[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 192 (Monday, October 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53471-53473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-26563]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-482]


Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp.; 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-42, issued to the Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC 
or the licensee), for operation of the Wolf Creek Generating Station 
(WCGS), located in Coffey County, Kansas.
    The proposed amendment, requested by the licensee in a letter dated 
May 15, 1997, as supplemented by letters dated June 30, August 5, 
August 28, 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 WCGS. 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 Union Electric Company for Callaway Plant (Docket No. 
50-483). 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 the 
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 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 updated safety analysis report (USAR), the ITS 
BASES, the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM) incorporated by 
reference in the USAR, 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.

[[Page 53472]]

    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 3.2.4--revise required actions and completion times, and 
note to SR 3.2.4.2 to modify quadrant power tilt ratio requirements.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. ITS LCO 3.4.7 and SRs 3.4.5.2, 3.4.6.2, and 3.4.7.2--revise 
steam generator level requirements in Modes 3, 4, and 5 to ensure tubes 
are covered.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. ITS LCO 3.8.6--revise battery float voltage in Table 3.8.6-1 and 
add an allowed voltage variation.
    10. ITS SRs 3.8.4.1 and 3.8.4.6--reduces the minimum allowable 
battery voltage.
    11. ITS SR 3.8.4.8--revise restriction for rated capacity for the 
installed AT&T round cell batteries.
    12. ITS 5.6.5--adds shutdown margin limits to the core operating 
limits report.
    13. ITS 5.7--change limits for high radiation areas to reflect the 
requirements of revised 10 CFR Part 20.
    14. ITS 5.1, 5.2 and 5.7--revise TS to reflect position title 
changes within licensee's organization.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendment[s], 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 rooms located at the Emporia State University, William Allen 
White Library, 1200 Commercial Street, Emporia, Kansas, 66801, and 
Washburn University School of Law Library, Topeka, Kansas, 66621. 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

[[Page 53473]]

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. Jay Silberg, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, 
Potts and 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 30, August 5, August 28, 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 rooms located at the Emporia State 
University, William Allen White Library, 1200 Commercial Street, 
Emporia, Kansas, 66801, and Washburn University School of Law Library, 
Topeka, Kansas, 66621.

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

    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. 98-26563 Filed 10-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P