ML19309F654
| ML19309F654 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/04/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309F649 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004300259 | |
| Download: ML19309F654 (2) | |
Text
,
Q p ancy[g UNITED STATES
.e.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8004300 y "';~e, g
WASHWGTON, D. C,20555 g3
.l
%...../
j SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF. NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.43 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-1 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON PACIFIC POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT DOCKET N0. 50-344 Introduction By letter dated April 1,1980, Portland General Electric Company (the licensee) requested amendment of Operating License NPF-1 for the Trojan Nuclear Plant.
The amendment would change the Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow a one-time two-day extension of the surveillance interval for control rod crop times.
4 Discussion and Evaluation Section 4.1.3.3 of the TSs requires that the rod drop time of the full-length control rods be demonstrated through measurement prior to reactor criticality at least once every 18 months.
Section 4.0.2 allows an extension of 25 percent of this surveillance interval, which requires that the surveillance be conducted on April 9, 1980.
The licensee has requested an additional two-day extension
/
until April 11, 1980.
In nrevious measurements, the individual full-length rod drop times from the fully The 'i kelihood of this i
withdrawn position have always been within the TS limit.
],
additional two-day extension affecting the' rod drop time is very low.
We, therefore, conclude that the proposed change would nave no significant effect on safety.
Environmental Consideration We have detemined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent, types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having nade this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant fra the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4 ), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not b'e prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment. >
l t
2.
Conclus;~;
We have concludea, based on the considerations discussed abcVe, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the anendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: April 4, 1980 f
4