ML20245A652

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 33 to License DPR-73

ML20245A652
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	04/12/1989
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20245A649	List: ML20245A647 ML20245A651 ML20245A652
References
NUDOCS 8904250317
Download: ML20245A652 (3)

Text

,

^ '

m ,v UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g + g# :i WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20555

.l J

j SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATI;,d RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 33 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-73 GpU NUCLEAR CORP 0 RATION THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-320

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated April 4,1988, GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN or the licensee) requested the approval of a change to the Appendix B Technical Specifications of Facility Operating License No. DPR-73 for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2. The proposed amendment would revise certain surveillance terms and definitions in the Appendix B Technical Specifications consistent with the meaning in the Appendix A Technical Specifications. ,

2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION l

Section 1 The licensee proposes a change in the definition of the term " Calibration." I The term "functioral test" contained in the current definition of I

" calibration".would be changed to " channel functional test." The change l is censistent with the Appendix A Technical Specification usaae of

• charnel functional test" ard is necessitated by the deletion'of the tem

" functional test".and its replacement by " channel functional test" described below. This represents an administrative change in terminology.

The staff finds the proposed change acceptable.

The licensee proposes to replace the tenn and associated definition for " Functional Check" with " Channel Functional Test". The term " Channel Functional Test" and its associated definition would be identical to that found in the Appendix A Technical Specifications. This represents an administrative change in terminology. The staff finds the proposed change acceptable.

The licensee proposes to delete the term " Functional Test" and its essociated definition and substitute the term " Channel Check" and its associated definition. The licensee proposed definition, contained in

t. heir April 4,1988 letter, is identical to that used in the Appendix A lechnical Specification. In the licensee's April 4, 1988 submittal the definition of " Channel Check" did not specify a periodic source check for radioactive effluent monitors. After discussions with the licensee, the

. licensee proposed wording that wculd include the requirement for a periodic source check of the requirements for a pericdic source check of sensors.

The staff finds that the wording requiring a source check in the definitions of " Channel Check" acceptable and is included in the definition. 4 8904250317 890412 PDR ADOCK 05000320 P PDC

l The statf finds that the new term and definition, as modified above, represents an administrative change in terminology and is acceptable.

Section 2.1., Liquid Effluents, defines the limits and conditions for the controlled release of liquid radioactive effluents to the environment.

This section also specifies the surveillance requirements for the monitoring equipment. The licensee is currently required to perform an instrument channel test monthly and a source check prior to each liquid discharge. The licensee proposes to change the terminology such that the i liauid radiation monitor receives a channel functional test monthly and a channel check prior to each liquid discharge. This change is a change in the surveillance terminology consistent with the charge in Section 1 above.

This again represents an administrative change and the staff finds the proposed change acceptable.

Section 2.1.2, Gaseous Effluents, defines the limits and condition for the controlled release of radioactive gaseous effluents to the environment.

This section also specifies the surveillance requirements for the monitoring equipment. The licensee is currently required to perform an instrurrent channel check at least monthly and a sensor check at least daily. The licensee proposes to change the terminology such that the vent monitors receive a channel functional test at least monthly and a channel check at least daily. This change is a change in the surveillance terminology consistent with the change in Section 1 above. This represents an administrative change and the staff finds the change acceptable.

Section 2.1.3, Radioactive Gaseous Effluent Monitoring Instrumentation requires that each channel of each radioactive gaseous effluent monitor demonstrate operability by perfonrer.ce of a channel check, source check, chanr:cl calibration and charr.el functional test operations at specific j intervals of time. The licensee proposes to delete the requirement for a j monthly source check. The licensee finds that the methodology used for j performing the daily channel check on the current monitor verifies the same degree of operability as the monthly source check. The staff agrees with the licensee and finds the proposed change appropriate.

Table 2.1-36 specifies the tinie intervals for the various instrument surveillance requirements. The current Technical Specifications require a monthly source check for the noble gas activity monitor. The licensee proposes to delete this requirement from the table consistent with the proposed deletion of the requirement from Section 2.1.3, Radioactive Gaseous Effluent Monitoring Instrumentation, discussed above. This represents an administrative change to provide consistency between the Technical Specification and a table referenced in the Technical Specification. The staff finds the proposed change acceptable.

i i

l l

~

)

1 1

)s

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

i i

The amendment changes surveillance terms and definitions. The staff has j determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the 1 amounts and no significant change in the types of any effluents that may l be released off site, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The staff has previously published a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on -

such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 61.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

~

4.0 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributors: Michael T. Masnik Dated: April 12, 1989 I

l l

1 I

1

<