ML20059H915
| ML20059H915 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 10/29/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059H905 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-91-04, GL-91-4, NUDOCS 9311100265 | |
| Download: ML20059H915 (3) | |
Text
-
~
p ub UMTED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i'
l WASHINGTON. D.C. 2055f4001
[
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REAC f
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. os TO FACILITY OPERAT j
l DETROIT EDISON COMPANY FERMI-2 DOCKET NO. 50-341
1.0 INTRODUCTION
the Detroit Edison Company (Deco or the licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) ap 23, 1993, By letter dated March The proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-43 for Fermi-2.
t would eliminate the qualification on some 18-month surveillance requiremen s The licensee that the surveillance be performed while the unit is shut down Generic Letter 91-04.
2.0 EVALUATION Generic Letter (GL) 91-04, " Changes in Technical Specifications Surveillance Intervals to Accommodate a 24-Month Fuel Cycle" was p take advantage of improvements in reactor fuels to increase the duration of 1991.
The guidance was based on lessons the full cycle for their facilities. learned from the results of plant-specific revie accommodate changes to a 24-month fuel cycle.
The staff included in its guidance the following statement:
Licensees may omit the TS qualification that an 18-monthsu the surveillance interval as "... at least once per REFUELING in the TS as operating modes or conditions, the added restriction INTERVAL."
to perform certain surveillances during shutdown may beThis restrict misinterpreted.
only be performed when it is consistent with safe plant operation.
However, this consideration is valid for other surveillances that are performed during power operation, plant startup, or shutdown, but is not addressed by restricting the conduct of these surveillances.
9311100265 931029 DR ADOCK 05000341 PDR
l '
The staff concludes that the TS need not restrict surveillances as Nevertheless, safety only being performed during shutdown. dictates that when refueling interva during power operation, licensees give proper regard for theirIf the performance effect on the safe operation of the plant.
refueling interval surveillance during plant operation would adversely affect safety, the licensee should postpone the surveillance until the unit is shut down for refueling or is in a condition or mode that is consistent with the safe conduct of that surveillance.
The staff also provided an updated model bases section for TS 4.0.2 forThe updated mo guidance to licensees who were considering this change.
bases incorporated provisions which had been modified earlier in accordance with GLs 87-09, " Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of Standard Technical Specifications on the Applicability of Limiting Conditions for Operation and Surveillance Requirements," and 89-14, "Line-Item Improvements in Technical Specifications
- Removal of the 3.25 Limit on Extending Surveillance Intervals," as well as those in GL 91-04.
While the licensee has not elected to increase the length of the fuel cycle from its current 18-month length, it has proposed to eliminate the We have qualification "during shutdown" from some 18-month surveillances.
{
The licensee has have determined that the licensee's request is acceptable.
provided an updated bases to TS 4.R 2 and has otherwise followed the guidance contained in GL 91-04 for this proposed TS change.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Comission's regulations, the Michigan State official The State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
J had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The staff has determined The amendment changes surveillance requirements.
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 The Comission has previously issued a occupational radiation exposure.
proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such findingAc (5B FR 28055).
Pursuant to 10 CFR categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
ve, that:
3-discussed abothe public d safety (of2) suchregulations, considerationsthe health an
- ner, comon d on thethatin the propo the Co
{_0ELQSlQNconcluded, base withbe inimicalhe public.
assuranceperationcompliancelnt 5.0 endangered by oconducted namendment wilnd safet reasonable o
has staff i
is The there be be of theto the he lth a a
(1)l not will uance wil activitiesand (3) the isscurity or T. Colburn and se se defen Contributor:
cipal r 29, 1993 Prin Octobe Date:
/
.s
- l
5.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
I (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 i
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:
T. Colburn Date: October 29, 1993 l
l l
l
{
t
-