[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 106 (Friday, May 31, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27371-27373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13793]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318]
Baltimore Gas and Electric 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-53 and DPR-69, issued to Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE)
for operation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant Unit Nos. 1 and 2
located in Calvert County, Maryland.
The proposed amendment would replace the mechanical stops in the
inlet control valves of the containment air coolers (CACs) with a
variable flow controller for the inlet control valve.
The licensee requests that this proposed amendment be considered as
exigent under the criteria of 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6). The licensee states
that they could not have foreseen the need for this request prior to
this time. This modification is the result of a substantial proactive
effort in dealing with the concerns that BGE have with their Service
Water (SRW) System. The history of BGE's activities concerning the SRW
System is given in Attachment (1) of the proposed amendment. This
particular modification was determined to be necessary after BGE
obtained data from a site stream monitor that BGE had installed to
measure the rate of microfouling in the SRW heat exchangers. The data
from the side stream monitor was not analyzed and available to BGE
until January 17, 1996. By mid-February, BGE had determined that the
installation of flow controllers on the CAC inlet valves was necessary
to offset the effects of the larger than expected microfouling. BGE has
committed the necessary money and resources to install this
modification before the summer. Design and procurement activities were
done in parallel. About mid-April, the engineering was to the stage
that work could begin on the safety evaluation (SE) required by 10 CFR
50.59. Refinements to the engineering continued even as the SE was
being developed. On May 24, 1996, the Plant General Manager determined
that an unreviewed safety question existed for this modification. This
request has been submitted as soon as practical after the determination
was made.
It is important for BGE to perform this modification on the
schedule set out a number of months ago. To prevent operational and
safety impacts, this modification must be installed before the hot
summer weather causes the Chesapeake Bay water temperature to exceed
the SRW temperature limit. Historically, the Chesapeake Bay water
temperature has approached or exceeded the current limit by the last
week in June. As noted above, whenever the SRW heat exchangers are
removed from service for cleaning, some safety-related equipment is
rendered inoperable. It is important to minimize the amount of time BGE
is in these more vulnerable conditions (with some safety-related
equipment out-of-service). Additionally, BGE believes that reducing the
power output from both units significantly during a time of high demand
(high summer temperatures) is not in the best interest of the public.
Therefore, given the need to act quickly, and the determination
that this change does not represent a significant hazard, BGE requests
that this amendment be considered under exigent circumstances as
described in 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6).
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.
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:
1. Would not involve a significant increase in the probability
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed modification is the result of our need to reduce
the peak post-accident heat load on the service water (SRW) heat
exchangers. It will replace the mechanical stops currently on the
control valves which admit SRW into the containment air coolers
(CACs) with a flow controller loop. By throttling the SRW to the
CACs, the heat load on the SRW heat exchangers is reduced during the
early phases of an accident. The increased accuracy of throttling
would allow the SRW system to perform its safety function during
periods of high ultimate heat sink temperatures. During the summer
months, the Chesapeake Bay water (the ultimate heat sink for the
units) heats up substantially during some parts of the day. At
times, these high temperatures could exceed the current expected
limits for the heat exchanger operation. With the more accurately
throttled valves, the effect of high ultimate heat sink temperatures
is reduced. The modification will ensure that the SRW heat
exchangers are capable of meeting their intended safety function up
to the maximum expected bay water temperature.
The safety function of the SRW System is to provide cooling to
the CACs and the Emergency Diesel Generators (EDGs) following a
design basis accident. With this proposed modification in place, the
SRW System will continue to meet this safety function. All of the
failure mechanisms for this modification have previously been
evaluated and were found acceptable. However, because the proposed
modification may have a higher probability of malfunction for which
compensatory actions may not adequately control the consequence of
failure, the probability of a malfunction of systems important to
safety may be slightly increased, and this modification has been
determined to be an unreviewed safety question.
The single failure of the flow controllers would not be an
initiator to an accident. The system provides cooling to safety-
related equipment following an accident. It supports accident
mitigation functions. Therefore, this proposed modification does not
significantly increase the probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed modification will enhance the ability of the SRW
system to respond to accident conditions under a wider range of
[[Page 27372]]
environmental conditions (i.e., higher ultimate heat sink
temperatures). Malfunctions of the flow controller have been
evaluated and determined to result in consequences that are no more
severe than those previously approved. A failure of the flow
controller could allow the valve to fail in a position that does not
allow the SRW System to perform its safety function. Since the SRW
System is redundant on each unit, a single failure of one of the
flow controllers would not prevent the other redundant portion of
the system from performing its safety function. The consequences of
a single failure of the SRW System have been previously analyzed and
these consequences do not change due to this modification.
Therefore, this proposed modification does 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 SRW System provides cooling water to the CACs and EDGs. The
purpose of the components which are affected by this modification is
to mitigate accidents. The single failure of the flow controllers
would not be an initiator to an accident. This modification does not
change the equipment's function, or significantly alter the method
of operating the equipment to be modified. The system will continue
to operate in essentially the same manner as before the modification
was done.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different type of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The margin of safety is reduced for this proposed modification,
but not significantly. If the CAC inlet valve fails to open, the CAC
on that train would continue to perform its safety function.
However, the EDG on that train would receive cooling water above the
design temperature and may fail to perform its safety function. The
redundant EDG would provide adequate electricity to continue to
perform its safety function. If the CAC inlet valve fails in the
closed position, the EDG would continue to function; however, the
affected CAC would not rceive adequate cooling water. The other
three CACs would provide adequate cooling for the containment. Also,
the Containment Spray System provides additional containment cooling
as a backup to the CACs. If the CAC inlet valve fails to throttle
properly, the consequences are bounded by the other two cases
discussed above.
Adding a more complex component which could fail and result in a
failure of the SRW System does reduce the margin of safety, but not
significantly because: (1) The proposed flow controller is very
reliable and not likely to fail; (2) the other redundant CAC and EDG
are available to mitigate the consequence of an accident should
there be a single failure of the flow controller.
Therefore, this modification does not significantly reduce 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(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 15 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 15-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 15-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. 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
Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and
Publications 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, 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 July 1, 1996, 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 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 a 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
[[Page 27373]]
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, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 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 Jocelyn A. Mitchell: 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 20555-0001,
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 May 28, 1996, 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 29 day of May 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Alexander W. Dromerick,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-13793 Filed 5-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P