ML17310A725
| ML17310A725 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1993 |
| From: | Conway W ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17310A726 | List: |
| References | |
| 102-02711-WFC-T, 102-2711-WFC-T, NUDOCS 9311030313 | |
| Download: ML17310A725 (13) | |
Text
ACCELERATED INFORMATION DOCUMtjKNT DIST UTION SYSTEM l REGULI~jRY DISTRIBUT SYSTEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR:9311030313 DOC.DATE: 93/10/27 NOTARIZED: YES DOCKET FACIL:$TN-50-528 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Arizona Publi 05000528 STN-50-529 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Arizona Publi 05000529 STN-50-530 Palo Verde Nuclear Station, Unit 3, Arizona Publi 05000530 AUTH. NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION CONWAY,W.F. Arizona Public Service Co. (formerly Arizona Nuclear Power RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk) I
SUBJECT:
Application for amends to Licenses NPF-41,NPF-51 a NPF-74, D revising TS Section 1.18,6.9.1.8,6.14.c s 6.15.1 in order to implement revised 10CFR50.36a regulation that now allows radioactive effluent release rept to be submitted annually.
DISTRIBUTION CODE: ZOOID TITLE: OR COPIES RECEIVED:LTR Submittal: General Distribution $ ENCI) SIZE: 4 NOTES:STANDARDIZED PLANT 05000528 Standardized plant. 05000529 Standardized plant. P5PPP53P D D
RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL PDV LA 1 1 PDV PD 1 1 HOL ZAN P B 2 2 TRAN,L 2 2 INTERNAL: ACRS 6 6 NRR/DE/EELB 1 1 NRR/DORS/OTSB 1 1 NRR/DRCH/HICB 1 1 NRR/DSSA/SPLB 1 1 NRR/DSSA/SRXB 1 1 NUDOCS-ABSTRACT 1 1 OC/LKDCB 1 0 OGC/HDS1 1 0 G 01 1 1 EXTERNAL: NRC PDR 1 1 NSIC 1 1 D
S D
D NOTE TO ALL"RIDS" RECIPIENTS:
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTEI CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK, ROOM Pl-37 (EXT. 504-2065) TO ELIMINATEYOUR NAME FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS FOR DOCUMENTS YOU DON'T NEED!
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR P3 ENCL ak
~I
'Arizona Public Service Company, P,O. BOX 53999 ~ PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85072-3999 102-02711-WFC/TRB/GAM WILLIAMF. CONWAY October 27, 1993 EXECUTIVEVICEPRESIDENT NUCLEAR U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATlN: Document Control Desk Mail Station P1-37 Washington, DC 20555
Dear Sirs:
Subject:
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)
Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Nos. STN 50-528/529/530 Proposed Amendment to Technical Specifications-Radioactive Effluent Release Report File: 93-005-41 9.05 In accordance with 10 CFR 50.90, Arizona Public Service Company (APS) is requesting an amendment to PVNGS Units 1, 2, and 3 Technical Specifications in order to implement the revised 10 CFR 50.36a regulation that now allows the Radioactive Effluent Release Report to be submitted annually instead of semiannually.
Provided in the enclosure to this letter are the following:
'. A.
C.
Description of Amendment Request Purpose of the Technical Specifications Need for the Technical Specification Amendment D. Safety Analysis for the Proposed Technical Specification Amendment No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination F. Environmental Impact Consideration Determination G. Marked-up Technical Specification Pages The Plant Review Board and Offsite Safety Review Committee have reviewed and approved this proposed amendment. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(b)(1), a copy of this request is being forwarded to the Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency.
gQ ping d~<Kd'~d on/
9311030313 931027 P,.
'DR ADOCK 05000528 'l
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Proposed Amendment to Technical Specifications Page 2 Should you have any questions, please contact Richard A. Bernier at (602) 393-5882.
Sincerely, WFC/TR8/GAM/rv Enclosure cc: B. H. Faulkenberry J. A. Sloan A. V. Godwin B. E. Holian
STATE OF ARIZONA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF MARICOPA )
I, E. C. Simpson, represent that I am Vice President Nuclear Support, that the foregoing document has been signed by me on behalf of Arizona Public Service Company with full authority to do so, that I have read such document and know its contents, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements made therein are true and correct.
