ML20150D674
| ML20150D674 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 03/21/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150D673 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8803250011 | |
| Download: ML20150D674 (2) | |
Text
.
["*%,%
UNITED STATES y *'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.16 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-43 DETROIT EDISON _ COMPANY WOLVERINE POWER SUPPLY COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED F1RMI-2 00CKET NO. 50-341
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letters dated February 4, 1986, June 7, 1986, and July 13, 1987, the Detroit Edison Company (the licensee) requested an amendment to the Fermi-2 Technical Specification Table 3.6.3-1 to delete containment isolation valves T50-F406A and 150-F4068 from the Primary Containment Monitoring System (PCMS).
2.0 EVALUATION The purpose and design intent of the PCMS is to continuously monitor hydrogen and oxygen concentrations in the containment drywell during a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) and during the post-LOCA period. Containnent isolation valves T50-F406A and T50-F406B are remote-marual isolation valves used in the PCMS.
At the time of Fermi-2 licensing (July 1985), the PCMS design was determined not to meet the environmental qualification requirements set forth in IEEE Standards 323-1974 and 344-1975, and NUREG-0588. As a basis for licensing, the licensee committed to modify the PCMS design post-licensing to confom with those requirements.
In the course of modifying the PCMS design to meet environtrental qualification requirements, containment isolation valves T50-F406A and T50-F406B were determined to be no longer necessary to ensure containment isolation in accordance with General Design Criterion 56.
In the submittal for changing Technical Specification Table 3.6.3-1 to delete the two valves, the licensee indicated that the sample line in which those valves were located would be sealed closed by weld-capping in accordance with applicable ASME Code requiren,ents, following valve removal. This evaluation considers the information provided by the licensee in the above noted letters relative to the PCMS redesign and the physical removal of the valves in question, as well as the pemanent seal closure of the sample line by weld-capping.
Deletion of the isolation valves numbered T50-F406A and T50-F4 cob and associated portions of the piping from the PCHS consists of their physical removal.
After removal, the piping from PCMS will be installed to close of f the remaining portion of the sample pipe.
In accordance with the information provided by the licensee, the caps used will:
8803250011 080321 DR ADOCK 05000341 PDR
1 1.
be one inch socket-weld pipe caps, 3000 lb. rating, SA182-F304 (Class 2),
or SA182-F316 (Class 1) as available. All work will be performed in accordance with ASME Section III, Substetion NC, 1971 Edition through 1971 Winter Addendum and ASME Section XI, 1980 Edition through 1981 Winter Addendum-2.
meet the requirements of QA Level I and Seismic Category I; and 3.
meet ocndestructive examination requirements per ASME Section III, Subsection NC, Article NC-5000, 1971 Edition through Winter 1971 Addenda.
On the basis of our review of the definition of boundaries requiring Class 2 components in the ASME Code,Section III, Division I (1983), and the illustrations shewn in Figure NE-1120-1 therein, the classification of the pipe cap Class 2 (NC) components by'the licensee is deemed to be in conformance with the ASME Code for Class 2 components.
We therefore find that deletion of the one-inch dianieter isolation valves (T50-F406A and T50-F406B) from the PCMS design and thus from Technical Specification Tabie 3.6.3-1, and the capping of the associated lines by Class 2 pipe caps meet the requirements of General Design Criterion 56 for containment integrity. As such, the proposed Technical Specification change is considered to be acceptable.
3.0 ENVI,R,0hMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility comperent located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
We have determined that this crendment 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 exposure.
The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public contrent on such finding.
Accordingly, this 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 env Nonmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 _ CONCLUSION We have 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Connission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
C. P. Tan, NRR i
R. Goel, NRR Dated:
March 21, 1988 1