ML20153E748
| ML20153E748 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1988 |
| From: | Chan T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Cockfield D PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-66380, NUDOCS 8809060408 | |
| Download: ML20153E748 (5) | |
Text
,
August 31, 1988 Docket No.:
50-344 Mr. David W. Cockfield Vice President, Nuclear Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 s
Dear Mr. Cockfield:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO UPDATED FSAR; AMENDMENT NO. 6. JULY 1987 (TAC NO. 66380)
In accordance with 10 CFR LEO.71(e), Portland General Electric Company (PGE) submitted Amendment No. 6 to the Updated Final Safety Analy:;is Report (UFSAR) dated July 1, 1987.
As a result of our review of this e,ubmittal, we find that addi^ional information is required. We ask that the requested information cortained n the Enclosure be provided within 30 days from receipt of this letter, or pro.ide an alternate schedule for doing so within 15 days, 1
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements of this letter affect fewer than ten resp M erts; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely, original signed by Terence L. Chan, Projer.t Manager Project Directorate Y Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects
Enclosure:
As stated j
cc w/ enclosure:
i See next page DISTRLBUTION i
- 5. geenetM"7 NRC & LPDRs PDV. Reading 0Crutchfield GHolahan JLee TChan 0GC EJordan EGrimes ACRS(10) g\\
h f\\
A T
T 1
/
- F Vg:...\\..:.............:............:............:............:...........
40FC :DR5P y/FM :D NAME :TCh icw
- GWKNIGHTON :
.DaTE :0L/3I
' - "*~ /88
- 08/4)/88 880'9060408 880831 ADOCK O y4
' FICIAL RECORD COPY
%DR
- g* ***Gqj9.
UNITED STATES
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t a WASHING TON, D. C. 20666 s.,
j August 31, 1988 Docket No.: 50-344 Mr. David W. Cockfield Vice President, Nuclear Portland General Electric Conpany 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204
Dear Mr. Cockfield:
SUBJECT:
PEQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO UPDATED FSAR; APENDMENT NO. 6 - JULY 1987 (TACNO.66380)
In accordance with 10 CFR 550.71(e), Portland General Electric Company (PGE) submitted Amendnient No. 6 to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) dated July 1, 1987.
As a result of our review of this submittal, we find that additional information is required. We ask that the requested information contained in the Enclosure be providec' within 30 days from receipt of this letter, or provide an alternate schedule for doing so within 15 days.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements of this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Since e$dS A grence L. Chan, Project Manager Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects - !!!,
IV, Y and Special Projects
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosu e:
See next page
Mr. David W. Cockfield Portland General Electric Company Trojan Nuclear Plant cc:
Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Trojan Nuclear Plant Post Office Box 0 Rainier, Oregon 97048 Mr. Michael J. Sykes, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Columbia County St. Helens, Oregon 97501 Mr. William T. Dixon Oregon Department of Energy Salem, Oregon 97310 i
Regional Administrator, Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 i
i i
I t
l
ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION UPDATED FSAR AMENDMENT NO. 6 TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1.
Page 3.2-11 was revised to state that repair or replacement of radwaste components is "accomplished in accordance with PGE's in-house position on Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.143."
The Staff docs not endorse nor recognize, a priori, any licensee in-house position.
Furthermore, it is not the staff's 3ractice to approve internal licensee positions since they are subject to c1ange over time.
Please revise the referenced paragraph to explicitly identify differeices and/or exceptions to the Regulatory Guide. Should your revised position with respect to RG 1.143 differ from that upon which the plant was licensed, then an appropriate review should be conducted to determine whether or not prior NRC review is required.
2.
The reactor tri) signal (RTS) and Engineered Safety Features (ESF) system accuracies as s10wn on Tables '.2-3 and 7.3-4 respectively were revised.
For each parameter whose instrument or system accuracy was revised, discuss how the current Technical Specification actuation setpoints and tolerance for those parameters remain valid for the revised values, and provide the bases for the determination that an unreviewed safety question does not exist (ie.,achangetotheTechnicalSpecificationsisnotrequired).
l The safety evaluation that was performed in accordance with PGE Nuclear Division Procedure NDP 100-5 may also be provided if it contains the requested information.
3.
Table 9.1-3 regarding S>ent Fuel Pool Cooling Pump data was revised and the revision in part, slowed an increase in the minimum available Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH) from 20 feet to 57 feet.
Discuss the factors that result in this increase in NPSH.
4.
Equation 3.7-22 was revised to reflect a higher stress limit.
(a) Since the seismic load in Equations 3.7-21 and 3.7-22 may not be the only "occasional load" in the required load combinations, explain why the other "occasional loads" (such as valves actuation loads) are not included in these two equations, and to which equation (s)theircontributionsarefactored.
e
n-
-,=
-e
- _.. - - _. _, _ _ =
r..
- ENCLOSURE CONTINUED l
(b) The stress limit of 2.4Ss used in Eq. 3.7-22 may not be adequate to ensure piping functioHality under faulted plant conditions.
For Class 2/3 piping the functionality of which is essential for mitigating consequences in a design basis accident, a lower stress limit of 1.85 is required. Explain how compliance to this require-mentisreflebtedbythechangeofEq.3.7-22.
l 4
i I'
4 l
I l
3