ML20115H236
| ML20115H236 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20115H232 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9607220281 | |
| Download: ML20115H236 (5) | |
Text
..,
44U%
9
/
4 UNITED STATES s
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066 4 001
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 215 AND 220 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-44 and DPR-56 PECO ENERGY COMPANY PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION. UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-277 AND 50-278
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 21, 1995, the PECO Energy Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Facility Operating Licenses (F0Ls). The requested changes would eliminate outdated material from the F0Ls and make the Unit 2 FOL consistent with the FOL for Unit 3.
2.0 EVALUATION Specifically, the following changes are proposed for the PBAPS Unit 2 FOL:
1.
Revise paragraph 1.1 to include the use of source material and appropriate references to 10 CFR Part 40 and 10 CFR Section 40.32 to achieve consistency with paragraph 2.B.(3) and the Unit 3 FOL. This change is administrative in that the use of source material is already allowed by paragraphs 2.8.(3) and 2.B.(4) of the Unit 2 FOL. The licensee is not proposing any new use of source material, only to use it in accordance with paragraphs 2.B.(3) and 2.B.(4).
Adding the word
" source" and the references to 10 CFR Part 40 and 10 CFR 40.32 to paragraph 1.I only makes the license more clear and consistent with paragraphs 2.B.(3) and 2.B.(4) of the Unit 2 FOL and the Unit 3 FOL. The Unit 3 FOL paragraph 1.I already contains the references to 10 CFR Part 40 and 10 CFR 40.32.
2.
Eliminate specific amendment numbers from paragraph 2.A for both the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and the Environmental Report.
i Paragraph 2.A currently identifies the specific amendment and supplement l
numbers for the FSAR and the Environmental Report. The licensee is proposing to delete the specific number references as both are unnecessary. The FSAR must be updated periodically as required by 10 CFR 50.71(e) to assure that the information included in the FSAR contains the latest material. Eliminating the specific amendment and supplement 9607220281 960715 PDR ADOCK 05000277 P
t,
t numbers provides more clarity and eliminates redundancy in the Unit 2
)
FOL. The specific amendment and supplement numbers are not needed because the license already states "as supplemented and amended."
j 4
3.
Eliminate "as of December 15, 1975" in paragraph 2.B.(2) as describing the FSAR. The FSAR must be updated periodically as required by 10 CFR 50.71(e)-and eliminating the specific date of the last amendment to the FSAR is administrative. The date of the last FSAR amendment is unnecessary and redundant. -The words "as. supplemented and amended" are sufficient to describe the FSAR.
4.
Revise paragraph 2.C to add reference to Section 40.41 of 10 CFR Part 40.
The terms and conditions of a license issued pursuant to 10 CFR Part 40 are identified in Section.40.41.
The license already cites references to.
10 CFR Part 40 in paragraphs 2.B.(3) and 2.B.(4). Adding this reference to paragraph 2.C only provides consistency within the Unit 2 FOL and with the Unit 3 FOL.
5.
Revise the wording in paragraph 2.C.(1) from "not to exceed 3458 megawatts thermal" to "not in excess of 3458 megawatts thermal." This change is being proposed to achieve consistency with Unit 3 FOL paragraph 2.C.(1).
6.
Eliminate paragraph 2.C.(3) and renumber the following paragraphs under section 2.C.
Paragraph 2.C.(3) was added by Amendment No! 14,. issued on November 5, 1975, and states:
The licensees may perform modifications to the Low Pressure Coolant Injection System as described in the licensee's application for license amendment dated July 9,1975. The licensees shall not operate the-facility prior to receipt of the Commission's authorization.
Amendment No. 15 was issued on November 28, 1975, and 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. This proposed change is administrative in that it eliminates outdated material from the Unit 2 FOL.
7.
The licensee is proposing to eliminate paragraph 3.A.
Paragraph 3.A currently states:
Upon completion of the licensees' " smoke tests," the licensees shall release all procedures, data, and analysis bearing on the calculation of X/( to the Regulatory Staff as soon as possible but no later than initial fuel loading for Peach Bottom Unit 3.
Using the " smoke test" results to re-calculate X/Q and using the other assumptions previously used by the
.% Regulatory Staff (or realistic refinements thereof), the Regulatory Staff shall re-calculate the potential radioiodine thyroid dose to a child via the milk pathway at the points of maximum concentration at or beyond the site boundary where dairy cows are present or could be pastured.
