[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