ML19340B084
| ML19340B084 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340B083 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8010210134 | |
| Download: ML19340B084 (3) | |
Text
-
l i -
- p Q
. #pm asog'o ~
UNITED STATES 8
[g NUCLEAll REGULATORY COMMISSION ~
JV ASHINGT ON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 32 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-66 l
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY I
OHIO EDISON COMPAN_Y.
l PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY _
l BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT NO. I DOCKET NO. 50-334 Introduction i
' Amendment No. 4 -to the License for Beaver Valley Unit No.1 (DPR-66) added l.
the following Condition:
"2.C.3 Main Control Room Ventilation System The licensee shall, prior to the commencement of the second
. fuel cycle of operation, modify the control room ventilation system to provide for automatic isolation of the system on detection of chlorine, or the facility shall not be operated beyond the first ' fuel cycle of operation without prior written authorization from the Commission."
By letter of May 14, 1980 the licensee submitted schematic drawings of isolation systems actuated by signals from three independent chlorine det'ection systems. Concurrently, the licensee proposed new Technical -
Specifications for. these detection systems.
This document is the staff's i
evaluation of-the proposed detection and actuation systems.
i Ba ckground
-Chlorine gas.is primarily a respiratory irritant.
Concentrations in air
.above' 3)to 15 ppm by volume are -readily detected by most _ persons and i
. concentrations of 40 to 60. ppm for 30 to 60 minutes are considered to be (This-concentration wil_l cause : irritation ~of the throat a'nd dangerous.
is > the maximum concentration that can be tolerated for two minutes without
-physical incapacitation such'as savere coughing, eye burnf or severe skin irritation.). The criteria for control. rooms, published in Regulatory Guide
'i
'l.~78, limit chlorine concentrations-to less than 15 ppm within two minutes
'a fter the operators are' made aware' of the presence of chlorine, 8 o10sio I3Y 7
p 1
. l In the event thatrgaseous chlorine entered the air inlet of r control
- room and in the absence-of special design measures to limit the buildup vithin _the control-room, the operators might be-incapacitated before they ace able to don breathi.ng pparatus.
It is therefore, the staff's J
position-that control. room operators should be protected against the effects of an accidental chlorine release by providing such protective features in the control room' a's : (1) quick response chlorine detectors located in the fresh-air inlets and (2) isolation of the control room l
from fresh air make-up withis. 10 seconds.
Evaluation l
The licensee has proposed to install three independent chlorine detection I
systems in the fresh air intake line upstream of the intake fans. The
~
detection systems m"t the criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.95 related to sensitivity, response time (5 seconds), single failure criteria, sei mic and environmental qualifications, and maintenance.
If, under improbable circumstances, all three detectors become inoperable, the licensee has the capability to isolate the control room through u3e of the recirculation mode of operation of the emergency ventilation system.
It is the staff's position that continued operation in the recirculation mode for an unlimited time in lieu of restoring a chlorine detector to operable status is not acceptable. The licensee has been advised of this position and has respon'ded that. there is agreement in this matter.
Co n-sequently, in the event of predicted prolonged inoperability of all three chlorine detectors, the' licensee proposes to seek alternative means of detection rather than operate the emergency ventilation system in the recir-culation mode longer than one week. We consider a week to be sufficient time to repair or replace the type of chlorine detector to be installed by the
~
licensee or to obtain a portable replacement that can be installed temporarily in the control room. Consequently, we find the action items in proposed Technical Specification 3.3.3.7 to be acceptable.
Environmental Consideration l
l We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in
~
-effluent -types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in.any significant environmental. impact. Having made thi.s determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which.is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR. 351.5(d)(4), that an environnental impact statement or negative declaration and environ-mental. impact 1 appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
l-i l
4 f
w.
m
-g
-y-,-,,.-- -- - - - -
. Conclusion We have concluded, based on te considerations discussed aba
.:.a t :
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and e.lety of the public.
I Date: September 29, 1980 l
l-r