[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 146 (Monday, July 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39020-39021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18685]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-382]


Entergy Operations, Inc., Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 
No. 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an exemption 

[[Page 39021]]
from Facility Operating License No. NPF-38, issued to Entergy 
Operations, Inc., (the licensee), for operation of the Waterford Steam 
Electric Station Unit, No. 3 (Waterford 3) located in St. Charles 
Parish, Louisiana.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address 
potential environmental issues related to the licensee's application of 
November 16, 1993, as supplemented on August 19, 1994, march 30, and 
June 19, 1995. The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the 
requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Paragraph III.D.1.(a), to 
the extent that a one-time interval extension for the Type A test 
(containment integrated leak rate test) by approximately 18 months, 
from the September 1995 refueling outage to the refueling outage in 
1997, would be granted.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed to permit the licensee to defer the 
Type A test from the September 1995 refueling outage, to the 1997 
refueling outage, thereby saving the cost of performing the test and 
eliminating the test period from the critical path time of the outage.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the proposed one-time exemption would not increase 
the probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and 
the proposed one-time exemption would not affect facility radiation 
levels or facility radiological effluents. The licensee has analyzed 
the results of previous Type A tests performed at Waterford 3 to show 
good containment performance and will continue to be required to 
conduct the Type B and C local leak rate tests which historically have 
been shown to be the principal means of detecting containment leakage 
paths with the Type A tests confirming the Type B and C test results. 
It is also noted that the licensee will perform the visual containment 
inspection although it is only required by Appendix J to be conducted 
in conjunction with Type A tests. The NRC staff considers that these 
inspections, though limited in scope, provide an important added level 
of confidence in the continued integrity of the containment boundary.
    The change will not increase the probability or consequences of 
accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that 
may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the 
allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. 
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action does involve 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 so 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 NRC staff 
considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the application 
would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The 
environmental impact 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 Steam Electric Station, Unit No. 3.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on June 30, 1995, the NRC 
staff consulted with the Louisiana State official, Prosanta Chowdhun of 
the LA 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 November 16, 1993, as supplemented by letters 
dated August 19, 1994, March 30, and June 19, 1995, which are available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and the local 
public document room located at the University of New Orleans Library, 
Louisiana Collection, Lakefront, New Orleans, LA 70122.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of July 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. 95-18685 Filed 7-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M