ML20031D281
| ML20031D281 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20031D270 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110130207 | |
| Download: ML20031D281 (2) | |
Text
-
l i
i jperig h,
UNITED STATES y,\\) -r, ( 3 g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 -
g w hl L
1 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.74 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. 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 NO. 50-289 Introduction By letter dated January 26,1981 (TLL 668) the licensee requested the license be amended to reflect that GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUNC) is to replace Metropolitan Idison Company (Met-Ed) as the licensee authorized to operate the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 (TMI-1). This amendment changes the operating license No. DPR-50, Appendix A Section 6 and Appendix B Section 5 to reflect this change in authority.
Discussion and Evaluation By letter dated January 26,1981 (TLL 668) the licensee proposes to amend Operating License No. DPR-50 to permit the GPUNC to replace Metropolitan Edison Company (Met-Ed) as the sole entity authorized to operate the TMI-l Nuclear Power Plant.
Changing the name in the license which identifies the authorized operatoe of TMI-l has no adverse impact on safety issues related to plant operation so long as the authorized operator is qualified from a managerial standpoint to adequately operate TMI-1. The staff has reviewed management qualifications of GPUNC and finds their management adequately qualifies to operate TMI-l under licen:e DPR-50.
In addition, Amendment No. 58 to the Operating License for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (DPR-50), issued on September 15, 1980, approved changes requested by the licensee permitting the establishment of the GPU Nuclear Group (GPUNG). This group combined the technical and managerial resources of Jcesey Central Power & Light Cort.pany (JCP&L),
Metropolitan Edison Company (Met-Ed), and the General Public Utilities (GPU) Service Corporation generation divisions into a single organizationel i
entity.
GPUNG was formed for the express purpose of managing nuclear affairs for GPU. Specifically, Amendment No. 58 authorizes the GPUNG to operate and manage TMI-1
'8110130207 810'923 PDR ADOCK 05000289
- p PDR
~
. In its application for approval of the GPUNG, the licensee stated that the ultimate goal'was to form a GPUNC which would replace the GPUNG. Staff evaluation of the requested change to GPUNG, approved by Amendment No. 58, was performed with the knowledge that a further request would be forthcoming to change from the GPUNG to the GPUNC.
The licensee now requests this change fron GPUNG to GPUNC.
Under the terms of the requested change, the operating license would recognize GPUNC as the legal entity which will provide the technical and managerial resources for the continued safe operation of TMI-1.
The requested change involves no change in the ownership of TMIul and no changes to the facility. However, operational control of TMI-l would shift from GPUNG to GPUNC.
GPUNC would not own or finance nuclear or other utility assets. Under the proposed arrangement, which would be firmed up contractually should GPUNC assume operational accountability for TMI-1, financial responsi-bility for TMI-l operation would remain with GPU's three operating sub-sidiaries in their current levels: Met-Ed 50", JCP&L 25%, and PENELEC 2 5 *..
Under this proposed agreement, these companies would provide GPUNC with the necessary financing to cover the costs of operating THI-1.
All of the existing functions of GPUNG, as approved by Amendment No. 58 to the operating license, are included in the new organization. The onsite groups will continue to receive backup support from GPUNC. So far as operation of TMI-l is concerned, the only changes are in position ti tl es. Personnel remain the same. The requested changes to Appendices A and B of the Technical Specifications reflect these changes to the position titles. No changes to the que'ifications of any positions delineated in Appendices A and B are involved.
Our evaluation of the organization and management of TMI-l for the restart was based on the GPUNG as the plant operator.
In addition we concluded in NUREG-0680 supplement No.1 (P. 23) that the licensee's existing command and administrative structure at both the plant and corporate levels is appropriately organized to assure safe operation of TMI-1. The GPUNG was the plant operator at the time when the review was made part of the Commisson's order and reported in NUREG-0680, Sapp. 1.
This requested change involves only a change of titles. Personnel, organization and functions remain the same as for the previously approved GPUNG. Thus, we conclude that this requested change would have no adverse impact on the safety of plant operation.
To accomplish this change, the Figures 6-1, " Organization Chart for GPU Nuclear Corporation" and 6-1 A, "Onsite Organization," would be inserted in the Technical Specifications, replacing the existing Figures 6-1, "0nsite Organization," and 6-1, " Organization Chart GPU Nuclear Group." Also, the table following the figures in the existing Technical Specifications, which compares the organization chart titles for the GPUNG to the titles used throughout Section 6 of the Technical Specifications, should be replaced with a
table which compares the organizational chart titles for the GPUNC to the Section 6 titles. Finally, a replacement page 59A, which comparrs position titles of the GPUNC with titles used in Section 5 of Appendix B to the Technical Specifications should be inserted in Appendix B
4 1,
t
]!
and the license DPR-50 should be changed to ;how that GPUNC is the licensee authorized to operate TMI-1. and not Met-Ed.
Based on the above evaluation and our review of the licensee's submittal, we find the request to replace Met-Ed with GPUNC as the licensee to operate.
TMI-l is acceptable.
Environmental Consideration f
l We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having-made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the. considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety. margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed maaner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission'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.
Date: September 23, 1981
-.