[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 70 (Monday, April 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18048-18050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-9655]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the Detroit Edison Company (the licensee) for
operation of the Fermi 2 plant located in Monroe County, Michigan.
The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS)
3.8.1.1 to change the emergency diesel generator (EDG) allowed outage
time (AOT) from 3 to 7 days. This would be a one-time amendment,
effective from the date of issuance until September 30, 1998. In order
to use the extended AOT, the revised TS will require the licensee to
ensure the alternate AC power source (combustion turbine-generator 11-
1) is operable and to verify the planned activity is not potentially
risk significant in accordance with use of the licensee's On-Line
System Maintenance Risk Matrix specified in its Integrated Work
Management Guidelines.
The one-time amendment was requested in a submittal dated April 3,
1998. It relies on the technical information and the discussion of no
significant hazards consideration (NSHC) associated with an earlier
submittal and supplements for a permanent amendment dated November 22,
1995, as supplemented February 19, April 19, May 3, June 12, and
December 4, 1996, and January 30 and August 7, 1997. The staff issued a
Federal Register notice on February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7550), providing
the notice of consideration of issuance of the amendment, proposed no
significant hazards consideration, and opportunity for a hearing. The
proposed one-time amendment does not modify the discussion of NSHC.
However, the discussion will be repeated below. The portions of the
November 22, 1995, submittal related to changes in EDG surveillance
testing and reporting requirements (also discussed in the NSHC) were
addressed in amendment no. 107 issued on June 20, 1996.
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.
The Commission has made a proposed determination 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 proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident. Changing the out-of-
service time, surveillance frequency and reporting requirements for
emergency diesel generators (EDGs) will not affect the initiation of
an accident, since EDGs are not associated with any accident
initiation mechanism. The proposed changes will not impact the plant
design or method of EDG operation. The increased out-of-service time
has been evaluated to have only a small impact on plant risk.
Performing the EDG inspections during plant operations will decrease
plant risk during plant outages. Deleting the accelerated testing
provisions will not affect the consequences of an accident since the
implementation of a maintenance and monitoring program for EDGs
consistent with the provisions of the maintenance rule will assure
EDG performance as discussed in Generic Letter 94-01. Deleting
reporting requirements has no impact on consequences of an accident
since reporting has no accident effect. Based on the amount of
electrical system redundancy, the small increase in plant risk
during operations and the decrease in plant risk during outages,
this change will not result in a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident.
2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new
or different accident from any previously evaluated. The proposed
changes do not modify the plant design or method of diesel
operation. Therefore, no new accident initiator is introduced, nor
is a new type of failure created. For these reasons, no new or
different type of accident is created by these changes.
3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety. Since implementation of a maintenance program
for the EDGs consistent with the Maintenance Rule will ensure that
high EDG performance standards are maintained, the accelerated
testing schedule is not needed to maintain the margin of safety.
Deleting reporting requirements has no impact on safety or margin of
safety. Increasing the allowed out-of-service time for one division
of onsite AC power will slightly increase EDG unavailability during
plant operation. However, this change does not impact the redundancy
of offsite power supplies, the
[[Page 18049]]
allowed out-of-service time if both divisions are inoperable, or the
ability to cope with a station blackout event. This request also
does not change the Action statement for AC electrical power systems
required when the plant is shutdown. The increase in core damage
frequency was assessed to be small by an evaluation using the plant
PSA [probabilistic safety assessment] for the operating condition.
Enabling the diesel generator inspections to be performed on-line
will improve safety while shutdown by reducing EDG out-of-service
time during outages. For these reasons, the proposed changes do 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 within 30 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 30-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 30-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 and provide for opportunity for a hearing
after 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 May 13, 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, 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 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 a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. 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
[[Page 18050]]
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 April 3, 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, 3700 South
Custer Road, Monroe, Michigan 48161.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of April 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. 98-9655 Filed 4-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
