[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52800-52802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-25471]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-341]
Detroit Edison Company, Fermi 2; Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
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.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed amendment would replace the current Technical
Specifications (CTS) in their entirety with Improved Technical
Specifications (ITS) based on the guidance provided in NUREG-1433,
Revision 1, ``Standard Technical Specifications, General Electric
Plants BWR/4,'' dated April 1995. The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee's application for amendment dated April 3, 1998, as
supplemented by letters dated 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, July 26,
August 4, August 17, August 25, and September 8, 1999.
The Need for the Proposed Action
It has been recognized that nuclear safety in all plants would
benefit from improvement and standardization of Technical
Specifications (TSs). The ``NRC Interim Policy Statement on Technical
Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors'' (52 FR 3788)
contained proposed criteria for defining the scope of TSs. Later, the
``NRC Final Policy Statement on TS Improvement for Nuclear Power
Reactors'' (58 FR 39132) incorporated lessons learned since publication
of the interim policy statement and formed the basis for a revision to
10 CFR 50.36. The ``Final Rule'' (60 FR 36953) codified criteria for
determining the content of TSs. To facilitate the development of
standard TSs, each reactor vendor owners group and the NRC staff
developed standard TSs (STS). The NRC Committee to Review Generic
Requirements reviewed the STS, made note of their safety merits, and
indicated its support of conversion by operating plants to the STS. For
Fermi 2, the STS are NUREG-1433, Revision 1, ``Standard Technical
Specifications, General Electric Plants BWR/4,'' dated April 1995. This
document formed the basis for the Fermi 2 ITS conversion.
Description of the Proposed Change
The proposed revision of the CTS is based on NUREG-1433, and on
guidance provided in the Final Policy Statement. Its objective is to
completely rewrite, reformat, and streamline the CTS. Emphasis is
placed on human factors principles to improve clarity and
[[Page 52801]]
understanding. The Bases section has been significantly expanded to
clarify and better explain the purpose and foundation of each
specification. In addition to NUREG-1433, portions of the CTS were also
used as the basis for the development of the Fermi 2 ITS. Plant-
specific issues (unique design features, requirements, and operating
practices) were discussed at length with the licensee.
The proposed changes from the CTS can be grouped into four general
categories. These groupings are characterized as administrative
changes, technical changes-relocations, technical changes-more
restrictive, and technical changes-less restrictive. They are described
as follows:
1. 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 CTS. 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.
2. Technical changes--relocations are those changes involving
relocation of requirements and surveillances from the CTS to licensee-
controlled documents. The relocated requirements do not satisfy or fall
within any of the four criteria specified in the Commission's Final
Policy Statement and 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)(A)-(D), 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, ``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 CTS 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.
3. Technical Changes--more restrictive are those changes that
involve more stringent requirements for operation of the facility or
eliminate existing flexibility. These more stringent requirements do
not result in operation that will alter assumptions relative to
mitigation of an accident or transient event. In general, these more
restrictive technical changes have been made to achieve consistency,
correct discrepancies, and remove ambiguities from the specifications.
4. 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 ITS 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 comments
from the owners groups on the ITS. Generic relaxations contained in
NUREG-1433 were reviewed by the NRC staff and found to be acceptable
because they are consistent with current licensing practices and NRC
regulations. Each less restrictive change in the Fermi 2 conversion was
justified by the licensee in a Discussion of Change and reviewed by the
NRC staff.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed
revision to the CTS. Changes which are administrative in nature have
been found to have no effect on the technical content of the TSs and
are acceptable. The increased clarity and understanding these changes
bring to the TSs are expected to improve the operators' control of the
plant in normal and accident conditions. Relocation of requirements to
other licensee-controlled documents does not change the requirements
themselves nor does 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) mandate that the TSs include
these requirements. Further changes to these requirements may be made
by the licensee under 10 CFR 50.59 or other NRC-approved control
mechanisms that ensure continued maintenance of adequate requirements.
All such relocations have been found to be in conformance with the
guidelines of NUREG-1433 and the Final Policy Statement, and are,
therefore, acceptable.
Changes involving more restrictive requirements have been found to
enhance plant safety and to be acceptable.
Changes involving less restrictive requirements have been reviewed
individually. When requirements have been shown to provide little or no
safety benefit or to place unnecessary burden on the licensee, their
removal from the TSs was justified. In most cases, relaxations
previously granted to individual plants on a plant-specific basis were
the result of a generic action, or of agreements reached during
discussions with the Owners Groups and found to be acceptable for Fermi
2. Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1433 have also been reviewed
by the NRC staff and have been found to be acceptable.
In summary, the proposed revisions to the CTS were found to provide
control of plant operations such that reasonable assurance will be
provided that the health and safety of the public will be adequately
protected.
These TS changes will not increase the probability or consequences
of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents
that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in
occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no
significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the
proposed TS amendment.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
amendment involves features located entirely within the restricted area
as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and does not involve any historical sites.
It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant
nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed TS
amendment.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the application would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed
[[Page 52802]]
action and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the
Fermi 2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on September 2, 1999, the
Commission consulted with the State official, Mr. Michael McCarty of
the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no
comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the Commission
concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect
on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission
has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's application dated April 3, 1998, as supplemented by letters
dated 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, July 26, August 4, August 17, August
25, and September 8, 1999, which are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L
Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20555, 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 24th day of September 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. 99-25471 Filed 9-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
