IR 05000701/2010015
| ML20209E866 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi, 05000701  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1986 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209E709 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-86-061, EA-86-61, NUDOCS 8609110372 | |
| Download: ML20209E866 (4) | |
Text
. . - . . .
.
,
.
.
MTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PDIALTIES
.
Detroit Edison Company Docket No. 90-M 1 ;
Fermi-2 License No. NPF-43 {
EA 86-61 '
During the NRC inspection conducted during the period July 1 - October 15, 1985, violations of NRC requirements wem identified. In accordance with the ,
" General statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions." l 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1985), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to fepose civil penalties prsuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended. ("Act ). 42 U.S.C. 2282. PL 96-295, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violations and the associated civil penalties are set forth below:
-
1. Technical specification 6.8.1.a requires that written procedures shall be established. implemented, and maintained covering the applicable procedures recomended in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33. Revision 2. February 1978.
Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33 states the following activities require procedures:
" Hot Standby to Minimum Load (nuclear startup)"
Technical Specification 6.8.1.a is im Company Plant Operations Manual (POM)plemented by the Detroit Edison
.
A. P0M Procedure 51.000.08, " Control Rod Sequence and Movement Control."
Paragraph 3.1.1, requires that rod moverients in the region fror 1001 Roc Dersity to 201 Reactor Power must be perforned according to the rod pull sheet. The rod pull sheets in effect on July 1,1985, required the rods for Groups 3 and 4 to be pulled in notch control (00-04, 04-08 etc.).
' Contrary to the above, on July 1 1985, the Naclear Supervising Operator at the control panel pulled 11 control rods fror the full-in position (00) to the full-out posittor. (48) rather than in notch control to the 04 position, as required by the rod pull sheet.
8. PON Procedure 51.000.08, Paragraph 3.1.4 states in part. 'Following each rod move the Nuclear Supervising Operator (N50) shall verify the control rod was left in the proper position indicated and shall document this verification by initialing the ' Final Position Verified'
,
block of Attachment 1."
Contrary to the above, on July 1.1985, the N50 at the control panel improperly verified and documented by initia11ng the pull sheet that the 11 rods were at position 04 when they men actually at position 48.
This is a Severity Level III problem (Supplement I). ~
(Civil Penalty - $100.000)
'
8609110372 860827
" PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
_ _ _ _ , _ - . - _
}
-
.,
.
notice of Violation -t-II. Technical Specification 5.8.1.a reqvfres that written procedums shall be established implemented, and mainteined covering the applicable procedures recaemanded in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33. Revision 2. February 1978.
Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33 states the following activities require procedures:
1. " Authorities and Responsibilities for Safe Operation . . .*
2. ' Shift end Melief Turnovers" l 3. " Log Entries . . .*
Technical specification 6.8.1.a is implemented by the Detroit Edison Company Plant Operations Manual (POM).
A. POM 12.000.57 ' Nuclear Production Organization," Paragraphs 5.3.2.1 ,
and 5.3.2.3 and POM 21.000.01 " Shift operations and Control Room.'
Enclosure 1 Item 4 delineate the responsibilities of the Nuclear Shift Supervisor (NSS) to include supervision of all activities and observation and/or direction of major plant evolutions to ensure corp 11ance with Technical Specifications, procedures, and regulations.
PON Procedure 21.000.01, Enclosure 2, Iter 12, requires the Nuclear Assistant Shift Supervisor (NASS) to provide direct supervision of shif t personnel.
POM Procedure 21.000.01. Enclosure 3, Items 5 and 8, require the N50 in charge of the control room to be responsible for the plant's main control room operation.
POW Procedare 21.000.01, Enclosure 6. Iter 2 requires the Shift Operations Advisor (50A) to observe actuation of annunciators to ensure that they are being promptly and properly addressed with necessary actions taken.
Contrary to the above, on July 1,1985, while a reactor operator was l pulling control rods, licensee management including the WSS, NASS, the NSO in charge of the control room, and 50A did not adequately supervise the pulling of control rods in that they failed to verify that the rods had been properly positioned and some rods were actually mis and failed to properly respond to five short period alarms. positioned During
. the event, some individuals were absent from the control room for periods of time.
! 8. PON Procedure 21.000.01, Section 6.8 addresses shift relief and i
Section 6.8.4 addresses the control room Nuclear Supervising Operator (N$0).
