[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 27, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22658-22661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-10493]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-483]


Union Electric Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 
Amendment to Facility Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
NPF-30, issued to the Union Electric Company (UE or the licensee), for 
operation of the Callaway Plant, Unit 1 (CW), located in Callaway 
County, Missouri.
    The initial notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to 
facility operating license and opportunity for hearing was originally 
published in the Federal Register (63 FR 53468) on October 5, 1998. The 
information included in the supplemental letters indicates that the 
original notice, that included 14 proposed beyond-scope issues (BSIs) 
to the Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) conversion, needs to be 
expanded (to add 17 new BSIs) and revised (to delete 7 previous BSIs) 
to include a total of 24 BSIs. This notice supersedes the previous 
notice.
    The proposed amendment, requested by the licensee in a letter dated 
May 15, 1997, as supplemented by letters dated June 26, August 4, 
August 27, September 24, October 21, November 23, November 25, December 
11 and December 22, 1998, and February 5, March 9, April 7, and April 
21, 1999, would represent a full conversion from the current Technical 
Specifications (CTS) to a set of ITS based on NUREG-1431, ``Standard 
Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants,'' Revision 1, dated 
April 1995 (the STS). NUREG-1431 has been developed by the Commission's 
staff through working groups composed of both NRC staff members and 
industry representatives, and has been endorsed by the staff as part of 
an industry-wide initiative to standardize and improve the Technical 
Specifications (TS) for nuclear power plants. As part of this 
submittal, the licensee has applied the criteria contained in the 
Commission's ``Final Policy Statement on Technical Specification 
Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors (Final Policy Statement),'' 
published in the Federal Register on July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132), to 
the CTS, and, using NUREG-1431 as a basis, proposed an ITS for CW. The 
criteria in the Final Policy Statement were subsequently added to 10 
CFR 50.36, ``Technical Specifications,'' in a rule change that was 
published in the Federal Register on July 19, 1995 (60 FR 36953) and 
became effective on August 18, 1995.
    This conversion is a joint effort in concert with three other 
utilities: Pacific Gas & Electric Company for Diablo Canyon Power 
Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323); TU Electric for 
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-445 
and 50-446); and Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation for Wolf 
Creek Generating Station (Docket No. 50-482). This joint effort 
includes a common methodology for the licensees in marking-up the CTS 
and NUREG-1431 Specifications, and the NUREG-1431 Bases, that has been 
accepted by the staff. This includes the convention that, if the words 
in a CTS specification are not the same as the words in the ITS 
specification but they mean the same or have the same requirements as 
the words in the ITS specification, the licensees do not indicate or 
describe a change to the CTS.
    This common methodology is discussed at the end of Enclosure 2, 
``Mark-Up of Current TS''; Enclosure 5a, ``Mark-Up of NUREG-1431 
Specifications''; and Enclosure 5b, ``Mark-Up of NUREG-1431 Bases,'' 
for each of the 14 separate ITS sections that were submitted with the 
licensee's application. For each of the 14 ITS sections, there is also 
the following: Enclosure 1, the cross reference table, sorted by CTS 
and ITS Specifications; Enclosure 3, the description of the changes to 
the CTS section and the comparison table showing which plants (of the 
four licensees in the joint effort) that each change applies to; 
Enclosure 4, the no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) of 10 CFR 
50.91 for the changes to the CTS with generic NSHCs for administrative, 
more restrictive, relocation, and moving-out-of-CTS changes, and 
individual NSHCs for less restrictive changes and with the organization 
of the NSHC evaluation discussed in the beginning of the enclosure; and 
Enclosure 6, the descriptions of the differences from NUREG-1431 
specifications and the comparison table showing which plants (of the 
four licensees in the joint effort) that each difference applies to. 
Another convention of the common methodology is that the technical 
justifications for the less restrictive changes are included in the 
NSHCs.
    The licensee has categorized the proposed changes to the CTS into 
four general groupings. These groupings are characterized as 
administrative changes, relocated changes, more restrictive changes and 
less restrictive changes.
    Administrative changes are those that involve restructuring, 
renumbering, rewording, interpretation and complex rearranging of 
requirements and other changes not affecting technical content or 
substantially revising an operating requirement. The reformatting, 
renumbering and rewording process reflects the attributes of NUREG-1431 
and does not involve technical changes to the existing TS. The proposed 
changes include (a) providing the appropriate numbers, etc., for NUREG-
1431 bracketed information (information that must be supplied on a 
plant-specific basis, and which may change from plant to plant), (b) 
identifying plant-specific wording for system names, etc., and (c) 
changing NUREG-1431 section wording to conform to existing licensee 
practices. Such changes are administrative in nature and do not impact 
initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or 
transient events.
    Relocated changes are those involving relocation of requirements 
and surveillances for structures, systems, components, or variables 
that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in the TS. Relocated 
changes are those current TS requirements that do not satisfy or fall 
within any of the four criteria specified in the Commission's policy 
statement and may be relocated to appropriate licensee-controlled 
documents.
    The licensee's application of the screening criteria is described 
in Attachment 2 to its May 15, 1997, submittal, which is entitled, 
``General Description and Assessment.'' The affected structures, 
systems, components or variables are not assumed to be initiators of 
analyzed events and are not assumed to mitigate accident or transient 
events. The requirements and surveillances for these affected 
structures, systems, components, or variables will be relocated from 
the TS to administratively controlled documents such as the quality 
assurance program,

