|
---|
Category:GRANTS OF EXEMPTION FROM & EXTENSION TO NRC REQUIREME
MONTHYEARML20058L5881993-11-19019 November 1993 Exemption from 10CFR50.120 Training Rule Requirements ML20058A6101993-11-17017 November 1993 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.54(w) Which Requires Licensee to Obtain & Maintain Min of $1.06 Billion of Decontamination Insurance Coverage ML20058M7001993-09-30030 September 1993 Exemption from 10CFR73.55 Requirements Re Physical Protection in Nuclear Power Reactors for Plant ML20057D9931993-09-30030 September 1993 Exemption to Portions of 10CFR50.54(q) That Apply to Operating Plants & Sections of 10CFR50.47(b) & 10CFR50 App E.Exemption Will Become Effective When Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan Implemented ML20126H4641992-12-29029 December 1992 Exemption from 10CFR50 App E (IV)(F)(2) to Defer Licensee Conducting Its Annual Emergency Plan Exercise Scheduled for 921215 Until First Quarter of 1993 ML20198D3231992-05-0707 May 1992 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,Appendix J,Section III.d.2.(b)(ii) Re Containment Air Lock Pressure Test ML20155D5391988-10-0303 October 1988 Temporary Exemption from Schedular Requirements of Property Insurance Rule Effective 881004 (10CFR50.54) ML20236S2891987-11-12012 November 1987 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App R,Section III.G.2 Re Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown Cables & Equipment Located Inside Containment Bldg 1993-09-30
[Table view] Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20195E9011998-11-0404 November 1998 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule Re Reporting Requirements in 10CFR72.Concurs with NRC Conclusion That Test Rept & Subsequent Holding Period,Unnecessary ML20195B3551998-11-0303 November 1998 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 140 Re Financial Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors ML20198Q4531998-01-13013 January 1998 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 140 Re Financial Protection Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors ML20198Q6311998-01-13013 January 1998 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 & 70 Re Criticality Accident Requirements. Trojan Staff Recommends Proposed Rule Be Revised to Clarify Applicability for Plants That Received NRC Staff Actions ML20136D5481997-03-0606 March 1997 Order Approving Application Re Planned Merger of Portland General Corp,Parent Holding Company for Portland General Electric,W/Enron Corp ML20134L3401997-01-22022 January 1997 Resolution 96-R-85, Resolution Supporting Merger of Centerior Energy Corp & Ohio Edison Under New Holding Co Called Firstenergy ML20058L5881993-11-19019 November 1993 Exemption from 10CFR50.120 Training Rule Requirements ML20058A6101993-11-17017 November 1993 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.54(w) Which Requires Licensee to Obtain & Maintain Min of $1.06 Billion of Decontamination Insurance Coverage ML20058M7001993-09-30030 September 1993 Exemption from 10CFR73.55 Requirements Re Physical Protection in Nuclear Power Reactors for Plant ML20057D9931993-09-30030 September 1993 Exemption to Portions of 10CFR50.54(q) That Apply to Operating Plants & Sections of 10CFR50.47(b) & 10CFR50 App E.Exemption Will Become Effective When Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan Implemented ML20126H4641992-12-29029 December 1992 Exemption from 10CFR50 App E (IV)(F)(2) to Defer Licensee Conducting Its Annual Emergency Plan Exercise Scheduled for 921215 Until First Quarter of 1993 ML20198D3231992-05-0707 May 1992 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,Appendix J,Section III.d.2.