[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 44 (Friday, March 6, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11312-11317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5809]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318]


Baltimore Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendments To Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a 
Hearing

    On Friday, January 31, 1997, a Federal Register Notice (62 FR 4816)

[[Page 11313]]

was published stating that 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 the Baltimore Gas 
and Electric Company (BGE or the licensee) for operation of the Calvert 
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in Calvert 
County, Maryland.
    The proposed amendments requested by the licensee in a letter dated 
December 4, 1996, would represent a full conversion from the current 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to a set of TS based on NUREG-1432, 
Revision 1, ``Standard Technical Specifications, Combustion Engineering 
Plants dated April 1995. Since that time, the Commission has received 
supplements to the application dated March 27, June 9, June 18, July 
21, August 19, September 10, October 6, October 20, October 23, 
November 5, 1997, and January 12 and 28, 1998. Therefore, issues not 
fully discussed in (62 FR 4816) are presented below.
    The proposed amendment includes the following:
    1. The licensee is proposing to add a new surveillance requirement 
(SR) 3.4.9.2 to the Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) which will 
require verification that the capacity of each required bank of 
pressurizer heaters is equal to or greater than 150 kW every 24 months. 
This is a more restrictive change.
    2. The licensee has proposed a change to the current TS 
applicability for the pressurizer safety valves which require that both 
safety valves be operable in Modes 1, 2, and 3 and that one safety 
valve be operable in Modes 4 and 5. The ITS will modify these 
applicability requirements for Mode 3 to specify that two safety valves 
shall be operable with all reactor coolant system (RCS) cold leg 
temperature >365  deg.F for Unit 1 and >301  deg.F for Unit 2. This is 
a less restrictive change.
    3. The licensee proposes that the power-operated relief valve 
(PORVs) be demonstrated operable by performance of a channel test once 
per 92 days as part of the conversion to the ITS. The current TS 
require that the PORVs be demonstrated operable by performance of a 
Channel Function Test once per 31 days. This a less restrictive change.
    4. Current TS 3.4.6 2.C specifies that the RCS shall be limited to 
``1 gpm total primary--to secondary leakage through all steam 
generators and 100 gallon-per-day through any one steam generator.'' 
The proposed ITS LCO 3.4.1.3 eliminates the limit of 1 gpm total 
primary-to-secondary leakage through all steam generators and thus will 
only require a limit of 100 gallon per day through any one steam 
generator. This is an administrative change.
    5. Current TS SR 4.5.2.f.2 requires verifying at least once per 
Refueling Interval, during shutdown, that the high-pressure safety 
injection pump and low-pressure safety injection pump (LPSI) start 
automatically upon receipt of a safety injection actuation test signal. 
Proposed ITS SR 3.5.2.6 retains this same requirement with a specified 
frequency of 24 months, which is equivalent to the refueling interval. 
The proposed ITS will add a new SR 3.5.2.7 which requires verification 
that each LPSI pump stops on an actual or simulated actuation signal. 
This a more restrictive change.
    6. The proposed amendment regarding the control room emergency 
ventilation system (CREVS) changes the surveillance from 18 months to 
24 months (each refueling cycle) for the following SR. Current TS SR 
4.7.6.1.e.2 requires that each train of CREVS is demonstrated operable 
at least once every 18 months by verifying that on a control room high 
radiation test signal, the system automatically switches into a 
recirculation mode of operation with flow through the HEPA filters and 
charcoal adsorber banks and that both of the isolation valves in each 
duct and common exhaust duct, and isolation valve in the toilet exhaust 
area duct, close. The above change is less restrictive.
    7. The proposed amendment regarding the control room emergency 
temperature system (CRETS) changes the surveillance interval from 62 
days on a staggered basis (one train every 31 days) to 24 months (each 
refueling interval) for the following SR:

    Current TS SR 4.7.6.1.a requires demonstrating that each CRETS 
train is operable at least once every 62 days, on a staggered test 
basis (one train every 31 days) by: (1) Deenergizing the backup 
Control Room air conditioner; and (2) verifying that the emergency 
Control Room air conditioners maintain the air temperature [less 
than or equal to] 104  deg.F for at least 12 hours when in the 
recirculation mode.

    SR 4.7.6.1.a changes to ITS SR 3.7.9.1 to require demonstrating 
operability of CRETS at least every 24 months by verifying each CRETS 
train has the capability to maintain control room temperature within 
limits. The above changes are less restrictive.
    8. The proposed amendment regarding the spent fuel pool exhaust 
ventilation system (SFPEVS) will change the surveillance interval from 
18 months to 24 months (each refueling interval) for the following SR. 
This is a less restrictive change.
    Current TS SR 4.9.12.d requires demonstrating that the SFPEVS is 
operable at least once per 18 months by: (1) Verifying that the 
pressure drop across the combined HEPA filters and charcoal adsorber 
banks are <4 inches Water Gauge while operating the ventilation system 
at a flow rate of 32,000 cfm plus or minus 10%; and (2) verifying that 
each exhaust fan maintains the spent fuel storage pool at a measurable 
negative pressure relative to the outside atmosphere during system 
operation.
    SR 4.9.12.d will change to ITS SR 3.7.11.3 to require demonstrating 
that the SFPEVS is operable at least once per 24 months by verifying 
that each exhaust fan maintains the spent fuel pool at a measurable 
negative pressure relative to the outside atmosphere during system 
operation.
    9. The proposed amendment regarding the penetration room exhaust 
ventilation system (PREVS) changes the surveillance interval from 18 
months to 24 months (each refueling interval for the following SR:

    Current TS SR 4.6.6.1.d.2 requires demonstrating that each PREVS 
train is operable at least once per 18 months by verifying that the 
filter train starts on a Containment Isolation Test Signal.
    SR 4.6.6.1.d.2 changes to ITS SR 3.7.12.3 to require 
demonstrating operability of the PREVS at least once every 24 months 
by verifying each PREVS train starts on an actual or simulated 
actuation signal. The above change is less restrictive.

    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.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards determination: As 
required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of 
the issue of no

[[Page 11314]]

significant hazards consideration which is presented below for the 
above items.

Item 1 and Item 5--More Restrictive Changes

    1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed changes provide more stringent requirements than 
previously existed in the Technical Specifications. Each change was 
evaluated and it was determined that these more stringent 
requirements do not result in operation that will increase the 
probability of initiating an analyzed event. If anything, the new 
requirements may decrease the probability or consequences of an 
analyzed event by incorporating the more restrictive changes 
discussed above. The proposed changes do not alter assumptions 
relative to mitigation of an accident or transient. The more 
restrictive requirements continue to ensure process variables, 
structures, systems, and components are maintained consistent with 
the safety analyses and licensing basis. The proposed changes do not 
significantly affect initiators or mitigation of analyzed events, 
and therefore do not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed changes provide more stringent requirements than 
previously existed in the Technical Specifications. The changes will 
not involve a significant change in design or operation of the 
plant. No hardware is being added to the plant as part of the 
proposed changes. The proposed changes will not introduce any new 
accident initiators. The changes do impose different requirements. 
However, these changes are consistent with the assumptions in the 
safety analyses and licensing basis. Therefore, the changes do not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in margin of 
safety?
    The proposed changes provide more stringent requirements than 
previously existed in the Technical Specifications. An evaluation of 
these changes concluded that adding these more restrictive 
requirements either increases or has no impact on the margin of 
safety. The changes provide additional restrictions which may 
enhance plant safety. The changes maintain requirements within the 
safety analyses and licensing basis. As such, no question of safety 
is involved. Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

Item 2--Less Restrictive Changes

    1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed change deletes the Mode 3 with any cold leg 
temperature [less than or equal to] 365 deg.F ([less than or equal 
to] 301 deg.F for Unit 2) and the Mode 4 and 5 Applicabilities from 
the Modes of Applicability for the pressurizer safety valves. The 
pressurizer safety valves are not initiators of any analyzed event. 
The pressurizer safety valves are not required to mitigate any 
accidents in Mode 3 with cold leg temperature [less than or equal 
to] 365 deg.F ([less than or equal to] 301 deg.F for Unit 2), or in 
Modes 4 or 5. In Mode 3 with any cold leg temperature [less than or 
equal to] 365 deg.F ([less than or equal to] 301 deg.F for Unit 2) 
overpressure protection is provided by the Low Temperature 
Overpressure Protection (LTOP) System. The change will not alter 
assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient. 
The proposed changes do not significantly affect initiators or 
mitigation of analyzed events, and therefore do not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    The proposed change deletes the Mode 3 with any cold leg 
temperature [less than or equal to] 365 deg.F ([less than or equal 
to] 301 deg.F for Unit 2), and the Mode 4 and 5 Applicabilities from 
the Modes of Applicability for the pressurizer safety valves. The 
change will not involve a significant change in design or operation 
of the plant. No hardware is being added to the plant as part of the 
proposed change. The proposed change will not introduce any new 
accident initiators. Therefore, the change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in margin of 
safety?
    The proposed change deletes the Mode 3 with any cold leg 
temperature [less than or equal to] 365 deg.F ([less than or equal 
to] 301 deg.F for Unit 2), and Mode 4 and 5 Applicabilities from the 
Modes of Applicability for the pressurizer safety valves. The 
pressurizer safety valves are not required for overpressure 
protection in Mode 3 with any cold leg temperature [less than or 
equal to] 365 deg.F ([less than or equal to] 301 deg.F for Unit 2), 
or in Modes 4 or 5. The overpressure protection in these Modes are 
provided by the LTOP System. Therefore, the change does not involve 
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Item 3--Less Restrictive Change

    1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed change decreases the Surveillance Frequency for the 
PORV Special Test Exception from 31 days to 92 days. Decreasing the 
PORV Special Test Exception Frequency to 92 days is not an initiator 
of any analyzed event. The PORV shares the same instrumentation as 
the Reactor Protective System Pressurizer High Function, which was 
approved for quarterly Channel Functional Testing in an NRC Safety 
Evaluation Report, dated August 24, 1994. A plant-specific setpoint 
drift analysis demonstrated that the observed changes in instrument 
uncertainties for extended Surveillance test intervals do not exceed 
the current 30-day setpoint assumptions. This provides confidence 
the 90-92 day test interval will not impact the ability of the PORV 
to perform its safety function. The change will not significantly 
alter assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or 
transient. The proposed changes do not significantly affect 
initiators or mitigation of analyzed events, and therefore do not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    The proposed change decreases the Surveillance Frequency for the 
PORV Channel Functional Test from 31 days to 92 days. The change 
will not involve a significant change in design or operation of the 
plant. No hardware is being added to the plant as part of the 
proposed change. The proposed change will not introduce any new 
accident initiators. Therefore, the change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in margin of 
safety?
    The proposed change decreases the Surveillance Frequency for the 
PORV Channel Functional Test from 31 days to 92 days. The PORV 
shares the same instrumentation as the Reactor Protective System 
Pressurizer Pressure High Function, which was approved for quarterly 
Channel Functional Testing in an NRC Safety Evaluation Report, dated 
August 24, 1994. This change makes the testing Frequency for the 
PORV consistent with the Reactor Protective System High Pressurizer 
Function, which shares the same instrumentation. The core melt 
Frequency remains unchanged. Also, the instrument drift resulting 
from the proposed Surveillance interval is less than the instrument 
drift presently assumed for the current Surveillance interval. 
Therefore, the change does not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.

Item 4--Administrative Change

    1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed changes involve reformatting, renumbering, and 
rewording of the existing Technical Specifications, along with the 
incorporation of current plant practices and other changes, as 
discussed above, in order to be consistent with NUREG-1432. These 
changes involve no technical changes to the existing Technical 
Specifications. Specifically, there will be no change in the 
requirements imposed on Calvert Cliffs due to these changes. Thus, 
the changes are administrative in nature and do not impact 
initiators of analyzed events. The proposed changes do not 
significantly affect initiators or mitigation of analyzed events, 
and therefore do not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed changes involve reformatting, renumbering, and 
rewording of the existing Technical Specifications, along with the 
incorporation of current plant

[[Page 11315]]

practices and other changes, as discussed above, in order to be 
consistent with NUREG-1432. The changes will not involve a 
significant change in design or operation of the plant. No hardware 
is being added to the plant as part of the proposed change. The 
proposed changes will not introduce any new accident initiators. 
Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in margin of 
safety?
    The proposed changes involve reformatting, renumbering, and 
rewording of the existing Technical Specifications, along with the 
incorporation of current plant practices and other changes, as 
discussed above, in order to be consistent with NUREG-1432. The 
changes are administrative in nature and will not involve any 
technical changes. The changes will not reduce a margin of safety 
because it has no impact on any safety analysis assumptions. 
Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.

Item 6--Less Restrictive Changes

    1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed change decreases the Surveillance Frequency from 18 
to 24 months for verifying that the Control Room Emergency 
Ventilation System (CREVS) will actuate on an actual or simulated 
actuation signal. The CREVS is not an initiator to any accident 
previously evaluated so there is no change in the probability of an 
accident. The 24-month test frequency is sufficient to verify that 
the equipment will actuate if needed, so the equipment will continue 
to be able to mitigate the consequences of accidents previously 
evaluated. Therefore, this change will not involve an increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed change decreases the Surveillance Frequency from 18 
to 24 months for verifying that the CREVS will actuate on an actual 
or simulated actuation signal. This change will not physically alter 
the plant (no new or different types of equipment will be 
installed). The change does not require any new or unusual operator 
actions. 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 change decreased the Surveillance Frequency from 18 
to 24 months for verifying that the CREVS will actuate on an actual 
or simulated actuation signal. A review of previously performed 
Surveillances determined that no failures have been found during the 
performance of this SR once per 18 months. Given the performance 
history, there is no reason to believe that a Frequency of 24 months 
would result in reduced reliability of the system. Therefore, this 
change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of 
safety.

