[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 31, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47535-47537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22490]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 make administrative changes to
several Technical Specifications to remove obsolete information,
provide consistency between Unit 1 and Unit 2, provide consistency with
the Standard Technical Specifications, provide clarification, and
correct typographical errors.
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?
The proposed change for boron sampling requirements in mode 6
does not affect the probability of a fuel handling accident. The
unlikely event of a fuel assembly being misloaded is independent of
the sampling frequency for fuel pool boron concentration. It has no
impact on the event initiator, which is a human error while
positioning a fuel assembly. The change has no impact on the
assumptions for a fuel handling accident. The boron concentration
requirement is not changed; there is sufficient boron in the fuel
storage pool to maintain keff below 0.95 to preclude an
inadvertent criticality. Therefore, the consequences of the accident
will be mitigated as previously evaluated. The 72-hour maximum
interval between samples is maintained. Operating experience has
shown 72 hours to be adequate. Removing the additional limitation of
sampling at least three times per week would allow the sample to be
collected two or three times per week, consistent with the maximum
72-hour interval. This is acceptable because boron concentration
changes occur slowly due to the large volume of water in the system
and relatively small volumes of dilution sources. The consequences
are not increased because there are no changes to the spent fuel,
shielding (water), or systems used to mitigate the consequences of
an accident. Additionally, there is no change in the types or
significant increase in the amounts of any effluents released
offsite.
Deleting the redundant figure for equivalent reactivity criteria
for regions in the spent fuel storage racks does not impact the
storage requirements because the equations provide equivalent
requirements. The unlikely event of a fuel assembly being misloaded
is independent of the characteristics of the spent fuel in the pool.
It has no impact on the event initiator, which is a human error
while positioning a fuel assembly. The change has no impact the
assumptions for a fuel handling accident because the fuel storage
requirements are not changed. The consequences of an accident are
not increased because the fuel storage requirements are not changed
and no other changes are made to systems that mitigate the
consequences of an accident.
The proposed changes to correct a reference to another
requirement, delete obsolete notes, revise the name of drumming room
roll-up door, and correct typographical errors are considered
administrative. The reference leads to a section that no longer
exists; the proposed change corrects the error. The notes permitted
exceptions to requirements, and they are no longer required. The
normal requirements have applied since the provisions expired.
Deleting them eliminates extraneous information. The revised
description of the door reflects the current use of the installed
door. Correcting the typographical errors improves readability. The
corrections are not intended to change the meaning. These changes do
not affect accidents described in the UFSAR.
Adding new surveillance requirements to test the Unit 2 pump
performance pursuant
[[Page 47536]]
to T/S 4.0.5 does not affect accident initiators or precursors. The
change reflects ASME code requirements. Including the requirements
in the corresponding section provides assurance that the pumps will
operate as assumed in the accident analyses. As such, the
probability and consequences of previously evaluated accidents is
unchanged.
The proposed change to the description of instrumentation
configuration is considered administrative because the configuration
had been reviewed and approved by the NRC Staff, as documented in
the Safety Evaluation Report for amendment 39 for DPR-58 and
amendment 22 for DPR-74. There are no changes to the actual plant
configuration. The change is intended to describe the installed
equipment more clearly. The change does not affect the probability
and consequences of previously evaluated accidents because the
equipment is installed and operated as described in the
correspondence related to the previous amendments.
Based on this review, it is concluded that the proposed changes
do 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 remove obsolete information, provide
consistency between Unit 1 and Unit 2, provide consistency with the
Standard Technical Specifications, provide clarification, and
correct typographical errors. These changes are considered
administrative because they do not affect the design or operation of
any system, structure, or component in the plant. The accident
analysis assumptions and results are unchanged. No new failures or
interactions have been created. Based on this review, it is
concluded that the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
The proposed changes are considered administrative in nature.
They do not affect any safety limits or T/S parameter limits. 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. Based on this review, it is concluded that no
reduction in the margin of safety will occur as a result of the
changes.
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 September 30, 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, 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
[[Page 47537]]
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 May 21, 1999, 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 25th day of August, 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John F. Stang,
Sr. Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-22490 Filed 8-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