(b)(ii) Re Containment Air Lock Pressure Test ML20246K1221989-07-0505 July 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components. NRC Guidance on Subj of Procurement Would Be More Appropriate than New Regulations ML20235S5401989-02-24024 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants.Questions Ability of Proposed Rule to Achieve Objective ML20235R6861989-02-21021 February 1989 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants.Rule Should Not Be Implemented Until Realistic Determination of Impact of Rule on Industry Has Been Made ML20206M8271988-11-21021 November 1988 Comments on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty Program.Numarc Recommendation That Proposed 300% Sample Size Excessive & That 100% Annual Sample Size Will Be Sufficient Supported ML20195E8711988-10-31031 October 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR20 Re Disposal of Waste Oil by Inceneration.Urges Commission to Finalize Rulemaking in Present Form & Ensure That Limited Capacity of Low Level Waste Disposal Sites Be Used Efficiently ML20155D5391988-10-0303 October 1988 Temporary Exemption from Schedular Requirements of Property Insurance Rule Effective 881004 (10CFR50.54) ML20150A9001988-07-0404 July 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re leak-before-break Technology.Further Use of Subj Technology for ECCS Would Reduce Safety Assurances & Safety Benefits.Experience Shows That pipe-thinning Progresses Faster than Expected ML20150F1391988-07-0202 July 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Expansion of Applicability of Leak Before Break Technology to Functional & Performance Requirements for ECCS & Environ Qualification ML20150A9051988-06-30030 June 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re leak-before-break Technology for safety-related Equipment.Nrc Reliance on leak-before-break Is Irrational Response to Very Real Safety Problem.Nrc Should Implement Mandatory Piping Insp ML20153F6071988-04-29029 April 1988 Application for Amend to Indemnity Agreement B-78.Util Changing Business Name & Merging W/Up&L Merging Corp ML20153F6371988-02-24024 February 1988 Rebuttal Testimony of Jd Tucker Re Application of Pacificorp for Consent to Transfer of Licenses ML20153F7831988-02-24024 February 1988 Rebuttal Testimony of Jh Landon Re Application of Pacificorp for Consent to Transfer of Licenses ML20153F6561988-02-24024 February 1988 Rebuttal Testimony of Dp Steinberg Re Application of Pacificorp for Consent to Transfer of Licenses ML20153F7351988-02-24024 February 1988 Rebuttal Testimony of Vr Topham Re Application of Pacificorp for Consent to Transfer of Licenses ML20153F7001988-02-24024 February 1988 Rebuttal Testimony of OT Colby Re Application of Pacificorp for Consent to Transfer of Licenses ML20153F6681988-02-24024 February 1988 Rebuttal Testimony of RM Boucher Re Application of Pacificorp for Consent to Transfer of Licenses ML20153F6281988-01-0808 January 1988 Testimony of Jh Landon Re Application of Pacificorp for Consent to Transfer of Licences ML20153F6461988-01-0808 January 1988 Prefiled Testimony of Jd Tucker Re Application of Pacificorp to Consent to Transfer of Licenses ML20153F7171988-01-0808 January 1988 Prefiled Testimony of Fd Reed Re Pacificorp for Consent to Transfer of Licenses ML20153F7631988-01-0808 January 1988 Testimony of OT Colby Re Application of Pacificorp for Consent to Transfer of Licenses ML20153F9761988-01-0808 January 1988 Prefiled Testimony of Dp Steinberg Re Application of Pacificorp for Consent to Transfer of Licenses ML20153F6821988-01-0808 January 1988 Testimony of RM Boucher Re Application of Pacificorp for Consent to Transfer of Licenses ML20236S2891987-11-12012 November 1987 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App R,Section III.G.2 Re Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown Cables & Equipment Located Inside Containment Bldg ML20212N2471986-11-0303 November 1986 Partially Withheld Petition to Suspend OL Due to Util Failure to Disclose Conditions That Undermine Safety in Case of Seismic Event.Directors Should Issue Order Under 2.206 to Show Cause Why OL Should Not Be Suspended ML20126H5251981-04-0303 April 1981 Notification of New Address for Coalition for Safe Power. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20062J5401980-10-22022 October 1980 Brief in Support of Exceptions to ASLB 800711 Initial Decision & to Aslab 800904 Order.Urges That Decision Be Modified to Include Accelerated Reporting Conditions & That Oral Argument Be Held Re Exceptions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20126D1541980-04-0303 April 1980 Transcript of 800403 Evidentiary Hearing,Phase 2,in Portland,Or.Pp 4,454-4,497 ML20126D0281980-04-0101 April 1980 Transcript of Phase Two Evidentiary Hearing in Portland,Or. Pp 3913-4123 ML20126D2461980-03-22022 March 1980 Response to NRC Third Set of Interrogatories,Phase