[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 106 (Friday, May 31, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27371-27373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13793]



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

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 safety-related 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

[[Page 27372]]

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

[[Page 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