Contrary to the above, Procedure 21.000.01 in effect at the time of this inspection and during the rod pull error on July 1.1985. was i i
inadequate in that the procedure defined the required turnover for i the 550 in charge of the control room but did not define any turnover 1 l requirements for the NSO assigned to duties in the control roor but ;
l who was not in charge. l
! l l
l
. l
, -- . .
.
'
,
.
Rottee of Violation -3-
.
C. Plant Operations Manual CPON) Procedure 21.000.02, " Operating Loos s'nd Records.* section 4.h.5.8, requires the nuclear shift supervisor (ass) to record the occurrence of significant events, such as reactor trips and unexpected power changes En the NS$ log.
Contrary to the above, the NSS log for July 1 and 2,1985 does not contain any entries for the out-of-sequence rod pulls that occurred between 11:40 and 11:59 p.m. on July 1.1985.
This is a Severity Level !!! probler (Supplement I).
(Civil penalty - $100,000)
III.10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI Corrective Actions, implemented by the Feral-2 Final Safety Analysis Report Section 17.2.16, requires that for cases of significant conditions adverse to quality, the cause of the ,
condition be determined and corrective action taken to prevent repetition.
Nuclear Ope:ations Directive No. 21. Effective Problem Solving, dated April 11,1983, states that no safety-related activity should be resumed until the problem has been identified, its cause determined, and a solution formulated and implemented.
Contrary te the above, during the period July 1-2, 1985, eleven control rods were mispcsitioned during a reactor startup, a significant conditior adverse to quality, and the Nuclear Shift Supervisor did not properly evaluate the causes or effects of the error nor correct all the root causes of the event and made. a decision to resume rod pulling only a short time af ter the rods were repositioned to their proper positions. The Nuclear Shift Supervisor's decision to resume startup activities issnedtately was made without an adequate review of all the available nuclear instrumentation data, without cor.sulting the shif t advisors, and without an appreciatier, of the significance of the lack of management instruction, direction, oversight, and attention to licensed activities contributing to the incident.
This is a Severity Level III problem (Supplement I).
(Civil Penalty - 5100,000)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Detroit Edison Company is hereby l required to sobr.it to the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement. U.S.
l Muclear Regulatory Cour.ission, b'ashington, D.C. 20555, with a copy to the Regional Astinistrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III, 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen EIlyn. IL 60137, within 30 days of the date of this Notice a written statement or explanation, including for each alleged violation; (1)
admission or denial of the alleged violation; (2) the reasons for the violation, if attaitted; (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved; C4) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations: and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in the Notice, the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, may issue an order to show l cause wtw the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such i ether action es may be proper should not be taken. Consideration may be given j to extending the response time for good cause shown. Under the authority of
'
section 182 of the Act 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
(
- . .-- - . - _ - .__ - - - _ _ - - _
_ _ _ _ _ -
.
,
.
notica of Violation -4-e Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR F.201. Detroit Edison Company may pay the civil penalty by letter addmssed to the Director. Office of Inspection and Enforcement, with a check money order payable to the Tmasurer of the United States in the,cumulativedraft. er amount of Three Hundmd Thousand Dollars ($300.000)
the civil penalties in whole or in part by a written answer addressed to theor any prote Dimetor. Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
fail to answer within the time specified, the 01meterShould Detroit Office Edison Company of Inspection and Enforcement, proposed above. will issue an order imposing the civil penalties in the amount Should Detroit Edison company elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalties, such answer may:
(1) deny the violations listed in the Notice. in whole or in part; (2)
demonstrate extenuating circumstances; (3) show error in this hotice; or (4)
show other reasons why the penalties should not be imposed. In addition to protesting remission or themitigation civil penalties of theinpenalties.
whole or in part. such answer may request -
In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalties. the five factors addressed in Section V.B of 10 CFR part 2. Appendix C (1985) should be addressed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately froe the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 but may incorporate page and paragraph parts of nur.bers)
the 10 CFR 2.201repetition.
to avoid reply by specific . reference (e.g.. citing Detroit Edison Company's atte . tion isfor procedure directed imposing to the civilother pmvisions of 10 CFR 2.205. regarding the penalties.
Upon failure to pay any civil penalties due, which has been subsequently detarrined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205. this matter may be referred to the Attorney General and the penalties unless compromised, recitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant te Se: tion 234c of the Act. 42 U.S.C. 2262.
