[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 10, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43408-43410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20544]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-341]


Detroit Edison Company, FERMI 2; Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License 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 the Detroit Edison Company (the licensee), for 
operation of Fermi 2, located in Monroe County, Michigan.
    The proposed amendment would represent a full conversion from the 
current Technical Specifications (CTSs) to a set of improved Technical 
Specifications (ITSs) based on NUREG-1433, Revision 1, ``Standard 
Technical Specifications, General Electric Plants BWR/4,'' dated April 
1995. NUREG-1433 has been developed through working groups composed of 
both NRC staff members and industry representatives, and has been 
endorsed by the NRC staff as part of an industry-wide initiative to 
standardize and improve CTSs. As part of this submittal, the licensee 
has applied the criteria contained in the Commission's ``Final Policy 
Statement on Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power 
Reactors'' (Final Policy Statement), published in the Federal Register 
on July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132), to the Fermi 2 CTSs and, using NUREG-
1433 as a basis, developed a proposed set of ITSs for Fermi 2. The 
criteria in the Final Policy Statement subsequently were incorporated 
in 10 CFR 50.36, ``Technical Specifications,'' in a rule change that 
was published in the Federal Register on July 19, 1995 (60 FR 36953). 
The rule change became effective August 18, 1995.
    The licensee has categorized the proposed changes to the CTSs into 
four general groupings. These groupings are characterized as 
administrative changes, technical changes--relocations, technical 
changes--more restrictive, and technical changes--less restrictive.
    Administrative changes are those that involve restructuring, 
renumbering, rewording, interpretation, and rearranging of requirements 
and other changes not affecting technical content or substantially 
revising an operational requirement. The reformatting, renumbering, and 
rewording processes reflect the attributes of NUREG-1433 and do not 
involve technical changes to the CTSs. The proposed changes include (a) 
providing the appropriate numbers, etc., for NUREG-1433 bracketed 
information (information that must be supplied on a plant-specific 
basis, and which may change from plant to plant), (b) identifying 
plant-specific wording for system names, etc., and (c) changing NUREG-
1433 section wording to conform to existing licensee practices. Such 
changes are administrative in nature and do not affect initiators of 
analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events.
    Technical changes--relocations are those changes involving 
relocation of requirements and surveillances from the CTSs to licensee-
controlled documents, for structures, systems, components, or variables 
that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in the ITSs. Relocated 
changes are those CTS requirements that do not satisfy or fall within 
any of the four criteria specified in the Commission's Final Policy 
Statement and 10 CFR 50.36, and may be relocated to appropriate 
licensee-controlled documents.
    The licensee's application of the screening criteria is described 
in Volume 1 of its April 3, 1998, application titled, ``Fermi 2 
Improved Technical Specifications Submittal Cover Letter and Split 
Report.'' The affected structures, systems, components, or variables 
are not assumed to be initiators of events analyzed in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and are not assumed to mitigate 
accident or transient events analyzed in the UFSAR. The requirements 
and surveillances for these affected structures, systems, components, 
or variables will be relocated from the CTSs to administratively 
controlled documents such as the UFSAR, the Bases, or other licensee-
controlled documents. Changes made to these documents will be made 
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 or other appropriate control mechanisms. In 
addition, the affected structures, systems, components, or variables 
are addressed in existing surveillance procedures, which are also 
subject to 10 CFR 50.59.
    Technical Changes--more restrictive are those changes that involve 
more stringent requirements for operation of the facility or eliminate 
existing flexibility. These more stringent

[[Page 43409]]

