View source for NRC-97-0092, Forwards Revised Proposed TS Pages Reflecting Alternative Wording for Surveillance Which Address Only Clarification Too Situational Testing Requirement,In Response to Discussions W/Nrc Re 960925 Proposed Change to TS 4.8.4.3

{{Adams
| number = ML20202A722
| issue date = 11/26/1997
| title = Forwards Revised Proposed TS Pages Reflecting Alternative Wording for Surveillance Which Address Only Clarification Too Situational Testing Requirement,In Response to Discussions W/Nrc Re 960925 Proposed Change to TS 4.8.4.3
| author name = Gipson D
| author affiliation = DETROIT EDISON CO.
| addressee name = 
| addressee affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
| docket = 05000341
| license number = 
| contact person = 
| case reference number = CON-NRC-97-0092, CON-NRC-97-92
| document report number = NUDOCS 9712020202
| package number = ML20202A727
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE
| page count = 3
}}

=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:,
4 Dour,las R. Giron
[ ,
N ter Vi4 e l'remient. Nuricar Generation F ertn! ?
Cit htih [hde lle), NeW}rirl, MH hifart bli..'
        .                                                                       M 2131MI/Jul fat 313N 117;'
Detroit Edison 10 CFR 50.92 November 26,1997 NRC-97-0092 U. S. Nuclear Regulatog Commission Attn: Document Control Dest-Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

==References:==
: 1) Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-34i NRC License No. NPF-43
: 2) Detroit Edison Letter to the NRC, NRC-96-0085 dated September 25,1996 Proposed Technical Specification Change (License Amendment)- Periodic Testing Requirement for Thermal Overload Protective Devices

==Subject:==
Proposed Technical Specification Change (License Amenstment)- Periodic Testing Requirement for Thermal Overload Protective Devices Detroit Edison previausly proposed, in Reference 2, to amend Operating License NPF-43 for the Femii 2 plant by modifying Technical Specification Surveillance                                                  ,
Requir<. ment 414.3. At that time two changes were proposed: first, to delete the requiremera tor the pedodic surveillance testing of Tnermal Overload (TOL)                                                     ',/
Devices; and second, to clarify the situational surveillance testing requirement.                                                /
Detroit Edison believes that climination of the periodic surveillance testing is justified because there is no adverse impact on nuclear safety and a significant cost                                          N/
savings would be realized. We are prepared to provide any additional information the staff requires to approve this request.
The proposed changes were ihe subject of sub::cquent discussions with the NRC staff. During these discussions, the staffindicated that the periodic surveillance testing portion of the proposed change must be retained. Therefore, if the chance proposed by Reference 2 is not approved, revised copies of the proposed technical t
                                     . %. . ,,            1.1 I.! I.lill.u                ' Ill.1.11 9712020202 971126 PDR   ADOCK 05000341                                                                          A l'IE E"' m C"'nPa m                              i P                                PDR                                                                                                           ,

  ',                                                     o USNRC NRC-97-0092 Page 2 specification pages are enclosed which reflect alternative wording for the                                      '
surveillance which address only the clarificatica to the situational testing requirement. This alternative wordira preserves the second part of the original change.
Detroit Edison previously evaluatcd the pioposed Technical S;weification change against the criteria of 10CFH50.92 in Reference 2 and determined that No Significant llazards Consideration is involved. The revised alternative wording now proposed is encompassed by the text in Reference 2; therefore, the previous No Significant llazards Consideration remains applicable, in accordance with 10CFR50.91(b)(1),
Detroit Edison is providing a copy of this letter to the State of Michigan.
No commitments are made in this letter. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Norman K. Peterson at (313) 586-4258.
Sincerely,
[     /
Attachments cc: A.11. Deach G. A. liarris
: 11. L. Ilurgess A. J. Kugler Supervisor, Electric Operators, Michigan Public Service Commission, J. R. Padgett

r;o: .
e, . ?                                                                                                         }
b                           :USNRC-k'                           - NRC-97-0092-Page 3
                 ..   :y 1, DOUGLAS R. GIPSON, do hereby aflirm that the foregoing statements are based on facts and circumstances which are true and accurate to the best of my knad:dge
                              , and belief.
DOUGLAS k. GIPSON Senior Vice President
,=                              On this           ['           ._ day of   /T/A U,1997 before me personally
                              - appeared Douglas R. Gipson, being first duly sworn and says that he executed the -
                               ' foregoing as his free act and deed, Notary Public Sh             L/At/b -
                                                                                  . AOSAUS A. ARMETTA NOTARYPUCUC-MONROECOUNTY,MI
                                                                               ' MYCOMMISS10NEXPIRES10/1159 2
i 9
W-            -
_        _                   ii    .                          _ . _                       _}}