[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 207 (Tuesday, October 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57322-57324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-28746]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
DPR-58 and Facility Operating License No. 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 amendment would revise Technical Specification Section
3.4.1.3, ``Reactor Coolant System [RCS]--Shutdown,'' and its associated
bases to provide separate requirements for mode 4, mode 5 with the
loops filled, and mode 5 with the loops not filled. The proposed
changes would allow the steam generators to be used to remove heat from
the primary coolant in mode 5 with the loops filled.
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:
Criterion 1
Does the change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes do not affect any accident initiators or
precursors. In mode 4 and mode 5, coolant loops are required to
remove decay heat and to mitigate a boron dilution event. The
proposed changes allow the steam generators to be used to remove
heat in mode 5 with the reactor coolant loops filled. The redundancy
requirements continue to be met. Allowing an additional heat removal
source increases the availability of a backup source. Increasing the
required steam generator water level in mode 4 when a reactor
coolant pump and associated steam generator are used is considered
conservative. This provides reasonable assurance that decay heat can
be removed as required. The proposed value bounds values previously
used for emergency and abnormal operations. The proposed value
includes margin for instrument uncertainties and process errors.
There are no significant impacts on loss of a residual heat
removal [RHR] system loop. The risk associated with reduced RHR
inventory is minimized by ensuring that adequate heat removal
capability is available and by implementing commitments made in
response to NRC Generic Letter 88-17, ``Loss of Decay Heat
Removal,'' and Generic Letter 87-12, ``Loss of RHR While RCS
Partially Filled.''
The proposed changes do not impact the ability of the low
temperature overpressure protection (LTOP) system to protect the RCS
from overpressure transients. A review determined that the proposed
changes do not impact the Licensee's previous commitments regarding
LTOP. The proposed changes for mode 5 do not affect the ability of
the LTOP devices to limit pressure in the RCS. Two events that would
cause a transient are startup of an idle reactor coolant pump with
secondary water temperature of the steam generator less than or
equal to 50 deg.F above the RCS cold leg temperature, or the start
of a charging pump and its injection into a water solid RCS. The
first event is addressed by limitations in notes to the mode 5 T/S.
The second event is precluded by T/S 3.1.2.3. The proposed changes
do not introduce any new events that could cause a pressure
transient. Therefore, the LTOP system continues to serve its
function.
The proposed changes have no impact on the ability to mitigate
the postulated accidents. A review of the accident analyses
determined that they remain bounding. The proposed changes provide
assurance that decay heat is removed as designed and that redundancy
is maintained. Therefore, it was concluded that there is no effect
on the types or increase in the amounts of any effluent that may be
released offsite. It was also concluded that the consequences of an
accident are unchanged.
Therefore, this proposed amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 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 affect the design or operation of
any system, structure, or component in the plant. The steam
generators are designed to transfer heat from the primary coolant to
the secondary coolant. Using them as an alternate heat sink in mode
5 with the reactor coolant loops filled is consistent with this
design. There are no changes to parameters governing plant
operation, and no new or different type of equipment will be
installed. Therefore, it was concluded that the proposed changes do
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any previously evaluated.
Criterion 3
Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety?
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. Increasing the required steam generator water
level in mode 4 increases the amount of heat that can be removed
from the primary coolants. Allowing an alternate heat removal source
in mode 5 with the loops filled increases margin by cooling the
primary via a passive system (natural circulation). Therefore, it
was concluded that no reduction in the margin of safety will occur
as a result.
Therefore, these changes do not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.
Conclusion
In summary, based upon the above evaluation, the Licensee has
concluded that these changes involve no significant hazards
consideration.
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
[[Page 57323]]
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 November 27, 1998, 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)(l)-(v) and 2.714(d).
[[Page 57324]]
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated October 8, 1998, 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 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John F. Stang Jr.,
Sr. Project Manager, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-28746 Filed 10-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
