ML17158A746
| ML17158A746 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17158A745 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9507030053 | |
| Download: ML17158A746 (3) | |
Text
gp,8 RE0II (4
~o cs I
O 1'0 e
Y.
co
+~
~O
++*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055&4001 Y T OFF CE OF UC R
ACTO R
GU ON
.147 OF T
G NS P-117 0
C 0
NG C
S 0
F2 S
R Si GH CO PAN ST CSATO U
T OOCK T NOS. 50-387 AND 388 1.0.LNTM00 0I By letter dated October 28,
- 1994, and as supplemented in a letter dated P,
April 18,
- 1995, the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (PP&L, the licensee)(
submitted a request for changes to the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES),
Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TSs).
The requested changes would delete, from the TSs, the surveillance and 'operability requirements for chlorine detection and the associated Bases as a result of the removal of bulk quantities of gaseous chlorine from the site.
The April 18, 1995, letter provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 Jg~Gggg In accordance with Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.95, "Protection of Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Operators Against an Accidental Chlorine Release,"
(January 1977)
PPSL has installed in the fresh air intake of the control structure HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) systems,,
a chlorine detection system which upon detection of chlorine gas in the incoming air stream will initiate automatical:ly the'isolation of the control room air flow, close
- dampers, and)shut<off fans.
This RG was intended to protect reactor operators from the"hiiai'ds~otfwan-on-site chlorine release.
In the past, bulk quantities of gaseous.cli'forine we'e used and stored at SSES to control the growth of micro-o}ganisms'n'he open cooling water systems, circulating water and service water to prevent bio-fouling of heat exchangers and the cooling tower.
- Recently, PP8L has replaced the chlorine with a non-oxidizing biocide and has removed the bulk quantities of the chlorine gas from the site.
3.0
~EVA
/CION The licensee indicated in its submittal that the removal of chlorine from the site eliminates the potential for an on-site toxic gas release and thus relieves the licensee from following the guidelines in RG 1.95 and 9507030053 9506i9 PDR ADOCK 05000387 P
2 4
specificqllgthe"peed to-have the chlorine detection system in the control room.HVAQ,system, 4P8L indicated in discussions with the staff that it has replaced the chlorine"with the product Betz Clam-Trol CT-1 as its biocide.
This product is a combination of organic compounds which control the growth of micro-organisms in water systems.
It is non-oxidizing and is relatively nontoxic to humans.
The biocide is added to the water systems in liquid form with the following two active ingredients suspended in an alcohol mixture:
alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, and dodecyl guanidine hydrochloride.
Since there is chlorine in compound form in the biocide, the staff concludes that any potential spills of the biocide will not result in the release of chlorine gas to the environment and especially to the control room.
In its discussion in the letter dated April 18, 1995, the licensee indicated that it used a methodology based on the analysis included in the SSES FSAR in Section 2.2.
Further a bounding calculation was used as well as the frequency guidelines included in RG 1.78, "Assumptions for Evaluating the Habitability of a Nuclear Power Plant Control Room During a Postulated Hazardous Chemical:
Release."
In its submittal, PPEL discussed the hazards of an off-site chlorine re)ease'-'~P~',
In a study to investigate the risk of a hazardous off-site chlorine
- release, the risk frequency of such a release is shown to be less than the Standard Review Plan lower radioactivity release frequency limit of 1E-7/year.
Our study concluded that the current chlorine shipping frequency is less than the minimum considered significant in Reg.
Guide 1.78, "Assumptions for Evaluating the Habitability of a Nuclear Power Plant Control Room During a Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release",
- June, 1974.
Thus, off-site chlorine release is judged to be insignificant for radiological impact on the safety and health of the public.
- Further, because of the amount of chlorine released, any "puff" is expected to pass the station in minutes.
Self contained breathing apparatus and manual control room isolation are available to mitigate the on-site consequences of off-site chlorine release.
Specifical'Q;;the:,boundi'ng calculation resulted in a calculated release risk of less than:4;-7E'-'.,9",core.damage/yr from chlorine release off-site.
The staff finds that."'thd'.,jethodo)ogy was acceptable and the result of the calculation to indicate thl@.t)e: effect of removal of the chlorine detection system would be acceptable':.'n addition the staff agrees with the licensees conclusion based on RG 1.78 that the infrequent shipping of chlorine past the SSES site need not be considered in the evaluations of control room habitability.
Based on the above discussion, the staff finds that deleting the surveillance and action statements from the TS relative to the operability of the chlorine detection system does not affect the integrity, function, or performance of any safety related
- system, function, or equipment in the SSES units.
Even in the event of an off-site release of chlorine, adequate measures are available for the operators to mitigate any potential hazards to those in the control room through.alanual HVAC system isolation and the use of a self contained breathing apparatus.
Thus, this TS change does not affect the level of protection provided to the reactor operators and margin of safety at the units will remain unchanged.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the removal of the bulk quantities of chlorine from the site and the use of the alternate biocide makes RG 1.95 inapplicable to SSES, and finds the TS change to be acceptable.
4.0~
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Pennsylvania State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
The State official had no comments.
5.0 0
T 0 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 and changes surveillance requirements.
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' proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (59 FR 65821).
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibilitycriteria 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 the amendments.
6.0 ~C~U'~)0 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'r to the health and safety of the public.
Principal.Cojttibutor;
~C, Poslusny Date:
Jurie'X9
'1995'