ML20244A615
| ML20244A615 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20244A610 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8904180101 | |
| Download: ML20244A615 (2) | |
Text
_ _ - _ _ _ _
Jt
, a ncoq[o,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COevtMISSION i
h WASHING TON, D. C. 20666
.....f
]
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF PICLEAR REACTOR REGULATION j
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.124 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-32 AND AMENDMENT NO.124 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-37 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY 4
SURRY POWER STATION, UNIT N05. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-280 AND 50-281 INTRODUCTION The licensee, the Virginia Electric and Power Company, in its submittal dated June 10, 1988, proposed to amend the Technical Specifications to Facility
-Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37. The proposed revisions,would delete requirements for and references to the Control Room Chlorine Monitoring System.
The current Technical Specifications, Section 3.7, require the chlorine monitor-ing system to be operable at all times.
EVALUATION The chlorine monitors were originally installed,.in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.95, to isolate the control room in the event of a release of chlorine being stored for usage at the Sewage Treatment Plant located at the Surry site.
i The licensee has committed to a new sewage disinfection system to be used at the site that will not require the use of chlorine.
Consequently, the chlorine gas storage bottles were removed from the Surry site in September 1988. The licensee has also stated that the chlorine previously stored at sewage treatment l
plant was the only source of chlorine which could lead to control room habit-l ability concerns.
This finding was based on a NUS Corporation Report No. 3735 l
(Volumes 1 and 2), entitled "Surry Onsite Toxic Chemical Release Analysis" and "Surry Offsite Toxic Chemical Release Analysis," respectively. These studies were previously found acceptable by the NRC staff as delineated in an NRC Safety Evaluation dated June 28, 1982.
In addition, Regulatory Guide 1.95 does not require chlorine detectors in those circumstances where chlorine in amounts not exceeding 20 pounds are located at the plant.
I
SUMMARY
Based on the staff's review of the licensee's submittal, the staff concludes that the proposed amendments conform with the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.95 i
and are inerefore acceptable.
1 l
L
%41hbk T'
P
\\
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amencments involve a change in the installation or use of the facilities components located within the restricted dreas as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff h6s determir.ed that these amendments involve no significant increase in the dmounts, 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 these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly,
these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set i
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 these amendments.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is redsonable assurance that the health and sdfety of the. public will not be endangered by operdtlon in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in complidrice with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the hedith eno safety of the public.
Dated:
April 7, 1989 Principal Contributor:
B. Buckley i
l I
l,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _. _ _ _