Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127 /Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices 36273

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 filed with

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 close of business on

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 Judd L. Bacon,

Esquire, Consumers Energy Company,

212 West Michigan Avenue, Jackson,

Michigan 49201, 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 June 17, 1998, and

supplement dated June 23, 1998, which

are 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

Van Wylen Library, Hope College,

Holland, Michigan 49423–3698.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day

of June 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Robert G. Schaaf,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–17609 Filed 7–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

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

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 onetime 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 onetime 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
36274 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127 /Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices

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

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, Ellis Reference

and Information Center, 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 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 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 filed with

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 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 127 /Thursday, July 2, 1998 / Notices 36275

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. 98–17772 Filed 7–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–333]

Power Authority of the State of New

York; James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear

Power Plant; Exemption

I

The Power Authority of the State of

New York (the Licensee), also known as

the New York Power Authority is the

holder of Facility Operating License No.

DPR–59, which authorizes operation of

the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power

Plant (the facility). The license provides,

among other things, that the facility is

subject to all the rules, regulations and

orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission now or hereafter in effect.

The facility is a boiling-water reactor

located at the licensee’s site in Oswego

County, New York.

II

Section 70.24 of Title 10 of the Code

of Federal Regulations, ‘‘Criticality

Accident Requirements,’’ requires that

each licensee authorized to possess

special nuclear material maintain a

criticality accident monitoring system in

each area in which such material is

handled, used, or stored. Subsections

(a)(1) and (a)(2) of 10 CFR 70.24 specify

detection and sensitivity requirements

that these monitors must meet.

Subsection (a)(1) also specifies that all

areas subject to criticality accident

monitoring must be covered by two

detectors. Subsection (a)(3) of 10 CFR

70.24 requires licensees to maintain

emergency procedures for each area in

which this licensed special nuclear

material is handled, used, or stored and

requires that (1) the procedures ensure

that all personnel withdraw to an area

of safety upon the sounding of a

criticality accident monitor alarm, (2)

the procedures include drills to

familiarize personnel with the

evacuation plan, and (3) the procedures

designate responsible individuals for

determining the cause of the alarm and

placement of radiation survey

instruments in accessible locations for

use in such an emergency. Subsection

(b)(1) of 10 CFR 70.24 requires licensees

to provide the means of identifying

quickly any personnel who have

received a dose of 10 rads or more.

Subsection (b)(2) of 10 CFR 70.24

requires licensees to maintain personnel

decontamination facilities,

arrangements for a physician and other

medical personnel qualified to handle

radiation emergencies, and

arrangements for the transportation of

contaminated individuals to treatment

facilities outside the site boundary.

Paragraph (c) of 10 CFR 70.24 exempts

Part 50 licensees from the requirements

of paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 70.24 for

special nuclear material used or to be

used in the reactor. Subsection (d) of 10

CFR 70.24 states that any licensee that

believes that there is good cause why it

should be granted an exemption from all

or part of 10 CFR 70.24 may apply to the

Commission for such an exemption and

shall specify the reasons for the relief

requested.

III

The special nuclear material that

could be assembled into a critical mass

at James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power

Plant is in the form of nuclear fuel. The

quantity of special nuclear material

other than fuel that is stored on site in

any given location is small enough to

preclude achieving a critical mass. The

Commission’s technical staff has

evaluated the possibility of an

inadvertent criticality of the nuclear fuel

at James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power

Plant and has determined that it is

extremely unlikely that such an

accident will occur if the licensees meet

the following seven criteria:

1. Only three boiling-water reactor

new fuel assemblies are allowed out of

a shipping cask or a storage rack at one

time;

2. The k-effective does not exceed

0.95, at a 95-percent probability, 95-

percent confidence level, in the event

that the fresh fuel storage racks are filled

with fuel of the maximum permissible

U–235 enrichment and flooded with

pure water;

3. If optimum moderation occurs at

low moderator density, the k-effective

does not exceed 0.98, at a 95-percent

probability, 95-percent confidence level,

in the event that the fresh fuel storage

racks are filled with fuel of the

maximum permissible U–235

enrichment and flooded with a

moderator at the density corresponding

to optimum moderation;

4. The k-effective does not exceed

0.95, at a 95-percent probability, 95-

percent confidence level, in the event

that the spent fuel storage racks are

filled with fuel of the maximum

permissible U–235 enrichment and

flooded with pure water;

5. The quantity of special nuclear

material, other than nuclear fuel, stored

on-site in any given area is less than the

quantity necessary for a critical mass;

6. Radiation monitors, as required by

General Design Criterion (GDC) 63, are

provided in fuel storage and handling

areas to detect excessive radiation levels

and to initiate appropriate safety

actions; and

7. The maximum nominal U–235

enrichment is limited to 5.0 weight

percent.

By letter dated April 24, 1998, the

licensee requested an exemption from

10 CFR 70.24. In this request, the

licensee addressed the seven criteria

previously stated. The licensee stated

that James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power

Plant does not analyze optimum

moderation conditions as addressed in

Criteria 3 above, but has used a standard

industry practice by implementing

administrative and physical controls in

accordance with General Electric

Service Information Letter 152,

‘‘Criticality margins for the Storage of

New Fuel.’’ To preclude the existence of

an optimum moderation condition in

the new fuel storage vault area, the

following controls are used: the new

fuel storage vault is equipped with

drains; the pre-fire plans have been

updated to prevent the use of fire

fighting foam or fire house streams in a

fog pattern during the storage and

transfer of new nuclear fuel; and the

new fuel storage vault plugs are

installed during prolonged work delays.

The staff has found this practice

acceptable.

The Commission’s technical staff has

reviewed the licensee’s submittal and

has determined that James A.

FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant meets

the criteria for prevention of inadvertent

criticality.Therefore, the staff has

determined that it is extremely unlikely

that an inadvertent criticality will occur

in the handling of special nuclear

materials or in their storage areas at the

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power

Plant.

The purpose of the criticality

monitors required by 10 CFR 70.24 is to

ensure that if a criticality were to occur

during the handling of special nuclear

material, personnel would be alerted to

that fact and would take appropriate

action. The staff has determined that it

is extremely unlikely that such an

accident could occur. Although James

A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant is

not licensed to GDC 63, the licensee has

radiation monitors consistent with the

standards of GDC 63 in fuel storage and

handling areas. These monitors will