ML20206B579

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 126 to License NPF-1

ML20206B579
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	04/02/1987
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20206B568	List: ML20206B562 ML20206B571 ML20206B579
References
NUDOCS 8704090242
Download: ML20206B579 (2)

Text

-_

i fan n qjog g ' UNITED STATES

- E a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j r,,

5 f wasmNGTON. D. C. 20555 J

\*...+/

SAFETY EVALUATION PY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATFD TO AMENDMENT NO.126TO 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 INTRODUCTION By letters dated January 31, 1986 as supplemented May 16, 1986 and February 26, 1987, Portland General Electric Company, (PGE) proposed Technical Specification (TS) changes for the Trojan Nuclear Plant to resolve editorial

' inconsistencies in TS Sections 4.0.2.b 4.4.6.1.b and 3.4.9.3. PGE also proposed that TS Table 3.6-1 be revised to li permit the operation of valve

, MD-059 to be administrative 1y controlled durin9 those periods when the i availability of fire protection water is necessary, and 2) delete valve

, CV-8825 from the Table. .On July 30,1986 (51 FR 27287), the Comission published a notice of proposed issuance of the amendment in which it made a proposed finding that the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration. PGE's May 16, 1986 submittal provided supplemental information

' to the January 31, 1986 application and does not alter the staff's initial determination of the original submittal. PGE's letter dated February 26, 1987 withdrew the request to delete valve CV-8825 from Table 3.6-1.

4 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION Section 4.0.2.b The proposed editorial change for this section is not necessary since the typographical error was corrected in the staff's correction letter to Amendment No. 61 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-1 dated June 3,1981.

Section 4.4.6.1.b i The proposed change of the' term " CALIBRATION TEST" to " CHANNEL CALIBRATION" would provide consistency within the Technical Specification since

' " CALIBRATION TEST" is not a defined term. Further, the use of " CHANNEL CALIBRATION" is consistent with the Westinghouse Standard Technical i

Specifications. As such, we find this change to be acceptable.

i 8704090242 870402 PDR ADOCK 05000344 PDR

> _g_

i Section 3.4.9.3 d

The proposed change would correctly state the Reactor Coolant System vent size to be 3.40 square inches rather than 3 square inches. Since this change corrects an error, and does not alter the assumptions of any safety analyses, we find this change to be acceptable.

Table 3.6-1 The proposed change to TS Table 3.6-1 would provide a footnote allowing manual valve MD-059 (demineralized water washdown) to be periodically opened under administrative control to provide demineralized water to the containment for fire protection when the availability of water is required by TS 3.7.8.3 Fire Hose Station. Administrative controls will assure that the valve is closed once the work inside containment is completed. The containment penetration is provided with a check valve inside containment, for automatic isolation capability, in addition to the manual valve (MD-059) outside containment.

Based on the need to satisfy fire protection requirements and the availability

' of the inboard automatic isolation valve, we find this change to be acceptable.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

! This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility l

component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.

1 The staff has detemined 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 significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Connission has previously published a proposed finding that the amendment involves a no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public connent on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 651.22fc)f9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 651.22(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 manner, and (2) such activities will 4 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 2, 1987 PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS:

! C. L1 j T. Chan i

1 1

- _ -_-. . _ - - . - _. - - - - - - - . - _- - - _ -