[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71515-71516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-34245]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
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
[Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316]
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 license amendment would revise Technical
Specification Section 4.6.5.1, ``Ice Condenser, Ice Bed,'' and its
associated bases to reflect the maximum ice condenser flow channel
blockage assumed in the accident analyses.
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 ice condenser system is used to mitigate the consequences of an
accident and has no impact on the initiation of any evaluated
accidents. Therefore, changing the flow channel surveillance does not
increase the probability of an evaluated accident.
The proposed changes to the flow channel surveillance provide
additional assurance beyond current requirements to provide reasonable
assurance that the maximum analyzed blockage of 15% is not exceeded.
Therefore, the change does not represent an increase in the
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 create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The
ice condenser has no function during normal operation. It is a passive
system that functions after an accident has already occurred. The
proposed change to the ice condenser flow channel surveillance does not
alter physical characteristics of the ice condenser, nor does it change
the function of the ice condenser. No new failure mechanisms are
introduced by this change.
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 change to the ice condenser flow channel surveillance
provides additional assurance that the ice condenser should contain the
minimum analyzed flow area. By ensuring the minimum analyzed area is
always available, inherent margins due to conservative assumptions in
the calculation are maintained. These conservative assumptions include,
for example, taking no credit for ice or frost blockage being blown
clear during the accident and assuming only one dimensional flow
through the ice bed with no credit taken for cross flow.
Therefore, these changes do not involve a significant reduction in
a 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 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 January 27, 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
[[Page 71516]]
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 December 3, 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 18th day of December 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. 98-34245 Filed 12-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