FOR THE MUCLEAR REGULATORY COPHISSIOh ff
%.~. W s' ,Jssis M. Tay1 rector Q(Aice of Ins ction and Enforcement Dated at Bethesda. Maryland, this day of July 1986.
- _ _
-
_ . .
-
...... . .. . .. .... .. -... .. ...... . .
s u:
Attachment 12 4 'o UNITED STATES t
' [/
r, c.
g a
l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION waseawoTow.o.c. zones (( ...../
July 30,1986 Docket No. 50-341 Mr. R. Ralph Sylvia .
Group Vice President - Nuclear Operations Detroit Edison Company 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166
Dear Mr. Sylvia:
Subject: Issuance of an Exemption to 10 CFR 50.44 and Amendment No. 3 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-43, Femi-2 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission has issued the enclosed exemption from a provision of 10 CFR 50.44 and the enclosed Amendment No. 3 to Facility '
Operating License No. NPF-43 for the Femi-2 facility located in Monroe County.
Michigan. This exemption and the amendment to the Facility Operating License No. NPF-43 have been issued in response to the request in your letter dated October 9,1985, as supplemented on November 13,1985. .
The exemption Demits postponement of the inerting of the Femi-2 primary con-tainment from December 21, 1985, until either completion of the startup test
'. program or until the reactor has operated for 120 effective full power da.vs.
whichever is earlier. The appropriate sections of the Femi-2 Technical Specifi-cations have been amended to include this change.
Our safety evaluation for the sub.iect exemption is incorocrated into the exemo-tion (Enclosure 11. A copy of the Amendment No. 3 to the Facility Operating License No. NPF-43 (Enclosure 2) is attached as is our supporting safety evalua-tion (Enclosure 3). Also enclosed is a copy of our Notice of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact which was published in the Federal Reafstar on July 22, 1986. The notice of issuance of the amendment will be included in the Commission's bi-weekly Federal Register notice.
Sincerely
.
"
O h.
Elinor G. Adensam, Director
_v--
BWR Project Directorate No. 3 Division of BWR Licensing
'
Enclosures:' ~
1. Exemption for 10 CFR 50.44 *
2. Amendment No. 3 to Facility Operating License NPF-43 3. Safety Evaluation 4. Notice of Environmental Assessment cc w/ enclosure: See next page
-
ggwy
.
-- - .-,,,.v_.. , , _
. - - ~
_ ,_
s
.
'
.
. Mr. B. Ralph Sylvia Detroit Edison Company Fermi-2 Facility CC'
Pr. Harry H. Voigt Esq. Ronald C. Callen LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae Adv. Planning Review Section 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N. W. Michigan Public Service Commission '
Washington, D. C. 20036 6545 Mercantile Way P. O. Box 30221 John Flynn, Eso. Lansing, Michigan 48909 Senior Attorney The Detroit Edison Company Regional Administrator, Region III 2000 Second Avenue U. S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission Detroit, Michigan 48226 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Mr. Dennis P. Hahn, Chief Nuclear Facilities and Environmental Monitoring Section Office Division of Radiological Health -
P. O. Box 30035 Lansing, Michioan 48909 Mr. Robert Woolley Acting Supervisor-Licensing The Detroit Edison Company Fermi Unit 2 6400 No. Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 Mr. Walt Roners U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office 6450 W. Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 Monroe County Office of Civil -
Preparedness ,
963 South Raisinville I Monroe, Michigan 48161
.
)
.
. _.
e
.
4*
, - - - - - - - - . - - - __ - . . - . - _ - _ , , _ _ _ , _ _
m 7 -
. . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . - . ~ . . - - - ~ ~ . - - . . - - -----v.-
. , . , , , ,
7590-01
.
(-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the Matter of )
DETROIT EDIS0N COMPANY )
WOLVERINE POWER SUPPLY COOPERATIVE, ) Docket No. 50-341 INCORPORATED ) .
(Femi-?) )
EXEMPTION 1.
Detroit Edison Company (Deco or the licenseel is the holder of Facility Operating License No. NPF-43 which authorizes the operation of the Femi-?
facility at steady-state power levels not in excess of 3292 megawatts thema1. ,
The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, reculations and Orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
-
Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
,; The facility is a boiling water reactor (BWR) located at the licensee's
'
site in Monroe County, Michigan.
II.
The Fermi-2 facility achieved its initial criticality on June 21, 1985.
