ML20199K340
| ML20199K340 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199K338 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-61432, TAC-61433, NUDOCS 8607090130 | |
| Download: ML20199K340 (3) | |
Text
_.
9 ttG Io, UNITED STATES
+
f 3w g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6
g WASHINGTON, D C. 20555
...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.101AND104TO 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 INTRODUCTION By letter dated May 8, 1986, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (the licensee) requested a temporary change to the Technical Specifications for Point Beach Units 1 and 2.
The temporary change would be effective during the period from July 1, 1986 through September 30, 1996 and would allow one of the component cooling heat exchangers to be out of service for a period of up to efive days.
DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION 1
Point Beach Units 1 and 2 now are serviced by three component cooling heat exchangers, one normally assigned to each unit and a backup (swing) heat exchanger that can be used by either unit. The Technical Specifications (15.3.3.C.2) allow one heat exchanger to be out of service for periods of up to 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> before the reactor must be placed in a hot shutdown condition.
If the heat exchanger cannot be restored to service within an additional 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />, the reactor is to be placed in cold shutdown. The temporary change requested by the licensee would extend the 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> out-of-service time to five days (120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br />) before placing the reactor in hut shutdown.
During the period covered by the temporary change request, the licensee plans to replace the three existing heat exchangers and install a fourth heat exchanger, thereby providing for two " swing" heat exchangers that can be aligned to serve either unit.
Installation of the fourth component cooling heat exchanger would improve both the reliability and the availability of the system, and would allow the licensee to remove one heat exchanger from service for maintenance without entering the 48-hour LC0 of the Technical Specification.
The licensee anticipates that the full five-day requested out-of-service time would be needed only while the new fourth heat exchanger is being tied in to the existing " swing" heat exchanger.
The other modifications by each take somewhat longer than the 48-hour period allowed by the current Technical Specification, but are expected to be completed in less than the five days requested.
B607090130 860625 PDR ADOCK 05000266 P
v At any time, no more than one of the heat exchangers would be removed from service, and it would be placed back in service within the five-day period.
No heat exchanger would be removed from service before the other heat exchangers had been verified to be fully operable.
The licensee points out tnat at no time would a reactor be in operation without a component cooling water heat exchanger. Only the capability of switching to a back-up heat exchanger will be affected. Should an in-service heat exchanger fail during a period when the standby heat exchanger is out of service, the affected unit will be in hot shutdown with residual heat being removed through the steam generators.
If a similar failure occurred on a shutdown unit, the heat sink for the RHR system would be disabled and the shutdown unit would warm up to the point at which heat could be removed by the steam generators.
We have examined the licensee's request and we find that granting the request will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident, nor does it increase the probability of an accident.
It does reduce the flexibility provided by having a standby component cooling water heat exchanger available, but heat still can be removed safely from the system via the steam generators in the event of a failure of the in-service heat exchanger. On balance, we conclude that the long term increase in system reliability and availability to be provided by having a fourth component
, cooling heat exchanger warrants the short term degradation in system flexibility that would result from granting the licensee's request. We, therefore, conclude that the licensee's request should be granted.
The following footnote should be added to Technical Specification 15.3.3.C.2.b:
"During the installation of an additional component cooling heat exchanger, one of the component cooling heat exchangers may be out of service for up to five (5) days. This installation will take place during the period from July to September 1986."
ENVIRONMENTAL 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.
The staff has determined 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 occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously published a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, these amendments meet 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 these amendments.
i CONCLUSION We have 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
June 25, 1986 Principal Contributors:
T. Colburn L. Crocker
.