ML20212M578
| ML20212M578 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1987 |
| From: | Agosti F DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212M581 | List: |
| References | |
| VP-NO-87-0020, VP-NO-87-20, NUDOCS 8703120084 | |
| Download: ML20212M578 (7) | |
Text
,
m 2
- . ?
P s 41 Nuclear Opershons t
Fermi 2
- i March 9,-1987, VP-NO-87-0020 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ~
Attn Document : Control Desk '
-Washington, D. C. 20555
Reference:
Fermi 2.
NBC Docket No. 50-341.
NRC L'icense No. NPF-43
Subject:
Proposed Technical Specification (L'icense-Amendment) Changes-MOV-Thermal Overload Protection (3/4.8.4.3) ; ' Emergency Core
. Cooling Systems-Operating (3/4.5.1) ; Primary Containment Leakaae (Bases 3/4.6.1.2)
Pursuant to 10CFR50.90, Detroit Edison Company hereby
= proposes to amend Operating L'icense NPF-43 for the Fermi 2 plant by incorporating ' the enclosed editorial and typographical changes into the Plant Technical Specifications -3/4.8.4.3 MOV Thermal Overload Protection, 3/4.5.1 BCCS-Operating, and Bases 3/4.6.1.2 Primary Containment Leakage.
The proposed changes are either editorial corrections or typographical errors which have been identified in the Fermi 2 Technical Specifications.
. Detroit. Edison has evaluated the proposed Technical Specifications against the criteria of 10CFR50.59 and 10CFR50.92 and determined that no unreviewed safety -
question.or significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Fermi 2 Oncite Review Organization has approved'and the Nuclear Safety Review Group has reviewed these proposed Technical Specification changes and concurs with the enclosed determinations.
Pursuant to 10CFR170.12(c), enclosed with this amendment is a check for one hundred fif ty dollars ($150.00).
t P
I Qc.Y w hecIL $16000
'~
March 9, 1987 VP-NO-87-0020 Page 2 In accordance with 10CFR50.91, Detroit Edison has provided a copy of this letter ' to-the State of Michigan.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Steven Frost at (313) 586-4210.
- Sincerely, ME Enclosure cc:
Mr. A. B.. Davis Mr. E. G. Greenman Mr. W. G. Rogers Mr. J. J. Stefano Supervisor, Advanced Planning and Review Section, Michigan Public Service Commission P
--.we,,_,.,w,.,-...,,--r--,_.m,.,.
,,w.--
,,w,
-c-.-
,_,y
,.-7,,-,we-,
..m-r
USNRC March 9, 1987 VP-NO-87-0020 Page-3 I, FRANK E. AGOSTI, do hereby affirm that the foregoing statements are based on facts and circumstances 'which are true and accurate to the best-of my knowledge and belief.
WE S
FRANK E. A'GOSTI Vice President Nuclear Operations
[
On this day of
, 1987, before me personally appeared Frank E. Agosti, being first duly sworn and says that he executed the foregoing as his free act and deed.
W Notary Public MARCIA BUCK Notary Public. Washtenaw Countw MI My Commission Expires Dec.28. W, yms M
C.
7E y
g__ s_
I e
3 h
ENCLOSURE 3
s h
1 k -
w- -
- g-Enclosurc to.
VP-NO-87-0020-Page 1.
BACEGRO W / DISCUSSION 3/4.8.4.3 - MOV Thermal Overload Protection The existing MOV Thermal-Overload Protection Table 3.8.4.3-1,. Item 12' currently specifies a Condensate : Storage 'and Transfer System valve (Pll-F616). 'The proposed change would delete this line item from~the' Technical Specifications (see attached Proposed Page Change).
During.the performance of 'the eighteen (18) month MOV thermal.
. overload channel calibration, it was discovered that an editorial oversight existed in Table 3.=8.4.3-1.
The oversight pertains.toEa referenced Condensate Storage and Transfer System valve (Pll-F616) which is no longer applicable to the design.