In compliance with the applicable requirements of Section 50.44 of 10 fFR Part 50, the primary containment of this facility, which has a boiling light-water nuclear power reactor with a Mark I type containment, was required to be inerted by December 21, 1985. The purpose of this regulatory requirement is to provide protection against hydro' gen burning and explosions which might occur were gaseous hydrogen to be generated in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident. Due to an incident on, July 1-2, 1985, involving errors in reactivity control, the NRC ,
issued a Confimatory Action Letter (CAL) on July 16, 1985, ifmiting the Femi-2 ,
facility to operations at a power level not exceeding five percent of rated power. The facility operated at this power level from then until October 11,
, ,
'
1985, when it was shutdown to install certain pieces of equipment.
_
'\6
- _
__ -
- -
,.
.
.
(, -2-Due to a number of other problems, including a failure of a main bearing of an emergency diesel generator, the plant has remained shutdown and is not expected to restart until late July 1986, at the earliest.
-
Accordinaly, the licensee has been unable to proceed with, and complete, its Startup Test Program (STP) as originally planned during the initial six-month period following issuance on March 20, 1985, of the low-power Femi-2 operating license, NPF-33. More importantly, the licensee was not able to con-duct its STP within the six-month period during which the containment need not be inerted (i.e., June 21, 1985, to December 21,1985) in accordance with 10 CFR 50.44.
,
In light of this restriction on power level and the delay resul. ting from
.
the scheduled shutdown in early October 1985, the licensee requested an exemption.
- for a limited period of time, from the requirement to inert the primary contain-ment. This request was contained in its letter dated October 9,1985, and supplemented in its letter dated Noveinber 13, 1985. This temporary exemption would pemit the licensee to continue operating the Femi-2 facility with a non-inerted containment during the balance of the initial startup test program as originally planned. l
III.
In its request for the sub.iect exemption, the licensee requests an exemption from the requirement of Section 50.44(c)(3)(1) to allow completion of the startup
'
test program with a non-inerted containment. The actual time limit proposed in ,
the requested exemption is the end of the Startup Test Program, described in
,
-
l (
.
..
- - , - - - - - . . , - - - - - - - - - - . - , , - - - - - . . , , - - - , - , - , - - - - - - - - , - - , , - - - - - - - . - - , - - - - _ - , - - , . _ - - . , . ~ . - . . - - - , . , - - - - . - - , . , -- - - - - - ..--,-n , ,,<,n- - - -
,
. . . . .. . _ _ . . . . . . . --- ... : .1. ~ . . . .
%
(
'
-3-
i Chapter 14 of the FSAR, or until the reactor core has operated for 120 effective
! full power days, whichever is earlier. The end of the startup test phase is
-
determined by the completion of the 100 percent rated themal power trip tests.
The licensee's Startuo Test Program is based on maintaining the primary containment in a non-inerted condition; i.e., not removing the oxygen contained in normal air from the containment by purging with nitrogen. Completion of the Startup Test Program would nomally be expected to occur within about 120 effec-tive full power days (e.g., within 6 months at an average power level of about
'
70 percent 1 Based on this consideration, the licensee's reovest for an exemp-l tion will not result in a significant change, if any, in the maximum full power i days of reactor core burnup which would have been accumulated had the licensee
'
been able to conduct its startup program without any extended delays or without r
a restriction on power level.
The reason the licensee has proposed a maximum fuel burnup of 120 effective full power days (EFPD), as noted above, was to assure that the buildup of the fission product inventory will be limited during the startup test phase. This limitation on the fission product inventory will minimize.the risk to public health and safety in two ways. First, the limit on the fission product inventory will put an upper limit on the amount of decay heat in the reactor core which ,
l would have to be removed in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). This
,
in turn will limit the potential rise in fuel clad temperature following a post-ulated LOCA. It is the value of this last parameter which determines whether .
=
e --
'
there would be a fuel clad failure leading to the release of the radioactive
.
fission products. Thus, the limit on the effective full power days proposed by the licensee will serve to minimize the probability of the release of radio-
.
I fg *
. , . , , , _ , - _ - - - , , . - _
-
.
,
w-4-b activity to the environment in the event of a LOCA as well as limit the amount of radioactivity which was available for release. Secondly the proposed limit on the integrated power history will minimize the fission product inventory in -
the fuel which could be released through other postulated accident scenarios such as the dropped rod accident. The NRC staff finds for these reasons dis-cussed above. that the level of safety provided by the proposed limited inerting
~
exemption will not be significantly reduced. if at all, from that margin of safety implicit in the 6-month inerting exception in 10 CFP. 50.44fc1(3)(1) to
-
inerting requirements.
