[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15186-15189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7756]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-482]
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation; Wolf Creek Generating
Station; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering the issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License
No. NPF-42 that was issued to Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation
(the licensee) for operation of the Wolf Creek Generating Station
(WCGS), located in Coffey County, Kansas.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed amendment will revise the current Technical
Specifications (CTS) for WCGS in their entirety based on the guidance
provided in NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical Specifications,
Westinghouse Plants,'' Revision 1, dated April 1995, and in the
Commission's ``Final Policy Statement on Technical Specifications
Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors,'' published on July 22, 1993
(58 FR 39132). The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
amendment request dated May 15, 1997, as supplemented by (1) the
letters in 1998 dated June 30, August 5, August 28, September 24,
October 16, October 23, November 24, December 2, December 17, and
December 21, and (2) the letters in 1999 dated February 4 and March 5
(3 letters).
The Need for the Proposed Action
It has been recognized that nuclear safety in all nuclear power
plants would benefit from an improvement and standardization of plant
Technical Specifications (TS). The NRC's ``Interim Policy Statement on
Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Plants,'' (52 FR
3788) contained proposed criteria for defining the scope of TS. Later,
the NRC's ``FinalPolicy Statement on Technical Specifications
Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors,'' published on July 22, 1993
(58 FR 39132), incorporated lessons learned since publication of the
interim policy statement and formed the basis for revisions to 10 CFR
50.36, ``Technical Specifications.'' The ``Final Rule'' (60 FR 36953)
codified criteria for determining the content of TS. To facilitate the
development of standard TS for nuclear power reactors, each power
reactor vendor owners' group (OG) and the NRC staff developed standard
TS. For WCGS, the Improved Standard Technical Specifications (ISTS) are
in NUREG-1431. This document formed the basis for the WCGS Improved
Technical Specifications (ITS) conversion. The NRC Committee to Review
Generic Requirements (CRGR) reviewed the ISTS, made note of its safety
merits, and indicated its support of the conversion by operating plants
to the ISTS.
Description of the Proposed Change
The proposed changes to the CTS are based on NUREG-1431 and on
guidance provided by the Commission in its Final Policy Statement. The
objective of the changes is to completely rewrite, reformat, and
streamline the CTS (i.e., to convert the CTS to the ITS). Emphasis is
placed on human factors principles to improve clarity and understanding
of the TS. The Bases section of the ITS has been significantly expanded
to clarify and better explain the purpose and foundation of each
specification. In addition to NUREG-1431, portions of the CTS were also
used as the basis for the development of the WCGS ITS. Plant-specific
issues (e.g., unique design features, requirements, and operating
practices) were discussed with the licensee, and generic matters with
Westinghouse and other OGs.
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 Union Electric Company for Callaway Plant, Unit 1
(Docket No. 50-483). It was 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 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. Each of the 14 ITS sections also includes the
following enclosures:
Enclosure 1, ``Cross-Reference Table,'' provides 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.
Enclosures 3A and 3B, ``Description of Changes to Current
TS'' and ``Conversion Comparison Table,'' provides 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.
Enclosure 4, ``No Significant Hazards Considerations,''
provides the no significant hazards consideration (NHSC) of 10 CFR
50.91 for the changes to the CTS. A description of the NSHC
organization is provided, followed by generic NHSCs for administrative,
more restrictive, relocation, and moving-out-of-CTS changes, and
individual NHSCs for less restrictive changes.
Enclosures 6A and 6B, ``Differences From NUREG-1431'' and
``Conversion Comparison Table,'' provides 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.
The common methodology includes the convention that, if the words
in a CTS specification are not the same as the words in the ITS
specification, but the CTS words have the same meaning or have the same
requirements as the words in the ITS specification, then the licensees
do not have to indicate or describe a change to the CTS. In general,
only technical changes have been identified; however, some non-
technical changes have also been identified. The portion of any
specification which is being deleted is struck through (i.e., the
deletion is annotated using the strike-out feature of the word
processing computer program or crossed out by hand). Any text being
added to a specification is shown by shading the text, placing a circle
around the new
[[Page 15187]]
text, or by writing the text in by hand. The text being struck through
or added is shown in the marked-up CTS and ISTS pages in Enclosures 2
(CTS pages) and 5 (ISTS and ISTS Bases pages) for each ITS section
attachment to the application. Another convention of the common
methodology is that the technical justifications for the less
restrictive changes are in the NHSCs.
