Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: Detroit Edison Co.,

[Federal Register: April 13, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 70)]

[Notices]

[Page 18048-18050]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr13ap98-82]

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 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 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 filedby 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 fileda 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 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

[[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. 98-9655Filed4-10-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P