Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Notices 54861

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 Mr.

Albert Carr, Duke Energy Corporation,

422 South Church Street, Charlotte,

North Carolina 28242, 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 October 13, 1997,

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 J. Murrey Atkins Library, University

of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201

University City Boulevard, North

Carolina.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day

of October 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Victor Nerses,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

II–2, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–28005 Filed 10–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–U

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 Nos. DPR–

58 and DPR–74, issued to Indiana

Michigan Power Company (the

licensee), for operation of the Donald C.

Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (D.C.

Cook), located in Berrien County,

Michigan.

The proposed amendment would

change the D.C. Cook technical

specifications (TS) to delete the

interlock which would close the

residual heat removal (RHR) suction

valves if the reactor coolant system

(RCS) pressure were to increase to 600

psig while retaining the interlock which

would prevent the suction valves from

opening while the RCS pressure is

above the RHR system design pressure.

This change would maintain the

interlock against opening to protect

against an intersystem loss of coolant

accident but would allow continued

deactivation of the isolation valves

when the RHR system is operating to

assure RHR availability and provide low

temperature overpressure protection

(LTOP).

The licensee has requested that the

proposed amendment be reviewed on an

emergency basis. Section 50.91(a)(5) of

Title 10 of Code the Code of Federal

Regulations requires the licensee to

explain the emergency and why the

licensee cannot avoid it. The licensee’s

explanation is provided below:

On September 18, 1997, a letter was sent

to the USNRC providing a discussion of the

actions we are taking to address technical

issues identified by the recently complete

[concluded September 12, 1997] architect

engineering (AE) team inspection. We are

currently anticipating the commencement of

startup activities on September 29, 1997, and

respectfully request NRC review and

approval of this change by that date.

We understand the impact of such an

emergency request, and recognizing that the

conditions and status of the Cook Nuclear

Plant restart may change in the future, we

intend to keep the commission informed,

through our daily contact with our NRR

project manager, as to the status of our restart

schedule.

The situation described above occurred

because, until recently, the need to meet the

RHR suction valve surveillance requirement,

in mode 4, simultaneously with the reactivity

control specification and the LTOP

administrative requirements, was not

recognized. Investigation into the root cause

of this oversight is still in progress.

The AE inspection team identified issues

related to our configuration management,

design and procedure control, and our

understanding of the plant’s design and

licensing bases. With the insight gained from

the inspectors’ conclusions, we identified

this particular issue on September 11, 1997.

The need for a T/S [technical specification]

change prior to restarting either of the units,

became evident as a result of our

investigation of this matter.

The licensee was unable to make a

more timely application because it was

not determined until the recent

inspection (September 11, 1997) that the

RHR suction valve surveillance

requirement in Mode 4 needed to be

met, simultaneously with the reactivity

control specification and the LTOP

administrative requirements. Due to

changes in the anticipated restart

schedule, emergency circumstances no

longer exist. However, the NRC has

determined that the licensee used its

best efforts to make a timely application

for the proposed changes and that,

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6), exigent

circumstances do exist and were not the

result of any intentional delay on the

part of the licensee. The Donald C. Cook

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, cannot

restart until the proposed amendments

have been approved by the NRC.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6), for

amendments to be granted under

exigent circumstances, the 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
54862 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Notices

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

This amendment request does not involve

a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated. The change provides an

alternative means of providing

overpressurization protection for the RHR

system, and thereby protection against

potential intersystem LOCA. Operating

procedure administrative requirements

establish the necessary LTOP system

configuration and ECCS equipment

operability constraints for mode 4 operation.

The LTOP system has been analyzed to show

that, if operated per the existing operating

procedure constraints, it will protect the RHR

system during postulated overpressure

conditions.

Criterion 2

The proposed change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated. The change involves a different

response by the system to an

overpressurization event, but we have shown

by analysis that the alternative LTOP

configuration is capable of providing

equivalent protection to the original suction

value auto-closure feature. The system

remains protected from single failure to any

of the available overpressure protection

components. The change eliminates the

potential for a single power supply or

instrument failure isolating and damaging the

RHR system while operating to remove decay

heat in mode 4.

