ML20044H121
| ML20044H121 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044H120 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-88-01, GL-88-1, NUDOCS 9306070435 | |
| Download: ML20044H121 (3) | |
Text
'
pa nag I
UNITED STATES t
yw 3,% ^ j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON. D C. 20555-0001 V*=s,
.r L
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO 89 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-43 DETROIT EDISON COMPANY FERMI-2 DOCKET N0. 50-341
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On January 25, 1988, the NRC issued Generic Letter (GL) 88-01, "NRC Position on IGSCC (Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking) in BWR Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping." Detroit Edison Company (DECO or the licensee) responded to the GL for Fermi-2 in letters dated August 5,1988, April 27, and May 12, 1989.
The NRC staff provided its Safety Evaluation (SE) for these licensee submittals by letter dated January 4, 1990. As discussed in that SE, the staff concluded that the DECO submittals were acceptable with the exception of their position on reactor coolant leakage Technical Specifications.
On February 4, 1992, the NRC issued Supplement 1 to GL 88-01 which provided acceptable alternative NRC staff positions to some of those delineated in the original GL.
By "NRC-92-0090, Responds to Three Outstanding Issues Associated W/Generic Ltr 88-01, NRC Position on IGSCC in BWR Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping. Issues Include Resolution of TS 3/4.4.3.2 Re RCS [[Topic" contains a listed "[" character as part of the property label and has therefore been classified as invalid. Vs Generic Ltr|letter dated July 29, 1992]], DECO responded to GL 88-01, Supplement 1, and committed to submit a license amendment application to implement the leakage detection requirements no later than September 30, 1992.
2.0 EVALUATION The NRC staff has evaluated the licensee's license amendment request dated September 30, 1992.
The details of this evaluation are listed below:
The licensee has proposed to modify Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.3.2.e to change the previous reactor coolant system leakage limit from a 2 gallon per minute (gpm) increase in unidentified leakage within any 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> period during Operational Conditions 1, 2, and 3, to a 2 gpm increase in unidentified leakage within any 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period during Operational Condition 1, and retention of the previous limit during Operational Conditions 2 and 3 under a new TS 3.4.3.2.f.
The licensee's basis for not changirg the unidentified leakage rate of change limit in Operational Conditions 2 and 3 is to prevent unnecessary entry into the action statement for unidentified leakage rate of change due to changes in unidentified leakage experienced during routine startups.
The staff guidance contained in GL 88-01, states that plant shutdown should be initiated for corrective action when:
(a) within any 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period any leakage detection system indicates an increase of unidentified leakage in excess of 2 gpm, or (b) the total unidentified leakage attains a rate of 5 gpm 9306070435 930526 PDR ADOCK 05000342 P
fi or equivalent.
The staff has determined that the licensee's proposed and existing TS meet the intent of the GL 88-01 guidance and are, therefore, acceptable.
The licensee has also proposed changing the associated Action Statements for the above TS to reflect the new TS unidentified leakage limits.
-These changes make the Action Statements consistent with the corresponding TS changes and are, therefore, acceptable.
The licensee has proposed changing the surveillance requirement of TSs 4.4.3.2.1.b and c for the drywell floor ' drain sump level monitoring and primary containment sump flowrate monitoring frequencies in Operational Condition 1 from at least once per 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> to at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. The current monitoring frequencies of once per 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> are retained in Operational Conditions 2 and 3.
The licensee has also added a footnote to ensure that the 25 percent surveillance extension interval provision of TS 4.0.2'does not apply to the surveillance requirements in Operational Condition 1.
This ensures that the surveillance is performed at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
The intent of the guidance in Supplement I to GL 88-01 was to ensure that the leakage detection monitoring would occur on at least a once per shift basis.
The staff recognized that some licensees employ 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> shifts, therefore, the wording of the guidance for the surveillance frequency related to this monitoring function was "once per shift, not to exceed 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />." Discussions with DECO personnel have indicated that as a general rule, all of the per shift surveillances for the Fermi-2 plant are defined as having a TS surveillance interval, by definition,.of 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
A review of the definition section of the Fermi-2 TS confirms this.
Based on this and the elimination of the applicability of TS 4.0.2 to the Operational Condition I surveillance, the staff has determined that the staff's position on surveillance frequency will be met, therefore, the proposed 15 changes are acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Michigan State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes the surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, 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 expo'sure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding
r
- (57 FR 61110). Accordingly, the 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 environmental assessment need be prepared.in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Timothy G. Colburn j
Date: May 26, 1993 b
P O
I e