ML20236M706
| ML20236M706 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236M684 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8711130251 | |
| Download: ML20236M706 (3) | |
Text
- -.
- # "%,,o j
2 UNITED STATES g
,g g
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'l;. }
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k.... *,o8 l
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.12 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. NPF-42 KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY KANSAS CITY POWER AND LIGHT COM_PANY, KANSAS ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.
WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET N0. 50-482 INTRODUCTION On February 21, 1985, the NRC staff issued its Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on the Westinghouse Technical Specification Opt.imization Program for increased surveillance intervals and relaxed out-of-service times for testing and maintenance of the Reactor Trip System (RTS).
The Optimization Program proposal was set forth in WCAP-10271, " Evaluation of Surveillance Frequencies and Out-of-Service Times for the Reactor Protection Instrumentation System,"
j and Supplement 1 thereto.
j i
By letter dated June 16, 1987, the licensee proposed changes to the Wolf Creek Technical Specifications based on the Optimization Program.
The following documents the NRC staff's review of the requested changes, j
EVALUATION j
Change 1 The licensee proposed to increase the time during which an inoperable RTS analog channel may be maintained in an untripped j
condition from one hour to six hours (see Table 3.3-1, Action Statements 2.a and 6.a in the plant's proposed Technical Specifications).
The staff finds this change acceptable on the basis set forth in the staff's February 21, 1985, SER.
Change 2 -
The licensee proposed to increase the time an inoperable RTS analog channel may be bypassed to allow testing of another channel in the same function from two hours to four hours (see Table 3.3-1, Action Statements 2.b and 6.b in the proposed Technical Specifications).
The staff finds this change acceptable on the basis set forth in the staff's February 21, 1985, SER.
Change 3 The licensee proposed to add a cautionary note to the action statements (see new note 1 in Table 3.3-1 for Functional Unit
- 13) and to the surveillance requirements (see new note 15 in Table 4.3-1 for Functional Unit 13) referencing the more 8711130251 871102 PDR ADOCK 05000482 P
PDR I
+
2,,
b stringent requirements for Engineering Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) channels for RTS analog channels common to ESFAS.
The staff finds this change acceptable on the basis set forth in the staff's February 21, 1985, SER.
Change 4 The licensee proposed to delete Action Statement 7 and to reference Action Statement 6 for those reactor trip channels now referencing Action Statement 7 (see Table 3.3-1, Functional Units 11 and 12 in the plant's proposed Technical Specifications).
This change, as discussed in Supplement 1 to WCAP-10271, results from the similarity and intent of Action Statements 6 and 7.
Further, the staff in a July 24, 1985, letter from Harold R. Denton to L. O. Butterfield identified this as a specific acceptable revision in the model technical specifica-tions provided to the Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG).
On this basis, the staff finds this change acceptable as proposed by the licensee.
Change 5 -
The licensee proposed to reference Action Statement 6 in lieu of Action Statement 11 for Functional Unit 16a in Table 3.3-1.
This change results from the similarity and intent of Action Statements 6 and 11. The staff in the July 24, 1985, letter identified Action Statement 6 as acceptable for this functional unit in the model technical specifications provided to the WOG.
On this basis, the staff finds this change acceptable as proposed by the licensee.
Change 6 The licensee has proposed to revise Bases Sections 3/4.3.1 and 3/4.3.2 to include a discussion of WCAP-10271.
Since the proposed changes are equivalent to those in the "WOG Guidelines for Preparation of Submittals Requesting Revisions to RPS 4
Technical Specifications," Revision 1, dated September 3, 1985, and encompass the specific comments in the staff's July 24, 1985, letter, the staff finds this change acceptable as proposed.
Change 7 -
In Table 4.3-1 under Functional Units 2.a, 3, 4 and 6 thru 13, the licensee proposed to change the entries under " ANALOG CHANNEL OPERATIONAL TEST" from "M" to "Q(14)." A new note 14 is added under " TABLE NOTATIONS" to this table for a staggered test basis.
We find these changes acceptable on the basis set forth in the staff's February 21, 1985, SER.
In Table 4.3-1 under " ANALOG CHANNEL OPERATIONAL TEST:" for Change 8 Functional Unit 2.b the entry is revised from "M" to "S/U(1),"
for Functional Unit 5 "M" is deleted, for Functional Unit 18 the entries are revised from "M(8)" to "R."
Under " TRIP
y s...
! l ACTUATING DEVICE OPERATIONAL TEST" the entries for Functional Units 14 and 15 are revised from "M" to "Q(14)." We find these changes acceptable on the basis set forth in the July 24, 1985, letter from Harold R. Denton to L. D. Butterfield which provided model technical specifications to the WOG related to the staff's generic SER on WCAP-10271.
Change 9 In Table 4.3.1 Functional Unit 18.b is deleted in its entirety.
The staff identified this change as acceptable in the July 24, 1985, letter to the WOG.
On the basis set forth therein, the staff finds this change acceptable as proposed.
Change 10 -
Under " TABLE NOTATIONS" for Table 4.3.1 note 1 is revised to i
require surveillance of Functional Unit 2.b prior to startup if not performed in the previous 31 days in lieu of the previous 7 days.
Note 8 is also deleted since it is no longer referenced.
In note 9 " monthly" is changed to " quarterly." On the basis set forth in the staff's July 24, 1985, letter to the WOG, we find these changes acceptable as proposed.
f ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION l
1 The amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or in a surveillance requirement.
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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(9).
1 Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental l
assessment 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 Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: November 2,1987 I
Principal Contributor:
Frederick Burrows l
Paul W. O'Connor
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. -