ML17303A413

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 18 to License NPF-41

ML17303A413
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	06/03/1987
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML17303A412	List: ML17303A411 ML17303A413
References
NUDOCS 8706110433
Download: ML17303A413 (16)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.

18 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.

NPF-41 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ET AL.

PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT NO.

1 DOCKET NO.

STN 50-528

1. 0 INTRODUCTION By letter dated May 10,

1987, as supplemented by letter dated May 14,

1987, the Arizona Public Service Company (APS) on behalf of itself, the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Southern California Edison

Company, El Paso Electric Company, Public Service Company of New

Mexico, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and Southern California Public Power Authority (licensees),

requested a change to theTechnical Specifications (Appendix A to Facility Operating License NPF-41) for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1.

The proposed change would revise Technical Specification 3/4. 11. 1, on a one time basis and for a period not to exceed March 31, 1988, to allow the release to the onsite evaporation pond of secondary system liquid7waste with radioactive concen-trations of Antimony-124 in excess of Sx10 pCi/ml, provided that 10 CFR Part 20 limits are not exceeded.

2. 0 DISCUSSION Palo Verde Unit 1 returned to power operation during March 1987 following an outage to repair a Steam Generator (S/G) tube leak and to plug S/G tubes which had exhibited wear.

After resumption of power, it was determined that the required cleanup activities of the secondary

system, due to the primary to secondary leakage which occurred in January 1987, could not be completed during power operation without exceeding the Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) for Specification 3/4. 11. 1, "Secondary System Liquid Waste Discharges to Onsite Evaporation Ponds."

Specification 3/4. 11. 1 states that, "the concentration of radioactive material discharged from secondary system liquid waste to the onsite evaporation ponds sha117be limited to the lower limit of detectability (L)D) defined as 5x10 pCi/ml for the principal gamma emitters or 1x10 pCi/ml for I-131."

The concentrations of radionuclides in the ponds are estimated to be much less than that of the secondary system liquid wastes since there are other sources of water without radionuclides entering the pond.

This specification is provided to ensure that at any time during the life of the nuclear station (i.e.,

Palo Verde, Units 1, 2 and 3) the annual total body dose due to ground contamination of an UNRESTRICTED AREA, arising

~, from transportation and deposition by wind on the UNRESTRICTED AREA of the accumulated activity discharged to the onsite'ponds from the secondary 870bi10433 870b03 PDR ADOCK 05000528 P

PDR

system of the plant (if the ponds get dried up and not cleaned up), is within the guidelines of 10 CFR Part 20 for the above-mentioned postulated event.

Restricting the concentrations of the secondary liquid wastes discharged to the onsite evaporation ponds will restrict the quantity of radioactive material that can be accumulated in the ponds.

This, in turn, provides assurance that in the event of an uncontrolled release of the ponds'ontents to an UNRESTRICTED AREA, the resulting total body exposure from ground contamination to a member of the public at the nearest exclusion area boundary will be less than 0.5 rem per year.

By letter dated March 23, 1987, the licensees had previously requested relief from Specification 3/4. 11. 1 for a period of 60 days.

The staff approved that request on March 24,

1987, which allowed the release of secondary system liquid waste to the onsite evaporation pond while the concentration of principal gamma7emitters in the liquid with half lives less than 75 days exceeded 5xlO pCi/ml, provided that the concentra-tion did not exceed the limits of 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2.

The basis for granting the request is that the permitted action would have a negligible affect on the previously evaluated accident for the onsite ponds.

In the current request, dated May 10, 1987, the licensees state that during the week of April 27,

1987, they determined that the relief granted on March 24, 1987 would not afford adequate time for the removal of the iso-tope Antimony-124 (Sb-124),

whose half life is 60 days.

As a result, the licensees have requested additional relief from Specification 3/4. 11. 1 until March 31, 1988, to permit the release of secondary system liquid wastes with Sb-124 concentrations above 5xlO pCi/ml.

The licensees state that all reasonable alternatives for removing the Sb-124 have feen used without being able to reduce the concentrations to below 5x10 pCi/ml.

The licensees expect that by March 31,

1988, the secon-dary system will have undergone additional clean-up and radioactive decay to the point that that the secondary system liquid discharges from Palo Verde, Unit 1, to the on~ite evaporation pond will have concentrations that do not exceed 5xlO pCi/ml.

During this period of time, the licen-sees will actively pursue and evaluate alternatives for potential plant modifications.

By letter dated May 14,

1987, the licensees provided an evaluation of the effects of discharging to the onsite evaporation

pond, secondary system

'liquid waste with an'Antimony-124 concentration of 2xlO pCi/ml for the requested time period.

