ML20027C851
| ML20027C851 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027C848 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-48538, TAC-48539, NUDOCS 8210270302 | |
| Download: ML20027C851 (2) | |
Text
[%
UNITED STATES e*
'n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 65 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-24 AND AMENDMENT NO.
70 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-27 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 Introduction.
By letter dated June 14, 1982, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Licensee) requested a change to the Technical Specifications (TS) appended to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 for Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 respectively. The change would allow a waiver of the monthly functional test of the turbine stop and governor valves at end of cycle operations when primary coolant boron concentration is less than 100 parts per million (PPM).
Discussion and Evaluation The current Point Beach Unit 1 and 2 TS require a monthly functional test of the turbine stop and governor valves.
The purpose of this test is to assure the capability to control turbine speed in case of an unexpected loss of load and prevent possible turbine rotor damage or failure.
This test requires a reduction in unit power level to approximately 60% to permit the appropriate valves to be properly exercised.
As a unit approaches end-of-cycle core life, primary system boron concentration is low. Low primary system boron concentration makes load swing operations difficult because of Xenon tran-sients and flux tilt conditions experienced during the power reduction.
Near end-of-cycle load swings are also very costly in terms of primary system water throughput and resulting deborating resin consumption which results in subsequent increased radioactive waste for disposal.
At normal full power operations, either Point Beach unit reduces primary system boron concentration at the rate of approximately 100 PPM boron per month. Since the licensee's proposed TS change allows waiver of this test only when primary l
system boron concentration is less than 100 PPM boron, approving this proposed TS change would have the effect of postponing the turbine stop and governor valve functional test from as little as a few days to as much as four to six weeks depending upon the need to stretch operation beyond the zero PPM boron.
The licensee states that in over ten years of operation, the monthly turbine stop and governor valve functional tests have not identified any recurring problems which affect the operation of these valves or which would prevent the valves from performing their designed function of preventing a turbine overspeed I
condition. The licensee further states that should the affected unit power level have to be reduced to less.than 60% for other operational reasons, the turbine 8210270302 821015 PDR ADOCK 05000266 P
PDR t
, stop and governor valves would be tested during that time.
This proposed TS change is of a type similar to that previously approved for other power reactors and individually on a one-time basis for both Point Beach Units 1 and 2.
The exact wording of the proposed TS change submitted in the licensee's June 14, 1982 change request was somewhat ambiguous and, as discussed with members of the licensee's staff by telephone, has been modified to more clearly reflect the in-tent of the proposed TS change request.
Based upon our review of the licensee's submittal and reasons supporting the proposed TS change request, and in consideration of the previous satisfactory functional performance of the turbine stop and governor valves at Point Beach Units 1 and 2, the staff finds that there is reasonable assurance that, if the proposed TS change is approved, the valves will function as designed if called upon to do so. Therefore, the staff finds the proposed TS change to be acceptable.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level. and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendments involve an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, i
do not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuanca of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: October 15, 1982 Principal Contributor:
T. G. Colburn