[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="">avg
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
