[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36273-36275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17772]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 provide a one-time extension of the
interval for a number of technical specification (TS) surveillance
requirements that will be performed in the sixth refueling outage. TS
4.0.2 and Index page xxii would be revised and TS tables 4.0.2-1 and
4.0.2-2 would be replaced to reflect the extensions.
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 June 26,
1998, 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 TS changes do not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed TS changes involve a one-time only change in the
surveillance testing intervals to facilitate a one-time only change
in the Fermi 2 operating cycle. The proposed TS changes do not
physically impact the plant nor do they impact any design or
functional requirements of the associated systems. That is, the
proposed TS changes do not significantly degrade the performance or
increase the challenges of any safety systems assumed to function in
the accident analysis. The proposed TS changes affect only the
frequency of the surveillance requirements and do not impact the TS
surveillance requirements themselves. In addition, the proposed TS
changes do not introduce any new accident initiators since no
accidents previously evaluated have as their initiators anything
related to the change in the frequency of surveillance testing.
Also, the proposed TS changes do not significantly affect the
availability of equipment or systems required to mitigate the
consequences of an accident because of other, more frequent testing
or the availability of redundant systems or equipment. Furthermore,
a historical review of surveillance test results supports the above
conclusions. Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not significantly
increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. The proposed TS changes do not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed TS changes involve a one-time only change in the
surveillance testing intervals to facilitate a one-time only change
in the Fermi 2 operating cycle. The proposed TS changes do not
introduce any failure mechanisms of a different type than those
previously evaluated since there are no physical changes being made
to the facility. In addition, the surveillance test requirements
themselves will remain unchanged. Therefore, the proposed TS changes
do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any previously evaluated.
3. The proposed TS changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Although the proposed TS changes will result in an increase in
the interval between some surveillance tests, the impact, if any, on
system availability is small based on other, more frequent testing
or redundant systems or equipment, and there is no evidence of any
time dependent failures that would impact the availability of the
systems. Therefore, the assumptions in the licensing basis are not
impacted, and the proposed TS changes do not significantly reduce a
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 the close of business 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
[[Page 36274]]
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 August 3, 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. 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 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 June 26, 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.
[[Page 36275]]
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of June 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. 98-17772 Filed 7-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
