ML20093E959
| ML20093E959 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1995 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20093E953 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9510170186 | |
| Download: ML20093E959 (4) | |
Text
.
p rer UNITED STATES g
s j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
WASHINGTON. D.C. 300SH001 A*****/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.163 AND 167 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE 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 January 26, 1994, as supplemented by letters dated i
December 1, 1994 and June 23, 1995, the Wisconsin Electric Power Company, the licensee, submitted a request for revision to the Point Beach Nuclear Plant i
(PBNP), Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TSs). This submittal would j
revise the time limits for the Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO) associated with TS 15.3.0, " General Considerations" by incorporating time
)
limits consistent with NUREG-0452, " Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors," Fall 1981. TS bases and editorial changes are also proposed.
The December 1, 1994 and June 23, 1995, submittals provided supplemental information that did not change the proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
1.1 TS Sections 15.3.0.A and 15.3.0.B The proposed amendment would revise TS Sections 15.3.0.A and 15.3.0.B by delineating the actions to be taken if an LC0 is entered and cannot be exited within the specified time period, and the LC0 prescribes no specific actions.
These specifications also delineate actions to be taken if an LC0 cannot be satisfied because of equipment failures beyond those specified in the permissible conditions of the applicabla LCO.
1.2 TS Section 15.3.0.C The application proposes to revise TS Section 15.3.0.C by delineating 4
conditions which must be satisfied to permit continued operation, consistent with the LCO action statements, for power sources when a normal or emergency power source is not operable.
1.3 TS Section 15.3.0.0 and 15.3.0.E The proposal would revise TS Section 15.3.0.D and 15.3.0.E by changing the numbering and making minor editorial revisions to these TS sections.
9510170186 951012 PDR ADOCK 05000266 P-PDR
i..
)' '
1.4 TS Section 15.3.0.F
{
The proposal would add TS Section 15.3.0.F to allow equipment to be returned i
to service when it had previously been removed from service or declared i
inoperable to comply with required actions.
l 1.5 TS Section 15.3.3.D.I.a The proposal would remove the footnote from this section. This footnote was only applicable to the Unit 11995 refueling outage, which has already been i
completed.
1.6 Bases for TS Sections 15.3.0 and 15.3.3 4
The submittal also includes proposed revisions to the bases of TS Sections
{
15.3.0 and 15.3.3 to explain and clarify the proposed specifications.
_l 2.0 EVALUATION 1
i 2.1 TS Sections 15.3.0.A and 15.3.0.B The licensee proposed to increase the LC0 allowed time to reach hot shutdown from 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> to 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> and reduce the LC0 allowed time to reach cold shutdown from 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> to 37 hours4.282407e-4 days <br />0.0103 hours <br />6.117725e-5 weeks <br />1.40785e-5 months <br />. The proposed changes are acceptable because these i
LC0 action statement time limits are consistent with the staff position i
documented in NUREG-0452.
I 2.2 TS Section 15.3.0.C l
The licensee proposed to add this TS section to formalize the administrative actions associated with the LCO completion time (the time limit required to i
restore an inoperable system or component to operable status or implement compensatory actions). This section includes two actions. The first action requires compliance with the LCO time limits. The second lists the conditions that will permit the licensee to exit an LC0 by stating that the actions are i
j not required when an LCO is met or is no longer applicable (unless otherwise i
stated in the individual specifications). These proposed additions are acceptable because they are consistent with staff positions stated in NUREG-0452 on both compliance with and exit from LC0 completion times.
2.3 TS Section 15.3.0.D and 15.3.0.E i
The licensee proposed to delete the phrase "or minimum degree of redundancy" l
from TS 15.3.0.E.
This terminology is no longer used by the licensee.
It was removed from TS 15.1.C.1 and TS 15.3.5.C, and from TS Table 15.3.5-2, TS Table 15.3.5-3 and TS Table 15.3.5-4 as part of Amendments 157 and 161, issued on December 8, 1994. Since this change is administrative only, it is acceptable.
The licensee also proposed editorial revisions for these sections to address licensee perceived weaknesses in the wording.
Since these changes are administrative only, they are acceptable.
t i
+
~
a
]*
_3
}
2.4 TS Section 15.3.02 The licensee proposed to add this section to establish a provision to restore equipment to service when it had been removed from service to comply with j
required actions. This paragraph was proposed to provide an exception to TS Section 15.3.0.C to permit the licensee to demonstrate operability of equipment being returned to service or to demonstrate operability of other 3-equipment. The proposed change is acceptable because it has been endorsed by the NRC in NUREG-1431, " Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants," September 1992, and the licensee will conduct these operations using appropriate approved procedures and/or administrative controls.
2.5 TS Section 15.3.3.D.1.a This section contains a footnote which was only applicable to the Unit 1 1995 4
refueling outage, which has already been completed. The licensee has proposed to remove the footnote.
Since this is an administrative change only, it is acceptable.
]
2.6 TS Sections 15.3.0 and 15.3.3 Bases The proposed changes to the bases were reviewed. They are consistent with the proposed TS changes and with current staff positions, and are, therefore, acceptable, j
j
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
I In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Wisccnsin State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official l
had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
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. 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 5
comment on such finding (59 FR 12373). Accordingly, this amendment 1
meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(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 this amendment.
J t
t
}'.
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 bt. conducted in compliance with the Connission'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 Contributors:
J. Heller A. Hansen Date:
October 12, 1995 4
l e
f j
i b
.