Since the startup tests will be perfomed in essentially the same manner as originally planned with respect to the magnitude and duration of power levels I for these tests, the NRC staff concludes that there will be no increase in the risks of operating the Femi-2 facility during the startup tests with the pro-posed limited exemption over those risks which were contemplated by the staff when the Femi-2 facility was granted its operating license. Therefore, since there is no increase in risk caused by the mere fact of extending the time !
I allowed for conducting the startup tests while not inerted, the NRC staff finds that operating the Femi-2 facility during the startup test phase will be as safe under the conditions proposed for the exemption as operations would have been had the startup tests been completed in the six-month period after initial
,
l criticality.
There is also a positive benefit in operating the reactor without inerting the containment during the startup test phase because this condition would pemit
_
frequent inspections and/or the identification of potential problems which might affect safety during this period, without incurring the delay associated with deine,11n,and reine,iin, the containment. The antici,ated hi,h f,eouency of
- (
o*
. - - - - - - - . - - - - . - - . . , - - .. . - - - - . - . - - - - - . - . - - - - . - . _ , _ _ ,
.__ _ _ __
, ,,
, ,
,
,
{ -5-containment entries by plant personnel during the startup tests, together with l
'
the 24-hour periods required to deinert and reinert, would tend to discourage ,
prompt and frequent containment entries to identify and correct any potential safety problems before they could become serious safety problems. In this
! regard, frequent containment entries are nomally required during the startup ,
test phase to adjust control systems, calibrate instruments and monitor contain-ment conditions as the plant ascends in power. Were the requested exemption not to be granted, there would be a considerable delay in the overall startup test
~
phase which would thereby delay the start of comercial operation of the Femi-2 facility.
Accordinoly, based on the foregoing discussion, the staff finds that the proposed exemption poses no increase in risk to public health and safety, and is (;. . consistent with the intent of 10 CFR 50.44 regarding containment inerting. The staff also finds that granting the proposed exemption will promote the efficient.
and expeditious testing of the Femi-2 systems and components and is, therefore,
' in the public interest. On this basis, we find that the proposed limited exemp-tion from Section 50.44(c)(3)(1) of 10 CFR Part 50 is acceptable.
IV.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, this exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public l
,
health and safety, and is consistent with the comon defense and security. The
! Comission further determines that special circumstances, as provided in 10 CFR .
j e- .
50.12(a)(2)(111), are present justifying the exemption; namely, that application
i
! of the regulation in the particular circumstances would result in undue hardship
' and other costs which are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the
'
.
e*
_ . - . , . - - - ,
-
, , , , _ ,_.----.-,_m . - - , - - - _ _ - _ - . _ _ , , - - - . _ - - - _ _ - - - , - - - - - - , . - - _ _ - - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ - - - _ _
- -
_,
~
'
.
- ,
-s-(. ,
l regulation was adopted and that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated. If the licensee were forced to inert the containment prior to completing the startup test phase solely to comply with Section -
50.44(c)(3)(1) of 10 CFR Part: 50, an undue hardship and financial burden would !
result from the delay in comercial operation of the Femi-? facility caused by the need to deinert and reinert each time entry into the containment is required.
The costs would be significantly in excess of those contemplated when the subject regulation was adopted in that the staff believed the startup test phase could
-
be accomplished within six months of initial criticality without the need to deinert and reinert for each contti ment entry. The cost and hardship imposed on the licensee by failing to grant the proposed exemption would be , considerably
,
in excess of that contemplated when the rule was adopted. Therefore, the Com-I
,
mission hereby approves the following exemption request:
With respect to the requirement to provide an inerted atmosphere for the Femi-2 Mark I containment no later than December 21, 1985, pursuanttoSection.50.44(c)(3)(1)of10CFRPart50,exemptionis granted from this provision for a limited period not, extending beyond the completion of the 100 percent rated thermal power trip tests or ,
until the reactor has operated for 170 effective full power days,
.
whichever is earlier.
The Comission has further detemined that the exemption does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts of effluents nor an increase in power level and wili'not result in any significant environmental impact. In light of this detemination and as reflected in the Notice of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact prepared pursuant to 10 CFR 51.2 and 51.30
..
