ML18095A126

Issuance of Amendment No. 190 for Facility Operating License No. NPF-1 to Possession-Only License for the Trojan Nuclear Plant

ML18095A126
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	05/05/1993
From:	Masnik M Division of Operating Reactor Licensing
To:	Cross J Portland General Electric Co
References
TAC M85647 NUDOCS 9305170226
Download: ML18095A126 (21)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGlON O C. 20555 May 5, 1993 Docket No. 50-344 Mr. James[. Cross Vice Pres'dent and Chief Nuclear Officer Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204

SUBJECT:

ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENl NO. 190 FOR FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-1 10 POSSESSION-ONLY LICENSE FOR TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT (TAC NO. M85647)

The Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 190 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-1 for the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant. Thfs amendment is in response to your application of January 26, 1993.

This amendment modifies Facility Operating License No. NPF-1 to a possession-only license (POL). On March 30, 1993, H. Chernoff, of your staff, and I agreed that there is no need for Section C.(l) of License No. NPF-1 to specify that the rated r~actor core output is O megawatts (thermal). Therefore, this provision is not incorporated in the license.

I have enclosed (enclosure. 2) a recent staff requirements memorandum (SRM}

issued by the Commission on January 14, 1993, the Commission provided staff guidance on the handling of activities prior to the approval of the decommissioning plan at permanently shut dowr. power reactors such as the Trojan Nuclear Plant. Also enclosed (enclosure 3) is a copy of a letter to Yankee Atomic: from the NRC, dated March 29, 1993, which discusses the process tor approval of certain activities at the Yankee Nuclear Power Station.

1.1 OPJi) 9305170226 930505 .,. >,

PDR ADOCK 05000344 P PDR

James E. Cross May 5, 1993 A copy of our safety evaluation (enclosure 4) is also enclosed. Notice of ls:-,uance will be included in the Commission biweekly Federal Register Notice.

ORiCrN-\L SlGNW BY:

Michael T. Masnik, Senior Project Manager Non-Prwer Reactors and Decommissioning Prowect Direct0rate Livision of Operating Reactor Support Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Amendment No.198 to License No. NPF-1

2. Staff Requirements Memorandum

3. l.etter to Yankee Atomic

4. Safety Evaluation cc w/enclosures:

See next page DISTRIBUT IOtJ:

Docket file 50-344 EHyl ton W,Jones Region V PDRs MMasnik (Grimes IDi n itz, I LPB JPartlow OGC Arns {IO) ONDO r/f BGrimes DHagan OPA RDudley SWeiss GH i 11 ( 2) OC/LFDCB DNash, ILPB JKopeck, OPA HSmith Wlamb. ILPB LBell RWood

• PREVIOUSLY CONCUPRfD -* ., ..

'-/

I OtiP{)i: l,A* ONDO: PM* ONDO:SC* OGC* ONDD:D* O:blritt;.06

• BC}ayton MMasnik:dmj RDudl ey MYoun9 SWeis$

• 8Grimes 4/1/93 4/1/93 4/1/93 3/23/93 4/1/93 '4/1/93

~1, //3 OFFICIAL R[CORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: A: C**PAPER .MM (TROJAN Diskette)

James E. Cross .. 2 - May 5, 1993 A copy of our safety evaluation (enclosure 4) is also enclosed. Notice of Issuance will be included in the Commission biweekly Federal Register Notice.

Sincerely 1

.~ *".' I /'t, *1-1/' . I

/11.-1..(!(~-,* I //;;,..,:1.-i. k.-/l.

