[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
