ML20151A284

Application for Amend to License NPF-42,revising Tech Specs 3/4.6.1.2 & 3/4.6.1.2 Addressing Containment Leakage & Containment Isolation Valves Respectively.Fee Paid

ML20151A284
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	03/28/1988
From:	Withers B WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORP.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
Shared Package
ML20151A287	List: ML20151A284 ML20151A292
References
WM-88-0080, WM-88-80, NUDOCS 8804060425
Download: ML20151A284 (6)

Text

'

W4$LF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION Bart D. Wittwrs Presdent and Chet Esecatrve offwer March 28,1988

'1M 88-008C U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 t

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482: Revision to Technical Specifications I 3/4.6.1.2 - Containment Leakage and 3/4.6.3 -Containment ,

Isolation Valves  ;

1 Gentlemen:

The purpose of this letter is to transmit an application fo r amendment to Pacility Operating License No. NPP-42 for Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS), Unit No. 1. This license amendment request proposes revising Technical Specifications 3/4.6.1.2 and 3/4.6 3 which address Containmaat Leakage and Containnent Isolation Yalves respectively.

This application for amendment revises these Technical Specifications to clarify actions associated with Technical Specification 3/4.6.1.2. A complete Safety E'valua tion and Significant Hazards Consideration I4 termination are provided as Attschment I and II respectively. The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications are provided in Attachment j III.

In accordance with 10 CPR 50.91, a copy of this application, with attachments is being provided to the designated Kansas state official.  ;

Enclosed is a check (No. 0101'8) for the $150.00 application fee required by 10 CPR 170.21 The proposed revision to the Volf Creek Generating Station Technical Specifications will be fully implemented within 30 days of formal Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval.

i i vs chN $ 15 PO. Son 411/ Burkqtm, KS 66839 / Phone: (316) 364 8831

^^ EW"'*r E'N Nm m

@h 8804060425 880328 PDR ADOCK 050004S2 P -. . _ _ _ _DCD

. i l

l WM 88-0080 1 1

Page 2 of 2 l' March 28 , 1988 1

l If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me or Mr. O. L. Maynard of my staff.

1 Very truly yours, l l

l l

l l

I Bart D. Vithers President and )

Chief Executive Officer ,

1 1

BDW/ ilk l

l Enclosure l l l Attachments: I - Safety Evaluation '

l II - Significant Hazards Consideration Determination l III - Proposed Technical Specificaton Changes l l l l

1 l cc G. Allen (KDHE), w/a l

B. L. Bartlet t (NRC), w/a I R. D. Martin (NRC), w/a l P. V. O'Connor (NRC), 2 w/a l

l l

i l

l l

l i

l l

l l

-. . _ - - - - _ - . - . = - .- . . .- ___

t STATE OP KANSAS ) i

) SS COUNTY OP COPPEY )

i Bart D. Withers, of lawful age, being first duly sworn upon oath says that ,

he is President and Chief Executive Officer of Wolf Creak Nuolear Operating  !

Corporations that he has read the foregoing document ar.1 xnows the content thereof; that he has executed that saine for and on behalf of said Corporation with full power and authority to do so; and that the facts <

j therein stated are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, l information and belief. '

i i

1'

' '2 By -

Bart'D. Withers President and Chief Executive Officer SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me this AI day othd46b ,1988.

W dA '

s. r

' Notary P6blic U A ,. (, i I l ,e Expiration Date [ 90 i

i i

l 9

N I

, y,- ,. . . . , _ , - . , _ . -_ , _ . .

Attachment I to WM 88-0080 Page 1 of 2 March 28, 1988 SAFETY EVALUATION DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT This proposed amendment will clarify the required actions to take if Technical Specification 3.6.1.2 is entered when the Reactor Coolant Temperature is above 200 degrees F. This proposed amendment also adds a note to Technical Specification 3.6.3, which addresses leakage concerns on containment isolation valves.

REASON FOR PROPOSED AMEN 0HENT Wolf Creek Generating Station currently performs local leak rate testing on various piping penetrations and the containment airlocks at power. Because of this testing at power, Technical Specification 3.6.1.2 could be entered in MODES 1, 2, 3, or 4. The current ACTION statement for this specification only addresses the time when the Reactor Coolant System is below 200 degrees F (MODE 5). This proposed amendment will provide direction on what to do, if in MODES 1, 2, 3 or 4.

