[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 24, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20176-20183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-9989]



[[Page 20176]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-368]


Entergy Operations, Inc., Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2; 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related 
to a Proposed License Amendment to Increase the Maximum Thermal Power 
Level

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-6, 
issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the licensee), for the 
operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2), located in Pope 
County, Arkansas. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is 
issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant 
impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would allow Entergy, the operator of ANO-2, to 
increase its electrical generating capacity at ANO-2 by raising the 
maximum reactor core power level from 2815 MWt to 3026 MWt. This change 
is approximately 7.5 percent above the current maximum licensed power 
level for ANO-2. The change is considered an extended power uprate 
(EPU) because it would raise the reactor core power level at least 7 
percent above the original licensed power level. ANO-2 has not 
submitted a previous power uprate application. The EPU is accomplished 
by increasing the heat output of the reactor, thereby increasing the 
steam flow to the turbine for which increased feedwater flow is needed. 
As a result, more heat will be rejected to the circulating water and 
cooling tower complex. Increased heat load to the cooling tower will 
cause evaporative losses to increase. Therefore, cooling tower makeup, 
supplied from Lake Dardanelle, will increase due to the increased 
evaporative losses.
    The proposed action is in accordance with Entergy's application for 
amendment dated December 19, 2000, as supplemented by letters dated May 
30, June 20, 26 (two letters), 27, and 28, July 3 and 24 (two letters), 
August 7, 13, 21, 23, and 30, September 14, October 1, 12 (two 
letters), 17, 30 (two letters), and 31, November 9, 16 (three letters), 
and 17, and December 5, 6 (two letters), 10, and 20, 2001, and January 
14, 15, and 31, February 7 (two letters), and March 1, 2002.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is to provide an option that allows for power 
generation capability beyond the current nuclear power plant operating 
license to meet future system generating needs, as such needs may be 
determined by State, utility, and where authorized, Federal (other than 
NRC) decisionmakers. The ANO-2 steam generators were replaced in 2000 
due to primary water stress corrosion cracking. In evaluating the 
options for the replacement steam generators (RSGs), Entergy determined 
that the RSGs would be capable of supporting a 7.5 percent thermal 
uprate which would increase the licensed core thermal power level to 
3026 MWt. The proposed action to increase the licensed core thermal 
power level to 3026 MWt is based on Entergy's operational goal of 
increasing electrical generating capacity. According to Entergy, summer 
peak temperatures in the South challenge the ability of Entergy and 
other power producers to meet peak load demands, and nuclear power has 
been shown to be a reliable energy source during these peak periods.
    In addition, Entergy states that there is an ongoing need for 
existing Entergy system generating capacity, including that provided by 
ANO-2. Entergy also states that load growth is expected to further 
increase the system's resource requirements. In view of the foregoing, 
Entergy determined that the EPU for ANO-2 would provide an economically 
sound choice with no significant impact to the environment.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and 
concludes that the increase in the rated core thermal power can be 
accomplished without significant impact on the environment.
    The environmental impacts of ANO-2 have been described in (1) the 
Final Environmental Statement (FES), dated June 1977 (NUREG-0254); (2) 
the Power Uprate Licensing Report (PULR), which is Enclosure 5 to the 
EPU application dated December 19, 2000, as supplemented; and (3) the 
June 26 and December 10, 2001, and January 15, 2002, responses to NRC 
requests for additional information (RAI). On January 31, 2000, Entergy 
submitted a supplement to its environmental report supporting the 
license renewal of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO-1), which resides 
adjacent to ANO-2. Responses to NRC RAIs regarding the environmental 
report for license renewal were submitted on June 26, July 31, and 
September 21, 2000. The staff evaluation of that action was documented 
in NUREG-1437, Supplement 3, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement 
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Arkansas Nuclear One, 
Unit 1,'' September 2000 (Supplement 3). Supplement 3 addresses many 
balance-of-plant site features that are common to ANO-1 and ANO-2. 
Supplement 3 was cited in Enclosure 5 of the December 19, 2000, license 
application in instances where site characteristics common to both ANO-
1 and ANO-2 are unchanged by the EPU.
    The original operating license for ANO-2 allowed a maximum reactor 
power level of 2815 MWt. Based upon on its independent analyses of the 
non-radiological and radiological impacts, as described in more detail 
below, the staff has determined that the environmental impacts of the 
proposed EPU are essentially unchanged from the environmental impacts 
previously evaluated in the staff's FES and, as common to both units, 
Supplement 3. The EPU does not involve extensive changes to plant 
systems that directly or indirectly interface with the environment. 
Additionally, no changes are necessary to the National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the Arkansas 
Department of Environment Quality (ADEQ), formerly the Arkansas 
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology.

Non-Radiological Impacts

    The following contains the NRC staff's analysis of the non-
radiological environmental impacts of the proposed EPU on land use, 
water use, waste discharges, terrestrial and aquatic biota, 
transmission facilities, and social and economic conditions at ANO-2.

Land Use Impacts

    The proposed EPU would not modify land use at the site or have 
impacts on lands with historic or archeological significance. The 
licensee states that it has no plans to construct any new facilities or 
alter the land around existing facilities, including buildings, access 
roads, parking facilities, laydown areas, onsite transmission and 
distribution equipment, or power line rights-of-way in conjunction with 
the proposed EPU. The EPU would not significantly affect the storage of 
materials, including chemicals, fuels, and other materials stored above 
or under the ground. The EPU would not alter the aesthetics of the 
site. Therefore, the conclusions in Supplement 3 for impacts on land 
use that are common to

[[Page 20177]]

ANO-1 and ANO-2, and the conclusions on land use impacts in FES Section 
5-2, augmented by information in the PULR and the June 26 and December 
10, 2001, and January 15, 2002, RAI responses, will remain valid under 
the proposed EPU conditions.
    Noise was not addressed in the FES. However, FES Section 5.2 notes 
that Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO) is located on 1,164 acres and FES 
Section 2.2.2 states that the ``* * * station has altered the land use 
in Pope County, primarily through the conversion of 430 acres to an 
industrial site. Only 150 acres actually are being disturbed * * * The 
total acreage of the land affected by the construction and operation of 
ANO is extremely small. Most of the changes in land use have occurred 
with the construction and operation of Unit 1. * * *'' Supplement 3, 
Section 2.1 states that ``[t]he ANO site is located on a peninsula 
formed by Lake Dardanelle, and three sides of the site are surrounded 
by lake water.'' The two nearest residences are ``* * * approximately 3 
and 1.2 miles, respectively, from the Unit 2 containment building 
centerline* * *'' (ANO-2 Environmental Report (ER) Section 2.2.3.2. The 
ANO-2 ER was submitted on March 1, 1974, and amended on July 11 and 
December 13, 1974, June 13, October 6 and December 19, 1975, and June 
21 and September 8, 1976.) The EPU will not change the character, 
sources, or energy of noise generated at ANO-2. Modified structures, 
systems, and components necessary to implement the proposed EPU will be 
installed within existing plant buildings and no noticeable increase in 
ambient noise levels within the plant is expected.

Water Use Impacts

    The following is the NRC staff's evaluation of ground and surface 
water use as environmental impacts of water usage at ANO-2. Ground and 
surface water use impacts are also discussed in the ``Radiological 
Impacts'' section below.
Groundwater Use
    As stated in the RAI response to the NRC staff dated June 26, 2001, 
ANO-1 and ANO-2 do not use any groundwater. Therefore, the EPU will 
have no non-radiological effects on groundwater.
Surface Water Use
    The EPU is accomplished by increasing the heat output of the 
reactor, thereby increasing the steam flow to the turbine for which 
increased feedwater flow is needed. The licensee has stated that, as a 
result, more heat will be rejected to the circulating water and cooling 
tower complex. Increased heat load to the cooling tower will cause a 
slight increase in evaporative losses. Therefore, cooling tower makeup, 
supplied from Lake Dardanelle, will slightly increase due the increased 
evaporative losses.
    While the EPU will require increased water use, the licensee has 
stated that ANO-2 will not use more water from the lake than permitted. 
ANO-2 has a contract with the U.S. Corps of Engineers that allows water 
to be withdrawn from the lake at an average rate of 22 ft\3\/sec; 
withdrawals can exceed this average without an adverse environmental 
impact. An average evaporation rate of 22 ft\3\/sec (9,900 gpm) and 
maximum evaporation rate of 27 ft\3\/sec (11,900 gpm) was analyzed in 
FES Section 5.3.4. PULR Section 10.4.1.2, stated that the maximum 
cooling tower make-up for evaporation will increase from 12,180 (27.1 
ft\3\/sec) to 13,020 gpm (29.0 ft\3\/sec) under EPU conditions. 
However, by allowing the cooling tower cycles of concentration to 
increase from 3.5 to 3.8, still a low concentration value, cooling 
tower evaporation at design conditions will be about 11,600 gpm (25.8 
ft\3\/sec). (While water will also be withdrawn from the lake at a rate 
of 4,150 gpm (9.2 ft\3\/sec) to satisfy blowdown needs, this water is 
returned to the lake.) Cooling tower design conditions continue to be 
81.0  deg.F wet bulb temperature (Wbt) and 37.0 percent relative 
humidity. These are conservative values. The meteorological worst day 
on record, July 17, 1934, reflects a worst average 4-hour Wbt and 
relative humidity of 82.4  deg.F and 59.20 percent, respectively. The 
Wbt during this worst 4-hour period exceeds the tower design 
temperature by only 1.4  deg.F and the relative humidity was 22.2 
percent higher than design.
    The limits on withdrawal (i.e., consumption via evaporation) from 
Lake Dardanelle are based on economics. By withdrawing from the lake, 
less stream flow is available to flow through Corps of Engineers' 
hydroelectric generation plants. The licensee compensates the Corps of 
Engineers for reduction of the flow of the stream (Lake Dardanelle), 
and the resultant power generation losses to its hydroelectric projects 
(see FES Section 5.3.4), and will continue to do so for any additional 
water withdrawal from Lake Dardanelle as a result of the EPU under the 
terms of the contract.
    Surface water hydrology is discussed in ER Sections 2.5.1 and 
5.1.3, and FES Section 2.3.2. The EPU results in no increase in the 
water use permitted. In addition, any changes would be subject to 
approval by the ADEQ and subject to the NPDES permit. Accordingly, the 
NRC staff finds that the licensee's conclusions that ANO-2 ``cooling 
water facilities will have no adverse effects on the local environment, 
agriculture, housing, roads, airports, and other facilities,'' and that 
``* * * measures are being provided to control the formation of slime 
and algae in the circulating water system, without causing unnecessary 
harm to aquatic life and biota,'' remains true for the EPU. In 
addition, FES Section 2.3.2 statements remain unaffected by the EPU. 
See the discussion below on drift regarding replacing chlorination with 
bromination at ANO-2.

Waste Discharge Impacts

    The NRC staff evaluated the environmental impacts such as cooling 
tower fogging, icing, drift, noise, chemical discharges to surface 
water, sanitary waste discharges, blowdown, thermal plume spread, 
temperature of the lake, cold shock to aquatic biota, hazardous waste 
effluents, and air emissions that were presented in the FES. The NRC 
staff, as set forth below, finds that the proposed EPU causes no 
significant change to the FES evaluations and conclusions relating to 
waste discharge.
Cooling Tower Fogging, Icing, Drift
    The ANO-2 cooling tower is discussed extensively in FES Section 
5.4. Entergy's predecessor prepared the ANO-2 ER and submitted its 
seventh and final amendment attached to a September 8, 1976, letter. As 
stated in Section 10.1 of the ER, several types of cooling systems such 
as a cooling pond, a spray pond, a mechanical draft cooling tower, and 
dry cooling towers were evaluated before a natural draft cooling tower 
was selected as the best option.
Fogging, Icing and Drift
    The licensee has stated in ER Section 10.1.6.3.C, that based on 
studies done at the Keystone Station in Pennsylvania, ``[f]ogging and 
icing were not problems in the area surrounding these towers.'' This ER 
section also noted that ``* * * the physical conditions at the Arkansas 
Nuclear One site were comparable to the installation at Pennsylvania, 
and the winters less severe.'' The NRC staff found that fogging and 
icing caused by cooling tower evaporation and drift has either a 
``minimal'' or no effect on ground transportation, air transportation, 
and water transportation, and is not affected by the EPU.
    In Section 10.4.1.2 of the PULR, the increase in circulating water 
makeup

[[Page 20178]]

rate is approximately 840 gpm (1.87 ft\3\/sec) due to increased 
evaporation. As stated above, makeup due to evaporation will increase. 
However, PULR Section 10.4.1.4 states that the circulating water flow 
rate actually decreased slightly after the condenser was refurbished 
during a recent refueling outage (2R13). Since drift is a function 
(i.e., is some fractional amount) of circulating water flow rate, the 
NRC staff finds that the drift due to the proposed EPU will not exceed 
that evaluated in the FES.
    FES Section 5.4.1.1 assesses cooling tower drift. In this section, 
the licensee states that ``[c]hlorides were selected by the staff as 
the primary component of TDS [total dissolved solids] which may cause 
potential vegetation damage above certain deposition rates.'' The 
chlorination system for biological control was revised to include a 
bromination process for the circulating water systems on both ANO-1 and 
ANO-2 in early 1990. Chlorination was abandoned in 1991 in lieu of the 
preferred bromination process. This approach was discussed in a follow-
up ANO response to Generic Letter 89-13, ``Service Water System 
Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment,'' in 1992.
    Since drift has not increased and the evaporation increase is 
relatively small, the NRC staff finds that the conclusions of the ER 
and FES regarding fogging, icing, and drift are not altered due to the 
proposed EPU.
Chemical and Sanitary Discharges
    Surface water and wastewater discharges are regulated by the ADEQ. 
The NPDES permit is periodically reviewed and reissued by the ADEQ. The 
present NPDES permit for ANO-2 authorizes discharges from nine 
outfalls, only one of which will be affected by the EPU. The one 
affected outfall is the cooling tower blowdown that is addressed below.
    The use of chemicals and their subsequent discharge to the 
environment will not change significantly as a result of the EPU. The 
cooling tower concentration cycle will remain a low concentration value 
(3.8). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that concentration of 
pollutants in the effluent stream will remain low.
    Sanitary wastes are described in ER Section 3.7.1 and ANO-2 Safety 
Analysis Report Section 9.2.4.2. Sanitary wastes from ANO-2 are 
discharged directly to the ANO-2 sewage treatment plant in accordance 
with a permit issued by the ADEQ. Since there is no increase in the ANO 
staff as a result of the EPU, there is no increase in sanitary waste. 
Therefore, the EPU requires no changes to the sanitary waste systems or 
to the parameters regulated by the NPDES permit.
Blowdown
    The NRC staff evaluated blowdown, which is discussed in PULR 
Section 10.4.1.2. As discussed in the ANO-2 Safety Analysis Report 
Section 10.4.5, Circulating Water, the cooling tower blowdown system, 
which discharges through the Unit 1 discharge flume, maintains the 
concentration of the circulating water below the solubility limit of 
calcium sulfate, thereby preventing condenser tube scale precipitation.
    FES Section 5.3.2 evaluated the concentrating effect of evaporation 
of cooling tower water. The FES states that ``[s]ubstances brought into 
the circulating water system with the makeup will be concentrated by a 
factor which will range from 3 to 14 due to evaporation of the water in 
the cooling tower.'' The licensee states that the EPU will not increase 
the number of cooling tower concentration cycles beyond this range. 
Cycles of concentration will remain at the lower end of the range 
cited, as discussed below. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that 
current water appropriation limits are maintained and the conclusions 
in the FES will remain valid under the EPU conditions.
    As stated in the section above, additional cooling tower 
evaporation will require a small (1.87 ft \3\/sec) increase in cooling 
tower makeup rate. However the blowdown rate will only increase 
slightly or be kept at the current rate. With blowdown rate at the 
current rate, cooling tower cycles of concentration will increase by 
about 0.3 from approximately 3.5 to 3.8. The effect is negligible with 
either maintaining the current blowdown rate by increasing cycles of 
concentration or with increasing blowdown. This is because the blowdown 
is normally mixed with the ANO-1 circulating water system discharge, 
which has a flow rate of 383,000 gpm (853 ft \3\/sec) with two of the 
four circulating water pumps in operation. Mixing of the blowdown with 
the Unit 1 circulating water is discussed in FES summary and conclusion 
paragraph 3.b and Section 5.3.2.
    There are no blowdown flow limitations established in ANO NPDES 
Permit Number AR0001392, issued by ADEQ. Other parameters such as pH, 
free available chlorine, and total zinc will continue to be monitored 
in accordance with the permit to ensure that State water quality 
standards are met.
Thermal Plume Spread and Temperature of Lake Dardanelle
    These two topics are discussed in PULR Section 10.4.1.3. As stated 
above, the ANO-2 cooling tower makeup rate will increase by 840 gpm 
(1.87 ft \3\/sec) from 12,180 (27.1 ft \3\/sec) to 13,020 gpm (29.0 ft 
\3\/sec), but blowdown will remain at essentially the current rate. As 
stated above, this blowdown is normally mixed into the ANO-1 
circulating water system discharge, which has a greater flow rate. 
Since the blowdown temperature will increase by less than 1  deg.F due 
to the EPU, the effect of the EPU on thermal plume spread and Lake 
Dardanelle temperature is negligible.
Cold Shock
    Cold shock to an aquatic biota occurs when the warm water discharge 
from a plant abruptly stops because of an unplanned shutdown, resulting 
in a rapid temperature drop of the discharge water to the lake and 
possible adverse impact on aquatic biota. The FES does not discuss cold 
shock caused by an unplanned trip of ANO-2, and the likelihood of an 
unplanned shutdown is independent of a power uprate. As stated above, 
the ANO-2 blowdown is normally mixed with the much larger ANO-1 
circulating water discharge. An unplanned shutdown of ANO-1 can cause 
cold shock as evaluated in Supplement 3. However, even if the ANO-1 
circulating water pumps are not in service, the amount of ANO-2 
blowdown flow into Lake Dardanelle at the ANO-1 circulating water 
discharge, even at EPU conditions, is too small to cause cold shock. 
The NRC staff concludes that the risk of aquatic biota mortality by 
cold shock is not applicable to ANO-2 even at the proposed EPU 
conditions. Therefore, the discussion in FES Section 5.4.2 regarding 
winter lake water temperature effects on shad (FES pages 5-8 and 5-9) 
remains unchanged.
Hazardous Waste Generation and Air Emissions
    As stated in PULR Section 10.4.1.4, ANO holds an Air Permit that 
was issued and is monitored by the ADEQ Air Division. This permit 
identifies emission sources at ANO. These sources include, but are not 
limited to, emergency diesel generators, plant heating boilers, cooling 
tower, start-up boiler, and bulk storage tanks.
    ANO generates hazardous waste from routine plant operations. ANO 
has a hazardous waste generator's identification number assigned by the

