[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 13, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10389-10391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6113]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-482]


Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation; Notice of 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, issued to Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (the 
licensee), for operation of the Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station 
located in Coffey County, Kansas.
    The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification Figure 
2.1-1, ``Reactor Core Safety Limit--Four Loops in Operation,'' Table 
2.2-1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Setpoints,'' and Table 
3.2-1, ``DNB Parameters,'' to allow operation of the Wolf Creek Nuclear 
Generating Station (WCGS) with decreased indicated reactor coolant 
system (RCS) flow.
    The requested change is required to allow WCGS to operate at full 
rated power following restart after the eighth refueling outage should 
the indicated flow be below the current minimum measured flow.
    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

[[Page 10390]]
(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 event 
evaluated previously in the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) 
are not increased due to the proposed technical specification 
changes. The technical specification changes being requested are to 
reflect revised core design parameters affected by the Cycle 9 core 
reload geometry, and instrumentation setpoint changes needed to 
ensure accurate measurement of reactor thermal power in order to 
allow the unit to operate at rated thermal power during Cycle 9. 
Each USAR Chapter 15 event was evaluated to determine the impact of 
the reduction in thermal design flow. The events in which the margin 
to the acceptance criteria was decreased were reanalyzed to support 
the 3.5% flow reduction. Generally, the RCS heat-up events fall into 
this category as the reduction in RCS flow results in decreased heat 
removal capacity. Evaluations of these events were performed using 
bounding core state parameters based on the previous Safety Analysis 
submitted in support of the WCGS Power Rerate Program, approved in 
WCGS Technical Specification Amendment 69. Results of the analyses 
and evaluations performed for the reduction in thermal design flow 
for Cycle 9 indicate that all acceptance criteria for USAR Chapter 
15 events continue to be met.
    2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The requested changes do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of event or malfunction from any previously 
evaluated. The proposed changes do not change the method and manner 
of plant operation, nor is any new equipment being installed. 
Neither the proposed reduction in thermal design flow nor the 
increase in the Low Pressurizer Pressure Trip setpoint will create 
the possibility of an event of a different type than previously 
evaluated in the USAR.
    The proposed Technical Specification changes are bounded by the 
current conditions with respect to system dynamic loading, 
environmental equipment qualification, and rejection of heat to the 
Ultimate Heat Sink. These analyses are bounded by the current 
analyses due to the conclusion that the mass and energy releases 
will not be impacted by the proposed change. This conclusion is also 
based on the fact that the current operating conditions bound the 
proposed operating conditions with respect to the secondary system 
operating parameters.
    3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    In general, the Low Pressurizer Pressure Trip setpoint is chosen 
at a conservatively low value (1885 psig) for the safety analyses. 
The safety margin (to prevent DNB) is provided by setting the 
Technical Specification limit for the Low Pressurizer Pressure Trip 
setpoint at its current value of 1915 psig. Increasing this reactor 
trip setpoint 25 psi (from 1915 psig to 1940 psig) would result in a 
net benefit to all analyses which assume its use, as well as of 
setting a potential reduction in the margin of safety for this 
parameter, caused by the reduction in TDF. Therefore, the current 
Safety Analysis Limit of 1885 psig will continue to be used in the 
WCGS event analyses.
    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. The 
analyses and evaluations discussed in the safety evaluation 
demonstrate that all applicable design criteria continue to be met 
for the changes. Therefore, it is concluded that the margin of 
safety, as described in the bases to any technical specification, is 
not reduced.

    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 hazards 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 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, 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.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By April 12, 1996, 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 room located at the Emporia State University, William Allen 
White Library, 1200 Commercial Street, Emporia, Kansas 66801 and the 
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.

[[Page 10391]]
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, 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 William D. Bateman, 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, 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).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated March 8, 1996, 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 the 
Washburn University School of Law Library, Topeka, Kansas 66621.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of March 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
James C. Stone,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-6113 Filed 3-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P