ML20056H440
| ML20056H440 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056H438 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9309090321 | |
| Download: ML20056H440 (5) | |
Text
pa erc
[
ug?
UNITED STATES T
.}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
%.% /
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.141 AND 145 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-24 AND DPR-27 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 30, 1990, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCo) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27 to revise the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP).
The proposed amendments would make three unrelated sets of changes.
Chan_ge 1:
Section 15.4.5, " Emergency Core Cooling System and Containment Cooling System Tests," would be revised by changing the system testing requirement for the safety injection system to allow the test to be performed while the motor breakers for the safety injection and the residual heat removal pumps are racked in and operable.
The current TS reads:
1.
System tests shall be performed during reactor shutdowns for major fuel reloading. The test shall be performed in accordance with the following procedure:
a.
With the Reactor Coolant System Pressure less than or equal to 350 psig and temperature less than or equal to 350 *F, a test safety injection signal will be applied to initiate operation of the system. The motor breakers for the safety injection and residual heat removal pumps are placed in the " test" position for this test.
The proposed amendments would change the final sentence above to read: "The motor breakers for the safety injection and residual heat removal pumps may be placed in the ' test' position or racked in and operable for this test."
Placing breakers in the " test" position prevents actual starting of the pumps.
As amended, pumps would be allowed to start.
Chanae 2:
Section 15.4.6, " Emergency Power System Periodic Tests," would be revised by relocating from subsection A.2 to a new subsection, A.3, the requirement that during each reactor refueling a checkout of emergency lighting be performed.
Items currently numbered 3 and 4 would be renumbered 4 and 5.
The change also eliminates the requirement that the test of the emergency lighting be done during the test of the automatic start of the diesel generators. The amendments would change the term " changeover relay" to read " automatic transfer switch." A description of the emergency lighting 93o9090321 93o907 PDR ADDCK 05000266 I PDR p
I J
1
- ~
checkout procedures would be added to the corresponding bases section of the technical specifications.
Chance 3: Section 15.6.12, " Environmental Qualification," would be deleted.
Currently this section reads as follows:
1 A.
By no later than June 30, 1982 all safety-related
)
electrical equipment in the facility shall be qualified in accordance with the provisions of: Division of Operating J
Reactors " Guidelines for Evaluating Environmental Qualification of Class IE Electrical Equipment in Operating Reactors" (D0R Guidelines); or NUREG-0588, " Interim Staff Position on l
Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment," December 1979.
Copies of these documents are i
attached to Order for Modification of Licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 dated October 24. 1980.
B.
By no later than December 1,1980, complete and auditable records must be available and maintained at a central location which describe the environmental qualification method used for all safety-related electrical equipment in sufficient detail to document the degree of compliance with the D0R Guidelines or NUREG-0588.
Thereafter, such records should be updated and maintained current as equipment is replaced, further tested, or otherwise further qualified.
Administrative improvement: Additionally, as an administrative improvement to the Technical Specifications, notations relevant to the surveillance interval for the 1992 annual inspection of diesel generator G02 and the Service and i
Performance testing of tha swing safety-related battery (D-305) will be deleted from pages 15.4.6-1 and 15.4.6-3.
These notations are no longer i
applicable, and currardQ read as follows:
The surveillance interval for the 1992 annual inspection of diesel generator G02 may be extended up to 6 months, not to exceed a total time between annual inspections of 18 months.
Service and Performance testing to begin subsequent to installation of the swing safety-related battery (D-305) which is expected by the end of 1992.
1 i
Both notations are currently on page 15.4.6-2.
Page 15.4.6-3 currently has only the notation relevant to the swing safety-related battery.
2.0 fVALVATION Chance 1: WEPCo has requested this change because of what they view as a potential conflict with TS 15.3.1. A.3.a(1) if neither reactor coolant loop is available for decay heat removal or 15.3.1.A.3.b if reactor coolant temperature is less than 140
'F.
WEPCo could not determine a basis for the requirement that the breakers be in the test position. They note that the requirement appeared in the Technical Specifications as originally issued.
They postulate that the test was originally done by placing the breakers in
a
. the test position and that this became incorporated in the technical specifications as a requirement.
Requirements subsequently added to Technical Specification 15.3.1.A.3.a(1) (See Amendments 66 and 71 for Units 1 and 2, respectively, dated November 8, 1982, and Amendments 82 and 86 for Units 1 and 2, respectively, dated February 2,1984) create a potential conflict under some circumstances.
To ensure redundant decay heat removal capability, TS 15.3.1. A.3.a(1) requires that, when reactor coolant temperature is less than 350 *F and greater than 140 "F, at least two of the following decay heat removal methods listed shall 4
be operable:
reactor coolant loop A, reactor coolant loop B, residual heat removal loop A, and residual heat removal loop B.
