ML20236J241
| ML20236J241 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1987 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236J236 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8711050225 | |
| Download: ML20236J241 (2) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:__ t Lc p uou ' 8[ 'o UNITED STATES 3 'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o l -{.. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 3.... / l SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS j SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 62 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-77 AND AMENDMENT N0. 54 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR l t TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SE000YAH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-327 AND 50-328 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In the Final Safety Analysis Report tne applicant considered chlorine as a ,potentially hazardous' materia'l frequently shipped by barge past the plant site. To ensure habitability of the main control room, chlorine. detectors were inttalled at the air intakes of the main control r.com building. The staff concluded in the safety evaluation dated March 1979 that the chlorine detection ' system was acceptable. By letter' dated January 21, 1987, and. clarified by letter dated March '25,1987, the licensee proposed to delete the chlorine detection system from the plant, i, and to amend the plant Technical Specifications (TS) by deleting the limiting condition for operation, surveillance requirements and bases for the chlorine ~ detection system from the TS (3.3.3.6, 4.3.3.6 and bases 3/4.3.3.3.6, respectively). 2.0 EVALUATION The licensee indicated that the shipping frequency by barges past the site is now less than 50 per year. All major roads and rail lines lie outside the 5-mile radius'of the site. There are no industrial or military facilities within 5 miles of the site. ' Chlorine gas is not stored or transported onsite in quantities greater than 100 pounds. The staff determined that, in accordance, with Regulatory Positions'C.1,'C.2, and C.3 in Regulatory Guide 1.'78, " Assumptions for Evaluating the Habitability of a Nuclear Power Plant ~ Control Room during a Postulated Hazardous' Chemical ~ Release," barge shipments of less than 50 per year past the site are not considered frequent enough to warrant evaluation. In addition, any chemical, in any quantity, that is stored, processed, or transported beyond 5 miles from the site need not be considered. Any chemical that is stored, processed, or transported onsite in quantities less than 100 pounds also need not be evaluated. Accordingly, chlorine gas need not now be evaluated for main control room habitability on the basis of the newly provided information on barge shipment frequency and site characteristics of the plant. ) 8711050225 871030 i PDR ADOCK 05000327 i P PDR
The 1icensee identified a number of toxic chemicals that are stored onsite in quantities greater than 100 pounds. Among them, only hydrazene and amonia 'need be evaluated. The other chemicals have either high boiling points '(low a . volatility) or extremely low toxicity, and thorefore, need not be considered -( for control room habitability. Hazard analysis case studies performed in j accordance with~ Regulatory Guide 1.78 guidelines produced calculated concentrations 'in the Sequoyah control room below the threshold limit set in Regulatory Guide 1.76. The results of the studies showed that neither hydrazine nor ammonia would. adversely affect control room habitability.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
- These amendments involve a change to a requirement with respect to the installation j or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in .10.CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requirements. The staff has i determined that the amendments' involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released 1 offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or. cumulative occupational: radiation exposure. The'Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the; amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set i forthin10CFR51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental' impact statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff concludes th6t the licensee's proposed changes of the plant TS on the' Chlorine Detection System meet the acceptance criteria in Sections 2.2.1, 1 2.2.2, 2.2.3, and 6.4 of Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800, July 1981) and { are,Ltherefore, acceptable. No toric chemical that might be transported near l the plant site or stored onsite is identified to pose potential adverse l effects on habitability of the main control room. Based on the considerations discussed above, the staff concludes 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 these amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense ano security nor to the health and safety of the public. Principal ~ Contributors: J. Watt, T. Rotella, J. Wing 4 l Dated: October 30, 1987 1 J ___}}