requirements do not result in operation that will alter assumptions 
relative to mitigation of an accident or transient event. For each 
requirement in the Fermi 2 CTSs that is more restrictive than the 
corresponding requirement in NUREG-1433, which the licensee proposes to 
retain in the ITSs, the licensee has provided an explanation of why it 
has concluded that the more restrictive requirement is desirable to 
ensure safe operation of the facility.
    Technical changes--less restrictive are changes where current 
requirements are relaxed or eliminated, or new flexibility is provided. 
The more significant ``less restrictive'' requirements are justified on 
a case-by-case basis. When requirements have been shown to provide 
little or no safety benefit, their removal from the ITSs may be 
appropriate. In most cases, relaxations granted to individual plants on 
a plant-specific basis were the result of (a) generic NRC actions, (b) 
new NRC staff positions that have evolved from technological 
advancements and operating experience, or (c) resolution of the Owners 
Groups' comments on the ITSs. Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-
1433 were reviewed by the staff and found to be acceptable because they 
are consistent with current licensing practices and NRC regulations. 
The licensee's design information will be reviewed to determine if its 
specific design and licensing bases are consistent with the technical 
justifications contained in NUREG-1433. This will determine if a 
foundation exists for the ITSs or if relaxation of the requirements in 
the CTSs is warranted by the justifications provided by the licensee.
    In addition to the changes solely involving the conversion, changes 
are proposed to the CTSs or as deviations from the improved BWR/4 
Technical Specifications (NUREG-1433) as follows:
    1. Fermi 2 ITS 3.3.1.1, Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.1.1.6, 
modifies NUREG-1433 SR 3.3.1.1.6 by allowing the source range monitors 
to be partially withdrawn from the core while obtaining overlap with 
the intermediate range monitors. This deviation from NUREG-1433 was 
based on the current usage of the CTS and on the design of the neutron 
monitoring system.
    2. Fermi 2 ITS 3.3.6.3 modifies NUREG-1433 limiting condition for 
operation (LCO) 3.3.6.3, Condition B, to provide requirements that are 
less restrictive than the NUREG based on the Fermi 2 design for the 
low-low-set arming logic.
    3. Fermi 2 ITS 3.4.1 LCO 3.4.1 does not include some CTS actions 
related to single recirculation loop operation. These actions were not 
in the NUREG-1433 LCO. But the staff reviewed the changes to determine 
whether retaining the actions was warranted on a plant-specific basis.
    4. Fermi 2 ITS 3.4.6 modifies NUREG-1433 LCO 3.4.6 by removing 
bracketed Action B.2 and adopting bracketed Actions C and D to allow 
certain reactor coolant system leakage detection instrumentation to be 
out of service with completion times beyond those in the CTS based on 
the capabilities of the remaining instrumentation.
    5. Fermi 2 ITS 3.4.10 for reactor coolant system pressure and 
temperature limits modifies NUREG-1433 LCO 3.4.10 by adding two new SRs 
that were included in CTS 3.4.1.1 for the recirculation loops because 
the SRs relate more closely to reactor coolant system temperature 
limits than to limits for recirculation loop operation.
    6. Fermi 2 ITS 3.5.1 modifies the NUREG-1433 LCO 3.5.1 by adding 
new Conditions B and C and revising NUREG-1433 Conditions B and D to 
allow certain combinations of emergency core cooling system (ECCS) 
subsystems to be out of service based, in part, on the CTS and the 
Fermi 2 loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) analysis.
    7. The Fermi 2 ITS adds SR 3.5.1.14 for response time testing of 
the ECCS functions. The CTS and NUREG-1433 include this SR in the ECCS 
instrumentation specification (NUREG-1433 LCO 3.3.5.1). This relocation 
is based on the fact that the CTS state that the ECCS actuation 
instrumentation response time need not be measured. Therefore, the SR 
verifies the overall system response time instead.
    8. Fermi ITS 3.6.1.3, Condition D, is expanded to include primary 
containment isolation valves with leakage exceeding the associated 
limit(s), providing appropriate actions and completion times. NUREG-
1433 LCO 3.6.1.3 would have handled the same situation under Condition 
A, with the leaking valve considered inoperable. But Condition D is 
written specifically for the case of a leaking valve. In addition, a 
new Action D.2 is added that requires the licensee to periodically 
verify the isolation of penetrations that are isolated due to a leaking 
valve. This action is analogous to STS Action A.2.
    9. The Fermi 2 ITSs relocate the requirements for drywell spray 
(which is not addressed in NUREG-1433) to licensee-controlled 
documents, because they do not meet the 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) 
screening criteria.
    10. Fermi 2 ITSs 3.10.4 and 3.10.5 modify NUREG-1433 3.10.4 and 
3.10.5 to clarify the activities associated with single control rod 
removal based on the actual steps required to complete the task.
    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.
    By September 8, 1999, 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. 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

[[Page 43410]]

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. The 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.
    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).
    If a request for a hearing is received, the Commission's staff may 
issue the amendment after it completes its technical review and prior 
to the completion of any required hearing if it publishes a further 
notice for public comment of its proposed finding of no significant 
hazards consideration in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and 50.92.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment, dated April 3, 1998, as supplemented on 
September 28, October 19, and December 10, 1998, and January 8, January 
26, February 24, March 30, April 8, April 30, May 7, June 2, June 24, 
June 30, July 7, July 13, and July 26, 1999, 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 4th day of August, 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Andrew J. Kugler,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-20544 Filed 8-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P