[[Page 20179]]

ADEQ Solid Waste Division. ANO files Annual Hazardous Waste Reports to 
the ADEQ.
    The EPU has no impact on the quality or quantity of effluents from 
these sources, and operation under EPU conditions will not reduce the 
margin to the limits established by the applicable permits.

Terrestrial Biota Impacts

    The licensee states that the EPU will not change the previously 
evaluated land use at ANO and will not disturb the habitat of any 
terrestrial plant or animal species. There are no significant increases 
in previously evaluated environmental impacts from cooling tower 
operation at EPU conditions.
    According to a 1999 review by the Arkansas National Heritage 
Commission, documented in Supplement 3, Section 4.6, there are no known 
rare or endangered plant species within the area of the site boundary. 
As stated in Supplement 3, Section 4.6, the Arkansas Natural Heritage 
Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have recently stated 
(June 2000) that no endangered species have been identified at the ANO 
site or along the transmission rights-of-way. This is consistent with 
the subsection on ``Fishes'' in FES Section 2.5.1. (See the first 
paragraph after FES Table 2.4.)
    As stated in the June 2001 environmental impact RAI response, the 
EPU will not disturb land, and land use will remain unchanged. The EPU 
will not adversely impact the habitat of any terrestrial plant or 
animal species. There are no deleterious effects on the diversity of 
biological systems or the sustainability of species due to the EPU, and 
it does not involve additional changes to the stability or integrity of 
ecosystems. Therefore, the NRC staff has concluded that the description 
of the impact on terrestrial ecology, including endangered and 
threatened plant and animal species, will remain valid for the EPU.

Aquatic Biota Impacts

    ANO-1 has a traveling water screen system that protects the suction 
to both its large circulating water pumps and the much smaller safety-
related service water pumps. This same traveling water screen system is 
used for ANO-2, only for its safety-related service water pumps. The 
licensee indicates that the EPU does not require larger service water 
pumps, and the pumps were evaluated at their permitted flowrate as part 
of the NPDES permit. Therefore, the EPU will have no increased impact 
on the traveling water screen system. The effect of the proposed EPU on 
the impingement and entrainment of organisms is unchanged and, 
therefore, remains insignificant. Therefore, the NRC staff conclusions 
regarding impingement, entrainment, and endangered and threatened 
aquatic species as discussed in FES Sections 2.5.1 and 5.4.2, and 
Supplement 3 Section 4.1.1 will remain valid for the EPU. The EPU does 
not affect ANO's compliance with Sections 316(a) or 316(b) of the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Transmission Facility Impacts

    Environmental impacts, such as exposure to electromagnetic fields 
(EMFs) and shock, could result from a major modification to 
transmission line facilities. However, the licensee states that no 
change is being made to the existing transmission line design or 
operation as a result of the EPU. As stated in one of the licensee's 
supplemental letters dated October 30, 2001, main transformer capacity 
is adequate to deliver the additional power to the offsite grid. Grid 
stability is addressed in PULR Section 2.2.1, which cites ANO procedure 
changes to avoid grid instability with either the Mablevale or Pleasant 
Hill 500 kV line out of service or during minimum load conditions. 
These modifications are consistent with Entergy's program of 
maintaining grid stability. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that no 
significant environmental impacts from any changes in transmission 
facility design and equipment are expected, and the conclusions of FES 
Sections 3.3, 4.2, and 5.2 remain valid.
    The generator output associated with the EPU will slightly increase 
the current and the EMFs in the onsite transmission line between the 
main generator and the plant substation. The line is located entirely 
within the fenced, ANO-controlled boundary of the plant, and neither 
members of the public nor wildlife are expected to be affected. 
Exposure to EMFs from the offsite transmission system is not expected 
to increase significantly, and any such increase is not expected to 
change any conclusion in FES Section 5.4.1.3 that no significant 
biological effects are attributable to EMFs from high voltage 
transmission lines.
    ANO-2 transmission lines are designed and constructed in accordance 
with the applicable shock prevention provisions of the National 
Electric Safety Code and the EPU will not cause the transmission line 
design to deviate from these provisions. Therefore, the NRC staff 
concludes that the expected increase in current attributable to the EPU 
does not change the conclusion in FES Section 5.4.1.3 (i.e., adequate 
protection is provided against hazards from electrical shock).

