ML20033D154
| ML20033D154 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1981 |
| From: | Hukill H METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033D153 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112070304 | |
| Download: ML20033D154 (4) | |
Text
r
~
9 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY AND PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY l
+
THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 Operating License No. DPR-50 Docket No. 50-289 Technical Specification Change Request No. 107 This Technical Specification Change Request is submitted in support of Licensee's request to change Appendix A to Operating License No.
DPR-50 for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
At a part of this request, proposed replacement pages for Appendix A are also included.
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY By Dire'ctor, UfI-l
Si,:crn and subscribed to me this O dayofNO
, 1981.
h0nb Mukd Notary fo E'
FAMELA JOY LUBRICHT; Notary Pubhc Mddtdown.
Daushin County 6
. Ps Ily Com pasoG M 88 M E E 1
as, s.,,
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0FDilSSION IN THE MATTER OF DOCKET No. 50-289 LICENSE NO. DPR-50 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPAh7 This is to certify that a copy of Technical Specification Change Request No.107 to Appendix A of the Operating License for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1, has, on the date given below, been filed with the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and been served on the chief executives of Londonderry Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania and Dauphin County, Pennsylvania by deposit in the United States mail, addressed as follows:
Mr. Donald Hoover, Chairman Mr. John E. Minnich, Chairman Board of Supervisors of Board of County Commissioners Londonderry Township of Dauphin County R.D. #1, Geyers Church Road Dauphin County Courthouse Middletown, PA 17057 Harrisburg, PA 17120 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPAh7 By Director, TMI-l Dated: Novenber 23, 1981 m
I.
Technical Specification Change Recuest No.107 The 1Icensee requests the attached change pages replace the following pages of the existing Technical Specifications.
Appendix A Replace 3-22, 3-24, 4-7 and 4-10 II.
Reason for the Change Request This Tec.n Spec Change Request eliminates specifications concerning the sodium thiosulfate tank and provides the specifications for maintaining the sodium hydroxide tank concentration and level so that the spray pH is between 8.5 and 11.0 within containment af ter a design bas is accident. The pH band minimizes the evolution of lodine and minimizes the ef f ect of chloride and caustic stress corrosion cracking on mechanical systems and components.
III.
Saf ety Evaluation Justif ying Change The reactor building spray system was originally designed to spray a mixture of borated water, sodium hydroxide end sodium thiosulf ate.
In order to provide satisf actory chemical performance in spite of single f ailures of active components, the system is being modified to operate with only a ml>ture of borated water and sodlum hydroxide.
As a result of thl, change the sodium thlosul f ate tank and the building spray _ system piping and valves betweeen the Na2 2 3 tank and the spray S0 pump will no longer be used.
Calculations demonstrate that the of fsite doses for the design basis accident will be within the 10 CFR 100 guidelines.
Specifically, the results obtained f or minimum cafety features f one spray pump and one air cooling unit fan operating) show that the two hour dose would be 189 rem thyroid 7.6 rem whole body at the exclusion boundary.
In conclusion we have determined that with regard to the elimination of the sodlum thiocul f ate tank and adjustment of the sodium hydroxide draw down:
(1) The probability of consequences of accidencs previously evaluated has been increased over that previously analyzed as the Maximum Hypothetical Accident (FSAR, Supp lement 1, 6.6).
However. the calculated dose of reference 5 is less than-the cose used in the Safety Evaluation Report of JuIy 11,1973 (Section.15.1)
~!
and remains well below'the limits set by 10 CFR 100.
(2) No accidents other than those previously considered will be introduced since the thiosulf r.te additive. system' has been eliminated.
(3) No saf ety margin-has been reduced. The system as modified accounts for single f ailures.
3
W IV. Amendment Classification (10 CFR 170.22)
This change request involves a single saf ety issue and is therefore considered a Class i ll License.4xendment.
A check for $4,000 is enclosed.
V.
Implementation in order to finalize the necessary procedures and train personnel an implemention time period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the j
app l icab le amendment or until Cycle 5 Criticality whichsver is sooner j
is requested.
VI.
References
- 1. NRC Letter of March 7,1980
- 2. Met Ed Letter of April 2, 1980 (TLL.154 )
- 3. Met Ed Letter of October 2,1980 (TLL 496)
- 4. Met Ed Letter of June 29,198 (LIL 016)
- 5. Met Ed Letter of September 3,1981 (L1L I49)
- 6. Met Ed Letter of November 23, 1981 (L1L 334) l l
i e
vc e r y
, g7
. _ _