ML20246F525
| ML20246F525 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246F522 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8908310033 | |
| Download: ML20246F525 (2) | |
Text
__ _ _ _ -,
.#: f*?%'o.
UNITED STATES
[
N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
4g WASHINGTON,0. C. 20555 l
l SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N05.124 AND 127 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N05. DPR-24 AND DPR-27 i
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY I
POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANI, UNIT N05. 1 AND 2 i
DOCKET N05. 50-266 AND 50-301
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 26, 1989, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (the i
licensee) submitted an application for amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 ar.d DPR-27 for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units Nos. I and 2.
The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specification (TS) 15.6.9.2.C to clarify the reporting requirements for operation of the Overpressure Mitigating System (0MS). Additionally, the amendments would 6elete two schedular commitments as found in footnotes in TS Table 15.S.5-1 1
(item 10) and TS Table 15.7.4-2 (item 7.a) 2.0 EVALUATION The licensee proposed to modify a unique reporting requirement in TS 15.6.9.2.C,
" Overpressure Mitigating System Operation." This item requires that a special report be submitted to the Commission within 30 days of an event which, by licensee's evaluation, could have resulted in an overpressurization incident had the OMS not been operable.
Until recently, the licensee had interpreted this to apply onl operated relief valves (PORV)y to the actuation of the pressurizer power in the low temperature overpressure protection (LTOP) mode. However, as a result of an event reported in a letter to the NRC dated February 9,1989, it was discovered that the NRC's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated May 20, 1980, accompanying the approval of this unique reporting requirement, contained an additional reportable item. The SER but also for actuation of the residual he6t removal (y for PORY LTOP operation, directed that the special report be submitted not onl RHR) system relief valves if such actuation would have mitigated an overpressurization incident.
The SER also recognized the RHR system relief valves as a diverse relief system at Point Beach Nuclear Plant since the RHR system is not automatically isolated during a pressure transient. As a result of this discovery, the licensee proposed to revise the specification to provide assurance that operation of either the PORV's in the LTOP mode or the RHR system relief valves are reported as required.
The licensee also proposed to remove two schedular commitments found in the footnotes of two TS tables. The first commitment is contained in Table 15.3.5-1 and is related to the setting limit for item 10, " Loss of Voltage."
The associated relays have been installed as required, making this footnote no longer appropriate. The second commitment is found in Teble 15.7.4-2 and is in regards to item 7.a. "0xygen Moritor." The oxygen monitor has been installed as required, making this footnote no longer appropriate.
9908310033 890824 PDR ADOCK 05000266 P
PNU
y
)
. l The~ staff concludes that the proposed changes to the. Technical Specifications l
l are entirely administrative in nature, reflecting actual reporting requirements and the completion of changes previously committed to by the licensee.
Based on the information presented above, the staff concludes that the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications are acceptable, j
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the instal-c l
1ation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or a change to a surveillance requirement. The staff 1
has determir.ed that the amendment involves no significant increase in the
. amounts, ana no significant change in the types,.of any effluents that may be j
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 this amendment involves no significant hazards-consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forthin10CFR51.22(c)(9). This amendment also involves changes in record-keeping, reporting or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, with respect to these items, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 951.22(c)(10).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
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 will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical tc the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Lawrence E. Kokajko Dated:
August 24, 1989 i
_ _ _ _ _ _ - ____ -_