Social, Economic, and Physical Impacts

    The NRC staff has reviewed information provided by the licensee 
regarding the social, economic, and physical impacts associated with 
the EPU. ANO employs more than 1,000 people and is a major contributor 
to the local tax base. The EPU will not significantly affect the size 
of the ANO workforce and will have no material effect on the labor 
force required for future outages. Because the plant modifications 
needed to implement the EPU will be minor, any increase in sales taxes 
and local and national business revenues will be negligible relative to 
the large amount of taxes paid by ANO. It is expected that improving 
the economic performance of ANO-2 through cost reductions and lower 
total bus bar costs per kilowatt hour will enhance the value of ANO-2 
as a generating asset and lower the probability of early plant 
retirement.
    Early plant retirement would have a negative, long-term impact upon 
the local economy and the community as a whole by reducing public 
services, employment, income, business revenues, and property values. 
Conclusions in FES Section 10 and Supplement 3 regarding social and 
economic impacts and benefits from ANO remain valid under EPU 
conditions for ANO-2.
    The potential for direct physical impacts of the EPU, such as 
vibration and dust from construction activities, has been considered. 
The EPU will be accomplished primarily by changes in station operation 
and few physical modifications to the facility. These limited 
modifications will be accomplished without physical changes to 
transmission corridors, access roads, other offsite facilities, or 
additional project-related transportation of goods or materials. 
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that no significant additional 
construction disturbances causing noise, odors, vehicle exhaust, dust, 
vibration, or shock from blasting are anticipated, and the conclusions 
in FES Sections 4.1 and 5.2 remain valid.

Summary

    In summary, the NRC staff has concluded that the EPU will not 
result in a significant change in non-radiological impacts on land use, 
water use, waste discharges, terrestrial and aquatic biota, 
transmission facilities, or social and economic factors, and will have 
no non-radiological environmental impacts other than those evaluated in

[[Page 20180]]

the FES. Table 1 provides a tabular summary of the non-radiological 
results.

   Table 1.--Summary of Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts of Power
                                 Uprate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Impacts.............  No change in land use or aesthetics; will
                                not impact lands with historic or
                                archeological significance. No
                                significant impact due to noise.
Water Use Impacts:
    Groundwater Use..........  No groundwater use.
    Surface Water Use........  There is only a small increase in water
                                withdrawal (i.e., for consumption) rate
                                from the lake. The maximum consumption
                                rate will remain at 27ft\3\/sec which is
                                within permitted levels.
Waste Discharge Impacts:
    Cooling Tower Fogging,     Fogging, evaluated as minimal in ER Table
     Icing, Drift.              10.1-2. Remains minimal for EPU. No
                                significant change in icing. Icing,
                                evaluated as minimal in ER Table 10.1-2.
                                Remains minimal for EPU. No significant
                                change in cooling tower drift per PULR
                                10.4.1.4.
    Chemical and Sanitary      No expected change to chemical use and
     Discharges.                subsequent and discharge, or sanitary
                                waste systems; cooling towers will
                                operate in the current cycle range. No
                                changes to sanitary waste discharges.
    Blowdown.................  Increase in blowdown discussed in PULR
                                Section 10.4.1.2. Maximum 9.2 ft\3\/sec
                                blowdown normally mixed with 853 ft\3\/
                                sec circulating water system discharge
                                from ANO-1's once-through cooling
                                system. Blowdown remains within
                                permitted limits.
    Thermal Plume Spread and   Negligible and unnoticeable increase in
     Temperature of Lake        thermal plume size. No discharge
     Dardanelle.                temperature increase; lake temperature
                                primarily affected by ANO-1 once-through
                                cooling system; remains in NPDES limit.
    Cold Shock...............  Risk of aquatic biota mortality by cold
                                shock is not applicable to ANO-2;
                                discussed in FES Section 5.4.2.
    Hazardous Waste            No changes to hazardous waste sources or
     Generation and Air         air emissions.
     Emissions.
Terrestrial Biota Impacts....  No change in terrestrial biota impacts;
                                no known threatened or endangered
                                species within the site boundary.
Aquatic Biota Impacts........  No change in aquatic biota impacts; no
                                known threatened or endangered species
                                in the area of surface water intake or
                                discharge.
    Transmission Facility      No change to transmission line design or
     Impacts.                   operation; main transformer capacity to
                                deliver additional power is unchanged;
                                no significant change in exposure to
                                EMFs.
Social, Economic, and          No significant change in the local
 Physical Impacts.              economy. Few modifications to physical
                                station facility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radiological Impacts

    The NRC staff has evaluated radiological environmental impacts on 
waste streams, in-plant and offsite doses, accident analyses, and fuel 
cycle and transportation factors. The following is a general 
description of the waste treatment streams at ANO-2 and an evaluation 
of the environmental impacts. The NRC finds that the proposed EPU will 
not cause any radiological effects to surface water in the station 
environs. Even though there is no discussion in the ANO-2 FES regarding 
radiological impacts on surface water, ER Table 10.1-2 states that the 
impact on groundwater due to chemical, radionuclides, or ``other'' 
impacts is ``NA'' (i.e., not applicable). As stated in ER Section 
2.5.2, Ground Water Hydrology, ``[c]ontamination of underground water 
by radioactivity pre-supposes the discharge of radioactive liquids from 
a leaking or ruptured tank into the general environs of the plant 
site.''
    As discussed in ER Section 7.1, the liquid released by the rupture 
of any tank in the Boron Management System or Waste Management System 
will be contained within the Auxiliary Building and safely processed. 
This statement remains true for the EPU as does the FES statements 
regarding the refueling water tank.

