[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 39 (Monday, March 1, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10028-10030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-5076]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 an additional BSI that was not included in the second
notice. This results in a total of twenty-three 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.
[[Page 10029]]
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.
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 twenty-two BSIs listed in the second
notice still apply to the conversion, however there is an additional
BSI. The additional beyond-scope issues (BSIs) were discussed in the
licensee's response to requests for additional information (RAIs) from
the NRC staff. The additional beyond-scope issue that was omitted from
the second notice is as follows:
23. Change 14-09-M (ITS 3/4.7), question Q3.7.16-3, response letter
dated February 4, 1999. A new LCO, with actions and surveillance
requirements from the ISTS is proposed for the allowable fuel storage
pool boron concentration. The BSI for this change is the addition of a
new minimum boron concentration value and a revision to the ISTS
actions to reflect additional regions of fuel storage based on NRC
approval of reracking the spent fuel pool prior to the issuance of the
ITS.
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 31, 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 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
[[Page 10030]]
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 25th day of February 1999.
For the Nuclear Reguatory Commission.
Mel Gray,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Licensing
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-5076 Filed 2-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P