[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9546-9549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4816]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-482]


Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation; 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-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 initial Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to 
Facility Operating License and Opportunity for Hearing was published in 
the Federal Register on October 5, 1998 (63 FR 53471). The information 
included in the supplemental letters indicates that the original 
notice, that included fourteen proposed beyond-scope issues (BSIs) to 
the Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) conversion, needs to be 
expanded to add sixteen new BSIs and revised to delete 8 previous BSIs. 
This includes a total of twenty-two BSIs.
    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, September 24, October 16, October 23, November 24, December 
2, December 17, December 21, 1998 and February 4, 1999, 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. 
There will be a license condition to require the licensee to implement 
the relocations as described in its letters.
    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

[[Page 9547]]

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.
    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. Some of these changes will revise 
or add new surveillance requirements (SRs) compared to the SRs in the 
CTS. There may be scheduling issues with performance of these new or 
revised SRs. There will be a license condition to define the schedule 
to begin performing these SRs.
    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 six BSIs listed below were 
included in the initial notice and still apply to the conversion, 
however there are sixteen additional BSIs. The additional beyond-scope 
issues (BSIs) are discussed in the licensee's response to requests for 
additional information (RAIs) from the NRC staff. These proposed 
beyond-scope issues to the ITS conversion are as follows:
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. ITS LCO 3.8.6--revise battery float voltage in Table 3.8.6-1.
    5. ITS SRs 3.8.4.1 and 3.8.4.6--revises the minimum allowable 
battery voltage.
    6. ITS SR 3.8.4.8--revise restriction for rated capacity for the 
installed AT&T round cell batteries.
    The sixteen additional BSIs are listed below with the associated 
change number, RAI number, RAI response submittal date, and description 
of the change.
    7. Change 4-05-LS-31(ITS3/4.4), question Q3.4.11-3, response letter 
dated December 21, 1998. The change would revise actions of CTS LCO 
3.4.4 for inoperable power-operated relief valves and their associated 
block valves to be in hot shutdown by replacing it with the requirement 
to reduce Tavg to <500 deg.F. For consistency, the actions 
of CTS LCO 3.4.7, for specific activity of the reactor coolant, would 
be similarly revised and the time to reach the required Tavg 
extended by 6 hours.
    8. Change 1-22-M (ITS3/4.3), question Q3.3-49, response letter 
dated November 24, 1998. The change was requested in the original 
application. Quarterly channel operational tests (COTs) would be added 
to CTS Table 4.3-1 for the power range neutron flux-low, intermediate 
range neutron flux, and source range flux trip functions. The CTS only 
require a COT prior to startup for these functions. New Note 19 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 instrumentation (P-10 is the dividing point marking 
the Applicability for these trip functions), if not performed within 
the previous 92 days. New Note 20 would be added such 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.
    9. Change 1-7-LS-3 (ITS 3/4.3), question Q3.3-107, response letter 
dated December 2, 1998. The change was requested in the original 
application and 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) reduce the 
applicability of the intermediate range neutron flux channels and 
delete CTS Action 3.a as being outside the revised 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 2 hours, but no longer require a 
reduction to Mode 3.
    10. Change 1-9-A (ITS 5.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated 
September 24, 1998. A new administrative change was added. The CTS 
6.2.2.e requirements concerning overtime would be replaced by a 
reference to

[[Page 9548]]

