[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 38 (Friday, February 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10116-10117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-4465]


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

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 approve an unreviewed safety question 
discovered by the licensee during a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation of 
modifications to the auxiliary feedwater (AFW) pump rooms to protect 
the equipment in the rooms from the environmental effects of a 
postulated high-energy line break (HELB). This will be accomplished by 
sealing the AFW pump rooms to ensure that the rooms do not communicate 
with the turbine buildings or each other.
    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?
    Failures of the proposed MDAFP [motor driven auxilary feedwater 
pump] and TDAFP [turbine driven auxilary feedwater pump] room 
cooling systems during either normal operations or emergency 
operations cannot initiate any of the accidents previously evaluated 
in the UFSAR. The proposed MDAFP and TDAFP room cooling systems do 
not interface with the reactor coolant system, containment, or 
engineered safeguards features in such a way as to be a precursor or 
initiator for an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the 
proposed modifications do not increase the probability of occurrence 
of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed MDAFP and TDAFP room cooling systems ensure 
protection of AFW equipment from the environmental effects of a HELB 
event. This ensures the AFW system is capable of performing the 
safety-related functions required to mitigate the effects of design 
basis accidents. The AFW system is required to mitigate design basis 
accidents that result in the loss of cooling for the reactor coolant 
system. These include loss of normal feedwater control, loss of all 
(non-emergency) alternating-current power (i.e., offsite power) to 
the plant auxiliaries, steam generator tube rupture, large break 
loss-of-coolant accidents, and small break loss-of-coolant 
accidents. In addition, the AFW system is required to safely 
shutdown the reactor following certain HELB events in the turbine 
buildings resulting from feedwater and main steam piping breaks and 
critical cracks. Since the AFW system is assured of performing its 
intended design function in mitigating the effects of design basis 
accidents by the proposed modifications, the consequences of 
accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR will not be increased.
    Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of 
accidents previously evaluated are not increased.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Failures of the proposed MDAFP and TDAFP room cooling systems 
during either normal operations or emergency operations cannot 
initiate an accident. The proposed MDAFP and TDAFP room cooling 
systems do not interface with the reactor coolant system, 
containment, or engineered safeguards features in such a way as to 
be a precursor or initiator for an accident.
    The proposed modifications to the AFW pump rooms have been 
designed to ensure that the train failure scenarios and design basis 
accident mitigation functions for AFW are preserved as described in 
the CNP [Cook Nuclear Plant] UFSAR. The electrical power supplies 
and AFW pump room cooler water sources maintain the design basis 
train alignments. Thus, when postulated design basis accident 
scenarios and single failures are applied to the proposed AFW pump 
room modification configurations, the AFW system remains bounded by 
the accident analysis presented in the UFSAR. The modifications do 
not impact how the AFW system will actuate and perform in response 
to those design basis accident scenarios that require AFW to 
mitigate the events.
    Therefore, the change does 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?
    The proposed modifications to the MDAFP and TDAFP room 
ventilation systems do not create a reduction in the margin of 
safety for those systems, structures, and components required for 
safe shutdown or accident mitigation as previously analyzed in the 
UFSAR. The proposed modifications provide a different method for 
cooling the AFW pump rooms while ensuring environmental protection 
to each MDAFP and each TDAFP from the effects of postulated HELB 
events.
    As discussed above, the proposed modifications to the AFW pump 
rooms have been designed to ensure that the train failure scenarios 
and design basis accident mitigation functions for AFW are preserved 
as described in the CNP UFSAR. Since the intended safety function of 
the AFW pump room cooling systems remains the same, margin of safety 
is preserved. The proposed modifications ensure the availability and 
reliability of the AFW pumps is maintained commensurate with the 
assumptions made in the UFSAR accident analyses.

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a reduction in a 
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

[[Page 10117]]

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 March 27, 2000, 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 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 February 18, 2000, 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).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of February, 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John F. Stang,
Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-4465 Filed 2-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P