NPL-97-108, Provides Addl Info in Support of Suppl for TS Change Requests 188 & 189 Re Unit 2 Operations Following Replacement of SGs
| ML20137C820 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1997 |
| From: | Dante Johnson WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137C825 | List: |
| References | |
| NPL-97-108, NUDOCS 9703250141 | |
| Download: ML20137C820 (3) | |
Text
.
a-l Wisconsin Electnc POWER COMPANY j
l Point Beoch Nuclear Plant (414) 755-2321 6610 Nuclear Rd., Two Rivers, WI 54241 NPL 97-108 10 CFR 50.4 1
March 20,1997 i
Document Control Desk i
US NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Mail Station PI-137 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Ladies / Gentlemen:
DQCKETS 50-266 AND 50-301 SUPPLEMENT TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CHANGE REOUESTS 188 AND 189 4
POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 j
This letter provides additional information in support of Technical Specifications Change Requests (TSCRs) 188 and 189.
TSCRs 188 and 189 were submitted in letters dated June 4,1996. Supplements to the TSCRs have been submitted in letters dated August 5,1996, September 26,19%, October 21,19%, November 13,19%, November 20,19%, December 2,1996, l
and January 16,1997. These requests propose amendments to the Point Beach Technical Specifications that were identified by analyses performed in support of Unit 2 operations following replacement of steam generators.
This letter also provides supplemental information for Technical SpeciDcations change requests 188 and 189. Specifically, we are proposing additional clarification to the basis of Technical Specification 15.2.2. We are also proposing to apply
~
the proposed Technical Specification 15.3.1.G.I reactor coolant system average temperature range to Unit I when the amendments are implemented in lieu of the previously proposed Unit 1 Refueling 24 implementation. Lastly, we are proposing to correct a typographical error on Technical Specifications page 15.6.9-3 which should state "... reduced to less than.. " not ".. reduced to less then.. "
We have determined that these changes and corrections do not involve a significant hazards consideration, authorize a 4
significant change in the types or total amounts of any effluent release, or result in any significant increase in indisidual or cumulative occupational exposure. Therefore, we conclude that the proposed amendments meet the requirements of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and that an emironmental impact statement or negative declaration and emironmental impact appraisal need not be prepared. The original "No Significant Hazards" determinations for operation under the proposed Technical Specifications remain applicable.
i l
If you require additional information, please contact us.
Sincerely.
Dougl F. Johnson
!;,hE E
I
\\
Manag -Regulatory Senices k
and Licensing Attachment Subscribed and sworn to before me 771,$,1997.
cc:
NRC Resident Inspector this 2fda pf 9
NRCRegional Administrator W %f L d b )E
[ Notary [Public, State of Wi PSCW nsin 9703250141 970320 My'conlmir.sion expires to n /m PDR ADOCK 05000266 I/
P PDR,
A absWmotHisonshEmgrCorporathn
i 8'
ATTACHMENT 1 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CHANGE REQUESTS 188 AND 189 Introduction The following supplemental inforr.aation for Technical Specifications change requests 188 and 189 proposes to add clarification to the basis of Technical Specification 15.2.2, to apply the proposed Technical Spc:ification 15.3.1.G.1 reactor coolant system average temperature range to Unit I when the amendments are implemented in lieu of the previously proposed Unit 1 Refueling 24 implementation, and correct a typographical error on Technical Specifications page 15.6.9-3.
The edited Technical Specifications pages associated with these additional changes are provided in.
]
Description of Channes I
1.
Change the basis of Technical Specification 15.2.2 to provide additional clarification to the statement that reads, "The nominal settings of the power-operated relief valves (2335 psig), the reactor high-pressure trip and the safety valves (2485 psig) have been established to assure never reaching the
)
Reactor Coolant System pressure safety limit." This statement was not intended to cover the hypothetical locked rotor and rod ejection accidents which use the faulted condition stress limit
.i acceptance criterion of 3105 psig (3120 psia). Therefore, exception to these accidents which have the higher acceptance criterion is being included in this Technical Specifications basis.
i 2.
Change Technical Specification 15.3.1.G.1 to apply the proposed reactor coolant system average
{
temperature range to Unit I when the amendments are implemented in lieu of the previously i
proposed Unit 1 Refueling 24 implementation. This climinates the need for the proposed footnote that would have allowed the later implementation of the reactor coolant system average temperature j
range for Unit 1. The proposed reactor coolant system temperature range can be implemented any time because it adequately bounds the current nonnal operating point for average temperature, which is $70 F, and it is more restrictive than the currently allowed Technical Specification operational limitation for Unit 1, which states average RCS temperature must be maintained below 578"F.
3.
Change Technical Specification 15.3.9.B.2.c.2 to correct a typograpical error. This requirement should state ".. reduced to less than.." not ".. reduced to less then.. "
i i
l i
o 1
)
o Edited Technical Specifications Pages 15.2.2-1 15.3.1-19 15.6.9-3 i
)
l 1
l
,