Michael T. Masnik, Senior Project Manager Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate Division of Operating Reactor Support

. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enc 1osuns:

l. Amendment No.19u to License No. NPF-1

2. Staff Requiremenb Memorandum 3, Letter to Yankee Atomic

4. Safety Evaluation cc w/enclosures:

See next pa<;JP

Mr. James E. Cross Trojan Nuclear Plant Portland General Electric Company Docket No. 50-344 cc:

Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trojan Nuclear Plant P. 0. Box 250 Rainier, Oregon 97048 Mr. Michael J. Sykes, Chairman Board of County Commi~sioners Columbia County

• St. Helens, Oregon 97501 Mr. David Stewart-Smith Oregon Department of Energy Salem, Oregon 97310 Regional Admi*nistrator, Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Mr. Tom Walt General Manager, Technical Functions Trojan Nuclear Plant 71760 Columbia River Highway Rainier, Oregon 97048 Mr. Lloyd K. Marbet 19142 S.E. Bakers Ferry Road Boring, Oregon 97009 Mr. Jerry Wilson Do It Yourself Committee 570 N. E. 53rd Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 Mr. Eugene Roso 1 i e Northwest Environmental Advocates 302 Haseltine Building 133 S.W. 2nd Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 PORTLAND GENERAL .ELFCTRIC COMPANY TH[c...l._LTY OF EUGENE, OREGON PAC.IF IC ..POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY*

DOCKll_NO. 50-344 lROJAN_ NUCLEAR Pi,NH FM.J.LITY_ OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 190 License N0. NPF-1

1. The U.S. Nuc"lear Re9ulator_y Commission (the Commission) has fo1111d that:

A. The application for license filed by PortlandGeneral Electric Company, the City of Eugene. Oregon, acting by and through the Eugene Water and Electric Board, and Pacific Power and Light Company* (the licensees), complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I and all required notifications to other agencies or bodies have been duly made; B. Construction of the Trojan Nuclear Plant (facility) has been substantially completed in conformity with Construction Permit No. CPPR-79 and the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act and the rules and regulations of the Commission:

C. The facility will be maintained in conformity with the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act. and the rules and regulations of the Commission; D. There is reasonable assurance: (i) th~t the activities authorized by this license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public; and (ii) ~~at such activities will he conducted in complianre with the ru]gs and regulations of the Commission:

• Pacific Power and Light Company, which has a 2.5 percent ownership interest in Trojan, h~s ~erged with Utah Power and light Company to become a new cofporation named PC/UP&L Merging Corporation, which will change its name to PacifiCorp, but will operate under the assumed business name of Pacific Power and Light Company.

9305170241 930505 PDR ADOCK 05000344 P - PDR

E. Portland General Electric Company is technically qualified and the licensees are financially qualified to engage in the activities authorizrd by this license in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Commissions:

F. The licensees have satisfied the applicable provisions of 10 CFR Part 140, "Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements," of the Commission regulations; G. The issuance of this license will riot be inimical, to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; H. After weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of the facility against environmental and other costs and considering available alternatives, the issuance of Facility Operating License No. NPF-1 set forth herein is in a,cordance with Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50, of the Commission regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied; and

1. The receipt, possession, and use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material as authorizeci by this license will be in accordance with the Commission regulations in 10 CFR Part 30, 40, and 70, including 10 .CFR Sections 30.33, 40.32, and 70.23 and 70.31.

2. Fa'ci1it.v Operating License No. NPF-1 is superseded 1n its entirety by Possession Only License (POL) No. NPF-1 hereby issued to the Portland General Electtic Companyd The City of Eugene, Oregon, and Paiific Power and Light Company to read as follows:

A. This license applies to the Trojan Nuclear Plant, a pressurized water nuclear reactor and associated equipment {the facility) owned by the licensees. The facility is located on Portland General Electric.

Company site on the west shore of the Columbia River in Columbia County, Oregon, and is described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, as supplemented and amended in accordance with 10 CFR 50.7l(e), and the Environmental Report as supplemented and amended (Supplements 1 through 3).

B. Subject to the conditions and requirements incorporated herein, the Commission hereby licenses: *

(1) Pursuant to Section 103 of the Act and 10 CFR Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," to possess, use, but not operate the facility at the designated location in Columbia County, Oregon in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in this license~

(2) Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR.Part 70, to possess at any time special nuclear material as reactor fuel, in accordance with the limitations for storage, as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report, as supplemented and amended;

- 3 .

