ML20006E730
| ML20006E730 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1990 |
| From: | Cockfield D PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20006E728 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-89-14, NUDOCS 9002260285 | |
| Download: ML20006E730 (4) | |
Text
gr
~
m i:..
"Wlgp-g: U 4
+_ I h
f 4
.q.
e;.
L l'
I.
f t
i jff l-2 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY-l l
. EUGENE WATER & ELECTRIC BOARD AND
,i'<
+g PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
'I Jol 7
s s f, i-a N Yi.
l k
Operating License NPF-1 Docket 50-344_
L License Change Application 191 l
'f 1
3, This License Change Application requests modification to the Trojan
[
' Nuclear, Plant. Operating License NPF-1 for Trojan. Technical Specifi-tj cation 4.0.2 based upon the recommended changes contained,in Generic u
- ~
' Letter 89-14,I"Line-Item. Improvements in Technical Specifications
'N Removal.of the.3.25 Limit on Extending Surveillance Intervals"..-
c iI 4
. i PORTLAND' GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY-
,q t
c
[L W /
'[
4, BV
-D. W. Cockfield" Vice' President l'
Nuclear-
-1
}
y e
4 1
t l,
I
,;:w Subscribed and sworn to before me this-16th day of February 1990.
l:p L
N'otary Public of Oregon My Commission Expires:
'/M l l-9002260285 900216 t
PDR ADOCK 05000344,
l'.m PNV g;.
p f
u,
'r
, v,-
3-l;0l
\\,7 I
).c i
- + -
1 i
i t
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
i i
)
PORTLAND CENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
)
Docket 50-344 THE CITY OF EUGENE, OREGON, AND
)
Operating License NPF-1 PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
)
)
(TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT) e CERTIFICATE OF S;HVICE i
I hereby; certify'that-copies of License Change-Application 191,-to=the Operating License for Trojan Nuclear Plant, dated February ~16,=1990, have
.been served on the following'by hand delivery or by deposit in the United' States mall. first class, this 16th day' of February 1990:
State of; Oregon Department of Energy 625 Marion St NE Salem OR 97310 9-Mr. Michael J.'Sykes Chairman of County Commissioners Columbia ~ County Courthouse St..Helens OR 97051.
Mt.
g, S. A. Bauer, Manager r
, Nuclear Regulation Branch Nuclear Safety & Regulation it.;
=
i
' Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of February 1990.
\\
\\
e
~mf Notary Public of Oregon h
'I My Commission Expires:
l s
i
=-
m-
a:
D[
~
-n
+
2 I
m LCA 191 Attachment A Page 1 of 2 1
i Reason for and. Description-of Chanae
~
Trojan Technical Specification (TTS) 4.0.2 permits surveillance intervals to be extended:up.to 25 percent of the specified interval.
~
This. extension facilitates scheduling activities and allows surveil-lances 1to be postponed whenLplant conditions are not suitable for conducting's surveillancel; Specification 4.0.241so limits extending ourveillances so thetithe combined time interval.for.any three con-secutive time intervals shall not' exceed'3.25Dtimes the specified survelliancetinterval. The intent of the 3.23 limit was:to preclude-1 routine use of the" provision for extending a. surveillance / interval by-L25: percent. oOn August-21, 1989,: the t'RC issued Generic Letter 89-14,
'"Line-Item Improvements in Technical Specifications - Removal of the 3.251 Limit on Extending Surveillance Intervals"..The Generic Letter concluded that removal'of the 3.25 limit from Specification 4.0.2 results in a greater benefit'to safety than limiting the use ofcthe
.25 percent allowance'(with the13.25 limit) to extend surveillance intervals.
This License Change: Application (LCA) proposes.to revise TTS.4.0.2 by.
removing the requirement that the combined ~ time interval'for.any t three consecutive surveillance intervals shall not exceed 3.25: times
'the specified surveillance interval. ' Additionally, this LCA' proposes
,to modifyJthe associated _TTS Pases.
f "Sinnificant Hazards Consideration Determination
.In accordance with the requirements of Title 30 of the Code of
' Federal Regulations, Part 50,'Section 92 (10 CFR 50.92), this LCA is-1
. judged-to involve no significant hazards based upon the following informationi
~
1.c Does the proposod. license change involve a significant increase-in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Deletion of the 3.25 extension limitation'.will not significantly affect equipment reliability and does not affect the probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated in the FSAR.
The survelliance interval will still be constrained by the 25-percent interval extension criteria of TTS 4.0.2.
The risk involved with the performance of 18-month surveillances during plant operation is greater than the risk involved with exceeding
=the.3.25 limit. When plant conditions are not conducive for the F.afe conduct of surveillances due to safety systems being out of service for maintenance or due to other ongoing surveillance activities, safety is enhanced by the use of the allowance that permits a surveillance interval to be extended.
- " r
~
~ '
p
.h h
{l
~ k ' < l' * *.
4 3'y x
', i F-j
.I '
-LCA 191 ct Atta'chment A-
' Page 2 of 2
,$t
~
'Therefore, the proposed change'does not involve a significant-
. increase in the probability or consequences.of an accident
[
R
' previous,1y evaluated.
2.
Does the change create the' possibility of a new or difforent kind' of' accident from any-accident previously evaluated?-
- u
-The proposed. revision to the TTS will not; result in any physical alteration to any plant system, nor would there be a' change in.
)
the method by;which any safety-related system performs its i
function.'
J 4
i.
r
-Therefore, the proposed change does not create'the possibility of 1
a new or different: kind of-accident from any accident previously
- ' valuated' e
3.. Does'the change involve a significant reduction in.a margin of' safety?
At
' Deletion of.the:requirementithat any three consecutive surveil-N
. lance: intervals shall not, exceed =3.25. times the interval will not significantly affect equipment reliability, rather'it will; reduce
' the potential to. interrupt normal plantu operations' duetto sur.
veillance scheduling. This. proposed exemption willl allow all-
^
surveillance intervals'to:be constrained by the' maximum allowable;
< extension of 25 percent of the specified surveillance interval, au which maytenhance safety.when used during: plant operation.
t i
Therefore,'th'e-proposed. change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin'of-safety.
l Safety / Environmental Evaluation i
i Safety and environmental evaluations were performed and determined,
'that.the proposed change does not create either an unreviewed safety y' > =
question or an unreviewed environmental question.
t I'
Implementation Consideration u
It is requested that the effective date of this amendment be the date
}
-of issuance by the NRC.
h L
KBR/3928W
' i b
l P
t>
p:
.... - -