ML20198F198
| ML20198F198 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1997 |
| From: | Gundrum L NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Grigg R WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-M96741, TAC-M96742, NUDOCS 9708110214 | |
| Download: ML20198F198 (6) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. August 6, 1997 Mr. Richard R. Grigg Chief Nuclear Officer Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Street. Room P379 Milwaukee. WI 53201
SUBJECT:
PolNT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 - EXPECTATIONS FOR FEBRUARY 28. 1998. SUBMITTAL REQUIRED BY LICENSE CONDITION CONTAINED IN AMENDMENT NOS. 174 AND 178 (TAC NOS. M96741 AND M96742)
Dear Mr. Grigg:
As discussed in the transmittal letters of July 1 and July 9.1997. for Amendments 173 and 174 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-24 for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP). Unit No. 1. and Amendments 177 and 178 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-27 for the PBNP. Unit 2. the staff developed a list of information needs for your license amendment application required oy February 27, 1998. This information is included in the enclosure, if you have any questions. please contact Linda L. Gundrum at 301 415 1380. Sincerely. Linda' L".Tu"ndrt[m. Project Manager Project Directorate III-1 Division of Reactor Projects - Ill/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301
Enclosure:
As stated / cc w/ encl: See next page F DIS"RIBUTIOh: Docket File PUBLIC PDim l-1 Reacing J. Roe L. Marsh C. Miller OGC ACRS J. McCormick-Barger. Rll! DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\WPDOCS\\PTBEACH\\PTBEXPEC,LTR
- See previous concurrence T3 teceive a copy of thee document. bd6cate in the boa:
'C' = Copy without attachment / enclosure , 'opy with attachment' enclosure 'N' = No copy 0FFICE PM:PD31 _.E LA:PD31lE C:SPLB l C:PERBI OGWA 1 0:PD31/fl# NAME LGundruMfg CJamersod,LMarsh* CM111er* AHddgdon JHannoW DATE 8/ l /97 8/ 4 /9T7 7/23/97 7/31/97 8b4 /97 8/C /97 y 0FFICIAL RECORD COP) jn"TJM77s%6 Illlill14lll.101,11.1llll R COPYL j
Mr. Richard R. Grigg Chief Nuclear Officer Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Street. Room P379 Milwaukee, WI 53201
SUBJECT:
POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 - EXPECTATIONS FOR FEBRUARY 28. 1998. SUBMITTAL REQUIRED BY LICENSE CONDITION CONTAINED IN AMENDHENT N05, 174 AND 178 (TAC NOS. M96741 AND M96742)
Dear Mr. Grigg:
As discussed in the transmittal letters of July 1 and July 9. 1997, for Amendments 173 and 174 to Facility Operating License No. OPR 24 for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) Unit No. 1. and Amendments 177 and 178 to Facility Operating License No, DPR 27 for the PBNP. Unit 2. the staff developed a list of information needs for your license amendment application required by February 27, 1998. This information is included in the, enclosure. If you have any questions, please contact Linda L. Gu.ndrum at 301 415-1380. / Sincerely.,' Linda L. Gundrum. Project Manager ~ Project Directorate Ill 1 Division of Reactor Projects - Ill/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50 266 and 50 301 ,/
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enc 1: See next page ,/ 11S1180T10h: Docket Fil'e PUBLIC >DIL1-1 Reacing J. Roe / L. Marsh C. Miller OGC ACRS J. McCormick Barger. Rlli DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\WPDOCS\\PTBEACH\\PTBEXPEC.LTR n ,.e. ni. m. m m. w.: c. c., wits.ui.n.en no. ei..or. e - c.,,..in.n.cnm.nir.nei..u,. w - #4. e.py 0FFICE PM:PD31, L LA:PD31I C:SPLB f C:PERBIE OGC l D:P031 l l NAME LGundrunPitf' CJamersotri A.MarshIT CM111erc& AHodgdon JHannon l DATE 7 /,.g2/97 7/Jz/97I 7/6/9T 7/3/ /97 7/ /97 7/ /97 ll (/ OFFICIAL REC COP) A
1 a ,,...e,k UNITED STATES p R NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION = D j WASHINGTON. 0.C. 30ee64001 I \\ J August 6, 1997 Hr. Richard R. Grigg Chief Nuclear Officer Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Street, Room P379 Milwaukee, WI 53201
SUBJECT:
POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 - EXPECTATIONS FOR FEBRUARY 28, 1998. SUBMITTAL REQUIRED BY LICENSE CONDITION CONTAINED IN AMENDMENT NOS. 174 AND 178 (TAC NOS. M96741 AND M96742)
Dear Mr. Grigg:
As discussed in the transmittal letters of July 1 and July 9.1997, for Amendments 173 and 174 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-24 for the Point Beach Nuclear Mcat (PBNP). Unit No.1. and Amendments 177 and 178 to Facility Operating License No. DPR 27 for the PBNP. Unit 2. the staff developed a list ' of information needs for your license amendment application required by February 27, 1998. This information is included in the enclosure. If you have any questions, please contact Linda L. Gundrum at 301 415 1380. Sincerely, d mal 4<mv Linda L. Gundrum. Project Manager ProjectDirectorate111-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50 301
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ encl: See next page
Mr. Richard R. Grigg Point Beach Nuclear Plant Wisconsin Electric Power Company Unit Nos.1 and 2 cc: Ernest L. Blake, Jr. Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037 Mr. Scott A. Patutski Vice President Point Beach Nuclear Plant Wisconsin Electric Power Company 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 Mr. Ken Duveneck Town Chairman Town of Two Creeks 13017 State Highway 42 Mishicot, Wisconsin 54228 Chairman Public Service Commission of Wisconsin P.O. Box 7654 Madison, Wisconsin 53707 7854 Regional Administrator, Region til U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, Illinois 60532 4351 Resident inspector's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6612 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 Ms. Sarah Jenkins Electric Division Public Service Commission of Wisconsin P.O. Box 7854 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7854 Ma,ch 1997