The proposed changes can be grouped into the following four
categories: relocated requirements, administrative changes, less
restrictive changes involving deletion of requirements, and more
restrictive changes. These categories are as follows:
1. Relocated requirements (i.e., the licensee's ``LG'' or ``R''
changes) are items which are in the CTS but do not meet the criteria
set forth in the Final Policy Statement. The Final Policy Statement
establishes a specific set of objective criteria for determining which
regulatory requirements and operating restrictions should be included
in the TS. Relocation of requirements to documents with an established
control program, controlled by the regulations or the TS, allows the TS
to be reserved only for those conditions or limitations upon reactor
operation which are necessary to obviate the possibility of an abnormal
situation or event giving rise to an immediate threat to the public
health and safety, thereby focusing the scope of the TS. In general,
the proposed relocation of items from the CTS to the Updated Safety
Analysis Report (USAR), appropriate plant-specific programs, station
procedures, or ITS Bases follows the guidance of NUREG-1431. Once these
items have been relocated to other licensee-controlled documents, the
licensee may revise them under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 or other
NRC-approved control mechanisms, which provide appropriate procedural
means to control changes by the licensee.
2. Administrative changes (i.e., the licensee's ``A'' changes)
involve the reformatting and rewording of requirements, consistent with
the style of the ISTS in NUREG-1431, to make the TS more readily
understandable to station operators and other users. These changes are
purely editorial in nature, or involve the movement or reformatting of
requirements without affecting the technical content. Application of a
standardized format and style will also help ensure consistency is
achieved among specifications in the TS. During this reformatting and
rewording process, no technical changes (either actual or
interpretational) to the TS will be made unless they are identified and
justified.
3. Less restrictive changes and the deletion of requirements
involves portions of the CTS (i.e., the licensee's ``LS'' and ``TR''
changes) which (1) provide information that is descriptive in nature
regarding the equipment, systems, actions, or surveillances, (2)
provide little or no safety benefit, and (3) place an unnecessary
burden on the licensee. This information is proposed to be deleted from
the CTS and, in some instances, moved to the proposed Bases, USAR, or
procedures. The removal of descriptive information to the Bases of the
TS, USAR, or procedures is permissible because these documents will be
controlled through a process that utilizes 10 CFR 50.59 and other NRC-
approved control mechanisms. The relaxations of requirements were the
result of generic NRC actions or other analyses. They will be justified
on a case-by-case basis for the WCGS and described in the safety
evaluation to be issued with the license amendment.
4. More restrictive requirements (i.e., the licensee's ``M''
changes) are proposed to be implemented in some areas to impose more
stringent requirements than are in the CTS. In some cases, these more
restrictive requirements are being imposed to be consistent with the
ISTS. Such changes have been made after ensuring the previously
evaluated safety analysis for the WCGS was not affected. Also, other
more restrictive technical changes have been made to achieve
consistency, correct discrepancies, and remove ambiguities from the TS.
Examples of more restrictive requirements include: placing a Limiting
Condition for Operation (LCO) on station equipment which is not
required by the CTS to be operable; more restrictive requirements to
restore inoperable equipment; and more restrictive surveillance
requirements.
There are twenty-two other proposed changes to the CTS that may be
included in the proposed amendment to convert the CTS to the ITS. These
are beyond scope issues (BSIs) in that they are changes to both the CTS
and the ISTS. For the WCNGS, these are the following:
1. Change 1-05-M (CTS Section
3/4.4). The change would add a note under CTS 3.4.1.2 (ITS 3.4.5) to
establish secondary side temperature restrictions on starting an idle
reactor coolant pump when below the low temperature overpressurization
arming temperature of 368 degrees F. The change would also add similar
notes to CTS 3.4.1.3 and 3.4.1.4.1 (ITS 3.4.6 and 3.4.7). The notes
would help ensure the assumptions in the WCNGS low temperature
overpressurization event analysis remain valid.
2. Change 1-15-M (CTS Section
3/4.4). CTS Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 4.4.1.2.2 and 4.4.1.3.2
require steam generator (SG) levels to be periodically verified to be
greater than or equal to 10 percent wide range water level. The
proposed change would revise the SG level value to 6 percent narrow
range water level. This change would help ensure that the SG level is
sufficient to cover all SG tubes so that the SGs would provide an
adequate heat sink for removal for decay heat. The proposed change
would similarly revise CTS 3.4.1.4.b, which currently requires, for
operational Mode 5, that the SG level be maintained greater than 10
percent wide range level. The change would increase this level value to
greater than 66 percent wide range, which again would help ensure the
SG tubes remain covered in Mode 5.
