Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing

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 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