[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 15, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-3464]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: February 15, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
