ML20063N624
| ML20063N624 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20063C546 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-49449, TAC-49450, NUDOCS 8210040425 | |
| Download: ML20063N624 (4) | |
Text
.
o UNITED STATES i'
'g 3
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' g,.
/.' l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
$UPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 63 TO FA.CILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-24 AND AMENDMENT NO. 68 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-27 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2
~
DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 Introduction By letter dated April 26, 1976, the NRC outlined to Wisconsin Electric Power Company (licensee) the requirements of the newly enacted rule governing inservice inspection of safety class components, 10 CFR 50.55a.
That letter also requested that the licensee update its Technical Speci-fications to conform to the new rule and, as allowed by the new rule, request relief and provide justification for those requirements, if any, felt to be impractical to perform for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The licensee responded with Technical Specification (TS) change requests by letters dated February 17, 1977 (Unit 1), December 8, 1977 (Units 1 and 2) and November 27, 1978 (Unit 2).
Proposed TS 15.4.2.B for the Point Beach Nuclear Plants Units 1 and 2 states that inservice examination of ASME Code Class 1, 2 and 3 components shall be performed in accordance with Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and applicable Addenda as required by the 10 CFR 50.55a(g) except where specific written relief has been granted by the Commission. Certain requirements of later editions and addenda of Sec-tion XI are impractical to perform on older plants because of the plants' design, component geometry, and materials of construction. Thus, 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(1) authorizes the Commission to grant relief from those requirements upon making the necessary fin & ;p.
By letters dated May 20, 1977, October 6, 1977, February 6, 1979, Feb-ruary 26, 1979, December 14, 1979, October 6, 1981 and April 14, 1982, Wisconsin Electric Power Company submitted its inservice inspection program, revisions, or additional informaticr; related to requests for relief from certain Code requirements determined to be impractical to perform on the Point Beach facilities during the inspection interval.
The inservice inspection programs are based on the requirements of the 1974 Edition through Summer 1975 Addenda of Section XI.
DESIGNATED ORIGINAL Cortified Dy 0210040425$b0 6
u
. l Evaluation Re' quests for relief from the requirements of Section.XI which have been determined to be impractical to perform have been reviewed.by the staff's contractor, Science Applications, Inc. The contractor's evaluations of I
the licensee's requests for relief and his recanmendations are presented in the Technical Evaluation Report (TER) attached (Attachment 1). The staff has reviewed the TER and agrees with the evaluations and recommen-dations. A summary of the determinations made by the staff is presented
~
in the following table:
Table 1 Class 1 Components Licensee proposed Relief IWB-2600 IWB-2500 System or Area to be Required alterna-request item no.
exam. cat.
component examined method tive exam.
status Bl. 4 B-D Reactor Nozzle-to-Volumetric Volumetric -
Granted (Applies vessel vessel welds at frequency all nozzles to Unit 1 nozzles and inside below:
once every only)'
(6) radiused 1st period -
10 years when sections 2 welds core barrel 2nd perid -
is removed 1 or 2 welds 3rd period -
remaining welds Bl.6 B-F Safety Weld Volumetric Volumetric Granted (Applies Injection
& surface only once every to Unit 1 nozzle-at frequency 10 years when only) to-safe in IWB-2411 core barrel end is removed Bl.12 B-H Reactor Integrally-Volumetric Volumetric-Granted (Units 1 vessel welded at frequency 100% of weld
& 2) supports below:
when core 1st period-barrel is 25%
removed 2nd period -
during 25%
interval 3rd pericd -
remainder
1 Table 1 (Continued)
Licensee proposed Relief.
IWB-2600 IWB-2500 System or Area to be Required alterna-request itcm no.
exam. cat.
component examined method tive exam.
status
~
B1.14 B-I-1 Reactor Cladding Visual at Visual -
Update te (Applies vessel patches frequency IUD % when 1977 edit'on to Unit 1 below:
core barrel through only) 1st period -
is removed Sun er 1978 25%
addenda; 2nd period -
relief nc-25%
necess ary 3rd period -
remainder 83.7 B-H Regenera-Integrally -
Volumetric Visual Granted (Units I tive heat welded sup-(10% of
& 2) exchanger ports weld)
B5.4 B-K-1 Reactor Integrally -
Volumetric Visual Granted (Units 1 coolant welded
& 2) pumps supports B5.6 B-L-1 Reactor Pump Volumetric Examine Weld Granted (Units 1 coolant casing To 1977 578
& 2) pumps weldsSection XI Code i
Environmental Consideration, We have determined that granting relief from specific ASME Section XI Code requirements does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power. level and will not result in any signi-ficant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that this is an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 951.5(d)(4),
that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the granting of this relief.
l
6
. Conclusion The NRC staff has reviewed portions of the February 17, 1977 and Novem-ber 27, 1978 TS change requests and after making modifications to the wording as discussed with the licensee's staff, has found them acceptable.
These proposed TS relating to inservice inspection of safety class com-ponents, as modified, conform to the language recommended by the NRC staff's April 26, 1976 letter and are, therefore, acceptable.
Based on the review summarized, the staff concludes that relief granted from the examination requirements and alternate methods imposed through this document give reasonable assurance of the piping, comptnent pressure boundary, and support structural integrity, that granting relief where the Code requirements are impractical is authorized by l'w and will not a
endanger life or property, or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest considering the burden that could result if they were imposed on the facility.
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendment does 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 this amendment w.ill not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
August 31, 1982 Principal Contributors:
T. Colburn G. Johnson L