ML20055A323
| ML20055A323 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055A322 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-07711, TAC-08404, TAC-49033, TAC-49034, TAC-7711, TAC-8404, NUDOCS 8207160149 | |
| Download: ML20055A323 (3) | |
Text
8 k
UNITED STATES
['
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g.
'j WASHING TON, D. C. 20555
%,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION WISC0fiSiti ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY P0lf4T BEACH NUCLEAR PLAtlT, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 DOCKET N05. 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-evalucted 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:
DESIGUATED ORIGlHAL CortifiedBj[
LO 8207160149 820625 v
G t
PDR ADOCK 05000266 L
P PDR
2-1.
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 requirements 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 tha 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 fcrm the requirements of Appen-dix J is acceptable.
3.
Tht. request for exemption to permit the Type A test to be terminated s
in iets 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-approved Bechtel Topical Report BN-TOP 1, and the plant Technical Specificat-ions reflect this commitments.
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 accorda'nce with Appendix J.
5.
The proposed method of measuring the gas flow required to maintain constant test chamber pressure (0perating Instruction No. 58) is equivalent to the pressure-loss method of Section III.B.1.(b) of 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.
I 6.
Reverse-direction testing of certian 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.
Substit'ution of a hydraulic test for the required pneumatic test of the containment spray isolation check valves is not acceptable.
t 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.
I i
I
\\
l Proposed specification 15.4.4.I.B.5 is acceptable as an exemption to Our acceptance 9.
the requirements of Section III.A.1.(a) of Appendix J.
is based upon our understanding that the licensee's sequence and methodology for conducting Type A containment tests is as described WEPCo's actual test procedures should be in the attached FRC TER.
sufficiently clear and detailed to reflect this.
Proposed specification 15.4.4.II.C.1 should be revised to require airlock testing in accordance with Section III.D.2 of Appendix J.
10.
4.0 Refefences 1)
NRC Generic letter regarding Containment Leakage Testing at Point Beach, dated August 7, 1975.
2)
S. Burstein (WEPCO) letter to K. Gotter (NRC), dated September 5, 1975.
3)
S. Burstein (WEPCO) letter to B. Rusche (NRC), dated Decemb'er 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.
I 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.
Dated: June 25, 1982 Principal Contributors:
P. Hearn T. Colburn