ML19347F036
| ML19347F036 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347F032 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-43444, NUDOCS 8105150124 | |
| Download: ML19347F036 (4) | |
Text
'
I V
- 3 KICO
\\~ 'n UNITED STATES
!b NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 e
a.
'49.....,0 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 60 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-1 PORTL'AND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON PACIFIC POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-344
1.0 Background
Portland General Electric Company, iiig7em, submitted et al.
On May 12, 1980, Licent; Change Application (LCA) 61 (Ref. 1) request ission to insta)I two fuel assemblies with a maximum of three. stainless steel.
rods per assembly in the Trojan Nuclear Plant. This request was reviewed and approval (Ref. 2) was given for placement of the assemblies in two specific peripheral core locations for Cycle 3 operation. Approval for this change was based upon:
(1) review of the infomation provided by Portland General Electric Company in their May 12, 1980 submittal ;
(2) required surveillance; and (3) a report of the physics startup tests.
In October 1980 Portland General Electric Company submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission the report titled, " Cycle 3 Startup and Power Escalation Testing Report" (Ref. 4). The start-up test results showed two unexpected anomalies..First, the all-rods-cut boron concentration was measured to be 81 ppm above pre-diction.
Second, a quadrant power tilt was observed such that power in one quadrant was depressed and that in the adjacent quadrant was relatively high. The anomalies did not appear to be the result of the stainless steel rods.
A Westinghouse evaluation of the anomalies explained portions of the differences in tems of prediction errors. We discussed the startup report with the licensee and Westinghouse and requested additional infomation whictt was submitted on January 13, 1980 (Ref. 5).
This included an evaluation of shutdown margin for Cycle 3, revised predictions for Cycle 3 and changes to. improve pre-dictions of Cycle 4.
l l
8105150l70
s 2-2.0 Evaluation On February 5,1981 Portland General Electric submitted LCA 70 (Ref. 3) requesting permission to use the two stainless steel rodded fuel assemblies for two additional fuel cycles in the Trojan Nuclear Plant.
After reviewing this submittal we discussed tr.;s change request, the Cycle 3 startup report and the January 13th submittal with the licensee. We requested additional information including the final Cycle 4 design. This was provided in a letter dated March 20, 1981 (Ref. 6).
The Westinghouse predictions for Cycle 4 have incorporated all the changes used to produce the revised predictions for Cycle 3.
The predicted effect of the stainless steel rods on power peaking for Cycle 4 is small and has been accounted for in the design by the use of a full core modified discrete model.
The real con-firmation of the effect will be the measurements during the cycle startup tests.
Since measured power distributions will be compared with predicted power distributions every month, these com-parisons will be a good indicator of whether the core is operating as designed.
The physics startup test program inclu[ing the acceptance and review criteria and remedial actions was discussed thoroughly. The licensee committed to the same program as for Cycle 3 with all the same criteria except for that on the rod worth measurements for control banks A and B.
The criteria for these measurements will be based on previous measured vs predicted results. This is an acceptable * '
approach. This test program should also.be followed for-16e last fuel cycle in which these two fuel assemblies are used.
In order to approve LCA 70 we will require that a startup physics test report be submitted to the NRC within 45 days of completion of the tests.
We will also require the licensee to submit an update of the information included in LCA 70 in letter form prior to using the stainless s' teel rodded assemblies for a third cycle. A startup test report will also be required for the third cycle in whicn the stainless steel rodded assemblies are used. The licensee has agreed to these conditions, which are included in the license amendment authorizing the use of these fuel assemblies.
Based on our review of the predicted effects of the proposed d ange, the physics startup test report commitment and the comnitment for information when the assemblies are used for a third cycle, we find the change acceptable.
. Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in j
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 insignificant from 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 appraissl need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, tha,t:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously con.sidered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment 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: May 8, 1981
. 1 References I.
C. Goodwin, Jr. (PGE) letter to R. A. Clark (NRC) transmitting License Change Application 61 dated May 12, 1980.
2.
Amendment No. 45 to Facility License No. NPF-1 for Trojan Nuclear Plant dated June 27, 1980.
3.
B. Withers (PGE) letter to R. A. Clark (NRC) transmitting License Change Application 70 dated February 5,1981.
4.
Cycle 3 Startup and Power Escalation Testing Report, Trojan Nuclear Plant dated October 1980.
5.
B. Withers (PGE) letter to R. A. Clark (NRC) dated January 13, 1981.
6.
D. Broehl (PGE) letter to R. A. Clark (NRC) dated March 20, 1981.
4 h
Nb
-