ML20099L136
| ML20099L136 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1985 |
| From: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20099L140 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8503200487 | |
| Download: ML20099L136 (9) | |
Text
.
ENCLOSURE 2 7590-01 KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT COMPANY KANSAS ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.
DOCKET NO. STN 50-482 WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, UNIT NO. 1 NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Notice is hereby given that the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission or NRC), has issued Facility Operating License No. NPF-32 to Kansas Gas & Electric Company, Kansas City Power & Light Company and Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (the licensees) which authorizes operation of the Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No.1 at reactor core power levels not in excess of 3411 megawatts thermal in accordance with the provisions of the License, the Technical Specifications and the Environmental Protection Plan with a condition currently limiting operation to five percent of full power (170 megawatts ther-mal). Authorization to operate beyond five percent of full power will require specific Comission approval.
Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No.1 is a pressurized water reactor located approximately 28 miles east-southeast of Emporta, in Coffey County, Kansas. The application was submitted and accepted for review under the Com-mission's standardization policy statement of March 5,1973.
Kansas Gas &
Electric Company was one of five utilities who joined together under the acro-nym SNUPPS (Standardized Nuclear Unit power Plant System) to submit applications gs@D M N
w i
7590-01 v
r 2-
- t L..
for Construction Permits for a standard plant design for review under the Com-mission's standardization policy, using the duplicate plant option described in Appendix N to.the Commission's regulations in Pa'rt 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations-(10 CFR Part 50), " Licensing of Production and l-Utilization Facilities." This option allows for a simultaneous review of the l
' safety-related parameters of a limited number of duplicate plants which are to be constructed within a limited time sp'an at a multiplicity of sites. The li-cense-is effective as of the date of issuance.
The application for the license complies with the standards and require-mentsoftheAtomicEnergyActof1954,asamended(theAct),andtheCommis-sion's regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Connission's regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I which are set forth in the License. Prior public notice of the overall action involving the proposed issuance of an operating license was published in the Federal Register on December 8,1980(45FR83360).
The Connission has determined that the issuance of this license will not result in any environmental impacts other than those evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement since the activity authorized by the license is en-compassed by the overall action evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement.
l -
_____.__________-.1----._-____
1 7590-01 3-For further details with respect to this action, see (1) Faci ity Operating LicenseNo.NPF-32,withTechnicalSpecifications(NUREG-1104)andtheEnviron-mental Protection Plan; (2) the report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor-Safeguards, dated May 11,1982;(3) the Comission's Safety Evaluation Report, dated April 1982 (NUREG-0881), and Supplements 1 through 5; (4) the Final Safety Analysis Report and Amendments thereto; (5) the Environmental Report and supplements thereto; (6) the Final Environmental Statement, dated June 1982; and (7) Assessment of the Effect of License Duration on Matters Discussed in the Final Environmental Statement for the Wolf Cr.eek Plant Unit 1.
These items are available for inspection at the' Comission's Public Docu-ment Room located at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20555 and at the Emporia State University, William Allen White Library,1200 Comercial Street, Emporia, Kansas 66801. A copy of Facility Operating License NPF-32 may be obtained upon request addressed to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555, Attention: Director, Division of Licensing. Copies of the Safety Evaluation Report and Supplements 1 through 5 (NUREG-0881) and the Final Environmental Statement-(NUREG-0878) may be purchased at current rates from the National Technical Information Service, Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, and through the NRC GP0 sales program by writing to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attention:
Sales Manager, Washington, D. C. 20555. GP0 deposit account holders may call (301) 492-9530.
r,
-,,-,-,--,-r,,,
-.-v
,,,,,y...,.m-
-.,.,,m
.n-,_-,o,,m-,,-.,,-r
,m.,
.,.--.n,,
-- -, - - -,,, _n
f 7590-01
-4 h
-Dated at Bethesda,-Maryland this f dayof ff.__- [9 f f.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
/3
- 8. J. Youngblood,' Chief Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing I
I
/ 0 LB LB#1:DLfp)d LBf1:DL D
LB D L M
k:es P0'Connor JSteven M-MH8 # BJou5ghlood 01 85_
01/7/85 01/ Y/8 01/Je/85 01
/85 N sT'M Ch nH &.;S k 6 45 D #5 cusse.)
h/s4hvi O Ce4/ef
, r /.v//P5-.
h
4 s
/p ** "'8k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9-UNITED STATES
.s 0
3 j
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20556 a
(....*/
Docket No. 50-482 AMENDMENT TO INDEMNITY AGDEEMENT N0. B-99 AMENDMENT NO. 2 Effective March 11, 1985 Indemnity Agreement No. B-99 between Kansas Ga's
& E'ectric Company, Kansas City Power & Light Company, and Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. and the Nuclear Regulatory Comission dated May 9, 1984, as amended, is hereby further amended as follows:
Item 2.a of the Attachment to the indemnity agreement is deleted in its entirety and the following substituted therefor:
Item 2.-
Amount of financial protection a.
$1,000,000 (From 12:01 a.m., May 9, 1984, to 12 midnight March 10, 1935 inclusive)
$160,000,00p*
(From 12:01 a.m., March 11, 1935
)
Item 3 of the Attachment to the indemnity agreement is deleted in its entirety and the following substituted therefor:
Item 3 - License number or numbers SNM-1929 (From 12:01 a.m., May 9, 1984 to 12 midnight March 10, 1935 inclusive) l NPF-32 (From 12:01 a.m., March 11, 1985 )
~
l and, as of. August 1,1977, the amount available as secondary financial protection.
e 4.