E. C. Simpson Sworn To Before Me This Day Of , 1993.
Notary Public My Commission Expires My commission Expires Juno 12, 1997
I ENCLOSURE PROPOSED AMENDMENTTO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SECTIONS 1.18, 6.9.1.8, 6.14.c, and 6.15.1
A; DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT REQUEST The proposed amendment revises Technical Specification (TS) 6.9.1.8 to change the frequency for submitting the Radioactive Effluent Release Report from semiannual to annual, as allowed by the revised 10 CFR 50.36a requirements. The title "Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report" would he used instead of "Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report."
The proposed amendment would also require that the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report be submitted before May 1 of each year to cover the operation of the unit during the previous calendar year.
The proposed amendment ensures consistency with the changes described above by changing references to the title of the "Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report" to the "Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report" in the Index (page XVII),
Section 1.18 (page 1-4), Section 6.9.1.8 (page 6-20), and Sections 6.14 and 6.15.1 (page 6-24).
B. PURPOSE OF THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS The purpose of TS 6.9.1.8 is to ensure that a summary of the quantities of radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents, and solid waste released from each PVNGS Unit is routinely reported to the NRC. Compliance with this TS will ensure conformance with 10 CFR 50.36a.,
C. NEED FOR THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION AMENDMENT Changing the TS requirement to submit the Radioactive Effluent Release Report from semiannual to annual will implement the reduced reporting requirement of the revised 10 CFR 50.36a. The August 31, 1992, Federal Register, page 39358, stated that the purpose for the revision to 10 CFR 50.36a was to reduce the regulatory burden on licensees. By revising the TSs to implement this revised regulation, APS will be able to reduce the administrative costs associated with preparing and submitting the Radioactive Effluent Release Report.
Specifying that the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report shall be submitted before May 1 of each year for the previous calendar year is consistent with the TS 6.9.1.7 requirement for submittal of the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report. A submittal date before May 1 of each year will allow sufficient time for strontium composite analysis to be performed and the results to be included in the report. The current requirement to submit the Semiannual Radioactive Release Report within 60 days after the reporting period does not allow sufficient time for the strontium analysis to be performed, and the results are usually submitted in the next Page 1 of 3
rf report as an addendum.
D. SAFETY ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION AMENDMENT The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not involve any change to the configuration or method of operation of any plant equipment that is used to mitigate the consequences of an accident. Also, the proposed changes do not alter the conditions or assumptions in any of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) accident analyses. Since the FSAR accident analyses remain bounding, the radiological consequences previously evaluated are not adversely-affected by the proposed changes. No new failure modes have been defined for any plant system or component important to safety nor has any new limiting failure been identified as a result of the proposed changes. Also, there will be no change in the types or increase in the amount of effluents released offsite. The proposed changes do not adversely impact the plant's ability to meet applicable regulatory requirements related to liquid and gaseous effluents, and solid waste releases. The proposed changes would reduce unnecessary administrative expenses without reducing protection for public health and safety.
E. 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 a no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility in accordance with a proposed amendment would not: (1)
Involve a significant increase in the probability'or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (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 as they relate to this amendment request follows:
Standard 1 Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not involve any change to the configuration or method of operation of any plant equipment that is used to mitigate, the consequences of an accident. Also, the proposed changes do not alter the conditions or assumptions in any of the FSAR accident analyses. Since the FSAR accident analyses remain bounding, the radiological consequences previously evaluated are not adversely Page 2 of 3
C 0
affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Standard 2 Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed.
The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not involve any change to the configuration or method of operation of any plant equipment that is used to mitigate the consequences of an accident. Accordingly, no new failure modes have been defined for any plant system or component important to safety nor has any new limiting failure been identified as a result of the proposed changes. Also, there will be no change in the types or increase in the amount of effluents released offsite. Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Standard 3 Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not adversely impact the plant's ability to meet applicable regulatory requirements related to liquid and gaseous effluents, and solid waste releases. The proposed changes would also eliminate an unnecessary burden of governmental regulation without reducing protection for public health and safety. Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
F. ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION The proposed TS amendment is administrative in nature. The proposed amendment involves no change in the amount or type of any effluent that may be released offsite, and there is no increase in individual or cumulative radiation exposure. As such, operation of PVNGS Units 1, 2, and 3 in accordance with the proposed amendment does not involve an unreviewed environmental safety question.
G. MARKED-UP TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PAGES XVII (Index) 1-4 6-20 6-24 Page 3 of 3