ML20133M283

Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-24 & DPR-27,imposing New Surveillance Requirements for Reactor Scram Breakers Necessitated by Installation of Automatic Shunt Trip Circuits for Breakers.Fee Paid

ML20133M283
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	08/08/1985
From:	Fay C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
To:	Butcher E, Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20133M286	List: ML20133M283 ML20133M296
References
CON-NRC-85-85 GL-83-28, TAC-53186, TAC-53187, VPNPD-85-257, NUDOCS 8508130072
Download: ML20133M283 (4)

Text

- _ ,

). '

WNSCORSin Electnc eom couem 231 W. MICHIGAN, P.O. BOX 2046. MllWAUKEE, WI 53201 August 8, 1985 VPNPD-85-257 NRC-85-85 CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. H. R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Mr. Edward Butcher, Acting Chief Operating Reactors, Branch 3 Gentlemen:

DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REQUEST NO. 106 REACTOR SCRAM BREAKER SURVEILLANCE POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 In accordance with Sections 50.59 and 50.90 of 10 CFR 50, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Licensee) hereby requests amendments to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, respectively. These amendments, which will impose new surveillance requirements for the reactor scram breakers, are necessitated by the installation of automatic shunt trip circuits for the reactor scram breakers of both Units 1 and 2. A proposed Technical Specification page, with the changes identified by margin bars, is enclosed with this application.

The NRC issued Generic Letter 83-28, " Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events", on July 8, 1983.

Section 4 of the letter addressed reactor trip system reliability improvements and outlined the physical configuration of the automatic shunt trip circuits to be installed, as well as the specific requirements of surveillance testing. The NRC's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated August 10, 1983 on the Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) generic design description of the shunt trip circuits requested plant-specific design information and proposed technical specification changes requiring periodic testing of the shunt trip circuits. We responded to the requests of the SER in a submittal dated June 1, 1984 and to an additional information request dated September 26, 1984 with a submittal dated October 26, 1984.

\

0508130072 850008 ,\

PDR ADOCK 05000266 P PDR /

j $//30 00 g 16 /OJ l

Mr. H. R. Denton August 8, 1985 The shunt trip modification, with the exception of bypass breaker main control board indication, was completed on Unit 2 during the fall 1984 outage. Main control board hypass breaker indication will be installed on Unit 2 during the fall 1985 outage. The entire shunt trip modification, including main control board bypass breaker indication, for Unit 1 was completed during the spring 1985 Unit 1 outage.

The following summarizes the disposition of the four exceptions to the acceptability of the shunt trip modification, as outlined in your letter dated September 26, 1984.

The first exception requested that bypass breaker position indication be provided on the main control board in such a manner as to provide unambiguous indication of the bypass condition of the reactor trip breakers. Cell switch interlocks will be utilized in conjunction with the installation of bypass breaker position indicators on the main control board and will serve to provide the required unambiguous indication. This modi-fication has been installed on Unit 1 and will be installed on Unit 2 during the fall 1985 refueling outage.

The second exception addressed test procedures for the bypass breaker undervoltage trip and verification of the unambiguous bypass breaker position indication. By procedure, we test the bypass breaker undervoltage trip prior to use of the breaker.

However, until unit cell switch interlocks are installed, the bypass breaker position indication, as seen at the reactor trip logic cabinets, will not differentiate between the breaker being in the test or in the operate position. Therefore, during breaker testing, a technician repositions the breaker to the operate position at the breaker when the bypass breaker undervoltage trip testing is complete. After interlock installation, the bypass breaker test procedure will be revised to verify proper unambiguous position indication. This will be done in the test mode locally at the breaker, and in the operate mode remotely at the reactor trip logic cabinets and at the main control board. Unit cell switch interlock installation is complete for Unit 1.

The third exception requested that we inform you when we receive confirmation from the vendor that the seismic qualification of the shunt trip components has been completed.

Westinghouse completed the seismic qualification in February 1985. The results verify that the shunt trip attachments are generically seismically qualified. We are presently reviewing the test results to verify applicability to the Point Beach installations.

Mr. H. R. Denton August 8, 1985 Lastly, there was a reminder that a change to the technical specifications would be required upon completion of the modifications. Enclosed with this letter is a proposed revision to Table 15.4.1-2, page 3 of 3, of the Point Beach Technical Specifications. The proposed revision adds five new surveillance requirements. Item 26 (a). will require monthly testing to independently verify operability of the automatic undervoltage and shunt trip functions of the reactor trip breaker. Items 26 (b) and 27 (c) will require testing to verify independent operability of the manual reactor trip switch contacts and wiring to the undervoltage and shunt trip devices of the reactor trip breakers and to the undervoltage trip devices of the reactor trip bypass breakers; item 27 (a) will require testing to verify operability of the undervoltage trip function of the reactor trip bypass breakers prior to use for surveillance tests of the reactor protection system logic and reactor trip breakers; and item 27(b) would require testing to verify operability of the shunt trip function of the reactor trip bypass breakers during each refueling outage. The proposed change to the Technical Specifications address items 10 and 13 of the Safety Evaluation Report attached to your letter dated September 26, 1984 and are in accordance with the guidelines provided in NRC Generic Letter 85-09, " Technical Specifications for Generic Letter 83-28,

, Item 4.3", dated May 23, 1985.

t 1

! As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a) (1) and following the criteria specified by 10 CFR 50.92, we have concluded that these

proposed changes to the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Technical

! Specifications do not constitute a significant hazards consideration. We are proposing additional surveillance requirements as a result of the completed reactor protection system modifications to enhance the reactor trip system reliability. These changes are within the scope of the NRC's ekample (ii) of amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards considerations, "A change that constitutes an additional limitation, restriction, or control not presently included in the technical specifications: for example, a more stringent surveillance requirement." (48 Federal l Register 14870) l In addition to the above, two other changes are proposed. i First, as requested by the NRC with their issuance of Amendment Nos. 92 and 96, Technical Specification 15.3.8.4A is modified to include the reference to maintenance of sampling and analysis equipment. Second, a typographical error is corrected in Note (2) of Table 15.4.1-2, and in Specification 15.6.9.3.G. These changes l

Mr. H. R. Denton August 8, 1985 are within the scope of the NRC's example (i) of amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards considerations, "A purely administrative change to technical specifications". Therefore, these proposed changes to the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Technical Specifications do not constitute a significant hazards consideration.

Enclosed are three signed originals and, under separate cover, forty copies of this amendment application. Also enclosed is a check in the amount of $150.00 for the application fee specified in 10 CFR 170.12.

Please contact us if you have any questions concerning these proposed changes.

Very truly yours, Vice Presi ent-Nuclear Power C. W. Fay Enclosures (Check No. 861021)

Copies to NRC Resident Inspector R. S. Cullen, PSCW Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9M day of August, 1985 8/ A J Note.ry Public, MaMe of Wisconsin My Commission expires M2/ 429. /9ff.

T u.--- _ _ _ _____ - - _ - . _ _ _ _ . _ - - - - - - - - _ - - _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - . - - _ _ _ _ _ - m