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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-482]

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation; Wolf Creek Nuclear

Generating Station; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

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.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would revise the Wolf Creek Generating Station

(WCGS) technical specifications to allow an increase in the WCGS spent

fuel pool (SFP) storage capacity and to allow an increase in the

maximum nominal fuel enrichment to 5.0 nominal weight percent U-235.

The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's

application for amendment dated March 20, 1998, as supplemented by

letters dated May 28, 1998, June 30, 1998, August 28, 1998, and

September 4, 1998.

The Need for the Proposed Action

WCGS received its low power operating license on March 11, 1985. At

that time, the SFP was authorized to store no more than 1340 fuel

assemblies. Current projection, based on expected future spent fuel

discharges, indicate that loss of full-core discharge capability will

occur at the end of Cycle 14 in 2005. Operation of WCGS beyond loss of

full-core discharge capability is possible for Cycles 15 and 16 to

provide an additional three to four years of operation until 2008. Wolf

Creek has evaluated spent fuel storage alternatives that have been

licensed by the NRC and which are currently feasible for use at the

WCGS site. The evaluation concludes that re-racking is currently the

most cost-effective alternative. Re-racking would provide an increase

in storage capacity to 2642 fuel assemblies, which would maintain the

plant's capability to accommodate a full-core discharge, through the

end of the current plant license in 2025.

The proposed action to increase the maximum nominal fuel enrichment

to 5.0 nominal weight percent U-235 is needed so that the licensee can

use higher fuel enrichment to provide additional flexibility in the

licensee's reload design efforts and to increase the efficiency of fuel

storage cell use in the spent fuel pool.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

Radiological Impacts

The Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station uses waste treatment

systems designed to collect and process gaseous, liquid, and solid

waste that might contain radioactive material. These radioactive waste

treatment systems were evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement

(FES) dated June 1982. The proposed spent fuel pool (SFP) expansion

will not involve any change in the waste treatment systems described in

the FES.

Radiological Material Released to the Atmosphere

The storage of additional spent fuel assemblies in the SFP is not

expected to affect the releases of radioactive gases from the SFP.

Gaseous fission products such as Krypton-85 and Iodine-131 are produced

by the fuel in the core during reactor operation. A small percentage of

these fission gases is released to the reactor coolant from the small

number of fuel assemblies which are expected to develop leaks during

reactor operation. During refueling operations, some of these fission

products enter the SFP and are subsequently released into the air.

Since the frequency of refuelings (and therefore the number of freshly

offloaded spent fuel assemblies stored in the SFP at any one time) will

not increase, there will be no increase in the amounts of these types

of fission products released to the atmosphere as a result of the

increased SFP fuel storage capacity.

The increased heat load on the SFP from the storage of additional

spent fuel assemblies could potentially result in an increase in the

SFP evaporation rate, which may result in a slight increase in the

amount of gaseous tritium released from the pool. However, the overall

release of radioactive gases from Wolf Creek will remain a small

fraction of the limits of 10 CFR 20.1301.

Solid Radioactive Wastes

Spent resins, which are generated by the processing of SFP water

through the SFP purification system, are changed about once a year at

Wolf Creek. These spent resins are disposed of as solid radioactive

waste. The water turbulence caused by the SFP reracking may result in

some resuspension of particulate matter in the SFP. This could result

in a temporary increase in the resin changeout frequency of the SFP

purification system during the SFP reracking operation. The licensee

will use a Tri-Nuke underwater filtration unit to clean the floor of

the SFP following removal of the old SFP rack modules. Vacuuming of the

SFP floor will remove any extraneous debris and crud and ensure visual

clarity in the SFP (to facilitate diving operations). Debris and crud

will be filtered and stored underwater in special handling baskets

purchased for this operation. Additional solid radwaste will consist of

the old SFP rack modules themselves as well as any interferences or SFP

hardware that may have to be removed from the SFP to permit

installation of the new SFP rack modules. Other than the radwaste

generated during the actual raracking operation, the staff does not

expect that the additional fuel storage made possible by the increased

SFP storage capacity will result in a significant change in the

generation of solid radwaste at Wolf Creek.

Liquid Radioactive Waste

The release of radioactive liquids will not be affected directly as

a result of the SFP modifications. The SFP ion exchanger resins remove

soluble radioactive materials from the SFP water. When the resins are

changed out, the small amount of resin sluice water that is released is

processed by the radwaste system. As stated above, the frequency of

resin changeout may increase slightly during the installation of the

new racks. However, the amount of liquid radioactivity released to the

environment as a result of the proposed SFP expansion is expected to be

negligible.

Occupational Doses

Radiation protection personnel will constantly monitor the doses to

the workers during the SFP expansion operation. If it becomes necessary

to utilize divers for the SFP reracking operation, the licensee will

equip each diver with electronic dosimeters with remote, above surface,

readouts, which will be continuously monitored by Health Physics

personnel. The total occupational dose to plant workers as a result of

the SFP expansion operation is estimated to be between 6 and 12 person-

rem. This dose estimate is comparable to doses for similar SFP

modifications performed at other plants. The upcoming SFP rack

installation will follow detailed procedures prepared with full

consideration of as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) principles.

