ML20073R463
| ML20073R463 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20073R460 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9106070247 | |
| Download: ML20073R463 (3) | |
Text
.
- - - - - -. ~, -
~. -.
. ~.
/ga meag%
yX ',,i
-UNITED STATES n
{-
/,i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
WASHINGTON. D,C. 20506 fu
,E.
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 44 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 March 5, 1991, 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 Specification 4.7.8 to incorporate an alternative snubber visual inspection schedule as provided by Generic Letter 90-09, " Alternative Requirements for Snubber Visual Inspection Intervals and Corrective Actions."
2.0 EVALUATION Technical Specifications (TS) impose surveillance requirements for visual inspection and functional testing of all safety-related snubbers.
A visual inspection is the observation of the condition of installed snubbers to identify those that-are damaged, degraded, or inoperable as caused by physical means, leakage, corrosion, or environmental exposure.
To verify that a oubber can~ operate within specific performance limits, the licensee performs functional testing that typically involves removing the snubber and testing it on a specially-designed test stand.
Functional testing provides a 95 percent confidence-level that 90 percent to 100 percent of the snubbers operate within the specified acceptance limits.
The performance of visual examinations is a separate-process that complements the functional testing program and provides additional confidence in snubber operability.
The TS specifies a schedule for snubber visual inspections that is based on the-number of inoperable snubbers found during the previous visual inspection.
The schedules for visual inspections and for the-functional testing assume that refueling intervals will not exceed 18 months.
Because'the current schedule for' snubber-visual inspections is based only on the number _ of. inoperable snubbers found during the previous visual inspection.. irrespective of the size of the snubber population, licensees having a large number of snubbers find that~the visual inspection schedule'is excessively restrictive.
Some licensees L
have spent a significant amount of resources and have subjected plant personnel l
to unnecessary radiological exposure -to comply with the visual examination requirements.
(-
9106070247 910531 l=
PDR ADOCK 0500 2
P
To alleviate this s'ituation, in Generic Letter (GL) 90-09 the staff developed an alternate schedule for visual inspections that maintains the same confidence level as -the existing schedule and generally will allow the licensee to perform visual inspections and corrective actions during plant outages.
Because this line-item TS improvement will reduce future occupational radiation exposure and is highly cost effective, the alternative inspection schedule is consistent with the Commission's Policy Statement on TS improvements..
The alternative inspection schedule is based _on the number of unacceptable snubbers found during-the previous inspection in proportion to the sizes of the. various snubber populations or categories. A snubber is considered unacceptable if it f611s the acceptance criteria of the visual inspection.
The alternative inspection interval is based on a fuel cycle of up-to 24 months and may be as long as 2 fuel cycles, or 48 months for plants with other fuel cycles, depending on the number of unacceptable snubbers found during the previous visual inspection.
In its letter of. March 5,- 1991, the licensee proposed changes to Technical Specification 4.7.8 for the snubber visual examination schedule. Since the alternative inspection schedule proposed by the licensee is consistent with the guidance provided in GL 90-09, the staff finds the proposed changes acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In recordance with the Commission's regulations, the Kansas State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 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 cumuiative 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 coninent on such finding (56 FR 13672). Accordingly,
the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth Lin 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.
- - - - - ~ -
- 5. 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 Contributors:
Douglas Pickett, PDIV-2/DRPW Jai Rajan, EMEB/0ET Date:
May 31, 1991 l
l l
-- -. - - - - - - - - - -