3. Change 7-10-LS-9 (CTS Section
3/4.6). The proposed change would add a note to CTS SRs 4.6.1.7.2 and
4.6.1.7.4 stating that containment purge valves with resilient seals
are not required to be leak rate tested when the penetration flow path
is isolated by leak-tested blank flange.
4. Change 2-20-A (2-20-A has two changes associated with it. This
is the first of two.) (CTS Section 3/4.8). The proposed change would
increase the minimum battery cell float voltages for DC sources in CTS
Table 4.8-2 by 0.01 to 0.02 volts.
5. Change 2-20-A (Second change associated with 2-20-A) (CTS
Section 3/4.8). A change would be made to decrease the total required
battery terminal voltage for a DC subsystem in CTS SR 4.8.2.1. These
proposed changes in minimum cell float voltage and corresponding total
required battery voltage would reflect a recent design modification
made by the licensee that replaced the Gould manufactured square cell
batteries with AT&T manufactured round cell batteries.
6. Change 2-27-M (CTS Section
3/4.8). The proposed change would revise the battery performance
discharge test acceptance criteria in CTS 4.8.2.1.e to reflect a recent
design modification that replaced the Gould manufactured square cell
batteries with AT&T manufactured round cell batteries.
The above six BSIs are given in the licensee's application. The
remaining sixteen BSIs may have been revised by the licensee's
responses to the NRC requests for additional information (RAIs). The
format for the sixteen BSIs listed below is the associated change
number, RAI number, RAI response
[[Page 15188]]
submittal date, and description of the change.
7. Change 1-22-M (CTS Section
3/4.3), question Q3.3-49, response letter dated November 24, 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 flux trip functions. The CTS only
require a COT prior to startup for these functions. A new note (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 if not performed within the previous
92 days (P-10 is the dividing point marking the applicability for these
trip functions). A new note (Note 20) would also be added requiring the
P-6 and P-10 interlocks be verified to be in their required state
during all COTs on the power range neutron flux-low and intermediate
range neutron flux trip functions.
8. Change 1-7-LS-3 (CTS Section 3/4.3), question Q3.3-107, response
letter dated December 2, 1998. The proposed changes would (1) extend
the completion time for CTS Action 3.b from no time specified to 24
hours for intermediate range 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 requires a reduction to Mode 3.
9. Change 1-9-A (CTS Section 6.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter
dated September 24, 1998. The proposed change would revise requirements
concerning overtime control by replacing CTS 6.2.2.e with a reference
to administrative procedures for the control of working hours.
10. Change 1-15-A (CTS Section 6.0), 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. The
engineering expertise is maintained on shift, but a separate individual
would not be required as allowed by a Commission Policy Statement.
11. Change 2-18-A (CTS Section 6.0), question Q5.2-1, response
letter dated September 24, 1998. The proposed change would revise 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.
12. Change 2-22-A (CTS Section 6.0), question Q5.2-1, response
letter dated September 24, 1998. The proposed change would revise the
Radioactive Effluent Controls Program 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.
13. Change 3-11-A (CTS Section 6.0), question Q5.2-1, response
letter dated September 24, 1998. CTS provides alternative high
radiation area access control alternatives pursuant to 10 CFR
20.203(c)(2). The proposed change would revise CTS 6.12 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'' for such access controls.
14. Change 3-18-LS-5 (CTS Section 6.0), question Q5.2-1, response
letter dated September 24, 1998. The proposed change would delete 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. This proposed change is based on Generic Letter
97-02, ``Revised Contents of the Monthly Operating Report,'' which
reduced the requirements for submitting such information to the NRC. GL
97-02 did not include these valves for information to be submitted.
15. Change 9-17-LS-24 (CTS Section 3/4.4), question Q3.4.12-5,
response letter dated September 24, 1998. The proposed change would add
four notes to CTS 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 proposed under
Change 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 would allow
both CCPs to be capable of injecting into the RCS for up to 4 hours
throughout low temperature protection applicability.
