[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

E-M:/ Hazard analysis at Cook Nuclear Plant



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from "Alex J. Sagady & Associates" <ajs@sagady.com>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Register: February 25, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 10116-10117]
 >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25fe00-124]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 would approve an unreviewed safety question
discovered by the licensee during a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation of
modifications to the auxiliary feedwater (AFW) pump rooms to protect
the equipment in the rooms from the environmental effects of a
postulated high-energy line break (HELB). This will be accomplished by
sealing the AFW pump rooms to ensure that the rooms do not communicate
with the turbine buildings or each other.
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?
Failures of the proposed MDAFP [motor driven auxilary feedwater
pump] and TDAFP [turbine driven auxilary feedwater pump] room
cooling systems during either normal operations or emergency
operations cannot initiate any of the accidents previously evaluated
in the UFSAR. The proposed MDAFP and TDAFP room cooling systems do
not interface with the reactor coolant system, containment, or
engineered safeguards features in such a way as to be a precursor or
initiator for an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the
proposed modifications do not increase the probability of occurrence
of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed MDAFP and TDAFP room cooling systems ensure
protection of AFW equipment from the environmental effects of a HELB
event. This ensures the AFW system is capable of performing the
safety-related functions required to mitigate the effects of design
basis accidents. The AFW system is required to mitigate design basis
accidents that result in the loss of cooling for the reactor coolant
system. These include loss of normal feedwater control, loss of all
(non-emergency) alternating-current power (i.e., offsite power) to
the plant auxiliaries, steam generator tube rupture, large break
loss-of-coolant accidents, and small break loss-of-coolant
accidents. In addition, the AFW system is required to safely
shutdown the reactor following certain HELB events in the turbine
buildings resulting from feedwater and main steam piping breaks and
critical cracks. Since the AFW system is assured of performing its
intended design function in mitigating the effects of design basis
accidents by the proposed modifications, the consequences of
accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR will not be increased.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence or the consequences of
accidents previously evaluated are not increased.
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Failures of the proposed MDAFP and TDAFP room cooling systems
during either normal operations or emergency operations cannot
initiate an accident. The proposed MDAFP and TDAFP room cooling
systems do not interface with the reactor coolant system,
containment, or engineered safeguards features in such a way as to
be a precursor or initiator for an accident.
The proposed modifications to the AFW pump rooms have been
designed to ensure that the train failure scenarios and design basis
accident mitigation functions for AFW are preserved as described in
the CNP [Cook Nuclear Plant] UFSAR. The electrical power supplies
and AFW pump room cooler water sources maintain the design basis
train alignments. Thus, when postulated design basis accident
scenarios and single failures are applied to the proposed AFW pump
room modification configurations, the AFW system remains bounded by
the accident analysis presented in the UFSAR. The modifications do
not impact how the AFW system will actuate and perform in response
to those design basis accident scenarios that require AFW to
mitigate the events.
Therefore, the change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
The proposed modifications to the MDAFP and TDAFP room
ventilation systems do not create a reduction in the margin of
safety for those systems, structures, and components required for
safe shutdown or accident mitigation as previously analyzed in the
UFSAR. The proposed modifications provide a different method for
cooling the AFW pump rooms while ensuring environmental protection
to each MDAFP and each TDAFP from the effects of postulated HELB
events.
As discussed above, the proposed modifications to the AFW pump
rooms have been designed to ensure that the train failure scenarios
and design basis accident mitigation functions for AFW are preserved
as described in the CNP UFSAR. Since the intended safety function of
the AFW pump room cooling systems remains the same, margin of safety
is preserved. The proposed modifications ensure the availability and
reliability of the AFW pumps is maintained commensurate with the
assumptions made in the UFSAR accident analyses.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a reduction in a
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
[[Page 10117]]
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 March 27, 2000, 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. 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 David. W. Jenkins, Esq., American
Electric Power, Nuclear Generation Group, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI
49106, 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 February 18, 2000, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC. Publicly available
records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library
component on the NRC Web site, http:www.nrc.gov (the Electronic Reading
Room).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of February, 2000.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John F. Stang,
Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-4465 Filed 2-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex J. Sagady & Associates        Email:  ajs@sagady.com

Environmental Enforcement, Permits/Technical Review, Public Policy and
Communications on Air, Water and Waste Issues
and Community Environmental Protection

PO Box 39  East Lansing, MI  48826-0039
(517) 332-6971 (voice); (517) 332-8987 (fax)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

==============================================================
ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"
==============================================================