II of Control Bldg Proceeding.Expresses Concerns Re Effect of Noise in Work Areas & Effect of Vibration on Instruments,Not Mentioned in SER ML20126C0331980-03-11011 March 1980 Transcript of 800311 Hearing in Portland,Or.Pp 3,451-3,590 ML20126A8641979-12-29029 December 1979 Transcript of 791229 Hearing in Portland,Or.Pp 3426-3450 ML20244A6471979-04-17017 April 1979 Licensees' Response to 790402 Request of PA Public Util Commission for Hearing & Petition to Intervene Re 790313 Show Cause Order.Urges NRC to Hold Ruling in Abeyance. Certificate of Svc Encl ML20148J1371978-12-18018 December 1978 Intervenor ST of Or'S Motion for an Extension of Time in Which to File Exceptions to the 781005 Order of Aslb. Motion Granted 781023 ML20147J2331978-12-14014 December 1978 Transcript of Hearing on 781214 in Saleam or in the Matter of Portland Gen Elec.Pp 2883-2996 ML20147J2301978-12-13013 December 1978 Transcript of Hearing on 781213 in the Matter of Portland Gen Elec at Salem,Or.Pp 2739-2882 ML20150E7821978-12-12012 December 1978 Transcript of Hearing on 781212 at Salem,Or.Pp 2574-2738 ML20147E1261978-12-11011 December 1978 Transcript of 781211 Hearing in Salem,Or.Pp 2390-2573 ML20062E0271978-11-20020 November 1978 Proposed Findings Submitted by St of or Per ASLB Request of 781103.Suggested That Scope of the Hearing Should Be Limited & That Control Bldg Sheer Walls Are of Strength to W/Stand Earthquake.Cert of Svc Encl 1998-11-04
[Table view] |
Text
_ ___ - - -- _- _---. __ --- ----- - _ - -- _ -- _ -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _
O.
UNITED STATES OF AMERl[A NUCLEAR REGULA7 AY COMMIS$10N in the matter of PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Docket Nos. 50-344 ET AL.
(Trojan Nuclear Plant) )
fXEMPTION 1.
Portland General Electric Company, et al. (PGE or the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License No. NPF-1, which authorizes operation of the Trojan Nuclear Plant. The license provides, among other things, < hat the licensee is subject to all rules, regulations and orders of the Commission now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of a pressurized water reactor at the licensee's site located in Columbia County, Oregon, on the Columbia River.
1.1 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (10 CFR Part 50),
" Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," provides specific leakage testing requirements in Appendix J, " Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Coq 1ed Power Reactors." One requirement of 10 CFR Ptrt 50, Appendix J, is found in paragraph Ill.D.2.(b)(ii) which specifically states, " Air la-ks opened during periods when containment integrity is not rer.
- x !9 .ie plant's Technical Specifications shall be i
L tested at the end of such periods at not less than P,."
L l 9205200122 920507 DR ADDCKOSOOg4l
By letter dated April 1, 1992, Portland General Electric company, et al., requested a permanent, partial exemption from Title 10 of the Code af Federal Regulations, Part 50, Appendix J, paragraph III.D.2.(b)(ii). The requested exemption would allow the performance of a reduced pressure test at not less than 10 psig (rather than at P, of 60 psig) as is done for periods when containment integrity is required, provided no maintenance or modifiestions that could affect sealing capability was performed on the air lock during the period.
Whenever the plant is in cold shutdown (mode 5) or refueling (mode 6),
containment integrity is not required. However, if an air lock is opened during modes 5 and 6, paragraph Ill.D.2(b)(ii) of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J requires that an overall air lock leakage test at r .t less than P, be conducted before plant heatup and startup (i.e., entering mode 4). The existing air lock doors are so designed that a full-pressure (i.e., P, of 60 psig) test of an entire air lock can only be performed after " strong backs" (structural bracing) have been installed on the inner door. Stro.:9 backs are needed because the pressure exerted on the inner door during the test is in a -
direction opposite to that of the accident pressure direction. Installing strong backs, performing the test, and removing the strong backs requires several hours, during which access through the air lock is prohibited.