Radiological Waste Stream Impacts

    ANO-2 uses waste treatment systems designed to collect, process, 
and dispose of radioactive gaseous, liquid, and solid waste in 
accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix I, ``Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting 
Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion ``As Low As Is 
Reasonably Achievable'' for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled 
Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents.'' These radioactive waste treatment 
systems are discussed in the FES. The proposed EPU will not affect the 
environmental monitoring of these waste streams or the radiological 
monitoring requirements contained in licensing basis documents. The 
proposed EPU does not result in any changes in operation or design of 
equipment in the gaseous, liquid, or solid waste systems. The proposed 
EPU will not introduce new or different radiological release pathways 
and will not increase the probability of an operator error or equipment 
malfunction that will result in an uncontrolled radioactive release. 
The NRC staff evaluated the changes in the gaseous, liquid, and solid 
waste streams for radiological environmental impact of the proposed 
EPU, which are set forth below.
Gaseous Radioactive Waste Impacts
    During normal operation, the gaseous effluent systems control the 
release of gaseous radioactive effluents to the site environs, 
including small quantities of noble gases, halogens, particulates, and 
tritium. Routine offsite releases from station operation remain below 
the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 (10 CFR 
Part 20 includes the requirements of 40 CFR Part 190, ``Environmental 
Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations''). The 
gaseous waste management systems include the offgas system and various 
building ventilation systems. The EPU results in an increase in the 
release rate that is assumed to be linearly proportional to the power 
increase. An increase in gaseous effluents is, therefore, assumed to 
occur. The resultant effluent increases in noble gas and iodine-131 
activity are 4.98E-02 Ci per second and 0.00E+00 Ci 
per second, respectively. A release rate of zero is assumed for iodine 
because no iodine has been released over the past three years. The 
estimated dose values will be below 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I 
requirements after the EPU. These dose

[[Page 20181]]

levels are very small and have no significant impact on human health.
    Averaging ANO-2's dose for the three most recent years and adding 
the effect of the EPU on gamma in air and beta in air, results in EPU 
dose rates of 6.92E-04 and 2.15E-03 millirad per year (mrad/yr), 
respectively. Comparing these dose rates to same-type dose rates in FES 
Table 5.7 demonstrates that ANO-2 is not only far below the RM-50-2 \1\ 
design objective values of 10 mrad/yr and 20 mrad/yr for gamma and 
beta, respectively, but that the EPU dose rates for gamma and beta are 
about 86 and 884 times lower, respectively, than the calculated dose 
for gamma (0.06 mrad/yr) and beta (1.9 mrad/yr) listed in the FES 
table. A 3-year average allows averaging with and without refueling 
outages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Guides on Design Objectives proposed by the NRC staff on 
February 20, 1974; considers doses to individuals from all units on 
site. From ``Concluding Statement of Position of the Regulatory 
Staff,'' Docket No. RM-50-2, February 20, 1974, pp. 25-30, U.S. 
Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the 3-year average plus projected EPU dose rate for 
iodine, tritium, and particules (ITP) is 1.56E-02 millirem per year 
(mrem/yr). Again, this EPU ITP dose rate is not only far below the RM-
50-2 design objective dose rate of 15 mrem/yr, but is also about 192 
times lower in dose consequence than the 3.0 mrem/yr calculated dose 
for ITP in the FES table.
    These low dose rates projected for the EPU, when combined with the 
most recent 3-year average, clearly demonstrate that ANO-2 has been 
successful in maintaining a very low exposure to plant personnel and 
the public of both gaseous and liquid (see below) effluent doses. The 
NRC staff has evaluated the information provided by the licensee and 
concludes that the estimated dose values for gaseous radioactive wastes 
will be below Appendix I requirements after the EPU.
Liquid Radioactive Waste Impacts
    The liquid radwaste system is designed to process and recycle, to 
the extent practicable, the liquid waste collected. Annual radiation 
doses to individuals are maintained below the guidelines in 10 CFR Part 
20 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. As set forth below, the NRC staff 
expects that there will be no change in the release policy as a result 
of the EPU.
    The licensee has stated that EPU conditions will not result in 
significant increases in the volume of fluid from sources flowing into 
the liquid radwaste system. The reactor will continue to be operated 
within its present pressure control band. Valve packing leakage volume 
into the liquid radwaste system is not expected to increase. There will 
be no changes in reactor cooling pump seal flow or the flow of any 
other normal equipment drain path. In addition, there will be no impact 
on the dirty radwaste or chemical waste subsystems of the liquid 
radwaste system as a result of the EPU, since the operation and the 
inputs to these subsystems are independent of the power uprate. No 
significant dose increase from the liquid pathway will result from the 
EPU. Therefore, the conclusions in the FES are expected to remain valid 
under EPU conditions, as demonstrated by the following comparison.
    Averaging ANO-2's dose for the three most recent years and adding 
the effect of the EPU on the liquid effluents dose rate to the total 
body, or any organ, for all pathways results in a calculated dose of 
1.04E-2 mrem/yr. Comparing this dose to the liquid effluent doses in 
FES Table 5.7 demonstrates that ANO-2 is not only far below the RM-50-2 
design objective of 5 mrem/year but that the EPU dose rate is about 30 
times lower than the calculated dose of 0.31 mrem/yr listed in the FES.

