[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 177 (Friday, September 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48113-48116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24379]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (DECo or the licensee), 
for operation of the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2 (Fermi 2) 
located in Monroe County, Michigan. This action is in response to the 
licensee's application dated September 5, 1997.
    The proposed amendment would add Special Test Exception 3/4.10.7, 
``Inservice Leak and Hydrostatic Testing,'' that allows the performance 
of pressure testing at a reactor coolant temperature up to 212  deg.F 
while remaining in Operational Condition 4. This special test exception 
would also require that certain Operational Condition 3 specifications 
for

[[Page 48114]]

Secondary Containment Isolation, Secondary Containment Integrity, 
Secondary Containment Automatic Isolation Dampers, and Standby Gas 
Treatment System operability be met. This change would also revise the 
Index, Table 1.2, ``Operational Conditions,'' and the Bases to 
incorporate the reference to the proposed special test exception.
    During May of 1997, the licensee identified a small fuel leak based 
on increasing offgas radiation levels. As a result, the licensee began 
making plans for an outage to identify and replace the leaking fuel. 
This outage is currently scheduled to begin on October 3, 1997. A 
reactor coolant system inservice leak test (System Leakage Test) must 
be performed prior to startup from this outage. Compared to a typical 
refueling outage, this outage will be shorter in duration and will not 
include the replacement of as much fuel. Therefore, the System Leakage 
Test will be performed with a higher decay heat load than that 
encountered during a normal refueling outage. The licensee has 
indicated that during the final planning for the outage, it recently 
recognized that the anticipated decay heat levels would not allow 
sufficient time to conduct the System Leakage Test in a controlled, 
deliberate manner within the Technical Specifications limits governing 
test temperatures. Without the proposed Special Test Exception, the 
licensee has stated it is not confident that the System Leakage Test 
can be accomplished within the 200  deg.F reactor coolant temperature 
limit. The licensee has also stated that, once the need for the 
amendment was recognized, that the license amendment request was 
prepared and reviewed in an expeditious manner. In its September 5, 
1997, application, the licensee requested that this amendment be 
reviewed under exigent circumstances.
    The NRC staff has reviewed the circumstances related to this 
proposed amendment and has determined that the licensee could not have 
reasonably avoided the exigent circumstances and that the licensee used 
its best efforts to make a timely application for the amendment. In 
addition, the staff has determined that the failure to process this 
amendment request in a timely manner would result in the prevention of 
resumption of the operation of Fermi 2. Therefore, the NRC will process 
this proposal as an exigent amendment.
    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. Does this change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed change allows the performance of inservice leak and 
hydrostatic testing at a reactor coolant temperature of greater than 
200  deg.F but less than or equal to 212  deg.F while considering the 
plant to remain in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 4. This change to permit the 
average reactor coolant temperature to be increased above 200  deg.F, 
but not greater than 212  deg.F while performing inservice leak and 
hydrostatic testing will not significantly increase the probability of 
an accident previously evaluated. These tests are performed nearly 
water solid with all control rods fully inserted. Therefore, the stored 
energy in the reactor core and coolant will be very low and the 
potential for causing fuel failures with a subsequent increase in 
coolant activity is minimal. The restrictions provided in the proposed 
Special Test Exception, to require Secondary Containment Integrity and 
Standby Gas Treatment System OPERABILITY, provide assurance that any 
potential releases into secondary containment will be restricted from 
direct release to the environment and will be adequately filtered if 
released. With the reactor coolant temperature limited to 212  deg.F, 
there will be little or no flashing of coolant to steam, and any 
release of radioactive materials will be minimized. Therefore, this 
change will not significantly increase the consequences of an accident. 
In the event of a large primary system leak, the reactor vessel will 
rapidly depressurize allowing the low pressure Emergency Core Cooling 
Systems (ECCS) to operate. The capability of the required ECCS in 
OPERATIONAL CONDITION 4 is adequate to maintain the core flooded under 
these conditions. Small system leaks will be detected by leakage 
inspections, which are an integral part of the inservice leak and 
hydrostatic testing program, before any significant inventory loss can 
occur. Therefore, this change will not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does this change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Allowing the reactor to be considered to remain in OPERATIONAL 
CONDITION 4 during inservice leak and hydrostatic testing, with reactor 
coolant temperatures greater than 200  deg.F but less than or equal to 
212  deg.F, is an exception to certain OPERATIONAL CONDITION 3 
requirements including those associated with Primary Containment 
Integrity and full complement operability of the ECCS systems. The 
inservice leak and hydrostatic test conditions remain unchanged 
otherwise. The reactor coolant system is designed for temperatures 
exceeding 500  deg.F with similar pressures; and therefore, any leaks 
occurring will be bounded by the main steam line break outside 
containment analysis provided in Section 15.6.4 of the UFSAR [updated 
final safety analysis report]. Therefore, this change will not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety?
    The proposed change allows inservice leak and hydrostatic testing 
to be performed with reactor coolant temperatures of up to 212  deg.F, 
and the reactor to be considered to remain in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 4. 
The reactor vessel head will be in place, Secondary Containment 
Integrity will be maintained and the systems required in OPERATIONAL 
CONDITION 4 will be OPERABLE in accordance with the Technical 
Specifications; therefore, the proposed change will not have a 
significant impact on any design basis accident or safety limit. 
Inservice leak and hydrostatic testing is performed water solid, or 
nearly water solid with reactor coolant temperature [less than or equal 
to] 212  deg.F. The stored energy in the core and the coolant will be 
very low and the potential for failed fuel and a subsequent increase in 
coolant activity will be minimal. The reactor pressure vessel will 
rapidly depressurize in the event of a large primary system leak, and 
the low pressure ECCS systems

[[Page 48115]]

required to be OPERABLE in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 4 will be adequate to 
maintain the core flooded, thus ensuring that the fuel will not exceed 
the 2200  deg.F peak clad temperature limit. Additionally, requiring 
Secondary Containment Integrity will result in any potential airborne 
radiation being filtered through the SGTS [standby gas treatment 
system], thus ensuring that offsite doses remain well within the 
10CFR100 limits. Small system leaks will be detected by leakage 
inspections before any significant inventory loss can occur. Therefore, 
this special test exception will not involve a significant reduction in 
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 within 14 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 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 Freedom of Information and Publications 
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 6D22, 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 October 14, 1997, 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, 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 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

[[Page 48116]]

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 September 5, 1997, 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 9th day of September 1997.

    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. 97-24379 Filed 9-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-U