ML20149G800

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 111 & 114 to Licenses DPR-24 & DPR-27,respectively

ML20149G800
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	02/03/1988
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20149G778	List: ML20149G775 ML20149G800
References
NUDOCS 8802180415
Download: ML20149G800 (2)

Text

-

[

UNITED 8TATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n

{

,I WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 k..... f

/*

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 111 AhD 114 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N05. DPR-24 AND DPR-27 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET N05. 50-266 AND 50-301 INTRODUCTION By letter dated October 13, 1987 Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO, thelicensee),proposeddeletingTechnicalSpecification(TS)15.5.3.A.8.

This TS specifies a limiting quantity (11 grams) of fissionable material which may be used in the core, or availaole on the plant site, in the fonn of fabricated neutron flux detectors.

The licensee states that failure to delete this TS on previous amendments was an oversight. Specifically, on March 17, 1976, the Comission issued Amendment 15 to DPR-24 and Amendment 20 to DPR-27 which revised paragraph 2.C of the Operating Licenses to pennit i

the licensee to receive, possess and use at any time, any source and special i

nuclear materials as fission detectors in the amounts required.

Failure to delete T5 15.5.3.A 8 at this time was ar oversight.

EVALUATION By letter dated December 16, 1974, the Atomic Energy Comission (now the NuclearRegulatoryCommission)staffrequestedanumberoflicenseesto 1

provide proposed amendments to the conditions of their Facility Operating Licenses which relate to the receipt, possession and use of by product, source and special nuclear material.

In response to this request. WEPC0 submitted an amendmcnt application for Point Beach 1 and 2 on September 8, 1975, as supplemented on January 30, 1976. On March 17, 1976, the staff issued Amendments 15 and 20 to Point Beach I and 2, respectively, in response to the licensee's request.

Among other changes effected by those amendments, Paragraphs 2.C of the Operating Licenses were amended to read:

Pursuant to the Act ar.d 10 *,FR Parts 30, 40 and 70 to receive, possess and use at any time any byproduct, source, and special i

nuclear material as sealed neutron sources for reactor startup, i

sealed sources for reactor instrumentation and radiation monitoring equipment calibration, and as fission detectors in amounts as required

~

&05000266 UGOe%3 P

l PDR i

The amending of paragraph 2.C reflected the staff's procedure, as discussed in our December 16, 1974 letter, for not specifying quantity limits related 1

to the receipt, possession and use of byproduct, scurce, and special nuclear material.

1 In its October 13, 1987 amendment requests, the licensee proposed deleting TS 15.5.3.A.8 which currently specifies a limiting quantity of fissionable material which may be used in the core, or available on the plant site, in the form of fabricated neutron flux detectors. The licensee stated that i

failure to delete this specification in Amendments 15 and 20 was an oversight.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's October 13, 1987 amendment requests and finds them acceptable. The staff agrees with the licensee that continuing to specify a limiting quantity of fissionable material in the fom of fabricated i

neutron flux detectors in TS 15.5.3.A.8 is inconsistent with Amendments 15 and 20.

Furthermore, deletior c' TS 15.5.3. A.8 is consistent with the guidance i

contained in our December 16, 1974 letter and is consistent with the current l

practice of not specifying quantities of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials in reactor licenses.

ENVIp0NMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or changes in an inspection or surveillance requirement. The staff has detennined 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 occupa-l tional radiation exposure. The Consission has previously published a proposed i

finding that these amendments' involve no significant hazards consideration and

~

there has been no public coewent on such finding. Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR i

1 651.22(c)(9). Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),noenvironmentalimpactstatement i

or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.

QNCLUSION i

Thestaffhasconcluded,basedontheconsiderationsdiscussedabove,that(1) i there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the 3roposed manner, and (2} such activities 4

will be conducted in compliance with tie Connission's regulations, and the i

I issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the conson defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

i 4

Principal Contributor: David H. Wagner j

{

Date: February 3, 1988 5

1 l

.