(3) Pursuant lo the Act and 10 CFR' Parts 30. 40, and 70, to receive, posse'..s and u~e .1t any time any*byproduct, source, and special nuclear rnater1al as :;ealed neutron sources, sealed sources for reactor 1nstrun~ntat ion and radiation monitoring equipment cal1br*atio11. and a:; fission detectors in amounts as required; (4) Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70, to receive, possess and use ln amounts as required any byproduct. source, or special nuclear matPrial without restriction to chemical or physicil form, for ~;ample analysis or instrument calibration or as5oriated with radioactive apparatus or components;

( ~,) Pur~.,iarit t(i the /\ct and 10 crR Parts 30 and 70, to possess, but

,,ut :;.:-parati:. such llyprnd:.ict and special nuclear materials as ma}

bi, 11 1*,Hlu:.:Pd by U11: opPration~ of the facility.

C. ft11'., i ic'PnSt! :;hall tie d,~emt>d to contain and is subject to the c:ondi-t 1on'.-> ~µecifiPd in the following Commission regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I: Part 20. Section 30,34 of Part 30, Section 40.41 of

• Part 40, Section~ 50.54 and 50.59 of Part 50. and Section 70.32 of Part 70; and is subject to all applicable provisions of the Act and to the rules, reqt1Lltion:;, ,rnd orders of the Commission now or hereafter in effect: ana is subject to the additional conditions specified or in(orporat~d b~low:

( 1.1 Maximum_J'owe,* .. Lr!vel The 1icen5.eC> i~, riot authorized to operate the facility as a nuclear reactor.

, I

{2) Techni.cal_Spcc1ficalions The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amend*nent No. !9U, and the Environmental Protection .Plan cor1LainerJ in Appendix B, are hereby incorporated into this I iuJn:,P. Hw 1 icensee sha'll maintain the facility in accordance with the lPchnical Specifications and the Environmental Protcic: ti on Pl an.

( 3} S_per,_t_ Fue 1_.Poo !___ Modi fJ cation The 1 \censee is authorized to modify the spent fuel pool as deicrihed in the application dated August 1, 1983, and amended October 31, 1983.

I (4) (h!J1l.it_y.J1ssurance Activities to which a Quality Assurance Program is applicable shall, after the date of ~~sue of this license, be conducted in accordance with the NuclEar Quality Assurance Program.

r (5) The licensee may proceed with and is required to complete the modifications identified in Paragraphs 3.1.1 through 3.1.18 of the NRC Fire Protection Safety [valuation Report on the Trojan Nuclear Plant daled March 22, 1978. These modifications shall be completed by the end of the second refueling outage of the Trojan facility and prior to return to operation for Cycle 3. In addition, the licensee shall submit the additional information identified in Table 3.2 of this Safety Evaluation Report in accordance with the schedule contained therein. In the event these dates for submittal cannot be met, the licensee shall submit a report explaining the circumstances, together with a revised schedule.

(6) Primar_y Shielding__ Modification The i icensee is authorized to modify the primary shielding design as described in PG[ letter dated April 22, 1977, as supplemented and amended by letters dated September 22 and 23, 1977, December 22, 1977, January 4 and 24, 1978, March 20, and April 4, 1978.

(7) Spynt rue.*1 iissernbl_y_ St1iQpJpg_Cask The licensee shall not move a spent fuel assembly shipping cask into thP Fuel Building.

D. The licensee shall fully implement and maintain in effect all provi-sions of the Commission-approved physical security, guard training and qualification, and safeguards contingency plans including amendments made pursuant to provision of the Miscellaneous Amendments and Search Requirements to 10 CfR 73.55 (51 FR 27817 and 27822) and to the authority of 1*0 CFR 50.90 and 10 CFR 50.54(p). The plans, which contain Safeguards Information protected under 10 CFR 73.21, are entitled: "Trojan Nuclear Plant Security Plan", with revisions sub-mitted through October 7, 1988: "Trojan Nuclear Plant Security Force

~ai~ing and Qualification Plan", with revisions submitted through June 10, 1988; and "Trojan tJuclear Plant Safeguards Contingency Plan",

with revisions ~ubmitt.ed through October 7, 1988, Changes made .in accordancr with lG CFR 73.55 shall be implemented in accordance with the schedule set forth herein.

