ML20195H320
| ML20195H320 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/12/1988 |
| From: | Hukill H GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147C471 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8801190250 | |
| Download: ML20195H320 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _
1 3
i METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY AND PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 Operating License No. DPR-50 Docket No. 50-289 Technical Specification Change Request No.180 This Technical Specification Change Request is submitted in support of Licensee's request to change Appendix A to Operating License No. DFR-50 for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
As a part of this request, proposed replacement pages for Appendix A are also included.
GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION 4
BY:
\\
Vici Presid'ent & Director, TMI-l Sworn and Subscribed to before me this /fl day of 0 6,u m i, 1988.
U l
bonP.&nw
/
Notary Public St%s t. MCA. ms scu U@ lift C93). DAUP9PJ tyAn:Ty 27 MENM DHlfS J4WE 12. He3 MM W Anttisthrs of E%
8801190250 880112 PDR ADOCK 05000289 P
m I.
Technical Specification Change Request (TSCR) No.180 GPUN requests that the following changed replacement pages be inserted into the existing Technical Specifications:
4 Revised pages:
4-1, 4-2, 4-10, 5-6 and 5-7.
These replacement pages are attached to this TSCR, II.
Reason For Cnange The change in maximum allowable fuel enrichment for new fuel storage at TMI-1 being proposed herein is in support of cycle 7 operation and subsequent cycles of operation which currently plan to use fuel loadings of higher enrichment.
These fuel loadings of higher enrichment would allow for longer operational cycle lengths.
III. Safety Evaluation Justifying The Change The proposed Technical Specifications incorporate appropriate surveillance and design requirements to allow for the storage of fuel with an enrichment not to exceed 4.3 w/o U-235 in the TMI-1 New Fuel Storage Vault, Fuel Transfer Canal, Spent Fuel Pool "A" and Spent Fuel Pool "B".
The attached criticality safety analysis verifies that the highu enrichei fuel can be stored in these locations without exceeding the NRC guidelines on Keffective under normal and accident conditions. To ensure that the NRC guidelines on Keffective are met at all times, two (2) special restrictions are required.
These restrictions appear below:
1.
The restriction to leave twelve (12) storage locations in the New Fuel Storage Vault vacant (aligned in two rows of six locations each; transverse rows numbers four and eight) of fissile or moderating material.
The restriction will ensure that the NRC Standard Review Plan (NUREG 0800) Section 9.1.1 requirements for reactivity under hypothetical conditions of low density "optimum" moderation are met by allowing for the necessary additional neutron leakage.
2.
The restriction to maintain at least 600 ppm soluble boron in the Spent Fuel Pool "A" and the Fuel Transfer Canal during new fuel movements in or over the pool or canal when new fuel is being stored in the pool or canal.
This will ensure that the maximum reactivity is less than the NRC maximum allowed reactivity value for the postulated accident condition of a misplaced fuel assembly located outsid3 the rack but immediately adjacent to a fuel assembly within the rack.
4 Technical Specification Section 5.4.1(a) is being revised to indicate that 4.3 w/o U-235 new fuel can be stored in the new fuel storage vault or spent fuel pools without exceeding a Keffective of.95.
The currently existing Section 5.4.1(a) requires that a Keffective of less than.9 be maintained.
The.9 Keffective criteria was the NRC pre-1978 limit based on the fact that uncertainties were not considered in the criticality analyses. However, the current NRC guidelines on Keffective for new fuel storage (NRC Standard Review Plan 9.1.1) require the consideration of uncertainties in criticality analyses and therefore the required Xeffective is increased appropriately.
The proposed Technical Specification Section 5.4.1(a) recognizes the revised cri teria.
Technical Specification Section 5.4.l(a) is being revised to indicate the two (2) restrictions concerning new fuel storage.
In addition to the revision to 5.4.l(a), the two (2) restrictions will be included in the appropriate plant procedures.
Technical Specification Section 5.4.l(a) also is being revised to identify the proper fuel rack nominal center-to-center spacings for the Spent Fuel Pool "B" racks.
Technical Specification Section 5.4.1(b) is being revised to indicate a restriction concerning new fuel manipulation in the fuel transfer canal when new fuel is being stored there.
In addition to the revision to 5.4.1(b), the restrict"on will be included in the appropriate plant procedures.
Technical Specification Section 5.4.2(d) is being revised to add a note indicating that, of the 66 storage locations in the new fuel vault racks, twelve (12) of the locations are required to be vacant of fissile or moderating material.
Technical Specification Section 5.4.2(f) is being revised to specify the maximum allowable grams of U-235 per axial centimeter of fuel assembly.
This change is necessary to support the ti, rease to 4.3 w/o U-235 new fuel.
Technical Specification Section 4.1 Bases is being revised to include a discussion concerning a minimum boron concentration for the Spent Fuel Pool.
Technical Specification Table 4.1-3 is being revised to check that the boron concentration is greater than or equal to 660 ppmb.
~
IV.
No Significant Hazards Considerations GPUN has determined that.the Technical Specification Change Request poses no significant hazards as defined by the NRC in 10 CFR 50.92, 1.
Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
There are no design basis events in TMI-1 FSAR Chapter 14 or elsewhere which are affected by this proposed amendment. Also, an analysis has been performed and has demonstrated that the NRC criticality requirements for the storage of new fuel have been met under both normal and abnormal conditions.
2.
Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The only event of concern with respect to storage of new fuel is criticality and as mentioned in item (1) above, an analysis has demonstrated that the proposed amendment would not result in any kind of criticality event.
3.
Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The safety criteria contained in the Technical Specification Bases are not impacted by this proposed amendment.
The Commission has provided guidelines pertaining to the application of the three (3) standards by listing specific examples in 48 FR 14870.
The proposed amendment is considered to be in the same category as example (vi) of amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards considerations in that the result of this proposed amendment is clearly within all acceptance criteria with respect to the Standard Review Plan.
V.
Implementation It is requested that the amendment authorizing this change become effective no later than May 1,1988.
This is needed to support the receipt of new fuel at THI-1 for cycle 7 operation.
Delay beyond this date could adversely impact the scheduled THI-1 refueling outage and the shipment of damaged TMI-2 fuel offsite.
VI.
Amendment Fee (10 CFR 170.21)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 170.21, attached is a check for
$150.00.
_3
~
. -. --