ML20204H178

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 118 to License NPF-1

ML20204H178
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	07/25/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20204H165	List: ML20204H159 ML20204H168 ML20204H178
References
NUDOCS 8608080025
Download: ML20204H178 (2)

Text

,{s @ "G%,%

o UNITED STATES

["

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

's . . . . . p*

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.118T0 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-1 i

PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON PACIFIC POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY

, TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT i

DOCKET NO. 50-344 INTRODUCTION Generic Letter 85-19 (GL 85-19), issued September 27, 1985, provided guidance related to the action and reporting requirements for reactor coolant system specific activity. GL 85-19 contained model Technical Specifications as

' guidance. By amendment request dated April 9,1986, Portland General Electric Company (the licensee) submitted revised Technical Specifications (TS) in response to GL 85-19.

DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION In an effort to eliminate unnecessary Technical Specification requirements,

_ the staff determined that thegexisting requirements to shut down a plant if reactor coolant iodine activity limits are exceeded for 800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> in a 12-month period can be eliminated. The quality of nuclear fuel has been greatly improved over the past decade with the result that normal coolant iodine activity (i.e., in the absence of iodine spiking) is well below the limit.

Appropriate actions would be initiated long before accumulating 800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> j above the iodine activity limit. In addition, 10 CFR 50.72(b)(1)(ii) requires

the NRC to be immediately notified of fuel cladding failures that exceed

~

expected values or that are caused by unexpected factors. Therefore, this Technical Specification limit is no longer considered necessary on the basis that proper fuel management by licensees and existing reporting requirements should preclude ever approaching the limit.

As part of our continuing program to delete unnecessary reporting requirements, the staff reviewed the reporting requirements related to primary coolant specific activity levels, specifically primary coolant iodine spikes. The staff determined that the reporting requirements for iodine spiking can be 8608080025 86dr725 PDR ADOCK 05000344 P PDR

l

\

, r'duced from a short-term report (Special Report or Licensee Event Report) to an item which is to be included in the Annual Report. The information included in the Annual Report provided in the model TS is similar to that previously required in the Licensee Event Report but has been changed to more clearly designate the results to be included from the specific activity analysis and to delete the information regarding fuel burnup by core region.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's proposed changes regarding reactor coolant system specific activity. The changes to TS 3.4.8 are consistent with the model TS provided in GL 85-19 and are, therefore, acceptable. The reporting requirement added to TS 6.9.1.5 is identical to the model TS and is also acceptable.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION Portions of this amendment relate to change 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 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 s1gnificant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

The Connission 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, these portions of the amendment meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 651.22(c)(9).

Pursuant to 10 CFR 551.22(b), 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 manher, and (2) such activities will be conducted in coriipliance with' the Commiskion'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.

Dated: July 25, 1986 -

PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTOR:

K. Johnston

__- _ ___ __ - -