[[Page 22659]]

the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), the ITS Bases, the Technical 
Requirements Manual (TRM) that is incorporated by reference in the 
FSAR, the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), the Offsite Dose 
Calculation Manual (ODCM), the Inservice Testing (IST) Program, or 
other licensee-controlled documents. Changes made to these documents 
will be made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 or other appropriate control 
mechanisms, and may be made without prior NRC review and approval. In 
addition, the affected structures, systems, components, or variables 
are addressed in existing surveillance procedures that are also subject 
to 10 CFR 50.59. These proposed changes will not impose or eliminate 
any requirements.
    More restrictive changes are those involving more stringent 
requirements compared to the CTS for operation of the facility. These 
more stringent requirements do not result in operation that will alter 
assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient 
event. The more restrictive requirements will not alter the operation 
of process variables, structures, systems, and components described in 
the safety analyses. For each requirement in the CTS that is more 
restrictive than the corresponding requirement in NUREG-1431 that the 
licensee proposes to retain in the ITS, they have provided an 
explanation of why they have concluded that retaining the more 
restrictive requirement is desirable to ensure safe operation of the 
facility because of specific design features of the plant.
    Less restrictive changes are those where CTS requirements are 
relaxed or eliminated, or new plant operational flexibility is 
provided. The more significant ``less restrictive'' requirements are 
justified on a case-by-case basis. When requirements have been shown to 
provide little or no safety benefit, their removal from the TSs may be 
appropriate. In most cases, relaxations previously granted to 
individual plants on a plant-specific basis were the result of (a) 
generic NRC actions, (b) new NRC staff positions that have evolved from 
technological advancements and operating experience, or (c) resolution 
of the Owners Groups' comments on the Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications. Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1431 were 
reviewed by the staff and found to be acceptable because they are 
consistent with current licensing practices and NRC regulations. The 
licensee's design will be reviewed to determine if the specific design 
basis and licensing basis are consistent with the technical basis for 
the model requirements in NUREG-1431, thus providing a basis for these 
revised TS, or if relaxation of the requirements in the current TS is 
warranted based on the justification provided by the licensee.
    These administrative, relocated, more restrictive, and less 
restrictive changes to the requirements of the CTS do not result in 
operations that will alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an 
analyzed accident or transient event.
    In addition to the proposed changes solely involving the 
conversion, there are also changes proposed that are different than the 
requirements in both the CTS and the improved Standard Technical 
Specifications (NUREG-1431). The first 7 beyond-scope issues (BSIs) 
were included in the previous (superceded) notice and still apply to 
the conversion, however there are 17 additional BSIs. The additional 
BSIs are discussed in the licensee's response to requests for 
additional information (RAIs) from the NRC staff. These proposed BSIs 
to the ITS conversion are as follows:
    1. ITS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.2.1.1 and SR 3.2.1.2--add 
frequency of once within 24 hours to CTS 4.2.2.2.d for verifying the 
