[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65735-65737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-30469]


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

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 revise Technical Specification (T/S) 
Surveillance Requirement 4.5.1.c to require verification that power is 
removed from each emergency core cooling system accumulator isolation 
valve operator instead of verification that each accumulator isolation 
valve breaker is removed from the circuit. In addition, the proposed 
license amendments would revise T/S 3.5.1 to change ``pressurizer 
pressure'' to ``reactor coolant system pressure'' in the applicability 
and action statement requirements. The Bases for T/S 3/4.5.1 will also 
be revised to reflect both changes. Additionally, administrative 
changes are proposed to the page format.
    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?

[[Page 65736]]

    The ECCS [emergency core cooling system] accumulators are used 
to mitigate the consequences of an accident after the event has 
occurred and do not initiate any accident previously evaluated. 
Demonstrating how power is removed from the valve operator does not 
initiate an accident. Inadvertently closing the valves cannot 
initiate an accident. Therefore, there is no significant increase in 
the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated.
    The ECCS accumulators will still perform their function of 
injecting borated water into the reactor coolant loops following a 
large break loss-of-coolant accident, as described in Section 14.3.1 
of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). A spurious 
closure of an accumulator outlet isolation valve is not a credible 
event. Performing T/S Surveillance Requirement 4.5.1.c provides 
assurance that one of the two actions required for spurious closure 
of the valve is precluded. The proposed change to the surveillance 
continues to provide assurance that power will be removed from each 
accumulator isolation valve operator so that the valves remain open. 
The consequences of accidents previously evaluated remained bounded 
because the accumulators will still function as assumed in the UFSAR 
accident analysis. Therefore, there is no significant increase in 
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
    Changing ``pressurizer pressure'' to ``RCS [reactor coolant 
system] pressure'' has no significant effect on the applicability of 
the T/S requirements. RCS pressure and pressurizer pressure 
instrumentation measure a similar parameter in the primary coolant 
system. Since the RCS is a closed-loop fluid system, pressure 
instruments should indicate approximately the same value. There is 
no significant difference between the instrument readings because 
they are corrected for range, height, and accuracy. There is no 
significant change in the margin of pressure between when the 
accumulators are required to be aligned at 1000 psig and the upper 
limit specified in T/S 3.5.1.d of 658 psig.
    The proposed format changes are administrative and have no 
impact on plant operation.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not increase 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 to T/S 3/4.5.1 and the associated Bases do 
not involve any physical changes to the plant, but do change the way 
the plant is operated by changing the method for ensuring spurious 
closure of the accumulator isolation valve will not occur. The 
proposed change to T/S Surveillance Requirement 4.5.1.c does not 
create any new operator actions. The position of the accumulator 
isolation valve remains open in Modes 1, 2, and 3 with RCS pressure 
greater than 1000 psig, which meets its design safety function. The 
proposed change does not increase the possibility of the accumulator 
valve repositioning. In order for repositioning to happen, the 
operator must close the molded-case circuit breaker coupled with 
either an active single failure or deliberate operator action in the 
control room. The proposed change of verifying that power is removed 
from the accumulator isolation valve provides the same level of 
protection. Two positive actions are required for the accumulator 
isolation valve to reposition.
    The proposed format changes are administrative and have no 
impact on plant operation.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    T/S Surveillance Requirement 4.5.1.c provides requirements that 
ensure that a single action will not cause an inadvertent closure of 
the accumulator isolation valves. The proposed change continues to 
ensure that two positive actions, an operator action to restore the 
breaker and a single failure, are required for valve closure.
    Changing ``pressurizer pressure'' to ``RCS pressure'' does not 
impact operation of the accumulators. The proposed changes do not 
impact the nitrogen cover pressure as stated in T/S 3.5.1.c. The 
accumulators would not be expected to inject borated water until RCS 
pressure lowers to 658 psig (the upper limit specified in T/S 
3.5.1.d). The change does not affect when this would occur after an 
accident. Therefore, changing ``pressurizer pressure'' to ``RCS 
pressure'' has no impact on plant operation.
    The proposed format changes are administrative and have no 
impact on plant operation.
    Therefore, there is no 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 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 December 23, 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. 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

[[Page 65737]]

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 David. W. Jenkins, Esq., American 
Electric Power, Nuclear Generation Group, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 
49106, 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 November 5, 1999, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC. Publicly available 
records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library 
component on the NRC Web site, http:www.nrc.gov (the Electronic Reading 
Room).

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of November, 1999.
John F. Stang,
Sr. Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-30469 Filed 11-22-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P