ML20203H496

Forwards Insp Rept 50-482/97-201 on 971103-980109.No Violations Noted.Purpose of Insp to Evaluate Capability of Sys to Perform Safety Functions Required by Design Bases & Adherence of Sys to Design & Licensing Bases

ML20203H496
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	02/23/1998
From:	Richards S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Maynard O WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORP.
Shared Package
ML20203H499	List: ML20203H496 ML20203H534
References
50-482-97-201, NUDOCS 9803030245
Download: ML20203H496 (4)

See also: IR 05000482/1997201

Text

..

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ - - _ - - -

e

p pm troug

• * k UNITED STATES

j #

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGToH, D.c. 20666-0001

p% .....[ February 23, 1998

Mr. Otto L Maynard, President

and Chief Executive Officer

Wolf Creek Nuclecr Operating Corporation

P.O. Box 411

Burlington, Kansas 66839

SUBJECT: WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION DESIGN INSPECTION (NRC

INSPECTION REPORT NO 50-482/97-201)

Dear Mr. Maynard:

From November 3,1997, through January 9,1998, the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Events Assessments, Generic

Communications and Special Inspection Branch, performed a des!gn inspection of the Wolf

Creek Generating Station. The inspection covered the residual heat removal (RHR) and

component cooling water (CCW) systems and their support-interface systems. The purpose of

l the inspection was to evaluate the capability of these systems to perform the safety functions

l required by their design bases, the adherence of the systems to their design and licensing bases,

and the consistency of the as-built configuration and system operations with the updated safety

analysis report (USAR). The results of this inspection are presented in the enciosed report.

The inspection team determined that the selected systems were capable of performing their

intended safety functions and that design and licensing bases were adequately adhered to,

except as noted below. Where appropriate, your staff took corrective actions to ensure system

operability.

I

The team identified the following weaknesses in 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations and design changes:

(1) The design change and safety evaluation for the replacement of Class 1E batteries with

AT&T round cell batteries did not address the effect on Technical Specifications (TS). Currently,

TS Sections 4.8.2.1.e and f regaroing battery capacity replacement criteria and battery

degradation criteria appear to be nonconservative because the batteries were sized without

aging factors and the battery performance characteristic was changed. 'he battery design

capacity margin was less than that stated in the staff's safety evaluation report (NUREG-0881;

, and the USAR. The NRR staff will review the design change to determine the adequacy of the

existing TS. (2) The design change and safety evaluation for lowering the CCW temperature did

not address the effects of low temperature on the spent fuel pool reactivity and on diesel

generator loarling. (3) A reactor coolant system (RCS) draindown procedure for installing the

N nitrogen bottles used during plant refueling outages did not have a safety evaluation to address

cM$ seismic restraint requirements to preclude potential missiles.

Non. l

,

The team identified many calculations with errors or inappropriate or nonconservative

h.o

o assumptions. In some cases analysis did not exist to support the design bases. For example:

( l

ing the refueling water storage tank instrument loop uncertainty calculations did not consider density

l

p variations due to temperature and boron concentrations which affected the alarm setpoints, the

oE swapover setpoints, and the level indications; the direct current (de) voltage drop calculation did

@< not identify the worst-case minimum battery voltage to ensure adequate voltage at equipment

Qg terminals; nonconservative downstream pressures were assumed for CCW motor-operated

Ne tr p C7 C C """il F.or

-W ll ll l.il.lill 11 I.I I.ll lYTJ k LW Ca tG 6 L uk $$p

.. =

h

-

__

_ __ _ _ _ _ _

e 0

-

Mr. Otto L M:ynard -2- FeDrucry 23, 1998

valves in valvo e,osure calculations resulting in incorrect design differential pressures for valves;

the calculation to estimate the maximum control circuit wire lengths for motor control center .

startti control circuits did not model the auxiliary loads correctly; and there were no analyses to l

demonstrate that 120 Vac feeders and control circuits were protected adequately during a fault,

and that 120 Vac safety related loads have adequate voltages.

There were deficiencies in surveillance testing of batteries and load growth control for the de l

system, and a number of discrepancies in the USAR, system descriptions, and other plant

documents.

