ML19256G007
| ML19256G007 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1979 |
| From: | Burstein S WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256G008 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-12663, TAC-12664, NUDOCS 7912270206 | |
| Download: ML19256G007 (4) | |
Text
.
ur -
I Wisconsin Electnc eona couesur 231 W. MICHIGAN, P.O. BOX 2046, MILWAUKEE, WI 53201 December 19, 1979 CERTIFIED MhIL Mr. Harold R.
Denten, Director Office of nuclear neactor Regulation U.
S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Nashington, D.
C.
20555 Donr Mr. Denton:
DOCF,ET MO3. 50-266 AND 50-301 REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHAHGE NO. 63 SMFfION 1C3.10 - RfDiOVAL OF FMi ROD If IT~fFFALTIE5 l
TECHNICAL SPECII*ICATION FOR_RCCA MISALIGTIE!1T N1D POSITION ACCURACY In accordance with Section 50.59 of 10 CFR 50, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Licensee) hereby requesta an amen:lmnt to Facility Operating Licenses DPP.-24 and DPR-27 to incorporate changen in the Technical Specificatione for the Point Beach Muclucr plant, Units 1 nnd 2.
The proposed changes arc mainly concerned with clinination of the interim Fan penalty for rod bow and with clarification and improverent of the organization of Section 15.3.10.
Our responncs to recent NRC concerno, related to control rod nisalignmont and rod position indicator inaccuracy, are also incorporated in thn proposed revision of Section 15.3.10.
The Pan limita currently in offect were nroposed by our Change Request No. 33 to the Point Beach Technical Specifications of January G, 1977.
Approval for Technical Specification Chango No. 33 was based upon the N?.C Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend-cent Nos. 25 and 30 to Liconnas DPP-24 and DPR-27 dated May 4, 1977.
Subsequent to implementation of the interin rod bou Fan penalties in Technical Specification Change No. 30, additional studies of the offect of partial rod bow on DNS were mado by Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
Results of these studies were reported in the Wastinghouse report, UCAP-8691 (Proprietary)
" Fuel nod Bowing", dated April 5, 1979, and in supplemental information also providad by Nestinghouse.
As a reault of NRC acceptance of UCAP-SG91 and supplemental information, as discussed in the NRC acceptanco letter, Mr. J.
Stole to Mr.
T.
M.
Anderson of April 5, 1979, a reviov of the applicability of the rod bow FAH penalties for Point Beach has been performed.
1647 127 7912270 1h(
Mr. Harold R.
Denton Deconber 19, 1979 The NRC approved relationship for rod bow penalties as a function of gap closure is now: no DNB effect for closures of leas than 50% and linear interpolation to determine the DMB effect for closures between 50 and C5%, and between 350 and contact (100t).
The bow offect at 85% is 11.4% DNBR for N-lcop analysis and 141 for the loss-of-flow accident and N-1 loop analysis.
For the Point Beach reactors, use of this bow penalty relationchip results in elimination of rod bow FAH penalties due to available margins up to 33,000 MND/T region average burnup, and due to the peaking factor (FAH) decrease above 33,000 MUD /T burnup.
Renoval of dic rod bow penalties only incorporates recent information on the subject and does not reduce the margin of nafety as defined in the Dasia for the related Specification or as defined in the Point Beach Final Facility Description and Safety Analysin Report.
Therefore, renoval of the interin Fan penalties for rod bow c?ons not constitute an unrevicued cafety queation.
Renoval of the PAH rod bow penalty would permit greater flenibility in improving fuel cycle reload coro designa and, therefore, the rod hou Fan penalty should be removed.
The attnched revision of Section 15.3.10 of the Point Beach Technical Specifications incorporates renoval of the Fan rod how ecnaltico from the Power Distributton Linit section.
References to rod bow P n penaltics g
are also renoved from the Basis.
The following is provided in response to Mr. Ts. Schwencer's letter to Mr. Sol Buratein, dated October 29, 1979, which discusr,ed Technical Specificntion requirenents related to Rod Cluster Control Assenbly (KCCA) pcsition indication and nicalignment problens.
Concern was expressed that becauce of instrunent failures and inaccuracies, reactorc could be operated uith the P.CCAa n ore thin 15 inches out of alignnent, which would violate the Ucatinghouse safety analyses covering up to 15 inches niaalignment.
A Technical Specification linitation of 12 stops, as procented in the Nestinchounc Standardiced Technical Specification (STS), uns suggested.
As you are aware, the Gestinghouce STS has not been icerad suitable for direct application at Point Hench.
The related provisions in the Point Beach Technical Specificatione deal with RCCA nisalignment directly in terns of indicated inchoc of minalignnent.
