ML20138H900

From kanterella
Revision as of 21:49, 29 June 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Application for Amend to License DPR-50,consisting of Tech Spec Change Request 141,clarifying Conditions Which Allow Feedwater Pump & Main Turbine Trip Defeat During Physics Tests.Fee Paid
ML20138H900
Person / Time
Site: Three Mile Island Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 10/24/1985
From: Hukill H
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML20138H846 List:
References
NUDOCS 8510290175
Download: ML20138H900 (3)


Text

METROPOLITAN EDISON 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. 141 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 Director. TMI-l Sworn and Subscribed to before me his .2Y#

day of g/ s n , 1985.

.) AilnL.Notary PA lic bben

[

i f $HARON P. BROWN. NOTARY PUPl!C MIDDLETOWN 80R0. DAUFHIN COUNTY MY CCWulSS:0N EXPIRIS JUN[ 12,1933 l

, Member,Pennsyfyama Association of Notaries

B510290175 851024
PDR ADOCK 05000289 l P PDR i

~

I. Technical Specification Change Request No.141 It is requested that the attached page replace Page 3-30 of the existing Technical Spect fications.

II. Reason for Change Request Current Technical Specifications do not specify that the feedwater pump trip signal and the main turbine trip may be defeated during physics tests. This Tech. Spec Change Request provides clarification of the conditions which allow trip defeat, therefore avoiding unnecessary reactor trips during physics tests.

This Tech. Spec. Change is not necessary for the physics tests that are to be performed prior to Cycle 5 restart since the defeat of trip signals for these tests is included in Section 3.20.1 of the Technical Specifica tion.

III. Safety Evaluation Justifying Change During physics testing, the power range linear amplifiers are set conservative by a factor of ten resulting in a corresponding increase in indicated reactor power. This conservative factor is left in place for zero power physics testing and the first steps of power escalation physics testing. These sequences require that reactor thermal power be increased to 2.5%FP (indicated power of 25%FP).

The new Anticipatory Reactor Trip (ART) for Feedwater Pump Trip (Reactor power > 7%FP indicated) and Main Turbine Trip (Reactor power > 20%FP j indicated) would cause a reactor trip under these conditions.-

The existing Technical Specification (Section 3.5) and FSAR (Section 7.1.2.3h) allow for the feedwater pump trip to be bypassed below 7%

indicated reactor power and the main turbine trip to be bypassed below 20% indicated reactor power.

, This Technical Specification Change Request revises Table 3.5-1 of the Technical Specification to clarify the conditions which allow trip

defea t. This will make the Table consistent with the existing Technical Specification and FSAR. Thus, this Technical Specification Change does not reduce the margin of safety.

J IV. No Significant Hazards Consideration 4

The proposed change clarifies when feedwater pump trip and main turbine j trip can be defeated and:

! 1. is not a change to the plant design or operation, and therefore would not involve a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously evaluated;

)

i i

i f

2. does not involve a modification to existing plant equipment, and therefore would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
3. does not involve changes which would affect the safety analysis of the plant, and therefore would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed amendment is in the same category as Example 11 of amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards consideration (48 FR 14870) in that the change clarifies an existing limitation.

V.- Implementation It is requested that this amendment become effective upon issuance.

VI. Amendment Fee (10 CFR 170.21)

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 170.21, a check for $150.00 is enclosed.

m