ML20203B220
| ML20203B220 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203B212 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-57555, TAC-57556, NUDOCS 8607180087 | |
| Download: ML20203B220 (3) | |
Text
_
I UNITED STATES 3
't NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- eJ SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 103 AND 106 TO 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 On April 10, 1985, and modified February 14, and March 10, 1986, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (licensee) submitted an application for amendment to the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TS).
The proposed amendments would modify the T.S. to provide more restrictive limiting conditions for operation for the reactor coolant pumps. These changes were submitted to correct a deficiency in the Technical Specifications.
Namely, that the subcritical uncontrolled rod withdrawal analysis assumes one reactor coolant pump is in operation; yet, this was not required by the Technical Specifications for plant conditions covered by the accident analysis. t>etails of the licensee's immediate corrective actions following discovery of the problem are contained in Licensee Event Report 84-005-00 for I
Point Beach Unit 1 dated October 1, 1984.
i EVALUATION 1
The Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for Poir.t Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 contains evaluations of several postulated reactor transients and accidents at zero power. The zero power evaluations are designed to bound the consequences of the event if it occurred during shutdown. Recent evaluations by Westinghouse indicate that the FSAR might not be bounding for a postulated inadvertent control rod withdrawal at shutdown. This is because the Technical Specifications currently do not require either reactor coolant pump to operate below 1.0% power whereas the FSAR analysis assumes that one of the two coolant pumps is operating.
The licensee requested revisions to the Technical Specifications for reactor coolant pump operation by which at least one reactor coolant pump must be in operation or the reactor trip breakers are opened so that control rod withdrawal would be prevented. At power levels above 3.5% both reactor coolant pumps are required to be operating. The Technical Specifications supplement the Reactor Protection System which trips the reactor on loss of forced coolant flow above 10% power. At power levels below 10% power core cooling would be provided by natural circulation.
8607180087 860703 PDR ADOCK 05000266 P
O
, The staff verified that adequate natural circulation would occur below 10%
power to prevent core damage following a complete loss of forced flow.
Continued operation in natural circulation at 10% power has not been evaluated for Point Beach. The Technical Specifications, therefore, require imediate operator action to shutdown the reactor following loss of forced coolant flow through the core during low power operation when automatic trip does not occur. The staff finds this provision to be acceptable.
The appropriate bases for the Technical Specifications have been modified accordingly and one administrative correction to an incorrect FSAR reference was also made.
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.
l The staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase l
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 Ccmission 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 I
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, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the propcsed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to i
the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
W. Jensen T. Colburn Date: July 3, 1986 l
Distrbution Copies:
1 Docket ~ Files.50-266/301, NRC PDR Local PDR PAD #1 r/f PAD #1 p/f TNovak, Actg Div Dir Glear TColburn PShuttleworth NTHompson, DHFT ELD LHarmon EJordan BGrimes JPartlow TBarnhart(K)d)
WJones EButcher F08 for appropriate Division Tech Branch that had input in package ACRS (10)
OPA LFMB (w/cy of TAC w/Amd No. & date issued)
I i
-- _