[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57665-57666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27952]


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

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 involve movement of loads in excess of the 
design-basis seismic capability of the auxiliary building load handling 
equipment and structures. The proposed amendment requests approval to 
move the steam generator sections through the auxiliary building and to 
disengage crane travel interlocks, and also requests relief from 
performance of Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 
4.9.7.1.
    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?
    No. NUREG-0612, ``Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power 
Plants,'' generically evaluates the probabilities for a heavy load 
handling event that could result in consequences that exceed 25% of 
10 CFR 100 limits. The NRC determined, assuming heavy load handling 
in accordance with NUREG-0612 guidelines, that the associated risks 
are acceptable based on the very low likelihood of a load drop. The 
proposed activity will be performed in accordance with NUREG-0612 as 
approved for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP) and will be similar 
to the heavy loads program reviewed, approved, and demonstrated 
effective during the Unit 2 SGRP (Steam Generator Repair Project). 
The cranes feature single-failure-proof hoisting and braking systems 
in accordance with NUREG-0554, ``Single-Failure-Proof Cranes for 
Nuclear Power Plants,'' and are evaluated to safely retain the load 
in the unlikely event of the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE). As 
such, this change does not introduce any new accident precursors or 
initiators and there is not a significant increase in the 
probability of previously evaluated accidents.
    Administrative controls substitute for crane travel interlocks 
during the lifts to prevent loads from being carried over spent fuel 
assemblies. In addition, a load path evaluation has determined that, 
in the unlikely event of a load drop, requirements for safe shutdown 
of the operating unit, decay heat removal, and spent fuel pool 
cooling continue to be satisfied. As a result, there is no 
significant increase in the consequences of a load drop. Based on 
the above, the probability of occurrence and the consequences of 
accidents previously evaluated are not increased.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    No. The potential accident involved in the proposed change is a 
design basis seismic event during load handling. The NUREG-0554 
guideline for crane seismic capability is safe retention of the load 
during an SSE. A current engineering study demonstrates that the SG 
[steam generator] sections are safely retained by the cranes during 
load handling even in the unlikely event of an SSE. Although the 
crane travel interlocks are disengaged during the lifts, 
administrative controls prevent loads from being carried over the 
spent fuel pool. Furthermore, the load path, methods, and types of 
loads are similar to those previously reviewed and approved for the 
Unit 2 SGRP. That review also found that the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident was not created. The current reviews and 
analyses for the Unit 1 SGRP have not identified a credible new kind 
of accident or one that is different from the evaluated load drop 
scenario. Based on the above, the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any previously evaluated is not created.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    No. Handling of heavy loads during the proposed activity will be 
in accordance with the guidelines of NUREG-0612 (including 
appropriate codes and standards) as approved for CNP and will be 
similar to the heavy loads program previously approved for the Unit 
2 SGRP. Administrative controls substitute for crane travel 
interlocks during the lifts to ensure that no loads are carried over 
spent fuel assemblies. The loads will be lifted by cranes with the 
single-failure proof features specified by NUREG-0554. For these 
loads, the design basis seismic capability of the load handling 
equipment and structures is exceeded. However, the likelihood of a 
seismic event coincident with the limited lift times for these loads 
is very remote. Furthermore, an evaluation of these lifts that 
considers the conservatism inherent in the design basis calculations 
concludes that the loads are safely retained even in the event of an 
SSE. Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant reduction in the 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 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

[[Page 57666]]

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 26, 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 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 September 23, 1999, as supplemented 
October 11, 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 20th day of October 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. 99-27952 Filed 10-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P