ML20054K655
| ML20054K655 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054K654 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-07711, TAC-08404, TAC-7711, TAC-8404, NUDOCS 8207060025 | |
| Download: ML20054K655 (4) | |
Text
-
a ya,k u
/
UNITED STATES
!j f
g > ""g (g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~ N "[/ [c WASHING TON. D. C. 20555 s,.~....,
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 61 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-24 AND AMENDMENT N0. 66 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-27 l
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
(
POINT BFACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 1.0 Introduction On August 5,1975(1), the NRC requested Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCo) to review its containment leakage testing program for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Point Beach 1/2) and the associated Technical Specifications, for compliance with the requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50.
Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 was published on February 14, 1973.
Since by this date there were already many operating nuclear plants and a number of more in advanced stages of design or construction, the NRC decided to have these plants re-evaluated against the requirements of this new regulation. Therefore, beginning in August 1975, requests for review of the extent of compliance with the requirements of Appendix J were made of each licensee. Following the initial responses to these requests, NRC staff positions were developed which would assure that the objectives of the testing requirements of the above cited regulation were satisfied. These staff positions have since been applied in our review of the submittals filed by the licensee for Point Beach 1/2. The results of our evaluation are provided below.
2.0 Discussion Our consultant, the Franklin Research Center (FRC), has reviewed the licensee's submittals (2, 3, 5, 6, 9 and 10) and prepared the attached evaluation of containment leak rate tests for Point Beach 1/2. We have reviewed this evaluation and concur in its bases and findings.
3.0 Evaluation Based on our review of the enclosed technical evaluation report (TER) as prepared by the FRC, the following conclusions are made regarding the Appendix J review for Point Beach 1/2:
DESIGNATED ORIGINAL Cortifiedb LNM N
/
=-
8207060025 820625 PDR ADOCK 05000266 P
pgg
. 1.
The service air supply system is used in conjunction with the Type A test and, consequently, its leakage integrity is not factored into the test results.
However, Type C testing of the service air supply line, with measured leakage added to the Type A results, is an adequate substitution for the Type A testing require...ents of Appendix J.
This approach is described in Section III.A.I.(d) of Appendix J.
An exemption from the requirements of Appendix J is necessary, however, because, unlike the systems addressed in Section III.A.1.(d), the service air supply system is not needed to maintain the plant in the safe shutdown mode.
The staff and its consultant both conclude that an exemption is acceptable.
2.
Periodic hydrostatic testing of the RHR system is an adequate substitute for the pneumatic (Type C) testing required by Appendix J because the hydrostatic testing is utilized to ensure that the isolation valves are not relied upon to prevent the post-accident escape of containment air. Appendix J does not require further air (Type C) testing of these valves; therefore, an exemption from the requirements of Appen-dix J is acceptable.
3.
The request for exemption to permit the Type A test to be terminated in less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> was not evaluated since an exemption from the requirements of Appendix J is not needed if the licensee commits, in writing, to conduct Type A tests in accordance with the staff-appr.oved Bechtel Topical Report BN-TOP 1, and the plant Technical Specifications reflect this commitment.
4.
An exemption from the revised containment airlock testing require-ments of Section III.D.2 is not justified. Airlock testing at Point Beach should be conducted in accordance with Appendix J.
5.
The proposed method of measuring the gas flow required to maintain constant test chamber pressure (Operating Instruction No. 58) is equivalent to the pressure-loss method of Section III.B.1.(b) of i
l Appendix J.
The Wisconsin Electric Power Company test procedure is acceptable for use in performing Type B tests. No exemption from Appendix J is necessary since acceptable test methods are not limited to those described in Appendix J.
6.
Reverse-direction testing of certain containment isolation valves is,'
authorized because the licensee has determined that the criteria of Section III.C.1 have been met. No exemption is required.
7.
Substitution of a hydraulic test for the required pneumatic test of the containment spray isolation check valves is not acceptable.
l 8.
Proposed specification 15.4.4.I.A.2 was not evaluated because the issue i
of performing a Type A test in less than a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period should be resolved in accordance with Item 3, above.
. 9.
Proposed specification 15.4.4.1.B.5 is acceptable as an exemption to the requirements of Section III.A.1.(a) of Appendix J.
Our acceptance is based upon our understanding that the licensee's sequence and methodology for conducting Type A containment tests is as described in the attached FRC TER. WEPCo's actual test procedures should be sufficiently clear and detailed to reflect this.
10.
Proposed specification 15.4.4.II.C.l should be revised to require airlock testing in accordance with Section III.D.2 of Appendix J.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendments involve an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
Attachment:
FRC TER Principal Contributors:
P. Hearn T. Colburn
. 4.0 References
,1)
NRC Generic Letter regarding Containment Leakage Testing at Point Beach, dated August 7, 1975.
2)
S. Burstein (WEPCO) letter to X.
Gotter (NRC), dated September 5, 1975.
3)
S. Burstein (WEPCO) letter to B.
Rusche (NRC), dated December 12, 1975.
4)
G. Lear (NRC) letter to S. Burstein (WEPCO), dated May 31, 1977.
5)
S. Burstein (WEPCO) letter to G. Lear (NRC), dated July 18, 1977.
6)
C.
W.
Fay (WEPCO) letter to R.
A.
Clark (NRC), dated February 25, 1981.
7)
R.
A.
Clark (NRC) letter to S.
Burstein (WEPCO), dated January 27, 1981.
8)
G. Lear (NRC) Letter to S.
Burstein (WEPCO), dated October 4, 1977.
9)
S.
Burstein (WEPCO) letter to G.
Lear (NRC), dated October 10, 1977.
10)
S.
Burstein (WEPCO) letter to E.
Case (NRC), dated February 6, 1978.
~
_