[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 75 (Friday, April 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19144-19147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-10071]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-416]


Entergy Operations, Inc.; System Energy Resources, Inc.; South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association; Entergy Mississippi, Inc.; 
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1; Environmental Assessment and 
Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering the issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License 
No. NPF-29, issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for 
operation of the Grand Gulf Nuclear

[[Page 19145]]

Station, Unit 1 (GGNS), located in Claiborne County, Mississippi.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    GGNS is currently licensed to operate until June 16, 2022, which is 
40 years from the issuance of the low-power license on June 16, 1982. 
The proposed action would extend the expiration date of the operating 
license from June 16, 2022, to November 1, 2024. The extended date 
under consideration would be 40 years after the full-power license was 
issued on November 1, 1984.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for amendment dated July 21, 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would allow the licensee to operate GGNS until 
November 1, 2024. This would allow the licensee to recapture 
approximately 2.5 years of low-power operation from June 16, 1982, to 
November 1, 1984, which was an unusually long period for low-power 
operation. For the low-power license, the licensee was only authorized 
to operate the plant up to 5 percent of rated power or 191 megawatts 
thermal. On August 31, 1984, the Commission amended the low-power 
license to allow the licensee to operate up to 100 percent rated power 
or 3833 megawatts thermal. However, in response to a court challenge to 
the amendment, the Commission issued CLI-84-19 on October 25, 1984, 
directing the Staff to issue a separate full power license to GGNS. 
This action by the Commission prevented the licensee from operating 
GGNS at full power. On November 1, 1984, a full power license was 
issued to GGNS whose expiration date was 40 years from the date of 
issuance of the low power license. In the full-power license, the 
licensee was authorized to operate up to 100 percent of rated power.
    Therefore, this proposed action would allow the licensee to operate 
GGNS for approximately two additional operating cycles before the plant 
would be shut down for the expiration of the operating license. The 
licensee stated that the benefits of the proposed action were the 
following:

     Reduction in the need for buying replacement power, 
because of operating GGNS, on the order of $120 million using 
current estimates;
     Additional flexibility in long-range planning by the 
licensee and a savings in excess of $100,000 in construction costs;
     Deferral of additional system construction;
     Delayed application for license renewal under 10 CFR 
part 54 until the process has been implemented;
     Compatibility with projected refueling outage schedules 
for GGNS.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that there are no significant environmental 
considerations involved with the proposed action. The extension of the 
operating license does not affect the design or operation of the plant, 
does not involve any modifications to the plant or any increase in the 
licensed power for the plant, and will not create any new or unreviewed 
environmental impacts that were not considered in the Final 
Environmental Statement (FES) related to the operation of GGNS, NUREG-
0777, dated September 1981. The evaluations presented in the FES were 
the environmental impacts of generating power at GGNS and the basis for 
granting a 40-year operating license for GGNS. The environmental 
impacts of the proposed action are based on the evaluations in the FES. 
The FES also considered the environmental impacts of operating both 
Unit 1 and Unit 2; however, Unit 2 was abandoned in 1985 and was never 
completed.
    Although the FES considered a specific operating period of 30 years 
for GGNS, the staff concluded in the full-power license issued on 
November 1, 1984, that the environmental impacts associated with a 40-
year operating period were sufficiently addressed in the FES. This was 
based on a consideration of the FES which in general, 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 overall assessment and conclusions would 
not be dependent on a specific operating life. There are, however, 
three areas in which a specific operating life was assumed:

1. Project costs are based on a 30-year levelized cost.
2. Radiological assessments are based on a 15-year plant midlife.
3. Uranium fuel cycle impacts are based on one initial core load and 
annual refuelings.

    These were assessed by the staff to determine whether the use of a 
40-year operating period rather than a 30-year operating period would 
significantly affect the staff's assessment concerning these areas.
1. Projected Costs
    The projected costs of the facility which includes the cost of 
decommissioning are based on a 30-year operating life and are levelized 
over that period of time. The use of a 40-year operating period rather 
than a 30-year period would not significantly affect the operating and 
maintenance cost. If the facility's capital cost were spread over a 40-
year period, the overall resulting cost of facility operation would be 
lowered. Therefore, any extension in the operating life of the facility 
would result in savings in system production costs. The production of 
energy at reduced cost results in an incremental net benefit for the 
use of a 40-year operating life of the facility.
2. Radiological Assessments
    The NRC staff calculates dose commitments to the human population 
residing around nuclear power reactors to assess the impact on people 
from radioactive material released from these reactors. The annual dose 
commitment 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 
life radionuclides via the ingestion pathways by 33% at most. It would 
have much less effect on dose from shorter life radionuclides. Tables 
D-4 and D-5 of Appendix D 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 is 7.0 mrem/
yr compared to an Appendix I design objective of 15 mrem/yr. Thus, for 
7 mrem/yr, an increase of even as much as 33% in these pathways results 
in a dose within the Appendix I guidelines and would still not be 
significant.
3. Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts
    The impacts of the uranium fuel cycle are based on 30 years of 
operation of a model light water reactor (LWR). The fuel requirements 
for the model LWR were assumed to be one initial core load and 29 
annual refuelings (approximately \1/3\ core). The annual fuel 
requirements for the model LWR averaged out over a 40-year operating 
life (1 initial core and 39 refuelings of approximately \1/3\ core)

