ML20215E755
| ML20215E755 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/16/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215E741 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-83-28, GL-85-10, NUDOCS 8612230105 | |
| Download: ML20215E755 (3) | |
Text
- o. %,
o UNITED STATES
[
I,h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION v.
y WASWNGTON, D. C. 20555 k,.....f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.123 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-50 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET N0. 50-289 INTRODUCTION By letter dated February 1, 1985, as revised September 30, 1985, GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPU or the licensee) requested amendment to the Technical Specifications (TSs) appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-50 for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1 (TMI-1). The proposed amendment would provide clarification that the regulating control rod power silicon controlled rectifier (SCP) electronic trips are trip tested monthly and prior to startup when the reactor has been shutdown for greater than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
It would also provide conditions for operability for control rod drive trip breakers and diverse trip devices, and the regulating control rod power SCR electronic trips. The amendment was submitted in response to NRC Generic Letter 85-10, dated May 23, 1985, pertaining to reactor protection system instrumentation and surveillance.
NRC Generic Letter 83-28 describes intennediate term actions to be taken by licensees and applicants to address the generic issues raised as a result of the NRC staff's evaluation of the two anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) events that occurred at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant.
Item 4.4 of Generic Letter 83-28 required licensees and applicants to confirm that safety-related maintenance and test procedures are applied to the diverse reactor trip feature provided by interrupting power to the control rods through the SCRs. This test procedure should verify that the SCRs have de-gated, thereby removing power from the control rods.
Furthermore, SCRs shall be included in the surveillance and test requirements sections of the TSs.
The licensee for TMI-1 responded to tha requirements of Item 4.4 with submittals dated November 8, 1983, September 30, 1985, and October 9, 1985.
These submittals coupled with this amendment request serve to respond to all information requested in Generic Letters 85-10 and 83-28.
EVALUATION The licensee's proposed TS changes would remove existing Specification 3.5.1.6 regarding action to be taken in the event that one of the trip devices fails.
We find this to be acceptable because the new specification statements will supersede it.
8612230105 861216 DR ADOCK 0500 9
.g.
The licensee proposes to change and expand the description under the Bases Section of 3.5.1 (Operational Safety Instrumentation). We find that these additions clarify the way the system operates and provide description of the diverse trip features of the control rod drive trip breakers. We find these changes to be acceptable.
The licensee proposes minor changes and additions to the Bases discussion of Section 4 (Surveillance Standards). We find that these changes clarify the testing of the regulating control rod power SCR electronic trips and are therefore acceptable.
The licensee proposes to add new specifications 3.5.1.6, 3.5.1.7, 3.5.1.7.1, 3.5.1.8 and 3.5.1.8.1 to Section 3.5 (Instrumentation Systems). These specifications denote action to be taken for inoperability of (1) a control rod drive trip breaker, (2) one of the diverse trip fertures of a control rod drive trip breaker, or (3) one of the two regulating control rod power SCR electronic trips. We find the proposed actions consistent with Generic Letter 85-10 and therefore acceptable.
The licensee proposes to make an addition to Table 4.1-1 (Instrument Surveillance Requirements). Channel Description Item 2 would be expanded to apply to the regulating rod power SCRs as well as to the control rod drive trip breaker. Also, a " Remarks" statement would be added to require independent testing of the shunt trip and undervoltage trip features. The tests would be made monthly. For the control rod drive trip breakers, tests would also be made prior to startup in accordance with the testing requirements of Section 4.1 (Operational Safety Review) of the TSs. We find these proposed changes consistent with those of Generic Letter 85-10 and therefore acceptable.
We conclude that the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of Generic Letter 85-10 and is therefore acceptabL.
l The licensee's responses to Generic Letter 83-28 confirm that the SCRs are maintained and tested using safety-related procedures and the testing will confirm the opening'of the power supply to the control rods. These responses coupled with the issuance of this amendment satisfy our concerns as detailed l
in Item 4.4 of Generic Letter 83-28 and complete Multiplant Activity B-91 for l
TMI-1.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves changes in the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
j We have determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFP 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
L
s CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the cnnsiderations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the oublic will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: December 16, 1986 Principal Contributors:
D. Lasher, A. Toalston
-