ML20036C023
| ML20036C023 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1993 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-93-093, SECY-93-093-01, SECY-93-93, SECY-93-93-1, NUDOCS 9306080332 | |
| Download: ML20036C023 (20) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l RELEASED TO THE PDR-ga Rf g
,ff 1%,
................f.als fJate f
....c y
g rj
\\...../
POLICY ISSUE April 9, 1993 (Notation Vote)
EQB:
The Commissioners I
FROM:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations l
SUBJECT:
TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT POSSESSION-0NLY LICENSE AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To request Commission approval for issuance of the Trojan Nuclear Plant possession-only license (POL) amendment.
l BACKGROUND:
In the final staff requirements memorandum (SRM) of May 20, 1991, in response to SECY 90-421, " Decommissioning Criteria for Fort St. Vrain as a Prematurely Shutdown Plant," the Commission stated that it will continue to review staff actions for each request for a POL proposed for prematurely shutdown plants on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, the staff recommendation and basis for issuing the Trojan POL follow.
DISCUSSION:
On January 4,1993, the Directors of Portland General Electric Company (PGE or the licensee) voted to accept the recommendation by the PGE management to permanently cease power operations at the Trojan Nuclear Plant.
The facility-had been shut down since November 9, 1992, when a leak in the "B" steam t
generator was detected.
PGE began defueling the reactor on January 23, 1993, and completed the movement of all fuel elements to the spent fuel pool on l
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, PGE has NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE WHEN THE FINAL SRM IS MADE
^
CONTACT:
M. Masnik, ONDD/NRR g!
504-1191 9306080332 930409
()k PDR SECY 93-093 PDR p\\
The Commissioners entered into the process 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 P0L, allowing the licensee to possess and maintain, but not operate, the facility. The application also proposed confirmatory amendments to other license conditions to reflect the permanent shutdown of the facility, as well as minor changes to delete conditions which were previously satisfied and are no longer operative.
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 Federal Reaister on March 25, 1993, (58 FR 16228).
The NRC received no comments or requests for.
hearing. The staff reviewed the PGE application for a POL and concluded that it should be granted because the application meets the NRC requirements and.is consistent with current Commission policy.
I have enclosed the proposed POL for the Trojan Nuclear Plant and the staff safety evaluation report supporting its issuance.
On March 24, 1993, the NRC staff issued a Confirmatory Order to confirm the commitment made on February 17, 1993, by PGE not to place fuel back.into the reactor containment building.
The issuance of either the Confirmatory Order or this proposed POL would allow the licensee substantial additional flexibility regarding maintenance of radioactive systems and components at the plant.
It would permit dismantling of components if the licensee complies with current Commission guidance, as provided in the January 14, 1993 staff requirements memorandum, and license conditions and regulations applicable to the shutdown condition.
This may allow the licensee to dismantle radioactive portions of the facility or otherwise modify the facility so that it would no longer be capable of resuming operation in the future.
Similarly, subsequent amendments to the license to remove Technical Specification requirements that are not necessary for the shutdown condition of the plant may also permit the licensee to take actions affecting the capability of the plant to operate.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission approve the issuance of the Trojan Nuclear Plant POL in accordance with the enclosed proposed license amendment package.
COORDINATION:
The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this Commission paper and has no legal objection to its contents.
J
.e s
. T ' lor i
xecutive irector for Operations
Enclosures:
l 1.
Proposed POL Amendment 2.
Safety Evaluation l
e
. 1.
Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly I
to the Office of the Secretary by COB Friday, April 23, 1993.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitteds to the Commissioners NLT Friday, April 16, 1993, with_an infor-mation copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the1 paper is of such a nature that it requires additional review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OCAA OIG OPA OPP REGION V EDO SECY r
e 5
t
)
i I
j no49
'f UNITED STATES 1
n JE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
~#
l-WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666 ~
?
B Docket No. 50-344 Mr. James E. Cross Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W. Jalmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204
Dear Mr. Cross:
SUBJECT:
ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT NO.
