NRC-98-0068, Withdraws Portion of 960925 License Amend Re Periodic Testing Requirement for Thermal Overload Protective Devices

Withdraws Portion of 960925 License Amend Re Periodic Testing Requirement for Thermal Overload Protective Devices

ML20249B715
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	06/17/1998
From:	Gipson D DETROIT EDISON CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
CON-NRC-98-0068, CON-NRC-98-68 NUDOCS 9806240092
Download: ML20249B715 (3)

Text

m 7

Doaf,las R. Gipson

'. Senior Vice President, Nudear Generadon Fermi 2 6400 North Dixie Hwy., Newpirt, Echi,an 48166 Tel:313586.5201 Fat 3115h&4172 Detroit Edison 7

10CFR50.92 June 17,1998 NRC-98-0068 N

N U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington D C 20555-0001 R.eferences: 1) Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341 NRC License No. NPF-43

2) Detroit Edison Letter to the NRC, NRC-96-0085, " Proposed Technical Specification Change (License Amendment) - Periodic Testing Requirement for Thermal Overicad Protective Devices,"

dated September 25,1996

3) Detroit Edison Letter to the NRC, NRC-97-0092, " Proposed Technical Specification Change (License Amendment) - Periodic Testing Requirement for Thermal Overload Protective Devices,"

dated November 26,1997

Subject:

Withdrawing Ponion of TS Amendment Related to Periodic Testing Requirements ofThermal Overload Devices The purpose of this letter is to withdraw a ponion of a previous request, Reference 2, which would eliminate periodic surveillance testing requirements of motor-operated valve thermal overload (TOL) protective devices. Detroit Edison requests that the alternative wording provided by Reference 3 to clarify Technical Specifications (TS) situational testing requirements for TOL devices, be approved instead.

gy113 Detroit Edison submitted a proposed TS amendment (Reference 2) to the NRC to

\O request that TS Surveillance Requirement 4.8.4.3 be nodified to: 1) delete the requirement for periodically testing motor-operated valve TOL protective devices and 0\

2) clarify the situational testing requirements for TOL devices. Following discussions of these changes with the NRC staff, Detroit Edison submitted alternative TS wording (Reference 3), which did not involve elimination of periodic surveillance testing requirements. The revised wording was provided when NRC indicated that elimination of periodic testing would not be acceptable. Reference 3 was therefore  :

9806240092 980617  :

PDR ADOCK 05000341 A DTE Enerc Company

__ _ _ f_ _ _ POR

4 USNRC

. NRC-98-0068 Page 2 submitted to request that TS Surveillance Requirement 4.8.4.3 be modified only to clarify situational testing requirements for TOL devices in the event that the NRC concluded periodic surveillance testing could not be eliminated.

While Detroit Edison believes adequate justification was provided for deleting the requirement to periodically test TOL devices (referring to the documented history of TOL testing), the request to eliminate periodic TOL testing as described in Reference 2 is being withdrawn at this time. This decision is based on Detroit Edison's plans for replacing all QA Level 1 Motor Control Center (MCC) compartments. TOL protection devices are contained in MCC compartments. Detroit Edison is replacing the MCC compartments in order to enhance plant equipment performance, alleviate concerns related to obsolete MCC components, and establish parts inventory for both QA Level 1 and balance of plant MCCs. Replacement of the MCC compartments will however, include replacing the TOL devices with a different model. Because the test data for the existing TOL devices is not known to be applicable to their replacements, thejustification to eliminate periodic testing would not be valid for the new TOL devices installed when the MCC compartments are replaced. Therefore, the request to eliminate periodic testing is being withdrawn.

Detroit Edison hereby requests the NRC to review and approve the proposed TS change described in Reference 3 by January 1,1999. The change will be implemented within 90 days of approval. An evaluation of the significant hazards consideration, using the standards of 10CFR50.92 is provided in Reference 2. This evaluation determined that No Significant IIazards Consideration is involved. Detroit Edison is providing a copy of this letter to the State of Michigan.

Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mr. Norman K. Peterson of my staff at (734) 586-4258.

Sincerely, gh cc: B. L.13urgess G. A. Harris A. J. Kugler Regional Administrator, Region Ill Supervisor, Electric Operators, Michigan Public Service Commission

. . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . l

l - USNRC

. NRC-98-0068 Page 3 l

1, DOUGLAS R. GIPSON, 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.

i l

DOUGLAS R. dlPSON Senior Vice President, Nuclear Generation On this /W day of RC,1998 before me personally appeared Douglas R. Gipson, being firstduly sworn and says that he executed the foregoing as his free act and deed.

l t/ Y C Notary Public ROMLE A.Nanin MEE#. .

_ _ _ _ .