ML20206H915
| ML20206H915 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206H913 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8811230435 | |
| Download: ML20206H915 (2) | |
Text
.
\\
UNITED STATES
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7.
W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20666 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION i
SUPPORTING AMEN 0 MENT NO.12 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPT-62 CLINTON POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY. ET. AL.
DOCKET NO. 50-461 l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated May 18, 1988 the Illinois Power Company (IP), et al. (the licensees) requested an amendment to Facility Dperating License No hPF-62 for the Clinton Power Station Unit 1.
The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification Sections 3/4.3.7.8 and 4.7.2.e.2 and BASES Section i
3/4.3.7.8 in oroer to delete the requirement for the chlorine detection system. The proposed revision is based on the fact that the chlorine hazard has been removed from the site, i.e., all liquid chlorine in containers having a capacity of 100 pounds or greater have been removed from the site and there are no other significant depots of chlorine within a five mile radius of the site.
Furthermore, there is negligible transportation of c.51orine in the vicinity of the site.
2.0 EVALUATION i
l The licensees have replaced the existing chlorination system on site and at the l
site semage treatment plant, the only other location witnin a 5 mile radius l
of the control room in which chlorine was stored, with a sodium hypochlorite system that obviates the use of liquid chlorine for water treatrnent. Thus, the threat to control room habitability from an accidental release of chlorine on site has been removed.
I Regulatory Guide 1.78 states that if hazardou3 chemicals, such as chlorine, are frequently shipped by routes within a 5 mile radius of the plant, consideration should be give to such shipments (as a potential ha.ard) in the evaluation of the control room habitability. The licensees stated that the transportation survey last performed for Clinton in 1983 indicated an annual L
truck and rail shipment frequency for chlorine of zero and 17 respectively.
This is const jerably less than the threshold limits of 10 and 30 shipments by i
truck and rail, respectively, as stated in Regulatory Guide 1.78. Therefore, transportation of chlorine gas in the irnediate vicinity does not pose a threat to control room habitability and chlorine monitors are not f
necessitated.
In IP letter U-600175, dated July 9, 1985, IP committed to perfom a transportation survey every 3 years in order to detect any changes in hazirdous material shipping p*,cterns.
r
All major depots or storage tanks of chlorine that constitute a hazard as described 1.. Regulatory Position C.1 of Regulatory Guide 1.78 have been removed. This in conjunction with the negligible risk associated with a transportation accident in the vicinity of Clinton (as detemined according to the guidelines of Regulatory Position C.2 of Regulattry Guide 1.78), makes the pmbability or consequences of a chlorine accident negligible for Clinton.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. We have determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that my be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consiceration and there has been no public coment on such finding.
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibilfty criteria for categorical exclusionsetforthin10CFR51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessrnent need be preparec in cor.nection with the issurnce of this amendment.
4.0 CCNCLUSION The proposed change to Technical Specification Sections 3/4.3.7.8 and 4.7.2.e.2 and BASES Section 3/4.3.7.8 in order to delete the requirement for the enlorir.e detection system is acceptable since the margin of safety with respect to a chlorine gas release has been maximized by the removal of chlorine gas from the site. The only safety contribution of the chlorine detection system was in the detection of a chlorine release. With no chlorine source present, deletion of the chlorine detection system can not affect the mergin of safety.
We have 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety to the public.
Principal Contributor: Janice A. Stevens, NRR/PDI!!-2 Dated: November 12, 1988 f
__