A number of issues identified by the team indicated a need to emphasize design and

configuration-control in maintaining the design and licensing bases. Your staff had established a

design basis / licensing basis review program to address these types of concems, but this new

program had not yet produced widespread or consistent results at the time of the inspection.

As with all NRC inspections, we expect that your staff will evaluate the applicability of the results

and specific findings of this inspection to other systems and components throughout the plant. In

addition, please evaluate the inspection findings, both specific and programmatic, against your

response to NRC's October 9,1996, request for information pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f)

regarding the adequacy and availability of design bases information.

In accordance with Section 2.790(a) of Title 10 of the Code of Federa/ Regulations, a copy of this

letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room, where they will be

made available to the public, unless you notify this office by telephone within 10 days of the date

of this letter and submit a written application to withhold the information contained therein. Such

application must be consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.790(b)(1). Any enforcement

action resulting from this inspection will be handled by NRC Region IV via separate

( correspondence.

I

Should you have any questions conceming the enclosed inspection report, please contact the

project manager, Ms. Kristine M. Thomas, at (301) 415-1362, or the inspection team leader,

Mr. Roy K. Mathew, at (201) 415-2965.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Stuart A. Richards, Chief

Events Assessment, Generic Communications,

and Spt,cial Inspection Branch

Division of Reactor Program Management

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No.: 50-482

Enclosure: Inspection Report 50-482/97-201

cc: see next page

DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ WOLF.RPT *SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE

To r::ctive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with

enclosures "N" = No copy

OFFICE PECB PECB POV-2:DRPW PECB:DRPM d l

NAME R KMathew* DPNorkin' WBateman* SARchards 5pk

DATE 2/2%8 2/7%8 2/2 % 8 2/d/98

OFFICIAL RECORD COFv

__ _____ _______-_____ _

. v

.

DISTRIBUTION FOR WOLF CREEK INSPECTION REPORT:

l Dated: February 23, 1998

g&$b}

PUBLIC

PECB R/F

J. Roe, NRR

inspection Team l

K. Thomas, NRR

R. Mathew, NRR

W. Bateman, NRR

E Peyton, NRR

D. Norkin, NRR

S. Richards, NRR

E. Adensam, NRR

B. Sheron, NRR ,

C.E. Rossi, NRR

J.F. Ringwald, SRI

H. Miller, RI

L.Reyes,Ril

A. Beach, Rlll

E. Merschoff, RIV

C. Hehl, RI

J. Wiggins, RI

J. Johnson, Rll

J. Jaudon, Ril

J. Caldwell, Rlli

G. Grant, Rip

T. Gwynn, r<lV

A. Howell, RIV

T. Stetka, RIV

W. Johnson, RIV

L. Marsh, NRR

M. Cunningham, RES

J. Rosenthal, AEOD

ACRS(3)

OGC (3)

11SDistribution

. . _. -- - _. . .--_ . _ . . -_ .

.

s *

6

Mr. Otto L. Maynard Wolf Creek Generating Station

4 cc:

Jay di! berg, Esq. Chief Operatira Officer

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation

2300 N Street, NW P. O. Box 411

Washington, D.C. 20037 Burlington, Kansas 66839

Regional Administrator, Region IV Supervisor Licensing

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation

611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 P.O. Box 411

Arlington, Texas 76011 Buriington, Kansas 66839

Senior Resident inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

U.S. NJclear Regulatory Commission Resident inspectors Office

P. O. Box 311 8201 NRC Road

Burlington, Kansas 66839 Steedman, Missouri 65077 1032

Chief Engineer

Utilities Division

Kansas Corporation Commission

1500 SW Arrowhead Road

Topeka, Kansas 66604 4".27

Office of the Govemor

State of Kansas

Topeka, Kansas 66612

Attorney General

, Judicia! Center

i 301 S.W.10th

2nd Floor

Topeka, Kansas 66612

County Clerk

Coffey County Courthouse

Burlingtan, Kansas 66839

Vick L. Cooper, Chief

Radiation Control Program

Kansas Department of Health

and Environment

Bureau of Air and Radiation

Forbes Field Building 283

Topeka, Kansas 66620

. . .