ML20236N576

Application for Amend to License NPF-1,consisting of License Change Application 154,correcting Tech Spec Section, Bases for Agreement W/Definition of Pressure Boundary Leakage

ML20236N576
Person / Time
Site:	Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png
Issue date:	08/06/1987
From:	Cockfield D PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20236N571	List: ML20236N568 ML20236N576 ML20236N588
References
TAC-66096, NUDOCS 8708120018
Download: ML20236N576 (3)

Text

3 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY EUGENE WATER & ELECTRIC BOARD ,

AND PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Operating License NPF-1 Docket 50-344 License Change Application 154 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 CENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY By b h r~ l

@ W. Cockfield Vice President Nuclear Gubscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of August 1987.

d4 sd, L Notary Public of Orfgon OMyCommission cm&of

[ 8/7 1

Oh8 hO P P

j

LC.1 154 Page 1 of 2 Descri7 tion of Change 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. A statement is added requiring that the unit be placed promptly in cold shutdown following the occurrence of PRESSURE BOUNDARY LEAKAGE, and an example of different types of Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage is provided in the Bases for guidance.

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-fore, by definition, leakage through a component Which can be isolated from the balance of the RCS is IDENTIFIED LEAKRGE rather than PRESSURE BOUNDARY LEAKAGE.

This change also conforms the TTS to the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications, NUREG-0452, Rev. 4.

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 accordance 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 I 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. j i

l L1 1

LCA 154 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 climinates 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 examples 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 Example (1) 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 determined 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 not exist since Plant operations remain consistent with the Updated FSAR, adequate surveillance is maintained, and there is no conceivable impact upon the environment.

I i

l 1 i

l i

4 l

l I

l l

l l ._ ._ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _