[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 207 (Tuesday, October 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57322-57324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-28746]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316]


Indiana Michigan Power 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. 
DPR-58 and Facility Operating License No. DPR-74 issued to Indiana 
Michigan Power Company (the licensee) for operation of the Donald C. 
Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 located in Berrien County, 
Michigan.
    The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification Section 
3.4.1.3, ``Reactor Coolant System [RCS]--Shutdown,'' and its associated 
bases to provide separate requirements for mode 4, mode 5 with the 
loops filled, and mode 5 with the loops not filled. The proposed 
changes would allow the steam generators to be used to remove heat from 
the primary coolant in mode 5 with the loops filled.
    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:

Criterion 1

    Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed changes do not affect any accident initiators or 
precursors. In mode 4 and mode 5, coolant loops are required to 
remove decay heat and to mitigate a boron dilution event. The 
proposed changes allow the steam generators to be used to remove 
heat in mode 5 with the reactor coolant loops filled. The redundancy 
requirements continue to be met. Allowing an additional heat removal 
source increases the availability of a backup source. Increasing the 
required steam generator water level in mode 4 when a reactor 
coolant pump and associated steam generator are used is considered 
conservative. This provides reasonable assurance that decay heat can 
be removed as required. The proposed value bounds values previously 
used for emergency and abnormal operations. The proposed value 
includes margin for instrument uncertainties and process errors.
    There are no significant impacts on loss of a residual heat 
removal [RHR] system loop. The risk associated with reduced RHR 
inventory is minimized by ensuring that adequate heat removal 
capability is available and by implementing commitments made in 
response to NRC Generic Letter 88-17, ``Loss of Decay Heat 
Removal,'' and Generic Letter 87-12, ``Loss of RHR While RCS 
Partially Filled.''
    The proposed changes do not impact the ability of the low 
temperature overpressure protection (LTOP) system to protect the RCS 
from overpressure transients. A review determined that the proposed 
changes do not impact the Licensee's previous commitments regarding 
LTOP. The proposed changes for mode 5 do not affect the ability of 
the LTOP devices to limit pressure in the RCS. Two events that would 
cause a transient are startup of an idle reactor coolant pump with 
secondary water temperature of the steam generator less than or 
equal to 50 deg.F above the RCS cold leg temperature, or the start 
of a charging pump and its injection into a water solid RCS. The 
first event is addressed by limitations in notes to the mode 5 T/S. 
The second event is precluded by T/S 3.1.2.3. The proposed changes 
do not introduce any new events that could cause a pressure 
transient. Therefore, the LTOP system continues to serve its 
function.
    The proposed changes have no impact on the ability to mitigate 
the postulated accidents. A review of the accident analyses 
determined that they remain bounding. The proposed changes provide 
assurance that decay heat is removed as designed and that redundancy 
is maintained. Therefore, it was concluded that there is no effect 
on the types or increase in the amounts of any effluent that may be 
released offsite. It was also concluded that the consequences of an 
accident are unchanged.
    Therefore, this proposed amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.

Criterion 2

    Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed changes do not affect the design or operation of 
any system, structure, or component in the plant. The steam 
generators are designed to transfer heat from the primary coolant to 
the secondary coolant. Using them as an alternate heat sink in mode 
5 with the reactor coolant loops filled is consistent with this 
design. There are no changes to parameters governing plant 
operation, and no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed. Therefore, it was concluded that the proposed changes do 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any previously evaluated.

Criterion 3

    Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety?
    The proposed changes do not introduce new equipment, equipment 
modifications, or new or different modes of plant operation. These 
changes do not affect the operational characteristics of any 
equipment or systems. Increasing the required steam generator water 
level in mode 4 increases the amount of heat that can be removed 
from the primary coolants. Allowing an alternate heat removal source 
in mode 5 with the loops filled increases margin by cooling the 
primary via a passive system (natural circulation). Therefore, it 
was concluded that no reduction in the margin of safety will occur 
as a result.
    Therefore, these changes do not involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety.

Conclusion

    In summary, based upon the above evaluation, the Licensee has 
concluded that these changes involve no significant hazards 
consideration.

    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 are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request

[[Page 57323]]

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 November 27, 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 Maud Preston Palenske Memorial Library, 
500 Market Street, St. Joseph, MI 49085. 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 Jeremy J. Euto, Esquire, 500 Circle 
Drive, Buchanan, MI 49107, 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)(l)-(v) and 2.714(d).

[[Page 57324]]

    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated October 8, 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 Maud Preston Palenske Memorial Library, 
500 Market Street, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of October 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John F. Stang Jr.,
Sr. Project Manager, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-28746 Filed 10-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P