Based on the results of that analysis, the licensees (1) indicate that about 1.4 curies of Antimony-124 will be discharged to the ponds during the requested time period, and (2) conclude that the dose contribution of Antimony-124 to the2previously evaluated accident for the onsite ponds would be less than 10 mrem/year.

The licensees also concluded that there is no Appendix I impact created by the addition of Antimony-124 to the pond since it is being discharged as a dissolved solid and will remain onsite in the pond.

~

~

3. 0 EVALUATION The st'aff has reviewed the licensees'equest for relief to Specification 3/4. 11. 1, dated May 10,

1987, as supplemented by analyses submitted by letter dated May 14, 1987.

The requested relief is to permit, until March 31,

1988, the discharge to the onsite evaporation pond of secondary system liquid waste while the concentration of Antimony-124 exceeds 5xl0 pCi/ml provided that the concentration does not exceed 2x10 pCi/ml.

-5 On the basis of that review, the staff concurs with the licensees'ssess-ment and has determined that:

(1) based on licensees'nalysis, about

1. 4 curies of Antimony-124 will be discharged into the pond during this time period; and (2) since Antimony-124 has a radioactive half-life of about 60 days, essentially all of the 1.4 curies of Antimony-124 will have decayed away prior to the end of the plant's projected operating life.

Since the pond is not expected to dry out during the operating life of the plant, the doses to members of the general public from routine operations are estimated to remain within the annual dose design objectives of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I.

Consequently, the additional quantities of Antimony-124 that would be discharged into the evaporation pond during the next ten months would not lead to exposures significantly higher than those orginally estimated.

Based on the above evaluation, the staff concludes that the proposed change to Specification 3/4. 11. 1 is acceptable.

I I

FINAL NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a

significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92.

A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facility involves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the:facility in accordance with a proposed amendment would not:

(1) I'nvolve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

A discussion of these standards and they relate to the amendment request follows.:

Standard 1 - Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

1

The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

The only previously evaluated accident that is affected by the change for the onsite evaporation ponds involves the annual total body dose due to ground contamination of an unrestricted

area, arising from the transportation and deposition by wind of the accumulated activity discharged to the ponds during the life of the plant in the event that the pond dries up.

The Technical Specifications are being changed to allow continued operation of thy unit until March 31, 1988 while the concentration of radioactive material discharged from secondary liquid waste to the onsite evaporation ponds is above the lower limit of detectability but within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II.

Since the half life of the material involved is less than 75 days, this will have a negligible effect on the previously evaluated accident.

Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

Standard 2 - Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

The proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new. or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

The only effect of this proposed change is to allow for temporary discharge to the onsite pond of higher concentrations of Antimony-124 in the radioactive liquids which have been generated during normal processin~/regeneration of condensate polisher resins.

The small amounts

(<2xlO pCi/ml) of total activity present in regeneration wastes which wi 11 be discharged into the onsite evaporation ponds are within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II.

As noted above, accidents involving discharges from the ponds have been previously evaluated and this change does not have a

significant effect on such accidents.

Standard 3 - Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety The requested amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the proposed change does not affect the design basis of the plant.

The existing limits for concentrations of radioactive material discharged from secondary sys)em liquid waste to the onsite evaporation ponds will remain at 5x10 pCi/ml for principal gamma emitters.

However, releases of Antimony-124 with a half life of 60 days may be allowed to exceed 5xlO pCu/mi but will be limited to 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II concentrations for a period not to exceed March 31, 1988 and will remain onsite in the evaporation pond.

For these

reasons, it has been determined that the change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

The staff, therefore, concludes that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed change does not represent a significant hazards consideration.

I II t

5.0 CONTACT WITH STATE OFFICIAL The Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency has been advised of the proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration with regard to this amendment request.

No comments were received.

6. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION I This amendment involves changes in the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area.

The staff has 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.

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 environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

7. 0 CONCLUSION The staff 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 this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

We, therefore, conclude that the proposed change is acceptable.

Principal contributor:

E.

Branagan Dated:

June 3, 1987

I, f

L

DISTRIBUTION QDoLket File'RC PDR Local PDR PD5 Branch File DMCrutchfield GMHolahan JLee ELicitra OGC-Bethesda DHagan EJordan JPartlow MJones EButcher ACRS (10)

ARM/LFMB TBarnhart GAP/PA

O

~

Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 15, 1987 /, Notices

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF

, AMENDMENTTO FACILITY

( OPERATING LICENSE ANDFINAL DETERMINATIONOF. NO SIGNIFICANTHAZARDS CONSIDERATION AND.

OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING (EXIGENT OR EMERGENCY

~ CIRCUMSTANCES)

During the period since publication of the last bi-weekly notice. the Commission has issued the following i amendments. The Commission has

'etermined for each of these

'mendments that the application for the

'mendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and

. the Commission's rules and regulations.

i The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.

Because of exigent or emergency circumstances'associated with the'da'te the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to publish, forpublic comment before issuance, its usual 30-day Notice ofConsideration of Issuance of Amendment and Prop'osed No Significant Hazards Consideration

'etermination and Opportunity for Hearing. For.exigent circumstances, the Commission has, either Issued a Federal Register notice pr'oviding o'pportunity'or public comment or has used local media to provide notice to the.p'ublic fn the area surrounding a licensee's facilityof the licensee's a'pplication and of the i Commission's proposed determination

'fno significant hazards consideration.

The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the public means of communication for the public to respond quickly. and in the case of telephone comments, the comments have be'en recorded or transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the public comments.

In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for example. In deratfng or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or In prevention of either resumption ofoperation or of increase In power output up to the

'lant's licensed power level, the Commission may not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on Its no significant hazards determination. In such case, the license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. Ifthere has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days,'the Commission may

Federal Register / Voh 62, No. 135 / Wednesday, July 16, 1987-./ Notices Practice fofDomestic Ucensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2. Ifa request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an.Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board. designated by the Commission or by the Chairmen of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, willrule on the request and/or petition and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board willissue a notice ofhearing or an appropria te order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714. a petition for leave to Intervene shell set forth withparticularity the Iriterest of

. the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the.

.. results of the proceeding.'The petition'hould spedfically explain the reasons why interventio'n should be permitted

'ith particular reference,to the,.

followingfactors: (1) the nature ofthe petitioner'a right under the'Act to'e made a party to the proceeding (2) the nature and extent of the petiUoner's property. financiaL or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect ofany order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the'spedfic aspect(s) of th' subject matter of the proceeding as to which peUtloner wiihes.to Intervene.

, Any person who has',filed a petition for, leave. to'Inter'yene og who has bee'n'..",

a'dmitted as a piitymay amen'd the petition without requ'esUng leave of the.

Board up to fifteen (15) days priot to the.

first prehearliig'ca'nference scheduled ln the proceed I'n'g, but such ari amend e'd petition must satisfy the spedfidty requirements described above.

Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in th'e proceeding; a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contenUons which are sought to be IIUgated in the matter. and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention willnot be permitted to partidpate as a party.

Those permi'tted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to artidpate fullyin the conduct of the earing, including the opportunity to present evidence and crosswxamine witnesses.

Since the Commission has made a final determinaUon that the amendment provide an opportunity forpublic

'omment.

Ifcomments have been requested. it is so stated. In either event, the State has been consulted by.

telephone whenever possible.

Under its'regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment

~

immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before itof a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing. where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is Involved.

The Commission has applied the standards of10 QFR 8182 and has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration." The basis for, this determination is contairied in the documents related to this action'.

Accordingly, the amendments have been issued and made effective as indicated.

Unless otherwise Indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exdusion in accordance with 10 CFR SW2. Therefore. pursuant to 10 CFR 5122(b). no environmental impact stateinent or environmental as'ses'sment need be prepared for these amendments. Ifthe Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the spedal drcumstances provision in 10CFR 61.12(b) and has:

made a determination'based on that

.'ssessment, itIs so Indicated.

For further'details with respect to the, action see (1) the application for amendment, (2) the amendment to FacllttyOperaUng Ucense, and (3) the Cominission's related letter, Safety EyaluaUon and/or Environmental Assessment.

as indicated. Allof these items'are available for public inspection

'at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street. NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room for the particular facilityInvolved.

A copy ofitems (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

Director. Division of Licensing.

The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to the Issuance of the amendments. By August 14, 1987, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facilityoperating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's "Rules of

, involves ho signific'ant hazards

'onsideration, ifa hearing Is requested, ltwillriot stay the effecUveness of the amendmentAny hearing held woold take placewhile the amendment 4s in effect.

A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to'Inteivene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

DockeUng and Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW Washington, DC, by the above date.

Where peUUons'aie filed during the last ten (10) days'of the notice peHod. It Is requesti;d th'at the petitioner. promptly so Inform the Commission by a:toll4ree telephone call to Western Union at (800) 3254000 (inMi'asourl (800) 3424700).'he Western Union operator should be given'Gatagram'Identification Niimber 3737 and the followingmessage addressed to (Prioject Dir'ectar),

peUUonei's'itame and telephone number. date petiUon was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number of this Federal.Register notice.

