ML18051A517

Application for Amend to License DPR-20,changing Tech Specs to Modify Withdrawal Schedule for Reactor Vessel Surveillance Specimens & Deleting Analysis of Capsule A-60

ML18051A517
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	08/03/1983
From:	Dewitt R CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:
Shared Package
ML18051A516	List: ML18051A515 ML18051A517 ML18051A518
References
NUDOCS 8308100357
Download: ML18051A517 (4)

Text

• ~*

- -- ~-- - - - - - - - ----- --~-- - ~----- ~-------

- ---*tbNSUMERS-POWER COMPANY. * -- _________________;__

DOCKET 50-255 - LICENSE DPR PALISADES PLANT REQUEST FOR CHANGE TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS For the reasons hereinafter set forth, it is requested that the Technical Specifications contained in the Provisional Operating License DPR-20, Docket 50-255, issued to Consumers Power Company on October 16, 1972, for the Palisades Plant be changed as described in Section I below:

I. CHANGE(s)

Delete Capsule A-60 from the Reactor Vessel Surveillance Coupon Removal Schedule and change Table 4.3.3, page 4-23 of the Palisades Technical Specifications to read as follows:

Table 4.3.3 Reactor Vessel Surveillance CouEon Removal Schedule 1 2

. Capsule Refueling Capsule Target Removal Time Number Number Location (EFPY @ Refuel No)

Primary Optional A-240 2 Outside Core Barrel 2.26 @ 23 W-290 5 11 Vessel Wall 4.33 @ 5 T-330 5 20 Above Core 4.33 @ 5 W-110 11 5 Vessel Wall 9.21 @ 11 W-100 20 25 Vessel Wall 16.5 @ 20 T-150 20 5 Above Core 16.5 @ 20 W-280 25 20 Vessel Wall 20.6 @ 25 W-260 35 39 Vessel Wall 28.7 @ 35 W-80 39 35 Vessel Wall 32.0 @ 39 1 Refer to Palisades FSAR, Volume 2, Section 4.5.3, Figure 4-11 for illustration of capsule locations 2 EFPY based on 2530 MWt power rating 3 2.26 EFPY from BCL 585-12 Report, March 13, 1979

( 8308100357 830803 i I PDR ADOCK 05000255 l P PDR OC0583-0020B-NL02

L. ',f

- - ---- -- - -- - u-;- -- -nrscuss-roN A. Deletion of Analysis of Capsule A-60 The Palisades surveillance program contained two accelerated capsules (A-60 and A-240) and eight regular capsules.

Capsule A-60 was scheduled to be removed during the second refueling outage, however, problems associated with the upper end fitting precluded removal in the reasonable length of time. Therefore, Capsule A-240, an equivalent capsule, was removed as allowed by Amendment 34 issued January 27, 1978.

The analysis of Capsule A-240 iny~cated that it has been exposed to a fluence of 4.4 x 10 nvt (E lMev) in 2.26 Effective Full Power Years (EFPY) of plant ~~eration. This was substantially greater than the 1.7 x 10 nvt (E lMev) value predicated for the second refueling outage.

As of October 31, 1982, the Palisades reactor has operated for 4.47 EFPY based on a 2530 Mwt poy9r rating and 98,992,680 Mwht accumulated. Assuming 4.4 x 10 nvt (E lMev) in 2.26 EFPY for Capsule A-240, the exposure of 1~apsule A-60 has been calculated to be approximately 8.7 x 10 nvt (E lMev).

This value is significa~§ly greater than the predicted End of Life fluence (3.55 x 10 nvt, E lMev) to the vessel wall, therefore, no useful fracture toughness data would be obtained from the analysis of Capsule A-60. For this reason, Consumers Power Company requests that Capsule A-60 be deleted from the Palisades Reactor Vessel Surveillance Capsule Program.

B. Request for Equivalent Capsule Withdrawal Option The Palisades Reactor Vessel Surveillance Program was designed to monitor radiation induced changes to the mechanical and impact properties of the reactor vessel and consists --of ten capsules containing base metal, weld metal and heat affected zone material representive of the pressure vessel. All of the capsules were inserted into their designated holders prior to the initial reactor startup.

Eight of the capsules are arrayed in two groups 180 degrees apart at the midplane of the core and two capsules are in a low flux region above the core. Each capsule therefore, has a counterpart that is similar in type and quantity of samples located on the opposite side of the reactor core. Core geometry further enhances the similarity of a capsule and its counterpart by producing a neutron flux that is diametrically symmetrical about the circumfrence of the vessel wall. This condition ensures that, at any point in time, a capsule and its counterpart have been exposed to similar, if not OC0583-0020B-NL02

L. *_ft 3

--identical- 0 --neut-ron fluences-and-temperatu-res.- Based--on - - - - - - - -

capsule type, location, content and environmental conditions the following capsules are considered to be essentially equivalent: T-330 & T-150 W-290 & W-110 W-100 & W-280 W-260 & W-80 A-60 & A-240*

Consumers Power Company proposes that Table 4.3.3 (Reactor Vessel Surveillance Coupon Removal Schedule) be modified to provide the option of removing either the primary capsule or its equivalent. Removal of an equivalent capsule will not reduce the effectiveness of the surveillance program and would be used only when difficulty in removing the primary capsule is encountered. The added flexibility of this proposed option would reduce plant outage time and does not violate the requirement of Appendix H of 10 CFR Part SO.

C. Analysis of No Significant Hazards Consideration The Palisades Plant Review Committee has concluded that the proposed changes discussed above do not involve an unreviewed safety question. In addition, the effectiveness of the reactor vessel surveillance program is not reduced and therefore the operation of the facility in accordance with the above proposed changes would not:

1. involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or

2. create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or

3. involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

• Equivalent capsule removal provide for in Amendment No 34, January 27, 1978. Capsule A-240 was removed during the second refueling outage.

OC0583-0020B-NL02

• 4 III._ CONCLUSION -- --------- -----------~

The Palisades Plant Review Committee has reviewed this Technical Specification Change Request and has determined that these changes do not involve an unreviewed safety question and consequently involve no significant hazards considerations. This change has also been reviewed under the cognizance of the Nuclear Safety Board.

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY BY R B DeWitt, Vice President Nuclear Operations Sworn and subscribed to before me this ~th day of ~ 1983, J: ])/AA=rjAAj_

v er IHERIY l YNll DURFEY Sherry L D fey, Notary Public Notary Pu~lle, Jacksen County, Mfeti.

Jackson County, Michigan My Commission Expires Nov. 5, IHI My commission expires on 11/5/86.

OC0583-0020B-NL02