ML20095J125

TS Change Request 95-08,eliminating Outdated Matl from FOLs & Making FOL for Unit 2 Consistent W/Fol for Unit 3

ML20095J125
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	12/21/1995
From:	Hunger G PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20095J129	List: ML20095J125 ML20095J132
References
NUDOCS 9512260322
Download: ML20095J125 (8)

Text

• • Statir.a Support Department 10CFR50.90 j PKO MSGY eccocee<ovc e-a >

Nuclear Group Headquarters 965 Chesterbrook Boulevard Wayne, PA 19087-5691 i

December 21,1995 Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 I

License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

SUBJECT:

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 Technical Specifications Change Request No. 95-08

Dear Sir:

PECO Energy Company hereby submits Technical Specifications (TS) Change Request No. 95-08, in accordance with 10CFR50.90, requesting changes to the Peach Bottom Facility Operating Licenses (FOLs). The proposed changes involve eliminating outdated material from the FOLs and making the FOL for Unit 2 consistent with the FOL for Unit 3.

Attachment I to this letter describes the proposed changes and provides justification for the changes. Attachment 2 provides marked-up FOL pages Indicating the proposed changes. If you have any questions conceming this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours, L $ A pyg G. A. Hunger, Jr.,

Director-Licensing

Enclosures:

Affidavit, Attachment 1, Attachment 2 cc: - T. T. Martin, Administrator, Region I, USNRC W. L Schmidt, USNRC Senior Resident Inspector, PBAPS R. R. Janati, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania o n ,,

b ,

~

es122 sos 2i ,sr221~ I l

-eDR ADOCK 0s000277 - l

_ e _ _ _ __ eda _. _ c i :

. 1 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :

4 .-

ss.

COUNTY OF CHESTER  :

D. B. Fetters, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

i i

That he is Vice President of PECO Energy; the Applicant herein; that he has read the enclosed Technical Specifications Change Request No. 95-08, " Changes to FacRity Operating Licenses," for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 2 and Unit 3, Faculty Operating Ucense Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56, and knows the contents thereof; and that the statements and matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information ard belief.

t y }

3 C

Vice President Subscribed and swom to before me thisOP day of 1995.

bsM&b N Public

,j n .aI I I Mary Lou skrecH. NcWV Pubic {

Tratyttr ,

'I *j.j comm;in Twp , M3Y17.

tan Expbes Gnester "- Coun'y

e .

4 ATTACHMENT 1

PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNITS 2 AND 3 4

0

~

DOCKET NOS. 50-277 50-278 l

LICENSE NOS. DPR-44

DPR-56 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CHANGE REQUEST 95-08 ,

i

, " CHANGES TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES" l SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR CHANGES - 4 PAGES 4

t

. Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 PECO Energy Company requests that the Facility Operating Licenses (FOLs) for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3 be amended as proposed below to

, provide for elimination of outdated material and for making the FOL of Unit 2 consistent with the

, FOL of Unit 3.

t Provided below is a discussion and description of the proposed changes, a safety assessment, 4 information supporting a finding of No Significant Hazards Consideration, and information supporting an Environmental Assessment. ,

The marked-up pages indicating the proposed changes are provided in Attachment 2.

We request that, if approved, the changes be effective upon issuance.

Di.cu=*hn and Descriotion of the Proposed Chances 3

The following changes are proposed for PBAPS Unit 2 FOL, License No. DPR-44:

1. Revise paragraph 1.1 to read, "The receipt, pn=====hn, and use of source, by-product

, and special nuclear material as authorized by this license will be in accordance with the l

Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70, including 10 CFR Section 4 30.33,40.32, and 70.23 and 70.31." This is an editorial change only to achieve consistency with Unit 3 paragraph 1.1.

i 2. Eliminate " Amendments 1 through 29' in paragraph 2.A as describing the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The FSAR must be updated periodically as required by 10CFR50.71(e) to assure that the information included in the FSAR contains the latest material developed.

(

3. Eliminate " Supplements 1 through 6' in paragraph 2.A as describing the Environmental Report. This change achieves a parallel structure for the last sentence in paragraph 2.A.

4. Eliminate 'as of December 15,1975' In paragraph 2.B(2) as describing the FSAR. The FSAR must be updated periodically as required by 10CFR50.71(e) to assure that the information included in the FSAR contains the latest material developed.

5. Revise paragraph 2.0 to add reference to Section 40.41 of Part 40. This achieves consistency with Unit 3 paragraph 2.C.

