Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation; Wolf Creek Generating Station; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

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