On the basis of the review of the Wolf Creek proposal, the staff

concludes that

[[Page 68479]]

the Wolf Creek SFP rack installation can be performed in a manner that

will ensure that doses to workers will be maintained ALARA. The

estimated dose of 6 to 12 person-rem to perform the proposed SFP rack

installation is a small fraction of the annual collective dose accrued

at Wolf Creek.

Accident Considerations

In its application, the licensee evaluated the possible

consequences of a fuel handling accident to determine the thyroid and

whole-body doses at the exclusion area boundary (EAB), low population

zone (LPZ), and control room. The proposed SFP rack installation at the

Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station will not affect any of the

assumptions or inputs used in evaluating the dose consequences of a

fuel handling accident and therefore will not result in an increase in

the doses from a postulated fuel handling accident.

Uranium Fuel Cycle and Transportation

The environmental impacts of transportation resulting from the use

of higher enrichment fuel and extended irradiation were published and

discussed in the staff assessment entitled, ``NRC Assessment of the

Environmental Effects of Transportation Resulting from Extended Fuel

Enrichment and Irradiation,'' dated July 7, 1988, and published in the

Federal Register (53 FR 30355) on August 11, 1988, as corrected on

August 24, 1988 (53 FR 32322), in connection with Shearon Harris

Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact. As indicated therein, the environmental cost

contribution of the proposed increase in the fuel enrichment and

irradiation limits are either unchanged or may, in fact, be reduced

from those summarized in Table S-4 as set forth in 10 CFR 51.52(c).

Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant

radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed

amendment.

Details of the radiological consequences of the proposed action

will be discussed in the staff's safety evaluation for the proposed

changes.

The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action

and concludes that the proposed action will not increase the

probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in

the types of any effluents that may be released off site, and there is

no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure.

Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed

action does not involve any historical sites. It does not affect non-

radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact.

Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed action.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Shipment of Fuel to a Permanent Federal Fuel Storage/Disposal Facility

Shipment of spent fuel to a high-level radioactive storage facility

is an alternative to increasing the onsite spent fuel storage capacity.

However, the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) high-level radioactive

waste repository is not expected to begin receiving spent fuel until

approximately 2010, at the earliest. In October 1996, the

Administration did commit DOE to begin storing wastes at a centralized

location by January 31, 1998. However, no location has been identified

and an interim federal storage facility has yet to be identified in

advance of a decision on a permanent repository. Therefore, shipping

spent fuel to the DOE repository is not considered an alternative to

increased onsite spent fuel storage capacity at this time.

Shipment of Fuel to a Reprocessing Facility

Reprocessing of spent fuel from the Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating

Station is not a viable alternative since there are no operating

commercial reprocessing facilities in the United States. Therefore,

spent fuel would have to be shipped to an overseas facility for

reprocessing. However, this approach has never been used and it would

require approval by the Department of State as well as other entities.

Additionally, the cost of spent fuel reprocessing is not offset by the

salvage value of the residual uranium; reprocessing represents an added

cost.

Shipment of Fuel to Another Utility or Site for Storage

The shipment of fuel to another utility for storage would provide

short-term relief from the storage problem at the Wolf Creek Nuclear

Generating Station. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act and 10 CFR Part 53,

however, clearly place the responsibility for the interim storage of

spent fuel with each owner or operator of a nuclear plant. The shipment

of fuel to another source is not an acceptable alternative because of

increased fuel handling risks and additional occupational radiation

exposure, as well as the fact that no additional storage capacity would

be created.

Reduction of Spent Fuel Generation

Improved usage of fuel and/or operation at a reduced power level

would decrease the amount of fuel being stored in the pool and thus

increase the amount of time before full core off-load capacity is lost.

With extended burnup of fuel assemblies, the fuel cycle would be

extended and fewer offloads would be necessary. The licensee is

planning on operation of an 18-month refueling cycle, and, as part of

this proposed amendment, the licensee plans to increase the enrichment

to 5 percent. Operating the plant at a reduced power level would not

make effective use of available resources, and would cause unnecessary

economic hardship on Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation and its

customers. Therefore, reducing the amount of spent fuel generated by

increasing burnup further or reducing power is not considered a

practical alternative.

The staff also considered denial of the proposed action (no-action

alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in

current environmental impacts.

Alternative Use of Resources:

This action does not involve the use of any resources not

previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Wolf

Creek Nuclear Generating Station dated June 1982.

Agencies and Persons Consulted:

In accordance with its stated policy, on December 4, 1998, the

staff consulted with the Kansas State official, Mr. Vick Cooper 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

On the basis of 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 March 20, 1998, as supplemented by letters

dated May 28, 1998, June 30, 1998, August 28, 1998, and September 4,

1998, which are available for public

[[Page 68480]]

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

Washburn University School of Law Library, Topeka, Kansas 66621.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of December 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. 98-32955 Filed 12-10-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P