[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12789-12791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5611]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-318]
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.; 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-69 issued to Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (the licensee) for
operation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2,
located in Calvert County, Maryland.
The proposed amendment would revise the Calvert Cliffs, Unit No. 2,
Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, TS 4.G.1.2 would
reference 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J directly, and any approved
exemptions to the Type A testing frequently requirements, rather than
paraphrase the regulation. The proposed wording is consistent with that
used in NUREG-1432, ``Standard Technical Specifications--Combustion
Engineering Plants,'' dated September 1992.
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. Would not involve a significant increase in the probability
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change revises Technical Specification 4.6.1.2.a to
reference the testing frequency requirements of 10 CFR part 50,
Appendix J, and to state that NRC-approved exemptions to the
applicable regulatory requirements are permitted. The current
Technical Specification 4.6.1.2.a paraphrases the requirements of
Appendix J, paragraph III.D.1.(a) and necessitates a change to the
Technical Specifications should the Appendix J language change or an
exemption be granted. The proposed administrative revision simply
deletes the paraphrased language and directly references Appendix J
and any approved exemptions. No new requirements are added, nor are
any existing requirements deleted. Any specific exemptions from the
requirements of Appendix J, paragraph III.D.1.(a) will continue to
require a submittal from Baltimore Gas and Electric Company under 10
CFR 50.12 and subsequent review and approval by the NRC prior to
implementation.
The proposed change will provide a one-time exemption from the
10 CFR part 50, Appendix J, paragraph III.D.1.(a) leak rate test
schedule requirement. This change will allow for a one-time interval
between subsequent Type A test of approximately 72 months. It will
also extend the second ten-year Type A testing service period to 12
years to coincide with the inservice inspection interval.
No physical or operational changes to the structure, plant
systems or components would be made as a result of the proposed
change. Furthermore, leak rate testing is not an initiating event in
any accident, therefore this proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability of any accident previously
evaluated.
Type A tests are capable of detecting containment leaks through
containment penetrations and through the containment liner. The
history at Calvert Cliffs Unit 2 demonstrates that Type B and C
Local Leak Rate Tests (LLRTs) have consistently detected leakage
through penetrations. With the exception of the first periodic Unit
2 Type A test in 1979, which failed and was promptly corrected, Type
A tests have not [[Page 12790]] detected excessive leakage from the
containment.
Administrative controls govern the maintenance, modification and
testing of containment penetrations such that the probability of
excessive penetration leakage due to improper maintenance or valve
misalignment is very low. Following maintenance or modifications to
any containment penetration, a leak rate test is performed to ensure
acceptable leakage levels. Following any LLRT on a containment
isolation valve, an independent valve alignment check is performed.
Therefore, Type A testing is not necessary to ensure acceptable
leakage rates through containment penetrations.
While Type A testing is not necessary to ensure acceptable
leakage rates through containment penetrations, Type A testing is
necessary to demonstrate that leakage through the containment liner
is within limits assumed in the accident analyses. Structural
failure of the containment is considered to be a very unlikely
event, and in fact, since Calvert Cliffs Unit 2 has been in
operation, the Type A tests have demonstrated no evidence that
containment leakage will exceed that assumed in the accident
analyses prior to the 1999 Type A test. Therefore, a one-time
exemption increasing the interval between subsequent Type A tests
will not result in a significant degradation in our ability to
determine the leak-tightness of the containment structure.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Would not create the possibility of a new or different type
of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed Technical Specification amendment is administrative
and will not create the possibility of a new or different type of
accident form any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed exemption request does not affect normal plant
operations or configuration, nor does it affect leak rate test
methods. The proposed change allows a one-time test interval of
approximately 72 months for the Type A tests. As the test history of
Calvert Cliffs Unit 2 has demonstrated no evidence that containment
leakage will exceed that assumed in the accident analyses prior to
the 1999 Type A test, the relaxation in schedule should not
significantly decrease the confidence in the leak-tightness of the
containment.
The proposed change would not change the design, configuration
or method of operation of the plant. Therefore, the proposed changes
do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The purpose of the existing schedule for Type A tests is to
ensure that the release of radioactive materials will be restricted
to those leak paths and leak rates assumed in accident analyses. A
one-time extended interval between successive Type A tests does not
change any frequency or methodology requirements for Type B and C
LLRTs. Therefore, methods for detecting local containment leak paths
and leak rates are unaffected by this proposed change. Given that
the problems identified by the first periodic Type A test were
promptly and effectively resolved, and the subsequent Type A test
history for Unit 2 shows no containment degradation-related
failures, a one-time increase of the test interval does not lead to
a significant probability of creating a new leakage path or
increased leakage rates.
The proposed Technical Specification change is administrative
and eliminates the redundancy between the requirements of Technical
Specification 4.6.1.2.a, and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J, including
any approved exemptions to Appendix J. It does not, in itself,
change a safety limit, a Limiting Condition for Operation, or a
surveillance requirement on equipment required to operate the plant.
The NRC must approve any proposed change or exemption to Appendix J,
paragraph III.D.1.(a) prior to implementation. As the proposed
change does not affect the Type A test acceptance criteria, the
margin of safety inherent in existing accident analyses is
maintained.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Although the licensee has included an evaluation of a proposed
exemption to 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J, requirements in the above
determination of no significant hazards consideration, only the part
related to the amendment is pertinent to this notice of proposed
amendment. The exemption request will be considered as a separate
matter on its own merits. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's
analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards
of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the amendment request involves a 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 Rules Review and
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, 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, 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 April 7, 1995, 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 Calvert County Library, Prince Frederick,
Maryland 20678. 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 requiring 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
[[Page 12791]] 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 a
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
no 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, Attention: Docketing and Services
Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room,
the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC, by the above
date. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of the notice
period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the
Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800)
248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator
should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the following
message addressed to Ledyard B. Marsh: petitioner's name and telephone
number, date petition was mailed, plant name, and publication date and
page number of this Federal Register notice. A copy of the petition
should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to Jay E. Silbert,
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 February 24, 1995, 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 Calvert County Library, Prince
Frederick, Maryland 20678.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 1st day of March 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Daniel G. McDonald,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-5611 Filed 3-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M