ML20214Q677
| ML20214Q677 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214Q665 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8706050112 | |
| Download: ML20214Q677 (3) | |
Text
._
o#
UNITED STATES 8"
1, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
Wf.SHING TON, D. C. 20555
%.....}
l SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMEhDMENT NOS.108ANDillT0 i
FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-24 AND DPR-27 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS 1 AND 2 DOCKET N05. 50-266 AND 50-301
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letters dated March 12, April 10, and April 24, 1987, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCo) requested changes to Facility Operating Licenses Nos.
DPR-24 and DPR-27 for Point Beach Units 1 and 2, respectively. The proposed changes are to Technical Specification 15.5.3, " Reactor." The last two sentences of Section A Reactor Core, in subsection 1, general, currently l
state:
"Where safety limits are not violated, individual fuel rods suspected j
of leaking may be replaced with a rod or assembly left with a water hole to j
prevent possible reinsertion of leaking fuel rods.
No more than one fuel rod may be placed in any single assembly and no more than six (6) such modified assemblies may reside in the core at any time." The proposed revision for each unit would remove the last two sentences and replace them with the following one sentence: "Where safety limits are not violated, limited substitutions of fuel rods by filler rods consisting of Zircaloy-4 or stainless steel, or by vacancies, may be made to replace damaged fuel rods, if justified by cycle specific reload analysis."
2.0 EVALUATION The intent of the proposed change 'o Point Beach Unit I and 2 Technical Specifications is to allow for the reduction in number of fuel rods per j
l assembly in cases where leaking fuel rods can be identified and replaced w M Zircaloy-4, or stainless steel rods, or vacancies. Replacement of 1 c!ang fuel rods will permit better utilization of the energy in the remaining non-leaking rods of fuel assemblies.
i In general, substitution of a limited number of fuel rods with filler rods or water holes has negligible effect on core physics parameters and consequently on the safety analysis. The licensee states in the March 12, 1987, submittal that for each fuel cycle an analysis is conducted to ensure that, with each l
reload of fuel, all core design safety criteria are met. Westinghouse, the current nuclear core designer, conducts these cycle-specific core design and i
l 8706050112 870527 ADOCK0500g6 DR
. safety analyses in accordance with their safety evaluation methodology (WCAP 9272-P-A) to verify that previous safety) analyses, as presented in the Point Beach Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR, are still applicable. Under the proposed rewording of the specifications, the core designer would employ a methodology which will specifically account for both the locations and the types of fuel rod substitutions. Appropriate safety analyses will be conducted in conjunction with the normal reload analysis, verifying that all applicable core safety limits for fuel rods in the vicinity of the missing, or substituted, rods are still met. By modeling based on exact substitution, an accurate and complete safety analysis can be achieved, and conformance with t.
ablished safety margins will be assured. These analyses and the core reload changes are also reviewed as required by 10 CFR 50.59 by the licensee's staff.
The staff has previously approved similar requests for changes to Technical Specifications with slightly different wording than proposed by WEPCo.
Therefore, the staff proposed a modification to the wording of the Technical Specification to standardize it. The modification would insert the word
" limited" before the word " substitutions" in the last sentence of section 15.5.3-A.I.
The licensee agreed to this change in a letter dated April 24, 1987.
Because the limited substitution of Zircaloy-4, cr stainless steel rods, or vacancies for fuel rods is not expected to have a significant impact on plant safety, and because a cycle-specific evaluation will be performed to justify any such substitutions, the staff finds the proposed Technical Specifications changes for Point Beach Units 1 and 2, with the modification discussed above, acceptable.
{
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of a facility 1
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 offs'te, and that there is no significant increase in individual 4
or cumulative occupa*.ional 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 651.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no 4
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
1
I
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has 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 Cormission'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.
Prircipal Centributor:
Frank Skopec, NRR Date: May 27, 1987 1
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -