[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