[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 46 (Thursday, March 7, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9207-9208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5363]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
