[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54861-54863]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28003]


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

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

[[Page 54862]]

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

[[Page 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