ML20149L294
| ML20149L294 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149L286 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-66954, TAC-67040, NUDOCS 8802240177 | |
| Download: ML20149L294 (3) | |
Text
9
./ p a+;. 'g UNITED STAVES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS5 TON WASHING TON. D. C. 20555 f
- ...+
SarETY EVALUATION BY THE OretCE OF NUCLEAR REtrTOR REGULATION RELATrD TO AVENDMENT No. 14 T_0, FACILITY 00EF ATTNG LICE'lSE NO. NAT /.?
NORTHEAST NUCLFAF. ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL.
MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATTON, UNIT NO. 3 DOCKET NO. 50 423 INTPODUCTION By letter dated December 4, 1987, the Northeast Nuclear Energy Corpany (NNECO) prcoosed to revise technical specification section 3/4.3.2 to remove the chinrine detection system.
EVALUATION The chlorine detection system was placed in the Control Building Ventilation System to assure the habitability of the control roon in the event of an on-site chlorine release. The chlorine of concern was 55 tens (per unit) stored A3d.3 m frcn the nearest control rocm air intake. The chlorination systers of Millstone Units 1, ? and 3 have been modified to use sodium hypochlorite solution instead of gasenus chlorine.
Therefore, the on-site storace of liquid chlorine hes been eliminated.
Chlorire rail traffic on the tr. track right-of-way through Northeast Utilities property was a concern because of the close proximity to Millstont Unit No. 3 (1700 feeti and the large quantity of chlorine contained ir a rail tank car (typically 55 tons). NNECO contracted Providence and Worcester Railroad (P&W) to perform a Millstone Nuclear Power Station chlorire rail traffic study.
The results of this study indicated that there was no chlorine rail treffic on this right-of-way in 1986 and for the years 1983 through 1985 the average chlorine rail traffic was two carloadt per year.
Based upon the data obtained fer the years 1983-1985, NNECO does net anticipate any increese in the chlorine rail traffic in the vicirity of the Millstone Station. However, in order to monitor any future changes, NNECO has centracted with P&W to orovide NNECO with annual updates to the Millstone Nuclear Power Station Chlorine Rail Traffic Stud," through the year 1991.
In the Millstene Unit No. 3 FSAR, NNECO cetemined that shipments of liquid chlorine by barge or truck will have no ddverse impact on the tafety of Millsinne Station, due to the decreasing use
)
of Long Island Sound as a shipping channel and the four mile distance of the nearest interstate highway from the site.
f y
h b
p t
i
0*
Pcsulatory Guide 1.78 srecifies that only frectently shipped hazardous chemicels need to be acdressed in the plant der. fen, Freauent shipments tre de#ined in Pesulatory Guide 1.78 as exceeding IC per year for truck shipments.
30 per year 'cr rail shipments, anc 50 per year for barge shiprents.
The cbler'ne shioments identified above arc below these thresholds.
NNECO has evalucted the potential effect c' chlorine released 'rrm an off-site chlorir.e bulk storage facility and has determinea that ne hazard er'sts. The New f.ordon Water Treatment Facility was identified as a bulk storage facility of chlcrine which utilizes two ten cylinders and is located four miles from Millstone Unit f:o 3.
Based on the small certainers utilized and the four riiie distance, the New Londen Water Treatment Facility does not represent a credible hazard to the Fillstone Unit No. 3 fontrol Room (as per Regulatory Guide 1.7P).
The Pfizer Pharraceutical Ccreany was also identified as a bulk storage facility of chlorire.
This facility utilizes rail tank cars for chlorine storage and it.
located five miles frem tiillstere Unit No. 3.
Pec"latory Guide 1.78 states that "chemicals stnred at distances greater than five miles from the facility need not be considered because if a release occurr at such a distance, atrespheric difrersion wili dilute ard disperse the incomin9 P ume to such a degree that l
there shculd be sufficient tire for the Control Room orerators to take apprn-priate action." Pased on this principle, the Dfizer Pharmaceutical Company storage f acility was evaluated and determintd not to be a hazard to M4llstone i
Unit No. 3.
t in sumcary, based upon the elimination cf on-site chlorine bulk storage, verification of low chlorine rail frequency, and the absence of potentially hazardres off-site chlorine bulk storage facilities, the elimination of the Millstorc Unit No. 3 Technical Srccification requiremerts for Control Puildirq Ventilation System Chlorine Detectors is acceptable.
ENVIQ0NMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment. changes a requirement with respect to installetion or use of a facility corcponent located within the restricted area es defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and charges surveillerce requirements.
The ttaff has determined
+ tat the amencrent involves no significant increase in the amounts, ard no significant change in the types, cf any ef fluerts that may be released rffsite, and that there is no sienificant increase in individual or cumulative cccupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously published a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideratien and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets the elicibility criteria for categorical exclusier set forth in 10 CFR 51.??fc)(9).
j Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statcrent or environmental assettnent need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
i I
l I
3 CONCLUSION i
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reescnable assurance that the health ar.d safety o' the public will not be endar. cered by operation in the proposed manner, and (P) such activities will be conducted in corpliance with the Conmission's regulations, and the issuance cf the amendrcet will not be inimical to the connon defense and i
security or to the health ar.d safety of the public.
Dated:
February 16, 1988 Principal Contributor:
R. Ferguson 3
l i