ML20005B850
| ML20005B850 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1981 |
| From: | Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Withers B PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005B851 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109020368 | |
| Download: ML20005B850 (7) | |
Text
-_
l.
l 4)cs Ms-o k
- \\
AUG 2 51981 s
7 Docket no. 0-344 x
4 i
k,h \\
g I
Sq' o 6 6N Mr. Bart D. Withers Vice President Nuclear P(s S # M,#
l Portland General Electric Company S
5 c
121 S.W. Salnon Street fp f
Portland, Oregon 97204
'e ' t.gb e \\ @, i \\
l
Dear Mr. Withers:
~
l The Cone'ssion has issued the enclosed Amendo.ent No.4 7 to' Facility Operating License No. NPF-1 for Trnjan Nuclear Plant. The amenanent l
consists of changes to the license and Technical Specifications in j
response to your applications dated July 13 and 27,1981.
1 The amendnent deletes license conditions related to interim operation l
of the facility and to the Control Building nodification program and updates the Design Features section of the Technical Specifications j
to describe the nodified structure.
On July 25, 1980, pursuant to the Initial Decision dated July 11, 1980 i
of the Comission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, we issued i
Amendment No. 47 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-1 for the Trojan l
Huclear Plant. The amendoent consisted of license conditions and i
Technical Specification changes related to the Control Building modi-I fication progran. The amendnent authorized nodifications to the Control Building to substantially restore the orginally intended seismic design j
nargins and required that the nodification program be conpleted by not later than July' 25,1981,12 months from the date of the amendment.
l
[
In addition, the amendment added a license condition containicg 22 provisions ralated to the conduct of the modification progran (license t
paragraph 2.C.(12)), and 2 new Technical Specifications applicable to the nodified Control-Auxiliary-Fuel Building complex.
By letter dated July 27, 1981, ye'J reported thr,t the originally intended -
seismic design nargins have been substantially restored by the comple-tion of the modifications to the Trojan Contre.1 Building authorized i
by Arendment No. 47.
In addition, you requested that license conditions I -
2.C.(10) and 2.C.(12) be deleted from tM facility license. Region V of the HRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement has found that the Control Cuilding rodifications have been completed.
8109020368 810825 '
(
PDR ADOCK 05000344 P
PDR omce >
~ ~..- ~.~~~. --
~ -... -
..... -. ~......
sua m e>
l
- -. - - -. - -. - ~. ~ -
- -.. ~....~..
............ ~......
- -. - -. ~.. - -..
o we >
unc ronu m po-aoi nncu ma -
OFFICIAL RECORO COPY umam-mm
- ~ _ _. -
. _ ~ _ _ _ - _.---
Q f
i t
' i a
i l
As stated above, l' cense condition 2.C.(12) authorized and required j
that the mdification progran be conpleted withir 12 nonths, and con-tained limitations and precautions to be followed during the course
(
of the no<iifications. Since the modifications have been completed, license condition 2.C.(12) has served its purpose and is no longer needed. Accordingly, it is acceptab17 to remove it fror your license, i
as requested.
t i
License condition 2.C.(10) authorized interim operation, with res+ric-tions, pending completion of the moif fication program. By the tems of Ifcense condition 2.C.(12), the interim operation license condition 2.C.(10) was to be cancelled upon completion of the modt fication progran.
Since this prograa is now complete. license condition 2.C.(10) has therefore been cancelled, and it is acceptable to administratively recove it from the facility license.
The final iten addressed in the enclosed amendment concerns an update l
to the Design Features section of the Technical Specifications which defines the manner in which the complex, as now r'odified,' has been i
designed and is to be maintained.
Pursuant to our representation to the Board in our July 24, 1980 notion for clarification and to the Board's August 27, 1980 Order clarifying l
its Initial Decision, you were requested by our letter of November 4, 1980 to prepare and submit an amendnent to the FSAR which describes for the Control-Auxiliary-Fuel Building Cunplex the design of the i
nodified Complex, the analytical nethods, acceptance criteria and l~
licensee comnitments contained in the following documents:
Licensee's letters dated February 28, I! arch 78, June 22, i
June 29 July 5, 6 and 10, August 13, September 5 and 26, i
November 21, December 17, 21 and 22,1979, and January 28, February 13 and 21, and March 5, 6,17, 20, 21 and 27,1980; j
testimony filed by Licensee on liarch 17, 1980; Licensee's answers of April 2 and 14,1980, to NRC Staff questions; i
" Licensee's Responses to Interrogatories Dated August 27, 1979 From the State of Oregon" dated September 17, 1979, I
and PGE-1020, as revised througF Revision No. 4.
I i
l l
l 1-l
(
omer>
.u-o oan >
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usom an-mm rme ronu us poencu om
W 5
- i Provi;
- nns of these documents which were superseded in later documents 3
or which relate to the construction process were not to be included 4
in the anended FSAR. We also stated that efter your amending of the FSAP, we woulJ issue a revision to Technical Specification 5.7.2.1 to require that. the Complex he designed and maintained to the design provisions contained in the amended FSAR sectien(s).