Acopy of the petiUon should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel-Bethesda, U.S. Nudear Regulatoty Commission. Washington.

~ DC 20566, and to the attorney'for,the II

~

Noii(le'etj'5flings'ofpeUtions foeave to Intetv'one'."imeitdedpetIUons,"...'

supp'Iem'entaIpetIUons.'a'nd/or".requests forJietiiin'g willnot be,entertained altsenta deteimitiaUon by'the

'"'o'intnlssion.

the'presiding oIIIceror t'e AtomicSafety and Ucensirig Bo'ard. that the petition and/or request sh'auld be grante'd baied upon a balancIng ofthe factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-

(v) and 2.714(d).

Arixona Public Service Company, et al Docket'No. STN 60428, Palo Verde Nudear Generating Station (PVNGS),

UnitI, Maricopa County, Arhona Date ofappliaatian foramendment:

May 10, 1987, as supplemented by letter dated May 14, 1987.

Briejdescriptian afamendment: The amendment.revises Technical Specification 3/4.11.1 for a period no t to exceed Mardi31, 1988, to allow the release ofsecondary system liquid waste to the onsite evaporation pond, while the concentration of Antimony-124 exceeds 5x10'icro Ci/ml, provided that the concentration does not exceed the limits of10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II,Column 2.

Dale afissuance: June 3, 1987 Effective dale: June 3, 1987 Amendmenl No, 18

~

~

I

! 26810 Faderal Register /-Vol. 0?

No.'135 / Wednesday.

July 15,'1987 /'otICes FacilityOperating Llcenst)Na NPF-'"

4t:Amendment revised the Technical SpeclflcaUons.;": ":..

~ i. "".

Public conunentsrequestod as to

~ "

proposed no significant haxards n

consideration: Yes (52 FR 18763, May 19.

1987). No comments were received by the due date. Arequest for an extension of the comment period was received after the amendment was Issued.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding ofexigent circumstances, oonsultaUon with the State ofArhona, and final.":

determlnaUon ofno etgniIJcant haxards consideraUon are contained in a Safety EvaluaUon dated June 3;1987.'

hllorneyforlicenseea Mr.Arthur C.

• Gehr. Snell k,WIimer. 3100 ValleyI Center. Phoenix, Arixona 85007.

~:

LocalPublic DacumetitRoam.

location: Phoenix Public Ltbraiy,

~

Business,~ and Technology,,':.

Department. 1? East McDowell Roach Phoenix, Arlxona 85004.

NRCProjectDimctor: George W.,

Knighton Public Service Eiectiic h Gas Company, Docket No. 50454, Hope Creek Generating StaUon, Salem County, New Jersey Date ofapplication foramendma'nt:

June 1; 1987. as supplemented June 2 and 4,1987

'riefdescriPtion ofamendmenl; The amen8ment&vlsed the Hope Creek Technical SpecIficaUons to pe'rmlt the plant to'continue operation until

September 21, 1987;.or'nUl the fltst forced outige of'suIflclent duratio'n'to.

r'epalr'themonitor.'whichever flr'st "',

occurs,'with the aco'usUc monitor 'fo'r one ofthe'safety reflefvalve tallplpes

'noperable.

Dole ofIssuonce: June 17, 1987 Ejjecti ve Dote: June 4, 1987 Amendment Na: 6 Foci lilyOperating Licenso Na NPF-57: Amendment revised the Technical Speciflcations.

Public comments requested as to proposed'no significant haxards

'consideration: No.

The Commission's related evaluation of the'amendment, consultation with the State ofNew Jersey and flnal no significant haxards con'slderatlons determination are contained In a Safety Evaluation dated June 17, 1987.

Attorney forlicensee: Conner and Wet tei hahn. 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington. DC 20008 Larval Public Document Room lucotion: Pennsvfl le Public Library, 190 S. Broadway. Pennsville, New Jersey 08070.

NRC Prafeet Director: Walter ft.

Butler Z'\\

Dated at Bethesde, Me)ytsnd ihb 9th day ei luty. 1087.

For ihe Necleer Reguletocy Commission Steven A. Varga, Dimeter, DivisionofReecter Pmj eels I/l4 Once ofNuclear Reactor Reguletien IFR Doc. 87.1PJOS Fiied 7-14-87: 8:45 aml BILUNOcoos TSXHlHl

h Ja

~,