Criterion 3

This proposed change does not involve a

significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The change maintains an equivalent margin

of safety against intersystem LOCA concerns.

Operating with the suction valves blocked

open and the overpressure protection of the

LTOP system, the change also helps to ensure

the availability of decay heat removal from

the RCS during any potulated accident which

would involve pressurization of the RCS.

Operating with the original auto-closure

isolation of the suction values would

automatically cut off decay heat removal via

the RHR system in any such postulated event

if the RCS reached the auto-closure setpoint

and the suction valves closed.

The change eliminates the potential for a

power supply or instrument failure isolating

and damaging the RHR system while in mode

4. The requested change maintains protection

from inadvertently opening the RHR suction

valves, thereby exposing the RHR system to

high RCS system pressure, by maintaining

the requirement for the open interlock in all

modes.

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 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 6D22, Two

White Flint North, 11545 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, MD, from 7:30 a.m. to

4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of

written comments received may be

examined at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, located at 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 21, 1997, 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 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, Michigan

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Notices 54863

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 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,

Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, 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 Gerald Charnoff,

Esquire; Shaw, Pittman, Potts and

Trowbridge; 2300 N Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20037, 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 October 8, 1997,

which is available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, located at 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, Michigan 49085.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day

of October 1997.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John B. Hickman,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–3,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–28003 Filed 10–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

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 Nos. DPR–

58 and DPR–74, issued to Indiana

Michigan Power Company (the

licensee), for operation of the Donald C.

Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (D.C.

Cook), located in Berrien County,

Michigan.

The proposed amendment would

change the D.C. Cook technical

specifications (TS) to increase both the

minimum required ice mass per ice

basket and the total minimum required

ice mass, and to change the bases of the

TS. The change in the bases is

considered to be an unreviewed safety

question.

The licensee has requested that the

proposed amendment be reviewed on an

exigent basis. Section 50.91(a)(6)(vi) of

Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations requires the licensee to

explain the exigency and why the

licensee cannot avoid it. The licensee’s

explanation is provided below:

During the recent architect engineer

inspection conducted at Cook Nuclear Plant

[concluded September 12, 1997], it was

determined that, because of instrument

uncertainties, the switchover to the

recirculation mode might occur before a

sufficient volume of RWST [refueling water

storage tank] water had been injected into the

containment. This, when considered with

our lower containment design that allows

some containment spray flow to become

trapped in the dead ended annulus region,

raised a concern as to whether the limiting

vortexing height requirements for the RHR

[residual heat removal] and CTS

[containment spray] pumps could be met

throughout the transient. As a result,

evaluations for transient sump level for small

break loss-of-coolant accident (SBLOCA) and

large break loss-of-coolant accident were

performed. This limiting evaluation is the

SBLOCA, due to its lower RCS and

accumulator mass release. A calculation

performed for SBLOCA indicates that it is

necessary to credit more of the available ice

condenser ice mass than currently listed in

the T/S [technical specifications].

The amount of ice presently taken credit

for (per basket and total) in our current T/S

minimum ice weights is less than what is

needed to maintain the sump level above

602′ 10′′. Based on a model test in 1997,

water level of 602′ 10′′ is sufficient to prevent

pump vortexing at maximum safeguards

flow. The proposed changes to the T/S will

take credit for more of the available ice to

provide reasonable assurance that sufficient

water to maintain 602′ 10′′ elevation is

achieved.

On September 18, 1997, our submittal

AEP:NRS:1260G1 was sent to the NRC,

providing a discussion of the actions we are

taking to address technical issues identified

by the recently completed architect engineer

team inspections. We are anticipating the

commencement of startup activities in

several weeks, and respectfully request the

NRC’s review and approval on an exigent

basis.

The licensee was unable to make a

more timely application because it was

not determined until the recent

inspection (September 1997) that the

amount of ice in the current TS

minimum ice weights is less than what

is needed to maintain the sump level

above 602′ 10′′. The NRC 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. The Donald

C. Cook Nuclear Plants, Units 1 and 2,

cannot restart until the proposed

amendments have been approved by the

NRC.