ML20058G133

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 39 to License DPR-73

ML20058G133
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	11/06/1990
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20058G128	List: ML20058G127 ML20058G129 ML20058G133
References
NUDOCS 9011090410
Download: ML20058G133 (3)

Text

-

-m

. /gwa oi (k-

,7

' UNITED STATES

'7

['

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

\\, e... + [j -

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$$5

{

~

SAFETY EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 39 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-73 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION

f THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 2 j

DOCKET NO. 50-320 11.'O INTRODUCTION i

- By letter. dated June 30, 1989, superseded by a letter dated January 22, 1990 and revised b 31, 1990, GPUNuclearCorporation(GPUNor

<thelicensee)yletterdatedAugust requested the approval of a change to the Appendix A Technical Specifications of. Facility Operating License No. DPR-73 for.Three Mile Island.

> Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2.

The proposed amendment would revise the technical specifications by revising the administrative requirements associated with

. periodic: audits of TMI-2. activities.

~

In anticipation of the significant reductSn in plant cleanup related activi-ties, after the. completion of the current defueling effort, the licensee i

proposed on-June 30,-1989 to make periodic audits applicable.to specific f acility modes and to,'in some cases, reduce the audit frequency to reflect the then current and-future conditions of the. facility.

Section-6.5.3, " Audits" of the Appendix A Technical Specifications specifies audits for-eleven facility activities. The current' specification does not-i

specify the applicability of the activity audits to any particular mode, implying that the ' audit frequency is_ applicable to all modes. The licensee

-proposes tol revise-seven of the eleven facility activities to be applicable during Modes 1,:2,.and 3.

There are only_ three modes specified for TMI-2.

1 At the time'the licensee submitted the proposed change, the facility was in 1

Mode 1.x The licensee transitioned through Mode 2~ to Mode 3 on April. 27,1990.

Therefore, for the,seven activities (6.5.3.1.a. 6.5.3.a.d., 6.5.3.1 9,

_6.5.3.1.h.

6.5.3.1.1., 6.5.3.1.j. and 6.5.3.1 k.) there is effectively no

' change in applicability. The staff finds the proposed change acceptable..

Section 6.5.3.1.e specifies the audit frequency for the Emergency Plan

. implementing procedures. Currently an audit must be conducted at least once

.per,12 months irrespective of facility Mode. The licensee proposes that the requirement be applicable only during Mode 1.

Since the licensee is currently in Mode 3 the request essentially deletes the requirement for an audit of the-

. Emergency Plan:from the THI-2 Technical Specifications. TMI-1 and TMI-2 have had a combined site Emergency Plan since February 10, 1986. The requirement for the Emergency Plan is also contained in Section 6.5.3, " Audit", of the -

TMI-I Technical Specifications. Section.6.5.3.1.e of the THI-1 Technical Specifications requires an audit at least once per 12 months which is consist- ' with the current TMI-2 Technical Specifications.

';ince the Emergeny Plan is.now a site plan and the TMI-1 technical spectfications 9011090410 901106 PDR ADOCK 05000320 P.

PNV j

y

-require an audit of the plan at the same frequency that the TM1-2. technical

" specifications require, the staff finds the proposed change acceptable and

,i consistent with'the staff's objective to reduce redundancy at the TMI' site.

Section 6.5.3.1.f. specifies.the audit frequency for the Security Plan implementing procedures. Currently an audit must be conducted at least once

_ per 12' months. The licensee proposes to delete the TMI-2 Technical

. Specifications requirement for an audit of the security plan implementing

procedures. The TMI site has a combined site Security Plan and implementin procedures. The current TMI-1 Technical-Specifications, Section 6.5.3.1.f.g requires an audit of the TM1 Site Security Plan and implementing procedures-every 12 months. The audits include a review of the TMI-2 facilities and personnel to the extent necessary to determine compliance. The staff finds lthe proposed change acceptable and consistent with the staff's objective to

reduce redundancy at the TMI site.

.Section 6.5.3.1.b.speciflas:the audit frequency for performance, training, tandqualificationsof,theunitstaff(TrainingandQualificationsAudit).

l The current technical. specifications specify an audit frequency of at least once per 12 months. _ The licensee states that with the completion of the

'defueling program and the significant cutback in cleanupLactivity-at the TMI-2 site,,the-frequency for performing the Training and Qualifications L

Audits.can be extended. The staff finds that because of the substantial cutback in cleanup' personnel the change _ in audit frequency-is warranted, Therefore-the staff approves the licensee's proposal to change the frequency o'

for the training and qualifications audit to once.every 24 months..

Section.6.5.3.1.c. specifies:the audit frequency for verification of the nonconformanceandcorrectiveactionsprogram(CorrectiveActionAudit)that-

! affect nuclear safety. The-current requirements is that an audit be E

conducted at least once per 6 months. The licensee initially proposed in 1

l"

. their June 30,1989 request that the audit frequency.be extended to at least--

once per 24" months. After discussion between the NRC staff and the licensee on July:18 and 19, 1990 the licensee'in a letter dated August 31, 1990 agreed E

L to perform corrective actions audits.once every 12 months. The reduction in the licensee's cleanup activities and the lack of;any remaining significant l

nuclear safety issues was offered by the licensee as justification for the L

proposed change. The' staff finds the revised frequency of once every 12 months L

acceptable.'

h

'2.0 ' ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION LThis amendment relates to changes to administrative procedures or requirements.

Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical o

l:

exclusionsetforthin10CFR51.22(c)(10). Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in l

?

connection with the issuance of this amendment.

+

o-w

-,e-..-w

.,wr w,-

,v,-

~

e.

e.

3.0 CONCLUSION

r We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there it reasanable1 assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and (3) the issuance of this anend. ment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to-the health and safety of the public.

ja Principal.Contrititor: Michael T. Masnik Dated:

November 6, 1990 l

i a

I

'e L

\\

L 1

h 1

i

+

6 l

ll i

a