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

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