FOR FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE-dC M 64 The Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment No, to Facility Operating License No. NPF-1 for the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant.
This amendment is.in.
response to your application of January 26, 1993.
1 This amendment modifies Facility Operating License'No. NPF-1.to a possession-N only license (POL). On March 30,'1993, H. Chernoff, of-your staff, and I agreed that there is no need for Section C.(1) of License No'. NPF-1 to specify-that the rated reactor core output is 0 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, in'which the Commission provided staff guidance on the handling of activities prior to the approval of the decommissioning plan at permanently shut down 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 for approval of certain activities at the Yankee Nuclear Power' Station.
i
A James E. Cross A copy of our safety evaluation (enclosure 3) is also enclosed.
Notice of Issuance will be included in the Commission biweekly Federal Reaister Notice.
Sincerely, 6
Michael T. Masnik, Senior Project Manager Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning.
Project Directorate Division of Operating Reactor Support Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Amendment No.
to License No. NPF-1 2.
Staff Requirements Memorandum 3.
Letter to Yankee Atomic 4.
Safety Evaluation cc w/ enclosures:
See next page
'o UNITED STATES 8
k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 9
\\...../
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY THE CITY OF EUGENE. OREGON Y
PACIFIC POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
- DOCKET NO. 50-344 TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No.
License No. NPF-1 1.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Comission) has found that:
A.
The application for license filed by Portland General 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 l
amended, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; D.
There is reasonable assurance:
(i) that the activities authorized by this license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the rules and regulations _ of the Commission;
- Pacific Power and Light Company, which has a 2.5 percent ownership interest in Trojan, has merged with Utah Power and Light Company to become a new corporation 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.
- E.
Portland General Electric Company is technically qualified and the licensees are financially qualified to engage in the activities authorized by this license in accordance with the rules and j
regulations of the Commissions; F.
The licens'aes have satisfied the applicable provisions of 10 CFR Part 14(i, " Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements," of the Commission regulations; G.
The issuance of this license will not be inimical to the common l
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 accordance with Appendix 0 to 10 CFR Part 50, of the Commission regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied; and I.
The receipt, possession, and use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material as authorized by this license will be in accordance with the Commission regulations in 10 ccR Part 30, 40, and 70, including 10 CFR Sections 30.33, 40.32, and 70.23 and 70.31.
2.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-1 is superseded in its entirety by Possession Only License (POL) No. NPF-1 hereby issued to the Portland General Electric Company, The City of Eugene, Oregon, and Pacific 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 50.71(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 j
Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," to possess, use, but not operate the facility at the designated location in l
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, 1
i 9
(3)
Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70, to receive, possess and use at any time any byproduct, source, and special nuclear material as sealed neutron sources, sealed sources for reactor instrumentation and radiation monitoring equipment calibration, and as fission detectors in amounts as required; (4)
Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70, to receive, possess and use in amounts as required any byproduct,. source, or special nuclear material without restriction to chemical or physical form, for sample analysis or instrument calibration or associated with radioactive apparatus or components; (5)
Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30 and 70, to possess, but not separate, such byproduct and special nuclear materials as may be produced by the operations of the facility.
C.
This license shall be deemed to contain and is subject to the condi-tions specified in the following Commission regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I:
Part 20, Section 30.34 of Part 30, Section 40.41 of Part 40, Sections 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, regulations, and orders of the Commission now or hereafter in effect; and is subject to the additional conditions specified or incorporated below:
(1) Maximum Power level The licensee is not authorized to operate the facility as a nuclear reactor.
(2)
Technical Specifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No.
, and the Environmental Protection Plan contained in Appendix B, are hereby incorporated into this license.
The licensee shall maintain the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications and the Environmental Protection Plan.
(3)
Spent Fuel Pool Modification The licensee is authorized to modify the spent fuel pool as described in the application dated August 1, 1983, and amended October 31, 1983.
