ML20147E135
| ML20147E135 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147E132 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9702180208 | |
| Download: ML20147E135 (4) | |
Text
-..
_.. - -. - -. _ - -. - - ~ - - -
a ns k
l g
UNITED STATES
}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS810N 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 30005 4001
\\...../
1 L
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDNENT NO. 92 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-47 ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.
RIVER BEND STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-458
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 29, 1996, Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee),
submitted for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval, a proposed change to the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM vessel (RPV) material surveillance program) regarding the reactor pressure schedule for River Bend Station (RBS), Unit 1 (Reference 1]. The licensee proposed to change the withdrawal time for the first surveillance capsule of the RBS vessel from 6 effective full power years (EFPY) to 10.4 EFPY.
Appendix H of 10 CFR Part 50 requires licensees to withdraw capsules from their reactor vessels periodically according to the capsule withdrawal schedule in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E 185, " Standard Practice for Conducting Surveillance Tests for Light-Water Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Vessels."Section II.B.3 of Appendix H permits alternatives to the recommendations of ASTM E-185 when justified and approved by the staff.Section II.B.3 specifies, "A proposed withdrawa? schedule must be submitted with a technical justification as specified in 10 CFR 50.4. The proposed schedule must be approved prior to implementation.". This section of Appendix H was recently interpreted by Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) and the Commission. The interpretations stem from Cleveland Electric's request for a license amendment to transfer the capsule withdrawal schedule from the Perry plant's technical specifications to the facility's updated safety analysis report (USAR).
The ASLB concluded in its Memorandum and Order, LBP-95-17, 42 NRC 137 (1995),
that any change to the Perry Nuclear Power Plant's withdrawal schedule for reactor vessel material specimens must be treated as a license amendment.
Subsequently, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (the licensee for Perry) petitioned for a review of the Licensing Board's decision. The Commission reversed this decision in the NRC Commission Memorandum and Order, CLI-96-13 (Perry Order) [ Reference 2], issued on December 6, 1996, and interpreted Section II.B.3 of Appendix H as follows: for a revised capsule withdrawal schedule that conforms to the ASTM standard, the staff needs to verify this conformity; for a revised schedule that does not conform to the required ASTM standard, " prior Commission approval and a license amendment, with its attendant notice and opportunity for hearing, would be required."
9702180208 970213 I
PDR ADOCK 05000458 P
PDR 1
y. ~. _ - -
-. - ~ -.. - - -
i l
., The RBS surveillance capsule withdrawal schedule was established in accordance with E 185-73, and was later revised to be in accordance with E 185-82. This proposed schedule revision does not conform to ASTM E 185-82.
2.0 EVALUATION The general guidelines for determining the first capsule withdrawal time are given in ASTM E-185-82. This standard states, "the first capsule is scheduled for withdrawal early in the vessel life to verify the initial predictions of the surveillance material response to the actual radiation environment." The standard further clarifies that, "early withdrawal will permit verification of the adequacy and conservatism of the reactor vessel pressure / temperature operational limits."
To support the revision of River Bend's first capsule withdrawal time from 6 EFPY to 10.4 EFPY, the licensee provided the following justification:
(1) the measured increases in reference temperature (ART significant number of boiling water reactor (BWR) survei 7) values from a 1
U ance capsules (reported in GE-NE-B1301807-02) are conservatively. bounded by the calculated values plus margins using the methodology in Regulatory Guide 1.99, ART ' ion 2 (RG 1 99, Rev. 2) for both plates and welds; (2) the Pressure-t RevIs temperature (P-T) limits calculation is in accordance with ASME Section XI, Appendix G, and is inherently conservative; (3) the limiting beltline material l
1s included in 4 of 7 capsules of the BWR Owners Group (BWROG) supplemental surveillance program (SSP), and postponement of the first capsule withdrawal will have minimum impact on the understanding of irradiation effects on the RBS vessel; and (4) a withdrawal time corresponding to 75% drop in predicted fracture toughness at the hydrotest temperature over the RBS design life is 4
appropriate and large enough to ensure detectability.
