[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15731-15733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8548]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Detroit Edison Company (the licensee), for operation 
of the Fermi 2 facility located in Monroe County, Michigan.
    The proposed amendment would revise the technical specifications to 
allow elimination of response time testing requirements for selected 
instrument loops in the reactor protection system, isolation system, 
and emergency core cooling system based on the BWR Owners' Group 
Topical Report NEDO-32291A, ``System Analyses for Elimination of 
Selected Response Time Testing Requirements,'' October 1995. 
Specifically, the response time testing requirements proposed to be 
eliminated are:
    (1) Reactor protection system instrumentation--Sensors for reactor 
vessel steam dome pressure-high and reactor vessel low water level--
Level 3.
    (2) Isolation actuation system instrumentation--Sensors for reactor 
vessel low water level--Level 1 and main steam line flow-high, and;
    (3) Emergency core cooling system actuation instrumentation.
    The March 27, 1997, application requested that this amendment be 
processed on an exigent basis. The need for exigent processing exists 
in that failure of the Commission to act in a timely manner would 
result in the delaying of resumption of operation of Fermi 2. The 
licensee was unable to make a more timely application because the 
licensee only recently discovered that the existing technical 
specifications require response time testing prior to restarting the 
unit. The NRC has determined that the licensee used its best efforts to 
make a timely application for the proposed changes and that exigent 
circumstances do exist and were not the result of any intentional delay 
on the part of the licensee.
    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) The changes do not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The purpose of the proposed Technical Specification changes is 
to eliminate response time testing requirements for selected 
instrument loops in the Reactor Protection System, Isolation System, 
and Emergency Core Cooling System. However, because of the continued 
application of other Technical Specification testing requirements 
such as channel calibrations, channel checks, channel functional 
tests, and logic system functional tests, the response time of these 
systems will be maintained within the acceptance limits assumed in 
plant safety analyses and required for successful

[[Page 15732]]

mitigation of an initiating event. The proposed Technical 
Specification changes do not affect the capability of the associated 
systems to perform their intended function within their required 
response time.
    GE [General Electric] and the BWR [Boiling Water Reactors] 
Owners' Group have completed an evaluation (Reference 1 [of the 
March 27, 1997 application]) which demonstrates that response time 
testing is unnecessary due to other Technical Specification testing 
requirements listed in the preceding paragraph. These other tests 
are sufficient to identify failure modes or degradations in 
instrument response time and assure operation of the associated 
systems within acceptance limits. There are no failure modes that 
can be detected by response time testing that cannot also be 
detected by the other Technical Specification tests.
    (2) The changes do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    As discussed above, the proposed Technical Specification changes 
do not affect the capability of the associated systems to perform 
their intended function within the acceptance limits assumed in the 
plant safety analyses and required for successful mitigation of an 
initiating event. Other than the elimination of selected response 
time tests there are no changes to plant equipment or configuration.
    (3) The changes do not involve a significant reduction in the 
margin of safety.
    The current Technical Specification response times are based on 
the maximum allowable values assumed in the plant safety analyses. 
These analyses conservatively establish the margin of safety. As 
described above, the proposed Technical Specification changes do not 
affect the capability of the associated systems to perform their 
intended function within the allowed response time used as the basis 
for the plant safety analyses. Plant and system response to an 
initiating event will remain in compliance within the assumptions of 
the safety analyses, and therefore, the margin of safety is not 
affected.

    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 
Review 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 May 2, 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

[[Page 15733]]

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 the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Docketing and 
Services Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public 
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, 
by the above date. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of 
the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so 
inform the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 
1-(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union 
operator should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the 
following message addressed to John Hannon: petitioner's name and 
telephone number, date petition was mailed, plant name, and publication 
date and page number of this Federal Register notice. 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 March 27, 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 28th day of March 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Linh N. Tran,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-8548 Filed 4-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P