6. Revise paragraph 2.C.(1) to read, 'PECO Energy Company is authorized to operate the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 2, at steady state reactor core power levels not in excess of 3458 megawatts thermal." This achieves consistency with Unit 3 paragraph 2.C.(1).

7. Eliminate paragraph 2.C.(3) and renumber the following paragraphs under section 2.C.

Paragraph 2.C.(3) was added by Amendment No.14 which was issued on November 5, <

1975. Amendment No.15 was issued on November 28,1975. Amendment No.15 authorized operation of Peach Bottom Unit 2 "with a modification to the Low Pressure Coolant injection System (LPCIS) authorized by Amendment No.14 to the license."

Paragraph 2.C.(3) should have been deleted with Amendment No.15.

.-- . - . . . ~ . . . - .- -.--_ -- . - . - . -.- - . -.- - - . - . . - - . - . . ~ - - -

- -

• Docket Nos. 50-277

. 50-278 l l

. License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56

8. Eliminate paragraph 3.A. Paragraph 3.A was added by Amendment No. I w53ch was 4

issued on October 25,1973. A study of plume behavior at PBAPS Un:ts 2 and 3 was j submitted AprH 17,1974, with corrections submitted May 21,1974. By letter dated Apr5 i 10,1975, the NRC concluded that the calculated dose does not exceed 15 mrom/yr; j consequently, addklonel equipment to satisfy this condition is not required. Paragraph

3.A should have been deleted in Apru 1975.

9. Eliminate paragraph 3.B and renumber the following paragraphs under section 3.

' Paragraph 3.8 was added by Amendment No. I which was issued on October 25,1973.

2 This satisfied 10CFR50.36a, " Technical Specifications on Effluents from Nuclear Power Reactors," which was issued on December 3,1970. 10CFR50.36a requires licensees to

provide Technical Specifications (TS) designed to assure that releases from nuclear i power reactors to unrestricted areas during normal reactor operations, including j expected operational occurrences, are kept as low as practicable. Numerical guidance i for the ALARA requirement was issued in 10CFR50, Appendix l on May 5,1975. In February 1976, the NRC staff recommended that proposals to modify TS be deferred l untR the NRC completed the model Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS). The model RETS was established in May 1978 and a copy was sent to "ECO Energy on July 11,1978, with a request to submit proposed site-specific RETS. Revised l

model RETS was sent to licensees on November 15 and 16,1978, for preparation of the RETS and the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). The principal change in Revision 1 of RETS was the transfer of much of the material concerning dose calculations from the model RETS to a separate ODCM. Revision 2 of the model RETS  ;

l j and additional guidance on the ODCM were issued in February 1979. PECO Energy l submitted a RETS proposal for PBAPS on March 1,1979. A revised request for RETS i

was submitted to resolve review comments on November 29,1982. Additional changes j j requested by the NRC were made and transmitted by PECO Energy on March 7,1984.

Amendment No.102 was issued on August 3,1984, to authorize changes to the TS to: l (1) implement the requirements of Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50; (2) establish new limiting conditions for operation for the quarterly and annual average release rates; and (3) revise environmental monitoring programs to assure conformance with the regulations. Paragraph 3.B should have been deleted with Amendment No.102.

i The following changes are proposed for the Unit 3 FOL, License No. DPR-56:

. 1. Revise paragraph 1.1 to read, "The receipt, possession, and use of source, by-product and special nuclear material; as authorized by this license will be in accordance with the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70, including 10CFR Section 30.33,40.32, and 70.23 and 70.31." 10CFR40 and 10CFR40.32 are regulations goveming domestic licensing of source material.

2. Revise the first sentence of paragraph 2.A to read, "This license applies to the Peach j Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3, a single cycle, forced circulation, boring water nuclear reactor and associated equipment (the faculty), owned by the licensees and operated by PECO Energy Company." This achieves consistency with Unit 2 paragraph

.2.A and the original PBAPS Safety Evaluation Report dated August 11,1972.

3. Eliminate " Amendments 1 through 31' in paragraph 2.A as describing the FSAR. The FSAR must be updated periodically as required by 10CFr150.71(e) to assure that the information included in the FSAR contains the latest material developed.

i l

I

- .

• Docket Nos. 50-277

. 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44

- DPR-56 I

4

4. Eliminate " Supplements 1 through 6* in paragraph 2.A as describing the Environmental Report. This change achieves a parallel structure for the last sentence in paragraph 2.A.

