[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31171-31172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14409]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-382]


Entergy Operations Inc.; Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 
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-38, issued to Entergy Operations, Inc., (the licensee), for 
operation of the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, located in 
St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would change the technical specifications (TSs) 
to increase the maximum enrichment for the spent fuel pool and 
containment temporary storage rack from 4.1 to 4.9 weight percent U-235 
when fuel assemblies contain fixed poisons.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for amendment dated January 27, 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed so that the licensee can use higher 
fuel enrichment to meet cycle energy requirements and to permit future 
operation with longer fuel cycles.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed 
revisions to the TSs. The proposed revisions would permit storage of 
fuel enriched to a nominal 4.9 weight percent U-235. The safety 
considerations associated with storing new and spent fuel of a higher 
enrichment have been evaluated by the NRC staff. The staff has 
concluded that such changes would not adversely affect plant safety. 
The proposed changes have no adverse effect on the probability of any 
accident. No changes are being made in the types or amounts of any 
radiological effluents that may be released offsite. There is no 
significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative 
occupational radiation exposure.
    The environmental impacts of transportation resulting from the use 
of higher enrichment fuel and extended irradiation (an enveloping case 
for Waterford Unit 3) 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.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action involves features located entirely 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 there is no measurable 
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any 
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be 
evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff 
considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the application 
would result in no change in current environmental impacts. 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 for the 
Waterford Unit 3.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on May 23, 1995, the staff 
consulted with the Louisiana State official, Prosanta Chowdhury of the 
Louisiana Radiation Protection Division, 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 January 27, 1995, which is available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman 2120 L 
Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room 
located at the University of New Orleans Library, 
[[Page 31172]] Louisiana Collection, Lakefront, New Orleans, Louisiana 
70122.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of June 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Chandu P. Patel,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects 
III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-14409 Filed 6-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M