ML20215J574
| ML20215J574 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1987 |
| From: | Bailey J WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORP. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215J577 | List: |
| References | |
| ET-87-0220, ET-87-220, NUDOCS 8706250047 | |
| Download: ML20215J574 (8) | |
Text
.
to
',p 5
s,.4 9.
LF CREEK Wl) NUCLEAR OPERATINGa l
p
- John A. Bailey l
Vee President Engineering and Technical Services i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.
20555 L
. Letter:
ET 87-0220 Re:
Docket No. 50-482 i
Subj:
Revision to Technical Specification 3.5 Accumulators GentiemenjR.
i I
The purpose of this letter is to transmit an application for amendment to '
Facility Operating License No.
NPF-42 for Wolf Creel: Generating Station, Unit No.-
1.
This license amendment request proposes revising Technical Specification 3.5.1, which addresses Reactor Coolant System Accumulators.
This application for amendment, revises Technical Specification-3.5.1 Acc umula tors,
to allow the Unit to remain in-Hot Standby with Reactor Coolant System pressure less than or equal to 1000 psig with one accumulator inoperable.-
A complete Safety ' Evaluation and' Signi ficant ' Hazards Consideration are provided as Attachments I t.n d. II respectively.
The
.j
- proposed changes to. Technical Specification. 3.5.1 are provided in Attachment III.
I In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91, a copy of this application for amendment with attachments is being' provided to the designated Kansas state official.
Enclosed is a check (No. 000201) for the $150.00 application fee required by 10 CFR 170.21.
i
$@62gggg;g?8%g2 P
P.O. Box 411/ Burlington, KS 66839 / Phone: (316) 3644631 gg[
An Equal opporturity Employer WF/HC/ VET Q d fc//fd/f
[
p o act j
e, '
2 i
ETI87 0220I Pzge;2.
2 f June 119,1987 4
7
- The proposed. revision. to' the ' Wolf. Creek Generating Station' Technical ~
. Specifications' will' be fully implemented within 30 days of formal Nuclear, l-Regulatory Commission approval.
If you.have any questions concerning-this; matter, please contact me or Mr. O.
L.. Maynard of my staff.
'Very truly yours,.
- JAB:Jad.
John A. Bailey' Vice-President ~
Engineering and Technica1'Servicesi
- Enclosure Attachments:
' I - Safety Evaluation II - Significant Hazards Consideration III - Proposed Technical Specification Changes cc:
P0'Connor (2)
RMartin JCummins GAllen s-1 I
?
9 t
5 STATE OF-KANSAS
-)
) SS l
COUNTY OF C0FFEY
)
I John A. Bailey, of lawful age, being first duly sworn upon oath says that he is Vice-President Engineering and. Technical Services of Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation; that he has read the foregoing document and knows the content thereof;'
that 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, information and belief.
i By John A. Bailey
[
Vice-President Engineering ar d Technical Services I
SUBSCRI)),ED and sworn to before me this day of u.nu., i187.
g,,.... * * *.
q et.
hnrw Jbhaf
.,..#9*m Noi y Ppblic y :.
$'*, C b 5,!f af.9.....?.gf Expiration oate 39 (Oc1 \\qP7 I
1_____----_----_----.
i-I i
l 4
i i
ATTACHMENT I i
i SAFETY EVALUATION 1
i l
l 1
i i
j l
i j
l w
f i
a e
SAFETY EVALUATION l
?
This amendment request revises Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS),
Unit l
No. 1, Technical Specification 3 5.1, Accumulators, to allow the plant to remain in Hot Standby (MODE 3) with the Reactor Coolant System pressure less than or equal to 1000 psig with one accumulator inoperable.
Background
As described in the WCGS Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR),
the accumulators function as part of the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS).
The primary function of the ECCS is to provide emergency core cooling in the event of a Loss of Cooling Accident (LOCA) resulting from a break in the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) or to-provide emergency boration in the event of a steam line or feedwater break accident.
During normal operation, each accumulator is isolated from the RCS by two check valves in series.
Should the RCS pressure fall below the accumlulator pressure, the check valves open and borated water is forced into. the RCS.
One accumulator is attached to each of the cold legs of the RCS, Mechanical operation of the swing-disc j
check valves is the only action required to open the injection path from the accumulators to the core via the cold leg.
The Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) for Technical Specification 3.5.1 is applicable in MODES 1, 2,
and 3 at a pressurizer pressure above 1000 psig. Normal operating procedures have the Control Room operators close the accumulator outlet valves, whenever the RCS pressure is reduced below 1000 l
psig, therefore, rendering all four accumulators inoperable.
Technical i
Specifiction 3.5.1 ACTION Statements a.
and b.
presently require the plant i
to be in Hot Standby within 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> and in Hot Shutdown (MODE 4) within the following 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> with one accumulator inoperable.
The proposed amendment would revise ACTION Statements a.
and b.
to require i
the plant to be in Hot Standby within 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> and reduction of RCS pressure I
to less than' or equal to 1000 psig within the following 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> with one I
The proposed amendment makes the LCO action statements consistent with the LCO applicability, thus not requiring the i
plant to be placed in Hot Shutdown (Mode 4) due to only one inoperable j
j Bringing the plant down to Hot Shutdown as presently required when one accumulator is inoperable results in an unnecessary thermal and pressure transient on the plant.
In the hypothetical situation where an event is initiated with RCS pressure below 1000 psig, the control room operators would be guided by appropriate emergency procedures to open the accumulator outlet valves as necessary to mitigate the event.
i
(
e Att:chmant I to ET 87-0220 Page 2 of 2 l
-June 119,'1987~
l l
Evaluation i
The proposed change will not affect the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety s
previously evaluated in the Safety Analysis Report. Technical Specification f
3.5.1 ACTION Statements a.
and b.
require commencement of Plant shutdown after one hour of determining one accumulator inoperable.
Decreasing RCS l
pressure to less than or equal to 1000 psig while in Hot Standby is consistent with the existing applicability of the Technical Specification LCO.
This change will not create the possibility for an accident or malfunction.
of a dif ferent. type then any previously evaluated in the Sa fety Analysis report.
The accumulators are required to inject borated water into the RCS cold legs during the injection phase of an accident after RCS pressure drops below the pressure of ' the accumulators.
The proposed amendment only affects operation at a RCS pressure of less than or equal to 1000 psig.
Postulated design basis accidents that take credit for automatic actuation of the accumulators begin above 1000 psig.
This change does not affect the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any. technical specification.
The present Technical Specification for WCGS l
does not require the accumulators to be operable in Hot Standby with. RCS pressure less than or equal to 1000 psig.
This change does not affect the capability of the accumulators to perform their safety function.
The proposed change does not alter any safety limits or' limiting safety system setpoints.
Conclusion Based on the above discussions and the considerations presented in Attachment II, the proposed revision to Technical Specification 3/4.5.1 does not increase the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an i
accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously l
evaluated in the safety analysis report; or create a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis report; or reduce the.mardin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification.
Therefore, the proposed revision does not adversely affect or endanger the health or safety of the general public or involve a significant safety hazard.
I 1
l l
)
9 i
i 1
ATTACIIMENT II SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION i
i s
l k
i h
i f
=
1 8
I 1
1 i.
r.
i j
SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION l
,This amendment request revises Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS),
Unit No.
1, Technical Specification 3.5.1, Accumulators, to allow the Unit to remain in Hot Standby (MODE 3) 'with the Reactor Coolant System.(RCS) l pressure less than or equal to 1000 psig with one accumulator inoperable.
1.
The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
. probability. or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
This amendment is being proposed to make the technical specification Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) applicability and the technical specification ACTION Statements consistent.
{
This change does not affect the performance of the Emergency Core Cooling System accumulators.
[
2.
The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment only affects operation at a RCS pressure of less than or equal to 1000 psig.
Postula ted design basis accidents that take credit for automatic actuation of the i
accumulators begin above 1000 psig.
A 3.
The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
This change does not affect any technical specification margin of sa fety.
The proposed change does not affect the capability of the accumulators to perform their sa fety func tion.
This change does not alter any safety limits or l
limiting safety system setpoints.
I Based on the above discussions and those presented in Attachment I, it has been determined that.the requested Technical Specification revision does not j
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an j
accident or other adverse condition over previous evaluations;' or create the l
possibility of a new or different kind of accident or condition over previous evaluations; or involve a significant reduction in a margin of sa fety.
Therefore, the requested license amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
I k