administrative procedures for the control of working hours.
    11. Change 1-15-A (ITS 5.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated 
September 24, 1998. A new administrative change was added. The proposed 
change would revise CTS 6.2.2.G to eliminate the title of Shift 
Technical Advisor. The engineering expertise is maintained on shift, 
but a separate individual would not be required as allowed by a 
Commission Policy Statement.
    12. Change 2-18-A (ITS 5.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated 
September 24, 1998. The proposed change is a revision to the original 
application. The dose rate limits in the Radioactive Effluent Controls 
Program for releases to areas beyond the site boundary would be revised 
to reflect 10 CFR Part 20 requirements.
    13. Change 2-22-A (ITS 5.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated 
September 24, 1998. A new administrative change is added. The 
Radioactive Effluents Controls Program would be revised to include 
clarification statements denoting that the provisions of CTS 4.0.2 and 
4.0.3, which allow extensions to surveillance frequencies, are 
applicable to these activities.
    14. Change 3-11-A (ITS 5.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated 
September 24, 1998. The proposed change is a revision to the original 
application. CTS 6.12, which provides high radiation area access 
control alternatives pursuant to 10 CFR 20.203(c)(2), would be revised 
to meet the current requirements in 10 CFR Part 20 and the guidance in 
NRC Regulatory Guide 8.38, ``Control of Access to High and Very High 
Radiation Areas in Nuclear Power Plants,'' on such access controls.
    15. Change 3-18-LS-5 (ITS 5.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter 
dated September 24, 1998. Proposed change 3-18-A was requested in the 
original application and is revised to be a new less restrictive 
change. 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 is based on 
NRC Generic Letter 97-02, ``Revised Contents of 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.
    16. Change 9-17-LS-24 (ITS 3.4/4), question Q 9-17-LS-24, response 
letter dated September 24, 1998. The proposed change was requested in 
the original application. The proposed change would add four notes to 
CTS LCO 3.4.9.3, to reflect CTS SR 4.5.3.2, LCO 3.5.4 actions, LCO 
3.5.4 applicability notes, and the accumulator action added in CN 9-10-
M for CTS 3/4.4. Note 1 on centrifugal charging pump (CCP) swap 
operations would be a relaxation of the CTS because it allows both CCPs 
to be capable of injecting into the RCS for up to 4 hours throughout 
low temperature overpressure protection (LTOP) applicability.
    17. Change 10-20-LS-39 (ITS 3/4.7), question Q3.7.10-14, response 
letter dated October 16, 1998. The proposed change was requested in the 
original application and would revise and add an action to CTS LCOs 
3.7.6 and 3.7.7 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. This 
change recognizes that the ventilation trains associated with the 
pressure envelope would still be operable.
    18. Change 4-8-LS-34 (ITS 3/4.4), question Q3.4.11-2, response 
letter dated September 24, 1998. The proposed change was requested in 
the original application. The proposed change would limit the CTS SRs 
4.4.4.1 and 4.4.4.2 requirements to perform the 92 day surveillance of 
the pressurizer PORV block valves and the 18 month surveillance of the 
pressurizer PORVs (i.e., perform one complete cycle of each valve) to 
only Modes 1 and 2.
    19. Change 4-9-LS-36, (ITS 3/4.4), question Q3.4.11-4, response 
letter dated September 24, 1998. The proposed change in the original 
application is revised to add a note to Action d for CTS LCO 3.4.4 that 
would state that the action does not apply when the PORV block valves 
are inoperable as a result of power being removed from the valves in 
accordance with Action b or c for an inoperable PORV.
    20. Change 1-60-A, (ITS3/4.3), question TR3.3-0073.3, response 
letter dated December 21, 1998. A new administrative change is being 
added. The frequency for conducting the trip actuating device 
operational test (TADOT) for the turbine trip of the reactor trip 
instrumentation surveillance requirements in CTS Table 4.3-1 would be 
changed from ``prior to reactor startup'' to ``prior to exceeding the 
P-9 interlock whenever the unit has been in Mode 3.''
    21. Change 1-70-M (ITS 3/4.8), question Q3.8.2-04, response letter 
dated December 17, 1998. A new more restrictive change is being added. 
The change would add shutdown requirements (including actions) for the 
load shedder and emergency load sequencer (LSELS) to CTS LCO 3.8.1.2 
and surveillance requirements in SR 4.8.1.2. These requirements would 
reflect current practice.
    22. Change 2-25-LS-23 (ITS 3/4.8). The proposed change was 
requested in the original application and would allow substitution of 
the service test with a performance discharge test or modified 
performance discharge test.
    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 March 29, 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 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

[[Page 9549]]

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. Jay Silberg, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, 
Potts and 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 30, August 5, August 28, September 24, October 16, 
October 23, November 24, December 2, December 17, December 21, 1998, 
and February 4, 1999, 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 22nd day of February 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mel Gray,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Licensing 
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-4816 Filed 2-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P