[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 238 (Friday, December 11, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68478-68480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32955]



[[Page 68478]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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