ML20010E351
| ML20010E351 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010E348 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109030382 | |
| Download: ML20010E351 (2) | |
Text
+p ** 4%g s
'g UNITED STATES
{
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-l wash NoTos, p.c.rosss g$
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 61 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. D' R-40 OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT FORT CALHOUN STATION, L'4IT NO.1 DOCKET NO. 50-285 Introduction By letter dated July 21, 1981, the Omaha Public Power District (the licensee) requested a change to the Technical Specifications appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-40 for operation of Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1.
The proposed change would revise the licensee's administrative controls for controlling personnel access to localized high radiation areas where the dose rate exceeds 1000 mrem per hour.
Discussion and Evaluation At present, the Technical Specifications for Fort Calhoun Station require, for each high radiation area exceeding 1000 mrem / hour, that locked doors be provided to prevent unauthorized entry and the keys to such doors be controlled by the shift Supervisor and/or the Plant Health Physicist.
The licensee proposes, for accessible localized high radiation areas ex-ceeding 1000 mrem / hour which are located in large areas such as the reactor containment, where no lockable enclosure exists in the immediate vicinity to control access and no such enclosure can be readily constructed, that such 3reas be (a) roped off, (b) conspicuously posted, and (c) a flashing light activated as a warning device.
We have reviewed the proposed change and have concluded that the alternative measures described above will provide equally adequate personnel access control to localized high radiation areas exceeding 1000 mrem / hour. Under certain conditions, these alternative controls would represent an improvement over existing requirements. The reactor containment, for example, is a radiation area. Most of the containment area has low dose rates. Several areas, however, do have dosa rates exceeding 1000 mram/ hour. Under the present requirements, therefore, the containment must be locked to prevent unauthorized entry and the keys held by responsible personnel as stated earlier. However, during refueling outages the containment must be unlocked to provide for frequent personnel access needed for the refuelinq 09eration.
Whereas each person entering must also be so authorized by a Radiation 8109030382 810820 PDR ADOCK 05000GN35 P
3
" i Work Permit, the alternate provisions the licensee proposes would conspic-uously mark the areas within containment which have a significantly higher dose rate. These measures would provide a high degree of assurance that these areas would not be inadvertently entered by unauthorized personnel.
We therefore find the licensee's proposal acceptable. A similar change was recently approved for Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit No. I 1
(Amendment No.17, December 10,1980).
j Environmental Consideration 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 this 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 $51.5(d)(4), that an i
environmental impact stctement or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the i
issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(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 marjin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public l
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 no' be inimical c
to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: August 20, 1981 l
l i
..__--....~,_-,,,..___,..mv m..
. ~,. _ -_,_ _.., _ -....._ _,. --...__, __. ~ --
-