ML20244D854
| ML20244D854 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20244D852 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8904240153 | |
| Download: ML20244D854 (4) | |
Text
_. - _ _ _.
UNITED STATES
.[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION En
- j' WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELAltu TO AMENDhEf;T N05.118 AND 121 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE h05. DPR-24 AND DPR-27 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY POINT BEACH HUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT N05. 1 AND 2 DOCKET N05. 50-266 AND 50-301
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In a letter dated April 19, 1983 and modified by letters dated April 13, 1984, September 7,1984, July 14,1988, and March 22, 1969, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (the licensee) proposed to change the plant Technical Specifications for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2.
These changes would mooify the fire protection sections to include recently-installed systems or to be consistent with Standard Technical Specifications, NUREG-0452.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee requested an amendment to the fire protection sections of the Technical Specifications for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2, to include recently-installed systems or to be consistent with Standard Technical Specifications, NUREG-0452.
As a result of the submittals, the licensee requested that Technical Specifi-cation section 15.3.14 be modified. Some administrative modifications wculd delete the wording " operable at rated capacity" and insert " operable" instead.
Operable as defined in the Technical Specifications includes
)erformance of function as defined in the Final Safety Analysis Report, whica cescribes the component function and rated capacity. Another administrative modification would ch6nge pump operability requirements from once per day to once every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
i Initially, the proposed Table 15.3.14-1 would identify existing hose i
stations and additional water sprinkler systems.
In the April 13, 1984 submittal, the licensee proposed (1) to define safe shutdown areas; (2) to include fire hose station availability in all areas; and (3) to remove the numerical reference to a specific number of detectors in each area. The September 7, 1984 submittal further revised this table to include a newly added sprinkler system in specified areas.
However, in conformance with Standard Technical Specifications and after staff review, Table 15.3.14-1 I
was modified again in the July 14, 1988 submittal. This submittal re-instated the number of fire detectors recuired to be operable in each safe shutoown fire area. A March 22, 1989 submittal corrected typographical errors on Table 15.3.14-1.
I 8904240153 890417 PDR ADOCK 05000266 P
PDC 2
~ Initially, the licensee proposed to relax the time period to achieve cold shutdown with an inoperable fire main loop water supply from 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> to 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />. The April 13, 1984 submittal deleted this requirement in its entirety.
After staff review, the licensee reinstated the requirement for reactor shutdown in the July 14, 1988 submittal. The reinstated specification requires hot standby in 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> and cold shutdown in the subsequent 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />. This is in conformance with Standard Technical Specifications.
The licensee would administrative 1y mocify the specifications to add new limiting conditions for operation for new automatic suppression systems and fire detection and barrier systems. The licensee initially proposed to relax the fire watch patrol from once per hour to twice per shift. However, upon staff review and to conform with Standard Technical Specifications, the April 13, 1984 submittal returned the fire watch patrol to once per hour l
rather than twice per shift.
A qualification was added at the beginning of section 15.3.14 which stated that the provisions of section 15.3.0 are not applicable. A similar qualifica-1 tion is found in Standard Technical Specifications. The limiting condition l
for operation wrs qualified with the statement that the fire protection i
systems must be operable whenever the equipment protected by the system is l
required to be operable. This is an expansion of the present operability requirements.
l The licensee requested that Technical Specifications section 15.4.15 be modified. The administrative modifications would add surveillance requirements for new automatic suppression and fire detection and barrier systems. The surveillance requirements were revised to reflect the requirements of a wet pipe rather than a dry pipe system. Test frequencies for fire hose station hydrostatic tests and fire detection tests have been modified to be consistent with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) codes.
Where the licensee made changes to conform to the Standard Technical Specifi-cations (i.e., fire hose station, hose hydrostatic test frequency, fire pump testing requirements, and detector functional test requirements), the proposed changes reflect the requirements of the NFPA codes. While the proposed test frequencies may be less than the existing plant Technical Specifications, they are in conformance with the Standard Technical Specifications and NFPA codes and do not represent a reduction in plant safety. There were several areas where it appeared the proposed changes dio not provide for surveillance requirements as identified in the Standard Technical Specifications. These include the lack of a 3-year fire water system flush, valve cycle requirements, and fire door inspection requirements.
In the July 14, 1988 letter, the licensee stated that these surveillance requirements are present in existing plant procedures. Addi-tionally, the licensee stated that they intend to remove fire protection surveil-lance requirements from their Technical Specifications per Generic Letter 86-10; i
e and, therefore, it is not necessary to include these surveillance requirements in the current plant Technical Specifications. The existing surveillance provisions were discussed with the licensee by telephone on August 11, 1988 and were found to adequately adoress the requirements of Standard Technical Specifications.
Finally, the licensee would add a unique reporting requirement under a new specification within section 15.6.9.
Degradation of fire protection systems or components as described in 15.3.14 which render the systems inoperable shall be the subject of a special report, prepared and submitted within 30 day s.
This is in conformance with Standard Technical Specifications.
A technical report preparea by a contractor for the NRC, entitled " Evaluation of Fire Protection Technical Specifications Changes Point Beach Units 1 and 2" (SAIC-88/1812), concluded that the proposed modifications to the Technical Specifications were due to the licensee adding newly-installed systems, or providing clarification or attempting to bring the existing _ Technical Specifications in agreement with the Standard Technical Specifications, NUREG-0452. The evaluation concluded that the proposed changes to the fire protection specifications were acceptable. The contractor's report was reviewed by the staff and the staff concurs with the report's conclusions.
Based upon the information presented, the staff concludes that the proposed changes to the fire protection Technical Specifications, as presented in the letters dated April 19, 1983, April 13, 1984, September 7, 1984, July 14, 1988, and March 22, 1989, are acceptable and are in conformance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R.
3.0 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 or change inspection or 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 effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupa-
)
tional 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 151.22(c)(9). Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),noenvironmentalimpactstatement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
l
O e
4.0 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission'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.
Principal Contributor: Lawrence E. Kokajko Dated: April 17,1989
________a-_.__