(4)
Quality Assurance Activities to which a Quality Assurance Program is applicable shall, after the date of issue of this license, be conducted in accordance with the Nuclear Quality Assurance Program.
_4 (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 Evaluation Repor t on the Trojan Nuclear Plant dated 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)
Primary Shieldina Modification The licensee is authorized to modify the primary shielding design as described in PGE 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) Soent Fuel Assemb1v Shionina Cask The licensee shall not move a spent fuel assembly shipping cask into the 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 Miscellaneos, Amendments and Search Requirements to 10 CFR 73.55 (51 FR 27817 and 27822) and to the authority of 10 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 Training and Qualification Plan," with revisions submitted through June 10, 1988; and " Trojan Nuclear Plant Safeguards Contingency Plan,"
with revisions submitted through October 7, 1988. Changes made in accordance with 10 CFR 73.55 shall be implemented in accordance with the schedule set forth herein.
- E.
This license is effective as of the date of issuance and shall expi:e at midnight February 8, 2011.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Brian K. Grimes, Director Division of Operating Reactors Support Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Appendices A & B Technical Specifications Date of Issuance:
ENCWSURE'2
[....,*)
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
W ASHINGT ON, D.C. 20566 t
'4 IN RESPONSE, PLEASE
%, '......e January 14, 1993 REFER TO:
M921124 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR:
William C.
Parler General Counsel James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secreta
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - BRI?/
4G BY OGC ON REGULATORY ISSUES AND OPII (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 Commission was briefed by the Office of the General Counsel on the lessons learned from the Shoreham decommissioning effort and on the issues and options for handling the decomm~ssioning of i
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 of 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 to approval of the decommissioning plans.
Pending final action by the Commission on SECY-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
/<
4 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-90-08 and the Statements of Consideration for-o the decommissioning rules at 53 Federal Register 24025-26, licensees should be allowed to undertake any decommissioning activity (as the term " decommission" is defined in 10 CFR 50.2) that does not -- (a) foreclose the release of the site for possible unrestricted use, (b) significantly increase decommissioning costs, (c) cause any significant environmental impact not previously reviewed, 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 permit 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 the SECY paper and in the subsequent staff requirements memorandum.
cc:
The Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW (via E-Mail)
OP, SDBU/CR, ASLDP (via FAX)
PDR - Advance DCS - P1-24 2.,,1. Ih.
.J!
UNITED $TATES g(..g DiCLOSURE 3 g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
r wassiucion. o. c. rosss
- k.....
March 29, 1993 Docket No.50-029 Dr. Andrew C. Kadak, President and Chief Executive Officer Yankee Atomic Electric Company 580 Main Street Bolton, Massachusetts 01740-1398
Dear Dr. Kadak:
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 Commission 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, it 1
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 decommissioning costs; (c) cause a'ny 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 Counission 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 change approval will ensure continuing compliance with the above criteria.
The final criterion of the SRM authorizes the NRC staff 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.
F 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 in 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 site 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 t
9
-w-e -,
s
,.m
.,__.. _ - _..-- -_..-a-
!(p3 Ef C je UNITED STATES
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
i,
- E WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 Y
p SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
TO POSSESSION-ONLY LICENSE NO. NPF-1 TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-344
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
On January 4,1993, the directors of Portland General Electric Company (PGE or the licensee) voted to accept the recommendation by the PGE management to permanently cease power operations at the Trojan Nuclear Plant.
The facility had been shut down since November 9,1992, when a leak in the "B" steam generator was detected.
PGE began defueling the reactor on January 23, 1993, and completed the movement of all fuel elements to the spent fuel pool on 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, PGE has entered the process 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 Federal Reaister on tiarch 25, 1993, (58 FR 16228). The NRC received no comments or requests for hearing.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION As noted in Section 1.0, the reactor has been defueled and the core has been stored in the fuel pool. The Portland General Electric Company (PGE or the licensee) letter of January 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 prevail 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:
(1) 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 assurance 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.
Tne 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 maintain and possess the facility, but not to operate it.