[[Page 19146]]

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 be 
any changes to Grand Gulf FES Table 5.10 (S-3) that would be necessary 
in order to consider 40 years of operation. If anything, the values in 
Table 5.10 become more conservative when a 40-year period of operation 
is considered.
    The staff has concluded, based on the reasons discussed 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 assessed in the Grand Gulf FES. Therefore, 
the staff concluded that the Grand Gulf FES sufficiently addresses the 
environmental impacts associated with a 40-year operating period.
    The considerations involved in completing the Commission's 
evaluation for the proposed action are discussed below.

1. Radiological Impacts of Design Basis Accidents

    The offsite exposure from releases during postulated accidents has 
been previously evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR) for GGNS. The results are acceptable when compared with the 
criteria defined in 10 CFR Part 100, as documented in the Commission's 
Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-0831, dated September 1981, and its 
seven supplements.
    This conservative design-basis evaluation is a function of four 
parameters: (1) The type of accident postulated, (2) the radioactivity 
calculated to be released during the accident, (3) the assumed 
meteorological conditions at the site, and (4) the population 
distribution versus distance from the plant. An environmental 
assessment of accidents is also provided in Section 5.9.2 of the FES. 
The type of accidents and the calculated radioactivity released do not 
change with the proposed action. The site meteorology as defined in 
Chapter 2 of the UFSAR is essentially constant. The Commission staff 
has concluded that the population size and distribution is the only 
parameter in the accident analyses that is considered to change for the 
proposed action.
    The licensee presented information on the population distribution 
in the general vicinity of GGNS as new data from the 1980 and 1990 
census compared to the data presented also in Chapter 2 of the UFSAR. 
The 1980 and 1990 census show a general reduction in the near site 
population (up to 10 miles) and in Mississippi communities and 
population centers within 50 miles of the site. Because of the general 
reduction in population near the site and the short 2.5 years that the 
license is proposed to be extended, the staff concludes that the 
proposed action will not significantly change previous conclusions on 
the potential environmental of offsite releases from postulated 
accidents.

2. Radiological Impacts of Annual Releases

    The annual occupational exposure of workers at the plant, station 
employees and contractors, is reported in the Annual Operating Report 
for GGNS submitted by the licensee. For 1989 through 1995, the annual 
exposure has been measured at values between 56 and 484 person-rems, 
with the average annual exposure over 7 years being 327 person-rems. 
The lowest exposure value is for a year without a refueling outage and 
the highest value is for a year with a refueling outage. In Section 
5.9.1.1.1 of the FES, the average occupational exposure for a boiling 
water reactor, as is GGNS, was reported as 740 person-rems. Therefore, 
the expected annual occupational exposure for the proposed extended 
period of operation does not change previous conclusions presented in 
the FES on occupational exposure.
    The offsite exposure from releases during routine operations has 
been previously evaluated in Section 5.9.1 of the FES. During the low-
power license up to August 31, 1984, the plant was restricted to no 
more than 5 percent of rated power and the generation of radioactivity 
at the plant was significantly smaller than would have occurred if the 
plant was at full-power operation. The licensee provided in its 
application the annual public dose from releases of radioactive 
materials in gaseous and liquid effluents from GGNS for 1987 through 
1994. These doses for 1995 were reported in the 1995 Annual Radioactive 
Effluent Release Report which was submitted in the licensee's letter of 
May 2, 1996. These doses were a small fraction of the dose design 
objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 which were the estimates of 
doses to the public that the FES was based on. The average of the 9 
years was less than 10 percent of the Appendix I values. Therefore, the 
additional 2.5 years of operation that the licensee has requested does 
not change previous conclusions presented in the FES on annual public 
doses.

3. Environmental Impact of the Uranium Fuel Cycle

    In addition to the impacts associated with the operation of the 
plant, there are impacts associated with the uranium fuel cycle. The 
uranium fuel cycle includes those facilities and processes (e.g., 
uranium mills, fuel fabrication plants, and fuel enrichment facilities) 
that are necessary to support the operation of the plant by providing 
the fuel for the reactor. Section 5.10 of the FES described the impacts 
associated with the fuel cycle for GGNS.
    The operation of the plant from June 16, 1982, to November 1, 1984, 
did not consume sufficient fuel to require the licensee to use any more 
fuel than was expected in the estimate for 40 years of operations. If 
the plant had operated at the maximum power level allowed by the low-
power license from June 16, 1982, to November 1, 1984, the impact on 
fuel of this operation would be less than 1 percent of that for the 40 
years of operation at 100 percent power which is allowed by the full-
power license. Therefore, the proposed action does not change the 
estimates of the impacts of the fuel cycle that were presented in the 
FES.

