[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11151-11153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5134]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-483]


Union Electric Company; Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to 
Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
NPF-30, issued to Union Electric Company (the licensee), for operation 
of the Callaway plant, located in Callaway County, Missouri.
    The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specification (TS) 
Section 3/4.9.1 to establish administrative controls to address a 
possible boron dilution event directly from the reactor makeup water 
(RMW) system. An unreviewed safety question was involved with the use 
of RMW to rinse items removed from the refueling pool and to spray down 
the refueling pool walls during the pool drain evolution. The use of 
RMW in prior refueling outages during these Mode 6 activities raised 
the possibility of a different type of accident than any previously 
evaluated in the Callaway Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
    FSAR Section 15.4.6.2 currently states that administrative controls 
during Mode 6, i.e., closing and locking dilution source manual valves, 
preclude an inadvertent dilution of the boron concentration of the 
primary system. Since these valve closures do not preclude the 
potential dilution scenario described above, different procedural 
controls are required to ensure that LCO 3.9.1 boron concentration 
limit of 2000 ppm is met.
    NRC Generic Letter 85-05, ``Inadvertent Boron Dilution Events,'' 
January 1985, and NSAC-183, ``Risk of PWR Inadvertent Criticality 
During Shutdown and Refueling,'' dated December 1992, documents the 
technical justification for determining that boron dilution events are 
self-limiting. Based on the analyses provided in these documents, the 
staff's acceptance criteria remains valid for the different boron 
dilution transient (i.e., that gradual boron dilution events are 
[[Page 11152]] self-limiting due to inherent reactivity feedback 
mechanisms). Given the above, there will be no increase in the 
consequences of any accident or equipment malfunction.
    In a letter dated September 8, 1994, the licensee submitted an 
application to amend their Technical specifications. In their 
submittal, the licensee confirmed the applicability of the analyses in 
GL 85-05 and NSAC-183 to the subject boron dilution event. Pursuant to 
10 CFR 50.59(c)(2), the proposed amendment is required since changes 
are needed to procedural controls as described in the FSAR. These 
changes involve an unreviewed safety question which require Commission 
approval prior to implementation.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the 
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of 
the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As 
required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of 
the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below:

    (1) The initiating events are presented in revised FSAR Section 
15.4.6.2. The proposed changes affect only the procedural controls 
applicable for Mode 6.
    Overall protection system performance will remain within the 
bounds of the accident analyses documented in FSAR Chapter 15, WCAP-
10961-P, and WCAP-11883 since no hardware changes are proposed.
    There will be no degradation in the performance of nor an 
increase in the number of challenges to equipment assumed to 
function during an accident situation.
    This amendment application does not involve any hardware 
changes. There will be no change to normal plant operating 
parameters or accident mitigation capabilities. Therefore, there 
will be no increase in the probability of any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The Technical Specification limits on Mode 6 boron concentration 
will be met. The conclusions of NRC Generic Letter 85-05 and NSAC-
183 will remain valid (i.e., that gradual boron dilution events are 
self-limiting due to inherent reactivity feedback mechanisms). Given 
the above, there will be no increase in the consequences of any 
accident previously evaluated.
    (2) As discussed above, there are no hardware changes associated 
with these Technical Specification revisions nor are there any 
changes in the method by which any safety-related plant system 
performs its safety function.
    Administrative controls will limit the volume of unborated water 
which can be added to the refueling pool for decontamination 
activities. Administrative controls will also limit the potential 
for an unborated layer of water from entering the core region during 
the draining evolution. Technical Specification 3.9.1. will continue 
to be met.
    Given the above and the safety evaluation continued in 
Attachment 1 to the licensee's September 8, 1994, letter, the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated is not created.
    (3) The proposed administrative controls are sufficient to 
preclude diluting the boron concentration of the refueling pool 
below 2000 ppm. There will be no effect on the manner in which 
safety limits or limiting safety system settings are determined nor 
will there be any effect on those plant systems necessary to assure 
the accomplishment of protection function. There will be no impact 
on DNBR limits, FQ, F-delta-H, LOCA PCT, peak local power 
density, or any other margin of safety.
    Based upon the preceding information, it has been determined 
that the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications do not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated, create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, 
or involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, 
it is concluded that the proposed changes meet the requirements of 
10 CFR 50.92(c) and do not involve a significant hazards 
consideration.

    Therefore, based on the above considerations, the Commission has 
made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination. The Commission will not normally make a final 
determination unless it receives a request for a hearing.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulatory 
Publications Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and 
Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the 
publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. 
Written comments may also be delivered to room 6D22, Two White Flint, 
11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. 
Copies of written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public 
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC 
20555.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By March 31, 1995, the licensee may file a request for a hearing 
with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility 
operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding 
must file a written petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a 
hearing and petitions 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, 
N.W., Washington, DC 20555 and at the local public document room 
located at the Callaway County Public Library, 710 Court Street, 
Fulton, Missouri 65251.
    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 Sec. 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 aspects(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 fifteen (15) days prior to the [[Page 11153]] first 
prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended 
petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
    Not later than fifteen (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 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.
    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 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.
    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, D.C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service 
Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, 
the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555, by 
the above date. Where petitions are filed during the last ten (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 3737 and the 
following message addressed to Leif J. Norrholm: 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, D.C. 20555, and to Gerald 
Charnoff, Esq., Thomas A. Baxter, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts & 
Trowbridge, 2300 N. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 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 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 September 8, 1994, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555, and at the 
local public document room located at Callaway County Public Library, 
710 Court Street, Fulton, Missouri 65251.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of February 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Raynard Wharton,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-3, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-5134 Filed 2-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M