ML20044B296
| ML20044B296 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044B295 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9007180310 | |
| Download: ML20044B296 (2) | |
Text
,
w
.. [+fpet C8 ct,q(0, o
UNITED STATES
{
',q NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION I.
l/
W ASHlfvG T ON. D. C. 20bbb 3
....+
SAFETY EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 76 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AND AMENDMENT NO. 70 TO FACILITY OPERATING, LICENSE NPF-52 DUKE POWER COMPANY. ET AL.
4 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 1
p0CKETNOS.50-413AND50-414 l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On May 23, 1989, the NAC issued License Amendments 64 and 58 to Facility Operating Licenses NPF-35 and NPF-52 for Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 respectively.
These amendments allowed Duke Power Company, et al.
(the $1censee) to conduct a demonstration fregram 6t Cstawba Unit 2 regarding interface compatibility between three rod riuster control assemblies (RCCAs) having a specialized clad coating or plating, supplied by Babcock and Wilcox fuel Company (BWFC), and Westinghouse fuel assem)1ies which have the conven-(,
tional clad.
TherevisiontotheTechnicalSpecifications(TSs) involved changing the description of the RCCAs in Section 5.3.2, " Design Features / Control Rod Assenblies" for Catawba Unit 2 only.
Unit I was included because the TSs for both units are combined in one docunent.
By letter dated February 7,1990, and supplemented April 12, 1990, the licensee is proposing a revision in TS 5.3.2 which would allow the option to withdraw the inconel clad RCCA from the Catawba Unit 2 core and replace it with a West-inghouse 17x17 RCCA if unexpected wear of the inconel RCCA is discovered during forthcoming inspections. This request would involve changing the description 1
of the RCCAs for Catawba Unit 2 only.
Unit 1 is included because the TSs for both units are combined in one document.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee is currently conducting an RCCA demonstration program at Catawba Unit 2.
Three 17x17 hybrid boron carbide (B4C) TCCAs supplied by BWFC having
^
coatings or platings with special wear resistant characteristics were inserted into the Unit 2 core at the beginning-of-cycle (B0C) 3.
Two of the assenblies have Armaloy plated 304 stainless steel cladding on the rods, and the third has a n
ggg chromium carbide coated Inconel 625 cladding. The basic Westinghouse RCCA gga. design features were maintained to make the primary interface features similar.
h The objectives of the demonstration program are:
(1)todemonstratethe compatibility of the BWFC RCCAs with Westinghouse internals, (2) to denonstrate that 3d BWFC RCCAs function as required during sctc.ns and stepping exercises, and gg (3)todeterminethewearcharacteristicsofvariousRCCAcladcoatingsas ge opposed to the conventional clad materials.
s 8g The licensee will perform wear measurements on the BWFC RCCAs and the upper internals guide structures, during end-of-cycles (E00) 3, 4, 5 and 6 refueling n o.
outages, to quantify the performance of BWFC RCCAs relative to clad wear and
o O
A
.g.
l to determine the impact of the wear resistant coatings on the mating sut faces of the upper internals.
The NRC staff review finds that the proposed revision to TS 5.3.2 would correctly describe the design features relevant to the RCCAs and would provide the flexibility to withdraw the demonstration inconel clad assembly should unexpected wear be discovered during future inspections.
If this is the case, the assembly woulo be replaced with a Westinghouse 17x17 RCCA.
The Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Chapter 15 accidents were evaluated assuming all RCCAs were supplied by Westinghouse.
Furthermore, all the RCCAs should perform in accordance with the Catawba TS limits.
Based on its review, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed TS revision for Catawba Unit 2 has no adverse impact on safety ano does not pose an undue risk to public health and safety, and is, therefore acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMEllTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve a change to the requirements with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendments involve 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 occupational radiation expo-sure.
The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amenoments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),noenvironmentalimpactstatementorenvironmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission's proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration was published in the Federal Register (55FR18411)onMay2,1990. No public coments were received, and the State of South Carolina did not have any comments.
We have 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 Comission's regulations, and the issu6nce of these amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
K. Jabbour, PDil-3/DPR-1/ll Dated: July 13, 1990
.--