Union Electric Company; 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 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