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 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