- 5 E. This license is effective as of the date of issuance and shall expire at midnight February 8, 2011.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATOR{ COMMISSION

');'_ -. ' LL I ,,(_.,.,... *I ~*-I'.'\. '...

• Brian K. Grimes, Director

--,'- _; "'***,\...* *,.

Division of Operating Reactor Support Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

Appendices A & B Technical Specifications Date of Issuanre: May :.1, 19:13

ENCl.DSURE 2 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WA.SHINGTON. D.C 10151 IN RESPONSE, PLEASE January 14, 1993 REFER TO: M921124 OFFICE OF T1-1E SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR: William c. Parler General Counsel James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations FROM: Samuel J. Chilk, Secretat. .

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - BRI G BY OGC ON REGULATOR, ISSUES ANO O I S FOR DECOMMISSIONING PROCEEDINGS (SECY-92-382),

10:00 A,M., TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1992, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)

The Com.mission was briefed by the Oftice ot the General Counsel*

un* the lessons learned from the Shoreham decommissioning effort and on the issues and options for handling the decommissioning of power reactors.

Based on this Commission briefing, the Commission has concluded that the staff should continue work on updating Regulatory Guide 1.86. The guidance should address what activities should be permitted prior to approval of a decommissioning plan and address, as well, the availability and use ot money from the licensee's decommissioning fund for activities normally associated with decommissioning before approval of the decommissioning plan. Before any generic decisions on the use of decommissioning funds are made, the staff and OGC should provide an analysis and recommendations to the Commission on permitting licensees to use their decommissioning funds for decommissioning activities prior t~ approva~ of the decommissioning plans.

Pending final action by the Commission on SEC'i..;.92-382, on a case-by-case basis, the staff may implement the following approach with regard to evaluating what activities should be allowed prior to approval of a decommissioning plan:

1. After permanent shutdown of a facility, 10 CFR 50.59 should be applied on the basis of an assumption that the facility will not resume operation, provided that a possession-only-license (POL), a confirmatory shutdown

/ ,( */ ,~rl I

+( .>:) f r:*:-,,:_.,l)).:*/t:, T* * *-

order, or other legally binding instrument to remove the authorization to operate has been issued by the agency for such facility.

2. Notwithstanding the Commission's statements in footnote 3 of CLI-90-0B and the Statements of Consideration for the decommissioning rules at 53 Federal Register 24025-26, lice11sees should be allowed to undertake any decommissioning activity (as the term "decommillsion" is defined in 10 CFR 50,2) that does not -- {a) foreclose the release of the site tor possible unrestricted use, (b) significantly increase decommissioning costs, (c) cause any significant environmental impact not previously re.viewed, or (d) violate the terms of the licensee's existing license (e.g., OL, POL, OL with confirmatory shutdown order etc.) or* 10 CFR 50.59 as applied to the existing license.

3. The staff may penoit licensees to use their decommissioning funds for the decommissioning activities permitted above (as the term "decommission" is defined in 10 CFR 50.2), notwithstanding the fact that their decommissioning plans have not yet been approved by the NRC.

These and the remaining items associated with SECY-92-382 will be addressed by the Commissioners in their vote sheets on th* SECY paper and in the subsequent staff requirements memorandum.

cc: The Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque OIG R gi'ons AcRS, ACNW (via E-Mail)

Office Directors, e '

OP, SDBU/CR, ASLBP (via FAX)

PDR - Advance DCS - Pl-24 .

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ENCLOSURE 3 WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20555 March 29, 1993 Docket No.50-029 Dr. Andrew C. Kadak, President and Chief Executive Officer Yankee Atomic Electric Company 580 Hain Street Bolton, Massachusetts 01740-1398

SUBJECT:

ACTIVITIES PRIOR TO DECOMMISSIONING PLAN-APPROVAL I have enclosed the staff requirements memorandum {SRM} issued by the Commission on January 14, 1993, in response to a staff briefing on the lessons learned from the Shoreham decommissioning effort. In the SRM, the ColMlission gave the staff guidance on the handling of activities prior to approval of the decommissioning plan at permanently shut down power reactors such as the Yankee Nuclear Power Station.