16. Change 10-20-LS-39 (CTS Section 3/4.7), question Q3.7.10-14,
response letter dated October 16, 1998. The proposed change 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. 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.
17. Change 4-8-LS-34 (CTS Section 3/4.4), question Q3.4.11-2,
response letter dated September 24, 1998. 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.
18. Change 4-9-LS-36 (CTS Section 3/4.4), question Q3.4.11-4,
response letter dated September 24, 1998. The proposed change would add
a note to CTS LCO 3.4.4 Action (d) 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 Actions (b) and
(c) for an inoperable PORV.
19. Change 1-60-A (CTS Section
3/4.3), question TR3.3-0073.3, response letter dated December 21, 1998.
The proposed change would revise 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 from ``prior to reactor startup'' to ``prior to exceeding the P-9
interlock whenever the unit has been in Mode 3.''
20. Change 1-70-M (CTS Section
3/4.8), question Q3.8.2-04, response letter dated December 17, 1998.
The proposed 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.
21. Change 2-25-LS-23 (CTS Section 3/4.8), question Q3.8.4-08,
response letter dated December 17, 1998. The proposed change would
allow substitution of the service test with a performance discharge
test in CTS 4.8.2.1.
22. Change 14-9-M (CTS Section
3/4.7), question Q3.7.16-3, response letter dated February 4, 1999. The
proposed change would provide a new LCO, Actions and SRs based on the
ISTS to impose limitations on the boron concentration in the fuel
storage pool. The BSI for the conversion to ITS is that a minimum value
for boron concentration would be added that is currently not in the
CTS, and the
[[Page 15189]]
Actions would be revised to reflect additional regions of fuel storage
based on approval of reracking the spent fuel pool prior to issuance of
the ITS.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed
conversion of the CTS to the ITS for WCGS, including the beyond scope
issues discussed above. Changes which are administrative in nature have
been found to have no effect on the technical content of the TS. The
increased clarity and understanding these changes bring to the TS are
expected to improve the operators' control of WCGS in normal and
accident conditions.
Relocation of requirements from the CTS to other licensee-
controlled documents does not change the requirements themselves.
Future changes to these requirements may then be made by the licensee
under 10 CFR 50.59 and other NRC-approved control mechanisms which will
ensure continued maintenance of adequate requirements. All such
relocations have been found consistent with the guidelines of NUREG-
1431 and the Commission's Final Policy Statement.
Changes involving more restrictive requirements have been found to
enhance station safety.
Changes involving less restrictive requirements have been reviewed
individually. When requirements have been shown to provide little or no
safety benefit, or to place an unnecessary burden on the licensee,
their removal from the TS was justified. In most cases, relaxations
previously granted to individual plants on a plant-specific basis were
the result of a generic action, or of agreements reached during
discussions with the OG, and found to be acceptable for WCGS. Generic
relaxations contained in NUREG-1431 have been reviewed by the NRC staff
and found to be acceptable.
In summary, the proposed revisions to the TS were found to provide
control of station operations such that reasonable assurance will be
provided that the health and safety of the public will be adequately
protected.
The proposed action will not increase the probability or
consequences of accidents, will not change the quantity or types of any
effluent that may be released offsite, and will not significantly
increase the occupational or public exposure. Also, these changes do
not increase the licensed power and allowable effluents for the
station. The changes will not create any new or unreviewed
environmental impacts that were not considered in the Final
Environmental Statement related to the operation of WCNGS, NUREG-0878,
dated June 1982. Therefore, there are no significant radiological
impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
action only involves features located entirely within the restricted
area for the station defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and does not involve any
historic sites. The proposed action does not affect non-radiological
station effluents and has no other environmental impact. It does not
increase any discharge limit for the station. Therefore, there are no
significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the
proposed action.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the licensee's application would result in no change in
current environment impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed
action and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Wolf
Creek Generating Station dated June 1982.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on March 22, 1999, the staff
consulted with the Kansas State official, Mr. Vick Cooper, Kansas
Department of Health and Environment, regarding the environmental
impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's application dated May 15, 1997, as supplemented by (1)
the letters in 1998 dated June 30, August 5, August 28, September
24, October 16, October 23, November 24, December 2, December 17,
and December 21, and (2) the letters in 1999 dated February 4 and
March 5 (3 letters) 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 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 24th day of March 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jack N. Donohew,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Licensing
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-7756 Filed 3-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-U