ML20055A321
| ML20055A321 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1982 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055A322 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-07711, TAC-08404, TAC-49033, TAC-49034, TAC-7711, TAC-8404, NUDOCS 8207160145 | |
| Download: ML20055A321 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
ICIC"1TD OF.IGIUS
,C)_
g, C CielW27/h.um(,I % g CJ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER Docket Nos. 50-266 COMPANY
)
and 50-301
)
Point Beach Nuclear Plant
)
Units 1 and 2
)
)
Exemption I.
Wisconsin Electric Power Company (the licensee) is the holder of Facili.ty Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27 (the licenses) which authorize operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, respectively, located in Manatowoc County, Wisconsin, at steady state reactor power levels not in excess of 1519 megawatts thermal (rated power). These licenses provide, among other things, that they are subject to all rules, regulations and Orders of the Commission.
II.
Section 50.54(o) of 10 CFR Part 50 requires that primary reactor contain-ments for water cooled power reactors be subject to the requirements of, Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix J contains the leakage test re-quirements, schedules, and acceptance criteria for tests of the leak-tight integrity of the primary reactor containment and systems and components which penetrate the containment. Appendix J was published on February 14, 1973 and in August 1975 each licensee was requested to review the extent e207160145 820625 PDR ADOCK 05000266 P
- i to which its facilities met the requirements.
On December 12, 1975 Wisconsin Electric Power Company submitted its evaluation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 with regard to compliance with the requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50. The licensee proposed Technical Specification changes to achieve compliance with some portions of the rule and requested exemptions from certain other of the rule's requirements. The licensee's submittal for Point Beach Units 1 and 2 was supplemented by letters dated July 18, 1977, February 6,1978 and February 25, 1981.
In these submittals the licensee requested that certain test sequences and methodology, components and pene-trations be exempted from the Appendix J requirements and also submitted proposed Technical Specification changes to upgrade portior.s of their -
testing procedures to meet the Appendix J requirements. The Technical Specification changes are being addressed in a separate evaluation.
The Franklin Research Center (FRC), as a consultant to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (NRC), has reviewed the licensee's submittals and l
prepared a Technical Evaluation Report (TER) of its findings. The NRC l
staff has reviewed this TER and in its Safety Evaluation Report dated l
l June 25, 1982, the staff has concurred in the TER's base and findings.
The exemption requests found to be acceptable are as follows:
1.
Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) reque~sted an exemption from the Appendix J Type A testing requirements for the air supply line used in performing the Type A containment
l
WEPC0 proposed to perform Typa C local leakage tests on the isolation valves for this system and add the leakage results to the overall Type A test results.
WEPC0 stated that the containment service air supply line is used to pressurize and depressurize the et ntainnent during the Type A test. WEPC0 further stated that the isolation requirements for the test and the temporary piping installed for the test prevent the containment service air supply line from being tested in accordance with Appendix J.
Section III.A.I.(d) of Appendix J states in part that systens required to maintain the plant in a safe condition during the test shall be operable in their normal mode and need not be vented.
How-ever the containment isolation valves shall be tested in accordance-with III.C (Type C testing).
FRC and the NRC staff agree that, since this line is used during the Type A test, its testing require-ments should be comparable to the systems specified in Section III. A.I.(d).
Therefore, the licensee's exemption request is acceptable.
3.
WEPC0 requested an exemption to periodically hydrostatically test the residual heat removal system containment isolation valves in lieu of the pneumatic (Type C) testing requirements of Appendix J since this system cannot be drained and vented with fuel in the FRC and the NRC staff agree that periodic hydrostatic testing core.
of the residual heat removal system ensures that the containment isolation valves of this system are not relied upon to prevent the post-accident escape of containment air. Appendix J does not re-quire further Type C testing of these valves; therefore, an exemption from the requirements of Appendix J is acceptable.
4-3.
WEpC0 requested an exemption from the requirements of Appendix J for conduct of the Type A test such that if repairs were necessary to meet the acceptance criteria, the integrated leakage rate test (Type A test) need not be repeated provided local measured reductions in leakages achieved by repairs reduces the overall measured leakage rate to a value not in excess of 0.75 L.
It is not acceptable to t
terminate the Type A test without achieving a leakage rate which meets the acceptance criteria and then to subtract the differential leakage from repaired valves in order to meet the acceptanca criteria because subtraction of certain internal containment leakage may erroneously reduce the apparent overall containnent leakage rate.
From a complete j
reading of WEPCO's proposed procedures for conduct of the Type A test, FRC and the NRC staff do not believe this to be the intent of th6 licensee and conclude that WEPCO's proposed procedures for conduct of the Type A test are acceptable as an exemption to the requirements i
of Section III.A.1.(a) of Appendix J because the objective of Appendix J is achieved.
i i
I III.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, an exemption is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and is otherwise in the public interest.
Therefore, the Commission hereby approves the exemption request identified above.
4 e
,7 The NRC staff has determined that the granting of this exemption will not result in any significant environmental impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4), an environmental impact statement or negative declara-tion and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with this action.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J
Darr Eis n
, D r cto'r Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 25th day of June, 1982.
Attachments:
1.
Safety Evaluation Report
~
l 2.
Technical Evaluation Report l
_