_
. . . . _ _ . . . . . __ .
.
.
w ( -7-
.
throuch 51.32, it is concluded that the instant action is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and an environmental impact statement need not
~
be prepared.
For further details with respect to this action, see the licensee's request dated October 11, 1985, and supplemented on November 13, 1985, which are available for public inspection at the Comnission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20555 and at the Monroe County Library System, 3700
>
South Custer Road, Monroe, Michigan 48161.
-
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Connission has determined thsi. the granting of this Exemption will have no significant impact on the environment (51 FR 26315 dated July 22,1986). .
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
.:
.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-
M Gus Lainas, Acting Director Division of BWR Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i l
Dated at Rethesda, Maryland l this 30th day of July 1986 l l i
' l
e
I l
'
p.
e
.
..
, _.
, , . . - _ . , , . . . , , . . . _ .
. . . . - . . .. .. . . . . . . . . , _ _ , . .
.. ..
.
'
.
y/"%k
-
UNITED 3TATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COleMisslON me om.o.c.ssem c. ;s.....)
DETROIT EDIS0N COMPANY WOLVERINE POWER SUPPLY COOPERATIVE. INCORPORATED
DOCKET N0. 50-341 FERMI-2 AMENDMENT TO FACILITV OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 3 License No. NPF-43 1. The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission or the NRC) has found that: -
A. The application for amendment filed by the Detroit Edison Company (the licensee), dated October 9, 1985, as supplemented on November 13, 1985, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
- of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Comission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; .
B. The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the
{! ,
.
provisions of the Act, and the regulations of the Comission;
-
C. There is reasonable assurance: (1) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; f D. The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical 1!o the comon
'
defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and
'
E. The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Comission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
2. Accordingly, the license is amended by changes to the Technical Specifica-tionsasindicatedintheenclosuretothislicenseamendmentandparagraph 2.C.(2) of the Facility Operating License No. NPF-43 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(2) Tethfrical Specifications and Environmental Protection Plan The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised througtr Amendment No. 3 and the Environmental Protection plan contained in Appendix B, are hereby incorporated in the license. Deco shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications and the
.
Environmental Protection Plan.
-
(. .
,
.
e
, . .....- .... .... _ . ..... _. ,_. . , . , .,.
,
.
-2-3. This amendment is effective as date of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPHISSION
- f h : = ==
Elinor G. Adensam. Director BWR Project Directorate No. 3 Division of BWR Licensing Enclosure:
Changes to the Technical Specifications
'
Date of Issuance: July 30,1986
.
.
.
'
! ,
s
9
.
.
- - - - - ~.,.,.-_.-,.--..m..
-
.
- .__ . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
.
ENCLOSURE 10 LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 3 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. NPF-43
-
D0CKET NO. 50-341 Replace the following pages of the Appendix "A" Technical Specifications with the enclosed pages. The revised pages are identified by Amendment number and contain a vertical line indicating the area of change. The corresponding over-leaf page is also provided to maintain document completeness.
REMOVE INSERT
-
3/4 10-5 3/4 10-5 3/4 10-6 3/4 10-6(overleaf)
.
O a
.
.
O Q .m O
gS
. _ _
_e_ . ._ . - - .
.
..
'
SPECIAL TEST EXCEPTIONS
.
3/4.10.5 OXYGEN CONCENTRATION LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION
3.10.5 The provisions of Specification 3.6.6.2 and the OPERABILITY requirements
'
of the Drywell Oxygen Concentration instrument of Specification 3.3.7.5 may be -
suspended during the performance of the Startup Test Program until either the required 100% of RATED THERMAL POWER trip tests have been completed or the reactor has operated for 120 Effective Full Power Days.
APPLICABILITY: OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1 and 2.
ACTION With the requirements of the above specification not satisfied, be in at least STARTUP within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
-
"
'
SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS (i, 4.10.5 The Effective Full Power Days of Operation shall be verified to be less '
than 120, by calculation, at least once per 7 days during the Startup Test
<
Program.
t J
'
e
6 I
( FERMI - UNIT 2 3/4 10-5 Amendment No. 3
.. . . . . . . . _ .
. . .
-_. -_ _ _ - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - . - - . . . - - - _ - _. . _ . ._____ _ _ - .
v
., .. . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . - . - . . . . . .
