ML20083Q642
| ML20083Q642 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1995 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083Q635 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9505260091 | |
| Download: ML20083Q642 (3) | |
Text
._
k3 Ritg "g
UNITED STATES S
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
If WASHINGTON, D.C. 30ssH001
..../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
~RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 86 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-42 WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION r
WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-482
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated March 21, 1995, Wolf Creek. Nuclear Operating Corporation (the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TS)
(Appendix A to Facility Operating License No. NPF-42) for the Wolf Creek Generating Station.
The proposed changes would ' revise Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2.1.d to change the surveillance interval specified for the serformance of an air or smoke flow test through the containment spray leader from "at.least once per 5 years" to "at least once per 10 years."
1
2.0 BACKGROUND
TS Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2.1.d requires that each containment spray system be demonstrated operable at least once per 5 years by performing an air or smoke flow test through each spray header and verifying each spray nozzle is unobstructed.
In December 1992, the NRC issued NUREG-1366, " Improvements to Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirements." Section 8.1 of NUREG-1366, " Containment Spray System (PWR)," states that the NRC recommends that the surveillance interval of the air or smoke flow test be extended to 10 years.
3.0 EVALUATION The containment spray system consists of two separate trains of equal capacity, each constructed of stainless steel and each independently capable of meeting system requirements. Each train includes a containment spray pump, spray header and nozzles, spray additive eductor, containment recirculation sump screens, containment spray isolation valve encapsulation tank, valves, and necessary piping, instrumentation, flushing connections, and controls. The nozzles, which are of the hollow cone design, are not subject to clogging by particles less than 7/16-inch in size.
Independent
,sosuoo91 950517 l
pDR ADOCKoSOyy2
c..
., electrical power supplies are provided for equipment in each containment spray train.
In addition, eac1 train is provided with electrical power from separate emergency diesel generators in the event of a loss of offsite power. The containment spray system is actuated either manually from the control room or on coincidence of two sets out of four containment Hi-3 pressure signals.
NUREG-1366 evaluated the testing of spray nozzles in pressurized water reactors' containment saray systems with stainless steel piping. The conclusion drawn from t11s evaluation was that the corrosion of stainless steel piping is negligible during the extended surveillance interval.
Because the containment spray system is constructed of stainless steel and maintained dry, there is no additional mechanism that could cause blockage of the spray nozzles. Thus, the nozzles in the containment spray system will remain operable during the 10 year surveillance interval.
The licensee has reported that two surveillance air flow tests have been successfully performed at Wolf Creek Generating Station. These flow tests clearly demonstrated that obstructions did not exist for any of the spray nozzles.
Based on the above, the proposed reduced testing of the spray systems' nozzles remains adequate to ensure operability of the nozzles to mitigate the consequences of a design-basis accident. Therefore, the staff finds the proposed change ' 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.
1 1
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
i The amendment 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 (60 FR 18631). 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 environmente fupact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connectik, with the issuance of the amendment.
l l
l 5.....
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: James Stone Date:
May 17,1995 i