[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 26, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28535-28538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13421]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-482]


Union Electric Company; Callaway Plant, Unit 1; Environmental 
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering the issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License 
No. NPF-30 that was issued to Union Electric Company (the licensee) for 
operation of the Callaway Plant, Unit 1 located in Callaway County, 
Missouri.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed amendment will revise the Current Technical 
Specifications (CTS) for Callaway Plant, Unit 1 in their entirety based 
on the guidance provided in NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications, Westinghouse Plants,'' Revision 1, dated April 1995, 
and in the Commission's ``Final Policy Statement on Technical 
Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors,'' published on 
July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132). The proposed action is in accordance with 
the licensee's amendment request dated May 15, 1997, as supplemented by 
(1) the letters in 1998 dated June 26, August 4, August 27, September 
24, October 21 (two letters), November 23, November 25, December 11, 
and December 22, and (2) the letters in 1999 dated February 5, March 9, 
April 7, April 21 and April 30.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    It has been recognized that nuclear safety in all nuclear power 
plants would benefit from an improvement and standardization of plant 
Technical Specifications (TS). The NRC's ``Interim Policy Statement on 
Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Plants'' (52 FR 
3788), contained proposed criteria for defining the scope of TS. Later, 
the NRC's ``Final Policy Statement on Technical Specifications 
Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors,'' published on July 22, 1993 
(58 FR 39132), incorporated lessons learned since publication of the 
interim policy statement and formed the basis for revisions to 10 CFR 
50.36, ``Technical Specifications.'' The ``Final Rule'' (60 FR 36953) 
codified criteria for determining the content of TS. To facilitate the 
development of standard TS for nuclear power reactors, each power 
reactor vendor owners' group (OG) and the NRC staff developed standard 
TS. For Callaway Plant, Unit 1, the Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications (ISTS) are in NUREG-1431. This document formed part of 
the basis for the Callaway Plant, Unit 1 Improved Technical 
Specifications (ITS) conversion. The NRC Committee to Review Generic 
Requirements (CRGR) reviewed the ISTS, made note of its safety merits, 
and indicated its support of the conversion by operating plants to the 
ISTS.

Description of the Proposed Change

    The proposed changes to the CTS are based on NUREG-1431 and on 
guidance provided by the Commission in its Final Policy Statement. The 
objective of the changes is to completely rewrite, reformat, and 
streamline the CTS (i.e., to convert the CTS to the ITS). Emphasis is 
placed on human factors principles to improve clarity and understanding 
of the TS. The Bases section of the ITS has been significantly expanded 
to clarify and better explain the purpose and foundation of each 
specification. In addition to NUREG-1431, portions of the CTS were also 
used as the basis for the development of the Callaway Plant, Unit 1 
ITS. Plant-specific issues (e.g., unique design features, requirements, 
and operating practices) were discussed with the licensee, and generic 
matters with Westinghouse and other OGs.
    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). It was a goal of the four 
utilities to make the ITS for all the plants as similar as possible. 
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 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. Each of the 14 ITS sections also includes the 
following enclosures:
     Enclosure 1, ``Cross-Reference Table,'' provides the 
cross-reference table connecting each CTS specification (i.e., limiting 
condition for operation, required action, or surveillance requirement) 
to the associated ITS

[[Page 28536]]

specification, sorted by both CTS and ITS specifications.
     Enclosures 3A and 3B, ``Description of Changes to Current 
TS'' and ``Conversion Comparison Table,'' provides 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.
     Enclosure 4, ``No Significant Hazards Considerations,'' 
provides the no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) of 10 CFR 
50.91 for the changes to the CTS. A description of the NSHC 
organization is provided, followed by generic NSHCs for administrative, 
more restrictive, relocation, and moving-out-of-CTS changes, and 
individual NSHCs for less restrictive changes.
     Enclosures 6A and 6B, ``Differences From NUREG-1431'' and 
``Conversion Comparison Table,'' provides 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.

The common methodology includes the convention that, if the words in a 
CTS specification are not the same as the words in the ITS 
specification, but the CTS words have the same meaning or have the same 
requirements as the words in the ITS specification, then the licensees 
do not have to indicate or describe a change to the CTS. In general, 
only technical changes have been identified; however, some non-
technical changes have also been identified. The portion of any 
specification which is being deleted is struck through (i.e., the 
deletion is annotated using the strike-out feature of the word 
processing computer program or crossed out by hand). Any text being 
added to a specification is shown by shading the text, placing a circle 
around the new text, or by writing the text in by hand. The text being 
struck through or added is shown in the marked-up CTS and ISTS pages in 
Enclosures 2 (CTS pages) and 5 (ISTS and ISTS Bases pages) for each ITS 
section attachment to the application. Another convention of the common 
methodology is that the technical justifications for the less 
restrictive changes are in the NSHCs.
    The proposed changes can be grouped into the following four 
categories: relocated requirements, administrative changes, less 
restrictive changes involving deletion of requirements, and more 
restrictive changes. These categories are as follows:
    1. Relocated requirements (i.e., the licensee's ``LG'' or ``R'' 
changes) are items which are in the CTS but do not meet the criteria 
set forth in the Final Policy Statement. The Final Policy Statement 
establishes a specific set of objective criteria for determining which 
regulatory requirements and operating restrictions should be included 
in the TS. Relocation of requirements to documents with an established 
control program, controlled by the regulations or the TS, allows the TS 
to be reserved only for those conditions or limitations upon reactor 
operation which are necessary to obviate the possibility of an abnormal 
situation or event giving rise to an immediate threat to the public 
health and safety, thereby focusing the scope of the TS. In general, 
the proposed relocation of items from the CTS to the Final Safety 
Analysis Report (FSAR), appropriate plant-specific programs, station 
procedures, or ITS Bases follows the guidance of NUREG-1431. Once these 
items have been relocated to other licensee-controlled documents, the 
licensee may revise them under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 or other 
NRC-approved control mechanisms, which provide appropriate procedural 
means to control changes by the licensee.
    2. Administrative changes (i.e., the licensee's ``A'' changes) 
involve the reformatting and rewording of requirements, consistent with 
the style of the ISTS in NUREG-1431, to make the TS more readily 
understandable to station operators and other users. These changes are 
purely editorial in nature, or involve the movement or reformatting of 
requirements without affecting the technical content. Application of a 
standardized format and style will also help ensure consistency is 
achieved among specifications in the TS. During this reformatting and 
rewording process, no technical changes (either actual or 
interpretational) to the TS will be made unless they are identified and 
justified.
    3. Less restrictive changes and the deletion of requirements 
involves portions of the CTS (i.e., the licensee's ``LS'' and ``TR'' 
changes) which (1) provide information that is descriptive in nature 
regarding the equipment, systems, actions, or surveillances, (2) 
provide little or no safety benefit, and (3) place an unnecessary 
burden on the licensee. This information is proposed to be deleted from 
the CTS and, in some instances, moved to the proposed Bases, FSAR, or 
procedures. The removal of descriptive information to the Bases of the 
TS, FSAR, or procedures is permissible because these documents will be 
controlled through a process that utilizes 10 CFR 50.59 and other NRC-
approved control mechanisms. The relaxation of requirements were the 
result of generic NRC actions or other analyses. They will be justified 
on a case-by-case basis for the Callaway Plant, Unit 1 and described in 
the safety evaluation to be issued with the license amendment.
    4. More restrictive requirements (i.e., the licensee's ``M'' 
changes) are proposed to be implemented in some areas to impose more 
stringent requirements than are in the CTS. In some cases, these more 
restrictive requirements are being imposed to be consistent with the 
ISTS. Such changes have been made after ensuring the previously 
evaluated safety analysis for the Callaway Plant, Unit 1 was not 
affected. Also, other more restrictive technical changes have been made 
to achieve consistency, correct discrepancies, and remove ambiguities 
from the TS. Examples of more restrictive requirements include: placing 
a Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) on station equipment, which is 
not required by the CTS to be operable; more restrictive requirements 
to restore inoperable equipment; and more restrictive surveillance 
requirements.
    There are twenty-four other proposed changes to the CTS that are 
included in the proposed amendment to convert the CTS to the ITS. These 
are beyond scope issues (BSIs) in that they are changes to both the CTS 
and the ISTS. For the Callaway Plant, Unit 1, these are the following:
    1. Change 2-06-M (CTS Section 
3/4.2). The proposed change to CTS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 
4.2.2.2.d would add a frequency of once within 24 hours for verifying 
the axial heat flux hot channel factor is within limits after achieving 
equilibrium conditions.
    2. Change 1-54-LS-37 (CTS Section 3/4.3). The proposed change would 
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. Change 1-15-M (CTS Section 
3/4.4). The proposed change would 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 and 4, and from 10% wide range to 
66% wide range for Mode 5, to ensure SG tubes are covered and provide 
an adequate heat sink.
    4. Change 9-17-LS-24 (CTS Section 3/4.4). The proposed change would 
revise the applicability note to CTS Limiting Condition for Operation 
(LCO) 3.4.9.3 to allow a longer time, up to one hour, for both 
centrifugal charging pumps to be capable of injecting into the reactor 
coolant system.
    5. Change 11-03-M (CTS Section 
3/4.9). The proposed change would