In November 1984, just prior to the. issuance of.the Fermi 2 license' (March 1985), a design change was implemented and the valve was replaced with a spectacle flange..At that time, all design documents and drawings were' changed and the Final Safety
~
Analysis Report (FSAR) updated - (Amendment Rl) to reflect the change to the spectacle flange.
The Fermi '2 Technical.
Specifications were drafted during this time and the change should have been reflected in information contained in Tables 3.6.3-1 and 3.8.4.3-1.-
However, because of an editorial oversight, the information in Table : 3.8.4.3-1 remained unchanged.
3/4.5.1 - ECCS-Oneratino The existing ECCS-Operating ACTIONS b.2 and b.3 under 3.5.1 are out.of sequence.- The proposed change would resequence the ACTION statements by replacing ACTION b.2 with ACTION b.3 and by replacing ACTION b.3 with ACTION b.2.
This editorial correction is purely ' administrative in nature and is requested to heighten the logical sequence of the ACTION statements.
BASES 3/4.6.1.2 - Primary Containment Leakage
-The existing BASES references an American National Standard document N45.4-1972, " Leakage Rate Testing.of Containment Structures for Nuclear Reactors."
The proposed change would correct two typographical errors that reference this document as "N45.5-1972."
These typographical errors are purely administrative in nature and are requested to achieve consistency throughout the Technical Specifications.
... - -. - - -.. -. ~. -. - - -
s Enclocuro to VP-NO-87-0020 Page 2 SIGNIFICANT HAEARDS CONSIDERATION In accordance with 10CFR50.92, Detroit Edison has made a determination that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards considerations.
To make this determination, Detroit Edison must establish that operation in accordance with the proposed 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 any accident previously evaluated, or, 3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
A. The proposed change to delete Item 12 from Table 3.8.4.3-1 is an editorial oversight and purely administrative and therefore falls into the category of amendments that are considered not likely to involve Significant Hazards Consideration (14870 FR Vol. 48 No. 67 (i)).
This change does not involve a physical change to the plant, change a limiting condition of operation or change any operating practice. The valve (Pll-F616) does not belong in Table 3.8.4.3-1 and by removing it does not change any safety analysis or design basis at Fermi 2 and will not reduce any margin of safety under which Fermi 2 was licensed..
B. The proposed change to resequence the ECCS ACTION statements is an editorial correction and purely administrative and therefore falls into the category of amendments that are considered not likely to involve Significant Hazards Considerations-(14870 FR Vol. 48 No. 67 (i) ).
This change does not-involve a physical change to the plant, change a limiting. condition of operation or change any operating practice.
The resequencing of ACTION statements do not change any safety analysis or design basis at Fermi 2 and will not reduce any margin of safety under which Fermi 2 was licensed.
C. The proposed change to correctly reference N45.4-1972 is a typographical error and purely administrative and therefore falls into the category of amendments that are considered not likely to involve Significant Hazards Consideration (14870 FR Vol. 48 No. 67 (i) ).
This change does not involve a physical change to the plant, change a limiting condition of operation or change any operating practice.
Correcting these typographical erros does not change any safety analysis or design basis at Fermi 2 and will not reduce any margin of safety under which Fermi 2 was licensed.
ENVIROletENTAL IMPACT Detroit Edison has reviewed the proposed Technical Specification changes against the criteria of 10CFR50.22 for environmental considerations.
As shown above, the proposed changes do not
Enclo2ure to
'VP-NO-87-0020 Page 3 involve a significant hazards consideration, nor increase the types and amounts of ef fluents that may be released of fsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposures.
Based on the foregoing, Detroit Edison concludes that the proposed Technical Specifications do meet the criteria given' in 10CFR51.22(c) (9) for a categorical exclusion from the' requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement.
CONCLUSION Based on the evaluations above:
(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 proposed amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
The changes requested herein are like that of Item (i) examples of amendments _that are considered not likely to involve Significant Hazards Consideration (14870 FR Vol 48 No. 67).
~
..