[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38753-38755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-18522]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-315 AND 50-316]


Indiana Michigan Power Co.; Notice of Consideration of Issuance 
of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, 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 Licenses No. 
DPR-58 and DPR-74, issued to Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M, the 
licensee), for operation of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 
and 2, located in Bridgman, Michigan.
    The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specification (TS) 
3.3.1.1, Table 3.3-1, Action 2a, to increase the amount of time allowed 
to place an inoperable power range neutron flux channel in the tripped 
condition from one hour to six hours.
    In its application, I&M explained why it could not have foreseen 
the need for these amendments. The proposed TS change is being 
requested on an exigent basis because I&M recently discovered that the 
surveillance test procedure for the quarterly power range neutron flux 
channel calibration, required by TS 4.3.1.1.1, Table 4.3-1, was not 
being performed in accordance with TS 3.3.1.1, Table 3.3-1, Action 2a. 
I&M has determined this to be reportable under 10 CFR 
50.73(a)(2)(i)(B). I&M states that the problem exists with the 
quarterly power range neutron flux channel calibration surveillance, 
defined by TS 1.9. The manner in which the testing is performed 
requires the detector to be disconnected from the instrumentation. This 
makes the channel inoperable. Since the channel calibration takes 
longer than one hour to perform, the channel is placed in the tripped 
condition. To complete the test, the channel must be taken out of the 
tripped condition prior to reconnecting the detector input. The channel 
remains inoperable because it is disconnected; thus, Action 2a can not 
be met. I&M performed a review of the surveillance test procedure and 
concluded that the test cannot be performed in a manner that is 
consistent with meeting the current one-hour completion requirement of 
Action 2a. In order to restore compliance with the TS, the one-hour 
completion requirement should be increased to a time that would allow 
completion of the required testing. The next surveillance is due August 
12, 2001, which includes the 25 percent extension allowed by TS 4.0.2. 
I&M could not have avoided the exigency due to the short duration 
between when the problem was discovered and the date when the next 
surveillance is due.
    The staff has determined that the licensee used its best efforts to 
make a timely application for the proposed changes and that exigent 
circumstances do exist and were not the result of any intentional delay 
on the part of the licensee.
    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.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff 
must determine 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 change involves an increase in the amount of time allowed 
prior to placing an inoperable reactor protection channel in a 
tripped condition. By placing a channel in a tripped condition when 
the channel is inoperable, it places the reactor protection system 
from two-out-of-four reactor trip logic to one-out-of-three reactor 
trip logic. This places the reactor closer to a tripped condition if 
a spurious signal should occur on one of the other channels. By not 
placing the reactor closer to an inadvertent reactor trip, the 
probability of a reactor trip is not significantly increased. One 
channel being inoperable is not a precursor to any accident and thus 
does not significantly increase the probability of occurrence of any 
accident

[[Page 38754]]

previously evaluated. Due to the redundancy in the reactor trip 
logic, the channel remaining in an untripped condition still allows 
a two-out-of-three reactor trip logic. This ensures that even if 
another channel failed, the reactor trip, if required, would still 
function. Thus, the consequences of an accident are not 
significantly increased. Thus, the proposed change does 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 do not involve hardware modifications or 
provide functional changes to the reactor protection system. The way 
in which the reactor protection is taken to a tripped condition 
remains the same, only the time-frame within which it is required to 
be placed in the tripped condition is extended. Allowing additional 
time before placing an inoperable channel in a tripped condition 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident.
    3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    The margin of safety is not significantly reduced by allowing 
the proposed six hours prior to requiring an inoperable channel to 
be placed in a tripped condition. The proposed change does not alter 
the function of the reactor trip logic. The two-out-of-three reactor 
trip logic that will exist without the channel in a tripped 
condition continues to ensure that with a single failure of a second 
channel, the reactor trip function will still occur. Thus, the 
accident analyses remain protected. Therefore, the proposed change 
does not involve a significant 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(c) 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 14 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 14-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 14-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. 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. Documents may 
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document 
Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By August 24, 2001, 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, located at One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland, or electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/CFR/index.html. If there are problems in accessing the 
document, contact the Public Document Room Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to [email protected]. 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 a 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.

[[Page 38755]]

    If the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day 
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the 
issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is 
requested, 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, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 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., Indiana Michigan Power Company, 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 July 17, 2001, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at 
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically 
from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. If you do not have access to 
ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of July 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carl F. Lyon,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-18522 Filed 7-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P