ML20212R319
| ML20212R319 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212R302 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8704270101 | |
| Download: ML20212R319 (3) | |
Text
[ g p, UNf IED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,.g
'3 p
WASH NGTON, D. C. 20555
\\..../
SAFETY EVALUATION PY THE OFFICE OF NUCl. EAR RFACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 128TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-1 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTPIC COMPANY THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON PACIFIC POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT DOCKET N0. 50-344 INTRODUCTION By letter dated August 7, 1986, as amended by letter dated December 31, 1986, Portland General Electric Company (the licensee) requested a number of changes to the Administrative Controls section of the Technical Specifications for the Trojan Nuclear Plant (LCA 130). The August 7,1986 request supersedes an earlier request on the same topic (License Change Application 130, submitted by letter dated September 13, 1985) which the staff found unacceptable. The intent of the requested changes is to relieve the Plant Review Coard (PRB) and the plant General Manager of tne necessity to review and approve all plant prui.edur es and c!.anges i i thereto, all proposed tests and experiments that affect nuclear safety, and all proposed changes or modifications to plant systems or equipment that affect nuclear safety.
DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION To accomplish these changes, the licensee proposes to add a new Specification 6.5.3 and reword portions of Specifications 6.5.1.6, 6.8.2, and_6.8.3 as follows:
1.
A new Specification 6.5.3 is added which describes how procedures which affect nuclear plant safety and changes thereto will be prepared, reviewed and approved; and how changes and modifications to safety-related structures, systems and components, and proposed tests and experiments which affect plant nuclear safety will be prepared, reviewed and approved. In each case.
l the proposed procedure or change in these categories, will be revi ued by a qualified person or group of the appropriate discipline as designated by approved written procedures.
Procedures and procedure changes will be 4
approved by the appropriate Responsible Manager as designated in writing by the General Manager, Trojan Nuclear Plant. Approvals of Administrative 4
Procedures, Security Plan implementing procedures, Radiological Emergency i
Response Plan implementing procedures, and proposed permanent modifications to plant nuclear safety-related structures, systems and components will be i
by the General Manager, Trojan Nuclear Plant. Each review will include a detennination of whether an unreviewed safety question is involved.
1 8704270101 870409 PDR ADOCK 05000344 j
P PDR i
2.
In light of the new Specification 6.5.3, Specification 6.5.1.6.a through d.
i would then be changed to have the PRB review only those procedures or changes to procedures, equipment, systems or facilities which may involve an un-reviewed safety question or a change to the plant Technical Specifications; and any proposed tests or experiments which may involve an unreviewed safety question or which require a change to the plant Technical Specifications.
In addition, the PRB would be responsible for the review of safety evaluations for procedures; changes to procedures, equipment, systems or facilities; and tests or experiments completed under the provision of 10 CFR 50.59 to verify that such actions did not constitute an unreviewed safety question.
The PRB would continue to be responsible for review of proposed changes to
- the Technical Specifications or the Operating License and would continue to be responsible for those reviews detailed in Sections 6.5.1.6.e through
- 1. of the plant Technical Specifications.
3.
The wording of Specification 6.8.2 would be changed to be consistent with the proposed revisions specified in the new Specification 6.5.3 and the revisions to Specification 6.5.1.6.a through d.
4 The wording of Specification 6.8.3 would be changed to be consistent with the proposed revisions to 6.5.1.6 and the new 6.5.3 in that approval of temporary changes to procedures would now be by the Responsible Manager rather.
than by the plant General Manager.
In addition, the proposed change to Specification 6.8.3 provides that changes to procedures covering activities performed by company organizations other than the Trojan facility staff will be reviewed and approved in accordance with the Nuclear Ouality Assurance Prot} ram.
I k In addition to the proposed changes described above, the licensee has also proposed minor clarifying changes to the wording of Specifications 6.5.1.6.f and 6.8.1.h.
We have reviewed the changes proposed by the licensee and have compared the
^
resulting specifications with the guidance of ANSI N18.7-1976/ANS 3.2, as endorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.33. We find that the resulting Technical Specifications are in accordance with the guidance of the Standard and that the changes do not result in a lessening of the controls governing plant safety-i related activities. To the contrary, allowing onsite procedures to be reviewed and approved in accordance with the proposed changes should enable the PRB and the plant General Panager to devote more of their time to other safety-related activities, resulting in a positive impact on plant safety. Accordingly, on l
this basis, we find that the proposed changes are acceptable.
\\
i
F
- ~
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment relates to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. The Commission has previously published a proposed finding that the amendment involves a no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 551.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amencment.
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 manner, 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.
Dated: April 9, 1987 PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTOR:
L. Crocker 1
..