ML20236D280
| ML20236D280 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 10/23/1987 |
| From: | Stefano J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Sylvia B DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-66393, NUDOCS 8710280110 | |
| Download: ML20236D280 (3) | |
Text
- - - - -
f
.1 p ercoq'o d
UNITED STATES
' ~,,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION 8
o.
5 r jc WASHINoTON, D. C. 2055$
')
ka....,/
' October 23, 1987
' Docket No.'50-341 Mr. B. Ralph Sylvia
. Group Vice President Nuclear Operations ~
Detroit Edison Company.
6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166
Dear Mr. Sylvia:
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED CHANGE TO FERMI-2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 3/4.8.4.1 PERTAINING TO A.C. CIRCUITS INSIDE PRIMARY CONTAINMENT (TAC NO. 66393) l We have reviewed' the proposed change to Technical Specification 3/4.8.4.1, submitted by your letter (NRC-87-0175) dated ~ September 25, 1987, and find it to be inadequate for the following reasons:
1.
The statement'made in the submittal that the proposed change is an
" administrative" one is not adequately supported.
The proposed deletion of Items (c), (d), (e), and (f) under LC0 3.8.4.1 appears to be the result of a change in circuit design made on or about the time the Fermi-2 full power operating license was issued in 1985, i
f The design change was apparently not reflected in the Technical Specifications at that time, and is an example of the concerns expressed by the NRC during the October 5-6, 1987 restart meeting, and the subsequent action required in the NRC October 9, 1987 letter authorizing plant restart, for Detroit Edison to reassess the accuracy of the Plant Technical Specifications in reflecting the as-built plant.
2.
Your discussion of the design change contained in the letter enclosure under BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION is considered insufficient for describing the basis for the change.
A more in depth safety analysis should be provided which provides all of the factors which were considered in making the design change, and why you believe the change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
Additionally, consider restructuring your presentation to chronologi-cally discuss actions taken to effect the change.
3.
With respect to the significant hazards consideration section of your submittal, we find your presentation to be inadequate and merely a summarization of your conclusion that the change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
This section should be expanded to detail your determinations in responding inaividally to subiteme (1), (2) and (3) of 10 CFA 50.92(c).
1 8710280110 871023 PDR ADOCK 05000341 P
w
,fi LMrLSy1' vial October 23, 1987 4.
In;the CONCLUSION section of the letter enclosure,.you cite "14870 FR Vol. 48, No. 67: as?the example applicable to 'the proposed change in concluding that the change-does not involve a significant hazards consideration. ~ This citation'is incorrect.
The correct. citation is "51 FR 7751 (March 6,:1986)" -for example'of amendments considered not'likely to-involve significant hazards considerations; for amendments considered likely to involve significant' hazards considerations, the ~ example to be cited is "51 FR 7750 (March 6,21986).
This is the first instance where we ha've had to reject a change proposal due
.to'the lack of sufficient / complete information.
It is urged that attention be
- given:to ensure that your resubmittal of the. subject change'(if /still deemed Enecessary),.and that the' submittal.of future change proposals completely documenti and support your' findings and determinations.
Sincerely, Original signed by.
- John J. Stefano, Project Manager
-Project Directorate III-1 Division of_ Reactor. Projects - III, IV, V & Special Projects' l
cc:
See next page L
DISTRIBUTION I
i.Docketdiley i
NRC & Local PDRs PD31 Plant Gray File-MVirgilio JStefano-RIngram AThadani FRosa,.SELB/NRR
'GHolahan EGreenman, RIII OGC-Beth EJordan-JPartlow 1
LA/PD31 M-
- DRSP SE B/N D/PD31 RIngram St fano fro MVir ilio 10/ /87 10 3/87 10/
87 10
/87 i
i
_._._._________________m______.___
Y 7,
9w -..
.1
~
Mr; B.-Ralph Sylvia
].
- Detroit Edison Company -
Fermi-2 Facility CC:
Mr.? Harry H. Voigt,- Esq.'
Mr. Ronald C. Callen g.
'.LeBoeuf, Lamb,.Leiby & MacRae Adv. Planning Review Section
- 1333 New-Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Michigan Public Service Commission Washington, D.C. 20036-6545 Mercantile.Way-P. O. Box 30221
" John:Flynn, Esq.
' Lansing, Michigan-48909.
Senior Attorney
' Detroit Edison Company Regional Administrator, Region III 2000 Second Avenue
'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l',
. Detroit, Michigan 48226 799 Roosevelt Road
-Glen Ellyn, Illinois -60137 Nuclear. Facilities.and Environmental Monitoring Section Office Division of Radiological Health P. 0. Box 30035
' Lansing, Michigan 48909 Mr. Steve Frost-
. Supervisor-Licensing.
Detroit Edison Company
?
' Fermi Unit'2 6400 North Dixie Highway-Newport,' Michigan 48166 Mr.' Thomas Randazzo:
Director, Regulatory Affairs Detroit Edison' Company.
' Fermi Unit 2 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 Mr. Walt Rogers U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office 6450 W. Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166
-Monroe County Office of Civil Preparedness-963 South Raisinville
]
Monroe, Michigan 48161 1
'l
_._