ML20215K813
| ML20215K813 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1987 |
| From: | Cockfield D PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215K790 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-55383, NUDOCS 8706250448 | |
| Download: ML20215K813 (4) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:f( I {^ 7-i 's. i 1 i 1 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EUGENE WATER & ELECTRIC BOARD AND~ -{ PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT COMPANY i .I Operating License NPF-1 j Docket 50-344 j License Change Application 132 } l This License Change Application requests modifications to Appendix A of Operating License NPF-1 for tho' Trojan Nuclear Plant to revise the I operability requirements for the reactor trip breakers and the surveillance requirements for the manual reactor trip. reactor trip i breakers, and bypass breakers. PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY W Ev D. W. Co field / Vice Pr sident Nuclear l I Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22nd day.of June 1987. nb. e n Notary Public of Oresdn g y 'I' My Commission Expires: .<-(ve a 7' [ f\\ /*g gtO g. 4 8706250448 B70622 6f @. PDR ADOCK 05000344 P PDR .)
i (, p 1Ly 'e. Q_ LCA 132. Page l.of 3. . REASON'FOR CHANGE' 0 In.a' letter-(Terence L. Chan to Bart D. Withers)' dated September 23, '1986,.the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.(NRC) requested that Portland- ~ . General Electric ~(PGE)Esubmit changes to the Reactor Trip. System-Instrumentation Technical. Specifications'as recommended'inLGeneric Letter 85-09 of May-23, 1985.': The NRC. indicated in Generic Letter'85-09~that' ~ .the Trojan Technical Specifications (TTS) should require independent testing of'the reactor trip. breaker (RTB) undervoltage and shunt trip attachments during power..' operation.,In addition ~ independent testing'of the control room manual trip switch contacts during each refueling'is to be performed.. Testing requirements for.the reactor.' trip. bypass breakers .are.also prescribed. 1 This change incorporates the above requirements. Due,to the interrelationship.between TTS changes requested by Generic. j Letter 85-09 and those previously' proposed in License change Application l (LCA)L117. Revision 2, it was~ agreed that an LCA to-address the changes -requested.by. Generic Letter 85-09 would be submitted after'the NRC's y.. ! approval of LCA 117. Revision 2. Amendment 131 to the Trojan. Operating License-NPF-1,. consisting of3TTS changes in response to LCA 117, was approved on April'22, 1987., ~ DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE 'page'3/4 3-4. Table 3.3-1. Reactor Trip System Instrumentation ~ H + Item 21, Reactor Trip Breakers - Reference to new ACTION Statement 12 'is added. Page 3/4 3-7. Table 3.3-1. Reactor Trip System Instrumentation 4 L + New' ACTION Statement.12 is added to clarify the operability status of the RTBs with either the undervoltage'or shunt trip attachment inoperable. Pages 3/4 3-10 through 12. Table 4.3-1, Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements
- Item 1, Manual Reactor Trip - Reference to new Note 13 is added.
- Item 21. Reactor Trip Breaker - Reference to new Note 14 is added.
+ A new Item 23, Reactor Trip Bypass Breaker, and associated surveil-lance requirements, including reference to new Notes 15 and 16, are l added. l
- New Notes 13 through 16 prescribe requirements for testing of the j
'RTBs, bypass breakers, and manual trip function. o i {
W .\\ y LCA 132 Ee Page 2 of 3 7 SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION The proposed' revisions follow the sample TTS changes included with Generic Letter 85-09,Lwith.one exception. The testing. required for the reactor trip bypass breakers will be performed on the same frequency as: 'the reactor trip breakers, ie, each train tested every other month-(Table 4.3-1, Note 7). Testing each train every 62 days on'a staggered ' test' basis is consistent with recommendations in the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications.(NUREG-0452,-Revision 4) for reactor trip breaker testing. j In accordance with the requirements of Title 10,: Code of Federal. Regulations, Part 50.92, this LCA is judged to involve no significant hazards based.upon the following information:
- 1. ' The proposed ~1icense change does not involve'a'significant' increase.
in-the probability or consequences of an accident. The proposed -change adds new testing requirements to help ensure the' functioning i of. the' reactor trip _ system when needed. The change is intended;to i reduce the frequency of postulated Anticipated Transients Without' ~! Scram (ATWS) events. ,y ' 2.~ The proposed license change does not create the possibility of a new
- f or different kind of accident from any accident previously. evaluated.
l The proposed change adds new testing requirements intended to reduce the frequency of postulated ATWS ovents. 4 3. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in -a margin of' safety. The proposed change adds additional testing -requirements which effects an increase in the margin of safety. In the April 6 '1983 Federal Register, the NRC published a list of examples of amendments that are not likely to involve a significant 1 hazards concern. One of the examples (ii) of these actions' involving 1 no'significant hazards consideration relates to a change which consti-tutes an additional limitation, restriction or control not presently included in the TTS. The proposed changes are similar in nature to the example provided by the Commission. The changes to the TTS add a new TTS requiring that: (1) an inoperable undervoltage or shunt trip attachment of the reactor trip breaker shall be restored to operability within 48 hours, (2) the channel functional test shall independently verify the operability of the undervoltage and shunt trip circuits for the manual reactor trip function, and (3) the undervoltage and shunt trip attachments of the reactor trip breakers shall be independently verified for operability. These proposed changes introduce additional management controls not presently in the TTS and, therefore, involve no significant hazards.
.~. - r LCA'132 Page'3 of 3 . SAFETY / ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION l 1 Safety and environmental evaluations were performed as required by = 10 CFR 50 and the TTS. This review determined that the proposed changes l.. do.not create an unreviewed safety question since Plant operations remain ~ consistent with tho' Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, adequate'sur-l veillance is maintained.and there is no' conceivable impact upon'the environment. I t 1 3 i i i i f i ARA /kal 5666k.687}}