4. Transportation of Fuel and Radioactive Waste

    The environmental impacts of transportation of fuel to and from the 
site and the transportation of solid radioactive wastes from the site 
to a waste burial grounds were considered in Table 5.3 of the FES. 
Because the proposed action should not change the amount of fuel that 
is expected to be used in 40 years of operations, the impacts in the 
FES associated with the transportation of fuel should not change due to 
the proposed action.
    The licensee provides the amount of solid radioactive wastes 
shipped from the site in its annual (after 1992) and semi-annual (up 
through 1992) radioactive effluent release reports. In these reports 
for 1991 through 1995, the average amount of solid radioactive wastes 
shipped for these 5 years was 46 truck shipments of less than 190 cubic 
meters per year. This is less than the annual impact reported in the 
FES for transportation of solid radioactive wastes; therefore, the 
proposed action should not exceed the environmental impacts given in 
the FES.

[[Page 19147]]

5. Nonradiological Impacts

    The staff has reevaluated the non-radiological impacts associated 
with the operation of the plant for the proposed action. The non-
radiological impacts, primarily on water and land use, are shown in the 
FES to be minor. The major non-radiological impact is the 
concentrations in and the temperature of the water discharged from the 
plant to the nearby Mississippi River. The plant makeup and service 
water is supplied by a series of radial collector wells located in the 
floodplain parallel to the Mississippi, as described in Section 2.4 of 
the UFSAR and Section 4.2.3 of the FES. The wells are cylindrical 
concrete caissons sunk into the alluvial aquifer adjacent to the 
Mississippi River with perforated pipes projecting horizontally into 
the aquifer, which draw water from the aquifer and the Mississippi 
River. The cooling of water for power generation is provided by a 
cooling tower. The water discharged from the plant to the Mississippi 
River is the cooling tower blowdown from the cooling tower basin to 
maintain water quality.
    As explained in Section 5.6 of the FES, the plant's discharges to 
the Mississippi are regulated by applicable Federal effluent 
limitations under Sections 401 and 402 of the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act. Section 401 is a certification and Section 402 is the 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, which 
are issued by the State of Mississippi. These restrictions on the plant 
effluent into the Mississippi River are not affected by the proposed 
action.
    In NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 
Renewal of Nuclear Plants,'' dated October 27, 1995, the use of 
groundwater at GGNS, from the radial collector wells for the cooling 
tower makeup, is discussed in Sections 4.8.1.4 and 4.8.2.2, in terms of 
the impact of the groundwater intake on the groundwater level and the 
water quality. These sections state that the intake of cooling water by 
GGNS does not conflict with other groundwater uses in the area and that 
the intake water quality will not be lower than that in the nearby 
Mississippi River. This is consistent with Section 2.4 of the UFSAR. 
Therefore, NUREG-1437 shows no adverse environmental impact by the 
proposed action; however, if the licensee should apply for license 
renewal of the GGNS full-power operating license under 10 CFR Part 54, 
``Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power 
Plants,'' the issue of other groundwater uses in the vicinity of the 
plant would be addressed.

6. Conclusion

    Beyond the impacts discussed above, the proposed action will not 
increase the probability or consequences of any accidents and will not 
change the licensed power level for the plant. No changes are being 
made to any structure, system, or component in the plant, to how the 
plant is operated, in the types of any effluents that may be released 
offsite, and in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational 
radiation exposure for the plant. 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 no significant 
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. In this case, GGNS would shut 
down upon expiration of the present full-power operating license. 
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.
    In Section 6.4 of the FES, a benefit-cost analysis was presented 
for the operation of GGNS. The environmental costs for the extended 
period of operation would be less than the cost of the replacement 
power or the installation of new electrical generating capacity. 
Moreover, with the extended period of operation, the overall financial 
cost per year of the plant would decrease because the initial capital 
outlay would be averaged over a greater number of years of operation. 
In summary, the benefit-cost of operating GGNS would improve with the 
extended plant operating lifetime.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the FES for the GGNS.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on April 8, 1997, the staff 
consulted with Mississippi State officials, Robert Goff and Robert Bell 
of the Division of Radiological Health, State Board of Health, 
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State 
officials 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 July 21, 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 room located at the Judge George W. Armstrong Library, 220 S. 
Commerce Street, Natchez, Mississippi 39120.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of April, 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William D. Beckner,
Director, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects III/
IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-10071 Filed 4-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P