Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 1996 / Notices 27371

the U.S. Department of Commerce at

(703) 487–4630.

Hard-copy subscriptions may be

purchased from: Superintendent of

Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, (202)

512–1800

When ordering hard-copy

subscription(s), be sure to specify the

State(s) of interest, since subscriptions

may be ordered for any or all of the six

separate volumes, arranged by State.

Subscriptions include an annual edition

(issued in January or February) which

includes all current general wage

determinations for the States covered by

each volume. Throughout the remainder

of the year, regular weekly updates are

distributed to subscribers.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 24th day

of May 1996.

Philip J. Gloss,

Chief, Branch of Construction Wage

Determinations.

[FR Doc. 96–13543 Filed 5–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–27–M

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 safetyrelated 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
27372 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 1996 / Notices

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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 1996 / Notices 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

[Docket No. 999–90004; License No. KS 22–

B274–0;1 EA 95–276]

Bemis Construction, Inc.; Order

Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty

I

Bemis Construction, Inc., (Bemis) is

the holder of Radioactive Materials

License No. 22–B274–01, a specific

license issued by the state of Kansas, an

Agreement State on September 30, 1987.

The license authorizes Bemis to possess

and use sealed radioactive sources in

portable nuclear density gauges at a

specific location in Great Bend, Kansas

and at temporary jobsites in the State of

Kansas in accordance with the

conditions specified in the license.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 150.20 and its

license, a general license is granted to

Agreement State licensees to conduct

the same activities in areas under NRC

jurisdiction (referred to as

‘‘reciprocity’’), provided that the NRC is

notified and the other provisions of 10

CFR 150.20 are followed.

II

An inspection and investigation of

Bemis’s activities were conducted

during August 17, 1995, through

January 3, 1996. The results of the

inspection and investigation,

documented in a report issued on

January 11, 1996, indicated that Bemis

had not conducted its activities in full

compliance with NRC requirements.

The violations identified included use

and storage of licensed material in NRC

jurisdiction without having complied

with the requirements for reciprocity.

Bemis responded to the inspection

report by letter dated January 22, 1996.

In its letter, Bemis stated that the reason

for the violation was an understanding

that the gauge could be used in

Oklahoma for short periods of time. A

written Notice of Violation and

Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty

(Notice) was served upon Bemis by

letter dated March 19, 1996. The Notice

stated the nature of the violation, the

provisions of the NRC requirements that

Bemis had violated, and the amount of

the civil penalty proposed for the

violation.

Bemis responded to the Notice by

letter dated April 17, 1996 (Reply to a

Notice of Violation and Answer to a

Notice of Violation). In its response,

Bemis stated that there was an apparent

mistaken belief that a reciprocity permit

with the NRC was not required under

certain conditions. The letter also

requested mitigation of the proposed

civil penalty based on assurances that

Bemis is in compliance now and will

not violate the cited requirements in the

future.

III

After consideration of Bemis’s

response and the statements of fact,

explanation, and argument for

mitigation contained therein, the NRC

staff has determined, as set forth in the

Appendix to this Order, that the

violations occurred as described in the

Notice, and that the penalty proposed

for the violations should be imposed by

order.

IV

In view of the foregoing and pursuant

to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C.

2282, and 10 CFR 2.205, It is hereby

ordered that:

Bemis Construction, Inc., pay a civil

penalty in the amount of $2,500 within

30 days of the date of this Order, by

check, draft, money order, or electronic

transfer, payable to the Treasurer of the

United States and mailed to James

Lieberman, Director, Office of