ML20010E339
| ML20010E339 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010E334 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109030361 | |
| Download: ML20010E339 (4) | |
Text
. _..
=
?,
UNITED STATES e
}
[,y j -c, [h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7, 4 's,$ / y f
2-WASHlf.G TON, D, C. 20S$3
I$
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 66 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-1 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC' COMPANY THE CITY OF EUGENE, GREGON PAC!FIC POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT j
DOCKET NO. 50-344 l
Introduction By letter d2ted July 16, 1931, Portland General Electric Company, et al.
(the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications alipenEed i
to Facility Operating License No. NPF-1 for operation of the Trojan Nuclear Plant in Columbia County, Oregon. The proposed changes are
[
administrative, as discussed and evaluated below.
Discussion and Evaluation.
1.
The licensee proposes a revision to the off-site (corporate) functional organization chart wherein the number of managers reporting to the Vice President Nuclear would be reduced froa.the present five to three. The General Manager-Trojan Nuclear Plant and the Manager-Nuclear Maintenance and Construct %n would now report to the Assistant Vice President Nuclear, who in turn would report to the Vice President I
Nuclear. The Manager-Nuclear Projects Quality Assurance would l
continue to report directly to the Vice President Nuclear.
The third manager reporting to the Vice President Nuclear is the new position L
of General Manager-Technical Functions to which the Manager, Generation l
Licensing and Analysis, the Manager-Nuclear Projects Engineering, and l
the Manager-Nuclear Projects Administration would now report. Other positions currently shown in the organization chart which are not i
involved with the cperation of Trojan have been deleted. The changes l
do not alter the reporting level of the QA manager, or the off-site corporate technical support for the Trojan Nuclear Plant.
The changes involve only an alteration in reporting responsibility.
We find these changes acceptable.
h 8109030361 8108207 PDR ADOCK 05000344 P
pg
. 2.
The changes to the en-site (facility) organization chart would add three ned supervisory positions:
a.
The licensee would add a Control and Electrical Supervisor reporting to the Maintenance Supervisor.
This new supervisor would be responsible for the supervision of the Instrument and Control Supervisor, the Electrical Foremen and technicians.
b.
The licensee 'culd add a Radaaste Supervisor reporting to the Radiation Protection Supervisor responsible for radioactive material control.
c.
Assistant Shif t Supervisors would be added, effective July 1, 1982.
These personnel would poss?ss NRC Senior Operator Licenses.
All of the above positions represent additional technical or coerational support for the operation of the facility and are acceptable.
With respect to the Assistant Shif t Supervisors, the addition of thesa personnel (and associated schedule) is consis;er' with NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements" item I.A.l.3, Shift Manning. Conforning changes to the Minimum Shif t Crew Composition (Table 6.2-1) have also been made as dis-Cussed with and agreed to by the licensee.
3.
The licensee proposes to correct a typographical error on Figure B 3/4.4-2, wherein one of the curves was incorrectly labeled.
This is acceptable.
4.
Tech. Spec 6.5.1.6 delineates the responsibilities of the Plant P.eview Board (PRB).
At present, the PRB is required to review changes to the securiv plan and the emergency plan (and implementing procedures) and to submit recomended changes to the Chairman of tne Nuclear Operations Board. The licensee proposes to delete the requirement to subnit the recocoended changes to the Ch arman of the Nuclear Operations Board (NO3). We find this change acceptable, based on the following:
a.
The 11nguage of this requirement, " submit recommended changes",
suggests that the NCB is the body which approves such changes.
This is not correct. Tech. Spec. 6.8, Procedures, requires such procedures to be reviewed by the PRB and approved by the Plant General Manager.
I b.
Reviewing in each case all changes to such documents - many of which are of minor safety importance - would serve to dilute the attention of the NGB from matters of greater importance to safety.
i l 1, c.
The NO3 already is required to review safety evaluations, proposed changes to procedures which involve unreviewed safety questions and reports and minutes of meetings of the PR3 such that they are generally informed of actions ta<en in these areas They are free, of course, to probe. tnese areas-in-more.
detail at any time as-part of' their oversighc responsibilities.
d.
The NO3'is required by Tech. Spec. 6.5.2.3, Audits, to conduct an audit of both the Security Plan and Emergency Plan, and l
implementing procedures for both, at least once per 24 months.
While discussing tnese changes with members of licensee's staff, l
an additionai cnange to the review procedures of the ?RS was also discussed.
The PR3 is required, uncer Tech. Spec. 6.5.1.7, to render i
determinations in writing as to whether or not certain items con-i stitute unreviewed safety questions. These-items involve (1) proce-dures, (2) proposed tests or' experiments, (3) proposed changes to Tech. Specs., (4) proposed changes or modifications to the plant, and (5) investigation of violations of Technical Specifications.
Items (1) through (4) above are required because, under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59, the licensee must make these determinations in y
order to assure that the regulation is followed. This does not apply logically to item (5) - violations.of Technical Specifications.
Therefore, the licensee has proposed that this requirement be dropped.
We agree. The intent of_ the specification, however, is being retained by adding the requirement that the PRS, in its investigation of Tech. Spec. violations, " include an assessment of the safety significance of ea:h violation". The licensee has agreed with this-change.
S.
The licensee proposes some minor revisions to the composition of I
the Nuclear Operations Board. The licensee proposes to change the Chairman to the General Manager Technical Functions from the Assistant Vice President Nuclear.
This change is acceptable since the Assistant Vice President Nuclear is now in the line organi-zation responsible for plant operation.
Shif ting the Chairmanship to the General Manager Technical Functions would preserve the independence from plant cperation for the chairman previously approved.
' The second change would revise the health physics member frcm
" Health Physicist" to " designated Health Physicist". This change is acceptable since no changes in the qualifications of this member are involved. The change would allow the licensee the flexibility to change the health physics member from time to time without a further license amendment.
l l
-Pt"
- v
-y=wr-m i W w w>v4 r w c e-e -e t w=sem =+ + w t - e -vn
+w wry w 's w e w,+r -- --*rce-ar w n W e s v,
v i-re-+,e--
9 -e e n y
ein-e+v.~,m
--+ ret-
- w t
+-
i-=e= =, -
--tr
-m-
_4-t,
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not resulc 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 CFP, 551.5(d)(c), that an environmental impact statenant or negative declara-ion and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed abov;, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant incccase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant ha:ards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by cperation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities sill be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to tne common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: August 20, 1931 l
l l
l l
l I
r l
L