ML20087J352

Application to Amend Licenses DPR-24 & DPR-27,changing Tech Specs to Add Addl Restrictions on Heavy Loads Over Spent Fuel Pool & Making Additions & Deletions Re safety-related Snubbers,Per IE Bulletin 79-14 & Item II.D.1

ML20087J352
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	03/16/1984
From:	Fay C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
To:	Harold Denton, Miller T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20087J354	List: ML20087J352 ML20087J365
References
RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.D.1, TASK-TM IEB-79-14, TAC-54592, TAC-54593, NUDOCS 8403220162
Download: ML20087J352 (4)

Text

'

~

g . - m g .:, ^\ ~

7q '

~

ici A , N .i'

~

w'g .

~

^

' %l .

. . , 2 Q

~

)%SCORSin Electnc m cwmr '

'nt W IUCHIGAN, P.C. BOX 2046, MILNM4EE, WI 5320! -

~

s

-Qa 3 a  %-

~

f. . ' .J -

March 16, 1984 l

a , ' .*v .

. 1.m .m

~

~

/ CERT 1FIED MAIL ~

~. .

3, /^ -

Mr. H. R. Denton,. Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulatiion .

1T... S . NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D. C. 20555. r.

Attention: Mr. J. R. Miller, Chief' Operating Reactors, Branch 3 .

Gentlemen:

^

w - cy . ,

~

i '

, i DOCKETS 50-2 6 6 AND 50--30_1 .

'\ TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION' CHANGE REQUEST NO. 88

^ '

~ HEAVY LOAD RESTRICTIONS, SAFETY-RELATED SNUBBERS,

~ AND MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES A POINT BEACO NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 s

s In accordance with Sectionn 50.59 and 50.90- of 10 CFR 50, W[sconcin El.ectric'Fower Company (Licensee) hereby requests amend'ents m to Facility-Operating Licenses'DPR-24 and'DPR-27 for

,.._ the' Point Beach nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, respectively.

The purpose of,these amendments is to incorporate changes into the Point Beach Technical' Specifications. .The changes involve

^

additional restrictions 7

on heavy loads over-the spent fuel pool, sevefal additions;and two deletions to'the list of safety-related snubb'e'rs; 6L ugec~ to position titles within the administrative specifications, ind. miscellaneous' editorial changes and corrections

.throughoutrthe specifications. Specific changes requested in this

-application are discussed in this letter.

J Specification--15.3.8.B, " Limitations on Load Movements

~

Over Spent Fuel Pcol",'and_the bases for this specification have nbeen-revised to prohib'it the' movement of heavy loads exceeding 1750, pounds overtspent. fuel stored in the spent fuel pool. This schange was requested by the NRC in the Staff's Technical Evaluation Report on heavy load handling. We.previously committed to include these limitdtionh-in our letter to you dated September 28, 1983.

. Table 15.3.13-1, " Safety-Related Shock Suppressors",

has been revised. For both Units l-and 2 a number of new safety-related snubbers have.been added to the listing. These snubbers y

^

l A De l

., m

, I fl 7 8'403220162,840316 .

~

DRADOCK05000g ( -

e l FoA 5 >, Ge o *

• c., -

3:

~~ -Mr.'H..R.'Denton1 March 16, 1984 4

'were added as.a' result of our work on1IE Bulletin 79-14 and our l reanalysis _of the: pressurizer power-operated relief valve (PORV) and" safety valve headers conducted in response to NUREG-0737, Item (II.D.l.c In addition to the listing of these new snubbers, we are also~ proposingjto . delete a snubber from each unit's listing, 4

specifically 1-HS-M74-(Unit 1) and 2-HS-M75 (Unit 2). As a result

.of the redesign of the pressurizer.PORV and safety valve headers and the= addition.of new supports, hangers, and snubbers, these specific snubbers no longer provide any restraint or support

-function and may .be removed.

A number of changes have been proposed to Section 15.6,

" Administrative Controls". These changes are detailed as follows:

~

l.- The title of the plant manager has been changed from Manager-Nuclear Operationsito Manager-Point Beach Nuclear Plant.

2. .The title of Director-Nuclear Power-Department has

-been changed to Vice President-Nuclear Power.

'3. The Manager-Nuclear Engineering-Section has been replaced by twolsectioniGeneral Superintendents.

4.- The' Shift Supervisor = is- now a Shift Superintendent.

5. -The description of-the Duty and Call Superintendent has~been moved from~Section 15.6.5 to the more

-appropriate Section 15.6.2.

6. -Figures 15.6.2-1 through 15.6.2-4.have been revised 4

Ltx) reflect the new position 1 titles.- Figure 15.6.2-2 has been revised to include the new minimum shift staffing requirements of 10 CFR 50.54m. Figure 15.6.2-4 is also revised lx) comply with the Point Beach

' fire protection organization which no longer relies oon contract security guards for the fire brigade.