Placing the motor breakers for the residual heat removal pumps in the test position, as required by the current technical specification, renders those pumps inoperable and may impair the redundant decay heat removal capability.
Further, TS 15.3.1. A.3.b prescribes that, with reactor coolant temperature less than 140 *F, one residual heat removal loop may be out of service when the reactor vessel head is removed and the refueling cavity flooded. One of the two residual heat removal loops may be temporarily out of service to meet surveillance requirements.
r This latter requirement effectively prohibits the safety injection system test l
as written when reactor coolant temperature is less than 140 *F since both RHR loops are out of service with the breakers in the test position. This conflict could be resolved, as proposed by the licensee, by allowing the i
surveillance to be performed while the breakers are racked in and operable.
Placing the breakers in the test position prevents the motors from starting i
upon receipt of a test signal.
By allowing the surveillance to be performed without placing the breakers in the test position, the surveillance could be
]
performed during routine operation of the residual heat removal system.
If the surveillance were done with motors racked in and operable, the motors would indeed start during the surveillance.
I In its application, WEPCo points out that proper response of the safety injection system can be demonstrated with the breakers in either position.
Since the tests are to be performed during reactor shutdowns for refueling, starting a residual heat removal or safety injection pump poses no safety concern.
The standard technical specification (SR 3.5.2.6) requires only a periodic (nominally at 18-month intervals) verification that each ECCS pump starts automatically on an actual or simulated actuation test signal. Thus the proposed change is consistent with the standard.
The staff finds change 1 acceptable.
Chance 2:
Three of the items proposed to be changed have no safety significance and are acceptable:
relocating the requirement to a separate section; changing the nomenclature of the switching device; and adding descriptive material to the Bases. There has been no change in the switching apparatus since the initial installation. This change in the name of the device is for accuracy.
i I
\\
l l Changing the requirement that the test of the emergency lighting be performed i
during the test of the automatic start of the diesel generators is the more I
substantive aspect of change 2.
There are two sources of power for emergency lighting. One of the loads powered by the emergency diesel generators is the l
emergency lighting transformer. This load is not placed on the bus by the j
automatic load sequencer.
It must be loaded manually from the control room.
l l
Therefore, there appears to be no reason why testing of the emergency lighting l
powered from the emergency bus must be done in conjunction with the emergency diesel generator test. These amendments are not intended to grant any relief from requirements for testing, but only to provide warranted flexibility in testing emergency lighting.
In accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Part III J., emergency lighting units with at least an 8-hour battery power supply shall be provided in all areas needed for operation of safe shutdown equipment and in access and egress routes thereto.
Following the loss of all AC power, the power supply for these Appendix R lighting loads is transferred automatically to the batteries.
It is important that this system be tested periodically. However, the transfer to the DC batteries appears not to be affected by or otherwise related to diesel generator testing and no increase in reliability of the
~
Appendix R emergency lightino is achieved by performing such testing during the testing of the diesel <
rators.
The standard technical specifications do not include a specific requirement l
j for testing emergency lighting.
W i
Because testing of the emergency lighting is not affected by operation of the emergency diesel generators, the proposed amendments would have no impact to safety and are therefore acceptable.
Change 3:
WEPCo completed the tasks required by the two designated milestones.
The I
second of the two items to be deleted also include.; continuing requirements l
for record maintenance. Although the licensee would delete the record requirements from Technical Specifications, these requirements remain in effect because of their inclusion in 10 CFR 50.49(j). Since the licensee completed the specified tasks, the substantive aspects of the specification 2
are no longer effective. Therefore, there is no safety significance to deleting the wording from the technical specifications.
Change 3 is acceptable.
Administrative Improvement:
The notations relevant to the surveillance interval for the 1992 annual inspection of diesel generator G02 and the start of the Service and Performance testing subsequent to the installation of the swing safety-related battery (D-305) are no longer applicable. The licensee (Mr. Tom Malinowski) i confirmed that the notations are no longer applicable in a conference call l
with the NRC (Mr. Tim McGinty, NRR/PDIII-3) on 8/2/93. The staff finds the deletion of these notes from the Technical Specifications an administrative improvement with no impact on safety, and therefore acceptable.
i 1
a
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
1 in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Wisconsin State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
l f
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
f These amendments change a 99quirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component ince,ed within the restricted area as defined in 10 i
CFR Part 20 or change an : 4pection or surveillance requirement.
The staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the i
amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluent that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or t
cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously i
published a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there ha: been no public comment on such finding (56 FR 43819). Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Purstant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
5.0 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the j
issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
R. B. Samworth J
t Date: September 7. 1993 4
)
4 i