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

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