7. The descriptivn of~the duties and responsibilities of the Manager's Supervisory Staff.(MSS) in Specification-

~15.6.9.1 has;been editorially revised to clarify and fsimplify;the' specifications. The requirement for the MSS;to review plant. operations for industrial safety has been deleted from the Technical Specifications.

Although such reviews are conducted by. Wisconsin Electric through-appropriate audit and review authorities, such reviews-should not require Technical Specification documentation.

, m ~

'Mr+ H..R. Denton March 16, 1984

• L

8. Requirements. for Emergency Plan drills are now specified i s 'in the Emergency Plan and should be deleted from the specifications. An audit of the Emergency Plan is s required ly Specification 15.6.5.5 to ensure that

' plan requirements are being followed.

9. Specification 15.6.3.2 has been revised to provide

flexibility in assignment of .the Radiation Protection Manager position to the Health Physicist or a designated alternate. The requirements and qualifications for

this position have not changed.

10 . ' . Specification-15.6.8.3 has been revised to simplify

, and clarify the-description of temporary procedure

change approvals.

The remainder of the proposed revisions included with the' attached page changes to the Technical. Specifications. involve clerical, editorial, or typographical. corrections. Specific changes on each page are identified by margin bars. In several cases these changes consisted of correcting the. specification t: terminology.to a format _ recognized in the Technical Specification definitions.

. As required byIl0' CFR - 50.91(a)'(1) , we are providing the' following discussion concerning.the issue of whether or not

_these' proposed changes involve any significant hazards consideration

using the standards and criteria specified in 10'CFR 50.92. The

> Nuclear Regulatory Commission has provided guidelines concerning 3 the application of.these! standards in'the Statement of Consideration published with the_ rule at 48 Federal Register 14870. That reference considers purely administrative changes to the speci-

-fications, for example, changes to' achieve consistency, correction of' error, or a change-in nomenclature'.as-examples

, of amendments that are _ not likely to involve a significant hazards consideration.

~

With the exception of the changes .to Specifications 15.3.8 and 15.3.13 discussed ~above, the attached' changes are exactly of this l- type. The change-to Figure 15.6.2-2 alse involves a revision to make the. license ~ conditions conform to changes'in the regulations,

~

F which is another example- of an amendment unlikely to involve

'a significant' hazards ~ consideration.

TheLchanges to Specification 15.3.8 constitute.

additional limitations not presently included in the Technical

' Specifications.: This-is a third' example from 48 Federal Register

.14870 of! changes not likely to involve significant hazards consideration._ Although'the additions to Table 15.3.13-1 constitute

Mr. H. R. Denton. March 16, 1984 additionalilimitations, we have also requested to delete one

-snubber'from each unit's list. We have performed pipe stress ~

. analyses;which= demonstrate that the piping stresses for the new pipe. support configuration are less than the stresses e

calculated, assuming the same transient conditions, for the original ~ pipe support' configuration. Accordingly, we can 4

. conclude that there'is a decrease in the probability of an accident and an. increase in the margin of. safety. Upgrading the pipe supports cannot create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those previously analyzed, therefore, by.the criteria of 10 CFR 50.92, there is no signi-

'ficant. hazards consideration involved with this change.

In accordance with the schedule of fees for reactor

. facility license ~ amendments, as specified in 10 CFR 170.22, we have enclosed a check in the amount of $1,600 for the applicable approval fee. This amount consists of $1,200 for-a Class II

~

approval for the Unit 1 license; and = $400 for a Class I, or duplicate, approval for the Unit 2 license. The Class II determi-nation is based on the administrative nature of the majority -

'of.these changes and the. conclusion that' additional restrictions .

in; Specification 15.3.8 and the changes to Table 15.3.13-1 are ~

4 revisions.which have no safety,or environmental significance.

We enclose herewithLthree signed originals and, under-separate cover, forty copies of this ' license amendment

. application and attached proposed TechnicalLSpecification pages.

Please contact us if you have any questions concerning these

. proposed changes or questions regarding the bases for our no significant hazards consideration-and' fee determinations.

Very truly yours,

[L Vice Preside t-Nuclear Power C. W.; Fay

, Enclosures (Check No. 775921)

! Copies to NRC Resident Inspector

-C. F. Riederer, PSCW

. Subscri d and sworn to before me

-this [g___ day of~ March 1984.

M I[d3uvA C - e Notary PVblic, State oY Wisconsin j

My' Commission. expires -l3)TN.

7

_..c - , , - - , . - , -.-, , , . - - , - - - , . - . , . - , - - , - , , , , , . _ . . - - - - , , , . , , - , . . - , , , . . , . - . - , , _ , . - . . - , ,