The Commission guidance provided the staff with several criteria. First, 1t indicated that the NRC must have removed the authorization to operate the facility by issuance of a legally binding instrument, such as a Possession Only License or confirmatory shutdown order, 10 CFR 50.59 could then be applied on the basis that the facility will not resume operation. Second, licensees should be allowed to undertake any decommissioning activity that does not: (a) foreclose the release of the site for possible unrestricted use; (b) significantly increase deconvnissioning costs; (c) cause any significant environmental impact not previously evaluated; or (d) violate the terms of the existing facility license.

Please submit your evaluation of how Yankee will meet items {b} and (c) above so that the NRC can be assured of compliance with the Commission guidance.

Your letters of January 12 and March 5, 1993, provide information relating to items {a) and (b) along with other information previously requested. In addition, please describe the manner in which you intend to implement the 50.59 process in the permanently shut down condition. This should include the manner in which you_plan to treat fire and earthquake hazards. With respect to the above criteria, please describe how your process for c~ange approval will ensure continuing compliance with the above criteria.

The final criterion of.the SRH authorizes the NRC st.1ff to permit licensees to use decommissioning funds to pay for permitted decommissioning activities conducted before the NRC approves the decommissioning plan. Your March 5 letter discusses use of these funds and indicates that these early decommissioning activities may be accomplished and the facility restored to a secure condition for storage within the funds available. This letter is under staff review.

• Dr. Andrew C. Kadak The NRC will inform you, in writing, when we have completed our review of your information showing how Yankee meets the above criteria as applicable to the activities you propose.

• Although you are not required to first obtain NRC approval of 10 CFR 50.59 plant modifications, the NRC will periodically review your 10 CFR 50.59 safety analyses. Therefore, please inform the NRC project manager for Yankee whenever you complete a 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation for removing components such as steam generators, the pressurizer, reactor vessel internals, or any other similar large component. A projected schedule for characterization and removal of large components would also be useful fn planning our inspection resources.

Once you have made a decision on what activities you propose to conduct prior to approval of a decommissioning plan and have provided the information requested by this letter, we plan to meet with your staff near the sfte to discuss these matters. The meeting will be open to public observation. In conjunction with this technical meeting, the NRC staff will conduct an evening session to receive comments from the public.

Sincerely, Thomas *E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As noted cc w/enclosure:

See next page

ENCLOSURE 4 SAFElY EVALUATION BY THE orFIC[ OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULf -*1N SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 190 TO POSSESSION-ONLY LICENSE NO. NPF-1 TROJAN NUCLlAR PLANT DOCK[l NO. 50-344 9305170244 930505 PDR ADOCK 05000344 P PDR

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON I) C 20555 SAFETY_ EV.I\LUA1_I_ON BY 1Hl_ OfF!Cl_OF__ NUCLEAR __ REAC10R REGULA]ION SUPPORTING_AMENDM[NT NO._l90 TO POSSESSlON~ONLY_LICENS~ NO. NPF-1 TROJAN_l:UCL[AR PLANT OOCK_E-:- NO. 50-344 l.O lNTRODUCTION _AND BACKGROUND On January 4, 1993, the directors of Portland General Electric Company (PGE or the 1 icensee) voted to accept t.he recornmendat ion b;* the PG[ management to permanently cease power operations at the Trojan Nuclear Plant. lhe facility had been shut down since November 9, 1992, when a leak in the "B" steam I

generator was detected. PGE r,.,,.,an defueling the reactor on January 23, 1993, I

I - and completed the movement of I fuel elements t~ the spent fuel pool on I

I January 27, 1993. By letter dated February 17, 1993, the licensee certified that it would not move fuel back into the containment building at Trojan without prior NRC approval. Since the vote on January 4, 1993, PG[ has entered the proce~s of decommissioning the facility. On January 27, 1993, the licensee submitted a request to amend the Trojan Nuclear Plant Operating License No. NPF-1 to a POL, allowing the licensee to possess and maintain, but not operate, the facility. Consistent with the current public notice requirements for license amendments in 10 CFR 50.91, the NRC published a notice of the proposed amendment in the Fe_deul Register on March 25, 1993, (58 FR 16228). The NRC received no comments or requests for hearing.

