[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13171-13173]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6881]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-318]


Baltimore Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance to 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 isssued to Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE), for 
operation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2, 
located in Calvert County, Maryland.
    The proposed amendment would allow a modification to the Unit 2 
Service Water System (SWS) which constitutes an unreviewed safety 
question as described in 10 CFR 50.59. BGE proposes to add a nitrogen 
system to the SWS head tanks to increase the pressure in the SWS by 
approximately 15 psi. This proposed modification is in response to the 
water hammer concerns expressed in Generic Letter (GL) 96-06. The 
concern of the GL was that a loss-of-offsite power would disable the 
SWS pumps and stop flow in the SWS for a short time. If this situation 
should occur concurrent with a loss-of-coolant

[[Page 13172]]

accident or main steam line break, the water in the containment air 
coolers (CACs) could boil as a result of the energy released to 
containment by the accident. The boiling would form steam voids in the 
CACs. The voids would collapse when SWS flow was re-established and the 
collapse, combined with the returning flow, would cause a water hammer, 
challenging the CAC(s) and/or the related SWS piping. As discussed in a 
letter from Mr. C. H. Cruse dated January 28, 1997, the CACs and 
associated equipment were shown to be operable under these conditions.
    After considering several options, it was determined that the best 
method for resolving this concern is to increase the pressure in the 
SWS above the fluid saturation point, thus providing a means to prevent 
boiling in the CACs until the SWS pumps automatically restart.
    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.
    Neither the [SWS] nor any [SWS] component is an initiator to an 
accident. The [SWS] 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 [SWS] provides cooling water to the containment air coolers 
to mitigate the consequences of a loss-of-accident or main steam 
line break. A loss of nitrogen pressure to the [SWS] due to a single 
active failure has been evaluated. Since the nitrogen pressurization 
system is redundant, a single active failure in the nitrogen system 
would not prevent the [SWS] from performing its safety function. 
Therefore this proposed modification does not involve a significant 
increase in the consequences of an accident.
    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 [SWS] provides cooling water to the containment air coolers 
and emergency diesel generators. The purpose of the components which 
are affected by this proposed modification is to mitigate accidents. 
This proposed modification does not change equipment function, or 
significantly alter the method of operating equipment to be 
modified. The system will continue to operate in essentially the 
same manner as before the proposed modification was done.
    Therefore, the proposed changes 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 in this case is the degree to which a 
single failure of the nitrogen system can affect the [SWS], since it 
connects to both [SWS] head tanks. To determine if there would be an 
adverse effect on plant safety resulting from this proposed 
modification, an evaluation of malfunctions of the nitrogen 
pressurization system was conducted. The only credible malfunctions 
are those related to failure of the pressure regulator. Even if a 
regulator were to fail open or closed, the [SWS] can perform its 
safety function. The proposed modification includes design features 
which ensure that pressure is maintained in each subsystem, even if 
this single failure occurs. Therefore, this proposed modification 
maintains the ability of the [SWS] to properly respond to an 
accident.
    Therefore, this proposed 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 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 
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 April 18, 1997, the licensee may file a request for a hearing 
with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility 
operating license 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. 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

[[Page 13173]]

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 or 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 be 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: 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 S. Singh Bajwa: 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, 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 March 6, 1997, 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 12th day of March 1997.

    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. 97-6881 Filed 3-18- 97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P