f Information Requested for License Amendment Application Required by February 27, 1998 1. Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) should specifically address the effects of a loss of offsite power (LOOP) in the accident analyses and control room habitability calculations for the following accidents reviewed in su) port of Amendments 173 and 174 to facility O License No. OP1 24 for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP)perating , Unit No. 1. and Amendments 177 and 178 to facility Operating License No. OPR 27 for the PBNP, Unit 2: control rod ejection (CRE), locked rotor, steam generator tube rupture (SGTR), main steam line break (MSLB), and loss of coolant. In addition, any other design basis accident included in your Final Safety Analysis Report, Chapter 14, that could result in dose consequences to the control room operators equal to or greater than the five accidents specified should be evaluated based on the current design and operation of the units. 2. For the SGTR analysis, please justify the assumption that none of the break flow in the ruptured steam generator will. flash to steam and result in a direct release to the environment. The analysis should address overfill conditions and/or certain failures, such as a stuck open or closed atmospheric dump valve, in addition, you should provide a technical basis for the following assumptions: (1) the time it takes for primary and secondary pressures to equalize: (2) the estimate of 74.000 lbm of secondary inventory released from the ruptured steam generator: and (3) steam releases that occur from 8 hours to 24 hours while the plant cools to allow operation of the residual heat removal system. 3. For the CRE accident please provide a technical basis for the following assumptions: (1) the estimated steam releases from 85 seconds to 8 hours assuming the availability of feedwater during that time: (2) the estimated steam releases from 1500 seconds to 2 hours; and (3) the basis for iodine partitioning assuming the entire mass of water in the secondary sides of both steam generators is released to the atmosphere. 4. Provide information on the equipment leakage rates of all components in the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) and other systems described in WEPC0's March 14, 1980. letter concerning NUREG 0578. Item 2.1.6.a. " Integrity of Systems Outside Containment Likely to Contain Radioactive Materials." Include all sources of leakage in the estimate for the dose calculations or justify any sources not included. Apply the doubling factor for the ECCS leak rate discussed in the SRP or justify not applying the factor. Also, if the auxiliary building filtration system is not redesigned to be available to filter leakage from ECCS recirculation include the leakage penalty discussed in the SRP or justify not including the analysis penalty. 5. If WEPC0 plans to operate the control room emergency filtration system (CREFS) in Modes 2 or 3, then these modes should be included in the PBNP revised analyses for each design basis accident since their use would currently represent an unanalyzed condition. ENCLOSURE j
~ 2 6, WEPC0's submittal should provide an estimate of the unfiltered inleakage when the system is not operating, and the bases for the estimate (tracer gas testing is an acceptable method for determining unfiltered inleakage). The current analysis assumes that for 1 hour after the beginning of the accident (LOCA with LOOP). the radiological consequences in the control room during this time would not be greater than the doses associated with Mode 4 operation of the system. Based on this judgment, your analysis assumed that the CREFS was powered and operated in Mode 4 during the entire accident. For the first hour, the fans would no longer be pulling contaminated outside air through the filters into the control room. However, the staff believes that the unfiltered inleakage under these conditions may be greater than it would be 1n Mode 4 operation and could potentially result in higher doses to control room operators. 7. Provide an analysis of the impact of the lack of control room cooling -and/or heating on control room envelope instrumentation and controls during the period that the CREFS is not powered by the EDG following a LOCA with a LOOP. -8. If WEPC0's-revised analysis for PBNP does not include redesign of damper o>eration or automatically load sequencing the air compressors on-the EXi, then the revised analysis shou'ld address the change in the control room envelope volume from 65.243 ft to 40.529 ft resulting from the non Hode 4 fail close position of the CREFS computer room supply and exhaust dampers. 9. If WEPC0's analyses for the February 1998 submittal include operation of the CREFS in a hybrid Mode 3/Hode 4 configuration that allows filtration of makeup and recirculation air, then the staff expects WEPC0 to amend its technical specifications (TS) to require that a pressurization test be performed once a year.
- 10. WEPC0's revised analysis should subtract the TS 1 percent bypass from the
. efficiencies in its new analyses. assumed charcoal and HEPA [high-efficiency parti filter TS 15.3.12.1.a requires t >erform in place DOP testing for HEPA filters and inplace halogenated lydrocarbon refrigerant testing for charcoal adsorber to ensure by) ass leakage is lec than 1 percent (99 percent removal efficiency.) T1e current analysis did not reduce the assumed filter efficiency in WEPC0's current dose analyser by 1 percent to take into account the TS bypass leakage. However. WEPC0's assumptions should include the 1 percent bypass because for TS with a by) ass leakage of greater than 0.05 percent, the bypass leakage diminishes tie overall effectiveness of the CREFS HEPA filters and charcoal adsorbers such that with a 95 percent efficient charcoal adsorber the overall effectiveness for the charcoal would actually be 94.05 percent.
- 11. WEPCO's revised analyses should use the worst case design flow rate including TS tolerances. TS 15.3.12.1.c requires that the acceptance criteria for fan flow testin be within i 10 percent of design flow.
The current analyses did not ana ze the minimum and maximum flow rates because the resultant thyroi doses only change by less than 1 percent. However. WEPC0 is required to anal ze design basis accidents over the range of parameter values allowed TS and should choose the most limit %, condition for its revised ose analyses. =}}