ML20097F543

Application for Amend to License NPF-42,revising TS Section 4.8.1.1.2.g(2) to Delete Numerical Value for Load Rejection for EDG

ML20097F543
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	06/11/1992
From:	Rhodes F WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORP.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20097F545	List: ML20097F543 ML20097F548
References
ET-92-0120, ET-92-120, NUDOCS 9206150356
Download: ML20097F543 (11)

Text

_. _ _.

J

~

W4pLFCREEK NUCLE AR OPERATING CORPORATION Forrest T RNdes Vice Piescent tnamnno a tecnna sm.'" June 11, 1992 ET 92-0120 U. S. Nutlear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Station F1-137 Washington. D. C. 20555

Reference:

Letter dated December 12, 1991, from J, A. Bailey, VCHOC to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482: Revision to Technical Specification Section 4.8 - Electrical Power Sy9tems Gentlemen:

The purpose of this letter is to transmit an application for amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-42 for Wolf Creelr Generating Station (WCGS), Unit No. 1. . This license amendment request proposes revising Technical Specification Section 4.8.1.1.2.g(2) to delete the numerical value for the load rejection for the emergency diesel generators as indicated in the Reference.

Attachment I provides a description of the amendment aleng with a Safety Evaluation. i.'.t a chment II provides the Cignificant Hazards Consideration Determinatica. Attachment III providea the Environmental Impact Determination. The proposed changes to the technical specifications is

• provided as Attachment IV.

In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91, a copy of this application, with attachments, is being ptovided to the designated Kansas State Official.

i 1

9206150356 920611 2 /I i

PDR ADOCK 0500 g (,V '#

G .. y PO Box 411 i Burlington, KS 66339 i Phone: (316) 36&B831 l

4U An Ecua! opportunny Ernsoyer M F HCNET

. ET 92-0120

, Page 2 of 2 If you aave any questions concerning this matter, please contact v or Mr. S. G. Wideman of my staff.

Very truly yours.

l

! q?w//// iff A

i f

/. -

Forrest T. Rhodes Vice President Engineering a Technical Services FTR/mes Attachments: I - Safety Evaluation II - Significant Hazards Consideration Determin,ttion III - Environmental Impact Determination IV - Proposed Technical Specifir:ation Change cc: G. W. Allen (KDHE), w/a A. T. Howell (NRC), w/a R. D. Martin (NRC), w/a G. A. Pick (NRC), w/a V. D. Reckley (NRC), w/a

- i l

STATE OF Kr1SAS }

} SS COUNTY OF COFFEY )

Forrest T. Rhodes, of lawful age, being first duly sworn upon oath says that he 'is Vice President Engineering and Technical Services of Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporatioot that he has read the foregoin,, document and knows the content thereof J. hat he has-executed that same for and on behalf of said corporation with full power and authority to do so; and that the facts therein stated are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, ,

inforniation and belief.

W ['s /y /

By '/'W I J Forrest T. Rhodes Vice President-Engineering & Technical Services SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me this il day of. h h ', 1992, N}]/Mb t ~ iktX. Mb b&

g,. . Notary Public 4l, } we p .r

~ ~

6i Expiration Date

.. s _,

~

..O ,

e

v%

. Attacleaent I to ET 92-0120 Page 1 of 3 7

ATTAC.R NT 1 SAFUTY EVAI,UATION h'

l t

l l

1

Attachment I to ET 92-0120 Page 2 of 3 Safety Evaluatlon Proposed Change The purpose of the proposed Technical Specification ch.nge is to revise Section 4.8 to remove the numerical v.21ue of 1352 kW f rom the 18 morah surveillance requirement in 4.8.1.1.2.g(2). This surveillance requirement ensures the ability of the emergency diesel generators (EDG) to sustain the required voltage and frequency while rejecting the largest single load, the Essential Service Water (ESW) pump motor, during accident conditions. In meeting the criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.9, Revision 1 Position C.5 and Regulatory Guide 1.108. Revision 1 Position C.2.a.(4), a numerical value for the largest sinpe load does not need to be specified.

This proposed Technical Specification change is in response to LER 91-022-00. On November 12, 1991, the Control Room waa informed that the requirements of Technical Specification 4.8.1.1.2.g(2) relevant to the 1352 kW could not be satisfied for EDG *B' since the ESW pump motor load is less than the 1352 kW under Loss of Coolant Accident conditions. It was subsequently determined that the requirements for EDG 'A' had also not been satirfied. Concerns about the fulfillment of these requirements were raised on November 10, 1991, while investigating a method to preclude water hammering in the ESW nystem.. On November 13, 1991 EDGs 'A' and "E' were declared inoparable d en it was determined that past performances of the surveillance may nt ' have satisfied the 1332 kW load rejection criterion.

J EDG 'B' was declared operable on November 13. 1991, after the surveillance was performed with the ESW in a lineup which resulted in a load of 1356 kW.

EDG 'A' was declared operable on November 15, 1991, using the same method.

This proposed Technical Specification change will clarify the intent of t he Technical Specification.

Evaluation

1) fosition C.5 of Regulatory Guide 1.9, Revision 1, states that during recovery from transients caused by disconnection of the largest single load, the speed of the diesel generator unit should not exceed the nominal speed plus 75 percent of the difference between nominal speed and the overspeed trip setpoint or 115 percent of nominal whichever is lower. The numerical value for the largest single load (for Wolf Creek Generating Station this is the Essential Service Water (ESW) pump motors) is not needed to comply with this requirement and vns conservatively generated during the time when the diesel generators were being selected. The actual load for the ESW pump motors is less tht.n the 1352 kV load listed in the Technical Specifications. As discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.9, after the operating license stage of review the consideration of a somewhat less conservative approarh is permitted, such as operation with safety loads within the short-time rating of the diesel' generator unit.

