ML20077C290
| ML20077C290 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/28/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20077C284 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9412010119 | |
| Download: ML20077C290 (3) | |
Text
.
- " "%rg
- .yo g
UNITED STATES 7
E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20655 0001 k {**@ V [
o l
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 192 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-50 METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY PE.LNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY GPd NUCLEAR CORPORATION THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-289
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In a letter dated September 26, 1994, GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN/the licensee) requested a license amendment to Facility Operating License DPR-50, for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station - Unit 1 (TMI-1) regarding the " Plan for the Long R.'nge Planning Program" (the Plan). The proposed license amendment wver to revise the Plan by (1) changing the semi-annual reporting frequent mal, (2) reflecting refined evaluation criteria and assessment methodolog,.wo 3) incorporating the necessary changes to the license condition m e hg.
2.0 DAQJE;flLAf0_fyALUATION In Amend s 1 N3 dat'd May 27, 1988, the staff approved a license condition regarding t% 'Plm.
or the Long Range Planning Program" which required that changes m t h d an iust be submitted for NRC approval and reissuance of a subsequert lican a : eendment to reflect the date of the revised Plan.
Plan changes a.>4.ecessary as a result of changing evaluation criteria and an evolved and refined project assessment methodology, and to amend the reporting frequency for updates of the projects listing from semi-annual to annual. The staff agrees with the licensee that an annual reporting period is justified on the basis that semi-annual reporting does not provide substantially more information to the NRC than an annual report. Revisions of the project listings occurs infrequently. Most additions are generated 6 months to 1 year prior to refueling outages as well as at the completion of such outages due to work scope completions. THI-1 is currently on a 2-year refueling outage cycle.
The primary objectives of the Plan are unchanged.
It serves as a process to optimize the allocation of GPUN and NRC resources in assuring continued 9412010119 941128 PDR ADOCK 05000289 P
0
. safety, reliability and economic plant operation. The Plan has been revised to eliminate the ranking of projects or tasks with a numerical score prior to prioritization by category.
This change does not impact overall prioritization and scheduling of projects or tasks, as the enhanced evaluation criteria are categorized to provide appropriate significance for planning and assessment of priority.
The proposed assessment method involves assigning each project a priority based on its importance in areas related but not limited to commitments (e.g.,
corporate commitments, regulatory commitments, restart or other requirements),
public safety (e.g., core damage risk, or potential environmental and radiological impact), personnel safety (e.g., lost time accidents, or exposure to hazardous materials), plant availability, working conditions (e.g., tools and facilities), economic incentive (i.e., generating costs), training, and plant preservation.
The proposed license amendment revision is as follows:
2.C.(9)
Lona Ranae Plannina Proaram The revised " Plan for the Long Range Planning Program for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station - Unit 1" (the Plan) submitted by GPUN letter C321-94-2124, dated September 26, j
1994, is approved.
j a.
The Plan shall be followed by the licensee from and after the date of license amendment issuance.
b.
The Category A schedule shall not be changed without prior approval from the NRC.
Categories B and C schedules may be changed without prior approval by NRC.
The justification for this change is based upon the suggested guidelines in Generic Letter 85-07, " Implementation of Integrated Schedules for Plant i
Modifications" issued by the NRC on May 2,1985, regarding implementation of the integrated schedule concept. The Plan by itself has no safety function, although the projects listed in the Plan may affect safety systems, structures or components at TMT-1.
The Plan serves to establish a bisis and methodology for planning and scheduling the implementation of major plant modifications and NRC mandated changes.
Changes in plant configurations or operation resulting from projects in the Plan are required to be evaluated in a safety review process that meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59.
Further, the proposed amendment does not in and of itself result in a change to any Technical Specification, and, therefore the margins of safety are not impacted or changed by the proposed license amendment.
Based on the above, the staff finds that the proposed revised License Condition 2.C.(9) wording and revisions to the Plan meet the guidelines in Generic Letter 85-07 and, therefore, are acceptable.
~
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commissien's regulations, the Pennsylvania State Official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State Official had no consents.
5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluent that may be released offside, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards censideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (59 FR 53841). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or cnvironmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors: Alexander W. Dromerick Ronald W. Hernan Date: November 28, 1994