Item 7--Less Restrictive Change

    1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed change will decrease the Frequency from 62 days on 
a Staggered Test Basis (one train every 31 days) to 24 months for 
verifying that the CRETS can maintain temperature in the Control 
Room at [less than or equal to] 104 deg.F. This change will not 
significantly increase the possibility of an accident previously 
evaluated. The CRETS is not an initiator of any analyzed event. This 
change will not significantly increase the consequences of an 
accident. The CRETS will still be tested at a Frequency that will 
show it can maintain Control Room temperature. Review of the past 10 
years of data has shown that during this period the test has never 
failed. This change will not significantly affect the assumptions 
relative to the mitigation of accidents or transients. Therefore, 
the change does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability of consequence of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed change will decrease the Frequency from 62 days on 
a Staggered Test Basis (one train every 31 days) to 24 months for 
verifying that the CRETS can maintain temperature in the Control 
Room at [less than or equal to] 104 deg.F. This change does not 
involve a significant change in the design or operation of the 
plant. No hardware is being added to the plant as part of the 
proposed change. The proposed change will not introduce any new 
accident initiators. 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 change will decrease the Frequency from 62 days on 
a Staggered Test Basis (one train every 31 days) to 24 months for 
verifying that the CRETS can maintain temperature in the Control 
Room at [less than or equal to] 104 deg.F. The margin of safety is 
not significantly affected by this change. The Surveillance will 
still be performed at an interval which will prove the CRETS remains 
Operable based on an evaluation of past Surveillance history. Also, 
increasing the Surveillance interval will prevent inadvertent wear 
and tear on the system due to over testing, which can possibly lead 
to premature failures. Therefore, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Item 8--Less Restrictive Change

    1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed change decreases the Surveillance Frequency from 18 
months to 24 months for verifying that the SFPEVS can maintain a 
measurable negative pressure in the spent fuel pool area of the 
Auxiliary Building. This change will not affect the probability of 
an accident. The SFPEVS is not an initiator of any analyzed event. 
The change will not affect the consequences of an accident. The 24-
month Frequency is sufficient to ensure that the SFPEVS can maintain 
a measurable negative pressure in the spent fuel pool area. The 
change will not alter assumptions relative to the mitigation of an 
accident or transient. Therefore, the change will not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequence of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed change decreases the Surveillance Frequency from 18 
months to 24 months for verifying that the SFPEVS can maintain a 
measurable negative pressure in the spent fuel pool area of the 
Auxiliary Building. This change will not physically alter the plant 
(no new or different type of equipment will be installed). The 
change does not require any new or unusual operator actions. 
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 change decreases the Surveillance Frequency from 18 
to 24 months for verifying that the SFPEVS can maintain a measurable 
negative pressure in the spent fuel pool area of the Auxiliary 
Building. The margin of safety is not significantly affected by this 
change. The failure history for this SR has shown that no failures 
have occurred in the previous ten years. The proposed Frequency will 
continue to prove that the SFPEVS will maintain a negative pressure 
in the spent fuel pool area. Therefore, the change does not involve 
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Item 9--Less Restrictive Change

    1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed change decreases the Surveillance Frequency from 18 
to 24 months for verifying that the Penetration Room Emergency 
Ventilation System (PREVS) will actuate on an actual or simulated 
actuation signal. The PREVS is not an initiator to any accident 
previously evaluated so there is no change in the probability of an 
accident. The 24-month test frequency is sufficient to verify that 
the equipment will actuate if needed so the equipment will continue 
to be able to mitigate the consequences of accidents previously 
evaluated. Therefore, this change will not involve an increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed change decreases the Surveillance Frequency from 18 
to 24 months for verifying that the PREVS will actuate on an actual 
or simulated actuation signal. This change will not physically alter 
the plant (no new or different types of equipment will be 
installed). The change does not require any new or unusual operator 
actions. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.

[[Page 11316]]

    3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    The proposed change decreases the Surveillance Frequency from 18 
to 24 months for verifying that the PREVS will actuate on an actual 
or simulated actuation signal. A review of previously performed 
Surveillances determined that no failures have been found during the 
performance of this SR once per 18 months. Given the performance 
history, there is no reason to believe that a Frequency of 24 months 
would result in reduced reliability of the system. Therefore, this 
change will not involve an increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analyses 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, 
regarding the matters discussed above.
    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 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 April 6, 1998, 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 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

[[Page 11317]]

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 Jay E. Silberg, 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 December 4, 1996, as supplemented March 
27, June 9, June 18, July 21, August 14, August 19, September 10, 
October 6, October 20, October 23, November 5, 1997, and January 12 and 
January 28, 1998, 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 2nd day of March 1998.

    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. 98-5809 Filed 3-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P