ML20217Q463

Application for Amend to License DPR-12,adding Requirements to TS to Achieve Compliance w/10CFR50.36a, TS on Effluents from Nuclear Power Reactors

ML20217Q463
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	03/02/1998
From:	Geoffrey Edwards PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20217Q466	List: ML20217Q463 ML20217Q471
References
NUDOCS 9803120253
Download: ML20217Q463 (5)

Text

• '

A 10CFR50.90 v

PECO NUCLEAR eew e - C -e, 905 Chesterbrook Boulevard A Unit of PECO Energy wayne. PA 19087-5691 March 2,1998 Docket No. 50-171 License No. DPR-12 l

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

SUBJECT:

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 1 License Change Request ECR PB 97-03136

Dear Sir:

PECO Energy Company hereby submits License Change Request ECR PB 97-03136 in accordance with 10CFR50.90 requesting changes to the Possession - Only License Technical Specifications (TS) for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 1. The proposed changes add requirements to the TS to achieve compliance with 10CFR50.36a, " Technical Specifications on Effluents from Nuclear Power Reactors."

Attachment 1 to this letter describes the proposed changes and provides justification for the changes. Attachment 2 provides marked-up TS pages indicating the proposed l

changes. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

_ A-

/ '.GD.'E'dwards Director- Licensing cc: H. J. Miller, Administrator, Region I, USNRC I A. C. McMurtray, USNRC Seni r Resident inspector, PBAPS

/ k'C Of (

9803120253 980302 PDR ADOCK 05000171 P PDR 1., v d 5 khkk ,.

c COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:

SS COUNTY OF CHESTER  :

J. B. Cotton, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

That he is Vice President of PECO Energy Company, the Applicant herein; that he has read the attached Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 of the License Change Request (ECR PB 97-03136) for Peach Bottom Possession - Only License DPR-12, 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 and belief.

)

ArnA/$w

/ '

Vice President Subscribed and sworn to 4

before me this AIM day of February 1998.

/

(

NotarytPublic NOTARIAL SEAL F' Aftol C A. WALTON, Notary PutIBB

( cry of Phaedelphis. PNia, W Expires May 28. _

~

a ATTACHMENT 1 PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-171 LICENSE NO. DPR-12 LICENSE vHANGE REQUEST ECR PB 97-03136

" COMPLIANCE WITH 10CFR50.36A" SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR CHANGES - 2 PAGES I

l l

Docket No. 50-171 License No. DPR-12 PECO Energy Company requests that the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Peach ,

Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 1, Possession - Only License be amended '

as proposed below to achieve compliance with 10CFR50.36a, " Technical Specifications on Effluents from Nuclear Power Reactors."

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

The marked-up pages are provided in Attachment 2.

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

Discussion and Descrioten of the Prooosed Chcnaes

, 1. Revise TS Section 2.1(b)(7) to require that procedures for the control of effluents be established and followed.

2. Revise TS Section 2.4(a) to require submission of an annual report to the NRC that specifies the quantity of radioactive effluents released.

Safety Assessment The proposed changes are administrative in nature and have no impact on any safety analysis assumptions. These changes involve reporting and adding a requirement that procedures be in place for effluent monitoring.

Information Sucoortina a Findina of No Sionificant Hazards Considerations The changes proposed in this Application do not constitute a Significant Hazards Consideration in that:

1) The orooosed chanaes do not involve a sianificant ine,rease in the probability or i conseauerces of an accident previousiv evaluated because the proposed  !

changes do not impact the SAcSTOR status of Unit 1 or the design of any plant system, structure, or compone . (SSC). These changes are administrative in nature. They do not affect security at Unit 1 or the potential of radioactive material being released. Inspections for potential liquid and gas effluents have i previously been established. These changes ensure that the requirement for procedures and reporting are listed in TS. Therefore, these proposed changes do not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

l ii) The orooosed chanaes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of i accident from any accident oreviously evaluated because implementation of the  ;

proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to plant SSC or impact i the SAFSTOR status. These changes ara acninistrative in nature. Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evalustad is not created.

i

lii) '

The orooosed chanaes do not involve a sianificant reduction in a marain of agfgly because the proposed chcnges do not affect the plant SAFSTOR status.

Because the proposed changes are administrative in nature, they do not involve a question of safety. These changes involve reporting and adding a requirement that procedures be in place for effluent monitoring. Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Information Sucoortina an Environmental Assessment An environmental impact assessment it. not required for the changes proposed by this Application because the changes conform to the criteria for "actiona eligible for L 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 Nuclecr Review Board have reviewed the proposed changes and have concluded that the changes do not involve an {

unreviewed safety question and will not endanger the public health and safety.

]

l l.

l w