ML20084N564
| ML20084N564 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20084N562 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-47494, TAC-47495, TAC-55983, TAC-55984, NUDOCS 8405170097 | |
| Download: ML20084N564 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
./
'o,,
UNITED STATES
.I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
7, E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%.....)
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0.84 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-24 AND AMENDMENT NO.
88 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 December 10, 1981, Wisconsin Electric Power Company propgsed an amendment to Facility Operating Licenses, DPR-24 and DPR-27; the subject change involves Section 15.3.7, Auxiliary Electrical Systems, of the Technical Specifications for Point Beach. The licensee has proposed to amend Section 15.3.7 to reflect modifications presently underway to the vital instrument power supplies.
Discussion By letter dated April ?.1,1980, NRR transmitted an SER on a modification to the instrument power supplies at Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2.
The modification was designed to correct an unacceptable arrangement of sources discovered during the safety evaluation of the plant changes that resulted from IE Bulletin Nc.79-06A, dated April 14, 1979. The conclusion to the SER for the modification stated that, although the modification was an improvement over original design, it still did not satisfy the requirements of IEEE 279-1971. Therefore, the finding was that the modifica-tion was acceptable only as ar. interim modification and that a suitable alternate design should be provided for review.
The licensee responded by letter dated May 29, 1980, describing a proposed modification, which included the installation of two new batteries and three new battery chargers, whict, would provide essentially a duplication of the existing system. Proposed completion date for the modification was given as January 1,1981, contingent upon availability of required equipment. NRR found the proposed modification acceptable and forwarded their SER by letter dated August 12, 1981.
The licensee later amended the completion date to June 30, 1982, due to the necessity of building new seismically designed rooms to house the new components.
By letter dated December 10, 1981, the licensee submitted proposdd Technical Specification changes to reflect the modifications underway. At the conclusion of that letter the licensee requested "that the Commission withhold issuance of these amendments until after licensee has provided a written notification that the subject instrumentation bus power supply modification has been completed." Through discussions with the licensee and by letter dated March 5, 1984, it has been determined that the present planned modifica-tion completion date is October 31, 1984.
8405170097 040430 PDR ADOCK 05000266 9
.PDR
.D..
s.
2 Evaluation The proposed Technical Specification changes are not significant in that the modification is essentially a duplication of the existing system.
Therefore, no change was required to the surveillance Technical Specification, 15.4.6.B.
The changes in specification 15.3.7.B.l.f and the bases are for clarification purposes only.
A new specification, 15.3.7.B.l.g., has been added to allow one of the new batteries, D105 or D106, to be out of service for up to 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, provided four battery chargers are operable and carrying the DC loads of eacn main DC distribution bus. The licensee justified the longer permissible out of service time, 72 versus 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, for the new batteries over the old by stating that the new batteries will not be providing any DC breaker control power. This LC0 was patterned after the McGuire Technical Specification 3.8.2.3.
McGuire's DC distribution system is composed of four batteries' and five full capacity battery chargers. The licensee's new system will be composed of four batteries and six full capacity battery chargers. Two of the chargers are installed spares either of which can supply one of its two associated battery buses. This provides an added degree of redundancy over the McGuire design. Therefore, we find the 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> LC0 acceptable.
The final proposed changes are a revision to 15.3.7.A.l.f and a new specification 15.3.7. A,1.g.
These same changes are also incorporated in Section 15.3.7.A.2.
The revisions to 15.3.7. A.l.f and 1.5.3.7. A.2.g are for clarification purposes. The new proposed sections, 15.3.7.A.l.g and 15.3.7.A.2.h. would allow a unit to be taken critical with one of the new batteries, D105 or D106, inoperable. This would allow the licensee to make a mode change which would then place him in the LCO. We found these two new proposed sections unacceptable. Alternative wording for these sections which would require all four batteries and their associated DC systems to be operable and four battery chargers to be operable, with one charger carrying the.DC loads of each DC main distribution bus, prior to taking a unit critical, was proposed to the licensee. The new wordiny was accepted by both the corporate licensing coordinator and the manager's supervisory staff.
We find that the licensee's proposal, as modified, to change Technical Specification 15.3.7, to reflect modifications presently underway to the vital instrument power supplies, is acceptable.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determiration, we have further concluded that the' amendments involve an action which is i
insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to l
10 CFR 651.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declara-1 tion and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in ennnection with the issuance of the amendments.
4 s
y..,
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the hea!th and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in' the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: ~ April 30, 1984 Principal. Contributors:
R. L. Hague T. G. Colburn 9
e 1