ML20237E175
| ML20237E175 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237E174 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9808310009 | |
| Download: ML20237E175 (3) | |
Text
l l"
pKEh
[
- g UNITED STATES I
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
2 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2006H001 kD*****
SAFETY EVALUATION BY TFIE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO 127 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-43 DETROIT EDISON COMPANY FERMI 2 QQCKET NO. 50-341
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated September 25,1996, the Detroit Edison Company (DECO or the licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) appended to Facility Operating License No. NPF-43 for Fermi 2. The proposed amendment would modify TS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.8.4.3. Specifically, the amendment would (1) delete the requirement for periodically testing motor-operated valve (MOV) thermal overload (TOL) protective devices, and (2) clarify the situational testing requirements for TOL devices. By letter dated November 26, 1997, the licensee provided a revised copy of the proposed TS change which reflected ikmative wording for the surveillance that addressed only the clanfication to the situational testing requirement. By letter dated March 10,1998, the licensee requested a 90-day implementation date. By letter dated June 17,1998, the licensee withdrew the portion of the proposed request that would eliminate periodic surveillance testing requirements of MOV TOL protective devices. These supplements were within the scope of the original Federa/ Register notice and did not change the staff's initial proposed no significant hazards considerations determination.
2.0 BACKGROUND
SR 4.8.4.3 currently reads:
The thermal overload protection for the above required valves shall be demonstrated OPERABLE at least onca per 18 months and following maintenance on the motor starter by the performance of a CHANNEL CALIBRATION of a representative sample of at least 25% of all thermal overloads for the above required valves.
i By letter dated September 26,1996, the licensee proposed to delete the requirement for periodic testing of the TOL protective devices based oh the infrequent operation of the motors and on the historical results of TOL testing. In addition, the licensee proposed changes to clarify when situational testing of the TOL protective devices would be required.
j l
During the review process and further discussions with the licensee, the staff determined that l
elimination of the periodic surveillance testing portion of the proposed change would be 9808310009 980825 PDR ADOCK 05000341 P
PDR l
- i unacceptable and that it must be retained. As a result, in a letter dated November 26,1997, i
the licensee provided revised copies of the proposed TS which provided altemative wording f
that retained the periodic testing requirement in the TS but clarified the situational testing j
requirement. In a letter dated June 17,1998, the licensee withdrew the portion of the proposed request that would eliminate periodic survei!!ance testing requirements of MOV TOL protective
' devices.
3.0 EVALUATION By letter dated November 27,1997, the licensee proposed TS change for SR 4.8.4.3 reads as follows:
The thermal overload protection for the above required valves shall be demonstrated OPERABLE by the performance of a CHANNEL CALIBRATION of l
a representative sample of at least 25% of all thermal overloads for the above required valves at least once per 18 months, and by performance of a CHANNEL I
CALIBRATION of the affected thermal overload following any maintenance I
activity which could affect the performance of that thermal overload.
The TOL protective devices that are the subject of this SR are used to protect the MOV motors from overload conditions. If a foreign object is lodged in the MOV or if there is some other event that prevents the valve from stroking completely, the motor will be subjected to increasing i
heat as a result of high current in the motor. The TOL protective devices break the circuit at a certain trip set point, thus terminating the current and protecting the motor. For safety-related applications, the TOL trip set point must also be high enough to prevent spurious operction of the TOL protective device during normal operation of the MOV. Spurious operation would prevent the MOV from fulfilling its safety function. The periodic testing of MOV TOL protective -
' devices verifies the accuracy of the trip set point of the TOLs.
)
Although the revised TS wording retained the original periodic testing requirements for the TOL devices, the licensee proposed to modify the situational testing requirement. The current TS wording presents two problems when read literally. First, it would require that TOL protective devices be tested after any maintenance on the motor starter. Because maintenance on the motor starter would not always affect the TOL protective devices, the licensee proposed that the TOL protective devices be tested only after any maintenance that could affect their performance. Second, the current TS would require testing a representative sample of at least 25 percent of TOLs following maintenance on any one TOL. Because there is no reason to believe that work on one TOL would affect the operability of the other TOL, the licensee proposed to restructure the SR so that only the affected TOL would be tested.
The staff has reviewed the proposed amendment. The staff concludes that retaining the periodic testing of the MOV TOL protective devices will ensure continued functional reliability and accuracy of the trip set point. The staff also finds that the revised situational SR will ensure the TOLs are tested when work that could affect the proper operation of the TOLs has been performed. Therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed changes to SR 4.8.4.3 are acceptable.
l:
o l
i
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Michigan State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes a surveillance requirement.- The 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 cumulative 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 55030). Accordingly, the 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 or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.-
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's 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 Contributors: P. Kang A. Kugler Date: August 25, 1998 i
l