[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71515-71516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-34245]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


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

[Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316]
    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 license amendment would revise Technical 
Specification Section 4.6.5.1, ``Ice Condenser, Ice Bed,'' and its 
associated bases to reflect the maximum ice condenser flow channel 
blockage assumed in the accident analyses.
    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 ice condenser system is used to mitigate the consequences of an 
accident and has no impact on the initiation of any evaluated 
accidents. Therefore, changing the flow channel surveillance does not 
increase the probability of an evaluated accident.
    The proposed changes to the flow channel surveillance provide 
additional assurance beyond current requirements to provide reasonable 
assurance that the maximum analyzed blockage of 15% is not exceeded. 
Therefore, the change does not represent an increase in the 
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 create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The 
ice condenser has no function during normal operation. It is a passive 
system that functions after an accident has already occurred. The 
proposed change to the ice condenser flow channel surveillance does not 
alter physical characteristics of the ice condenser, nor does it change 
the function of the ice condenser. No new failure mechanisms are 
introduced by this change.
    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 change to the ice condenser flow channel surveillance 
provides additional assurance that the ice condenser should contain the 
minimum analyzed flow area. By ensuring the minimum analyzed area is 
always available, inherent margins due to conservative assumptions in 
the calculation are maintained. These conservative assumptions include, 
for example, taking no credit for ice or frost blockage being blown 
clear during the accident and assuming only one dimensional flow 
through the ice bed with no credit taken for cross flow.
    Therefore, these changes do not involve a significant reduction in 
a 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 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 January 27, 1999, 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

[[Page 71516]]

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)(I)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated December 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 Maud Preston Palenske Memorial 
Library, 500 Market Street, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of December 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. 98-34245 Filed 12-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P