ML20092P339

Proposed Tech Spec Table 3-6 Re Reactor Coolant Pump Surveillance.Justification & Significant Hazards Consideration Encl

ML20092P339
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	06/22/1984
From:	OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:
Shared Package
ML20092P337	List: ML20092P336 ML20092P339
References
NUDOCS 8407060181
Download: ML20092P339 (3)

Text

.

l

., o l

TABLE 3-6 REACTOR COOLANT PUMP SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENT METHOD FREQUENCY )

1.1 Reactor Coolant Pump Visual inspection of When motor is dis-Flywheels upper surface of top assembled for disc and bottom sur- maintenance pur-face of bottom disc; poses.

volumetric inspection from circumference of all disc segments.

TABLE 3-7 CAPSULE REMOVAL SCHEDULE Removal Refueling Schedule Capsule Sequence EFPY** Removed 1 2.4 225*

2 5.9 265*

3 20 45' 4 21 85*

5 27 95*

6 28 265**

7 32 225**

8 Standby 275*

• Replacement capsule assemblies were installed in the 225' and 265*-

locations following early removal of the 265* capsule. These cap-sules benchmark the change in core loading design initiated at 5.9 EPPY.

• • Based on a rated power level of 1500 MWt.

8407060181 840622 PDR ADOCK 05000285 P PDR Amendment No. 46 3 ATTACHMENT A l

e DISCUSSION AND SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION FOR SURVEILLANCE CAPSULE REMOVAL SCHEDULE

Reference:

Letter from W. C. Jones to Mr. James R. Miller, dated January 27, 1984 (LIC-84-021).

Table 3-7 (on page 3-27), the surveillance capsule removal schedule of the Technical Specifications, was revised to document the early withdrawal of surveillance capsule assembly W-265 and to document the installation of two replacement capsule assemblies; one at W-225 and one at W-265. The original W-265 capsule assembly was removed early, at 5.9 EFPY, to benchmark the end of a core loading design used up to that time and the two replacement capsule assemblies were installed to document the reduced fluence expected as a re-sult of a core loading design change.

It is the District's position that Table 3-7 need not confom to the current version of 10 CFR 50, Appendix H since it was not in effect when the surveil-lance capsule program was initiated. Nonetheless, the proposed capsule renov-al schedule does confom to 10 CFR 50, Appendix H. In order to illustrate this fact, the following table is presented:

Removal Anticipated Sequence Fluence Purpose 3 3.3 x 1019 E0L fluence at vessel wall 4 2.0 x 1019 E0L fluence at 1/4 thickness 5 2.5 x 1019 75% E0L fluence at vessel wall 6 1.6 x 1019 50% EOL fluence at vessel wall 7 3.6 x 1019 E0L Sample The peak E0L fluence anticipated at the vessel wall is 3.3 x 1019 n/cm2 and the peak EOL fluence at the 1/4 thickness location is anticipated to be 2.0 x 1019 n/cm2 It is noted that sequences 3, 4, and 7 are set up such that the-requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix H, are satisfied. It is noted further that it may prove highly desirable to remove early the capsule scheduled for sequence 7 in order to provide additional material properties information which would be useful to the Pressurized Themal Shock analysis program. If this is done, the schedule will be such that the tems of the referenced let-ter are maintained.

It is anticipated that further vessel wall neutron flux reduction will be achieved by fuel management schemes currently under investigation. This may necessitate another revision of the surveillance capsule removal schedule.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.92, the following significant hazards considerations have been made:

(1) Will the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

No. Early removal of tne W-265 capsule assembly and the installation of the two replacement capsule assemblies will not cause a significant ATTACINDTI B

increase in the probability or consequence of a previously evaluated accident, but instead will provide better infonnation on the fluence to the inside surface of the reactor vessel. The surveillance capsule holders mounted in the reactor vessel were originally designed to allow the insertion of replacement capsule assemblies as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix G. The two replacement capsule assemblies are of the same design, installation, and manufacture as the original capsule assem-biles.

. (2) Will the change create the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

No. The replacement capsule assemblies will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated accident because they are of the same design, installation, and manufac-ture as the original capsule assemblies.

(3) Will the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

No. There is no significant reduction in the margin of safety involved because the replacement capsule assemblies occupy the holders of the original capsule assemblies and are, therefore, in the same configura-tion as the original capsule assemblies and do not affect the operation of the plant.

- ,