[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15731-15733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8548]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-341]
Detroit Edison Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
NPF-43, issued to Detroit Edison Company (the licensee), for operation
of the Fermi 2 facility located in Monroe County, Michigan.
The proposed amendment would revise the technical specifications to
allow elimination of response time testing requirements for selected
instrument loops in the reactor protection system, isolation system,
and emergency core cooling system based on the BWR Owners' Group
Topical Report NEDO-32291A, ``System Analyses for Elimination of
Selected Response Time Testing Requirements,'' October 1995.
Specifically, the response time testing requirements proposed to be
eliminated are:
(1) Reactor protection system instrumentation--Sensors for reactor
vessel steam dome pressure-high and reactor vessel low water level--
Level 3.
(2) Isolation actuation system instrumentation--Sensors for reactor
vessel low water level--Level 1 and main steam line flow-high, and;
(3) Emergency core cooling system actuation instrumentation.
The March 27, 1997, application requested that this amendment be
processed on an exigent basis. The need for exigent processing exists
in that failure of the Commission to act in a timely manner would
result in the delaying of resumption of operation of Fermi 2. The
licensee was unable to make a more timely application because the
licensee only recently discovered that the existing technical
specifications require response time testing prior to restarting the
unit. The NRC has determined that the licensee used its best efforts to
make a timely application for the proposed changes and that exigent
circumstances do exist and were not the result of any intentional delay
on the part of the licensee.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of
the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As
required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of
the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented
below:
(1) The changes do not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The purpose of the proposed Technical Specification changes is
to eliminate response time testing requirements for selected
instrument loops in the Reactor Protection System, Isolation System,
and Emergency Core Cooling System. However, because of the continued
application of other Technical Specification testing requirements
such as channel calibrations, channel checks, channel functional
tests, and logic system functional tests, the response time of these
systems will be maintained within the acceptance limits assumed in
plant safety analyses and required for successful
[[Page 15732]]
mitigation of an initiating event. The proposed Technical
Specification changes do not affect the capability of the associated
systems to perform their intended function within their required
response time.
GE [General Electric] and the BWR [Boiling Water Reactors]
Owners' Group have completed an evaluation (Reference 1 [of the
March 27, 1997 application]) which demonstrates that response time
testing is unnecessary due to other Technical Specification testing
requirements listed in the preceding paragraph. These other tests
are sufficient to identify failure modes or degradations in
instrument response time and assure operation of the associated
systems within acceptance limits. There are no failure modes that
can be detected by response time testing that cannot also be
detected by the other Technical Specification tests.
(2) The changes do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
As discussed above, the proposed Technical Specification changes
do not affect the capability of the associated systems to perform
their intended function within the acceptance limits assumed in the
plant safety analyses and required for successful mitigation of an
initiating event. Other than the elimination of selected response
time tests there are no changes to plant equipment or configuration.
(3) The changes do not involve a significant reduction in the
margin of safety.
The current Technical Specification response times are based on
the maximum allowable values assumed in the plant safety analyses.
These analyses conservatively establish the margin of safety. As
described above, the proposed Technical Specification changes do not
affect the capability of the associated systems to perform their
intended function within the allowed response time used as the basis
for the plant safety analyses. Plant and system response to an
initiating event will remain in compliance within the assumptions of
the safety analyses, and therefore, the margin of safety is not
affected.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 14 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of the 14-day notice period. However, should circumstances
change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely
way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility,
the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of
the 14-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that
the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final
determination will consider all public and State comments received.
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal
Register a notice of issuance. The Commission expects that the need to
take this action will occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules
Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and
Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the
publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice.
Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint
North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to
4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received may be
examined at the NRC Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L
Street, NW., Washington, DC.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
By May 2, 1997, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with
respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating
license and any person whose interest may be affected by this
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding
must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene
shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice
for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested
persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is
available 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. If a request for a hearing or
petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the
Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the
Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or
the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of
hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the
Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of
the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the
proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition
should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of
the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person
who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been
admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of
the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference
scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy
the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to
the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions
which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must
consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be
raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a
brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the
contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the
contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references
to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those
facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material
issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within
the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be
one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A
petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these
requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be
permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to
[[Page 15733]]
participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the
opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
If the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the
issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is
requested, the final determination will serve to decide when the
hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves
no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place
before the issuance of any amendment.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Docketing and
Services Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC,
by the above date. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of
the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so
inform the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at
1-(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union
operator should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the
following message addressed to John Hannon: petitioner's name and
telephone number, date petition was mailed, plant name, and publication
date and page number of this Federal Register notice. A copy of the
petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to John
Flynn, Esq., Detroit Edison Company, 2000 Second Avenue, Detroit,
Michigan 48226, attorney for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended
petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not
be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding
officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the
petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the
factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated March 27, 1997, 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 28th day of March 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Linh N. Tran,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-8548 Filed 4-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P