ML20059L196
| ML20059L196 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 01/27/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059L195 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9402030274 | |
| Download: ML20059L196 (4) | |
Text
...
.r f REGy
. '.,4 t
UNITED STATES
[
fj NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
WASHINGTON. o.C. 20666-0001
~ j g
\\.....y SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.145 AND 149 TO l
FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-24 AND DPR-27 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNIT NOS. I AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 f
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 14, 1993, the Wisconsin Electric Power Company, the e
licensee, submitted a request for revisions' to the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Technical Specifications to clarify reactor coolant chemistry limitations and action to be taken if the limits are exceeded. The proposed amendments would-modify Technical Specification (TS) 15.3.1.E. " Maximum Reactor Coolant Oxygen and Chloride and Fluoride Concentration for Power Operation" and the TS Bases Section. The amendments would separate the reactor coolant chloride and fluoride Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) into two separate LCOs.
Additionally, the amendments would change the action statement, TS 15.3.1.E.2, to allow the licensee 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to correct an' out-of-specification oxygen, chloride, or fluoride condition.
If the out-of-specification condition is not corrected within the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> grace period, the licensee would be required to commence a power reduction to a hot shutdown condition. The action statement would also allow the licensee 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> to correct the out-of-specification condition before being required to place the reactor in a cold shutdown condition. The amendment request was necessitated when the licensee reviewed the TSs and determined that it was worded in a manner that the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> time allowance could only be followed if the reactor coolant oxygen level was out-of-specification in conjunction with the chloride or fluoride level being out-of-specification.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Purpose of the Specification i
The purpose of TS Section 15.3.1.E, " Maximum Coolant Oxygen and Chloride and Fluoride Concentration for Power Operation," is to maintain oxygen, fluoride, and chloride concentrations within established limits. The adverse effects arising from oxygen, chloride, and fluoride concentrations in excess of the specified limits can cause corrosion and promote additional time-dependent material degradation mechanisms, thus compromising the functional integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundaries. Because the adverse effects asso-t ciated with an improper water chemistry take some time to become significant, i
the specifications allow a reasonable period of time to correct the condition.
9402030274 940127 PDR ADOCK 05000266 P
PDR l
- In addition, the specifications define the required action to be taken if the limits are exceeded.
Industry efforts to mitigate the effects of improper water chemistry have been coordinated by the Electric Power Research Iristitute (EPRI).
EPRI has developed a set of pressurized water reactor chemistry guidelines, which are currently used in the industry, to serve as a basis for primary and secondary water chemistry limits.
2.2 Current License Condition The current license condition as stated in the TSs is applicable for both Units 1 and 2.
Specification 15.3.1.E.1 defines the limit of oxygen concentration within the reactor coolant and Specification 15.3.1.E.2 defines the limit for chloride in combination with ' fluoride concentration within the reactor coolant.
In addition, Specification 15.3.1.E.3 specifies the actions to be taken when the oxygen concentration and the chloride or fluoride concentration of the reactor coolant simultaneously exceed the given limits (15.3.1.E.1 and 15.3.1.E.2).
If the proper water chemistry is not restored within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of discovering the out-of-specification condition, the licensee is required to place the reactor in hot shutdown.
In addition, if the proper water chemistry is not restored within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> of discovery, the licensee is required to place the reactor in cold shutdown.
The current action statement in TS 15.3.1.E is worded such that the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> time allowance can only be followed if the reactor coolant oxygen level is out of specification in conjunction with the chloride or fluoride levels also being out of specification. Thus, TS 15.3.1.E could be interpreted as requiring a reactor shutdown (in accordance with the plant's " motherhood" statement) within three hours of discovery of an out of specification primary coolant chemistry parameter.
2.2 Proposed Changes The proposed revisions will serve to clarify reactor coolant chemistry limitations and actions to be taken if the limits are exceeded.
(1)
Split Specification 15.3.1.E.2 into two specifications (15.3.1.E.2 and 15.3.1.E.3).
Specification 15.3.1.E.2 will define the chloride limit and Specification 15.3.1.E.3 will define the fluoride limit.
(2)
Specification 15.3.1.E.3 will be renumbered 15.3.1.E.4 allowing the licensee 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to correct an out-of-specification chemistry condition when any one of the limits on oxygen, fluoride, or chloride concentration in the reactor coolant are exceeded individually.
(3)
Modify the basis for Specification Section 15.3.1.E clarifying the required actions for exceeding a defined limit.
s 3.0 EVALUATION The licensee's proposal to separate the reactor coolant chloride and fluoride LCO into respective individual LCOs is an administrative request only. The proposed limits on reactor coolant system (RCS) chloride and fluoride concentrations will continue to be set at 0.15 ppm. These limits are in accordance with those recomended by EPRI for RCS chloride and fluoride levels in pressurized water reactors (PWRs). The proposed action statement is different in that it allows the licensee a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> grace period to correct any out-of-specification RCS oxygen, chloride, or fluoride levels, prior to comencing a power reduction to the hot shutdown condition.
EPRI has recomended that certain actions be taken by plant operations and chemistry departments when reactor coolant impurities reach certain levels.
At Action I levels, it is recommended that management take some sort of action. Action 1 levels do not constitute an imediate threat to the integrity of the RCS. At Action 2 levels, EPRI recomends that the out-of-specification impurity be returned to specification within a designated grace period, or else that the reactor be brought to a safe shutdown condition.
Action 2 levels also do not constitute an imediate threat to the integrity of the RCS, but could constitute a long term threat should the adverse condition not be corrected. At Action 3 levels, EPRI recomends that the operators initiate an imediate plant shutdown. Action 3 levels could constitute an imediate threat to the integrity of the RCS, and are usually set at a factor of 10 higher than the Action 2 levels.
The 24-hour grace period proposed by-the licensee is in agreement with the time interval recomended by EPRI for Action 2 impurity levels. The 48-hour grace period to cold shutdown is also within agreement of the EPRI Primary Water Chemistry Guidelines. The staff has noted that the Point Beach Technical Specifications do not address the actions to be taken by the licensee should the RCS impurities increase to Action 3 levels. However, the licensee has stated that Action 3 level conditions are covered by the actions recommended in the plant Administrative Chemistry Procedures for reactor coolant chemistry, in accordance with normal plant operations.
The separation of the RCS chloride and fluoride LCOs is an administrative change. The change to the RCS impurity level action statement is in agreement with the EPRI recommendations, and the licensee has specific procedures to
'3 follow should any of the RCS chemistry parameters reach ten times the levels cited in TS 15.3.1.E.
The proposed bases changes were also reviewed, and found to be consistent with the proposed TS changes. Therefore, the staff finds the proposed TS and bases changes acceptable.
e
$3
.. t'
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Wisconsin State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments change a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or change a surveillance requirement. The staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously published a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (58 FR 12270).
Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 651.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and.
security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
J. Medoff Date: January 27, 1994