ML20154R233

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 13 to License DPR-9

ML20154R233
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	10/21/1998
From:	NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20154R222	List: ML20154R218 ML20154R225 ML20154R233 ML20154R238 ML20154R242
References
NUDOCS 9810260250
Download: ML20154R233 (5)

Text

-- .. - ~ --. . . - . - _ . - . .-

cf  % j e 4 UNITED STATES

r g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20665-0001 4

9 . . . . . ,o

! SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL l

SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS l RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.13 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-9 DETROIT EDISON COMPANY ENRICO FERMI A FOMIC POWER PLANT. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-16

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated January 28,1998, Detroit Edison Company (DECO or the licensee) submitted a i request for a change to the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 1 (Fermi 1) Technical Specifications (TS) eppended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-9. The requested changes would: (1) allow access control flexibility while maintaining similar level of controls over access; (2) establish compensatory provisions for cases when the Protected Area boundary temporarily will not meet the TS criteria; (3) eliminate redundancy between TS; (4) Revise Figure B-1; and (5) correct typographical errors.

2.0 EVALUATION In our evaluation we considered allowing access control flexibility, compensatory provisions for cases when the Protected Area boundary temporarily will not meet the TS criteria, elimination of redundancy between TS, revision of Figure B-1, and correction of typographical errors.

2.1 Access Control Flexibility The licensee has proposed several changes that would allow it greater access control flexibility while still maintaining similar controls over access.

2.1.1 Control of Fermi 1 Access Kev Currently, only the Radiation Protection Control Point at Fermi 2 can issue the Fermi 1 key for normal access. The Fermi 1 Custodian also has a key, but it can only be used under extenuating circumstances. The licensee proposes that the Fermi 1 Custodian or his delegate be allowed to issue the key to authorized individuals and records would be kept of key issuances. The licensee indicates that this proposed change would maintain necessary control over the Fermi 1 key while allowing greater flexibility.

%O2gog %2 6 P

2 The staff finds this proposal acceptable based on the access key remaining only in the possession of authorized individuals and appropriate key control reccrds being maintained.

2.1.2 Elimination of Redundant Soecifications

, Section 1.5 in the Administrative Controls Section of the TS covers control of access to the Fermi 1 facility. Section B," Facility," also covers access to the Fermi 1 facility. The licensee proposes to consolidate all nonredundant requirements from Section 1.5 into Section B and delete Section 1.5.

The staff finds this proposal acceptable because the change is administrative only with no changes in licensee commitments.

1 2.1.3 Lockino of Protected Area Access Points The licensee notes that currently Sections B and E of the TS require doors allowing access into the Protected Area be locked from the inside or permanently closed when work is not in progress. However, gates in the fenced area are only required to be locked when work is not in progress or people within. The licensee argues that logistically, this requires an authorized individual to enter through a gate in the fence by unlocking the gate and then entering the building to be worked in through a door into the 4

Protected Area. If there is a need to open a building door in an exterior wall, the individual then unlocks the door from the inside. That doorway can then be used for l material or personnel entry or exit. When done, that door must be closed and locked '

from the inside and the authorized individual must exit the Protected Area through a l gate in the fence and then lock the gate. The licensee argues that there is no obvious reason why doors must be locked from the inside, but gates are locked from the outside, since both provide access into the Protected Area. The licensee proposes that the technical specifications be revised to allow doors to be unlocked while people are working inside to provide for an emergency exit, and that the TS not specify the direction in which the door needs to be locked.

The staff finds this proposal acceptable since access to the Protected Area will remain controlled through gates and doors.

2.2 Comoensatorv Provisions Currently, there are no provisions for compensatory provisions in the TS if the Protected Area temporarily fails to meet boundary requirements. The licensee proposes to add compensatory provisions, such as posting an individual in the vicinity or using a remote camera.

The staff finds this request acceptable because the compensatory provisions provide

, positive control over the Protected Area boundary.

= .. - - .-

l l

3 2.3 Revision of Fiaure B-1 Figure B-1, " Facility Plan," is a sketch showing the outlines of Fermi 1 buildings, the l Protected Area boundary, and the doors and gates in the Protected Area boundary. l The licensee notes that the outlines of some of the buildings are quite rough, not very accurate, and the level of detail varies considerably, with some items on the sketch being difficult to identify. The licensee proposes to revise Figure B-1, to better show the buildings within the Protected Area, to delete the locations of the Protected Area gates and doors, to delete an uncontaminated oil-fired boiler building and uncontaminated transformer equipment outside the Protected Area which are planned to be removed in the future, and to identify and locate underground tunnels in the Protected Area. .

The staff finds this proposed revision acceptable because the revised figure provides more clarity. Further, the licensee removing uncontaminated building and equipment from the drawing will not cause a radiological impact on public health and safety.

2.4 Tyooarachical Errors Technical Specification C.1, the words Reactor Building should be capitalized for document consistency. Technical Specification C.1, the word looked is incorrect and needs to be changed to the correct word locked. Technical Specifications D.1, D.4, and D.5 the words Primary System should be capitalized for document consistency. j Technical Specification G.6., Dosimetry. the word Thermc/uminsecent is incorrect and needs to be changed to the correct word Thermoluminescent. Technical Specifications I.4, the numbers 2 and 3 are spelled out. In addition, a typographical error was made in paragraph B.(3) of Facility Operating License No. DPR-9. The words, " chemical form"in .

the tt.ird line of that paragraph from the previous license amendment (Amendment No.

12) is revised to " chemical or physical form." The staff finds these changes acceptable.

3.0 STATE CONSULTATION

in accordance with the Commission regulations, the Michigan State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The amendment changes Fermi 1 TS with respect to the administrative procedures or requirements. NRC staff has determined that the amendment 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 cumulaiwe occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (61 FR 55029) on October 23,1996. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility critena for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 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.

4

5.0 CONCLUSION

The Commission has concluded, based on safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner; (2) suc the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and h activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission 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: S. Brown, NMSS/LLDP Date: October 21,1998

l i i

1 1 . e i I i

! . 1 l

l l

l l

l l

1 l

i l

l l

ENCLOSURE 3

!