Solid Radioactive Waste Impacts

    The solid radioactive waste system collects, monitors, processes, 
packages, and provides temporary storage facilities for radioactive 
solid wastes prior to offsite shipment and permanent disposal. Entergy 
has implemented procedures to assure that the processing and packaging 
of wet and dry solid radioactive waste and irradiated reactor 
components at ANO-2 are accomplished in compliance with regulations. 
Entergy continually tracks the volume of solid radioactive waste 
generated at ANO; however, the total is not isolated by unit (i.e., 
ANO-1 or ANO-2). From 1995 to the present, ANO-1 and ANO-2 generated 
78,787 ft\3\ of low-level radioactive waste for an average of about 
12,097 ft\3\ per year. In 2000, ANO generated a peak volume of 25,107 
ft\3\ of low-level radioactive waste. The majority of the waste was 
generated as a result of the ANO-2 outage involving replacement of the 
steam generator.
    Wet Waste: The largest volume contributors to radioactive solid wet 
waste are low-specific-activity spent secondary resins. Historically, 
this has accounted for more than 50 percent of the total volume of wet 
radioactive waste generated annually. Since the completion of the ANO-2 
steam generator replacement outage, no secondary resin has been found 
to be radioactive. This should not change appreciably with the EPU. The 
remainder of the wet waste is primary resins, filters, and oil and 
sludge from various contaminated systems. The EPU will not involve 
changes in either reactor water cleanup flow rates or filter 
performance. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that implementation of 
the proposed EPU will not have a significant impact on the volume or 
activity of wet radioactive solid waste at ANO-2.
    Dry Waste: Entergy states that it continually tracks the volume of 
dry radioactive waste generated and continually looks for new ways to 
minimize the volume of waste generated. Dry waste consists primarily of 
air filters, contaminated paper products and rags, contaminated 
clothing, tools and equipment parts that cannot be effectively 
decontaminated, and solid laboratory wastes. The activity of much of 
this waste is low enough to permit manual handling. Dry waste is 
collected in containers located throughout the plant, packaged, and 
removed to a controlled area for temporary storage. Because of its low 
activity, dry waste can be stored until enough is accumulated to permit 
economical transportation to an offsite processing facility for volume 
reduction or a burial ground for final disposal.
    The licensee has stated that the majority of waste generated at ANO 
is compactible dry active waste. In light of Entergy's continuing 
efforts to reduce radioactive wastes at ANO, any projected increase in 
solid waste generation under the EPU conditions described above would 
not be significant and is not sufficient to reverse the continuing 
downward trend in the production and activity of dry wastes. Moreover, 
due to the nature of the materials in this waste stream, it is not 
expected to change significantly as a result of the EPU.
    Irradiated Reactor Components: Irradiated reactor components such 
as in-core detectors and fuel assemblies, must be disposed of after the 
life of the component. The volume and activity of waste generated from 
spent control element assemblies and in-core detectors may increase 
slightly under the higher flux conditions associated with EPU 
conditions.
    Entergy plans to load 80 fresh fuel bundles in the initial 
refueling of ANO-2 to commence operation under the proposed EPU. This 
is 12 fresh bundles more than required for the current refueling cycle. 
The number of irradiated fuel assemblies discharged from the reactor 
should not increase during subsequent reloads for

[[Page 20182]]

comparable energy requirements. Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes 
that implementation of the EPU will not have a significant impact on 
the volume or activity of the irradiated reactor components at ANO.
    Given the information above, NRC staff concludes that the 
environmental impact due to generation of solid reactor system waste 
from the proposed EPU is not significant.

Dose Impacts

    The NRC staff evaluated in-plant and offsite radiation levels as 
part of the environmental impacts of the proposed EPU.
In-plant Radiation
    Increasing the rated power at ANO-2 may increase the radiation 
levels in the reactor coolant system (RCS). However, ongoing physical 
plant improvements and administrative controls, such as shielding, RCS 
chemistry, and the plant radiation protection program, compensate for 
these potential increases. Over the past 7 years, Entergy has continued 
to decrease the occupational dose to workers at ANO-2. In years with 
refueling outages, the total dose decreased by 55 percent from 175 rem 
in 1995 to 79 rem in 1999. As a result of the length and scope of the 
steam generator replacement outage in 2000, doses were higher than in a 
typical year. Non-outage year doses at ANO-2 illustrate a downward 
trend from 49 rem in 1996 to 35 rem in 1998 to 9 rem in 2001. The 
licensee stated that it expects to continue this trend while operating 
under the EPU conditions.
    The plant radiation protection program will maintain individual 
doses consistent with as-low-as reasonably achievable (ALARA) 
requirements and well below the established limits of 10 CFR Part 20. 
Routine plant radiation surveys required by the radiation protection 
program will identify increased radiation levels in accessible areas of 
the plant and radiation zone postings, and job planning will be 
adjusted, if necessary. Time within radiation areas is monitored and 
controlled under the radiation protection program. Administrative 
limits are provided for occupational dose at levels well below the 10 
CFR Part 20 limits.
    These administrative limits provide a significant margin to 
regulatory dose limits under normal operating and outage conditions. 
Administrative dose limits at ANO-2 have not been routinely exceeded 
under present power conditions.
Offsite Doses
    The slight increase in normal operational gaseous activity levels 
under the EPU will not significantly affect the large margin below the 
offsite dose limits established by 10 CFR Part 20. In addition, doses 
from liquid effluents, currently low, will remain low under EPU 
conditions.
    The ANO-2 Technical Specifications implement the guidelines of 10 
CFR Part 50, Appendix I, which are within the 10 CFR Part 20 limits. 
Adjusting current values for projected EPU increases, the offsite dose 
at EPU conditions is estimated to be 6.92E-04 millirads for noble gas 
gamma air, 2.15E-03 millirads for noble gas beta air, and 1.56E-02 
millirem to the thyroid for particulates and iodine. Appendix I limits 
are 10 millirads, 20 millirads, and 15 millirem to the thyroid, 
respectively. The licensee stated that the offsite dose will continue 
to be within the technical specification dose limits.
    The EPU will not involve significant increases in an offsite dose 
from noble gases, airborne particulates, iodine, or tritium. 
Radioactive liquid effluents are not routinely discharged from ANO-2. 
In addition, as stated by the Radiological Environmental Monitoring 
Program for ANO-2, radiation exposure from shine dose is not now a 
significant exposure pathway, and it will not be significantly affected 
by the EPU.
    Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the estimated doses from 
both the liquid and gaseous release pathways resulting from EPU 
conditions are within the design objectives specified by 10 CFR Part 
50, Appendix I, and the limits of 10 CFR Part 20.

