ML20202H447
| ML20202H447 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202H433 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-61006, TAC-61007, NUDOCS 8607160320 | |
| Download: ML20202H447 (3) | |
Text
._
' puE s
o UNITED STATES
~g 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
h WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\**.../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 102 AND 105 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-24 AND DPR-27 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 i
DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 4
INTRODUCTION On September 27, 1985, as part of an ongoing effort to eliminate unnecessary reporting requirements, the staff published Generic Letter No. 85-19, " Reporting Requirements on Primary Coolant Iodine Spikes." The staff had determined that the reporting requirements related to specific activity levels (notably
~
primary coolant iodine spikes) could be reduced from a short-term report (Special j
Report or Licensee Event Report) to an item to be included in the Annual Report. Further, the staff had also determined that the existing l
requirements to shut down a plant if coolant iodine activity limits are j
exceeded for 800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> in a 12-month period could be eliminated. The staff j
based this determination on the greatly improved quality of nuclear fuel developed over the past decade which has resulted in normal coolant iodine activity levels (i.e., in the absence of iodine spiking) which are well below 1
the limit. The staff had deteimined that existing reporting requirements in accordance with 10 CFR 50.72(b)(1)(ii) and proper fuel management by licensees would preclude licensees ever approaching the 800 hour0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> limit. As an enclosure to Generic Letter 85-19, the staff included model Technical Specifications in Standard Technical Specification format showing the i
acceptable revisions that could be used in submitting proposed changes to existing Technical Specifications.
On March 5, 1985 Wisconsin Electric Power Company (licensee) submitted proposed Technical Specifications in response to Generic Letter 85-19 for the i
Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2.
i EVALUATION The staff has reviewed the licensee's proposed Technical Specifications I
against the guidance contained in Generic Letter 85-19. The staff finds that the licensee's submittal conforms to the guidance contained in the generic l
letter for both Point Beach Units 1 and 2.
Therefore, the proposed Technical Specifications are acceptable.
i i
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of a facility 3
component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
l 8607160320 e60627 ~
f PDR ADOCK 05000266 4
P PDR j 1
. The staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluente 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). These amendments also involve changes in recordkeeping, reporting or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, with respect to these items, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10).
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.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, t1/at (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 amerdments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
June 27, 1986 Principal Contributor:
T. Colburn
.. ~
4.
o.
Distrbution Co ies:
NMp~DR~'~~~~~ ^~ ~286/301)'
'Miis?
.NRC~
Local PDR
.TNovak, Actg Div Dir GLear.
TColburn PShuttleworth NTHompson, DHFT ELD LHarmon i
EJordan BGrimes JPartlow TBarnhart (4) a j
WJones EButcher F0B ACRS-(10)
OPA LFMB
. PAD #1 r/f j
PAD #1 p/f d
i f
i 4
4
.1 9
l j.
4
-n-
~m-
..c-e--
,, r e,-
eas ewe w
-. -,.-n---