ML20058L258
| ML20058L258 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1990 |
| From: | Boston J WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058L260 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9008070089 | |
| Download: ML20058L258 (2) | |
Text
- +
j.1 L.3 1
Wisconsin:
1Electnc.
POWER COMPANY 231 W lAcNgon, Po Box 2046. M$uoukee.W 53201 (414)221-2345
~
10 CFR 50.59 10 CFR 50.90 July-31, 1990 U. - S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Document Control Desk Mail Station P1-137 Washington, D.
C..
20555 Gentlemen:.
DOCKETS 50-266 AND 50-301-TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REOUEST 140 STEAM GENERATOR OVERFILL PROTECTION
-POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2
'In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59(c), 50.90, andH50.4, Wisconsin Electric Power. Company (Licensee) hereby requests amendments to-Facility Operating Licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27Efor Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2;respectively, to incorporate a' change in the plant Technical Specifications.
This-proposed change-will revise-Table 15.4.1-2, Item 11, to include a test of the logic for-high steam generator level (overfill. protection).
Wez are proposing to-include the requirement to test the-logic for
.high steam. generator level-(steam generatorLoverfill protection system) as part of Item 11, Table 15.4.1-1.
In our March 20, 1990 response to Generic Letter 89-19, " Safety Implications of
~
Control Systems in LWR LNuclear= Power Plants", we committed' to include this requirement.
The histables for'the overfill protection system are already functionally tested monthly;_the steam. generator level transmitters are calibrated each refueling; and the feedwater isolation valves are tested each refueling.
This proposed change will make the surveillances of the overfill protection system a requirement of the Technical-Specification.
- As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), we have evaluated these changes in accordance with the standards specified in 10 CFR 50.92 to determine if the proposed changes constitute significant hazards considerations.
A proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration
'.f operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident NRC 9006070089 900731 PDR ADOCK 05000266 g()OI PDC nuwai,ornuwaa omcowa 1l!
, e --.
Document Control Desk
' July 31, 1990 Page 2 previously evaluated, (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or-(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed change to Table 15.4.1-1, Item 11, constitutes an additional control not presently included in the Technical Specifications.
Since this testing is already conducted, adding the requirement to the Technical. Specifications will not affect the probability'or consequences of any accident nor will it create any new or different accident.
By adding the requirement
~ to the Technical Specifications, we are providing additional-assurance that the surveillance testing will be conducted and, therefore, will not reduce any margin of safety.
In addition, this-is an example of a change not likely to involve a significant hazards consideration as provided at 51 FR_7751.
We have, therefore, concluded that this proposed change does not result in a-significant hazards consideration.
Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this request.
Very truly yours,
/
gp h John W.
Boston President' DDS/dpg Copies to NRC Regional Administrator, Region III NRC Resident Inspector Subscribed and pwogn to before me this 3I day of \\m Vu 1990.
6 k
~
Notary Public, Stat 4 of Wisconsin My Commission expires @ 2.2-9Y.
s I -
,-