ML20059C798
| ML20059C798 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059C783 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9009050347 | |
| Download: ML20059C798 (2) | |
Text
_.... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
" b cs2
^ *'
k UNITED STATES a
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 t
=
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REET0R REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.162TO FACILITY OPERATlh0 llCENSE NO. NPF-1 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY L
'THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON--
PACIFIC POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-344
1.0 INTRODUCTION
r By letter dated February 10, 1989, Portland General E 'ectric Company (PGE, licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications-for Trojan Nuclear Power Plant. The proposed change would delete the following sentence from Trojan Technical Specification (TTS) 3/4.6.1, Containment Integrity:
"2.
All equipment hatches are closed and
=
sealed." This amendment would relieve Trojen Nuclear Power Plant from verifying the closure and seal of equipment hatches at least once every 31 days.
L 2.0 DISCUS $10N AND EVALUATION Presently, (TTS)'4.6.1.1.a requires that primary Containment integrity penetrations (exceptthoseportionslocatedinsideContainment)(1)all shall be demonstrated at least every 31 days by verifying that k
are closed except as provided in Specification 3.6.3.1, and (2) that all equipment hatches are closed and sealed. TTS 4.6.1.1c requires that-Contain:aent integrity be demonttrated by " verifying valves, blind flanges,'and deactivated automatic valves which are located inside the Containment are verified closed during each COLD SHUTDOWN except that
=
such verification need not be performed more often than once per 92 days."
(The-intent of TTS 3/4.6.1 is to ensure that any radioactive material released from the containment will be restricted to those leakage paths and associated leakage rates assumed in the accident analyses.)
Equipment hatches are penetration devices for transfer of equipment between inside and outside Containment. The closure and seal of equipment hatches can be verified only from inside containment, by verifying the to que on the closure lugs and performing a leak rate test.
Although closure and seal integrity is important, as is integrity of any Containment penetration, entrace into Containment every 31 days to verify the closure and seal integrity is clearly not intended.
- Instead, equipment batch closure and seal-verification clearly qualifies for the condition of TS 4.0.1.1.c., which requires verification only during each ooo9050347 900827 PDR ADOCK OS000M4 p
PUC m
~
.....v.
. *+
4
. y Cold Shutdown, and not more often than once per 92 days.
In fact,'the most appropriate times to verify the integrity of the equipment hatches is following opening of the hatch during Cold Enutdown. Accordingly, after opening of the equipment hatch during cold shutdown, and before returning to power operation, the equipment hatch is required to be closed and saaled per Maintenance Procedure 81., " Equipment Hatch Removal and Installation" and Periodic Engineering Test 5-2, " Containment Local Leak Rate-Testing". Once resealed, there is no identifiable mechanism that would cause the nuts securing the hatch bolts to loden, thereby causing leakage past the seal. Any damage to the seal will occur at the opening of the hatch.
Based on the review of the Surveillance Requirements, the associated bases and the evaluations presented by PGE, it was concluded that the proposed change will increase the margin of safety for the Plant personnel without causing any significant increase in radiation leakage to the environment.
The proposed change is therefore acceptable.
3.0 CONTACT WITH STATE OFFICIAL The NRC staff has notified the Oregon Department of Energy of the proposed issuance of th S amendment along with the proposed determination of ne significant hazards consideration.
No comments were received.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change in a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and.no signif-icant 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 exsosure. The Commission has previously published a proposed finding that tie amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusionsetforthin10CFR51.22(c)(9).
Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above that(1)there is reasonable assurance that tie health and safet ofthepubilewillnotbe endangered by operation ir. the proposed manner, (y) such activities will be 2
conducted in compliance with the / omission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will nu be irimical to-the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
PRINCIPAL CONTRISUTORS: Tonya Bloxom Roby Bevan Dated:
August 27, 1990
\\
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _