tests.
The rule states that after the preoperational leakage rate tests, a set of three Type A tests shall be performed, at approximately equal intervals during each 10-year service period.
The third test of each set is required to be performed when the plant is shutdown for the 10-year plant inservice inspections.
The requirements of Appendix J are reflected in the test schedule included in Technical Specification 4.6.1.2.a.
The technical specification requires that three Type A tests shall be conducted at 40 +/- 10 month intervals during each 10-year service period. The third test of each set is required to be conducted during the shutdown for the 10-year plant inservice inspection.
The licensee is proposing to extend the interval between the second and third Type A tests to approximately 54 months.
The current refueling outage schedules for Wolf Creek Generating Station cannot :upport the schedule established in Appendix J and technical specifications.
In order to perform three tests in the first 10-year service period, the licensee would need to perform the third test during the seventh refueling outage.
However, the 10-year ir, service insputions mentioned in Appendix J and technical t..
9408230328 940812 PDR ADOCK 05000482 P
4 4
-2 specifications are scheduled for the eighth refueling outage.
In order to meet all requirements of the rule and technical specifications, the licensee would need to perform a fourth test during the eighth refueling outage. The proposed technical specification change and related exemption request being addressed by separate correspondence, are intended to resolve the discrepancies between the requirements and refueling outage schedules.
3.0 EVALVATION The intent of the established test interval is that three approximately equally spaced Type A tests be conducted within a given 10-year service period.
The Appendix J and technical specification retest requirements do not coincide with the anticipated refueling outage schedules such that Type A tests would need to be performed during both the seventh and eighth refueling outages resulting in a total of four tests for the first 10-year inservice inspection period.
This additional testing, resulting solely from the circumstances of the refueling outage schedules, is contrary to the intent of the regulations and existing technical specifications.
The licensee has stated that the results of previous Type A tests indicate that an extension of the maximum test interval by approximately four months would not jeopardize the ability of the containment to maintain leakage at or below the applicable limit.
The preoperational ILRT was performed during January 1985 and the first two tests during this servic.e period were performed October 1988 and September 1991.
The as-left leakage rates measured during the two tests were 0.112 and 0.070 wt.%/ day respectively.
These are well below the acceptance limit of 0.15 wt.%/ day.
The licensee has found that the majority of the leakage detected during the ILRTs was from the containment penetrations and not from the containment barrier itself.
Local leak rate testing of penetrations will continue to be performed as required by technical specifications and can be relied upon to detect the most probable sources of containment leakage.
The licensee would be required by Appendix J,Section IV. A to perform additional testing to demonstrate containment integrity if any major modifications affecting containment are performed prior to the proposed test during the eighth refueling outage.
Based on the past Type A test results, the continued performance of local leak rate testing, and intent of the Appendix J and technical specification requirements, the staff finds that the one-time extension of the required test interval for Type A tests would not adversely affect plant safety and is, therefore, acceptable.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Kansas State Official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comments.
-3
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 and changes surveillance requirements. 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 (58 FR 64616). 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) 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 Contributor:
William Reckley, PDIV-2 Date:
August 12, 1994 l
l s
- - 1