ML20134N620
| ML20134N620 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134N619 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-57641, TAC-57642, NUDOCS 8509050226 | |
| Download: ML20134N620 (2) | |
Text
_
a usuqk UNITED STATES
.[
h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
%j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.96 AND 100ro FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-24 AND DPR-27 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 4
Introduction By letter dated April 26, 1985 Wisconsin Electric Power Company, the licensee for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, submitted an amendment application to their license Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27, portions of which would remove the limitations on load movements over the spent fuel pool and surveillance of the auxiliary building crane. These limitations, intended as interim measures, were imposed as a result of NRC staff review of heavy load handling in accordance with the criteria of NUREG-0612. " Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants,"
and are documented in an April 8, 1985 Safety Evaluation. The licensee's sub-mittal also revises the surveillance requirements for lifting) devices to ensure all lifting devices for heavy loads (greater than 1750 pounds are inspected prior to use.
Evaluation In order to address the specific concern covered by the existing technical specifications on handling heavy loads over or near the spent fuel pool using the overhead crane, the licensee contracted with Ederer Incorporated to modify the auxiliary building rectilinear crane in accordance with the " single-failure-proof" crane design criteria of Section 5.1.6 and Appendix C of NUREG-0612.
This modification consists of replacement of the existing bridge trolley with an Ederer designed trolley and associated hoists. The licensee stated that this
- trolley is comparable to that described in Ederer Incorporated topical report EDR-1(P), "Ederer Nuclear Safety-Related Extra Safety and Monitoring (X-SAM)
Cranes," Revision 3.
This report describes the design and testing of the
" single failure proof" features which are included in Ederer's X-SAM cranes intended for handling spent fuel casks and other heavy loads in a nuclear power plant. The staff previously reviewed the Ederer report and issued a safety evaluation (SE) dated August 3, 1983.
In this SE, the staff concluded that the crane design satisfied the criteria for " single-failure-proof" features for com-pact hoisting equipment and was therefore, acceptable. Thus, as prescribed in the criteria of NUREG-0612, because heavy loads handling over spent fuel will be accomplished using a " single-failure-proof crane," the technical specification j
restrictions are no longer necessary and can be removed.
fDR9050226 850903 1
ADOCK 05000266 p
PDR 8
' Based on the above, we conclude that the licensee's proposed changes to Point Beach Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications 15.3.8 and 15.4.14 and the associated bases meet the guidelines of Section 5.1.6 and Appendix C of NUREG-0612 and are therefore, acceptable.
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 Comission has previously published a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 651.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 551.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
CONCLUSION Wehaveconcluded,basedontheconsiderationsdiscussedabove,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 common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: September 3, 1985 Principal Contributor:
R. Anand T. Colburn l
.o