.e 2
t f
Item 5 of the Attachment to the indemnity agreement is amended by adding the following~:
" Nuclear Energy Liability Policy (Facility Form) No. MF.118 issued by Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters" FOR THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSTION UMY f Jerome Saltzman, Assistant Director State and Licensee Relations Office of State Programs Accepted
, 1984 Accepted 1984 By By KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Accepted
,1984 By KANSAS ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.
-. -. - - -. ~, - -
,=
a v
Endlosure 4
' ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECT OF LICENSE DURATION OR MATTERS DISCUSSED IN THE FINAL ENVIRO.fMENTAL STATEMENT FOR THE WOLF CREEK PLANT UNIT l'(Dated JUNE 1982)~
INTRODUCTION The Final Environmental. Statement (FES)- for the operation of the Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit I was published in June IS82. At that time it was staff practice to issue operating licenses for a period of 40 years from the date of the construction _ permit. For Wolf Creek, the CP was issued in May 1977, thus, approximately 30 years of operating life would be available.
By letter dated June.28, 1984, Kansas Gas and Electric Company requested that the operating license for the Wolf Creek Generating Station,- Unit I have a duration of 40 years from the date of issuance.
DISCUSSION The staff has reviewed the Wolf Creek FES to determine which aspects considered in the FES are affected by the duration of the operating license.
In general, the FES assesses various impacts associated with operation of the facility in terms of annual impacts and balances these against the anticipated annual energy production benefits. Thus, the overell assessment and conclusions would not be dependent on specific operating life. There are, however, three areas in which a specific operating life was assumed:
1.
Radiological assessments are based on a 15-year plant midlife.
2.
Uranium fuel cycle impacts are based on one initial core load and annual refuelings.
- 3.. _ Uranium availability is evaluated through 30 years of operation.
These were assessed to determine whether the use of a 40-year operating period rather than a 30-year operating period would significantly affect our assessment concerning-these areas.
EVALUATION:
The staff's appraisal of the significance of the use of 40 years of operation
.rather than 30 as it affects these three areas is presented in the following discussions:
. 1.
Radiological Assessments - The NRC staff calculates dose commitments to the human population residing around nuclear power readtors.to assess the impact on people from radioactive material released from these reactors. The annual dose comitment is calculated to be the
. dose that would be received-over a 50-year period following the intake of radioactivity for 1 year under the conditions that would exist 15 years after the plant began operation.
The 15 year period is chosen as representing the midpoint of plant.
operation and factors into the dose models by allowing for buildup of long life radionuclides in the soil.
It affects the estimated doses-only for radionuclides ingested by humans that have half-lives greater than a few years.
For a plant licensed for 40 years, increasing the buildup ~ period from 15 to 20 years would increase the dose from long tenn life radionuclides via the ingestion pathways by 33% at most. It would have much less effect on dose from shorter life radionuclides.
Table C.6 and C.7 of Appendix C to the FES indicate that the estimated doses via the ingestion pathways are only a fraction of the regulatory
-design objectives. For example, the ingestion dose to the thyroid of the maximally exposea individual is 2.4, mrem /yr compared to an Appendix I design objective of 15 mrem /yr. Thus, for 2.4, an increase of even as much as 33% in these pathways, the dose would remain within the Appendix I guidelines.
2.
Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts - The impacts of the uranium fuel cycle are based on 30 years of operation of a model LWR. The fuel require-
-ments for the model LWR were assumed to be one initial core load and 29 annual refuelings (approximately 1/3 core). The annual fuel requirement for the model LWR averaged out over a 40-year operating life (1 initial core and 39 refuelings of approximately 1/3 core) would be reduced slightly as compared to the annual fuel requirement averaged for a 30-year operating life.
The net result would be an approximately 1.5% reduction in the annual fuel requirement for the model LWR. This small reduction in fuel
. requirements would not lead to significant changes in the impacts of the uranium fuel cycle. The staff does not believe that there would i i be any changes to Wolf Creek FES Table 5.1 (S-3) that would be necessary in order to consider _40 years of operation.
If anything, the values in Table 5.1 become more conservative when a 40-year period.of operation is considered.
o 3.
Uranium Resources - In Table 6.1 of the Wolf Creek FES, thg granium
~
resource commitment was estimated at 50.00 metric tons of 3 8.
Uranium availability is based on the cumulative lifetime of 30 years.
A 33% increase in operating life (to 40 years)'would still be within the projected uranium resources,. Cancellation of many reactors since the Wolf Creek FES was issued will result in an off-setting reduction in demand.
Furthermore, the increase in operating life assumption to 40-years will reduce the need for replacement generating capacity, including nuclear, at the end of 30 years.
-/-
-. - _ _. - _,, -. - _ _.. _. _ _ _, _ _ _, _ _ _. _. _ _ _. _. _ - -, _ _ _ _ _ _. - ~ _ -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _
~
.v 3-CONCLUSION-The staff has reviewed the Wolf Creek EES and determined that only three of the
' areas related to its NEPA analysis discussed in the statement were tied directly to a 30-year operating period. We have concluded, based on the reasons discussed in the sections above, that the impacts associated with a 40-year operating license duration are not significantly different from those associated with a 30-year' operating license duration and are not significantly different from those assessed in the Wolf Creek FES.
O i
l i
o o
..