ML20142A016

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 110 to License NPF-1

ML20142A016
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	03/03/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20142A011	List: ML20142A010 ML20142A014 ML20142A016
References
NUDOCS 8603190222
Download: ML20142A016 (4)

Text

.

8[gma [o, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

( WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\....+/

SAFETY EVALUATION BY TFE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.110 70 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. NPF-1 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON PACIFIC POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TP0JAN NUCLEAR PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-344 Introduction By letter dated May 2, 1985, as revised September 6, 1985, Portland General Electric (PGE), the licensee, requested an amendment to their Technical Specifications (TS) to: (1) revise the Surveillance Requirements for Axial Flux Difference, (2) delete the ACTION statement associated with the reportability of out-of-specificaton RCS chemistry in accordance with the revised Licensee Event Report (LER) rule of 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 and, (3) make editorial corrections. By letter dated June 14, 1985 the licensee requested an amendment to Operating Licanse No. NPF-1 and its TS to: (1) reflect a change to the fire purrp diesel engine Surveillance Requirement, (2) correct inconsistencies in the RCS volume, and (3) more clearly identify the Low Population Zone.

Discussion and Evaluation A. Axial Flux Difference Surveillance The intent of the surveillance of the axial flux difference monitor alern is to assure that when the alarm is restored to " operable", it continues to function properly. However, the design of this alarm is such that the licensee cannot distinguish an alarm failure from a conputer shutdown or discontinuity in cperation for any reason, Hence, the licensee has to perform the hourly monitoring (for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) much more frequently than it is inter.ded in the TS. In addition the avial flux difference program has been operatier.a1 for many years and at this time there is no question about its proper function. No changes are made in this program and like all solid state devices af ter it is declared operable it will continue to operate properly.

This has been verified through many years of operation of this device and similar equipment elsewhere. Therefore, the surveillance required by TS 4.2.1.1.a.2 is not necessary and as such imposes an undue burden on the operator.

8603190222 860303 PDR ADOCK 05000344 P PDR

We have reviewed the information submitted by the licensee on the surveillance requirements of TS 4.2.1.1.a.2 and have concluded that this requirement can be eliminated without any adverse effect on the axial flux difference monitoring.

B. RCS Specific Activity The present TS Section 3.4.8 ACTION statement for MODES 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 requires a REPORTABLE OCCURRENCE report be prepared. The licensee has requested that this requirement be deleted in accordance with the recent changes to the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73.

By License Amendment No. 97 dated October 30, 1984, the staff approved numerous changes to the Trojan TS related to the revisions to 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73. The changes included TS 6.6.1 which requires that the Commission be~ notified and a report submitted pursuant to the requirements of Section 50.73 for each REPORTABLE EVENT. The reporting requirements in TS 3.4.8 are redundant to the requirements of TS 6.6.1 and should be deleted. This is consistent with guidance on reporting requirements on primary coolant iodine spikes provided in Generic Letter 85-19 dated September 27, 1985. Therefore, the staff finds the proposed chances to TS 3.4.8 acceptable.

C. Editorial Changes In the May 2, 1985 submittal, the licensee requested two editorial changes.

The first applies to Page 5 of Facility Operating License NPF-1. It would change the title of the Quality Assurance Program from the " Quality Assurance Program for Operation" to the " Nuclear Quality Assurance Program". This change does not change the Quality Assurance Program, only its title, so it is an administrative change. Therefore, the staff finds this change acceptable.

The second editorial change applies to Section 3/4 7.11, " Control Building Modification Connection Bolts" changino the APPLICABILITY from "ALL MODES" to "AT ALL TIMES". The APPLICAPILITY "AT ALL TIMES," is consistent with the current TS. In addition, "AT ALL TIMES" is more restrictive than "ALL MODEF" since "ALL MODES" does not cover the period when there is no fuel in the reactor vessel. Therefore, the staff finds this change acceptable.  :

D. Fire Pump Diesel Engine Surveillance Reauirements The present TS Surveillance Requirements (3/4 7.8.1) for the fire pump diesel encine require a diesel inspection at least once per 18 months during shutdown. The licensee has requested that the requirement limiting

..-_-.j

a ,

surveillance to shutdown periods be deleted since it is " unduly restrictive and results in inofficient use of labor and material resources." Deletion of

-"during shutdown" wcald allow this inspection to be performed during operation.

The fire suppression water system is required to be OPERABLE at all times.

Consequently, fire protection reauirements do not differ significantly between operational and shutdown modes. Both the motor-driven fire pump and the diesel-driven fire pump are capable of 100% capacity. Therefore, the motor-driven fire pump supplies 100% capacity when the diesel-driven fire pump is out of service for inspection. TS 3.7.8.1.a limits the out of service time for one inoperable pump to 7 days.

The staff concludes that the requirement to limit fire pump diesel-engine inspections to shutdown periods is unduly restrictive and that there is reasonable assurance that conducting the 18-month inspection during power operation will not adversely affect the fire protection water supply.

E. Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Volume The present TS Section B 3/4 1.1.3 and Section 5.4.2 indicate that the total water volume of the RCS is 13,104 cu ft and 13,104 100 cu ft, respectively, at a nominal Tavg of 584.7 (i.e., 100 percent power Tavg). This value is inconsistent with Table 5.1-1 and Table 15.8-1 of the updated FSAR and appears to be in error. The updated FSAR states that the cold water volume of the RCS is 12,527 cu ft and that the thermal expansion coefficient is 31.

The 3i coefficient provides a hot volume of 12,903 cu ft. The licensee has proposed to correct the TS hot volume value with 12,900 cu ft.

The RCS volu.me used in the Trojan safety analysis is not affected, nor is the minimum allowable RCS flow rate during boron dilution operation. Based on the above the staff concludes that the current hot RCS voluma is in error and the proposed value is consistent with current analysis and is acceptable.

F. Low Pcpulation Zone (LPZ)

Figure 5.1-2 of the present TS appears to indicate a Low Population Zone (LPZ) of 5-mile radius. This is incensistent with the Trojan Safety Evaluation Report, the Trojan Radiological Emergency Plan, and with the updated FSAR, all which identify the LPZ to be of 2.5-mile radius. The proposed change more accurately and clearly identifies the LPZ for Trojan to be of 2.5-mile radius.

The staff concludes that this change makes the LPZ in the TS consistent with the LPZ in the Trojan Safety Evaluation Report and is, therefore, acceptable.

1

Environmental Consideration Portions of this amendment relate to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, such portions of this amendment meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10). Other portions of this amendment relate to changes in surveillance requirements. These portions involve changes in 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 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 published a proposed finding that the 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 exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(9).

Pursuant to 10 CFR Section 51.2PIb), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.

Conclusion We have 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 nanner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Date: March 3, 1986 Prircipal Contributors:

Lambros Lois Ken Johnston i

r l

i