ML20204G387
| ML20204G387 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 07/24/1986 |
| From: | Adensam E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204G171 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8608070240 | |
| Download: ML20204G387 (4) | |
Text
7590-01 UNTIED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DETROIT EDISON COMPANY WOLVERINE POWER SUPPLY COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED DOCKET NO. 50-341 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issu-ance of an exemption from the requirenents of General Design Criterion 56 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 to the Detroit Edison Company (DECO or licensee),
holder of Facility Operating License No. NPF-43 which authorizes operation of the Fermi-2 facility. The facility is a boiling water reactor and is located in Monroe County, Michigan.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action: The exemption would allow, for a limited period, a single penetration of the containment to have two isolation valves outside containment rather than one valve inside and one valve outside as required by General Design Criterion (GDC) 56 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50.
This exemption would extend only until the first scheduled refueling outage.
The exenption is in accordance with the licensee's request dated December 31, 1985.
The Need for the Proposed Action: The exemption is reeded to permit restart of the Fermi-2 facility from its present outage. The licensee estimates that it will be prepared to restart the facility by about the end of July 1986.
However,'
the time required to design, procure and install the long-term modifications required to achieve compliance with GDC 56, would extend past the estimated restart date.
8608070240 860731 PDR ADOCK 05000341 P
Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action: The increment of environmental impact is related to the potentially increased consequences of the leakage from the containn~ent to the atmosphere in the event of an accident which damaged the fuel and pressurized the containment. However, the applicable requirements for isolation valves on lines penetrating containment require two valves on these lines; i.e., one valve inside and one valve outside containment. 'The licensee has committed to modify its existing design to comply with this requirement at the first scheduled refueling outage. The environmental impact, if any, would occur only during this interim period; i.e., within li to 2 years from the present.
For this interim period, the licensee has proposed a modification which consists of two automatic valves outside containment which are actuated by diverse signals.
These valves were procured and installed to quality assurance criteria for safety-related components, are installed in accordance with seismic Category I criteria and will be closed by springs in the event of loss of power. Based on these considerations, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed interim modifications should provide the same level of leakage control as that required by GDC 56. Considering that the previous design consisted of only one check valve, the NRC staff concludes that the potential leakage past either the two valves in the interim modification or the two valves in the long-tenn resolution will be lower than that which could occur past the single check valve.
In either of these two configurations, the installation of two valves in series on the line penetrat-ing containment will serve to minimize leakage from containment.
With regard to potential non-radiological impact, the proposed exemption involves systems located entirely within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents. Therefore, i
a---,
n
' the Commission concludes there are no significant adverse non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
Alternative to the Proposed Action: Because the staff has concluded that there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the exemption, any alternative to the exemption will have either no impact or a greater environ-mental impact.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested exemption. This would not reduce the environmental impacts of plant operation.
Further, without the requested exemption, considerable delay will be incurre'd to design, procure and install the long-term modification (i.e., one valve inside and one valve out-side containment) and would delay the restart of the facility which is presently shutdown. This delay would impose a significant economic impact on the facility without the benefit of any significant increase in safety.
Alternative Use of Resources: The action in the granting of this exemption does not invclve the use of resources not previously considered in connection with the " Final Environmental Statement related to the Operation of Enrico Fern.i Atomic Power Plant, Unit No.
2," (NUREG-0769) dated August.1981.
Agencies and Persons Consulted: The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request which supports the requested exemption. The NRC staff did not consult other agencies or persons.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Comission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact state-,
ment for the requested exemption.
_v
7 Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, we conclude that the requested action will net have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment."
~
For further details with respect to this action, see the request for the exenption, which is available for public inspection at'the Commission's Public Docunent Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D. C.
20555 and at the Monroe County Library System, 3700 South Custer Road, Monroe, Michigan 48161.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 24th day of July 1986.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Elinor G. Adensam, Director BWR Project Directorate No. 3
. Division of BWR Licensing h
e e
.m
. - - _ _--