Since no new design requirements are being imposed and the change only clarifies how Wolf Creek Nuclear Opetating CorporatJon complies with Regulatory Guide 1.9, Revision 1, there will be no increase in che probability of any accident or equipment malfunction, and there will be no increase in the consequences of an accident or equipment malfunction.

, . ~-

Attachment I to ET 92-0120

• -. page 3 of 3 l

2) As stated above. the proposed change does not involve any design changes, hardware modifications, or change to the intended nanner of plant opera,'on. Thus this proposed change does not create the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR).

3) The Bases for Technical Specification 3/4.8.1 refer to Regulatory Guides 1.9 and 1.108 with regard to surveillance requirements.- The requirements to test for the loss of the single largest load will continue to be satisfied given the approval of this amendment request.

No safety limits or limiting safety system settings are being changed.

Therefore, this proposed change does not involve a reduction in the margin of safety as defined in the Br.ses for 3/4.S.1 Based on the above discussion, the proposed change does not-involve an unreviewed safety question and will not adversely affect or endanger the health or safety of the general public.

i

)

_ 1 _ ____ _ .______ _ ____.________.__ 1_a__.__ _ __.__.__.a____.___ .____._ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . .

Attachment 11 to ET 92 0120 Pcgo a of 3 9

ATTACIMP3T 11 SIGNIFICANT !!AZARDS CONSIDERATION Dt'.fERMIhnT10N

\

- - _ - - _ _ ._ .Y

Attachment II to ET 92-0120 Page 2 of 3 Significant. Ilazards Consideration Determination The proposed change would revise Technical Specification 4.8.1.1.2.g(2) to delete the numerical load for the load rejection for the emergency diesel generators, while continuing to meet the requirements of Regulatory Guides 1.9 and 1.108. The numerical load was a conservative estimate used in selecting a diesel generator.

Standard 1 - Involve a Significant increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previounty Evaluated Position C.5 of Regulatory Gu14o 1.9, Revision 1 states that during recovery from transients causea by disconnection af the largest single load, the speed of the diesel generator unit should not exceed the nominal speed plus 75 percent of the difference between nominal speed and the overspeed trip setpoint or 115 percent of nominal whichever is lower. The numerical value for the largest single load (for Wolf Creek Generating Station this is the Essential Service Water (ESW) pump motors) is not needed to comply with thin requirement and was conservatively generated during the time when the diesel generators were being selected. The actual load for the ESV pump motors is less than the 1352 kW load listed in the Technical Specifications. As discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.9, after the operatlag license stage of review the consideration of a somewhat less conservative approach is permitted, such as operation with safety loads within the short-time rating of the diesel generator unit.

Since no new design requirements are being imposed and the change only clarifies how Volf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation complies with Regulatory Guide 1.9 Revision 1, the proposed changes do not significantly increase the probability of any accident or equipment malfunction previously evaluated, and there will be no significant increase in the consequences of an accident or equipment malfunction previously evaluated.

Standard 2 - Create the Possibility of a New or Diff erent Kind of Accident from any Previously Evaluated As stated above, the proposed change does not involve any design changes, hardware modifications, or change to the intended manner of plant operation. Thus this proposed change does not create the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a new or different type than any previously evaluated in the USAR.

Standard 3 - Involve n Significant Reduction ft the Margin of Safety The Bases for Technical Specification 3/4.8.1 refer to Regulatory Guides 1.9 and 1.108 with regard to surveillance requirements. The requirements to test for the loss of the single largest load will continue to be satisfied given the approval of this amendment request. No safety limits or limiting safety system settings are being changed. Therefore, this proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety as defined in the Bases for 3/4.8.1

r Attachment 11 to ET 02-0120-

. Page 3 of 3 Based on the above discussions, it has been determined that the requested technical specification revision does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident or other adverse condition over previous evaluations or create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident or condition over previous evaluations or involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The requested license amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

r Attoclunent III to ET 92-0120

. Page 1 of 2 t

ATTACIMENT 111 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DETERMINATION

~

F Attachment III to ET 92 0120

. Page 2 of 2 Environinental Impact Determination 10 CFR 51.22(b) specifies the criteria for categorical exclusions f rom the requirements for a specific environmental assessment per 10 CFR 51.21. This amendment request meets the criteria specified in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).

Specific criteria contained in this section are discussed below.

(1) the amendment involves no nignificant har.ards consideration As demonstrated in the Significant Ihzards Consideration Determination in Attachment II, the requested license amendment does not involve any significant hazards consideration.

(ii) there is no significant change in the types or nignificant increate in the amounts of any effluents that may be release offsite.

The requested license amendment involves no change to the facility and does not require a change to operating procedures for implementation. Therefore no increase in the amoants of effluents or new types of effluents would be created.

(iii) there is no significant increase In individual or cuan'lative occupational radiation exposure The nature of the changes is administrative and does not create additional exposure to personnel nor affect levels of radiation present. The proposed changes do not .;,1t in significant individual or cumulative occupational radiation ex,,osure Based on the abo e it is concluded that there will be no impact on the enviromnent resulting f rom these changes. The changes meet the criteria specified in 10 CFR 51.22 for a categorical exclusion from the requirements

> of 10 CFR 51.21 relative to specific environmental assessment by the Commission.

$