ML20072G369
| ML20072G369 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072G367 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9408240292 | |
| Download: ML20072G369 (3) | |
Text
_
ys %
/,
UNITED STATES
! (@/ [ }
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7
( gg j
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 0001 SAFETY EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NVCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.149 AND 153 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSF NOS. DPR-24 AND DPR-27 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated February 26, 1993, as supplemented on March 9, 1993, Wisconsin Electric Power Company, the licensee, proposed to modify the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TSs) related to components required for redundant decay heat removal capability.
TS 15.3.1.A.3.a.(3) presently reads, "At least one of the above decay heat removal methods shall be in operation except when required to be secured for testing." The present TS wording is unclear and ambiguous.
The proposed wording will read as follows:
"At least one of the above decay heat removal methods shall be in operation.
(a) All reactor coolant pumps and residual heat removal pumps may be deenergized for up to I hour in an 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> period provided:
(1) No operations are permitted that would cause dilution of the reactor coolant system boron concentration, and (2) Core outlet temperature is maintained at least 10 'F below saturation temperature."
2.0 EVALUATION l
The proposed changes will introduce and allow a short time period of I hour in an 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> period during normal shutdown operations when all reactor coolant pumps and residual heat removal pumps may be deenergized.
This provision will permit tests to be performed that are designed to validate various accident' analyses values.
The 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> time period is adequate to perform these tests and operating experience has shown that baron stratification is not a problem during this short period with no forced flow.
It is permitted provided the following conditions are met:
9408240292 940816 yDR ADOCK 05000266 PDR
' a.
No operations are permitted that would dilute the RCS boron concentration, therefore maintaining the margin to criticality.
Boron reduction is prohibited because a uniform concentration distribution throughout the RCS cannot be ensured when in natural circulation; and b.
Core outlet temperature is maintained at least 10 'F below saturation temperature, so that no vapor bubble may form and possibly cause a natural circulation flow obstruction.
In addition, the licensee has an abnormal operating procedure (A0P-9C, Revision 7) which is used to evaluate and correct conditions that are causing or could lead to an inadequate core cooling condition during residual heat removal system operation.
This proposed change is consistent with the Standard Technical Specifications (STSs) and provides clarity to the existing TSs.
The proposed changes will provide clarity regarding decay heat removal system operation with the reactor in the shutdown configuration.
Therefore, the proposed changes will ensure and enhance the continued safe operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant.
The staff concludes that the proposed TS changes are acceptable.
Additionally, the licensee has proposed to modify for further clarification the bases for TSs 15.3.1.A.3.a.(3) and 15.3.1.A.I.b, which stipulate that either a reactor coolant pump or residual heat removal pump must be in operation when the reactor is subcritical and temperature is greater than 140
'F.
The staff concludes that the proposed TS bases changes are consistent with Westinghouse STSs and therefore acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Wisconsin State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIOJ This amendment changes 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 changes a surveillance requirement. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluent that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (58 FR 43939).
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR Sl.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
5.0 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 this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
K. Desai Date: August 16, 1994 1
l 1
i l