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 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