40940 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 1998 / Notices

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 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 amendment would

change the implementation date for

license Amendment Nos. 216 and 200

for Units 1 and 2 respectively. The

license amendments currently required

to be implemented by August 31, 1998.

The proposed amendments would

change the implementation date to

December 31, 2000. The license

amendments revised the Technical

Specifications to increase the minimum

borated water volume in the boric acid

storage system and decrease the

required boron concentration. The

license amendments cannot be

implemented because the modifications

to the boric acid systems will not be

completed by August 31, 1998. The

modification will not be completed

because of the large number of work

items associated with the extended

outages that both D.C. Cook units are

currently in.

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?

No. Because the existing, approved

T/Ss will be maintained, there is no

resultant significant increase in the

probability or 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?

No. Because the existing, approved

T/Ss, will be maintained, the possibility

of a new or different kind of accident

from any accident previously evaluated

is not created.

Criterion 3

Does the change involve a significant

reduction in a margin of safety?

No. The margin of safety requirements

are not affected by maintaining the

existing, approved T/Ss.

Conclusion

It is concluded that operation of Cook

Nuclear Plant units 1 and 2 with an

implementation date of December 31,

2000, to reduce the boric acid

concentration in the boric acid storage

system, as described herein, does not

involve any significant hazards

consideration as defined in 10 CFR

50.92.

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 August 31, 1998, 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 147 / Friday, July 31, 1998 / Notices 40941

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 June 10, 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 27th day

of July, 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John F. Stang Jr.,

Sr. Project Manager, Project Directorate III–

3, Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–20482 Filed 7–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362]

Southern California Edison Company;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses, 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. NPF–10

and NPF–15 issued to Southern

California Edison Company (the

licensee) for operation of the San Onofre

Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 2

and 3 located in San Diego County,

California.

The proposed amendment would

modify the technical specifications (TS)

to extend the proposed offsite circuit

completion time from ‘‘72 hours and 6

days from discovery of failure to meet

LCO’’ to ‘‘72 hours and 17 days from

discovery of failure to meet LCO.’’ The

proposed amendment would also

extend the completion time for the

emergency diesel generator (EDG) from

‘‘72 hours and 6 days from discovery of

failure to meet LCO’’ to ‘‘14 days and 17

days from discovery of failure to meet

LCO.’’ As a part of this change, the

‘‘Configuration Risk Management

Program’’ (CRMP) approved in

Amendments 139 and 131, respectively,

would also apply to the current

proposed revisions to the TS. The July

22, 1998, application supersedes the

staff’s proposed no significant hazards

consideration determination evaluation

that was published in the Federal

Register on March 25, 1998 (63 FR

14487).

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