ML20126H841

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 53 to License DPR-27

ML20126H841
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	04/03/1981
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20126H840	List: ML20126H835 ML20126H841 ML20126H844
References
43607, TAC-43607, TAC-48064, NUDOCS 8104220132
Download: ML20126H841 (2)

Text

o

!(Bt

• MCvq[o k

,, s UNITED STATES j ekec7 %

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1-1 WASWNGTON, D. C. 20555 QW/

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE CFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPCRTINO AMENDMENT NO. 53 TO FACIL ITY ODERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-27 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-301 In:roduction:

Ey letter catec March 23, 1981, Wisconsin Electric ;cwer Corsany (WEPCO) requested a change to the Technical Specificetions appended to Facility Operating License DPR-27 for Point Beach Unit No. 2.

The re':,uested change would allow a one-time waiver of the conthly functional test of the turbine stop and governor valves recuired to be perf or-ed by April la,1981.

Discussion:

Curing normal operation of Foint Beach Unit No. 2, main stean enters the turbine throuch two turbine stop valves and four governor valves. The gevernor valves repulate the fica cf steam into tne turbine thereby controlling the speed of the turbine or, wncn the generat:r is connected to the grid, the electrical out;ut of the unit.

The stop valves :erfor.

the turbine per tection functions by automatically closing to stop the stea-flow in :Se event of a turtine oterspeed or other ma' function.

Tne valves are functionally tested on a conthly basis to ensure proper cperation.

In order to ::erform this test, a reactor power reduction to 70t power is required. This is usually accenplished during convenient electrical load demand swings.

l Evaluation:

The licensee has requested a one-time waiver of the monthly functional test of the turbine stop and governor valves that is required by the present Technical Specification surveillance requirements to be performed by A::ril 14,1981. The unit has been in essentially conti".cous service since its crevious refueling and is cresently in a fuel cvele stretch-out period of cperaticn. The next refueline cutace for Point Eeach Unit 2 is scheduled to becin on uril 16, 1981, two iays tbilewing tnc date -equired by the surveillance testing require cents.

8104 2 20 /3A

!- Since the last refueling outage, the turbine stop 'nd governor valves have performed proper?y during all required periodic tests.

Stretch-cut operation at the end of core life conditions of low boric acid concentration make.

load swing operations difficult because of xenon transient reactivity. The effect of such xenon transient reactivity appears as flux tilts and possible flux esci11ations during the subsequent return to full ecwer operation.

The licensee states further that the needed primary system water and debcrating resin would result in increased radioactive waste for burial and increased costs and that " prudent operating practice and waste volume reduction urges minimizing reactor power cycling under these conditions".

In consideration of the satisfactory functional test experience over the past year as reported by the licensee, we conclude that there is reasonable assurance tnat the valves will perform as designed if called upon to do so.

Therefore, we have deter 1ined that this cne-time waiver of the monthly functional test is acceptable.

Enviren ental Consideration We hase rotermined that the amendment does not authorize a chance in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental iepact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of envicct e~al imcact and, cursuant to 10 CFR f 51.E(d)(4), that an envir:nmental impact sta.er,ent or negative declaration and environ-ment 31 im;act acpraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

Cenclusion We have concluded, based en the considerations discussed above, that:

(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the Orebability or consequences of accidents previously censidered and does not involve a significant dec-ease in a safety margir, the ame,d en does not involve a significant ha:ards consideratien, (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 issuance of this amendrent will not be inimical to the co imon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Cate: A;ril 3, 1981