ML19309H934: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:'
a ..
8005200(If0 l
Wisconsin Electnc m coun.n 231 W. MICHIGAN, P.O. BOX 2046. MILWAUKEE WI 53201 May 16, 1980 Mr. d. R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U- S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D. C.                20555 Attention:            Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Operating Reactors Gentlemen:
DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 DEFINITION OF OPERABILITY POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 On April 18, 1980, we received your letter to all power reactor licensees dated April 10, 1980. This letter discussed possible misunderstanding of the term operable as applied to the single failure criterion and the limiting conditions for operation (LCO) in the technical specifications for safety-related systems in power reactors. The letter enclosed a definition of operable and general LCO specifications from the Standardized Technical Specifications (STS). Your letter stated that these provisions were put into the STS to assure that no set of equipment outages would be allowed to persist that would result in the facility being su an unprotected condition. Licensees were requested to submit proposed changes to their technical specifications that incorporate the requirements of the STS as enclosed with your letter and imple-ment procedures to assure compliance with those proposed changes.
We have reviewed these provisions from the STS and have concluded that the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Technical Specifications as presently written and interpreted comply with the intent of the model STS. We are further reviewing and modifying these specifi-cations to fit the format and language of our Technical Specifications in preparation for submittal of a license amendment application to include the requested changes to the Technical Specifications.
We anticipate we shall be ready to submit a suitable change request in about 30 days.
i (
t    l
                                                                                      \  l l
1 l
l
                                                                                            .
 
                                                                    - _ _ _ _____ _ _ _
  , o Mr. H. R. Denton, Director                  May 16, 1980 We are concerned with the matter of fees for license amendment applications of this nature. It is our opinion that this change, when submitted, would be at the written request of the Commission; would be merely to simplify or clarify the technical specifications; would be issued for the convenience of the Commission; and would have only minor safety significance.
We would, therefore, expect this change request to be exempt from fees in accordance with footnote 2 to 10 CFR Part 170.22. If this opinion is contrary to your determination of fee applicability, please let us know.
Very truly yours,
                                                                  '
                                                              .
                                                        .'--  .,
C. W. Fay, Director Nuclear Power Department
.
:
e}}

Revision as of 00:43, 1 December 2019

Responds to NRC 800410 Ltr Requesting Proposed Changes to Tech Specs.Facility Tech Specs Comply W/Intent of Model Sts.Application to Amend License to Include Requested Changes to Tech Specs Will Be Submitted
ML19309H934
Person / Time
Site: Point Beach  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 05/16/1980
From: Fay C
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
To: Harold Denton
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8005200680
Download: ML19309H934 (2)


Text

'

a ..

8005200(If0 l

Wisconsin Electnc m coun.n 231 W. MICHIGAN, P.O. BOX 2046. MILWAUKEE WI 53201 May 16, 1980 Mr. d. R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U- S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Operating Reactors Gentlemen:

DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 DEFINITION OF OPERABILITY POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 On April 18, 1980, we received your letter to all power reactor licensees dated April 10, 1980. This letter discussed possible misunderstanding of the term operable as applied to the single failure criterion and the limiting conditions for operation (LCO) in the technical specifications for safety-related systems in power reactors. The letter enclosed a definition of operable and general LCO specifications from the Standardized Technical Specifications (STS). Your letter stated that these provisions were put into the STS to assure that no set of equipment outages would be allowed to persist that would result in the facility being su an unprotected condition. Licensees were requested to submit proposed changes to their technical specifications that incorporate the requirements of the STS as enclosed with your letter and imple-ment procedures to assure compliance with those proposed changes.

We have reviewed these provisions from the STS and have concluded that the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Technical Specifications as presently written and interpreted comply with the intent of the model STS. We are further reviewing and modifying these specifi-cations to fit the format and language of our Technical Specifications in preparation for submittal of a license amendment application to include the requested changes to the Technical Specifications.

We anticipate we shall be ready to submit a suitable change request in about 30 days.

i (

t l

\ l l

1 l

l

.

- _ _ _ _____ _ _ _

, o Mr. H. R. Denton, Director May 16, 1980 We are concerned with the matter of fees for license amendment applications of this nature. It is our opinion that this change, when submitted, would be at the written request of the Commission; would be merely to simplify or clarify the technical specifications; would be issued for the convenience of the Commission; and would have only minor safety significance.

We would, therefore, expect this change request to be exempt from fees in accordance with footnote 2 to 10 CFR Part 170.22. If this opinion is contrary to your determination of fee applicability, please let us know.

Very truly yours,

'

.

.'-- .,

C. W. Fay, Director Nuclear Power Department

.

e