The possibility of nalfunctioning electrical equip-nont or instrumentation is also covered in the proposed Specificationa, 15.3.10.C and 15.3.10.D, and in the related Basca.
It is our pocition that the related provisions of the Point Beach Technical Specifications, as proposed, are in compliance with the +12 sten indicated alignment requirencnt.
Ne do not anticipate that further changen in the Point 3cach Technical Specifications are required to insure this connliance.
1647 128
Mr. Harold R.
Donton December 19, 1979 In addition to the forogoing, Section 15.3.10 has boon updated and edited to improve its organization and to clarify its meaning and intent.
The intent and wording of the current Section 15.3.10 have, in general, bocn retelned; The following lists the proposed changes:
1.
The Basis section has been reorganized so that the basis for the Specifications new fall under corresponding headings.
2.
The definition of Shutdown Margin has been clarified and moved to Section 15.1, D2FI!1ITIONS.
3.
Reference to Part-Length RCCAs has been doloted from Sections 15.3.10.A.3, 15.3.10.D.1, 15.3.10.D.2 and from pp. 15.3.10-8, 15.3.10-Oa and 15.3.10-14 of the Basis section.
Operation with the Part-Length RCCAs has been prohibited for sono time and the Part-Length RCCAs have been removed fron the reactor.
4.
Specification 15.3.10.A has been revised to include operations from cold shutdown to power operations, with respect to defining shutdown margin requirements.
5.
The applicability of the insortion limit has been defined in Specification 15.3.10.A.5.
6.
The FAH penalty for rod bow and related discussion have been removed from the Specification and Basis.
Reference to the rod bow penalty on page 15.2.1-3 in the Basis for Section 15.2.1 has also been deleted.
7.
Proposed Specifications 15.3.10.3.2.a now contains a provision uhich eliminates the requirements to update the target flux difference and related sotpoints for very snall changes (less than +0.5%)
of the then currently employed full power taEget flux values.
8.
Specification 15.3.10.3.3.b is changed to reflect the fact that such reports of discrepancy in correction of flux tilts are no longer defined as "Abnornal Occurrences".
9.
Proposed Specifications 15.3.10.a.3.d and 15.3.10.a.3.e are added to include the quadranc tilt alarn and define limitations for nonitoring quadrant tilt when an execre detector is inoperabic.
1647 129
Mr. Harold R.
Denton December 19, 1979 10.
Proposed Specification 15.3.10.C now includes Specifications 15.3.10.C.2.a and 15.3.10.C.2.b dealing with electrical problems causing " inoperable" control rods.
This section has been changed to incorporate the provisions of the draf t Specification submitted by previous correspondence from Mr. C. W.
Fay to Mr. James Keppler, dated October 16, 1979.
This letter was submitted in response to the Geptember 26, 1979 letter which forwarded IE Inspection Ecport Nos.
50-266/79-13 and 50-301/79-15.
We have received the November 8, 1979 letter of Mr.
R.
P.
Heishman to Mr. Sol Burstein replying to our responso.
It is our position that the proposed change addresses an area of the Technical Specifications which was not previously defined, namely, the time at which power reduction cust commence to terminate " sustained power operation' under the defined conditions.
11.
Pages 15.3.10-13 and 15.3.10-14 of the proposed Basis contains additional explanation following the discus-sion of Quadrant Tilt in the Basis.
This discussion, consistent with iten 8 above, provides support for the related Specification.
12.
Pages 15.3.10-14 and 15.3.10-15 of the proposed Basis provide diccussions related to the proposed new Specifications nontioned in iter 9 above.
Licensco has reviewed the requirements of 10 CPR Part 170.22 regarding the schedule of fees for facility license anendments.
It is our determination that the license amendment for DPR-24 for Pcint Beach Unit-1 should be classified as a Class III acendment in that single issue having no hazards considerations is involved.
The a
license amendrent for DPR-27 for Point Deach Unit 2 is a duplicato of the Unit 1 application, deals with the identical subject and conce rn s, and is, therefore, clascified as a class I amendment.
Accordingly, we have enclosed herewith check number for $4,400, which is the full anount of the amendment fees.
We have enclosed herewith three signed originala of the license amendment request.
We shall provide under separate cover forty copios of the request.
Attached to cach copy of the request are proposed revised Technical Specification pages which reflect the changes discussed herein.
Any questions or clarifications you nay have on this license amendnent request should be directed to no.
Very truly yours, n
n Sol Burstein Excmitive Vice President Enclosures Subscribed and sworn to before ne this 19th day of December, 1979.
l 4
- Y ilot3ry Pdblic, State o H sconsfn M
Commission expirec
_ b /170