ML20073K043
| ML20073K043 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20073K009 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9410070275 | |
| Download: ML20073K043 (3) | |
Text
' f aC'cyq$ %,
UNITED STATES p%
% k, [j]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
t WASHINGTON, D.C. 20$55-0001 sp* s e e SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N05.14; AND 14o TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-24 AND DPR-27 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNIT N05. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS 50-266 AND 50-301
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated November 14, 1990, the Wisconsin Electric Power Company, the licensee, responded to Generic Letter (GL) 90-06, " Resolution of Generic Issue 70, ' Power-0perated Relief Valve and Block Valve Reliability,' and Generic Issue 94, ' Additional Low-Temperature Overpressure Protection for Light-Water Reactors,' Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f)," dated June 25, 1990. The licensee's response stated its position on the issues raised in the GL, and provided a commitment to implement listed actions and submit proposed Technical Specifications (TS) as appropriate.
As per its commitment, by letter dated May 30, 1991, the licensee submitted a request for amendments to the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) TS.
By letter dated January 25, 1993, the staff responded to the licensee stating that portions of its submittal did not adequately respond to the GL. The licensee then submitted supplemental information and revised proposed TSs on May 7, 1993, and April 28, 1994.
This supplemental information did not change the initial proposed determination in the notice published on March 25, 1993 (58 FR 16233) that no significant hazards consideration is involved.
These amendments would revise Technical Specifications 15.3.1.A.5 and 15.3.15, and Tables 15.4.1-1 and 15.4.1-2.
The changes would specify more stringent limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements for pressurizer power-operated relief valves and block valves.
These changes were proposed to conform to the NRC's plan for resolution of Generic Issue 70,
" Power-0perated Relief Valve and Block Valve Reliability," and Generic Issue 94, " Additional Low-Temperature Overpressure Protection for Light Water Reactors," as conveyed in Generic Letter 90-06. Other related changes were also proposed.
2.0 BACKGROUND
Generic Issue 70, " Power-0perated Relief Valve and Block Valve Reliability,"
involves the evaluation of the reliability of power-operated relief valves (PORVs). and block valves and their safety significance in PWR plants.
The generic letter discussed how PORVs are increasingly being relied on to perform safety-related functions and the corresponding need to improve the reliability of both PORVs and their associated bicck valves.
Proposed staff positions and improvements to the plant's technical specifications were recommended to be implemented at all affected facilities.
9410070275 940929 PDR ADOCK 05000266 p
i.
Generic. Issue 94, " Additional Low-Temperature Overpressure Protection for Light-Water Reactors," addresses concerns with the implementation of the requirements set forth in the resolution of Unresolved Safety Issue A-26,
" Reactor: Vessel Pressure Transient Protection (Overpressure Protection)." The generic letter discussed the continuing occurrence of overpressure events and the need to further restrict. the allowed outage time for a low-temperature overpressure protection channel in operating modes 4, 5, and 6.
3.0' EVALUATION The actions proposed by the NRC staff to improve the reliability of PORVs and block valves and the availability of the low-temperature overpressure
. protection (LTOP) system represent a substantial increase in overall protection of the public health and safety.
Based on this, a determination has been made that the attendant costs are justified in view of this increased protection. The technical findings and the regulatory analysis are discussed in NUREG-1316, " Technical Findings and Regulatory Analysis Related' to Generic Issue 70 - Evaluation of Power-0perated Relief Valve Reliability in PWR Nuclear. Power Plants" and NUREG-1326, " Regulatory Analysis for the Resolution of Generic Issue 94, Additional Low-Temperature Overpressure Protection for Light-Water Reactors."
In.its November 14, 1990 submittal, the licensee ~ stated that the PORVs and block' valves are on the. operational QA list, that maintenance is based on the vendor's recommendations, and that replacement parts are procured in t
accordance_ with the original construction code.
In addition, the licensee agreed to place the PORVs, block valves, and air control and. check valves in
.the inservice. testing (IST) program, in addition to adding the block valves to the GL 89-10 (motor-operated valve test and evaluation) program. _ In its May
'30, 1991 submittal, the licensee stated that these valves would all be tested each refueling outage (except the block valves, which would be tested quarterly).
In its May 7, 1993 submittal, the licensee stated that it meets the intent of
' Mode 3 or 4 testing of the PORVs by testing the valves prior to placing them
- in LTOP mode, at temperature conditions which are at least as great as Mode 4.
- In addition, the proposed amendments' to TS.15.3.1. A.5 and 15.3.15, and Tables 15.4.1-l'and 15.4.1-2 included with the May.7, 1993, and the April 28, 1994 submittals,,specified more stringent limiting conditions for operation and
. surveillance requirements. for pressurizer power-operated relief valves and block valves.
.The staff has reviewed the licensee's positions and its proposed TS and TS bases changes. Since these positions and changes are consistent with the guidance. stated in the GL, and adequately address the concerns noted by the staff in the GL and in the: letter from the staff to the licensee dated l
.Januaryy 25,.1993, the staff finds the proposed modifications acceptable.
' 4. 0 '.
STATE CONSULTATION In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Wisconsin State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
I
n 5.0
' ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments change a requirement with respect to the installation or use
.of a. facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR_Part 20 and change surveillance requirements. The staff has determined
.that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any affluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational' radiation exposure. The Commission.has. previously published a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and.there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 551.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no K
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
f
6.0 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 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:
A. G. Hanten
-Date:
September 30, 1994-L e
b s
i i