ML20148S691
| ML20148S691 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1988 |
| From: | Quay T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148S695 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8804190181 | |
| Download: ML20148S691 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
o 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DETROIT EDISON COMPANY WOLVERINE POWER SUPPLY COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED DOCKET NO. 50-341 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING 0F NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption from the schedular requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 to the Detroit Edison Company (DECO) and the Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Incorporated (the licensees) for the Fermi-2 plant located at the licensees' site in Monroe' County, Michigan.
The exemption was requested by the licensees by letter from DECO dated February 22, 1988.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action:
The exemption would provide, for three containment isolation valves on the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System, a one-time relief from the requirement of Section 111.0.3 of Appendix J, 10 CFR Part 50, to perform Type C local leak rate tests (LLRTs) at each plant shutdown for refueling but in :io case at intervals greater than two years.
The licensees have proposed to conduct these tests prior to startup from the first refueling outage currently scheduled for late 1989.
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The end of the initial 24-month testing intervals for the three containment isolation valves is Apr il 1988.
With the exception of these three 000407 8804190181 PDR ADOCK05000ggi P
l 2-valves, the licensees either have, or plan to perform the required Type C tests.
Local leak rate tests are being conducted during the current March / April 1988 outage.
The licensees have stated that due to plant constraints it is not possible to perform the testing of these three valves without extending the outage solely for the purpose of these tests and without rendering both loops of the RHR shutdown cooling inoperable.
The licensees have further indicated that it is not desirable for them to schedule an additional outage, nor to extend other scheduled outages, for the sole purpose of performing these LLRTs, as this would result in a net increase in overall outage time or would subject the plant equipment and systems to potential, adverse effects of an additional shutdown and startup operation.
Testing of the valves covered by the requested exemption would require one or both of the following plant conditions:
- 1) Reactor vessel head removal.
- 2) Both RHR shutdown cooling loops rendered inoperable.
The licensees do not plan to remove the reactor vessel head until the first refueling outage.
To render both loops of the RHR shutdown cooling inoperable, the licensees would either be required to remove the drywell and reactor heads and flood the vessel, or wait until decay heat is reduced such that the reactor could be cooled by alternate means.
The next scheduled outage where removal of the vessel head would occur is the first refueling outage.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:
The licensees have indicated that Type C LLRTs have been completed
f 1
- s. for the valves covered by the requested exemption three times (August 1984, May 1985 and April 1986).
No refurbishment of the three valves has been required.
These valves are normally closed during power operation and any deterioration in the overall integrity is expected to be gradual.
The total of the Type C leakage rates for these valves is not a significant portion (0.94%) of the allowable leakage limit.
Therefore, the licensees have concluded that the granting of the requested exemption would not present a significantly increased probability of containment leakage other than contemplated in Appendix J.
The Commission's staff has determined that granting the proposed exemption would not significantly increase the probability or amount of l
expected containment leakage and that containment integrity would thus l
be maintained.
Consequently, the probability of accidents would not be increased, nor would the post-accident radiological releases be greater than previously determined.
Neither would the proposed exemption otherwise affect radiological plant effluents.
Therefore, the Commis-sion concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
l With regard to potentia: lonradiological impacts, the proposed exemption involves a change to surveillance and test?ng requirements.
It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact.
The-afore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
w g
--+
i 4
Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
Because the Commission has concluded that there is no significant environmental impact associated with the proposed exemption, any alternative would have either no or greater environmental impact.
The principal alternative would be to deny tne requested exemption.
This would not reduce the environmental impacts attributed to the facility but would result in an outage of considerable duration with attendant costs and would result in an unnecessary loss of power to the grid.
Alternative Use of Resources:
This action involves no use of resources not previously considered in connection with the "Final Environmental Statement Related to Oper-ation of Fermi-2," dated August 1981.
Agencies and Persons Consulted:
The Commission's staff reviewed the licensees' r'equest and did not consult other agencies or persons.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
For further details with aspect to this action, see the application for exemption dated February 22, 1988, which is available for public I
4 5-inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C., and at the Monroe County Library System, 3700 South Custer Road, Monroe, Michigan 48161.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of April 1988.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/g: l:-u-A'A}
Theodore R. Quay, Acting Director Project Directorate III-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects i
4!*
l l
l l
l l
l