ML20217H424
| ML20217H424 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217H421 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9708110144 | |
| Download: ML20217H424 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - - _ _
PM4 p
t UNITED STATES p
j NUCLEAR RE2ULATORY COMMISSION l
t WASHINGTON, D.C. ene annt L'
\\,*****/
l SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
.RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.175 AND'179 TO EACJLITY 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
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 22. 1996, as supplemented on July 14, 1997, the Wisconsin Electric Power Company (the licensee) requested amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR 27 for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Unit Nos.1 and 2.
The proposed amendments would revise Section 3.A of Facility Operating Licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 from a licensed power level of 1518 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 1518.5 MWt. A similar revision would be made in the bases of Technical Specification (TS) 15.3.1.B.
These changes would make the value of the licensed power level listed in Section 3.A of the licenses and in the bases of TS 15.3.1.8 consistent with the value listed in the balance of the TS and in the final safety analysis report (FSAR). The licensee states that the changes are administrative and would not change plant design or operation.
The July 14, 1997, supplement provided a corrected bases page and did not affect the staff's no significant hazards considerations determination.
2,0 EVALUATION The proposed changes to the licensed power level from 1518 MWt to 1518.5 MWt restore consistency between the authorized power level and the analyzed power level. This is an administrative change only, and there are no safety implications resulting from the proposed changes. The analyses, documented in the PBNP Final Facility Description and Safety Analysis Report at the time the o)erating licenses were issued, were performed at a power level of 1518.5 MWt.
T1e operating licenses were issued based in aart on the review of these analyses. The TS Definition 15.1.j, " Rated )ower," states " Rated power is here defined as a steady state reactor core output of 1518.5 MWT." The definition has not changed since the original TS were issued.
The reason for the introduction of the discrepancy between the licenses and the TS is not documented.
The current FSAR clearly states both units are designed to produce a reactor thermal output of 1518.5 MWt and that all plant safety systems, including containment and engineered safety features, are designed and evaluated for
- M*218a n 75888'266 P
-. O operation at 1518.5 MWt.
Section 1.5.1 of the FSAR states that the " license application power level" is 1518.5 MWt.
This power rating is also used as the basis for analyses of postulated accidents described in the FSAR.
Subsequent safety evaluations and analyses to sup) ort license amendments were performed based on a power level of 1518.5 MWt. Recent examples include evaluations to support the following amendments:
Amendments 174 and 178 issued July 9. 1997, reevaluated the design-basis large break coolant accident coincident with a loss of offsite power and a single active failure and reevaluated the resulting radiological consequences based on 1549 MWt (102 percent times reactor thermal power of 1518.5 MWt).
Amendments 173 and 177 issued July 1. 1997, reevaluated new 3arameters associated with replacement steam generators in Unit 2 and c1anges in analyses that affect both Units 1 and 2.
The analyses were based on a reactor thermal power of 1518.5 MWt.
Amendments 156 and 160 issued October 28, 1994, approved a reduced reactor coolant system raw measured total flow rate limit based on a thermal power of 1518.5 MWt.
Amendments 120 and 123 issued May 8, 1989, incorporated higher core power peaking fsctors based on a thermal power level of 1518.5 MWt.
Amendments 168 and 172 issued March 20. 1997, revised heatup and cooldown limit curves to 23.6 effective full power years. These amendments used fluence calculations that assumed a power level of 1518 MWt. The licensee stated that the calculations were reviewed to determine the sensitivity to the proposed change in power level. The licensee concluded that the change has a negligible effect on the calculations, and that mo'11toring of vessel fluence via the cavity dosimetry program will continue to ensure all regulatory requirements will be met. The staff agrees that the proposed change in power.
level is not si vessel fluence.gnificant in relation to other uncertainties used to determine The licensee submitted a change to the Bases for TS 15.3.1.B.
" Pressure / Temperature Limits." which incorporates the 1518.5 MWt power level in the-following change. "The maximum integrated fast neutron exposure of the vessel is computed to be 2.5 x 10" neutrons /cm' for 40 years of r,peration at 1518.5 MWt and 80 percent load factor." This Bases change is ccnsistent with the proposed license changes.
During the review of the proposed amendments, an error was found with the footnote (2) on Basis page 15.3.1-8.
The footnote, which references Westinghouse Electric Corporation. WCAP-12794, Rev.2/12795 Rev. 2 should have been updated to reflect Revision 3 with the issuance of Amendments 168 and 172. WEPC0's July 14, 1997, transmittal requested that the footnote reflect Revision 3.
Since the safety evaluation for Amendments 168 and 172 were based on Revision 3. the staff agrees with the proposed changes to the bases.
3-Based on the consistent use of an evaluated thermal power level of 1518.5 for design basis accident analyses and to ensure consistency between the licenses.
-TS Bases, and the FSAR, the staff finds the proposed changes acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulat' ions, the Wisconsin State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21. 51.32. and 51.35, an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact has been prepared and published in the Fed' ral Register on August 5, 1997 (62 FR 42145).
e Accordingly, based upon the environmental assessnent. the Commission has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safet will not be endangered by operation-in the pro)osed manner y of the public (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance wit1 the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health.and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
Linda L. Gundrum Date:
August 6,1997 a
m m_-=-
m wm-
-w
_ _ _ _ _ _