[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 15, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-3464]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: February 15, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-482]

 

Wolfe Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation; Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No 
Significant Hazards; Consideration Determination, 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, for the Wolf Creek Generating Station located near Burlington, 
Kansas, operated by the Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (the 
licensee).
    The proposed amendment would allow an increase in reactor coolant 
temperature in order to support operation at the rated thermal power of 
3565 megawatts thermal (MWt). The proposed amendment would change 
reactor protection system setpoints by increasing the nominal reactor 
coolant average temperature from 581.2 deg.F to 586.5 deg.F, changing 
the axial flux difference penalties, and setpoint uncertainty 
allowances. The proposed amendment also increases the maximum indicated 
reactor coolant system average temperature from 585. deg.F to 
586.5 deg.F, changing the axial flux difference penalties, and setpoint 
uncertainty allowances. The proposed amendment also increases the 
maximum indicated reactor coolant system average temperature from 
585.0 deg.F to 590.5 deg.F.
    The NRC issued Amendment No. 69 to the Wolf Creek Generating 
Station Facility Operating License on November 10, 1993. The amendment 
increased the rated thermal power for Wolfe Creek from 3411 MWt to 3565 
MWt. The amendment also included changes in reactor coolant temperature 
specifications to reflect the planned operation of Wolf Creek at the 
higher power level and reduced operating temperatures. Upon attempting 
to implement the power increase, the licensee discovered that the unit 
was unable to achieve 3565 MWt at the reduced operating temperatures. 
The reduced operating temperature specifications have resulted in an 
effective derating of the unit. Considering that the unit is being 
limited to less than the allowable licensed power level, the staff is 
issuing this notice under exigent circumstances.
    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.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the 
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of 
the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As 
required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of 
the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below:
    1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The probability of occurrence and the consequences of an accident 
evaluated previously in the USAR [Updated Safety Analysis Report] are 
not increased due to the proposed technical specification change. Plant 
operation at 3565 MWt with the revised temperatures does not affect any 
of the mechanisms postulated in the USAR to cause LOCA [Loss of Coolant 
Accident] or non-LOCA designs basis events. Analyses, evaluations, and 
minimum DNBR [Departure from Nucleate Boiling Ratio] calculations 
confirm that the USAR conclusions remain valid for the proposed 
changes. On these bases it is concluded that the probability and 
consequences of the accidents previously evaluated in the USAR are not 
increased.
    2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    The proposed technical specification changes do not increase the 
probability of occurrence of a malfunction of equipment important to 
safety or increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment 
evaluated in the USAR. The technical specification changes do not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
accident previously evaluated because the change in operating Thot 
will not impose a new operating configuration that would create new 
failure scenario. The proposed changes do not change the plant 
configuration in a way that introduces a new potential hazard to the 
plant and do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of 
safety. No new failure modes will be created by the proposed changes 
for any plant equipment. Operation with a 0 deg.--5 deg.F Thot 
reduction is bounded by the analyses performed previously for the power 
rerate and approved by the NRC in Amendment No. 69 to the WCGS (Wolf 
Creek Generating Station) Technical Specifications on November 10, 
1993, and does not create a new or unanalyzed condition. For these 
reasons, the possibility of a new accident which is different from any 
already evaluated in the USAR is not created.
    3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety.
    The analyses and evaluations discussed in the safety evaluation 
demonstrate that all applicable safety analysis acceptance criteria 
continue to be met for the proposed operating conditions. The change in 
operating Thot does not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety because the operating temperature is one of the 
inherent assumptions that determines the safe operating range defined 
by the accident analyses, which are in turn protected by the technical 
specifications. The acceptance criteria for the accident analyses are 
conservative with respect to the operating conditions defined by the 
technical specifications. The analyses performed for the power rerate 
and this proposed change confirm that the accident analyses criteria 
are met at the revised configuration. Therefore, it is concluded that 
the proposed change does not involve a reduction in a margin of safety 
described in the bases to any technical specification.
    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 15 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of the 15-day notice period. However, should circumstances 
change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely 
way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, 
the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of 
the 15-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that 
the amendment involves no significant hazardous consideration. The 
final determination will consider all public and State comments 
received. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in 
the Federal Register a notice of issuance. The Commission expects that 
the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Rules Review and 
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications 
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page 
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be 
delivered to room P-223, Phillips Building, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, 
Bethesda, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 
Copies of written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public 
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC 
20555.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By March 17, 1994, 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 20555 and at the local 
public document room located at 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 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.
    If the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day 
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the 
issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is 
requested, the final determination will serve to decide when the 
hearing is held.
    If the final determination is that the amendment request involves 
no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment.
    If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place 
before the issuance of any amendment.
    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, Attention: Docketing and Services 
Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, 
the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, by the 
above date. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of the 
notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform 
the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-
(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union 
operator should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the 
following message addressed to Suzanne C. Black, Director, Project, 
Directorate IV-2: petitioner's name and telephone number, date petition 
was mailed, plant name, and publication date and page number of this 
Federal Register notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to 
the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555, and to Jay Silberg, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts 
and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 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).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated February 7, 1994, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20555, and at the 
local public document rooms, located at 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 8th day of February 1994. for 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William D. Reckley,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor Projects 
III/IV/V; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-3464 Filed 2-14-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M