2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALU8IJON As noted in Section 1.0, tnE! rr.actor has been defueled and the core has been stored in the fuel pool. The ?-ortland General Electric Company (PGE or the licensee) letter of Januar} 27, 1993, requested changes to the Trojan Nuclear Plant Facility Operating License No. NPF-1 that would permit the licensee to maintain and possess, but not operate, the facility. The requested changes to the license are consistent with the defueled condition of the reactor and the licensee commitment to permanently cease power operations at the facility.

The staff safety evaluation of the requested license changes appears below.

The staff has determined that the accident consequences for the defueled condition are significantly reduced when compared to design-basis accidents that would '.;)revail for power operation.

The probability of previously analyzed design-basis accidents occurring, with the plant in a defueled condition, has been significantly reduced for the following reasons: (l) the facility is in a non-operating condition and the entire core is in the fuel pool; (2) the consequences of credible fuel pool accidents, which are analyzed in Section 15.7.4 of the FSAR, would be unchanged by the POL issuance; and (3) there is reasonable Jssurance that the

common defense and security and the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by the proposed defueled, non-operating state of the reactor.

The licensee letter of January 27, 1993, proposes a number of modifications to the operating license in order to convert it to a possession-only license.

The staff has reviewed the proposed changes and has determined that they are acceptable for the non-operating, defueled condition of the facility. The changes permit the licensee to ;naintain and possess the facility, but not to operate it. Several of the changes to the license pertain to tests, limits, analyses, or modif!cations imposed upon the licensee al the time the operating license was issued. These tests, limits, analyses, or modifications have been completed; however, the requir~ment was not removed from the license. These requirements also do not apply to the facility in the non-operating, defueled condition. The licensee proposes to administratively delete these requirements. The staff evaluation of the licensee's proposed changes to Facility Operating License No. NPF-1 follows:

(1) Change Paragraph 1.C. by replc.cing the phrase "facility will operate" with the phrase "facility will be maintained".

Evaluation: This change preclude~ the licensee from operating the facility, but requires the facility to be maintained in conformance with the Atomic Energy Act and NRC regulations. The staff finds this change acceptable to reflect the non-operating, defueled condition of the facility.

(2) Change Paragraph l .D. by deleting the word "operating" from the phrase "operating license".

Evaluation: This change removes the implication that the licensee. is authorized to operate the facility. The staff finds this change acceptable, considering the non-operating, defueled condition of the facility.

{3) Change Paragraph l.E. by deleting the word "operating" from the phrase "operating license".

Evaluation: This change removes the implication that the licensee is authorized to operate the facility. The staff finds this change acceptable, considering the non-operating, defueled condition of the facility.

(4) Change Paragraph 1 .G. by deleting the word "operating" from the phrase "operating license".

Evaluation: This change removes the implication that the licensee is authorized to operate the facility. The staff finds this change acceptable, considering the non-operating, defueled condition of the facility.

0

(5) Change Paragraph 2. by inserting the phrase "superseded in its entirety by Possession Only License (POL) No. NPF-1" after the phrase "Facility Operating License No. NPF-1 is".

Evaluation: This administrative change further defines the license as a possession only license. Th~ staff finds this change acceptable.

(6) Change Paragraph 2.B.(l) by replacing the phrase "use, and" with the phrase "use, but not". lhe phrase would read IJto possess, use, but not operate, the facility".

Evaluation: This change eliminates the reference to facility operation.

The staff finds this change acceptable considering the non-operating defueled condition of the facility.

