ML20084R705
| ML20084R705 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 05/23/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20084R669 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9506090378 | |
| Download: ML20084R705 (3) | |
Text
$
Ouc
- 4.
- 2*,
UNITED STATES i
j j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHINGTON. D.C. 2056M001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.104 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-43 DETROIT EDISON COMPANY FERMI-2 DOCKET NO. 50-341
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated September 13, 1993, the Detroit Edison Company (Deco or the licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) appended to Facility Operating License No. NPF-43 for Fermi 2.
The proposed amendment would relocate the audit frequency requirenants from Section 6.0 of the TS to the Quality Assurance Program (QAP) contained in Chapter 17.2 of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
2.0 BACKGROUND
Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act (the "Act") requires applicants for nuclear power plant operating licenses to state technical specifications (TS) to be included as part of the license.
The Commission's regulatory requirements related to the content of technical specifications are set forth in 10 CFR 50.36. That regulation requires that the TS include items in five specific categories, including (1) safety limits, limiting safety system settings and limiting control settings; (2) limiting conditions for operation; (3) surveillance requirements; (4) design features; and (5) administrative controls.
However, the regulation does not specify the particular requirements to be included in a plant's TS.
The Commission has provided guidance for the contents of TS in its " Final Policy Statement on Technical Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors" (" Final Policy Statement"), 58 Fed. Reg. 39132 (July 22,1993), in which the Commission indicated that compliance with the Final Policy Statement satisfies 6 182a cf the Act.
In particular, the Commission indicated that certain items could be relocated from the TS to licensee-controlled documents, consistent with the standard enunciated in Portland General Electric Co.
(Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-531, 9 NRC 263, 273 (1979).
In that case, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board indicated that " technical specifications are to be reserved for those matters as to which the imposition of rigid conditions or limitations upon reactor operation is deemed necessary to obviate the possibility of an abnormal situation or event giving rise to an imediate threat to the public health and safety."
9506090378 950523 PDR ADOCK 05000341 P
. Consistent with this approach, the Final Policy Statement identified four criteria to be used in determining whether a particular matter is required to be included in the TS, as follows:
(1)
Installed instrumentation that is used to detect, and indicate in the control room, a significant abnormal degradation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary; (2) a process variable, design feature, or operating restriction that is an initial condition of a Design Basis Accident or Transient analysis that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier; (3) a structure, system, or component that is part of the primary success path and i
which functions or actuates to mitigate a Design Basis Accident or Transient that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier; (4) a structure, system, or component which operatingexperienceorprobabilisticsa{etyassessmenthasshowntobe significant to public health and safety.
As a result, existing TS requirements which fall within or satisfy any of the criteria in the Final Policy Statement must be retained in the TS, while those TS requirements which do not fall within or satisfy these criteria may be relocated to other, licensee-controlled documents.
3.0 EVALUATION i
The licensee proposes that the audit frequencies specified in existing TS 6.5.2.8 be relocated from the TS on the basis that they are adequately controlled elsewhere.
These TS provisions are not necessary to assure safe operatic n of the f acility, given the requirements in the QAP implementing 10 CFR 50.!4 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B to control the requirements for all review and audit functions.
Such an approach would result in an equivalent level of regulatory authority while providing for a more appropriate change control process.
The level of safety of plant operation is unaffected by this change and NRC and licensee resources associated with processing license amendments to this administrative control may be used more effectively.
In addition, audit frequencies are specified in the QAP description to satisfy 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVill.
Audits are also covered by ANSI N18.7, ANSI N45.2, 10 CFR 50.54(t), 10 CFR 50.54(p), and 10 CFR Part 73.
Therefore, duplication of these requirements does not enhance the level of safety of the plant, nor are the provisions relating to audits necessary to be in the TS to assure safe operation of the facility.
On this basis, the staff concludes that the audit frequencies do not need to be controlled by TS, and changes to the audit frequencies, which will be described in the QAP in sections 17.2 of the UFSAR, will be adequately controlled by 10 CFR 50.54 h.).
The staff has concluded, therefore, that relocation of the audit e quirements described above is acceptable because (1) their inclusion in ter.nnical specifications is not specifically required by 10 CFR 50.36 or other regulations, (2) the audit requirements are not required The Cem ission recently procutgated a proposed change to 10 CFR 50.36, pursuant to which the rule woulo t3e amended to codify and incorporate these criteria (s9 FR 48180). The Comission's Final Policy Statement specified that only limiting conditions f or reactor Core Isolation Cooling, Isotation Condenser, Residual Neat Removal, Standby Liquid Control, and Recirculation Ptrp Trip meet the guidance for inclusion in the TS under criterion 4 (58 FR at 39137). The Comission has solicited public coments on the scope of Criterion 4, in the pending rulemaking.
. to avert an immediate threat to the public health and safety, and (3) changes to these audit requirements, as described in the applicable program description, will require prior NRC approval in accordance with 550.54(a).
Also contained in the licensee's Septesber 13, 1993, submittal, as revised by letter dated July 26, 1994, were corresponding changes to the QAP. The changes included reductions in the frequencies of some audits and the use of an independent fire protection contractor for every third audit instead of every three years.
Because of the reduction in frequency of the fire protection audits from yearly to at least once every 24 months, the use of an independent fire protection contractor could be extended as long as once every 6 years.
These changes were reviewed by Region III, as documented in the Region Ill letter to the licensee dated August 2, 1994. The Region found acceptable all of the related proposed QAP changes except the change which would allow the extension of the use of an independent fire protection consultant for the fire protection audit to once every third audit.
Neither the Region nor the staff believes that adequate independent oversight of the fire protection audit program would be achieved by this frequency. As the proposed wording of TS 6.5.2.8.f. would allow this extension, this change is being denied.
4.0 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.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment changes recordkeeping, reporting, and administrative procedures and requirements.
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
6.0 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 Contributors:
T. Colburn F. Allenspach Date: May 23, 1995