ML19325E158
| ML19325E158 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19325E156 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8911020124 | |
| Download: ML19325E158 (2) | |
Text
.
~~
~^
^
@ Mo I
.4(
o
[
'g UNITED FYATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
r,;
2 WASHINGW% 0. C. 20555
..... p*
I SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION REl Altu TO AmtnumLNT NO.128 TO l
FACIL;;TY OPERATING LIGEN5E.ND. DPR-27
. WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER' COMPANY POINT. BEACH NUCLEAR P. ANT. UNIT NO. 2
?
DUcKL1 ND.
>U-JUI I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
I In letters dated August 8,1989 and August 31, 1989, the Wisconsin Electric Power Company (the licensee)' proposed changes:to the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 (PBNP-2) reactor vessel surveillance program. The' changes are-i contained in Technical Specification Change Request 134. The changes include i
a revised surveillance capsule removal. schedule and acknowledgement of. the licensee's participation in the Babcock and Wilccx (B&W) Master Integrated Reactor Vessel Surveillance Program. The August 31, 1989 letter revised the capsule removal schedule which had been requested'.in the August 8,1989 letter.
Therevisedschedulebecamenecessarybecause,.beginningwiththeUnit2 Fall' 1989 Outage, PBNP-2 was changing)the' core design '
rom a low leakage core (L3P) to a super low leakage core (L4P with hafnium absorbers, t
i i
2.0 EVALUATION Appendix H tn 10 CFR Part 50 requires' that the proposed schedule be approved l
prior to implementation and the schedule meet the requirements of ASTM E j.
185-82, to the extent practical.
Since three capsules have already been withdrawn, the licensee proposed a change in the withdrawal of the fourth and fifth capsules.
According to AS1M E 185-82, PBNP-2 must (1) withdraw a minimum of 5 capsules;.
(2) withdraw the fourth capsule at 15 effective full power years (EFPY) or at a time when the accumulated neutron fluence of the capsule corresponds to the approximate'end of life (EOL) fluence at the reactor vessel inner wall location, whichever comes first; and (3) withdraw the fifth capsule at the E0L or at a time when the accumulated neutron fluence of the capsule is not less than once or greater than twice the peak E0L vessel fluence.
The licensee proposes to (1) withdraw 5 capsules, (2) withdrew the fourth capsule at 14.7 EFPY, and (3) withdraw the fifth capsule'at 19.5 EFPY. The cagguleyithdrawnat14.7EFPYwillreceivea'neutronfluenceof3.09X 10 n/cm and the caggule githdrawn at 19.5 EFPY will receive a neutron fluence of 4.10 X 10 n/cm. When the PBNP-2 license. expires on March 8, 2013 the vessel is projected to operate gr 32.g EFPY and the' peak vessel EOL fluence is estimated to be 2.92.X 10 n/cm. Based on this peak vessel E0L fluence, the proposed withdrawal schedule is acceptable.
'l
[
P a
O t
2-The Babcock and Wilcox Owners Group (BWOG) Master Integrated Reactor Vessel Surveillance Program is a joint program between utilities, which had their i
reactor vessels fabricated by Babcock and Wilcox. The master program includes data from plant-specific capsules such as PBNP-2 and supplementary capsules, which contain samples similar to the weld metal in the beltline of i
PBNP-2. The goal of the master program is to obtain fracture toughness data to address the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G.
The program is described in the BWOG Report BAW-1543, which will be reviewed by the staff as a topical report.
l Based on the above information, the staff concludes that the reactor vessel capsule withdrawal schedule documented in the August 31, 1989 letter satisfies e
the requirements of Appendix H,10 CFR Part 50. The staff finds the proposed change acceptable. Further, the licensee's participation in the BWOG Reactor Vessel Integrated Program is warranted, because the limiting weld metal in the reactor vessel beltline of PBNP-2 was fabricated by B&W. The change to the bases is acceptable because it reflects Point Beach's participation in this program,- In a telephone conversation on September 29, 1989, the licensee con-curred with the NRC staff that the wording in the bases section of the August 8, 1989 amendment request should apply.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or changes an inspection or surveillance requirement. The staff has determined i
that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupa-tional radiation exposure. The Commission has previously published a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 651.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the-issuance of this amendment.
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 Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
B. Elliot Dated:
October 24, 1989 r +-
r
.w.
e w,_.---,_
m.,
-