ML20041D279
| ML20041D279 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041D277 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203050129 | |
| Download: ML20041D279 (3) | |
Text
.
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION DOCKET NO. 50-320 THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 2 Introduction By letter dated December 15, 1981 (LL2-81-0267) the licensee requested that the TMI-2 Operating License be amended to reflect that the positions of Manager - Generation Engineering and Manager - Operational Quality Assurance no longer exist.
The amendmeat is intended to clarify the responsibility for review of changes related to Appendix B Specifications and their implementation.
Discussion and Evaluation The license amendment request proposes to delete reference to the positions of Manager r.eneration Engineering and Manager - Operational Quality Assurance-as having the responsibility for review of changes related to Appendix B Specifications and their implementation.
Instead, changes in procedures, station design or operation as described in Section 2 and 5 of Appendix B' will be reviewed by the Plant Operations Review Committee and approved by the Manager, Site Operations prior to implementation.
In addition, changes to monitoring programs and special studies as described in Section 3 and 4 must be reviewed and approved by the Manager, Environmental Controls prior to implementation.
(The changes also reflect the requirements of Section 6 of Appendix A to the TMI Technical Specifications.) These changes, largely acministrative in nature, provide for adequate and appropriate review at a 8203050129 820216 fDRADOCK 050003g0 PDR
2-level at least comparable to that provided by -he former procedure.
The proposed amendment will not result in a significant increase in the
~
probability or consequences of accidents previously considered, nor a 3
significant reduction in a margin of safety and does not therefore involve a significant hazards consideration.
Environmental Considerations; 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 51,5 (d) (4),
that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this 4
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, it 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 '..anner, and l
I
_m
.,._m 7
,r.
_3 (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.
t
__