Technical Specification 3.6.3 pertains only to stroke times of Containment isolation valves. The note added to this specification is to direct the Shift Supervisor to specification 3.6.1.2 if a Containment isolation component is inoperable due to exceeding 0.60 L, leakage.

SAFETY EVALUATION This proposed amendment is designed to make the required actians for containment isolation components consistent, whether they are inoperable due i to stroke times or leakage. Technical Specification 3.6.3 allows a l containment penetration to be isolated by another isolation device if a valve l cannot stroke closed in its specified time interval. Technical Specification 3.6.3 allows 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> to restore the valve to operable status or to isolate the affected penetration.

This proposed amendment will direct the Shift Supervisor to either decrease the leakage to an acceptable amount or isolate the penetration within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />. If neither of these two cases can be accomplished, the plant must be shutdown and placed in HOT STANDBY within the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and on to COLD j SHUTDOWN within the following 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />. This is consistent with the action requirements of Technical Specification 3.6.3.

1) The probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report has not increased. This proposed amendment clarifies a existing Technical Specification. The current Technical Specifications do not provide actions to take if there is a leakage problem with a containment isolation component.

The actions that this proposed amendment provide, are consistent with Technical Specification 3.6.3, for stroke times.

Attachment I to WM 88-0080 Page 2 of 2 j

March 28, 1988 l

i 2) The possibility for an accident or malfunction of. a different type j' than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis report has not [

been created. No new type of accidant or malfunction is being created. This amendment merely provides clear guidance to accomplish

> actions commiserate with the existing situation.

3) The margin of safety as defined in the basis for any . technical

'l_

specification has not been reduced. Technical Specification 3.6.3 allows 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> to take the required actions or shut the plant down within the next 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />. This proposed amendment will require the (

same res,nonse for a containment isolation component with. excessive '

, leakage as is required for a containment isolation valve that is either slow closing or vill not close. Therefore, the margin of safety is unaffected.

Based on the above discussions and the considerations presented in Attachment II, the proposed revisions to the WCGS Technical Specifications do not increase the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the l safety analysis reports or create a possibility for an accident or malfunction '

)

of a different type than any previously evaluated in the safety analysis 1 reports or reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any  ;

technical specification. Therefore, the proposed revisions do not adversely [

affect or endanger the health or safety of the general public or involve a ,

I significant safety hazard. 8 4

h i

t i

a q s

4 2

1

\

. \

.. J l a (

- r t

l i

i i

l 1

_ . _ _ . _ . _ - . _ . _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ m._.. ,

J Attachment II to WM 88-0080 g Page 1 of 1 March 28, 1988 ,

i i

SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION This proposed amendment will clarify the required actions t- take if Technical Specification 3.6.1.2 is entered when the Reactor Coolant  !

Temperature is above 200 degrees F. This proposed amendment also adds a note to Technical Specification 3.6.3, which addresses leakage concerns on

containment isolation valves. .

I i

1) This proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. l This proposed amendment . clarifies an existing Technical

. Specification. The current Technical Specifications do not provide ,

actions to take if there is a leakage pro.am with a containment i isolation component. The actions that this proposed amendment'

'l

l provide, are consistent with Technical Specification 3.6.3, for stroke times. l i 2) This proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new 'c.r i

different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

No new type of accident or malfunction is being created. This ,

N 'I amendment merely provides clear guidance to accomplish actions j commiserate with the existing situation. .

3) This proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a .!

margin of safety. Technical Specification 3.6.3 allows 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> to .

take the required actions or shut the plant down.within the next 6 l hours. This proposed amendment will ' require' the 'ssme response for a i containment isolation component with excessive leakageLas is required '

l

) for a containment isolation valve tnat is either slow closing or l

vill not close. Therefore, the margin of safety le unaffected.

! Based on the .above discussions and those presented in Attschment I, it has l 4 been determined that the requested Technical Specificatioe revisions do not '

1 involve a significant increase in the probability or iconsequences of an J accident or other adverse condition over previous evaluationst' or create the

, possibility of a new or different kind of accident over previous evaluations:

or involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore. the requested license amendment does not involve a significant hazards j consideration.

l i

l )

I 1  !

3 l

I 1 1

_ .._. _ . ,--m,. . , . - _ - . . - , - . . . . , , , , .,- _- , _- , ,..... _ , - _ - . ,- , , r._---,_-_._. , . - . _ _ _ , -y--- ___