ML20006A427
| ML20006A427 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 01/17/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20006A426 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9001260251 | |
| Download: ML20006A427 (2) | |
Text
- - = -
"""T'.
~
i c
/-
S f ' j,8 [our
/
UNITED STATES
'n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHWOTON, D. C. 20555 l
f v
?
I P
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMEliDMEljT_ NO. an TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-43 DETROIT EDISON COMPANY WOLVERINE POWER SUPPLY COOPERATIVE, INCORPO MTED E
FERMI-2 DOCKET NO. 50-341 1.Di IllTRODUCTION Py letter dated December 22, 1988, theDetroitEdisonCompany(DECoorthe.
licensee) requested amendnient to the Technical Specifications (TSs) appended to Facility Operating License No..NPF-43 for Fermi-2. The proposed an>endment woulc' rev:setheTechnicalSpecifications(TSs)Section3.8.4.1,Circuitsinside Primary Containnent, by removing four circuits from the TSs.
L l
2.0- EVALUATION.
TSs Section 3.8.4.1 lists non-class IE circuits inside primary containraent.
These circuits are required to be de-energized in operational conditions 1, P L
'and 3, except when personnel are entering the drywell. The TSs require the circuits tc be:de-erergized because the circuits are not provioed with adequate overcurrent protectior in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.63..The TS nquirerent ensures containnient integrity-by having the circuits de-energized
.and avoids the-possibility that:the circuits could short and cause damage to y
electrical penetration assemblies that are part of. primary containment structure.
-l Onlune 19, 1985, while performing the.drywell closecut checklist in preparation for plant startup. -it was recognized that de-erergization of the four (4) circuits' described below caused a loss of power for devices and equipment required'for subsequent plant operations.
During the ensuing investigation, loads from these four (4) circuits were either transferred to circuits which had adequate containment penetration protection or to circuits which did not penetrate ' primary containnent.
In both cases the new circuits are not required i
to be listed in the Technical Specifications.
Previous Source Loads New Source c
Item (c) Circuit'5-Standby Liquid Control Circuit 19, H11-P907B H11-P907B Testable Check Valve (DualFusing)
Solenoid and Light Circuit Item (d) Circuit 4 Fuel Pool Alarm Circuits Circuit 2, H21-P552 H21-P552 (Dual Fusing) 9001260251 900117 P,DP ADOCK0500g1
k N',.*
j. i Previous Source Loads New Source Item (e) Circuit 1.
Core Spray Testable Check Circuit 2, H11-P901 H11-P901 Valve Solenoid and Light (Dual Fusing)
Circuit Item (f) Circuit 1 Area Radiation Monitors Circeit 17, H11-P906C H11-P906C Outside of Primary (Does not interface with Containment primarycontainment)
When tha design modifications were proposed to relocate the various loads, it was determined by the licensee that no Technical Specification change was required prior to implementation of the modification since the circuits wculd still be maintained in the Technical Specification surveillance program.
Each i
circuit modification was evaluated in accordance with the design modification process and it was determined that no unreviewed safety questions existed.
~
The proposed. change will delete four (4) circuits which are de-energized spare circuits and have no associated loads connected to them. As spares, these circuits no. longer penetrate inside primary containnent or affect any penetration-assemblies. Since these circuits do not connect to penetration assemblies, they-L
-do not need to be de-energized in accordance with or listed in Technical i
Specification'3.8.4.1.
Based on the above evaluation the staff finds the proposed changes to the TS' acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change in a requirement with respect to the installa-tion or use of-a-facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements. We have determined that this amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, l
and no significant change in the types, of any effluents which 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 this amendment involves no significant hazards con-sideration er.d there has been no public content on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forthin10CFR51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement.or environmental assessrent need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
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 Commission's regulations, and the issuance of this amendrent will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: John Stang Dated: January 17, 1990
. -