[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 230 (Thursday, November 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61576-61577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29224]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-341]


Detroit Edison Co., FERMI, Unit 2; Environmental Assessment and 
Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of a schedular exemption from certain requirements 
of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, to the Detroit Edison Company (the 
licensee) for the Fermi, Unit 2, facility located in Monroe County, 
Michigan.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    The proposed action would grant a one-time schedular exemption from 
the requirements of Sections III.D.2(a) and III.D.3 (Type B and Type C 
tests, respectively) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 relating to the 
primary reactor containment leakage testing for water-cooled reactors. 
Type B and C tests are associated with leakage testing of bellows, 
manway gasket seals, flanges, and containment isolation valves. 
Sections III.D.2(a) and III.D.3 require, in part, that Type B and C 
tests be performed at intervals no greater than 2 years. The purpose of 
the tests is to assure that leakage through primary reactor containment 
shall not exceed allowable leakage rate values as specified in the 
Technical Specifications and that periodic surveillance is performed. 
The licensee has proposed a one-time exemption to allow a 25-percent 
extension to the 2-year testing interval.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for exemption dated September 1, 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would provide a one-time schedular exemption 
for Fermi, Unit 2, from the local leak rate test intervals for Type B 
and C leak rate tests required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Sections 
III.D.2(a) and III.D.3. The exemption is requested to support a revised 
outage schedule and to avoid the potential for a forced reactor 
shutdown. If a forced outage is imposed to perform testing, it would 
present undue hardship and cost in the form of increased radiological 
exposure. Furthermore, if a forced outage is imposed to perform the 
required testing, an additional plant shutdown and startup will be 
required.
    Due to a lengthy turbine outage and power ascension program, the 
licensee proposed deferring the spring 1996 refueling outage until 
September 27, 1996. This would permit targeted fuel burnup to be met so 
that Cycle 6 operation can be conducted as planned. However, the 2-year 
interval for performing Type B and C tests expires in April 1996. Since 
these tests cannot be performed when the plant is at power, performance 
of these tests to meet the 2-year interval would necessitate a plant 
shutdown. Therefore, Detroit Edison has proposed a one-time exemption 
to allow a 25-percent extension to the testing interval. This would 
allow for a maximum Type B and C test interval of 30 months and would 
permit continued plant operation until the September 27, 1996, outage 
date.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The proposed exemptions will add a one-time only 6-month extension 
to the Appendix J test intervals for Type B and C testing. As stated in 
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, the purpose of the primary containment leak 
rate testing requirements is to ensure that leakage rates are 
maintained within the Technical Specification requirements and to 
assure that proper maintenance and repair is performed throughout the 
service life of the containment boundary components. The requested 
exemption is consistent with the intent of 10 CFR 50.12(a), in that it 
represents a one-time only schedular extension of short duration. The 
required leak tests will still be performed to assess compliance with 
Technical Specification requirements, albeit later, and to assure that 
any required maintenance or repair is performed. As noted in Sections 
III.D.2(a) and III.D.3 of Appendix J, it was intended that the testing 
be performed during refueling outages or other convenient intervals. 
Extending the Appendix J intervals by a small amount to reach the next 
refueling outage will not significantly impact the integrity of the 
containment boundary, and therefore, will not significantly impact the 
consequences of an accident or transient in the unlikely event of such 
an occurrence during the 6-month extended period.
    Past Unit 2 local leak rate test data have, in general, 
demonstrated good leak rate test results. A combined Type B and C 
leakage rate was established by the licensee at the conclusion of the 
last refueling outage and a running total leakage is maintained during 
each operating cycle. This running total 

[[Page 61577]]
leakage rate is 73.81 standard cubic feet per hour, which is 41.5 
percent of the limit of 0.6 La. Based on this margin, it is clear 
that extending the test interval a maximum of 6 months will not affect 
the overall integrity of the containment.
    The above data provides a basis for showing that the probability of 
exceeding the offsite dose rates established in 10 CFR Part 100 will 
not be increased by extending the current Type B and C testing 
intervals for a maximum of 6 months. The change will not increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in 
the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is 
no significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative 
occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Commission concludes 
that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action does involve features located entirely within the restricted 
area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect nonradiological 
plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the 
Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable 
environmental impact associated with the proposed exemption, any 
alternative with equal or greater environmental impact need not be 
evaluated. The principal alternative to the exemption would be to 
require rigid compliance with the requirements of Sections III.D.2(a) 
and III.D.3 of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50. Such action would not 
enhance the protection of the environment and would result in increased 
radiation exposure for the licensee.

Alternate Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
considered previously in the Final Environmental Statement for Fermi, 
Unit 2, dated August 1981.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on November 9, 1995, the 
staff consulted with the Michigan State official, Mr. Dennis Hahn of 
the Michigan Department of Public Health, Nuclear Facilities and 
Environmental Monitoring, regarding the environmental impact of the 
proposed action. The State official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has 
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the 
proposed action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's request for exemption dated September 1, 1995, which is 
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document 
Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC, and at 
the local public document room located at the Monroe County Library 
System, 3700 South Custer Road, Monroe, Michigan 48161.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of November 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tae Kim,
Acting Director, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-29224 Filed 11-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P