[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54863-54865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28004]


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

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.

[[Page 54864]]

    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 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 increases the minimum ice weight requirements, 
ensuring that there will be sufficient water (i.e., a minimum sump 
level of 602' 10'') in the recirculation sump from the time of 
switchover until an equilibrium level is reached. This will provide 
adequate sump level for the RHR [Residual Heat Removal] and CTS 
[Containment Spray] pumps to function properly, and provide 
sufficient flow to meet accident requirements.

Criterion 2

    The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 
This change increases the required minimum amount of ice in the ice 
condenser. It does not alter any other physical characteristics of 
the ice baskets, nor does it change the ice condenser's function. No 
known failure mechanisms are introduced by this change.

Criterion 3

    This proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety. The change increases the minimum heat absorbing 
capability of the ice condenser, and ensures that there will be 
sufficient quantity of melted ice to maintain the desired minimum 
sump level of 602' 10'' from the time of switchover. This will 
provide an adequate sump level for the RHR and CTS pumps following 
switchover to the recirculation please.
    The reduction in the allowance for ice sublimation does not 
significantly reduce the margin of safety. The original allowance 
was conservatively estimated to be ten times the design value. At 
the time this allowance was made, there was no data for determining 
the actual sublimation rate.
    Data taken since 1984 has shown that the average measured 
sublimation rate is 2.31% per eighteen month cycle for unit 1, and 
2.68% for unit 2. Both historic values are less than the 5% 
sublimation rate used in setting the T/S minimum ice weight. Based 
on this historical data, there is reasonable assurance that the 
analysis assumptions for available ice mass will be satisfied.
    The revision to the T/S 3/4.5.5 basis provides clarification 
that water sources in addition to the water in the RWST are 
considered in determining the water inventory for the recirculation 
sump. This classification is consistent with FSAR appendix N, 
section 13.1 through section 13.25, question 23, and appendix Q, 
unit 2 question 212.29. The answers to these questions document that 
melted ice, RCS inventory, and RWST inventory were considered as 
contributing to the volume of water in the recirculation sump.

    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 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

[[Page 54865]]

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 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. 97-28004 Filed 10-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-U