ML25168A238

05-11-82 ACRS Report on the Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1

ML25168A238
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	05/11/1982
From:	Shewmon P Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Palladino N NRC/Chairman
References
Download: ML25168A238 (1)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 May 11, 1982 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chainnan U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555

SUBJECT:

ACRS REPORT ON THE WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 1 During its 265th meeting, May 6-8, 1982, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards reviewed the application of Kansas Gas and Electric Company (KG&E), Kansas City Power and Light Co. and Kansas Electric Power Coopera-tive, Inc. (Applicants) for a license to operate the Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1. The Station is to be operated by KG&E.

A Subcommittee meeting was held in Emporia, Kansas, on April 21-22, 1982, to consider this project. A tour of the facility was made by members of the Subcommittee on April 21, 1982. During its review, the Committee had the benefit of discus-sions with representatives and consultants of the Applicants, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Bechtel Power Corporation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff, and with members of the public.

The Committee also had the benefit of the documents listed below.

The Committee c0111nented on the construction pennit application for this plant in its report dated October 16, 1975.

The Wolf Creek Generating Station is located in Hampdon Township, Coffey County, Kansas.

The site is in eastern Kansas approximately 53 miles south of Topeka, and 100 mil es east-northeast of Wichita.

The nearest population center is Emporia, Kansas, 28 miles west-northwest of the site (estimated 1980 population of 25,019).

The Wolf Creek Generating Station will be the first commercial nuclear power plant in the state of Kansas.

It should be assured that state and local agencies are qualified to respond to possible emergency situa-tions assocf ated with the opera ti on of the Wolf Creek Generating Station.

The Station will use a Westinghouse, four-loop, pressurized water, nuclear steam supply system having a rated power level of 3425 MWt.

Unit l em-ploys a cylindrical, steel-lined, reinforced, post-tensioned concrete containment structure with a free volume of 2.5 million cubic feet.

The Wolf Creek Generating Station uses the Standardized Nuclear Unit Power Plant System (SNUPPS) design.

It is one of two plants built to this design.

The Committee reported on the operating 1 icense appl icatfon of the other plant (Callaway Plant Unit No. 1) in its November 17, 1981 re-port to you.

1823

Honorable Nunzio May 11, 1982 The Wolf Creek Generating Station is the first nuclear power pl ant to be operated by KG&E.

The Committee reviewed KG&E's management organization, experience, and training programs.

We were favorably impressed by the general competence and attitude of KG&E I s personnel.

Nevertheless, we wish to emphasize the importance of KG&E's building a strong in-house capability for analyzing and understanding the nuclear-thermal-hydraulic behavior and systems performance of this plant.

To strengthen the shift structure during the initial period of operation, KG&E plans to augment each shift with a consultant who is an experi-enced, previously 1 icensed PWR operator.

These consultants wil 1 serve for a period of one year after startup.

In addition, KG&E has retained the services of a consultant with considerable commercial nuclear experi-ence to act as a technical assistant to the Pl ant Superintendent through the initial loading of fuel.

We believe the technical assistant to the Pl ant Superintendent and the "experienced operator consultants" should be retained until the operating organization has developed an experience base involving those operational duties of importance to public safety.

This experience base should be defined by the NRC Staff in consultation with operational experts and incorporated into the regulatory requirements instead of using arbitrary operating time periods as a basis for measuring skill.

We encourage the practice of assigning the Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) candidates to extended tours of service at operating nuclear power plants, and recommend that others in the operations staff participate in such a program to the extent practical.

KG&E has proposed, as an alternative to a Shift Technical Advisor (STA),

that at least one SRO on aach shift have the training and background required for an STA.

This approach appears to us to meet the need which originally led to the requirement of an STA.

However, it is not clear that the level of training given to the SROs will correspond to that intended for STAs, and we recommend that the Staff review this matter carefully.

The site-specific portions of the pl ant, including vital aspects of the ultimate heat sink and associated systems, were designed for a 0.12 g earthquake, and are being reanalyzed for an earthquake represented by site-specific response spectra that are encompassed by Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectra anchored at a zero-period acceleration of 0.15 g. The standard portion of the plant, on the other hand, was designed for a 0.20 g earth-quake with the usual margins of safety and thus would be expected to withstand a considerably larger earthquake without failing in such a manner as to cause a severe accident.

1824

Honorable Nunzio May 11, 1982 We do not have confidence that all vital aspects of the ultimate heat sink and associated systems have margins sufficient to provide an appropriate level of resistance to a lower probability, more severe earthquake.

We recommend therefore that the seismic margins inherent in the components of the ultimate heat sink and associated systems be investigated further and that any needed modifications be made before the pl ant resumes operation after the second refueling.

Other issues have been identified as Outstanding Issues, License Conditions, and Confirmatory Issues in the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report dated April 1982; these include some TMI Action Plan requirements.

Except as noted above, we believe these issues can be resolved in a manner satis-factory to the NRC Staff and recommend that this be done.

We believe that, if due consideration is given to the recommendations above, and subject to satisfactory completion of construction, staffing, training, and preoperational testing, there is reasonable assurance that the Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. l can be operated at power levels up to 3425 MWt without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.

References:

Sincerely,

~

P. Shewmon Chairman

1.

"Final Safety Analysis Report for Standardized Nuclear Unit Power Pl ant System, 11 with Revisions 1-8.

2.

"Final Safety Analysis Report, Wolf Creek Generating Station Unit No. l, 11 with Revisions 1-8.

3.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1, " NUREG-O881, dated April 1982.

4. Written statement by John M. Simpson, Attorney for Intervenors, Re:

Emergency Planning Procedures and Plans - Wolf Creek Plant, dated April 22, 1982.

1825