ML20112D265
| ML20112D265 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 12/27/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20112D240 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-55983, TAC-55984, NUDOCS 8501140156 | |
| Download: ML20112D265 (2) | |
Text
__ _
Jm
[(I UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
%..... )l 5
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.8770 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-24 i
AND AMENDMENT NO.92TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-27
'liSCONSIN 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 (the
~
licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27. The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Point Beach Units 1 and 2 concerned changes to Section 15.3.7.
These changes added limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements following previously approved modifications of the vital instrument power supplies which corrected an unacceptable arrangement of the 120V AC instrument bus supply system, discovered during the saftey evaluation of plant changes resulting from IE Bulletin 79-06A (Post TMI Related Issues). Subsequently, Amendnent Nos.
84 and 88 were issued by the Consnission on April 30, 1984, to become effective upon completion of equipment installation but not later than December 31, 1984.
At that time the modifications were scheduled to be completed by October 31, 1984.
In a letter dated June 26, 1984, the licensee stated that,even though there were unexpected delays in the delivery of Auxiliary Safety Instrument Panels (ASIPs) and air handling t. nits for the new battery and equipment rooms, they expected to meet the scheduled completion date and that implementing proce-dures and training was expected to be completed by January 1,1985.
In a letter dated June 29, 1984, in response to the staffs request for further reasons for the delays, the licensee submitted a detailed account of what had i
occurred to delay the receipt of the ASIPs and the air handling eoulpment and their efforts to expedite the delivery of equipment and its installation. The i
licensee requested an extension of the installation completion date to not i'
later than December 31, 1984.
i On September 25, 1984, the licensee stated that because of further installa-tion delays they expected to complete the construction of the instrument bus upgrade by November 30,1984, and since they did not know where they would be in the testing and checkout of the system on December 31, 1984, when Amend-ments 84 and 88 were to become effective, they requested a delay in the i
effective date of the amendments to March 1,1985. This ext %nsion was to i
assure adequate time to operate the new system with a simulated load prior i..
to sequentially switching in actual plant instrumentation channels.
gi%foUo oj[
l e
e EVALUATION During a site inspection on November 29-30, 1984, and December 5-7, 1984, the i
staff reviewed purchasing, receipt and installation records to confirm that the delays in purchase and installation warranted the extension of the effec-tive date of the amendments. After review of the records and observation of the as-built equipment installation, the staff concludes that reasonable efforts were made to meet the October 31, 1984, installation date and that the installation is now essentially complete. Additionally, the licensee will have all the required TMI instrumentation energized from a reliable source of power by December 31, 1984. Further, the staff concludes that a reasonable period of time for checkout and systematic startup of the new system is warranted and the short extension of time will not increase the safety risks since the the facilities have been operating satisfactorily for 14 years without these modifications. The staff also concludes that the effective date of March 1,1984, is a reasonable period of time to complete the checks and tests providing that no adverse conditions of critical equipment are detected during startup.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as ' defined in 10 CFR Part 20, and/or a change to the surveillance requirements. The staff has detennined that the amendment involves 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 not significant increase in individual or cumulative occupa-tional radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and 4
there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the elioibility criteria for cateoorical exclusion set forth in 10CFR51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact i
statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
CONCLUSION The staff has further 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 I
(2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS R. Mendez and K. R. Ridgway Dated: December 27, 1984 l
~'~
2
[
--.