[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
