ML20079P870: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 14: Line 14:
| document type = OPERATING LICENSES-APPLIATION TO AMEND-RENEW EXISTING, TEXT-LICENSE APPLICATIONS & PERMITS
| document type = OPERATING LICENSES-APPLIATION TO AMEND-RENEW EXISTING, TEXT-LICENSE APPLICATIONS & PERMITS
| page count = 3
| page count = 3
| project = TAC:51596, TAC:51597, TAC:54596, TAC:54597
| stage = Request
}}
}}



Latest revision as of 21:47, 26 September 2022

Application to Amend Licenses DPR-24 & DPR-27,consisting of Tech Spec Change Request 91 Re Limiting Conditions for Operation Requiring Both RHR Loops Be Operable Unless Reactor Sys Is in Refueling Shutdown Condition
ML20079P870
Person / Time
Site: Point Beach  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 05/04/1983
From: Burstein S
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
To: Harold Denton
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20079P873 List:
References
TAC-51596, TAC-51597, TAC-54596, TAC-54597, NUDOCS 8305110181
Download: ML20079P870 (3)


Text

, (* f tn UtS 52 m l 5 V N $

Rj$6 Q &

WISC011 Sin Electric eowea couessr 231 W. MICHIGAN, P.O. BOX 2046. MILWAUKEE, WI 53201 k$$ I -f May 4, 1983 4

5 4 \

Mr. H. R. Denton, Director /[ .

3- b \N M

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation [2 1 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U # 'k -

Washington, D. C. 20555 '\ p a;p Cp 7//

Dear Mr. Denton:

\ $M e m /

DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REQUEST NO. 91 ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 In accordance with 10 CFR 50.59(c), Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Licensee) hereby requests amendments to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, respectively. The purpose of these amendments is to incorporate changes into the plant Technical Specifications.

These proposed changes, which are discussed in greater detail below, are intended to clarify and correct specific portions of the specifications and bases. These changes have been identified with margin bars on the attached proposed Technical Specification pages.

The basis for Specification 15.3.1.A at page 15.3.1-3a has been revised to be consistent with the limiting conditions for operation. The basis presently states that both residual heat removal (RHR) loops must be in service unless the reactor system is in the refueling shutdown condition with the refueling cavity flooded and no core alterations in progress. This implies that in the event of a loss of RHR cooling capability, the reactor core could not be unloaded, if necessary, to deal with the loss of RHR. Specification 15.3.1.A.3(4) directs that when no decay heat removal method is in operation, all operations causing an increase in the reactor decay heat load or a reduction in reactor coolant system boron concentration shall be suspended. The basis on the attached page has been revised to be consistent with this specification.

Y" 3 rey 7. m3 AD 0 6 P PDR t Ec w

ggoo

y .

i Mr. H. R. Denton May 4, 1983 The statement in the basis on page 15.3.3-9 regarding inoperability of the containment fan coolers has been corrected to be consistent with Specification 15.3.3.B. The basis presently states that one of the four fan coolers is permitted to be inoperable when the reactor is made critical and during power operations. Amendments 60 and 65 to the operating licenses require all four fan coolers to be operable in order to take a reactor critical and only permit one accident fan cooler to be out of service for up to 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> during power operations.

The specifications in Section 15.3.10 of the Technical Specifications which address misalignment and inoperability of rod cluster control assemblies (RCCA) have been clarified.

Presently, there is some confusion in the interpretation of Specifications 15.3.10.1.c and d and 15.3.10.1.D.1 and 2 as to whether the misalignment means a deviation of RCCA rod position indication (RPI) from the average of the rest of the RPI's in the bank or a deviation from the bank demand position. Words have been added in the proposed changes attached to clarify that this misalignment is referenced to the bank demand position.

This interpretation is consistent with statements made in the bases for these s;,ecifications on pages 15.3.10-10 and 15.3.10-15 and with the standardized technical specification found in NU REG-04 5 2 .

The final change proposed with this license amendments application affects Table 15.4.1-1, " Minimum Frequencies for Checks, Calibrations, and Test of Instrument Channels". This table lists frequency code "R" for the majority of channel calibration requirements. "R" is defined in the table as "each refueling shutdown (but not to exceed 20 months) " . This has been interpreted in the past as a requirement to conduct the calibration during the refueling shutdown. For the majority of channels listed in this table, this interpretation creates no problems; however, it does impose a concentrated work load for the plant Instrumentation and Control Group during the refueling outages.

Many of these channel calibrations can be carried out during other than refueling shutdown conditions. We are particularly referring to items 19, " Radiation Monitoring System", and 27,

" Emergency Plan Radiation Survey Instruments". We are proposing that frequency notation "R" be revised to mean "each refueling interval (but not to exceed 18 months) " . This would permit a more efficient scheduling of instrumentation channel calibrations and is consistent with the frequency notation definition contained in NUREG-0452.

, a 9

\ .

Mr. H. R. Denton May 4, 1983 In accordance with the schedule of amendment approval fees for reactor facility licenses as listed in 10 CFR 170.22, Licensee has determined that the amendment approval for Point Beach Unit 1 should be classified as a Class II approval. The revisions to the Technical Specifications discussed in this submittal are either for the purpose of correcting or clarifying the existing specifications. These changes have no safety or environmental significance. The amendment approval for Point Beach Unit 2 would be a duplicate of the Unit 1 review and, therefore, would be classified as a Class I amendment. Accordingly, we have enclosed herewith a check in the amount of $1,600 for payment of these approval fees.

As required by the Commission's regulations, we have enclosed three signed originals and forty copies of this application.

Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this request.

Very truly yours, O

N Executive Vice President Sol Burstein Enclosure (Check No. 729176)

Copy to NRC Resident Inspector Subscribqd and swe g t;o before me this heday{ff3MayJp'Q 83.

Notary (Pybliy/ StatW,of i consin MyCommissreg,hxhb5bU 6 /f83 v.xfM w,:.y9y ww-4 6

---,_-...-_._,_.-~,,---.-_,.---._,,_..--,,-_,4 - . _ . - , . - - _.._-y n,-.-