5. Eliminate "as of December 15,1975' in paragraph 2.B(2) as describing the FSAR. The FSAR must be updated periodically as required by 10CFR50.71(e) to assure that the J information included in the FSAR contains the latest material developed.

i

6. Eliminate paragraph 3.A and renumber the following paragraphs under section 3.

Paragraph 3.A was issued with the original Unk 3 FOL on July 2,1974. This satisfied

10CFR50.36a, " Technical Specifications on Efiluents from Nuclear Power Reactors,"

which was issued on December 3,1970. 10CFR50.36a requires licensees to provide TS designed to assure that releases from nuclear power reactors to unrestricted areas I during normal reactor operations, including expected operational occurrences, are kept as low as practicable. Numerical guidance for the ALARA requirement was issued in 10CFR50, Appendix I on May 5,1975. In February 1976, the NRC staff recommended

j. that proposals to modify TS be deferred until the NRC completed the model RETS. The model RETS was established in May 1978 and a copy was sent to PECO Energy on July 11,1978, with a request to submit proposed site-specific RETS. Revised model RETS was sent to licensees on November 15 and 16,1978, for preparation of the RETS and the ODCM. The principal change in Revision 1 of RETS was the transfer of much of the material concwning does calculations from the model RETS to a separate ODCM.

Revision 2 of the model RETS and additional guidance on the ODCM were issued in February 1979. PECO Energy submitted a RETS proposal for PBAPS on March 1,1979.

A revised request for RETS was submitted to resolve review comments on November 29,

{

i 1982. Additional changes requested by the NRC were made and transmitted by PECO

! Energy to the NRC on March 7,1984. Amendment No.104 was issued on August 3,

! 1984, to authorize changes to the TS to: (1) implement the requirements of Appendix l l of 10 CFR Part 50; (2) establish new licensing conditions for operation for the quarterly

and annual average release rates; and (3) revise environmental monitoring programs to assure conformance with the regulations. Paragraph 3.B should have been deleted with

Amendment No.104.

i 7. Revise " Unit 2' to " Unit No. 3' in paragraph 3.B. When this paragraph was added by

}- Amendment No. 52 on May 3,1979, it correctly read " Unit 3". Amendment No. 201

introduced an administrative error. The proposed change achieves consistency with Unit 2 paragraph 3.C.

4

{ 8. Revise " technical specifications

• to " Technical Specifications

• In paragraph 3.C. This is j an editorial change only to achieve consistency with Unit 2 paragraph 3.D.

i

9. Revise paragraph 4 to read, "This license is effective as of the date of issuance and shall expire at midnight on July 2,2014." This is an editorial change only to achieve l consistency with Unit 2 paragraph 4.

i-i

(

l l -

- Dockd Nos. 50-277

. 50-278 Ucense Nos. DPR 44 DPR-56 Safety Assessment The proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to plant systems, structures, or components (SSC), or the addition of new SSC. The proposed changes are purely administrative and have no impact on any safety analysis assumptions.

Information Sucoortina a Findina of No Sianificant Hazards Consideration The changes proposed in the Application do not constitute a Significant Hazards Consideration In that:

i)

The oroonuwi chanaes do not involve a slanificant increase in the orobability or consecuences of an accident oreviousiv evaluated because the changes are purely administrative and do not involve any physical changes to plant SSC. Therefore, these changes will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

II)

The orooosed chances do not create the oossibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident oreviousiv evaluated because the changes wul not alter the plant or the manner in which the plant is operated. The changes do not allow plant operation in any mode that is not already evaluated in the safety analysis. The changes will not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing bases. Therefore, these changes will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

iii) The orocosed chanaes do not involve a slanificant reduction in a marain of safety because they are purely ar;ministrative and have no impact on any safety analysis assumptions.

Information Sucoortina an Environmental Assessment An environmental assessment is not required for the changes proposed by this Application because the changes conform to the criteria for " actions eligible for categorical exclusion," as specified in 10CFR51.22(c)(10). The proposed changes relate to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements.

Conclusion The Plant Operations Review Committee and the Nuclear Review Board have reviewed the proposed changes and have concluded that the enanges do not involve an unreviewed safety question and will not endanger the public health and safety.

e ATTACHMENT 2 PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNITS 2 AND 3 Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 Ucense Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS CHANGE REQUEST 95-08 Ust of Attached Facility Operating Ucense Pages Unit 2 Unit 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 3a 3a 4 4 5 5 l

l