axial heat flux hot channel factor is within limits after achieving 
equilibrium conditions.
    2. ITS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.3.9--revise Action 
5.b of CTS Table 3.3-1 to increase the verification interval for 
unborated water source isolation valve position from 14 days to 31 
days.
    3. ITS LCO 3.4.7 and SRs 3.4.5.2, 3.4.6.2, and 3.4.7.2--revise 
steam generator (SG) level requirements from 10% wide range to 4% 
narrow range in CTS SRs 4.4.1.2.2 and 4.4.1.3.2 for Modes 3, 4, and 5 
to ensure SG tubes are covered and provide an adequate heat sink.
    4. ITS LCO 3.4.1.2--revise applicability note to CTS LCO 3.4.9.3 to 
allow a longer time, up to 1 hour, for both centrifugal charging pumps 
to be capable of injecting into the reactor coolant system.
    5. ITS LCO 3.7.15--changes reference for the spent fuel pool level 
from that above top of fuel stored in racks to that above the top of 
racks in CTS LCO 3.9.11.
    6. ITS 5.6.5.a--adds the refueling boron concentration to the core 
operating limits report in CTS 6.9.1.9.
    7. ITS 5.7.1--changes limits for high radiation areas in CTS 6.12.1 
to reflect the requirements of revised 10 CFR Part 20.
    8. Change 1-34-LS-2 (ITS Table 1.1-1), question 1.1-9, response 
letter dated April 21, 1999. The proposed change adds notes to CTS 
Table 1.2 to identify the number of reactor vessel head closure bolts 
required to be fully tensioned for Modes 4 and 5. A Note is also 
proposed to address Mode 6 bolt requirements.
    9. Change 1-7-LS-3 (ITS Table 3.3-1), question 3.3-107, response 
letter dated November 25, 1998. The proposed change to CTS Table 3.3-1 
would (1) extend the completion time for CTS Action 3.b from no time 
specified to 24 hours for channel restoration or changing the power 
level to either below P-6 or above P-10, (2) change the applicable 
modes and delete CTS Action 3.a because it is now outside the revised 
intermediate range neutron flux channel applicability, and (3) add a 
less restrictive new action that requires immediate suspension of 
operations involving positive reactivity additions and a power 
reduction below P-6 within two hours, but no longer requires a 
reduction to Mode 3.
    10. Change 1-22-M (ITS SR 3.3.1.8), question 3.3-49, response 
letter dated November 25, 1998. The proposed change would add quarterly 
channel operational tests (COTs) to CTS Table 4.3-1 for the power range 
neutron flux-low, intermediate range neutron flux, and source range 
neutron flux trip functions. The CTS only require a COT prior to 
startup for these functions. New Note 19 (which is from the STS) would 
be added to require that the new quarterly COT be performed within 12 
hours after reducing power below P-10 for the power range and 
intermediate range (P-10 is the dividing point marking the 
applicability for these trip functions), if not performed in the 
previous 92 days. New Note 20 (which is from the STS), would be added 
to state that the P-6 and P-10 interlocks are verified to be in their 
required state during all COTs on the power range neutron flux-low and 
intermediate range neutron flux trip functions.
    11. Change 1-46-M, (ITS Table 3.3.1-1 and 3.3.2-1), question 3.3-
04, response letter dated March 9, 1999. The proposed change would 
revise CTS Table 3.3-1 Action 13 and CTS Table 3.3-3 Action 36 to 
require an inoperable SG low-low level (normal containment environment) 
instrument channel be placed in the tripped condition within 6 hours. 
The option to place the associated environmental allowance monitor 
(EAM) channels in trip would be deleted.
    12. Change 4-09-LS-36, (ITS SR 3.4.11.1), question 3.4.11-4, 
response letter dated September 24, 1998. The proposed change would 
limit the CTS SR 4.4.4.2 requirement to perform the

