ML20064G443
| ML20064G443 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/05/1983 |
| From: | Hukill H GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20064G442 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8301110505 | |
| Download: ML20064G443 (4) | |
Text
..
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY JERSEY CENTPAL POWER & LIGHT COMPAIN AND PE!!NSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY THREE M;:LE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, L3IT 1 Operating License No. DPR-50 Docket No. 50-289 i
Technical Specification Change Request No. 107, Rev. 1 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.
As a part of this request, proposed replacement pages for Appendix A are also i
included.
GPU SUCLEAR CORFORATION By
'M Diridtor, TMI-l Sworn and subscribed to before me this &mno day of
-..= 9, 1982.
wn,u m_ _r w. -
nAvtii!!WIfo[YM,.!frumc MIDDiliU4% P0n0 DAUFHIN C0'JN!Y 8301110505 830105
'NE 11 l#5 PDR ADOCK 05000289 maM unne i
P PDR 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C01MISS10N IN THE MATTER OF POCKET No. 50-289 LICENSE NO. DPR-50 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION This is to certify that a copy of Technical Specification Chenge Request No.
107, Rev. I to Appendix A of the Operating License for Three Mile Island t
Nuclear Station Unit 1, has, on the date given below, been filed with the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissien and been served on the chief
. c
~
executives of Londonderry Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania and Dauphin County, Pennsylvania by deposit in the United States rail,
,,(
addressed as follows:
Mr. Jay E. Kopp, Chairman Mr. Jchn 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 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION Ey N
Dir'ecter, TMI-l Dated:
January 5, 1983 i
l re s---r
,t-e m -
Technical Specification Change Request No.107, Rev. 1 The licensee requests the attached revised change pages replace the
-following pages of the existing Technical Specifications.
Appendix A Replace' 3-22, 3-24, 4-7 and 4-10 i
Reason for the Change Request This Tech Spec Change Request eliminates specificatiens concerning the sodium thiosulfate tank and provides the specificatiens for =aintaining the sodium hydroxide tank concentration and level co that the reactor building spray pH is between 6.5 and 11.0 within containment after a design basis accident. The pH band minimizes the evolution of iodine and minimizes the effect of chloride and caustic stress corrosion cracking on rechanical systems and co:ponents.
Safety Evaluation Justifying Change I.
The reactor building spray system was originally designed to spray a mixture of borated water, sodium hydroxide and sodiu: thiosulfate.
In order to provide satisfactory chemical perfor=ance in spite of single failures of active components, the system is being nodified to operate with only a mixture of borated water and sodium hydroxide.
As a result of this change the sodium thiosulf ate tank and the building spray system piping and valves between the Na2 2 3 tank and the spray S0 pump suction headers will no longer be used.
Calculations demonstrate that the offsite doses for the design basis accident will be within the 10 CFR 100 guidelines.
Specifically, the results obtained for minicum safety features (one spray pump and one air cooling unit fan operating) show that the two hcur dose would be 189 rem thyroid 7.6 re= whole body at the exclusien 'toundary.
In conclusion we have determined that with regard to the elimination of the sodium thiosulfate tank and adjustment of the sodium hyd cxide draw down:
(1) The probability of consequences of accidents previously evaluated has not been increased beyond that previcusly analy:ed as the Mar.imu: Hypothetical Accident (FSAR, Supplement 1,
6.6).
However, the calculated dose cf reference f is less than the dose used in the Safety Eval"ation Report of July 11, 1973 (Section j
15.1) and remains well below the li=its set by 10 CFR 100.
i f
l
_.. - ~.. _.
(2) No sceidents other than those previously censidered will be-introduc'ed.since the thiosulfate additive system has been eliminated.
(3) No safety margin has been reduced.
In fact the system as modified accounts for single failures.
i Amendment Classification (10 CFR 170.22)
This change request involves a single safety issue and is therefore considered a Class III License Amendment. A check for $4,000 was sent with our Novemoer 23,1981 submittal.
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 l
applicable amendment or until Cycle 5 Criticality whichever is sooner is requested.
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, 1981 (LIL 016) 5.
Met Ed Letter of September 3,1981 (LIL 149) 6.
Met Ed Letter of November 23,1981 (LIL 334) 7.
Met Ed Letter of November 23, 1981 (L1L 333) 8.
GPL'N Letter of January 29, 1981 (L1L 016) 9.
GPLT Letter of August 11, 1982 (5211-82-188) t l
t l
r
.r
-