ML20077N900
| ML20077N900 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20077N898 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9108150148 | |
| Download: ML20077N900 (3) | |
Text
__
- /
h UNIT E D sT ATL s
- t NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
syc f
wwwoioN.o c.msn
\\,...../
SATETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
TO FACIL11Y OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-43 DETR0!i E0150H COMPANY FERMI 2 DOCKET NO. 50-341
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated November 15, 1988 as supplemented November 16, 1989 and September 11, 1990, the Detroit Edison Company (Deco or the licensee) requested amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) appe.1ded to facility Operating License No. NPF-43 for fermi-2. The proposed amendment would clarify the accident monitoring instrumentation requirements of the TS for the Standby Gas Treatment System Radiation Monitoring.
The supplemental letters provided clarifying information_that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUA'10N By letter dated November 15, 1988 and supplemented by letter dated November 16, 1989, Deco requested an amendment to the TS for fermi-2. The proposed changes included accident monitoring instrumentation (3.4.3.7.5).
The reasons for the proposed changes were to eliminate confusion with current TS and better reflect fermi-2 compliance with regulatory requirements.
In addition, the proposed changes allow the TS to better reflect the as-built conditions of the plant.
By letter dated September 10, 1990, the NRC staff accepted a portion of the proposed changes to TS, however, the proposed changes concerning the Standby Gas Treatment Systems ($GTS) radiation monitors were not approved.
By letter dated September 11, 1990 Deco submitted alternative wording to change the TS concerning the SGTS.
The current TS wording) concerning SGTS in Table 3/4.3.7.5-1 is not clear and creates confusion wit. respect to TS compliance.
Hence, by letter dated November 15, 1988, and supplemented by letter of November 16, 1989. Deco proposed changes to the TS Table 3/4.3.7.5-1 which included the list of all radiation monitors for the SGTS.
However, the staff was of the opinion that the TS wording proposed by Deco for the " Required Number of Channels" and
" Minimum Channels Operable" were still not clear. The problem is that under these headings, the number of required channels is specified as 2 and the footnote (**) for these monitors specifies one per operable SGTS subsystem.
This creates confusion unless the person is exceedingly familiar with the SGTS system.
oloa1Solas 910so5
)
PliR ADOCT 05000341 1
F PDR
2-The SGTS radiation monitoring system measures the radioactivity in the exhaust vent lints from the SGTS after an accident has occurred and prior to discharge to the environment. The radiation monitors in the SGTS system are located in i
the ductwork of each subsystem rather than a conmon ductwork. Fence, these scnitors are dedicated to each SGTS subsysten and are not redundant to each other regardless of the SGTS subsystem in service.
By letter dated September 11, 1990, Deco proposed changes to Table 3.3.7.5 1 under the heading of " Required Number of Channels
- and " Minimum Channels Operable" from 2 to 1/ Operable SGTS subsystem and deleted the old footnote (**).
The staff fecis that this change will clarity the intent of the TS. Deco also changed the old footnote f**) which cross references to Table 3. 3.7.12-1 (*
- Item 3.a for low range Noble Gas Monitor to new footnote (") as old footnote is deleted. The licensee has also added a cross reference in Table 3.3.7.12-1, Item 3.a (pages 3/4 3 77 and 3/4 3 80) to Table 3.3.7.51, item 13.a.
The proposed changes only clarify the intent of the TS and do not change any requirements.
The proposed changes enhance safety by providing a detailed listing of the radiation mcnitors for the SGTS and clarifying the intent of the TS, thus eliminating the possibility of a nonconservative misinterpretation of the 15.
The proposed changes to the TS reflects the radiation monitors used at " t.51-2 to comply with regulatory requirements and allows the TS to better rei, t the Fermi-2 configuration for SGTS.
1989 and The supplemental information provided in the licensee's November 16, ding Ior the September 11, 1990, submittels were solely to amend the proposed wor SGTS Radiation Monitoring Instrumentation. The basis for the conclusion that the November 15, 1988 application does not involve a significant hazards considerationisunaffectedbytheproposedformattingchangesdiscussedinthe supplemental submittals because the intent of the original submittal remains unchanged.
Based on the-above evaluation the staff finds the proposed changes to the TS t
are acceptable.
STATE CONSllLTATION i
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Michigan State official
. as notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official w
E had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
1 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 in 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 which may be released offsite, and that-there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative I
occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a
t 3-proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards i
censideration and there has been no public consent on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility) criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 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 CONCLllSION The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the pub 1Ic 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:
W. Garg-T Date: August 5, 1991
- -, ~ ~. ~. - - - - ---- -
J - - - - - - - -
- - ~ -