[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36722-36724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17919]


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

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 (Waterford 
3), located in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would change the Waterford 3 Technical 
Specifications to allow an increase in the Waterford 3 Spent Fuel Pool 
(SFP) storage capacity from 1088 to 2398 fuel assemblies, and to allow 
an increase in the maximum fuel enrichment from 4.9 w/o (weight 
percent) to 5.0 w/o U-235. The increase in spent fuel storage capacity 
is achieved by replacing the existing spent fuel storage racks by the 
higher density racks, a process referred to herein as ``reracking.'' 
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application 
for license amendment dated March 27, 1997, as supplemented by letters 
dated April 3, July 21, October 23, November 13, and December 12, 1997, 
January 21, January 29, March 23, May 1, May 19, May 21, May 28, and 
June 12, 1998.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The Waterford 3 SFP currently contains 1088 storage cells in 16 
spent fuel racks and full core off-load capability would be lost in the 
year 2000. Under the proposed reracking, the 16 existing racks, which 
contain Boraflex as the neutron absorber, would be removed and replaced 
by new high density modules. There are no commercial independent spent 
fuel storage facilities operating in the U.S., nor are there any 
domestic reprocessing facilities; therefore, the projected loss of 
storage capacity in the Waterford 3 SFP would affect the licensee's 
ability to operate Waterford 3. The proposed amendment will provide a 
full core off-load capability through the end of Cycle 19 (Year 2018).

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

Radiological Impacts
    The Waterford 3 uses waste treatment systems designed to collect 
and process gaseous, liquid, and solid waste that might contain 
radioactive material. These radioactive waste treatment systems are 
evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated March 1973. 
The proposed rerack will not involve any change in the waste treatment 
systems described in the FES.
Radioactive Material Released to the Atmosphere
    During reactor operation, a small percentage of the fuel assemblies 
in the core are expected to develop leaks, resulting in a release of 
fission products to the reactor coolant. The storage of additional 
spent fuel assemblies in the SFP will not significantly affect the 
release of radioactive gases from the SFP since fission products 
generally do not escape from the SFP.
    The higher fuel burnup used in the new rack analysis will result in 
a higher concentration of Krypton-85 (Kr-85) in the reactor coolant, 
some of which will be introduced into the SFP water during refuelings. 
Accounting for this increased Kr-85 concentration in the SFP water, the 
licensee calculated that the Kr-85 concentration in the air in the fuel 
handling building would be two orders of magnitude lower than the 
permissible effluent concentration for the general public (Appendix B 
of 10 CFR Part 20).
    Iodine-131 released from spent fuel assemblies to the SFP water 
will not be significantly increased due to the expansion of the fuel 
storage capacity since the Iodine-131 inventory in the fuel will decay 
to negligible levels between refuelings.
    Most of the tritium in the SFP water results from activation of 
boron and lithium in the primary coolant. A relatively small amount of 
tritium is produced during reactor operation by the fission process 
within the reactor fuel. The subsequent diffusion of the tritium 
through the fuel and cladding represents a small contribution to the 
total amount of tritium in the SFP water. Tritium releases from the 
fuel assemblies to the reactor coolant occur mainly during reactor 
operation and, to a limited extent, shortly after shutdown. Since a 
small portion of the tritium is due to fission in the fuel, the 
increased fuel burnup will result in an increase in the amount of 
tritium in the reactor coolant.
    Most airborne releases of tritium from nuclear power plants result 
during refuelings from evaporation of reactor coolant, which contains 
tritium in higher concentrations than in the SFP. The storage of 
additional spent fuel assemblies in the SFP is not expected to increase 
the SFP bulk water temperature significantly above the 155 deg. used in 
the design analysis and, therefore, evaporation rates from the SFP are 
not expected to increase. The higher tritium concentrations in the SFP 
water are expected to result in higher airborne tritium levels in the 
fuel handling building. However, the licensee has calculated these 
tritium levels to be lower than the permissible effluent concentrations 
for the general public contained in Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 20.
Solid Radioactive Wastes
    Spent resins are generated by the processing of SFP water through 
the SFP purification system. These spent resins are replaced about two 
to four times a year and are disposed of as solid radioactive waste. 
The licensee will use a vacuum system with an underwater filtration 
unit to clean the floor of the Cask Storage Pit prior to reracking and 
the floor of the SFP following removal of the old SFP rack modules. 
Vacuuming of the SFP and Cask Storage Pit will remove any extraneous 
debris, reduce general contamination levels prior to diving operations, 
and ensure visual clarity in the SFP to facilitate diving operations 
and SFP rack changeout. The licensee also plans on hydrolazing the old 
fuel rack modules with demineralized water before removal from the SFP 
to remove any loose crud from the modules. If necessary, the licensee 
may also use a wire brush or equivalent abrasive tool to assist in the 
removal of hot particles. The licensee does not expect that the 
additional fuel storage made possible by the increased storage capacity 
will result in a significant change in the generation of solid radwaste 
(in the form of spent resins).
    Once the old SFP rack modules have been hydrolazed, they will be 
placed into anti-contamination bags and loaded into shipping containers 
for shipment offsite for decontamination and disposal. The licensee has 
stated that the shipping containers and procedures will conform to all 
applicable U.S.