Several of the changes to the license pertain to tests, limits, analyses, or modifications imposed upon the licensee at the time the operating license was issued.
These tests, limits, analyses, or modifications have been completed; however, the requirement 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 administrative 1y 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 replacing the phrase " facility will operate" with the phrase " facility will be maintained".
Evaluation:
This change precludes 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 1.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 1.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.
4 (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.
The staff finds this change acceptable.
(6)
Change Paragraph 2.B.(1) by replacing the phrase "use, and" with the phrase "use, but not".
The phrase would read "to 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.B.(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: The 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.B.(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 to a startup source is no longer needed.
The staff finds these changes acceptable.
(9) Change Paragraph C.(1) Maximum Power level by deleting the entire-paragraph and replacing it with the following paragraph:
(1) Maximum Power level The licensee is not authorized to operate the facility as a nuclear reactor.
Evaluation:
This change removes the licensed authority to operate the facility at any power level. The staff finds the change acceptable.
The licensee also requested that an additional sentence be added to this section:
"The rated reactor core output is 0 megawatts -(thermal)," On March 30, 1993, H. Chernoff, of your staff, and I agreed that there is no need for Section C.(1) 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.
" (10) Change Paragraph C.(2) lechnical Specifications by referencing this Amendment, No.
, and by replacing the phrase "shall operate" with "shall maintain".
Evaluation: The first change is acceptable to appropriately identify this amendment.
The second change removes the implication that the licensee is authorized 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.
(11) Change Paragraph C.(3) Less than Four Loop Operation by deleting the entire paragraph.
Evaluation:
This paragraph limited reactor power levels when fewer than four reactor coolant loops were in operation.
Since Change 9 (above) modifies Paragraph C.(1) by prohibiting reactor power operations at any level, the need for limits on less than four-loop operation is eliminated. Therefore, this paragraph can be deleted. The staff finds this change acceptable.
(12) Change Paragraph C.(4) Report on Vibration Tests by deleting the entire paragraph.
Evaluation: This paragraph required the licensee to submit 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 is no longer applicable. The staff finds this change acceptable.
(13) Change Paragraph C.(5) Replacement 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 l
satisfaction of the 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 1,1983, and amended 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 1 and 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 these requirements be deleted.
The staff finds this change acceptable.
(15) Change Paragraph C.(7) Quality Assurance to become Paragraph C.(4) by replacing the phrase "Except for the installation of the hangers, restraints and snubbers identified in item A.1 of Enclosure I to this -
license, 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 to 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 for sections that have been deleted. This change removes extraneous material from the license.
The staff finds the change acceptable.
(17) Change Paragraph C.(9) Primary Shieldina Modification to 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(15) have been. deleted.
Evaluation:
Paragraphs 2.C(10) through 2.C(15) have been deleted _by previous license amendments.
The previous license amendments did not delete the alphanumeric identification of the section. This change.
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) Change the list of enclosures at the end of the license by deleting the text associated with Enclosure 1.
Evaluation: The reference is to Enclosure 1, entitled " Incomplete Preoperational Tests, Startup Tests and Other Items Which Must Be Completed".
Change 17 (below) deletes in its entirety all the requirements in Enclosure 1, therefore reference to Enclosure 1 in the license is no longer needed. The staff finds this change acceptable.
(21) Change Enclosure I to License No. NPF-1 by deleting the entire enclosure.
Evaluation: consisted of a list of incomplete preoperational tests, startup tests, and other requirements for operation.
Since the tests have been completed and the licensee does not plan to continue operation at the facility,_ this section is no longer applicable to Trojan and can be deleted.
The staff finds this change acceptable.
On this basis, the staff concludes that the changes requested by the licensee, to amend the operating license for the facility to a possession-only license, are acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission regulations, the State of Oregon official i
was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comment.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes requirements with respect to installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (58 FR 16228). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion given in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission regulations, 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 public.
Principal Contributor: Michael T. Masnik Date:
,_