ML19351E803
| ML19351E803 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/02/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351E798 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012190325 | |
| Download: ML19351E803 (4) | |
Text
.
/
'o UMTED STATES
[ } ) w( [',)E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 I~N 4 h c
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGUL SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 35 TO DPR-61 HADDAM NECK PLANT CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-213 1.0 SURVEILLANCE CAPSULE WITHDRAWAL SCHEDULE
1.1 INTRODUCTION
14, 1979 and supporting information dated March 30, By letter dated February 1979, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYA mitted an application to amend the Technical Specifications appended to The Facility Operating License No. DPR-61 for the Haddam Neck Plant.
requested change would modify the withdrawal schedule of the reactor vessel material surveillance capsules.
1.2 DISCUSSION _
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix H, " Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Program Requirements", requires a material surveillance program f in the vessel beltline region resulting from their exposure to neutron irra-Under this program, fracture tough-diation and the thermal environment.
ness test data are obtained from material specimens periodically withdrawn -
from the reactor vessel. This Appendix gives withdrawal schedules based on the amount of radiation damage predicted at the end of the service life-At the end of the seryice life, the Haddam Neck vessel time of the vessel.
of less than 200 F.
materials are expected to have an increase in RT@H requires a four capsule Based on this amount of radiation damage, AppendThe surveillance program f surveillance program.
of eight capsules and thus exceeds the Appendix H requirements.
Neutron irradiation causes the vessel material reference nil ductility temp-
, to increase with time and the material fracture toughness erature, RT These irradiated properties are used to properties Edecrease with time. establish pressure-temperature oper G,10 CFR Part 50.
1.3 EVALUATION The Haddam Neck material surveillance program contains two types of capsules, Type I capsules contain test specimens made only from Type I and Type II.
the reactor vessel base material. Type II capsules contain test specimens 8012190 % $
made from the vessel base material and from the vessel weld metal. The present Technical Specifications call for withdrawal of Capsule D (Type II) at 10 years, Capsule G (Type I) at 15 years, and Capsule E (Type II) at 25 years. The revised withdrawal schedule proposed by CYAPC0 calls for the withdrawal of Capsule H (Type I) at 10 years, Capsule D (Type II) at 15 years, and Capsule E (Type II) at 25 years.
In both schedules the remaining three capsules are designated as standby capsules.
To date three capsules, two Type I and one Type II, have been removed from the reactor vessel and tested. Westinghouse has also given the staff additional test data on the surveillance weld metal irradiated in a test reactor. These data are sufficient for us to predict the amount of radiation damage on vessel materials to 15 years. At 15 years of operation the revised withdrawal schedule calls for removal of a Type II capsule which will provide additional radiation damage on both weld and base materials.
Based on our review of the proposed surveillance capsule withdrawal schedule we conclude that it is an accordance with Appendix H,10 CFR Part 50 and is, therefore, acceptable.
2.0 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS By letters dated September 5,1978, February 14,1979, April 28 and July 16, 1980, the licensee proposed to revise Section 6 of the Appendix A Technical Specifications and Section 5 of the Appendix B Technical Specifications to reflect the current organizational structure.
2.1 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The revisions to the Administrative Controls reflect changes in the plant and corporate organizational structure, and also changes in the titles of the individuals.
2.1.1 In Figure 6.2-1 the " Connecticut Yankee Station Superintendent" now reports to the Northeast Utilities Service Company Superintendent Nuclear Operations, rather to the old Superintendent of Nuclear Production, and there is no longer a System Superintendent of Production in the chain of comand between the Haddam Neck Station management and the Vice President of Conn-ecticut Yankee. The revision consolidates and strengthens the corporate management supervision of plant operations by members of corporate manage-ment.
2.1.2 In Figure 6.2-2 the structure of internal plant management has alsb been changed to reduce the nunber of supervisors who report directly to the Station Superintendent. The new organization utilizes a Unit Superintendent,
)
who is responsible for production-type functions, and a Station Service Superintendent, who is responsible for Quality Assurance and safety-type functions, to give the Station Superintendent a staff which is easier to manage and relieves him of details that can be handled and resolved at a lower level.
.~ _
. However, lower level supervisors will have direct access to the Station Superintendent, and their membership on the Plant Operations Review Com-mittee, which reports directly to the Station Superintendent, will ensure that their positions on significant plant decisions are considered by plant management. Furthermore, the division of responsiblity into two
- parts, one of which is devoted entirely to production and the other to Quality Assurance and oversight functions, serves to ensure that radio-logical, safety, and Quality Assurance requirements will not be compromised by production demands. Overall, we conclude that these changes increase the effectiveness of the Station Superintendent in overseeing plant opera-tion.
2.1.3 In Section 6.5.1.2, the Security Supervisor has been added to the PORC.
This change strengthens the PORC by providing it with a member who has expertise and direct responsibility in the area of physical security.
It is therefore acceptable.
2.1.4 In Section 6.8.1 the licensee now intends to write and maintain procedures and administrative policies in accordance with the provisions of ANSI N18.7-1976 instead of ANSI N18.7-1972. On March 13, 1979 the NRC staff approved the licensee's topical report number NU-QA-1, Rev. 3A, which committed to make this change. We find it an acceptable modification.
~
2.1.5 The remainder of the revisions involve only changes in titles, and do not modify any reporting requirements or relationships. Because these changes are purely administrative and involve no safety considerations, they are acceptable.
2.1.6 The guidance used by us in detennining acceptability of the plant organization is contained in Regulatory Guide 1.33, Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Operation). The proposed organizational changes conform with the Regulatory Guide criteria. We have concluded that all of the above changes are adminis-trative in nature, do not reduce the effectiveness for the management or l
safe operation of the Haddam Neck Plan and are, therefore, acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
We have determined that the amendment does not authori:e a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insjgnificant from the standpoint of envirorcental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR s51.5(d)(4),
that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental imcact agoraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
l I
1
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based upon the considerations d.iscussed above, that:
(1) because the amencment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consecuences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a signifi-cant cecrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant h'a ards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assuran~ce that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the procosed manner, and (3) saca activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and tne issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of.the public.
Dated:
December 2, 1980
.