[[Page 36723]]

Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or U.S. NRC regulations.
Liquid Radioactive Wastes
    There should not be a significant increase in the liquid release of 
radionuclides from the plant as a result of the modifications. The SFP 
cooling and purification system operates as a closed system. The SFP 
ion exchanger resins remove soluble radioactive materials from the SFP 
water and the frequency of resin changeout may increase during the 
installation of the new racks due to the more frequent fuel shuffling 
and underwater hydrolazing of the old racks during removal. When the 
resins are changed out, a small amount of resin sluice water is 
released. However, the amount of liquid radioactive released to the 
environment as a result of the proposed reracking is expected to be 
negligible.
Occupational Doses
    Radiation Protection personnel will constantly monitor the doses to 
the workers during the reracking operation. Divers used to perform work 
in the SFP will be equipped with five remote readout radiation 
detectors, which will be continuously monitored by Radiation Protection 
personnel. The total occupational dose to plant workers as a result of 
the reracking operation is estimated to be between 6 and 12 person-rem. 
This dose estimate is comparable to doses for similar SFP modifications 
performed at other plants. The upcoming reracking operation will follow 
detailed procedures prepared with full consideration of ALARA 
principles. On the basis of our review of the Waterford 3 proposal, the 
staff concludes that the Waterford 3 SFP rack modification can be 
performed in a manner that will ensure that doses to workers will be 
maintained as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). The estimated 
dose of 6 to 12 person-rem to perform the proposed SFP rerack is a 
small fraction of the annual collective dose accrued at Waterford 3.
Uranium Fuel Cycle and Transportation
    The environmental impacts of transportation resulting from the use 
of higher enrichment fuel are 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. This was published in the Federal 
Register on August 11, 1988 (53 FR 30355), as corrected on August 24, 
1988 (53 FR 32322), in connection with an Environmental Assessment and 
Finding of No Significant Impact related to the Sheron Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit 1. As indicated therein, the environmental cost 
contribution of an increase in fuel enrichment of up to 5 weight 
percent U-235 and irradiation limits of up to 60 gigawatt days per 
metric ton (GWD/MT) 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). 
These findings are applicable to the proposed amendment for Waterford 
3. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that this proposed action 
would result in no significant radiological environmental impact.
Accident Considerations
    In its application, the licensee evaluated the possible 
consequences of a fuel handling accident to determine the thyroid and 
whole-body doses at the Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB), Low Population 
Zone (LPZ), and Control Room. The proposed reracking of the Waterford 3 
SFP will not affect any of the assumptions or inputs used in evaluating 
the dose consequences of a fuel handling accident and therefore will 
not result in an increase in the doses from a postulated fuel handling 
accident.
Nonradiological Impact
    The proposed amendment does not modify land use at the site; no new 
facilities or laydown areas are needed to support the rerack or 
operation after rerack; therefore, the proposed amendment does not 
affect land use or land with historical or archeological sites. The 
proposed action does not result in any significant changes to the types 
and amounts of effluents that may be released offsite. Therefore, no 
changes or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are 
expected as a result of the amendment.
Summary
    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action. 
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 not affect nonradiological plant effluents. 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 not result in any significant 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 3.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on June 17, 1998, the staff 
consulted with the Louisiana State official, Dr. Stan Shaw 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 March 27, 1997, as supplemented by letters 
dated April 3, July 21, October 23, November 13, and December 12, 1997, 
January 21, January 29, March 23, May 1, May 19, May 21, May 28, and 
June 12, 1998, which are 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 University of New Orleans Library, Louisiana Collection, Lakefront, 
New Orleans, LA 70122.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of June 1998.


[[Page 36724]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John N. Hannon,
Director, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects III/
IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-17919 Filed 7-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P