GE-NE-B1301807-02 indicates that the increases in the calculated 4RT values 1
plus margins for plates and welds using RG 1.99, Rev. 2 (RG values) SIund the measured ART values from a significant number of BWR surveillance capsules.
Table 3-2 inUcates further that the measured ART,7 values from available BWR/6 weld data are less than one-half the calculated ART, values plus margins. This implies that the future measured ART values for the RBS 7
surveillance material from the first capsule withdr,awal are also likely to be bounded by the RG values. Since the RBS P-T limits were calculated using the ART in accordance with RG 1.99, Rev. 2, and the surveillance data reported in E-NE-81301807-02 indicates that this ART,7 will be conservative, the RBS P-T limits should be conservative.
The limiting beltline material of the RBS vessel is included in 4 of 7 capsules of the BWROG's SSP program. SSP specimen withdrawals are planned for 1996, 2000, and 2002 and when tested, will have collected fluence in the range equivalent to 3.6 EFPY and 14.3 EFPY for the RBS vessel.
Reference 3 indicates that 2 of the 4 SSP capsules that contain the RBS limiting material are among the capsules scheduled for the first withdrawal. The SSP data from the first capsules withdrawal will provide early detection of any anomalous ART., and will permit verification of the adequacy and conservatism of the reactor vessel P-T operational limits.
. _. _ _ _ _ - _. ~ _ _ _ _ _. _ _.. _ _ - _.
i I !
l Considering the surveillance data reported in GE-NE-81301807-02, BWROG's SSP program, and the small increase of ART for the RBS limiti surveillance material indicated by Figure 6-3 of GEME-B1301807-02 (46*F 7or 6 EFPY and j
60*F for 10.4 EFPY), the staff accepts the change of the first capsule l
withdrawal time from 6 EFPY to 10.4 EFPY. Removing the capsule later in plant l
life will result in a more pronounced ART m.
l This SER only considered the licensee's first three bases for justifying the proposed capsule withdrawal schedule. The fourth basis, which is withdrawing the first capsule at a time corresponding to 75% drop in predicted fracture toughness at the hydrotest temperature over the RBS design life, is arbitrary, and cannot be used to justify a change in the withdrawal schedule.
The staff understands that the RBS USAR incorrectly lists heat / lot
- 492L4871/A421827AF as the weld material included in the surveillance l
l capsules. The licensee indicated that it will correct RBS USAR Table 5.3-1 to I
show heat / lot #5P6756/0342 as the correct surveillance capsule weld metal in its annual USAR update.
3.0 STAFF FINDING The staff concludes that the licensee's proposed capsule withdrawal schedule does not conform to ASTM E 185-82. However, based on surveillance data from other BWR vessels, which indicate the RBS P-T limits are conservative, and on the small projected increase in the reference temperature due to.this schedule change, the staff accepts the proposed change of the first RBS capsule withdrawal time from 6 EFPY to 10.4 EFPY. The availability of the surveillance data for the limiting RBS weld from the first withdrawal of SSP capsules is another favorable factor in the staff's consideration of this proposal. Therefore, the proposed capsule withdrawal schedule may be incorporated into the RBS TRM.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Louisiana State Official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
I 5.0 ENVIR0fMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendment changes a surveillance requirement. The NRC staff has determined 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 l
occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (61 FR 55034). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for 1
.. _ = _ -
.. categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(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 the amendment.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Comnission 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
7.0 REFERENCES
1.
August 29, 1996, letter from J. R. McGaha, (E01) to USNRC Document Control Desk, subject: River Bend Station, Unit 1 - License Amendment Request (LAR) 96-35, " Request for a revision to the Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Program Capsule Withdrawal Schedule."
2.
NRC Memorandum and Order, CLI-96-13, In the Matter of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1),
December 6, 1996.
3.
GE Nuclear Energy, GE-NE-523-101-1290, " Progress Report on Phase II BWROG Supplemental Surse111ance Program," January 19, 1992.
Principal Contributor:
S. Sheng, NRR Date: February 13, 1997 j
,