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

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