Federal Register: July 2, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 127)NoticesPage 36273-36275From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Docket No. 50-341Detroit 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 filedin 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
As required by
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 filedwith 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
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.
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. 98-17772Filed7-1-98; 8:45 amBILLING CODE 7590-01-P