Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation; Wolf Creek Generating Station Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-482]

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation; Wolf Creek Generating

Station Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of its

regulations for Facility Operating License No. NPF-42, issued to Wolf

Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (the licensee), for operation of

the Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) located in Coffey County,

Kansas.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action would exempt Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating

Corporation from the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24, which requires a

monitoring system that will energize clearly audible alarms if

accidental criticality occurs in each area in which special nuclear

material is handled, used or stored. The proposed action would also

exempt the licensee from the requirements of 10 CFR 70.24(a)(3) to

maintain emergency procedures for each area in which this licensed

special nuclear material is handled, used, or stored to ensure that all

personnel withdraw to an area of safety upon the sounding of the alarm

and to conduct drills and designate responsible individuals for such

emergency procedures.

The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's

application for exemption dated September 19, 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

Power reactor license applicants are evaluated for the safe

handling, use, and storage of special nuclear materials. The proposed

exemption from criticality accident requirements is based on the

original design for radiation monitoring at WCGS as discussed in the

NUREG-0830, ``Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Wolf

Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1.'' The exemption was granted with

the original Part 70 license, but it expired with the issuance of the

Part 50 license when the exemption was inadvertently not

[[Page 9208]]

included in that license. Therefore, the exemption is needed to clearly

define the design of the plant as evaluated and approved for licensing.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

The NRC staff has completed its evaluation of the proposed action

and concludes that there is no significant environmental impact if the

exemption is granted. Inadvertent or accidental criticality will be

precluded through compliance with the Wolf Creek Technical

Specifications, the geometric spacing of fuel assemblies in the new

fuel storage facility and spent fuel storage pool, and administrative

controls imposed on fuel handling procedures. New fuel shipping

containers only carry two new fuel assemblies. The procedure used for

new fuel receipt requires the use of the monorail auxiliary hoist on

the cask handling crane for all lifting operations. A special new fuel

handling tool is required to be attached to the monorail auxiliary

hoist to lift each fuel assembly from the shipping container. This new

fuel handling tool can only be attached to the top nozzle of one fuel

assembly at a time. The attached fuel assembly is moved to either the

new fuel storage racks or the new fuel elevator if the assembly is

going to be stored in the spent fuel facility. Both of these storage

positions will only accommodate one fuel assembly in a designed

location. The spacing between new fuel assemblies in the storage racks

is sufficient to maintain the array in a subcritical condition, even

when flooded by non-borated water. The new fuel storage building

provides space for dry storage of 66 new fuel assemblies, arranged in

three double rows (2x11) of ports. Each port will hold just one fuel

assembly. The ports within each double row are on 21 inch centers and

there is a nominal 28 inch aisle between each pair of rows. The storage

racks are protected from dropped objects by a steel protective cover.

Therefore, the design of the new fuel storage rack, the fuel handling

equipment, and the administrative controls are such that subcritically

is assured under normal and accident conditions.

The spent fuel pool is divided into two separate and distinct

regions, which for the purpose of criticality considerations may be

considered as separate pools. Region 1, reserved for core-off-loading,

has the capacity for a minimum of 200 assemblies. Region 2, reserved

for fuel that has sustained at least 85 percent of design burnup, has

an ultimate capacity to store 1140 spent fuel assemblies. Region 1 has

fuel assemblies stored in two out of four box positions in a checker

board pattern; the unused boxes serve to allow cooling water flow. The

center-to-center distance for actual fuel assemblies is 12.92 inches,

measured diagonally. The center-to-center spacing between any two

adjacent fuel assemblies in the same row is 18.28 inches. Region 2 has

fuel assemblies stored in three out of four box positions. During a

normal refueling operation, each fuel assembly is first removed from

the reactor to Region 1. After the refueling operation is complete and

the suitability of each spent fuel assembly for movement into Region 2

is verified, the fuel assembly may be moved into Region 2. Technical

Specification (TS) 3.9.12 states that no spent fuel assemblies shall be

placed in Region 2, nor shall any storage location be changed in

designation from being in Region 1 to being in Region 2, while

refueling operations are in progress. The TS also require that prior to

storage of any fuel assembly in Region 2 that the burnup history of the

fuel element be ascertained by analysis of its burnup history and

independently verified. In summary, the training provided to all

personnel involved in fuel handling operations, the design of the fuel

handling equipment, the administrative controls, the technical

specifications on new and spent fuel handling and storage and the

design of the new and spent fuel storage racks preclude inadvertent or

accidental criticality. In accordance with the NRC's Regulatory

Position in Regulatory Guide 8.12, Revision 1, ``Criticality Accident

Alarm Systems,'' dated January 1981, an exemption from 10 CFR 70.24 is

appropriate.

The proposed exemption will not affect radiological plant effluents

nor cause any significant occupational exposures. Only a small amount,

if any, radioactive waste is generated during the receipt and handling

of new fuel (e.g., smear papers or contaminated packaging material).

The amount of waste would not be changed by the exemption.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed

exemption involves systems located within the restricted area as

defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect nonradiological plant

effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological

environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded that there is no measurable

environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any

alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be

evaluated. The principal alternative would be to deny the requested

exemption. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the

alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use of any resources not

previously considered in the ``Final Environmental Statement related to

the operation of Wolf Creek Generating Station,'' dated June 1982

(NUREG-0878).

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy, on March 1, 1996, the staff

consulted with the Kansas State official, Mr. Gerald Allen of the

Kansas Department of Health and Environment, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the

quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has

determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the

proposed action.

For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the

licensee's letter dated September 19, 1995, 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 6621.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st 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. 96-5363 Filed 3-6-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P