If this calculated dose based on the combined operation of Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 exceeds 15 mrem / year, then the licensees shall install for operation no later than the next refueling cycle for each unit the necessary equipment to reduce the projected dose to such levels.
A study of plume behavior at PBAPS Units 2 and 3 was submitted to the NRC on April 17, 1974, as supplemented May 21, 1974. The NRC, in a letter dated April 10, 1975, concluded that the calculated dose based on the combined operation of PBAPS Units 2 and 3 does not exceed 15 mrem / year.
Consequently, additional equipment to satisfy this condition was determined not to be required. This license condition should have been deleted in April of 1975.
8.
The licensee is proposing to eliminate paragraph 3.B. and renumber the following paragraphs under section 3.
Paragraph 3.B was added by Amendment No. I and states:
If the actual milk sample measurements taken at the nearby farms in accordance with the Technical Specifications, predict a dose to a child's thyroid, based on actual combined operation of Unit 2 and 3, that exceeds 15 mrem / year, licensees shall install for operation no later than the next refueling cycle for each unit the necessary equipment to reduce the projected dose to such levels.
This license condition satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36a,
" Technical Specifications on Effluents from Nuclear Power Reactors," to assure that releases from nuclear power reactors to unrestricted areas during normal reactor operations, including expected operational occurrences, are kept as low as practicable. Since that time, the NRC has issued guidance on model Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS). As part of the RETS program, much of the material concerning dose calculations was relocated from the Technical Specifications (TS) to the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (00CM).
Amendment No. 102 was issued on August 3, 1984, to authorize changes to the TS to:
(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. The intent of Paragraph 3.8 was covered in the licensee's change to RETS and the ODCM.
Paragraph 3.8 should have been deleted as part of Amendment No.102.
l The following changes are proposed for the PBAPS Unit 3 FOL:
1.
Revise paragraph 1.I to include the use of source material. Paragraph 1.1 already contains references to 10 CFR Part 40 and 10 CFR 40.32. This change is administrative in that adding the word " source" only clarifies the fact that 10 CFR Part 40 and 10 CFR 40.32 are regulations governing domestic licensing of source material.
2.
Revise the first sentence of paragraph 2.A to replace the word " direct" with the word " single" in describing the type of nuclear reactor. This change is being made to achieve consistency with Jnit 2 paragraph 2.A and the original PBAPS Safety Evaluation Report dated August II,1972.
3.
Eliminate specific amendment and supplement numbers from paragraph 2.A for both the FSAR and the Environmental Report. This change is identical to the change being made to paragraph 2.A of the Unit 2 FOL discussed above.
4.
Remove the date from paragraph 2.B.(2) for the FSAR supplements and l
amendments. This change is identical to the change being made to paragraph 2.B.(2) of the Unit 2 FOL discussed above.
5.
Eliminate paragraph 3.A and renumber the following paragraphs under section 3.
This change is identical to the change being made to delete l
paragraph 3.8 of the Unit 2 FOL discussed above.
6.
Revise " Unit 2" to " Unit 3" in paragraph 3.B to correct a typographical error. When paragraph 3.B was added by Amendment No. 52, it correctly read " Unit 3."
Amendment No. 201 introduced an administrative error and l
changed paragraph 3.8 to read " Unit 2."
This change will correct the error made in Amendment No. 201.
7.
Revise " technical specifications" to " Technical Specifications" in paragraph 3.C to achieve consistency with the remainder of the FOL.
8.
Paragraph 4 is being revised to add the word "of" to achieve consistency in wording with the Unit 2 FOL.
All of the above changes are administrative in nature and either eliminate outdated material from the license, add clarifying information, or change wording to achieve consistency between the two licenses. Therefore, the staff finds these changes to the PBAPS Unit 2 and 3 F0Ls to be acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
i 1
In accordance with the Commission's reoul;. tons, the Pennsylvania State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
i
s
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve 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 the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no i
public comment on such finding (61 FR 10396). Accordingly, the amendments meet 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 1
the amendments.
1
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission 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 the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Janet Kennedy i
l Date: July 15, 1996 i
I l
)
1
,