[[Page 28537]]

revise the 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. Change 3-15-M (CTS Section 6.0). The proposed change would add 
the refueling boron concentration to the Core Operating Limits Report 
in CTS 6.9.1.9.
    7. Change 3-11-A (CTS Section 6.0). The proposed changes would 
revise 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 (CTS Section 1.0). The proposed change would 
add 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 (CTS Section 
3/4.3). 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 (CTS Section 
3/4.3). 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 (CTS Section 
3/4.3). 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 (CTS Section 3/4.4). The proposed change 
would limit the CTS SR 4.4.4.2 requirement to perform the 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 (CTS Section 3/4.7). 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 (CTS Section 3/4.8). The proposed change 
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 (CTS Section 6.0). 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 (CTS Section 6.0). 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 (CTS Section 6.0). 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 (CTS Section 6.0). 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 (CTS Section 6.0). 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 (CTS Section 6.0). 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 (CTS Section 3/4.4). The proposed change 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 (CTS Section 3/4.7). 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 would be 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 (CTS Section 3/4.3). 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 (CTS Section 3/4.3). 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,

[[Page 28538]]

4 and 5. This is not included in the CTS or ITS 3.3.9.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed 
conversion of the CTS to the ITS for Callaway Plant, Unit 1, including 
the beyond scope issues discussed above. Changes which are 
administrative in nature have been found to have no effect on the 
technical content of the TS. The increased clarity and understanding 
these changes bring to the TS are expected to improve the operators' 
control of Callaway Plant, Unit 1 in normal and accident conditions.
    Relocation of requirements from the CTS to other licensee-
controlled documents does not change the requirements themselves. 
Future changes to these requirements may then be made by the licensee 
under 10 CFR 50.59 and other NRC-approved control mechanisms which will 
ensure continued maintenance of adequate requirements. All such 
relocations have been found consistent with the guidelines of NUREG-
1431 and the Commission's Final Policy Statement.
    Changes involving more restrictive requirements have been found to 
enhance station safety.
    Changes involving less restrictive requirements have been reviewed 
individually. When requirements have been shown to provide little or no 
safety benefit, or to place an unnecessary burden on the licensee, 
their removal from the TS was justified. In most cases, relaxations 
previously granted to individual plants on a plant-specific basis were 
the result of a generic action, or of agreements reached during 
discussions with the OG, and found to be acceptable for Callaway Plant, 
Unit 1. Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1431 have been reviewed 
by the NRC staff and found to be acceptable.
    In summary, the proposed revisions to the TS were found to provide 
control of station operations such that reasonable assurance will be 
provided that the health and safety of the public will be adequately 
protected.
    The proposed action will not increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents, will not change the quantity or types of any 
effluent that may be released offsite, and will not significantly 
increase the occupational or public radiation exposure. Also, these 
changes do not increase the licensed power and allowable effluents for 
the station. The changes will not create any new or unreviewed 
environmental impacts that were not considered in the Final 
Environmental Statement related to the operation of Callaway Plant, 
Unit 1, NUREG-0813, dated January 1982. Therefore, there are no 
significant radiological impacts associated with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action only involves features located entirely within the restricted 
area for the station defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and does not involve any 
historic sites. The proposed action does not affect non-radiological 
station effluents and has no other environmental impact. It does not 
increase any discharge limit for the station. Therefore, there are no 
significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed action.
    Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). 
Denial of the licensee's application would result in no change in 
current environment impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed 
action and the alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the 
Callaway Plant, Unit 1 dated January 1982.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on May 19, 1999, the staff 
consulted with the Missouri State official, regarding the environmental 
impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments to 
offer.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has 
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the 
proposed action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's application dated May 15, 1997, as supplemented by (1) the 
letters in 1998 dated June 26, August 4, August 27, September 24, 
October 21 (two letters), November 23, November 25, December 11, and 
December 22, and (2) the letters in 1999 dated February 5, March 9, 
April 7, April 21 and April 30 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 University of Missouri-Columbia, Elmer 
Ellis Library, Columbia Missouri, 65201-5149.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of May 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. 99-13421 Filed 5-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P