By letter dated May 29, 1981, you submitted a proposed update for the Tro.jan FSAR, and, by letter dated July 13, 1981, the femal revised i
(SAR pages (FSAR Amendent 34) were submitted which refircted our l
conrents on the l'ay 29 version.
i We have reviewed the revised FSAR pages and new sections describing i
the modified complex and have concluded that they accurately describe and contain the critica' elements of the design of the rnodified complex, acceptance criteria, ant.lytical techniques and licensee cormitments contained in the documents cited above and relied upon by the Licensing Board and the NRC staff at the evidentary hearing. Accordingly, we find the proposed Technical Specification change, which references this FSAR anendnent, to be acceptable.
l We have evaluated the potential for enviranmental impact of plant operation in accordance with the enclosed amendnent and have deter-nined that the amendrent does not authorize a change in effluent types or totel amounts nor an ine.rease in power level, and will not result in any significant environmental inpact. !!aving nade this determination, we have further concluded that the anon &ent involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environnental j
frpact and pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4) that an environmental i
innact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisa' need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this anandm nt.
t The deletion of the two license conditions by this license anendment simply reflects that these conditions have been satisfied according to their own tems. Accordingly, this deletion is simply an admini-strativa natter which does not involve a significant hazards c.onsidera-tion. The technical specification changes brought about by this license I
I l
l l
l l
l oma) l sunucur>
l ocn )
anc rom m oo-em meu cao OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usaro-i,si-33>,eo
.~,- - -.- -
g w
. amendment merely reflect the details of the licensee's design retnods and cormitments already considered in the hearing and do not, of them-selves, involve significant hazards considerations. Accordingly, we have detemined that this license anendment does not involve a signi-ficant hazards consideration. He have also concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the health and safet;y of the public will not be endangered by this action.
A copy of the flotice of Issuance is also enclosed.
Sincerely, Orig;ral signed by:
LLC 4L.
Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
A. endmnt flo. G 7 to HPF-1 1.
m 2.
Notice of Issuance cc: w/ enclosures See next page Distribution Docket File 50-344 CMiles NRC PDR RDiggs Local PDR J Wetmore TERA ACRS (10)
NSIC RClark ORB #3 Reading PKreutzer(3)
DEisenhut CTrammell j
OELD Chairman, ASLAB i
I&E (4)
RBa11ard BScharf (10)
GDeegan (4) omer >
sunucue) omy OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usa m i.,i_ m m NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM Cao
r ws n.
I We have reviewed the revised FSAR p3ges and new sections describing the nodified complex and have concluded that they accurately describe and contain the critical elements of the design of the modified complex, acceptance criteria, analytical techniques and licensee commitments contained in the documents cited above and relied upon by the Licensing Board and the NRC staff at the evidentary hearing. Accordingly, we find the proposed Technical Specification change, which references this FSAR amendment, to be acceptable.
We have evaluated the pote:ntial for environmental impact of plant operation in accordance with the enclosed amendment and have ceter-mined 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 inpact. Having nade this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action whico is insignificant from the standpoint of enviranmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4) that an environmental inpact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Since the amendment applies only to adninistrative natters as dis.
cussed above, it does not involve significant new safety information af a type not considered by a previous Commission safety raview of the f acili ty.
It dces not involve a significant increase in the. crobability or consequences of ar accident, does not involve a significant decrease in a safety nargin, and therefore does not involve a significant hazards consideration. We have also concluded that therc is a reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public wil', not be endangered by this action.
A copy of the Motice of Issuance is also enclosed.
Sincerely, Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
j/
1.
Amendment No.
to HPF-1 abc[,M, d
4 2.
Notice of Issuance 4
cc: w/ enclosures See next p4(e
- See previous page for concurrence.
4
. @(A6 b
. q d C ark (. h b.... M. 5s..
.( dBhN*
EP.M ORBM3:DL*
Tffdovak
- * - > PMKreutzer ramme11/pn KHerring
'~
8 1
8/11/81 8/ sW5I A
87If7E om >li 8/10/81
"*3
- - 3 ~
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY acro mo somuc" *m
9 ry w
-,~q h
J.
W"
. We have reviewed the revised FSAR pages and new sections describing the noa.fied complex and have concluded that they accurately describe and contain the critical elements of the design of the nodified conlex, acceptance criteria, analytical techniques and licensee commitnents contained ir. the documents cited a'.,oi,e and relied upon by the Licensing Board and the NRC staff at the evidentary hearing. Accordingly, we find the proposed Technical Specification change, which references this FSAR anendment, to be acceptable.
We have evaluated the potential for environnental impact of plant operation in accordance with the enclosed amendnent and have deter-nined 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 detemination, we have further concluded that the anendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environnental inpact and pursuant to 10 CFR $51.5(d)(4) that an environmental inpact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Since the amendnent applies only to administrative matters as dis-cussed above, it does not involve significant new safety information of a type not considered by a previous Connission safety review of the facility.
It does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident, does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, and thuefore does nnt involve a significant hazards consideration. We have also concluded that tNre is a reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered oy t'11s action.
A copy of the Hotice of Issuance is also enclosed.
Sincerely, Charles M. Tranne11 III Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
1.
Amendment No.
to HPF-1 2.
Notice of Issuance omcc h h/enclosur'es R
DL SEPB h ORB #3:DL AD:0R:DL OELD c:
,_,>N$$%r '$dNM T s1Y/pn M FH 6g YAt TaFR""
MN"
~
~
si del" "'
"s/v/sr W"/ar
'gr" 781" 8/""/81" e/""/81"
.l N " c ' o " " 3 ' 8 * "" @ =
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY e o * -3 7
Portland General Electric Company cc: Multnomah County Library Social Science and Science Department 801 S.W. 10th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97205 Michael Malmros, Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trojan Nuclear Plant P. O. Box 0 i
Rainier, Oregon 97048 Robert M. Hunt, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Columbia County St. Helens, Oregon 97501 cc w/ enclosure (s) and incoming dated: 7/13/81, 7/27/81 Donald W. Godard, Supervisor Siting and Regulation Oregon Department of Energy Labor and Industries Building Room 111 Salem, Oegon 97310
_- -.. - _ _ _,.. - -., ~. - _., -. - - - _. -, _