ML20080D711
| ML20080D711 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 12/28/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080D709 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9501060079 | |
| Download: ML20080D711 (3) | |
Text
.
- 4
%g$% -
UNITED STATES p
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY CQMMISSION 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066-4001
\\.....,o/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMEN 0 MENT NO. 111 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-2 AND AMENDMENT NO. 102 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-8 SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CONPANY. INC.
JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-348 AND 50-364
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated October 20, 1994, Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC or i
the licensee) proposed amendments to the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2 Technical Specifications (TS). The proposed amendments would delete, the requirements for the control room chlorine detection system from the TS and associated Bases Sections. This request is based on the fact that all stored gaseous chlorine has been removed from the plant site except for containers having an inventory of 150 pounds or less.
2.0 EVALUATION j
The chlorine detection system was originally installed to protect the control room operators against the accidental releases of gaseous chlorine stored on-site. SNC has stated in its submittal that all stored gaseous chlorine, except for containers having an inventory of 150 pounds or less, have been removed from the plant site and replaced by chlorine compounds in alternate forms, which maintain the desired level of dissolved chlorine in treated 2
water, but preclude the need for storage of large quantities of gaseous chlorine. SNC stated that the small amount of gaseous chlorine (stored in containers having an inventory of 150 pounds or less) will be kept in a l
chlorination house located more than 100 meters from the control room and its t
fresh air inlets.
SNC also stated that the removal of the gaseous chlorine from the site and the chlorine detection system is consistent with the guidance contained in i
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.95, " Protection of Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Operators Against an Accidental Chlorine Release," dated February 1975.
This RG permits gaseous chlorine to be stored on-site in containers having a j
chlorine inventory of 150 pounds or less provided:
(1) it is stored more than 100 meters from the control room and its fresh air inlets, (2) the capability for manual isolation of the control room is provided, and (3) the containers, if multiple containers are present, are not interconnected in a manner such that failure of a single container will cause release from any of the others.
Although SNC did not reference the latest version of this RG (RG 1.95, Revision 1, dated January 1977) the guidance pertaining to on-site storage of gaseous chlorine is the same in both the original and revised version.
9501060079 941228 PDR ADOCK 05000348 P
g r,
When considering the removal of the chlorine detection system from the Farley site, SNC committed to and followed the guidance contained in RG 1.78,
" Assumptions for Evaluating the Habitability of a Nuclear Power Plant Control Room During a Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release," dated June 1974._ This RG provides guidance for protection of the control room environment' against hazardous chemicals stored both on-site and off-site. Regulatory Guide 1.78 states that hazardous chemicals stored or situated at distances greater than i
five miles need not be considered because atmospheric dispersion will dilute i
and disperse the plume such that there should be sufficient time for the control room operators to take corrective action.
In addition, with regard to on-site storage of gaseous chlorine in quantities of 150 pounds or less in containers, SNC has committed to follow the guidance contained in RG 1.95, as previously discussed.
For distances less than five miles, the licensee evaluated the gaseous chlorine shipped by barge, truck, and rail and determined there were no regularly scheduled shipments by any of these means of transportation. Based on an estimated frequency and size of shipments, SNC evaluated the effect on plant operation of potential gaseous chlorine release accidents by either barge, truck or railroad at the closest point of approach to the plant, and concluded that the safe operation of the plant would not be affected. The licensee also has determined that no gaseous chlorine is processed at, stored at, or transported to or from any of the industrial i
facilities located within five miles of the plant, therefore, no hazard associated with chlorine exists that would affect safe plant operation.
i 3.0 SUP91ARY The NRC staff evaluated the SNC request to delete the chlorine detection instrumentation and concluded the following:
1.
The licensee's proposal is consistent with the guidance contained in RG 1.95 with regard to the location and quantity of gaseous chlorine I
permitted to be stored on site without providing instrumentation.
2.
The licensee evaluated and confirmed, in accordance with the guidance contained in RG 1.78, that there are no identified chlorine hazards to the plant posed either by commercial facilities or the infrequent transportation of chlorine by barge, truck, or railroad, within five miles of the plant.
On the bases of the above evaluation, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed amendments are acceptable.
In addition, the staff has determined that the proposed changes to the TS Bases sections, which are consist with the proposed TS changes, are also acceptable.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the State of Alabama official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
t
.c e
5.0 ENVIR0letENTAL CONSIDERATION
~
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a i
facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes the Surveillance Requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves 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 amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (59 FR 60386). Accordingly, the amendment meets 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 the amendment.
6.0 CONCLUSION
i The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the l
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 amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
B. Siegel Date: December 28, 1994 i
i f
I i
l P
w
_. _, _ _ _ _