. / %, UNITED STATES
! , a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
3 I wasMmotow.m. c.aeses (, gf4
....*
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. NPF-43
DETROIT EDISON COMPANY WOLVERINE POWER SUPPLY COOPERATIVE. INCORPORATED FERMI-2 DOCKET NO. 50-341
.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
'
The Fermi-2 facility achieved its initial criticality on June 21, 1985.
Pursuant to Section 50.44(c)(3)(1) of 10 CFR Part 50, the primary con-tainment of this facility was required to be inerted by December 21, 1985.
However, the facility was operated for only a portion of the four-month period from late June 1985, to early October 1985, at power levels not exceeding five percent of rated power. The facility had a scheduled outage on October 11, 1985, and has remained shutdown from then until the present due to a number of problems. It is anticipated that the plar.t may restart by late July 1986. Because the licensee has been unable to proceed with.
. and complete, its Startup Test Program during the six-month period following initial criticality, it requested an exemption, for a limited period of time, from'the requirement to inert the primary containment. This request was contained in its letter dated October 9,1985, and supplemented in its letter dated November 13, 1985.
This exemption request was accompanied by a corresponding request to change Specification 3.10.5 of the Fermi Technical Specification to allow suspension of Specification 3.6.6.2 and 3.3.7.5 until completion of the startup test program. Specification 3.10.5 places a limitation on' the length of time the primary containment is not required to be inerted after initial criti-cality is achieved and suspends for the same limited period, the oxygen concentration provisions of Specification 3.6.6.2 and the OPERAR1LITY requirements of the Drywell Oxygen Concentration instrument of Specification 3.3.7.5. The licensee proposes to change this time interval from 6 months after initial criticaTity to completion of the startup test program or 120 effective full power days, whichever is' earlier.
2. EVALUATION '
The safety evaluation contained in Section !!! of the exemption document.
attached, applies ecuelly to the Technical Specification amendment -
described above and is incorporated herein, i
$
(.
\
t
- -__ _ _ _ .
. _ _ . . - - - . _ _ _ _ - . __-
-
-
. l l
.
-2- I L
l 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change in the use of a facility component located j t
,
within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in -
-
surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that this amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change i in the types, of any effluents which may be released offsite, and that there i 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 consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, this 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 environ- !
mental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this j 4 amendment. \
-
4.0 CONCLUSION The Comission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no sionificant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal '
!
- Register (50 FR 49145) on November 29, 1985, and consulted with the State of Michioan. No public coments were received, and the State of Michigan
,
did not have any coments.
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
.
(11 there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (21 such i
activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regula-tions and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: M. David Lynch, NRR ,
Dated: July 30,1986
! l l
l -
4 .
._
j
-
,
!
!-
i d
i l l
'
. _ _ . _ _ _ .
- ' ~
. ... .....- . _._ . __ . _ _ . .
. . . . . ,
. .
,, ,
7590-01
.
l.
-
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0m15510N DETROIT EDISON COMPANY WOLVERINE POWER SUPPLY COOPERATIVE. INCORPORATED
.
DOCKET N0. 50-341 .
NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING 0F NO SIGNIFICANT TMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) is considering issu-ance of an exemption from the requirements of Section 50.44(c)(3)(1) of 10 CFR Part 50 to the Detroit Edison Company (Deco or licensee), holder of Facility .
l Operating License No. NPF-43 which authorizes operation of the Femi-2 facility.
The facility is a boiling water reactor and is located in Monroe County,
-
Michigan. .
"
-
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT i ('4 Identificatinn of the Proposed Action: The exemption would allow inerting of the containment in response to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.44 to be postponed from six months after initial criticality until either the completion of the 100 percent themal power trip tests or until 120 effective full power days of core burn-up is achieved, whichever is earlier. The exemption is in
'
accordance with the licensee's request dated October 9,1985, and supplemented i
cn November 13, 1985.
l The Need for the Propoted Action: The exemption is needed to pemit comple-tionofthestartuptestprogramwithanoninertedcontainment. A non-inerted containment ,during startup testing would facilitate containment entries on an ,
as-needed frequency for identifying and correcting potential safety problems and ,
would also provide greater safety to personnel enterino the containment during this period.
!
l (- .
l ni nm o no r o c 3 l bW IL 0 WW 4 y\
l i
- - - _ _ . . .- . _ - ,
,- m " ^- .. .. .... .... ... _
-.--- = = . - - . - - -- -
.
