ML20237D647

Application for Amend to License NPF-1 Consisting of Rev 1 to License Change Application 154,to Correct Tech Specs Section 3/4.4.6.2 for Agreement W/Definition of Pressure Boundary Leakage

ML20237D647
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	12/16/1987
From:	Cockfield D PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20237D639	List: ML20237D638 ML20237D647 ML20237D655
References
TAC-66096, NUDOCS 8712240100
Download: ML20237D647 (3)

Text

l PORTLAND CENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EUGENE WATER & ELECTRIC BOARD I AND PACIFIC POWER & LICHT COMPANY Operating License NPF-1 Docket 50-344 License Change Application 154. Revision 1 This License Change Application requests modifications to Operating License NPF-1 for the Trojan Nuclear Plant to correct the Bases section for agreement with the definition of Pressure Boundary Leakage.

PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY By

\(A D. W. Cdhkfidld Vice' President Nuclear Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of December 1987.

4 c /, Y a. w bv Notary Public of Orefon

~

ftMecg [ //[/

v' 9MyCommission fP ADO

l-4

l. LCA 154 Rev. 1

Page 1 of 2 Description of Change l

This proposed change revises the Bases for PRESSURE BOUNDARY LEAKAGE in Trojan Technical Specification (TTS) Section 3/4.4.6.2, Operational Leakage, to delete the provision for continued Plant operation. Also, a l

statement is added requiring that the unit be placed promptly in cold shutdown following the occurrence of PRESSURE BOUNDARY LEAKAGE.

Reason for Change This change corrects an internal inconsistency in the TTS between Bases Section 3/4.4.6.2 and the definition of PRESSURE BOUNDARY LEAKAGE in Section 1.16. TTS 1.16 defines PRESSURE BOUNDARY LEAKAGE as "... leakage (except steam generator tube leakage) through a non-isolable fault in a Reactor Coolant System component body, pipe wall or vessel wall." There- i fore, by de.inition, leakage through a component Which can be isolated from the balance of the RCS is IDENTIFIED LEAKAGE rather than PRESSURE BOUNDARY LEAKAGE. l Significant Hazards Consideration Determination This proposed technical specification change does not involve a signifi-cant hazards consideration because operation of the Trojan Nuclear Plant in acccrdance with this change would not:

1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

This change merely corrects an internal inconsistency in the TTS. It does not propose a Plant modification or any change in the way the Trojan Nuclear Plant is to be operated. The probability or conse-quences of an accident are unaffected because the TTS will continue to require that leakage (except steam generator tube leakage) through a non-isolable fault in an RCS component body, pipe wall or vessel wall, be classified as PRESSURE BOUNDARY LEAKAGE.

]

2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

The possibility of a new or different kind of accident is not created by this change, because it merely corrects an inconsistency in the TTS. Changing the Bases to TTS 3/4.4.6.2 to be consistent with TTS Definition 1.16 is an administrative change that does not result in any change to the facility, and does not alter the TTS requirement to shut down the unit in the event of PRESSURE BOUNDARY LEAKAGE.

l l

1 l

l

e LCA 154, Rev. 1 Page 2 of 2

3. Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

The proposed change does not alter the margin of safety because the TTS will continue to require prompt reactor shutdown upon occurrence of PRESSURE BOUNDARY LEAKAGE. This change eliminates potential con-fusion caused by the wording of TTS Bases 3/4.4.6.2 which provides for continued Plant operation if PRESSURE BOUNDARY LEAKAGE is isolated. It is incorrect to refer to RCS leakage that can be isolated as PRESSURE BOUNDARY LEAKAGE. This change merely corrects that error.

In the March 6,1986 Federal Register, the NRC provided certain e>:amples of amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards considerations. Example (i) is a purely administrative change to technical specifications: for example, a change to achieve consistency throughout the technical specifications, correction of an error, or a change in nomenclature. The proposed change is similar to Exemple (i) in that it is a change to achieve consistency throughout the technical specifications. As noted above, the change corrects an internal inconsistency between a Bases section and a Definition section.

Therefore, based on the above discussion, this change has been detenmined not to involve a significant hazards consideration.

Safety / Environmental Evaluation Safety and environmental evaluations were performed as required by 10 CFR 50 and the Trojan Technical Specifications. This review deter-mined that an unreviewed safety question does rot exist since Plant operations remain consistent with the Updated FSAR, adequate surveillance is maintained, and there is no conceivable impact upon the environment.

ARA /kal 5941k

_ _ _ _ .