[[Page 22660]]

92-day surveillance of the pressurizer power operated relief (PORV) 
block valves so that it is not required to be performed if the block 
valve is closed to meet CTS LCO 3.4.4 Action a. A note is also proposed 
to be added to action d to state that the Action does not apply if the 
block valve is inoperable solely to satisfy CTS LCO 3.4.4 Action b or 
c.
    13. Change 10-20-LS-39 (ITS LCO 3.7.10), question 3.7.10-14, 
response letter dated October 21, 1998. The proposed change would add 
an action to CTS LCO 3.7.6 for ventilation system pressure envelope 
degradation that allows 24 hours to restore the control room pressure 
envelope through repairs before requiring the unit to perform an 
orderly shutdown. The new action has a longer allowed outage time than 
LCO 3.0.4 which the CTS would require to be entered immediately. The 
change would recognize that the ventilation trains associated with the 
pressure envelope would still be operable.
    14. Change 2-25-LS-23 (ITS SR 3.8.4.7 and SR 3.8.4.8), the change, 
proposed in the amendment application, would allow substitution of a 
modified performance discharge test for the battery service test in CTS 
SR 4.8.2.1.e.
    15. Change 1-09-A (ITS 5.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated 
September 24, 1998. The proposed change would replace CTS 6.2.2.e 
requirements concerning overtime with a reference to administrative 
procedures for the control of working hours.
    16. Change 1-15-A (ITS 5.2.2.f), question Q5.2-1, response letter 
dated September 24, 1998. The proposed change would revise CTS 6.2.2.g 
to eliminate the title of Shift Technical Advisor (STA). The 
engineering expertise would be maintained on shift, but not as a 
separate individual, as allowed by the Commission's Policy Statement on 
engineering expertise.
    17. Change 2-17-LS-1 (ITS 5.5.7), question Q5.5-2, response letter 
dated September 24, 1998. The proposed change would add an allowance to 
the CTS for the reactor coolant pump flywheel inspection program to 
permit an exception to the examination requirements specified in CTS SR 
6.8.5.b (Regulatory position C.b.4 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.14, 
``Reactor Coolant Pump Flywheel Integrity,'' Revision 1.) The exception 
would allow either an ultrasonic volumetric or surface examination as 
an acceptable inspection method.
    18. Change 2-18-A (ITS 5.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated 
September 24, 1998. The proposed change would revise the CTS 6.8.4.e.7 
dose rate limits in the radiological effluents controls program to 
reflect 10 CFR Part 20 requirements.
    19. Change 2-22-A (ITS 5.5.4.k), question Q5.2-1, response letter 
dated September 24, 1998. The proposed change would revise the 
radiological effluents controls program in CTS 6.8.3.e to add 
clarifying statements denoting that the provisions of CTS 4.0.2 and 
4.0.3, which allow extensions to surveillance frequencies, are also 
applicable to these program activities.
    20. Change 3-18-LS-5 (ITS 5.6.4), question Q5.2-1, response letter 
dated September 24, 1998. The CTS 6.9.1.8 requirement to provide 
documentation of all challenges to the power operated relief valves 
(PORVs) and safety valves on the reactor coolant system would be 
deleted. This would be based on NRC Generic Letter (GL) 97-02, 
``Revised Contents in the Monthly Operating Report,'' which reduced the 
requirements for submitting such information to the NRC. The GL did not 
include these valves for information to be submitted.
    21. Change 9-14-M (ITS SR 3.4.12.3). The change, proposed in the 
amendment application, would add a new surveillance requirement to CTS 
LCO 3.4.9.3 on overpressure protection systems to verify each 
accumulator is isolated when the accumulator pressure is greater than 
or equal to the maximum reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure for the 
existing RCS cold leg temperature allowed by the pressure/temperature 
limit curves provided in the pressure temperature limit report.
    22. Change 14-09-M (ITS 3.7.16), question 3.7.16-3, response letter 
dated March 9, 1999. The proposed change would add a new LCO, with 
actions and surveillance requirements from the ITS, to the CTS for the 
allowable fuel storage boron concentration. The new specification is 
based on ITS 3.7.17 with the proposed minimum acceptable boron 
concentration for the spent fuel storage pool being 2165 ppm boron.
    23. Change 1-15-A (ITS SR 3.3.1.15), question TR-3.3-007, response 
letter dated December 22, 1998. The proposed change would modify the 
applicability of the reactor trip on turbine trip function in CTS Table 
3.3-1 by adding a new footnote (c) stating that this function would 
only be required to be operable above the P-9 interlock. This is 
proposed since this function is blocked below the P-9 interlock. The 
applicability change would also be reflected in the revised trip 
actuating device operational test (TADOT) requirements for functional 
unit #16 in CTS Table 4.3-2.
    24. Change 1-30-M (ITS LCO 3.3.9) questions 3.3-119 and 3.3-121, 
response letter dated April 21, 1999. The proposed change would add a 
new LCO with actions and SR from the ITS for the boron dilution 
mitigation system. Additional restrictions not in the CTS would be 
added to address the requirement that one RCS loop shall be in 
operation for Modes 2 (below P-6), 3, 4 and 5. This is not included in 
the CTS or ITS 3.3.9.
    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.
    By May 27, 1999, 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 Elmer Ellis Library, University of 
Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, 65201. 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

[[Page 22661]]

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.
    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 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 Mr. John O'Neill, 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 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).
    If a request for a hearing is received, the Commission's staff may 
issue the amendment after it completes its technical review and prior 
to the completion of any required hearing if it publishes a further 
notice for public comment of its proposed finding of no significant 
hazards consideration in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and 50.92.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated May 15, 1997, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 26, August 4, August 27, September 24, October 21, 
November 23, November 25, December 11 and December 22, 1998, and 
February 5, March 9, April 7, and April 21, 1999, which are 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 Elmer Ellis Library, University of 
Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, 65201.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of April 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mel Gray,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning 
Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-10493 Filed 4-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P