ML20210V260
| ML20210V260 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210V241 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8702180730 | |
| Download: ML20210V260 (3) | |
Text
i:
n neog'o e
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
g o
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20056 t
j
\\*****/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.105 AND108TO 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 August 29, 1986, the Wisconsin Electric Power Company (licensee) proposed changes to Specification 15.3.3.C of'the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications. The existing specifications address single and two unit operation based on having a spare component cooling water (CCW) heat exchanger that can be lined up to either unit. The licensee has added an additional heat exchanger which can also be lined up to either unit. The new design, therefore, consists of four CCW heat exchangers, consisting of a dedicated heat exchanger for each unit, and two shared, spare heat exchangers that can be lined up to either unit.
DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The existing specification for single unit operation requires both CCW heat exchangers which can be aligned to the unit, to be operable before that unit is taken critical. The proposed change would require that either the CCW heat exchanger associated with a unit, together with one of the shared spare heat exchangers be operable or the two shared, spare heat exchangers be operable. Because the proposed change does not change the existing limiting condition for operation (LCO), namely, that two CCW heat exchangers which can be aligned to a unit be operable, the staff concludes that the proposed change to Specification 15.3.3.C.1.b is acceptable.
The existing specification for single unit operation also permits one CCW heat exchanger to be out of service for 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> during plant operation. The proposed change would allow two heat exchangers which may be aligned to the operating unit to be out of service for 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />. Because the proposed change allows operations for up to 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> on a single CCW heat exchanger, as do the existing specifications, and is more restrictive than the Standard Technical Specifications for CCW systems, which allow operation up to 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> on one heat exchanger, the staff concludes that the proposed changes to Specifications 15.3.3.C.2 and 15.3.3.C.2.b are acceptable.
\\
0702100730 870202 DR ADOCK 05000266 i
PDN i
r
. For two unit operation, the existing specification permits one CCW heat exchanger to be out of service during power operation of both units, provided that repairs can be. completed within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />. The proposed changes allows two heat exchangers to be out of service provided repairs can be completed within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />, and does not change the condition that both units may continue operation at power for up to 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> with a single heat exchanger aligned to each unit.
Additionally, the existing limiting condition for operation of one or two unit's with one passive component other than the heat exchangers being out of service, has been deleted from Specification 15.3.3.C.2.b.
The removal from service of a passive component in the system would not necessarily force the Thus, the system to be aligned so that no back-up alignment enuld be made.
current wording makes the specifications redundant because if one or more passive components are out of service, resulting in the inoperability of a portion of the component cooling water system, operation of the reactor (s) is still limited by Specification 15.3.3.C which addresses pumps, heat exchangers and all associated valves, interlocks and piping, similar to the Standard Technical Specifications which only address operable CCW trains.
The proposed changes do not change the repair time allowed by the existing specifications (48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> repair time). As this allowed repair time is shorter than the Standard Technical Specifications (72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> repair time with reference to operable CCW trains, not components), the staff concludes that the proposed changes to Specifications 15.3.3.C.2 and 15.3.3.C.2.b are acceptable.
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 Accordingly, these amendments meet the comment on such finding.
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 t1e 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 endangeredbyoperationintheproposedmanner,and(2)suchactivitieswill 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.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Principal Contributor:
W. LeFaye Date: February 2, 1987
7; y
~
a; FE8;0 21987 1l NRC'PDR Local PDR
. PAD #1 r/f PAD #1 p/f TNovak, Actg Div Dir Glear
'TColburn
^
-PShuttleworth NTHompson, DHFT OGC-Bethesda LHarmon EJordan i
BGrimes JPartlow TBarnhart(8)
WJones EButcher 1
CMcCracken F0B, DPLA ACRS(10)
OPA 1
LFMB(TAC #62769and62770) j I
i l.
l l
l r
I t.