ML20100E009
| ML20100E009 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20100D996 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-54989, TAC-54990, NUDOCS 8504030222 | |
| Download: ML20100E009 (3) | |
Text
[ps> %qk UNITED STATES
'w p,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%...+
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NOS.89 AND94 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-24 AND DPR-27 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET N05. 50-266 AND 50-301 Introduction i
By letter dated May 2,1984, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (licensee) requested license amendments for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 which would revise the surveillance requirements for the prestressed contain-ment tendons. The purpose of the proposed amendments was to improve the containment tendon surveillance program. The staff reviewed the licensee's request and, in a letter dated July 24, 1984, requested that the licensee address staff concerns regarding the proposed amendments. The licensee responded to the staff's concerns by letter dated September 5,1984 Evaluation The proposed Technical Specifications revise the surveillance requirements and limiting conditions for operation for containment prestressed tendons to more nearly conform to the Standard Technical Specifications.
The differences between the existing tendon surveillance specification and that proposed by the licensee can be summarized as follows:
t i
1.
TENDON SELECTION l
EXISTING: The selection of tendons at the required periodic I
surveillance intervals has been the same (identical) tendons, three from each group, selected at the first tendon inspection.
PROPOSED: Eleven tendons (five hoop, three vertical and three dome) are inspected. One tendon from each group is to be kept unchanged and the others are selected randomly but should i
be representative.
l 0504030222 850307 DR p
ADOCK 05000266 PDR
2.
FREQUENCY AND METHOD OF SURVEILLANCE i
EXISTING: Both units are to be inspected visually and physically for the intervals of one year, three years, and every five years thereafter dating from the initial structural integrity tests.
PROPOSED: Visual inspection is required on both units, but physical inspection alternates each five years between the two units.
3.
PROCEDURE OF PHYSICAL INSPECTION EXISTING: There is no detailed procedure to conduct the inspection if the lift-off force is less than the predicted value.
PROPOSED: Additional lift-off testing and action to be taken for various levels of tendon lift-off forces are prescribed.
4 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA EXISTING: There are no specific acceptance criteria for most of the critical surveillance elements.
PROPOSED: For most of the critical surveillance the acceptance criteria are indicated.
5.
LIMITING CONDITION FOR PLANT OPERATION EXISTING: There is no limiting condition for plant operation if degraded tendons are detected.
PROPOSED: Before initiation of reactor shutdown, allowable times of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> and 15 days are specified for. corrective actions depending on the severity of the abnorwal degradation of the containment integrity.
The staff has reviewed and evaluted the changes as summarized above. The changes to the technical specifications are mainly in conformance with the Guide 1.35.1(Proposed)yGuide1.35(ProposedRevision3)andinRegulatory provisions in Regulator The net effect of the proposed changes will improve the tendon surveillance program over that currently in place. Based on the above, i
the staff finds that the proposed changes are acceptable.
i l
. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued 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 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact state-ment or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
CONCLUSION We have 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: March 7, 1985 Principal Contributor:
C. P. Tan T. G. Colburn i