ML20135E819
| ML20135E819 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20135E815 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8509170043 | |
| Download: ML20135E819 (2) | |
Text
.
. ma neo o
UNITED STATES I
~,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r.
t WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
'+,.....,o SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.110 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. I DOCKET NO. 50-289 1.
INTRODUCTION On March 21, 1985, the Comission issued Amendment 106 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-50, covering limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements for the plant snubbers installed on reactor safety systems.
During the course of the review of Amendment 106, the NRC staff and licensee discussed various wording changes to clarify the intent of the Technical Specifications (TSs). These wording changes were submitted by the licensee's letter dated March 5, 1985. The changes had to be noticed in the Federal Register, and the licensee needed other parts of Amendment 106 before the 30-day notice period would have expired. Accordingly, Amendment 106 was issued, and this amendment request clarifies wording previously agreed to by the staff and licensee.
2.
EYALUATION The proposed changes to the TSs are as follows:
1.
The title is changed from " Inspection Types" to
" Snubber Types" to correctly reflect the contents of the paragraph.
2.
The title of the Radiological Controls Manager is changed to Manager, Radiological Controls to reflect the correct title for the position. The wording of this section is changed to more clearly describe a:cessibility and inaccessibility of snubbers. Also, rescheduling of inspections for inaccessible snubbers is changed from "... each reactor shutdown greater than 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />..." to "... the next reactor shutdown greater than 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />
" which is clearly the licensee's intent.
t 3.
Thefootnotespecificallyexcludestherea$ tor coolant pump snubbers from testing until Cycle 6 refueling or July 1, 1985, whichever is earlier. As stated in our Safety Evaluation in support of Amendment 106, the exclusion of reactor coolant pump snubbers was implicit; the proposed change to the TSs makes the exclusion explicit.
h
[
P
=,
. 4.
This paragraph changes the terminology " Seal Replacement Program" to " Seal Service Life Program" to improve clarity. Also " maximum expected service life" is changed to
" designated service life" and " indicated service life", as appropriate to avoid any confusion that might arise using the original words.
5.
BASES. This section restates the licensee's cannitment to develop a functional test program for reactor coolant pump snubbers by July 1,1985, and states that the test program will be implemented in accordance with the schedule and other requirements of the program. Also, the bases section verifies that a list of snubbers is maintained at the plant site.
All the changes discussed above are considered to be editorial or administrative type changes which improve the clarity of the TSs or explicitly state requirements that are implied in the existing TSs.
Therefore, the staff finds the proposed. changes acceptable.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves changes in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements. We have determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such find-ing. Accordingly, this 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 environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
5.
CONCLUSION We have 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regula-tions 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 Dated: September 9, 1985 i
l' This Safety Evaluation was prepared by O. Thompson
.. - - ~ _ - - _ -
-..