Accident Analysis Impacts

    The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's analyses and performed 
confirmatory calculations to verfy the acceptability of the licensee's 
calculated doses under accident conditions. Based on these 
calculations, the staff concludes that the proposed EPU would not 
significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents and 
would not result in a significant increase in the radiological 
environmental impact of ANO-2 under accident conditions. If the license 
amendment request is approved, the result of the staff's analyses will 
be presented in the safety evaluation issued with the license 
amendment.
    Severe Accidents: The environmental effects of severe accidents 
outside the design basis of protection and engineered safety systems 
were not evaluated in the ANO-2 ER. The NRC staff finds that the EPU 
will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of 
accidents and will not result in a significant increase in the 
radiological environmental impact of ANO-2 under accident conditions.

Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts

    The EPU will involve an increase in the average enrichment of the 
fuel bundle. The environmental impacts of the fuel cycle and of 
transportation of fuel and wastes are described in 10 CFR Part 51, 
Tables S-3 and S-4, specifically at 10 CFR 51.51 and 10 CFR 51.52, 
respectively. ANO-2 FES Section 5.5.3 discusses the uranium fuel cycle 
and transportation impact of the fuel at original issuance of the 
operating license. An NRC assessment (53 FR 30355, dated August 11, 
1988, as corrected by 53 FR 32322, dated August 24, 1988) evaluated the 
applicability of Tables S-3 and S-4 to higher burnup cycles. The 
assessment concluded that there is no significant change in 
environmental impacts for fuel cycles with uranium enrichments up to 
5.0 weight-percent U-235 and burnups up to 60 gigawatt-days per metric 
ton of uranium (GWd/MTU) from the parameters evaluated in Tables S-3 
and S-4. In Operating License Amendment 178 dated January 14, 1997, the 
NRC granted Entergy's request to increase the fuel enrichment from 4.1 
percent to 5.0 percent at ANO-2. The environmental effects of this fuel 
enrichment increase were considered at that time. Since the fuel 
enrichment for the EPU will not exceed 5.0 weight-percent U-235, and 
the rod average discharge exposure will not exceed 60 GWd/MTU, the 
environmental impacts of the proposed EPU will remain bounded by these 
conclusions and is not expected to be significant.

Summary

    The NRC staff concludes that the proposed EPU will not 
significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident, 
will not introduce any new radiological release pathways, will not 
result in a significant increase in occupational or public radiation 
exposures, and will not result in significant additional fuel cycle 
environmental impacts. Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that no 
significant radiological environmental impacts are associated with the 
proposed action. Table 2 summarizes the radiological environmental 
impacts of the EPU.

[[Page 20183]]



 Table 2.--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts of Power Uprate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Water................  No change in radiological impact to
                                surface water.
Groundwater..................  No change in radiological impact to
                                ground water.
Radiological Waste Stream      No changes in design or operation of
 Impacts.                       waste streams.
Gaseous Radioactive Waste      An increase in release rate that is
 Impacts.                       linearly proportional to the power
                                increase will be expected.
Liquid Radioactive Waste       No change in ANO-2 liquid release policy.
 Impacts.
Solid Radioactive Waste
 Impacts:
    Wet Waste................  No appreciable change in radioactive
                                secondary resins expected due to EPU.
    Dry Waste................  No significant changes in dry waste
                                foreseen.
Irradiated Reactor Components  No significant changes in irradiated
                                components forseen.
Dose Impacts:
    In-plant Radiation.......  Even though some RCS activity levels are
                                elevated, in-plant exposures are
                                controlled to mitigate worker exposures.
    Offsite Doses............  Slight increase in gaseous activity
                                levels possible, but doses will remain
                                ALARA and within 10 CFR Part 20 limits.
Accident Analysis Impacts....  No increase in the probability of an
                                accident. Some increase in consequences
                                of an accident, but still within NRC
                                acceptance limits.
Fuel Cycle and Transportation  Increase in bundle average enrichment;
 Impacts.                       impacts will remain within the
                                conclusions of Table S-3 and Table S-4
                                of 10 CFR Part 51.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). 
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.
    The estimated cost of the increase in generating capacity is 
approximately half the cost projected for purchasing the power and one-
third the cost of producing the power by constructing a new combined-
cycle, natural-gas-fueled facility with the attendant environmental 
impacts of construction and operation. The licensee concluded that 
increasing ANO-2 capacity would be an economical and environmentally 
sound option for increasing power supply. Furthermore, unlike fossil 
fuel plants, ANO-2 does not routinely emit sulfur oxides, nitrogen 
oxides, particulate, matter carbon dioxide, or other atmospheric 
pollutants that contribute to greenhouse gases or acid rain.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources different 
than those previously considered in the FES for ANO-2, dated June 1977 
(NUREG-0254).

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on April 15, 2002, the NRC 
staff consulted with Division of Radiation Control and Emergency 
Management of the Arkansas Department of Health, regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no 
comment.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined 
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed 
action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
following: The environmental impacts of ANO-2 have been described in 
(1) the FES, dated June 1977 (NUREG-0254), (2) the PULR, which is 
Enclosure 5 to the EPU application dated December 19, 2000, and (3) the 
June 26 and December 10, 2001, and January 15, 2002, RAI responses. On 
January 31, 2000, as supplemented by letters dated June 26, July 31, 
and September 21, 2000, Entergy submitted its ER supporting the license 
renewal of ANO-1. The staff Environmental Impact Statement has been 
issued as NUREG-1437, Supplement 3. Supplement 3 addresses many 
balance-of-plant site features that are common to ANO-1 and ANO-2. 
Supplement 3 was cited in Enclosure 5 of the December 19, 2000, license 
application in instances where site characteristics common to both ANO-
1 and ANO-2 are unchanged by the EPU. Documents may be examined and/or 
copied for a fee at the NRC's Public Document Room, at One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the 
ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov 
(the Electronic Reading Room). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS 
or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS 
should contact the NRC Public Document Room Reference staff by 
telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-2737, or by e-mail at 
[email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of April 2002.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William D. Reckley,
Acting Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing 
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 02-9989 Filed 4-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P