ML20141P084: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 22: Line 22:
j I                                            wAssimotos, p. c. nosss
j I                                            wAssimotos, p. c. nosss
  '        %,....,/
  '        %,....,/
I SArETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION t                    PELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.112 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-1 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON PACIFIC POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-344 4            Introduction i            By letter dated August 7, 1985. Portland General Electric Company, et al.,
I SArETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION t                    PELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.112 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-1 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON PACIFIC POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-344 4            Introduction i            By {{letter dated|date=August 7, 1985|text=letter dated August 7, 1985}}. Portland General Electric Company, et al.,
(the licensee or PGE1 requested an amendment to Technical SpecificatToiis for              '
(the licensee or PGE1 requested an amendment to Technical SpecificatToiis for              '
operation of the Trojan Nuclear Plant in Columbia County, Oregon.
operation of the Trojan Nuclear Plant in Columbia County, Oregon.

Latest revision as of 07:21, 12 December 2021

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 112 to License NPF-1
ML20141P084
Person / Time
Site: Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date: 03/10/1986
From:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20141P059 List:
References
NUDOCS 8603180534
Download: ML20141P084 (2)


Text

_ . - - - . _ - _ ,

  • ~

8[.. .. ag\a umTEDsTATEs NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

j I wAssimotos, p. c. nosss

'  %,....,/

I SArETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION t PELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.112 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-1 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON PACIFIC POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-344 4 Introduction i By letter dated August 7, 1985. Portland General Electric Company, et al.,

(the licensee or PGE1 requested an amendment to Technical SpecificatToiis for '

operation of the Trojan Nuclear Plant in Columbia County, Oregon.

i i Evaluation Portland General Electric Company requested a license change to include the Core Frit Thermocouples (CET) and the Reactor Vessel Instrumentation System (RVLIS) in the Accident Monitoring instrumentation Technical Specification.

These Technical Specification changes were submitted in response to Generic Letter No. 83-37, dated November 1, 1983, which contained model specifications ,

for several TMI-related items and set forth surveillance and operability requirements for CET and RVLIS. Based on the results of our review we have concluded as folloWs: ,

1. The surveillance requirements for CET and RVLIS channel check and  :

channel calibration, as specified in items 10 and 11 of Table C 4.3-7, " Accident Monitoring Instrumentation Surveillance {

Pequirements", are acceptablet

2. The total number of channels and minimum number of channels for CET

, and RVLIS, as specified in item 10 and 11 of Table 3.3-11. " Accident ,

Monitoring Instrumentatinn", are acceptable;

3. The footnote, which states in Table 3.3-11 that "the core exit ,

thermocouples required to be operable shall be those which are displayed on the Subcooling Margin Monitors" (16 CETs)*is acceptable; 4 The footnote, which states in Table 4.3-7 that " calibration shall ,

consist of calibrating the thermocouple indicators" is acceptable. t In summary, we have found that the licensee's application to incorporate the CET and RVLIS into Tables 3.3-11 and 4.3-7 is in compliance with the Generic Letter No. 83-37 requirements and is acceptable. [

N$ 4

g.

2 Environmental Consideration This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendment involves nn significant increase in the amounts, and no significant i change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that I there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously published a proposed finding that the amendment involves nn 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 951.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 651.22(b), no environmental impact statement

or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance i of the amendment.

i Conclusion l 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 l endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will i 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.

i Date: March 10, 1986 j

Principal Contributor:

T. Huang I

i l

t i

,  !