When no maintenance has been performed on the air lock that could affect its senling capability, and the air lock doors have been close. in accordance l with the licensee's procedure, and the periodic 6-month test e+ P, required by paragraph !!!.D.2(b)(i) of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J has be e erformed on-
-a
schedule, there is no reason to expect the air lock to leak excessively just because it has been opened in a shutdown or refueling mode. Performing the door sea'. leak test of paragraph Ill.D.2(b)(iii) of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J is sufficient, in this case, to demonstrate the continuing integrity of the air lock.
The staff concludes that the licensee's proposed approach of substituting the seal leakage test of paragraph Ill.D.2(b)(iii) for the full pressure test of paragraph Ill.D.2(b)(ii) of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J is acceptable when no maintenance that could affect sealing capability has been t
performed on an air lock. Whenevar maintenance that could affect sealing capability has been performed on an air lock, the requirements of paragraph Ill.D.2(b)(ii) of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J must still be met by the licensee.
Pursuant to 10 CFR Section 50.12(a), "The Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of the regulations of this part, which are -
(1) Authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security. (2) The Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special c.ircumstances are present. Special circumstances are present whenever ....
(ii) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the
. underlying purpo:,e of the rule; or (iii) Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significar.tly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those
~ 1
, '; j l
incurred by others similarly situated...."
4 The special circumstances for granting this exemption pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.12 have also been identified. The purpose of Appendix J to 10 CFR .
1 Part 50 is to ensure that containment leaktight integrity can be verifie6 periodically throughuut service lifetime so as to maintain containment leakage within the limits specified in the f acility Technical Specifications. The l i
proposed alternative test method is sufficient to achieve this underlying purpose in that it provides adequate assurance of continued leaktight integrity of the air lock. In addition, at the time this section of Appendix J was revised in 1980, the staff did not contemplate the undue hardship and cost that would result from the requirement to perform a time-consuming full-prersure test before starting up from even the shortest cold shutdown during which the air lock had been used for containment entry. Because of this, the staff has already granted this same exemption to numerous plants and intends to revise Appendix J to alleviate the need for further similar exemptions.
Consequently, the special circumstances described by 10 CFR Section 50.12(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) exist in that application of the regulation in these particular circumstances is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule because the licensee has proposed an acceptable alternative test method that accomplishes the intent of the regulation. Compliance would result _in undue hardship that would be significantly in excess of that incurred by others similarly situated (plant startup would be delayed and unnecessary personnel radiation exposures would be incurred while an overall air lock leakage test was performed at full pressure).
o' Therefore, a permanent, partial exemption from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, paragraph !!!.D.2(b)(ii) is justified and acceptable.
IV.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined, pursuant to 10 CFR
-50.12(a)(1),-that an exemption as described in Section 111 above is authorized by law, will not piesent an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. The Commission has determined, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) that special circumstances exist, as noted in Section 111 above. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants
-Portland General Electric Company, et al., a permanent, partial exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendic J, paragraph Ill.D.2(b)(ii).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment (57 FR 19445).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/M Bruce A. Boger, Director Division of Reactor Projects Ill/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l' Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 7th day of May 1992. '
l
FY May 7, 19P2 DE TR10VT10]i:
Docket File NRC & Local PDRs PDV Reading file T. Murley/F. Miraglia, 12G18 J. Partlow, 12G18 C. Rossi, llE4 J. Lieberman, 7H5 B. Boger M. Virgilio T. Quay D. foster R. Assa L. Kokajko C. McCracken, 8023 OGC, 15B18 E. Jordan, MNBB3701 G. Hill, (4) PI-37 ACRS (10), P315 OPA, 2G5 0C/LFMB, MNBB4503 PDV Plant file S. Shankman, EDO 17G21 RZinnerman, RV