(7) Change Paragraph 2.8.(2) by replacing the phrase "to receive, possess and use at any time" with the phrase "to possess at any time" and deleting the phrase "amounts required for reactor operation, as".

Evaluation: 1he first change eliminates the licensee authority to receive and use special nuclear material; it does however, allow the licensee to possess the special nuclear material already in its possession. The second change also deletes reference to reactor operations. The staff finds these changes acceptable, considering the non-operating, defueled condition of the facility.

(8) Change Paragraph 2.8. (3) by deleting the phrase "for reactor startup" and replacing the phrase "sealed source" with the phrase "sealed sources".

Evaluation: The first change removes. reference to reactor startup as a use for sealed neutron sources and the second change corrects a typographical error. Since the licensee no longer plans to operate the facility, the reference lo a startup source is no longer needed. The staff finds these changes acceptable.

(9) Change Paragraph C.(l) Maximum Power Level by deleting the entire paragraph and replacing it with the following paragraph:

(l) Maxim~l!L.Po~er Level The licensee i~ not authcirized to operate the facility as a nuclear reactor.

Evaluati~n: This change removes the licensed authority to operate the facility at any power level. The staff finds the change acceptable.

lhe licensee also requested that an additional sentence be added to this section; "The rated reactor core output is O megawatts (thermal)." On March 30, 1993, H. Chernoff, of your staff, and I agreed that there is no need for Section C.(l) of License No. NPF-1 *to specify that the rated reactor core output is O megawatts (thermal). Therefore, this provision is not Incorporated in the license.

- 4 ..

(10) Change Paragraph C.(2) lechnical _Spycifications by referencing this Amendment, No. 190, and by replacing the phrase "shall operate" with "shall maintain".

Evaluation: lhe first change is acceptable to appropriately identify this amendment. The second change removes the implication that the licensee is auth~rized to operate the facility and replaces it with the requirement to maintain the facility. The staff finds this change acceptable, considering the non-operating, defueled condition of the facility.

(JI) Change Paragraph C. (3) Le~,'.; __ than_Jour LooJ) Opgration by deleting the~

entire paragraph.

[valuation: This paragraph limited reactor µower levels when fewer than four reactor coolant loops were in operation. Since Change 9 (above) modifies Paragraph C. (I) by prohibiting reactor power operations at any level, the need for limits on less than four-loop operation is eliminated. lherefore, this riaragraph can be deleted. The staff finds this change acceptable.

(12) Change Paragraph C.(4) R(?port on_Vihration_lests by deleting thP entire paragraph.

Evaluation: This paragraph required the licensee to ~ubmit a report on the preoperational vibration test of the reactor internals. This requirement has been satisfied and is not relevant to the facility in its current non-operating defueled condition. Removal of this requirement is an administrative change that removes a requirement from the license that i5 no 1onger applicable. The staff finds this changf! acceptable.

(13) Change Paragraph C. (5) EfP...L!~~mf_nt of Certain Relays. by deleting the entire paragraph.

Evaluation: This paragraph required the replacement of certain relays within the facility by a certain date. The work was completed to the satisfaction of Lhe NRC. Removal of this paragraph deletes a requirement from the license that is no longer applicable. The staff finds this change acceptable.

(14) Change Paragraph C.(6) Spent fuel Pool Modification to become Paragraph C. (3) by deleting the entire paragraph and replacing it with the following paragraph:

The licensee is authorized to modify the spent fuel pool as described in the application dated August l; 1983, and amendPd October 31, 1983.

Evaluation: This paragraph pertained to spent fuel storage requirements prior to commencing work on the modified spent fuel rack design performed in accordance with submittals dated August land October 31, 1983. Since this work has been completed, these requirements that predate the

modification no longer are applicable to the facility. Therefore, the licensee proposes that the~e requirements be deleted. The staff finds this change acceptable.

(15) Change Paragraph C.(7) Q.yality Assurance to become Paragraph C.(4) by replacing the phrase "Ei.cept for the installation of the hangerst restraints and snubbers identified in item A.l of Enclosure 1 to this licenset which may be completed in accordance with the Quality Assurance Program for Construction, all activities" with the word ~Activities".

