ML20236A085
| ML20236A085 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236A083 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-83-28, GL-85-09, GL-85-9, NUDOCS 8903160363 | |
| Download: ML20236A085 (2) | |
Text
- _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _
A
[f
\\
+
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 g
x.....)
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 26 TO FACILITY OPEF.ATING LICENSE NO. NPF-42 WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATIhG CORPORATION WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET N0. 50-482 INTRODUCTION On May 23, 1985 the Nuclear Regulatory Connission (NRC) issued Generic Letter 85-09 to all Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor licensees. The Generic Letter explicitly described Technical Specification revisions required by Item 4.3 of Generic Letter 83-28, " Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events." Item 4.3 in part established the requirement for the automatic actuation of the shunt trip attachment for Westinghouse plants.
Based on a review of the Westinghouse design for autcrr.atic actuation of the shunt trip attachments, the NRC Staff concluded that revisions to licensee Technical Specifications were required to explicitly require both independent testing of the undervoltage and shunt trip attachments during power operation and independent testing cf the control room manual switch contacts during each refueling outage. The staff concluded that these changes were necessary to ensure reliable operation of the Reactor Trip Breakers.
EVALUATION By letter dated June 29, 1987 the Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation submitted proposed revisions to the Wolf Creek Generating Station Technical Specification based upon the NRC staff evaluation of the Westinghouse shunt trip attachment design and the requirements of Generic Letter 85-09.
In response to the NRC requirements, the following Technical Specification revisions were proposed.
1.
ACTION 12 is being added to Table 3.3-1.
This action statement l
corresponds to Functional Unit 19 (Reactor Trip Breakers) and allows l
continued plant operation for up to 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> with one of the diverse trip features inoperable. The proposed Reactor Trip Breaker surveillance will serve to independently verify the operability of the shunt and undervoltage trip features. There is a high degree of confidence that the remaking operable trip feature would be capable of initiating a reactor G withG the allowed 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />.
2.
Table Notation 11 of Table 4.3-1 has been revised to verify the operability of the undervoltage and shunt trip circuits for Functional Unit 1 (Manual Reactor Trip). This notation will also verify the OPERABILITY of the Bypass Breaker trip circuits.
8903160363 890301 PDR ADOCK 05000482 P
4 1 3.
Table Notation 16 is being added to Table 4.3-1.
This notation i
corresponds to Functional Unit 19 (Reactor Trip Breaker). The proposed I
notation requires that the TRIP ACTUATING DEVICE OPERATIONAL TEST shall i
independently verify the OPERABILITY of the undervoltage and shunt trip attachments of the Reactor Trip Breakers.
4.
Table 4.3-1 is being revised to add Functional Unit 21.
(Reactor Trip l
I Bypass Breaker). This Functional Unit requires a TRIP ACTUATING DEVICE OPERATIONALTEST(TA00T). Table Notation 17 requires a local manual shunt trip prior to placing the breaker in service. Table Notation 18 requires an automatic undervoltage trip.
l On the basis of its review of the above items, the staff concludes that the licensee has provided an acceptable response to these items as addresseo in the NRC guidance requiring independent testing of the undervoltage and shunt trip attachments during power operation and independent testing of the control room s.ayual switch contacts during each refueling outage. Furthermore, the staff finds that these changes are consistent with the staff's generic finding on the acceptability of such changes as noted in Generic Letter 85-09.
Accordingly, the staff finds the proposed changes to be acceptable.
1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION l
The anendirent involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The 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 exposures. The Cossnission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in10CFRSection51.22(c)(9). Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),noenvironmental isipact statement or environmental assesssent need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
CONCLUSION The staff 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendr,ent will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: March 1, 1989 Principal Contributor: Douglas V. Pickett s
~