[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57665-57666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27952]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 involve movement of loads in excess of the
design-basis seismic capability of the auxiliary building load handling
equipment and structures. The proposed amendment requests approval to
move the steam generator sections through the auxiliary building and to
disengage crane travel interlocks, and also requests relief from
performance of Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement
4.9.7.1.
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?
No. NUREG-0612, ``Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power
Plants,'' generically evaluates the probabilities for a heavy load
handling event that could result in consequences that exceed 25% of
10 CFR 100 limits. The NRC determined, assuming heavy load handling
in accordance with NUREG-0612 guidelines, that the associated risks
are acceptable based on the very low likelihood of a load drop. The
proposed activity will be performed in accordance with NUREG-0612 as
approved for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP) and will be similar
to the heavy loads program reviewed, approved, and demonstrated
effective during the Unit 2 SGRP (Steam Generator Repair Project).
The cranes feature single-failure-proof hoisting and braking systems
in accordance with NUREG-0554, ``Single-Failure-Proof Cranes for
Nuclear Power Plants,'' and are evaluated to safely retain the load
in the unlikely event of the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE). As
such, this change does not introduce any new accident precursors or
initiators and there is not a significant increase in the
probability of previously evaluated accidents.
Administrative controls substitute for crane travel interlocks
during the lifts to prevent loads from being carried over spent fuel
assemblies. In addition, a load path evaluation has determined that,
in the unlikely event of a load drop, requirements for safe shutdown
of the operating unit, decay heat removal, and spent fuel pool
cooling continue to be satisfied. As a result, there is no
significant increase in the consequences of a load drop. Based on
the above, the probability of occurrence and the consequences of
accidents previously evaluated are not increased.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No. The potential accident involved in the proposed change is a
design basis seismic event during load handling. The NUREG-0554
guideline for crane seismic capability is safe retention of the load
during an SSE. A current engineering study demonstrates that the SG
[steam generator] sections are safely retained by the cranes during
load handling even in the unlikely event of an SSE. Although the
crane travel interlocks are disengaged during the lifts,
administrative controls prevent loads from being carried over the
spent fuel pool. Furthermore, the load path, methods, and types of
loads are similar to those previously reviewed and approved for the
Unit 2 SGRP. That review also found that the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident was not created. The current reviews and
analyses for the Unit 1 SGRP have not identified a credible new kind
of accident or one that is different from the evaluated load drop
scenario. Based on the above, the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously evaluated is not created.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
No. Handling of heavy loads during the proposed activity will be
in accordance with the guidelines of NUREG-0612 (including
appropriate codes and standards) as approved for CNP and will be
similar to the heavy loads program previously approved for the Unit
2 SGRP. Administrative controls substitute for crane travel
interlocks during the lifts to ensure that no loads are carried over
spent fuel assemblies. The loads will be lifted by cranes with the
single-failure proof features specified by NUREG-0554. For these
loads, the design basis seismic capability of the load handling
equipment and structures is exceeded. However, the likelihood of a
seismic event coincident with the limited lift times for these loads
is very remote. Furthermore, an evaluation of these lifts that
considers the conservatism inherent in the design basis calculations
concludes that the loads are safely retained even in the event of an
SSE. Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
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
[[Page 57666]]
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 November 26, 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 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 September 23, 1999, as supplemented
October 11, 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 20th day of October 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. 99-27952 Filed 10-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P