ML20209B617
| ML20209B617 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1987 |
| From: | Hukill H GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209B455 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8702040082 | |
| Download: ML20209B617 (5) | |
Text
.
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.163 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 included.
GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION BY:
Vice President & Director, TMI-l Sworn and Subscribed to before me this c2 h day of QaiminAjj, 1987.
O OA8k h.
/'
Notary PuhfTic
!".'aXi P. ::107l::, :CI?:Y Il31!0 litCDiEicW:1 SDRO, D.WPH:,1 C,til1Y L Y COM!alSSi3?l EXPIR!S JUNE 12,1933 kmhar, Pennsylvania Association of Notaries 8702040002 870129 PDR ADOCK 05000289 P
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF DOCKET N0. 50-289 LICENSE NO. DPR-50 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION This is to certify that a copy of Technical Specification Change Request No.163 to Appendix A of the Operating License for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1, has, on the date given below, been filed with executives of Londonderry Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania; Dauphin County, Pennsylvania; and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Radiation Protection, by deposit in the United States mail, addressed as follows:
Mr. Jay H. Kopp, Chairman Mr. Frederick S. Rice, 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 Mr. Thomas Gerusky, Director PA. Dept. of Environmental Resources Bureau of Radiation Protection P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17120 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION i
BY:
- fte Presi' dent & Director, TMI-l DATE:
January 29, 1987
I.
Technical Specification Change Request No.163 GPUN requests that the following revision be made to the THI-l Technical Specifications:
Add new pages: 3-94a, 4-76b Replace pages:
111, iv II.
Reason for Change This change is requested to provide a Limiting Condition for Operation and surveillance requirements for specific controls and monitoring instrumentation installed for remote shutdown, s
The remote shutdown system instrumentation and controls were provided in the System Design Description for the TMI-l Remote Shutdown System which was submitted on Jtly 22, 1986. FSAR Section 7.4.6 will be. '
revised to include all the controls and instrumentation in the remote shutdown system per 10 CFR 50.71e.
III.
Safety Evaluation Justifying Change 10 CFR 50 Appendix R, Section III.G.1 requires one train of systems necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown and cold shutdown conditions to be controlled from an emergency control station.
GPUN will have a remote shutdown system operational which achieves compliance with Section III.G.1 before Cycle 6 startup.
s A remote shutdown system exists which was installed to meet Appendix A to Branch Technical Position APCSB 9.5-1.
Currently, no Technical Specification requirements exist for the remote I
shutdown system.
A Limiting Condition for Operation has been proposed which is consistent with existing Technical Specifications for fire protection features.
If instrumentation is inoperable for more than 14 days, compensatory measures that provide an alternate means of achieving the required function wtll be in place by the fourteenth day. The compensatory measures and repair plans will be discussed in a Special Report to the Region I Administrator.
The justification for the allowable outage time is based on the likelihood of the need to use the feature which may be out of service.
The probability of an undetected fire severe enough to require the use of any portion of the remote shutdown system is low. Therefore,
~
allowing instrumentation to be inoperable for 14 days will not represent a significant increase in risk to the public health and
..J M
III.
Safety Evaluation Justifying Change (Cont'd.)
~
safety.
Compensatory measures that' provide an alternate means of m/'
achieving the function of the inoperable instrumentation are to be taken within 14 days if the instrumentation cannot be repaired. This Will, assure the function can be performed.
There is no requirement to change the plant mode. The remote shutdown system is a compensatory measure in the event of the loss of the use of the control room. The risk involved in changing the plant rtode is i.
perceived to be greater than the risk involved in having a part of the remote shutdown system out of service. The Special Report that will be
'. submitted if the fourteen days are exceeded allows the NRC the
' opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the measures taken.
I'nstrumentation in the remote shutdown system consists of circuit isolation transfer switches, status indicators, indicators and meters, r
and control devices. For instrumentation that continuously displays, weekly checks will be performed.
This will assure operability at a frequency which will allow for early detection of inoperable instrumentation and prompt corrective action well within the 14-day clock set forth in the Liriiting Condition for Operation.
Circuitif solation transfer switches and status indicators will be
' demonstrated operable once each refueling. While transfer switches are in the ergergency mode, instrumentation that functions only in the emergency mode will. be verified operable. Control functions will also be tested each refueling.
This will assure operability with minimal risk in the event of a malfunction.
IV.-
No Significant Hazards Consideration The proposed changes provide conditions for operation and surveillances for the remote shutdown system.
1.
Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a significant increase in the probability of i
l occurrence or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The design basis event is a fire which will require the use of the remote shutdown system. The proposed amendment has no affect on the probability of occurrence of the design basis event.
2.
Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment l
will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of H
~
accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes provide assurance of the operability of the remote shutdown system.
X
. 2 --
=a, O
e i.
s 4
IV.
No Significant Hazards Consideration (Cont'd.)
3.
Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed changes provich conditions for operation and surveillances that will help assure operability of the system which previously did not exist in the Technical Specifications.
Therefore, the overall margin of safety for the plant has not been decreased.
The proposed amendment combines Example (ii) and Example (vii) of amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards consideration (48 FR 14870) in that the changes constitute additional limitations and controls in the Technical Specifications and make the license conform to changes in the regulations in that the remote shutdown system exists to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix R.
V.
Implementation It is requested that this amendment be approved and issued as soon as possible. We request that the amendment be effective as of the date of issuance. An updhte to the FSAR will be submitted within 60 days of issuance of the amendment to revise FSAR Section 7.4.6.
VI.
Amendment Fee (10 CFR 170.21)
In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 170.21, a check for $150.00 is enclosed.
A