[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 93 (Thursday, May 14, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26829-26831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12965]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Coffee County, Kansas .
The proposed amendment would add a new action statement to
Technical Specification 3/4.3.2, Table 3.3-3, Functional Unit 7.b.,
Refueling Water Storage Tank Level--Low-Low Coincident with Safety
Injection.
On May 5, 1998, Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC)
control room personnel were reviewing the technical specifications
associated with the refueling water storage tank (RWST) level,
instrumentation and the performance of surveillance procedure, STS IC-
201, ``Analog Channel Operational Test 7300 Process Instrumentation
Protection Set 1 (Red).'' During that review, control room personnel
identified that when the RWST level channel is taken into the test
position, the channel is actually put in a tripped condition. However,
the associated Technical Specification Action Statement (TS 3.3-2,
Functional Unit 7.b, Action 16) for an inoperable channel indicates
that the inoperable channel must be placed in the bypass condition.
There is no time limit allowance for placing an inoperable channel in
the bypass condition associated with Action 16. Since this surveillance
would render the channel inoperable, and there is no way of performing
the surveillance with the channel in the bypass condition, WCNOC
personnel determined that a technical specification amendment would be
needed to allow the surveillance test to be completed.
The RWST level instrumentation analog channel operational test (STS
IC-201) was last performed on February 5, 1998. The surveillance is
required by Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 4.3.2.1 to
be performed on a quarterly basis. Taking into account the extra 25
percent allowance from Technical Specification 4.0.2, this surveillance
would go overdue, rendering the channel inoperable, on May 31, 1998.
The first surveillance test (STS IC-202) for an RWST level channel
would go overdue on May 29, 1998, and another channel surveillance test
(STS IC-203) will go overdue on May 30, 1998. With two channels being
inoperable, entry into Technical Specification 3.0.3 would be required,
forcing shutdown of Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS). The time
between initial discovery of this event (May 5, 1998) and the date when
a forced shutdown of WCGS (May 30, 1998) is less than 30 days;
therefore, there is not enough time for normal processing of an
amendment.
WCNOC believes that, given the circumstances surrounding the
discovery of this event and the complexity of the instrumentation
function, WCNOC has made a best effort to submit a timely application
for this amendment. WCNOC has not delayed any actions in order to
create the need for exigency and therefore take advantage of the
procedure described in 10 CFR 50.91 for exigent amendments. WCNOC
believes that this exigent amendment is unavoidable and meets the
criterion of 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for an exigent request.
The staff finds the licensee acted in a timely manner, the licensee
has not abused the exigent provisions and there is not sufficient time
to process this amendment request in the routine manner as described in
10 CFR 50.91 without causing an unnecessary plant shutdown.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission
[[Page 26830]]
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 new Action Statement 30 for Functional Unit 7.b. of Table
3.3-3, Automatic Switchover to Containment Sump or RWST Level Low-
Low Coincident with Safety Injection, reflects the current plant
design and testing practices. As discussed in License Amendment No.
43 and associated submittals, the increase in allowed outage time
was evaluated and the associated unavailability and risk was shown
to be equivalent to, or less than, that of other functional units
evaluated in WCAP-10271, Supplement 2, Revision 1. The proposed
change does not change any previously evaluated accident and
therefore does not involve an increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change will not result in physical alteration to
any plant system nor will there be a change in the method by which
any safety-related plant system performs its safety function. The
proposed change does not alter the functioning of the Engineered
Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS) or change the manner in
which the ESFAS provides plant protection. Therefore, there is no
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The proposed change does not alter any safety limits, limiting
safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation. The
proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in any
margin of safety.
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 by 4:30 p.m. eastern time on May
28, 1998 will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of the 14-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 14-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 Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of
this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to
Room 6D59, 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 June 15, 1998, 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
While Library, 1200 Commercial Street, Emporia, Kansas 66801 and at 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. 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
[[Page 26831]]
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 20555-0001, 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 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 May 8, 1998, as supplemented by letter
dated May 11, 1998, 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 While Library, 1200
Commercial Street, Emporia, Kansas 66801 and at the Washburn University
School of Law Library, Topeka, Kansas 66621.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of May 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kristine M. Thomas,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-12965 Filed 5-13-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P