! ,
(,
-2-Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: The increment of er.vironmental impact is related to the potentially increased consequences of an accident sequence which would have been mitigated by an inerted containment. However, the regula ,
s..
tory requirement from which an exemption is sought anticipated that the startup test program could be completed within six months and, consequently, the risk
' resulting from the core fission product inventory which would build up over the relatively short period of the power ascension test program while the containment was not inerted, was acceptable. While the regulation contemplated a six-month
,
period to complete the startup test program, recent SWR startup test programs -
have proven to actually require an average of about eleven months. The Femi-2 plant, due to its extended shutdown for the last nine months after completing almost all of the five percent power testing program, clearly was nit able to i
i complete the startup test program prior to six months after initial criticality as reouired by 10 CFR 50.44. (Initial criticality was achieved on June 21,1985.)
'
l l
With the simple stretch in time proposed in the sub.iect exemption, no significant
!
increase in core inventory occurs and about the same effective core history is
!
!
experienced as was contemplated in the applicable portion of the regulations.
l This limitation on the fission product inventory in the Femi-2 reactor core is
i assured by a restriction, contained in the proposed exemption, on the integrated j power history.
With regard to potential non-radiologica) impacts, the proposed exemption l
involves systems located entirely within the restricted area as defined in 10
-
CFR Part 20: -1t does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and, by
! .
minimizing the energy requirements required to obtain the nitrogen used in
}
purging the containment, may have a positive environmental impact. Therefore.
l
~
i
(
l l
!
i
_ - _ , _ _ . . .
r -
,
.
.
f,
-3-
'
the Comission concludes there are no significant adverse non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
Alternative to the proposed Action: Because the staff has concluded that there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the exemption, any alternative to the exemption will have either no impact or a greater environ-mental impact.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested exemption. This would not reduce the environmental impacts of plant operation. Further, without
-
the requested exemption, considerable delay will be incurred as the containment is deinerted and reinerted before and after containment entries by plant per-sonnel. Some risk to plant personnel will also be encountered. At.this point in the test program of the Femi-2 facility, this process of deinerting and i reinerting would significantly extend the time to complete the startup test phase and would produce unwarranted delays in power ascension.
Alternative Use of Resources: The action in the granting of this exemption does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in connection with the " Final Environmental Statement related to the Operation of Enrico Fermi Atomic power Plant, Unit No. 2," (NUREG-0769) dated August 1981.
c Agencies and persons Consulted: The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's .
requests that support the requested exemption. The NRC staff did not consult
,
other agencies or persons.
FINDING OF NO $1GNIFICANT IMPACT '
..
The Comission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact state- .
ment for the requested exemption.
l l
l (~
!
\
.
_..- .._ .____.___.,- .__ ._-.,,..,_.,.,_.y,._, ~ . - - _ . _ , - _ _ . . .,_..m,. mm.,_m._m.._m_ _ . - _ - ,
r .
'
.
.
l. .
. 4 Based upon the foregoing environmental' assessment, we conclude that the reovested action will not have a significant effect on the gus11ty of the human
'
environmenE.
For further details with respect to this action, see the requests for the exemption as listed herein, which are available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H 5treet, N.W., Washington, D. C.
20555 and at the Monroe County Library, South Custer Road, Monroe, Michigan 48161.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 16th day of July 1986. -
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM!$$10N
.
.
Elinor G. Adensam. Director h-'* BWR Pro.iect Directorate No. 3 Division of BWR Licensino
g.-
O
.
..
!
- _ . - _ _ _ - - - - - - . - , - - - _ _ . . . . _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ _ - . . _ . _
',-
.
,
Exemption to 10 CFR 50.44 and APENDMENT N0.3 TO FACILITY OPERATING 1.ICENSE NO. NPF 43 - FERMI, UNIT 2
DISTitIRUTION:
Docket No. 50-341 NRC PDR Local POR PPC System NSIC PWD-3 r/*
MDLynch (2)
EHylton EAdensam Attorney, OELD CMiles 90ioqs 1Partlow Mrimes '
Eilordan LWamon TRarnhard (A)
EButcher
.
t
a
!
l
!
,C.
- .
_ .--., . . - , , _ - , , _ _ _- _
. _ _ - _ _ . , , , . . _ _ _ , _ - . _ . - . _ _ . - _ - _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ , - _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ , _ , , , , , , _ _ _ , _ _ . . _ . - - . . , _ _ _ _ . ,
_