ML20214S019
| ML20214S019 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 05/28/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214S012 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8706090092 | |
| Download: ML20214S019 (3) | |
Text
.
,8 UNITED STATES g-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
i SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE '0F NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 28 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AND AMENDMENT NO. 19 TO FACILITY-OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 1
INTRODUCTION i
By letter dated November 17, 1986, Duke Power Company, et al., (the licensee) proposed changes to Table 4.4-5 of Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.4.9,
" Pressure / Temperature Limits," to provide a revised reactor vessel surveillance capsule withdrawal schedule for Catawba Units 1 and 2.
^
EVALUATION The purpose of the material surveillance program required by Appendix H of 10 CFR 50 is to monitor changes in the fracture toughness properties of.
ferritic materials in the reactor vessel beltline region of light water nuclear power reactors resulting from exposure of these materials to neutron irradiation and the thermal environment. Under the program, fracture toughness test data are obtained from material specimens exposed in surveillance capsules, which are withdrawn periodically from the reactor vessel.
Table 4.4-5 of TS 3/4.4.9 contains the reactor vessel material surveillance capsule withdrawal schedule for Catawba Units 1 and 2.
During the Catawba Unit I first refueling outage, an attempt was made by the licensee to remove surveillance capsule "U" in accordance with the withdrawal schedule in Table 4.4-5.
However, during the withdrawal attempt, it was discovered that the 4
tools could not reach capsule "U". In discussions with Westinghouse, the i
licensee concluded that Capsule "Z" had an identical Lead Factor, identical materials, and was exposed to a neutron flux profile similar to that of i
capsule "U".
Thus, it was concluded that capsule "Z" would provide similar results as capsule "U" when examined. Given this information, the licensee decided to withdraw capsule "Z" and leave capsule "U" to be withdrawn at a later refueling, if necessary. The proposed changes to Table 4.4-5 interchange i
the withdrawal schedules between capsules "U" and "Z".
I 4
i i
8706090092 870528 PDR ADOCK 05000413 P
PDR l
1 2'-
Capsule "U" was originally scheduled for withdrawal during the first refueling outage and-Capsule "Z" was originally designated as a standby capsule. The i-mvised Table 4.4-5 states that capsule "Z" was withdrawn during the first refueling outage and capsule "U" is designated as a standby capsule. - The t
(
staff has evaluated the proposed changes to Table 4.4-5 and concurs with the licensee's conclusion that capsule "Z", having the.same lead Factor, materials, and neutron flux profile exposure as capsule "U", would produce test results similar to those of Capsule "U".
Thus, the changes to Table 4.4-5 are acceptable. However, the licensee should comit, within six months 1
from the date of these amendments, to have onsite the tools needed to remove.
the next surveillance capsule prior to the scheduled capsule withdrawal, including tools. capable of removing capsule "U" if necessary.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendments involve a change in use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements. The staff has detennined 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 exposures. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there have been no public coments on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 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 amendments.
CONCLUSION The Comission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register i
(52 FR 11360) on April 8,1987, and consulted with the state of south Carolina. No public comments were received, and the state of South Carolina l
did not have any coments.
4 i
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 issuance of i
the amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the j
health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors: Kahtan Jabbour, DRPI/II/PD-3 Samson Lee, DEST /EMTB 3-i Dated: May 28, 1987 I
i l-
-,.-,,,-,,,_--..-,.n.n
,-------,nv,-,-,
,-,-m,,-,
,---.,-mm,,---
,-.n,,---,,-
May 28, 1987 AMENDMENT.NO. 28 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF CATAWBA NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 AMENDMENT NO. 19 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF CATAWBA NUCLEAR POWER STATION,-UNIT 2 DISTRIBUTION: w/ enclosures:
SD6EEAU Nos5 M'415/"414 5 l i
~
"NRC PDR l
- ~
PRC System l
.PDII-3 Reading
.B. J. Youngblood l
K. Jabbour M. Duncan 0GC-Bethesda T.Barnhart(8)
E. L. Jordan J. Partlow ACRS(10)
E. Butcher W. Jones F0B OPA ARM /LFMB GPA/PA D. Hagan S. Lee S. Varga G. Lainas N. Thompson I
i t
e
.