Evaluation: The deleted text pertains to the Quality Assurance Program for Construction, specifically tu requirements for the installation of .

certain hangers, restraints, and snubbers. The hangers, restraints, and snubbers have been installed and this requirement is no longer applicable to the facility. The staff finds this change acceptable.

(16) Change Paragraph C.(8) to become Paragraph C.(5).

Evaluation: The change only involves changing the alphanumerical identification of the section to compensate fo1 sections that haie been deleted. This change removes extraneous material from the license. The staff finds the change acceptable.

(17) Change Paragraph C.(9) Prim~ry Shielding ModificatioQ lo become Paragraph C. (6).

Evaluation: The change only involves changing the alphanumerical identification of the section to compensate for sections that have been deleted. This removes extraneous material from the license. The staff finds the change acceptable.

(18) .Paragraphs 2.C.(10) through 2.C(I5) have been deleted.

Evaluation: Paragraphs 2.C(lO) through 2.C(lS) have been deleted by previous license amendments. The previous license amendments did not delete the alphanumeric identification of the section. This chahge removes extraneous material from the license. The staff finds the change acceptable.

(19) Change Paragraph C.(16) to become Paragraph C.(7).

Evaluation: The change only involves changing the alphanumerical identification of the section to compensate for sections that have been deleted. This change removes extraneous material from the license. The staff finds the change acceptable.

6 -

(20) Chan9e t.hP l i~L of enclo~*.ure:, at t.he end of Uw license by deleting the text. associated wi t.h [nc 1nsurr. J.

[valuation: "Tile reference is to [nclosurn l, entitled "Incomplete Preoµerational Tesh. Startup Tests and Other Items Which Must Be Completed". Change 17 (below) deletes in it~ entirety all the requiremen1.s in Enclosure 1. therefore reference to Enclosure 1 in the

• , icense is 110 longer nC'eded. lhe staff finds this change acceptable.

(21) Chansic* [nclo',lll"e 1 to Licew;P No. tlPF*-1 by delPting the entire enclosure.

lvaluat.ion: lnclo*;ure 1 con*;isted of a list of incomplete preoperational te,t:;, sLH"t.up tr~:,t:;, ar:d other requirements for operation. Since the lL.,t.s hdvc hL*c~n completed and I.he licensee does not plan to continue op.,,*,it ion at Uw facility, this s£iclion is no longer applicable to Trojan and can be deleted. 1hr staff finds this change acceptable.

On thi'., ba'.;is. t.he staff conclude~ that the changes requested by the licensee, to anu.*nd t.hP opera! inlJ lic,~n!,': tor the facility to a posses!;ion-only license,

,ire accepLibl1.!.

3.0 Sl/'i."IT_ COW.iULJI\T JOrJ In accordanui with thl' Commi~'.-,ion requlations, the St.ate of Oregon official was not.ifird of the proposed 1s\ua11c~ of the amendment. The State official had no comment.

4.0 ENVIRONM[NTAL_[OHSJD[RAT!ON lite anH!ndrnent chanqes requi-re111ents with respect to installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. lhe NRC st.a ff ha~ determined that the amendment involves no*

significant increa:.P in tla> amounts, and no significant chang£! in the types, of any effluent~ that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increa!,P in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. 1he (ommi'.i~-*ion has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment in~*olvF.:'., no si~Jnificant hazards con~,ideration, and there has been no public comment. on such finding (58 FR 16228). Accordingly, the amendment meets t.he eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion given in 10 CFR 51.~'2(c)(9). Pui*:,uant to 10 c'FR :il.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental a~:e$~ment need be prepared in connection with issuance of the arnendrnr!n t..

5.0 CONCLUSIOII 1he Commis~,iori ha:; concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (I) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public wi 11 not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activitie~ will bf~ conducted in compliance with the Commission regulation~.

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 p~blic.

Principal Contributor: Michael l. Masnik Date: May '-', 1:~su