ML20151K991
| ML20151K991 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151K988 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8804210459 | |
| Download: ML20151K991 (3) | |
Text
_
/guno\\o,,
UNITF.D STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
{
j wAsmGToN, D. C. 204H
\\...../
.sAFETYEVAltid1IONBYTHEOFFICEOFNUCLEARREACTORREGULATION SUPPORTING AMEN 0 MENT NO. la TO FACILIfY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-43 DETROIT EDISON COMPANY WOLVERINE POWER SUPPLY COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED
FERMI-2 00CKET NO. 50-341
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 11, 1988, the Detroit Edison Company (DECO or the licensee) requested an emergency Technical Specification (TS) change to make the Ferai-2 TSs consistent with an exemption that had been requested in an earlier letter dated February 22, 1988.
- 2. 0 EVALUATION The February 22, 1988 letter from Deco to the Commission requested a one-time exemption from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, for,three inboard isolation valves for the Residual Heat Removal System.
This exemption was approved by the Commission on April 15, 1988.
The requested emergency change to TS 3/4.6.1.2 would make the Fermi-2 TSs consistent with the one-time schedular exemption already approved by the Commission.
The schedular exemption from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Section 111.0.3, concerning the Type C Local Leak Rate Testing discusses the safety of the exemption and is fully applicable to the proposed change.
Consequently, the staff finds that the requested change is acceptable.
3.0 EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES In its April 11, 1988 letter, the licensee requested that this amendment be treated as an emergency because insufficient time exists for the Commission's usual 30-day notice without extending the current outage.
Technical Specification 3/4.6.1.2 requires that the valves covered by the one-time exemption be tested once every two years.
Without the TS modification, the TSs would not permit the plant to be restarted.
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(a)(5), the licensee could not have avoided this emergency situation because of oversight on the part of the staff that a TS amendment was required.
The Commission has determined that emergency circumstances exist in that swif t action is necessary to avoid a delay in startup not related to safety, 88042%$
pp[
PDR P
~
4.0 FINAL NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION
DETERMINATION The Commission's regulations.in 10 CFR 50.92 state that the Commission may make a final determination that a license amendment involves no significant hazards considerations if operation cf the facility, in accordance with the amendment, would not:
(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated; or (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The Commission has determined that the proposed TS change: (1) does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated as the change will make the TSs consistent with an approved one-time exemption; (2) does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated since the change is consistent with the approved exemption; and (3) does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety since, as stated in (1) and (2) above, the change is consistent with an approved exemption.
Therefore, based on these considerations and the three criteria given above, the Commission has made a final determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
5.0 STATECONSULTATIE In accordance with the Commission's regulations, efforts were made to contact the Michigan representative.
The state representative was contacted and had no comments.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change in surveillance requirements. We have deter-mined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that mw be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has made a final no significant
{
hazards consideration finding with respect to this amendment.
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 environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
j
7.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
s (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 Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amenGment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: T. Quay, NRR Dated: April 15, 1988
\\
/
1 0
..)
[
1 i
I
_, - ~
-