[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29254-29256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14146]


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

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 Plant located in Newport, Michigan.
    The proposed amendment would modify the scram discharge volume 
(SDV) vent and drain valve action requirements to be consistent with 
those contained in NUREG-1433, Revision 1, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications General Electric Plants, BWR/4.'' Technical 
Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation 3.1.3.1, Action d., 
currently specifies that ``With one scram discharge volume vent valve 
and/or one scram discharge volume drain valve inoperable and open, 
restore the inoperable valve(s) to OPERABLE status within 24 hours or 
be in at least HOT SHUTDOWN within the next 12 hours.'' TS 3.1.3.1, 
Action e., currently specifies that ``With any scram discharge volume 
vent valve(s) and/or any scram discharge volume drain valve(s) 
otherwise inoperable, restore the inoperable valve(s) to OPERABLE 
status within 8 hours or be in at least HOT SHUTDOWN within the next 12 
hours.'' The licensee proposes to revise TS 3.1.3.1, Action d. making 
it applicable to valves inoperable for any reason, and to increase the 
time allowed for restoring a SDV vent or drain line with one valve 
inoperable from the current 24 hours to 7 days. This proposed change 
would also allow separate entry into the action for each affected drain 
and vent line. TS 3.1.3.1, Action e. would be revised to allow 
continued operation with both valves in one or more SDV vent or drain 
lines inoperable, provided the lines are isolated within 8 hours, and 
each valve is restored to operable status within 7 days of its 
respective inoperability. A footnote would be added to TS 3.1.3.1, 
Action e. that would allow the SDV line to be unisolated under 
administrative control for the purpose of venting and draining the SDV. 
As with the proposed change to Action d., the proposed change to Action 
e., would allow separate entry into the action for each SDV vent or 
drain line.
    Detroit Edison is requesting that this license amendment request be 
processed in an exigent manner in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) 
because delay in granting this amendment could lead to a plant 
shutdown. The plant is currently operating at 96% power with the SDV 
vent and drain valves open for normal operation. One of the SDV 
isolation valves, although currently operable in accordance with TS, 
has recently shown signs of stoke time performance degradation. The 
licensee has observed an increase in the stoke time over several weeks 
for C1100F0010, one of the SDV vent valves, during testing of the valve 
in accordance with Surveillance Requirement 4.1.3.1.4.a.1 and the 
Inservice Testing Program. Increased frequency testing (approximately 
every 7 days) has been initiated in order to establish a trend in the 
rate of degradation. However, the licensee has indicated that no clear 
trend can be established. Fermi 2 management has determined that it is 
prudent to repair the actuator for the valve before degradation causes 
the valve to exceed its testing performance criteria limits. In order 
to perform this repair, the vent line will be isolated, which will 
place the plant in the TS 3.1.3.1, Action e., 8 hour allowed outage 
time. The licensee believes that the actuator repair cannot be 
accomplished within the 8-hour limit.
    The licensee was unable to make a more timely application because 
it only recently concluded that the valve might fail testing at any 
time and that rework in the near future would be prudent. The licensee 
evaluated the time required to rework the valve and estimated that the 
work would take 11 hours unless unforeseen problems are encountered. 
Because the time required for the work exceeds the time allowed by the 
action statement, the licensee decided to request an amendment to 
change the action statement using the improved standard technical 
specifications as a guide. The licensee submitted the amendment request 
within a few days of the time it decided to make the request.
    The staff 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 change does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or

[[Page 29255]]

consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change will:
    (a) allow operation with one valve in each SDV vent or drain line 
to be inoperable for any reason for a period of 7 days. The SDV vent 
and drain valves are not considered to be an initiator for any 
previously analyzed accident. Therefore, this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of any accident previously 
evaluated. Redundant OPERABLE isolation valves are installed in the 
vent and drain lines so that isolation capability is maintained for the 
short period the inoperable valve may not be capable of performing its 
function. The ability of the SDV vent and drain valves to limit the 
amount of water discharged during scram so that adequate core cooling 
and offsite doses remain within 10 CFR 100 limits is maintained. 
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    (b) allow continued operation with one or more SDV vent or drain 
lines with both valves inoperable provided the line(s) are isolated 
within 8 hours, and each valve is restored to OPERABLE status within 7 
days of its respective inoperability. It also allows the line(s) to be 
unisolated under administrative controls to vent or drain the affected 
SDV. The SDV vent and drain valves are not considered to be an 
initiator for any previously analyzed accident and, therefore, these 
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of any 
previously evaluated accident. With the vent or drain lines isolated, 
the accident containment isolation function is maintained. The 
administrative control provision allows the lines to be unisolated to 
preclude an unnecessary reactor trip on high SDV level and to ensure 
sufficient volume is available to accept the reactor coolant discharged 
during a scram. The administrative controls also provide for prompt 
action to isolate the line(s), if necessary, should a scram occur while 
the valve is open. Because the intended function is maintained, these 
changes do not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. The change does not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not involve any physical modifications to 
the plant systems, structures, or components. Therefore, the proposed 
changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. The change does not involve a significant reduction in the 
margin of safety.
    The proposed changes:
    (a) allow operation with one valve in each SDV vent or drain line 
to be inoperable for any reason for a period of 7 days. The automatic 
scram on high SDV level (TS 3.3.1, Table 3.3.1-1, Functional Unit 8) 
ensures the SDV does not fill beyond the capacity needed to assure a 
complete scram. The primary containment isolation function can be 
maintained by the redundant valve in each of these lines. Also, 
allowing the SDV to have an inoperable valve in the drain or vent line 
and not meet single failure considerations is acceptable because it is 
limited to 7 days. This length of time has been found to be acceptable 
because of the redundancy and low probability of a scram occurring 
while the valve(s) are inoperable. Therefore, the proposed change does 
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
    (b) allow continued operation with SDV vent or drain lines with 
both valves inoperable if the affected line(s) is isolated within 8 
hours, and each valve is restored to OPERABLE status within 7 days of 
its respective inoperability. With the line(s) isolated the primary 
containment isolation function is maintained. The provision that 
permits the line(s) to be unisolated under administrative control 
ensures that an unnecessary reactor scram on SDV high level will not 
occur. The provision also ensures the line(s) that are unisolated under 
administrative controls can be promptly isolated. These provisions 
ensure that sufficient SDV volume is maintained to assure a complete 
reactor scram and that primary containment integrity is maintained. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety.
    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 by close of business within 14 
days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in 
making any final determination. The licensee requested issuance of the 
amendment by May 26, 1998. Issuance of the amendment on this date would 
not have allowed any time for public comments on the amendment request. 
However, the NRC staff has determined that it would be appropriate to 
allow more time for public review of and comment on the amendment 
request.
    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 and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative 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 6D59, 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 June 29, 1998 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, Ellis 
Reference and Information Center, 3700 South Custer Road, Monroe, 
Michigan 48161.

[[Page 29256]]

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 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: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public 
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, 
by the above date. 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 May 20, 1998, 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, Ellis 
Reference and Information Center, 3700 South Custer Road, Monroe, 
Michigan 48161.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of May 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Andrew J. Kugler,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-14146 Filed 5-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P