ML20054E055
| ML20054E055 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/19/1982 |
| From: | Arnold R GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054E054 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204260077 | |
| Download: ML20054E055 (5) | |
Text
-_-
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY GPU NUCLEAR THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION UNIT II Operating License No. OPR-73 Docket No. 50-320 Technical Specification Change Request No. 35 This Technical Specification Change Request is submitted in support of Licensee's request to change Operating License No. OPR-73 for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2.
As a part of this request, proposed replacement pages for Appendix A are also included.
GPU NUCLEAR By An f)
Presi/bn't
(
Sworn and subscribed to me this % day of nabi
,1982.
%&ns h ibsf NotaryPublic 1
OAalA JfA4 BERRY. NOTARY PUBtfC ENam BORO, DAUPHIN COUNTY W MS$30ll EI?lR[s JU4f 17.1985 Alember. Pennsylvama Assocution of Natanes 82042600 477 u
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THd MATTER OF DOCKET NO. 50-320 LICENSE NO. OPR-73 GPU NUCLEAR Tnis is to certify that a copy of Technical Specification Change Request No. 35 to Operating License DPR-73 for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2, 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. Jay H. Kopp, 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 Court House Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 GPU NUCLEAR I
By
(
Prds] Dent Nx 4
e O
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (TMI-2)
Operating License No. DPR-73 Docket No. 50-320 Tech Spec Change Request No. 35 The licensee requests that the attached page 3.9-1 be substituted for the existing Technical Specifications.
Reasons for Change Past experience has shown that many of the prompt reportable occurrences under the present Technical Specifications are due to minor equipment problems or operational occurrences which are relatively unimportant and quickly rectified.
Reporting these types of' occurrences does not enhance safety.
In fact, developing and processing written reports on these events diverts resources which are badly needed elsewhere.
Safety Evaluation Justifying Change The proposed Technical Specification more clearly defines which equipment needs to-be operating in order to provide adequate ventilation capability for the Fuel Handling and Auxiliary Buildings.
The proposed change to the Action Statement more accurately reflects the existing air cleanup exhaust system (system) design in that neither system is totally redundant.
i:
Because of this design both Action Statements (A) and (B) are presently invoked when the system becomes inoperable (i.e., since there is only one total system in a build-
' ng,'when one system is inoperable no entire system is OPERABLE). Therefore, two i
separate layers of protection do not exist.
The proposed Action Statement (A) corrects this by inserting an air flow dependent Action Statement which reflects the design of these air cleanup systems and provides an action level if air flow should deviate from required flowrates for normal operations.
Basically, the air flowrate in these systems is controlled by the vortex vanes on the exhaust fans to maintain building differential pressure negative (nominally.125
2_
inches water gauge) with respect to atmospheric pressure.
For example, if a Unit 1 supply fan in the Fuel Handling Building (which is a shared facility) is shut down, the exhaust fan vortex vanes close off to reduce flow to hold building pressure constant.
In this event, the building pressure remains negative with respect to the outside air and all exhaust air will continue to be filtered through the HEPA filters prior to release to the atmosphere, but exhaust air flow
\\
may decrease to lower than that specified in the surveillance requirements.
Conversely, if building doors are opened the vortex vanes open further to maintain nsgative pressure and system flow increases. Thus, in these and similar circumstances, although public health and safety is not affected the plant may be outside of flow requirements which are based on normal system lineup, because of an operational parturbation which should be corrected and Action Statement (A) will serve this purpose.
Action Statement (B) remains basically the same with the exception of the flowrate allowance provided by proposed Action Statment (A) and an allowance to perform sampling evolutions that may be required by other surveillance requirements while.
the system is inoperable.
Additionally, because of the requirements in Action Statement (B) to ".
. suspend all operations involving movement of liquid and gaseous radioactive waste..."
upon loss of a building's air cleanup system a review was made of the planned use of EPICOR-Il effluent, which is slightly radioactive (<1 x 10" pc/mi), in the Sttndby Reactor Pressure Control (SPC) System for Reactor Coolant System makeup.
i It was concluded from this review that the potential airborne release from the SPC cystem as a result of a loss of ventilation from this source is inconsequential.
Tha use of EPICOR-II effluent in place of demineralized water in the SPC system l
cleo provides a benefit in that it reduces the amount of newly generated " accident w ter".
Therefore, use of EPICOR-Il effluent in the SPC system should not be l
considered movement of liquid radioactive waste in the context of Action Statement I
(B).
i In summary, this change reflects operational characteristics based on original system design as discussed in the TMI-2 FSAR, and it continues to provide the same level of protection as the existing Techpical Specifications in that adequate ventilation will continue to be provided and the exhaust air from the affected buildings will continue l
l to be filtered through the existing HEPA filters. Thus, as this change does not affect I
i the original safety evaluation of the plant, it is administrative in nature.
I AMENDMENT CLASS (10CFR170)
The Licensee has determined that because the admendment request involves an administrative change and not a safety concern, it represents a Class II License Amendment (per 10CFR 170.22).
Therefore, enclosed is a check in the amount of $1,200.00.
Ms