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

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