[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 31, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47535-47537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22490]


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

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 amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. 
DPR-58 and 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 amendments would make administrative changes to 
several Technical Specifications to remove obsolete information, 
provide consistency between Unit 1 and Unit 2, provide consistency with 
the Standard Technical Specifications, provide clarification, and 
correct typographical errors.
    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:

    1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated?
    The proposed change for boron sampling requirements in mode 6 
does not affect the probability of a fuel handling accident. The 
unlikely event of a fuel assembly being misloaded is independent of 
the sampling frequency for fuel pool boron concentration. It has no 
impact on the event initiator, which is a human error while 
positioning a fuel assembly. The change has no impact on the 
assumptions for a fuel handling accident. The boron concentration 
requirement is not changed; there is sufficient boron in the fuel 
storage pool to maintain keff below 0.95 to preclude an 
inadvertent criticality. Therefore, the consequences of the accident 
will be mitigated as previously evaluated. The 72-hour maximum 
interval between samples is maintained. Operating experience has 
shown 72 hours to be adequate. Removing the additional limitation of 
sampling at least three times per week would allow the sample to be 
collected two or three times per week, consistent with the maximum 
72-hour interval. This is acceptable because boron concentration 
changes occur slowly due to the large volume of water in the system 
and relatively small volumes of dilution sources. The consequences 
are not increased because there are no changes to the spent fuel, 
shielding (water), or systems used to mitigate the consequences of 
an accident. Additionally, there is no change in the types or 
significant increase in the amounts of any effluents released 
offsite.
    Deleting the redundant figure for equivalent reactivity criteria 
for regions in the spent fuel storage racks does not impact the 
storage requirements because the equations provide equivalent 
requirements. The unlikely event of a fuel assembly being misloaded 
is independent of the characteristics of the spent fuel in the pool. 
It has no impact on the event initiator, which is a human error 
while positioning a fuel assembly. The change has no impact the 
assumptions for a fuel handling accident because the fuel storage 
requirements are not changed. The consequences of an accident are 
not increased because the fuel storage requirements are not changed 
and no other changes are made to systems that mitigate the 
consequences of an accident.
    The proposed changes to correct a reference to another 
requirement, delete obsolete notes, revise the name of drumming room 
roll-up door, and correct typographical errors are considered 
administrative. The reference leads to a section that no longer 
exists; the proposed change corrects the error. The notes permitted 
exceptions to requirements, and they are no longer required. The 
normal requirements have applied since the provisions expired. 
Deleting them eliminates extraneous information. The revised 
description of the door reflects the current use of the installed 
door. Correcting the typographical errors improves readability. The 
corrections are not intended to change the meaning. These changes do 
not affect accidents described in the UFSAR.
    Adding new surveillance requirements to test the Unit 2 pump 
performance pursuant

[[Page 47536]]

to T/S 4.0.5 does not affect accident initiators or precursors. The 
change reflects ASME code requirements. Including the requirements 
in the corresponding section provides assurance that the pumps will 
operate as assumed in the accident analyses. As such, the 
probability and consequences of previously evaluated accidents is 
unchanged.
    The proposed change to the description of instrumentation 
configuration is considered administrative because the configuration 
had been reviewed and approved by the NRC Staff, as documented in 
the Safety Evaluation Report for amendment 39 for DPR-58 and 
amendment 22 for DPR-74. There are no changes to the actual plant 
configuration. The change is intended to describe the installed 
equipment more clearly. The change does not affect the probability 
and consequences of previously evaluated accidents because the 
equipment is installed and operated as described in the 
correspondence related to the previous amendments.
    Based on this review, it is concluded that the proposed changes 
do not involve a significant increase in the probability of 
occurrence or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed changes remove obsolete information, provide 
consistency between Unit 1 and Unit 2, provide consistency with the 
Standard Technical Specifications, provide clarification, and 
correct typographical errors. These changes are considered 
administrative because they do not affect the design or operation of 
any system, structure, or component in the plant. The accident 
analysis assumptions and results are unchanged. No new failures or 
interactions have been created. Based on this review, it is 
concluded that the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    The proposed changes are considered administrative in nature. 
They do not affect any safety limits or T/S parameter limits. 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. Based on this review, it is concluded that no 
reduction in the margin of safety will occur as a result of the 
changes.

    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 September 30, 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 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

[[Page 47537]]

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 May 21, 1999, 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 25th day of August, 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John F. Stang,
Sr. Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-22490 Filed 8-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P