ML20247K687

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 104 to License DPR-54

ML20247K687
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	05/16/1989
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20247K668	List: ML20247K662 ML20247K681 ML20247K687
References
NUDOCS 8906010364
Download: ML20247K687 (3)

Text

-_ . - ._ .- - - _ __, . _ . - - . - - - . _ _ -

-y

?

S. ' ..

[km E80g: 'o[ UNITED STATES p, f r,, ,t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C 20656 -)

i' '

[

2.... 1 i

S'AFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION-SUPP0FdiriG AMENDMENT NO.104TO FACILITY OPERATING' LICENSE NO. DPR-54 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT a

RANCHO SEC0 NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-312

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In an October 14, 1985 letter and supplemented by a letter dated February)13,1986, licensee requested the thatSacramento the Director,Municipal Utility District Office of Nuclear Reactor (the Regulation, approve for Rancho Seco the integrated surveillance program.

y , documented in Babcock.& Wilcox (B&W) Topical Report BAW-1543A, Rev. 2,

" Integrated Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Program." In addition the licensee requested an amendment to License No. DPR-54. The amendment ,

proposed to delete from the license an exemption from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix H and to delete Sections 4.2.1, 4.2.8, Table 4.2-1, and supporting

' bases from the Rancho Seco Technical Specifications. These sections of the Rancho Seco Technical Specifications contain the reporting requirements and i schedule for. withdrawal of the Rancho Seco reactor vessel surveillance capsules. In lieu of the Technical Specification requirements, the licensee indicates that their surveillance program will comply with the requirements in B&W Topical Report BAW-1543, Rev. 2, and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix H.

2.0 DISCUSSION The requirements for an integrated surveillance program ere documented in 10 CFR Part 50,1ppendix' H,Section II.C. This rection of Appendix H requires that each surveillance program be approved on a case-by-case basis by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

Rancho Seco is participating in the B&W Integrated Reactor Vessal Surveillance Program, which is documented in B&W Topical Repor; BAW-1543, Rev. 2. This topical report contains the surveillance capsule withdrawal schedule for Rancho Seco. The staff's review of the Topical Report is documented in a March 13, 1985 letter from C. O. Thomas to J. H. Taylor.

The' staff concluded that the B&W integrated surveillance program, docu-mented in Topical Report BAW 1543, Rev. 2, meets the criteria in Section II.C of 10 CFR Part 50, A)pendix H and after approval of the integrated i surveillance program by t1e Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, j exemptions to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix H, will no longer be required.

8906010364 890516 '

gDR ADOCK0500g2

The Staff recormends that the amount of radiation embrittlement be a calculated using the methods documented in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.99, I Rev. 2, " Radiation Damage to Reactor Vessel Materials." This RG indicates that radiation damage is a function of neutron fluence and the amounts of residualelements(copperandnickel)inthematerial. Hence, an accept- .

able surveillance program must include withdrawal of capsules at neutron i fluence intervals representing the life of Rancho Seco and must contain material that can monitor the amount of radiation damage to the limiting material in the Rancho Seco reactor vessel beltline. The required amount of neutron fluence to be received by each capsule in the surveillance program is documented in ASTM E 185-82.

According to B&W Topical Report BAW-1543. Rev. 2, there will be six Rancho Seco surveillance capsules, they will be irradiated in the Davis-Besse NuclearReactor,andtheywillbegithdrgwnatneutroggmenges(Egreater than 1MeV) varying from 3.99 x 10 I n/cm to 1.4 x 10 n/cm . The withdrawal schedule for the Rancho Seco capsules in B&W Topical Report BAW-1543, Rev. 2, meets, to the extent practical, the requirements in ASTM E 185-82. The weld metal in the capsules is identified as WF 193.

The limiting material in the Rancho Seco reactor vessel beltline is identified as weld metal WF 70. Weld metals WF 70 and WF 193 were prepared using the same type of flux and filler wire but different heats and lots. Since these weld metals are from different heats and lots, the amounts of residual elements in each weld will be different. However, the amounts of residual elements for each of the weld metals is reported in Babcock & Wilcox Topical Report BAW 1799, "B&W 177-FA Reacte- Vessel Beltline Weld Chemistry Study," dated July 1983. By comparine the amounts of radiation damage predicted by the Regulatory Guide 1.99 to that observed for the capsule material we will be able to effectively monitor radiation damage to the Rancho Seco reactor vessel beltline.

Summary

1) The car,sule withdrawal schedule meets, to the extent practical, the requirements in ASTM E 185-82 and the Rancho Seco capsule weld metal can be used to monitor radiation to the Rancho Seco reactor vessel beltline.

2) Based on the staff's approval of B&W Topical Report 1543, Rev. 2, and the previous conclusions, we recommend arproval of the inte-grated surveillance program that was docmented in BsW Topical Report BAW-1543, Rev. 2 for the Rancho Seco plant and the deletion of the exemption from Appendix H from the Rancho Seco license.

3) Since the licensee will comply with B&W Topical Report 1543, Rev. 2 and the requirements in 10 CFR 50, Appendix H, the reporting requirements and schedule for withdrawal of the Rancho Seco reactor vessel surveillance capsules may be deleted from Rancho Seco Technical Specification Sections 4.2.1, 4.2.8, Table 4.2-1 and supporting bases.

e 1

3.0 CONTACT WITH STATE OFFICIAL The NRC staff has advised the Chief of the Radiological Health Branch, State Department of Health Services, State of California, of the proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration. No coasnents were  !

received, i

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

This amendment involves changes in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.

The 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 occupational radiation exposure.

The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amend-ment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),noenvironmentalimpact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

5.0 CONCLUSION

Wehaveconcluded,basedontheconsiderationsdiscussedabove,that(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner,such (2) public activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor: B. Elliot Dated: May 16, 1989 ,

________- ______-_ _ __ _ _ __