ML20028D065
| ML20028D065 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 01/06/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028D061 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8301140472 | |
| Download: ML20028D065 (3) | |
Text
pancg
[fy,,, '.g o
UNITED STATES
- q NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- .'s o;
g N.%..../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 38 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. NPF-6 ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-368 C
1.0 Introduction By letter dated October 15, 1982, Arkansas Power and Light Company proposed a Technical Specification change for Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 2 (ANO-2).
to revise the withdrawal schedule for the first capsule in the ANO-2 Reactor Vessel Surveillance Program. AP&L requested that the first capsule be removed at the end of the AN0-2 second fuel cycle, which corresponds to approximately 630 effective full power days. The current Technical Speci -
fication requirement for the withdrawal of the first capsule is at five effective full power years.
Our evaluation of the proposed TS change follows.
2.0 Evaluation Specification 4.4.9.1.2, Table 4.4-5, presently schedules the withdrawal of reactor vessel material irradiation surveillance specimens contained in the first capsule be withdrawn upon the completion of five effective full power years (EFPY). The licensee is presently participating in a program of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to analyze neutron radiation data immediately outside the ANO-2 reactor vessel. The primary purpose of this effort is to experimentally obtain the neutron flux and spectra immediately outside the reactor vessel and then use these data to calculate the reactor vessel fluence. The licensee indicates that this program is unique in that measured data outside the reactor vessel nas not previously been available for calculations of fluence.
l The licensee has also indicated that at the end of the second fuel cycle, these data would be available. These radiation data would be compared with the reactor vessel surveillance capsule radiation data to deter-mine the change in radiation flux and spectra through the reactor vessel wall.
The change in radiation flux and spectra through the reactor vessel wall will be useful in evaluating the pressurized thermal shock generic issue.
The staff informed AP&L that early withdrawal of the first capsule would be permitted provided there were additional stand-by capsules available and the reactor vessel beltline materials were not of the high copper, 8301140472 830106 PDR ADOCM 05000360 PDR P
. nickel and phosphorous composition type which are susceptible to excessive
~
radiation damage. The licensee indicated ^that there are three stand-by capsules which are available for testing. These capsules could be with-drawn, if there were any anomalie resulting from the fracture toughness testing of the first capsule. The licensee reported that the limiting ANO-2 reactor vessel material is an intermediate plate with 0.12 percentage copper, 0.010 percentage phosphorous, 0.63 percentage nickel and a pre-dicted adjusted reference temperature at end-of-life of 1710F. These material properties indicate that the ANO-2 reactor vessel beltline materials will not have their fracture toughness properties reduced substantially from neutron irradiation.
Since early withdrawal of the first ANO-2 reactor vessel surveillance capsule will provide radiation data for determining the change in flux and spectra through the reactor vessel wall, and the ANO-2 reactor vessel beltline materials are not excessively susceptible to radiation damage, we consider the early withdrawal of the first AN0-2 reactor vessel surveil-lance capsule acceptable.
3.0 Summary The staff has reviewed the proposed Technical Specification change relating to the early withdrawal of the first AN0-2 reactor vessel surveillance capsule and finds the proposed change acceptable.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an~
environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2-) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the w m em o O
+
i 3-proposed canner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical' to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: January 6, 1983 Principal Contributors:
B. Elliot
- 0. 0. T. Lynch, Jr.
4 5
e 4
a t
4 T
e
\\,
a any_e 6 e W.
-, ~ ~ -,--
a y-m-.<.-
p_
.--p n
.,w we-gg-,_.-g.
eem,,
-