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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-483]

Union Electric Co.; 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 (CW), located in Callaway County,

Missouri.

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, and September 24, 1998, would represent a full conversion

from the current Technical Specifications (CTS) to a set of improved

Technical Specifications (ITS) based on NUREG-1431, ``Standard

Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants,'' Revision 1, dated

April 1995. 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 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 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 is 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 includes the

convention that, if the words in the 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

licensee does 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 connecting each

CTS specification (i.e., limiting condition for operation, required

action, or surveillance

[[Page 53469]]

requirement) to the associated ITS specification, sorted by both 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 (NHSC) of 10 CFR

50.91 for the changes to the CTS with generic NHSCs for administrative,

more restrictive, relocation, and moving-out-of-CTS changes, and

individual NHSCs for less restrictive changes and with the organization

of the NHSC 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

NHSCs.

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 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 June 2, 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, 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 TS 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). These proposed beyond-scope issues to the

ITS conversion are as follows:

1. ITS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.2.1.2--add frequency of once

within 24 hours for verifying the axial heat flux hot channel factor is

within limit after achieving equilibrium conditions.

2. ITS SR 3.2.2.1 note--revise the allowance to increase power

until a power distribution is obtained after equilibrium is achieved.

3. ITS LCO 3.3.1--revise operability and actions for steam

generator low-low level instrumentation in ITS Table 3.3.1-1 to not

include Mode 3 in operability and to allow 12 hours in Mode 3 in

actions instead of entry into ITS 3.0.3 for inoperable steam generator

instrumentation.

4. ITS LCO 3.3.9--revise Action B to increase the verification

interval for unborated water source isolation valve position from 14

days to 31 days.

5. ITS LCOs 3.4.5, 3.4.10, 3.4.11, and 3.4.12--revise applicability

and add a note (to ITS 3.4.5) to add reactor coolant pump start

restrictions for low temperature overpressure protection for the

reactor coolant system.

6. ITS LCO 3.4.7 and SRs 3.4.5.2, 3.4.6.2, and 3.4.7.2--revise

steam

[[Page 53470]]

generator level requirements in Modes 3, 4, and 5 to ensure tubes are

covered.

7. ITS LCO 3.4.1.2--revise applicability note to allow a longer

time, up to 4 hours, for injecting into the reactor coolant system.

8. ITS SR 3.6.3.7--note added to not require leak rate test of

containment purge valves with resilient seals when penetration flow

path is isolated by leak-tested blank flange.

9. Actions and table for ITS LCO 3.7.1--changes to main steam

safety valves (MSSVs) to reflect Westinghouse Nuclear Safety Letter 94-

01, revising acceptable power levels when MSSVs are inoperable.

10. 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.

11. ITS LCO 3.7.13--adds note to applicability and new actions on

test capability of emergency exhaust system to maintain a negative

building pressure while in safety injection signal lineup.

12. ITS LCO 3.8.6--revise float voltage in Table 3.8.6-1 and add an

allowed voltage variation.

13. ITS 5.6.5--adds refueling boron concentration and shutdown

margin limits to the core operating limits report.

14. ITS 5.7--changes limits for high radiation areas to reflect the

requirements of revised 10 CFR Part 20.

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 November 4, 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 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 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, 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).

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, and September 24, 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 Elmer Ellis

Library, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, 65201.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of September 1998.

[[Page 53471]]

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Kristine M. Thomas,

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor Projects

III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98-26562 Filed 10-2-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P