[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60672-60677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22786]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-382]
Entergy Operations, Inc.; Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit
3 Draft Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
Related to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum
Reactor Power Level
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The NRC has prepared a draft environmental assessment as its
evaluation of a request by Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the
licensee) for a license amendment to increase the maximum thermal power
at the Waterford Steam Electric Station 3 (Waterford 3) from 3441
megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3716 MWt. This represents a power increase
of approximately 8 percent for Waterford 3. The NRC staff has the
option of preparing an environmental impact statement if it believes a
power uprate will have a significant impact on the human environment.
The NRC staff did not identify any significant impact from the
information provided in the licensee's extended power uprate (EPU)
application for Waterford 3 or the NRC staff's independent review;
therefore, the NRC staff is documenting its environmental assessment.
The draft environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact
is being published in the Federal Register with a 30-day public comment
period.
Environmental Assessment
Background
Plant Site and Environs
The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility
Operating License No. NPF-38, issued to Entergy for Waterford 3 which
has been in operation since March 4, 1985. The facility is located on
the west (right descending) bank of the Mississippi River,
approximately 40 kilometers (25 miles) west of New Orleans on Louisiana
Highway 18 (River Road) in St. Charles Parish, in the city of Killona,
Louisiana. The plant's topography, except for the levee along the
Mississippi River, is generally flat with an elevation of 8 to 16 feet
above mean sea level. Electricity is generated using a pressurized
water reactor and steam turbine with a maximum generating capacity of
1,104 Megawatts electric. The fuel source for the unit is enriched
Uranium-235. The exhaust steam is condensed using a once-through
circulating water system with the Mississippi River as a heat sink.
Additionally, the component cooling water system serves as the
station's ultimate heat sink and is designed to remove heat from the
plant during normal operation, shutdown, or emergency shutdown.
Three-quarters of a mile downstream from the Waterford 3 site is
the Bonnet Carre' Spillway. The Bonnet Carre' Spillway is a vital
element of the comprehensive plan for flood control in the Lower
Mississippi Valley. It is located on the east bank of the Mississippi
River, approximately 25 miles above New Orleans and was constructed to
divert approximately 250,000 cubic feet per second of floodwaters from
the Mississippi River to Lake Pontchartrain to prevent overtopping of
levees at and below New Orleans, assuring the safety of New Orleans and
the downstream delta area during major floods on the Lower Mississippi.
Identification of the Proposed Action
By letter dated November 13, 2003, Entergy proposed to increase the
maximum thermal power level of Waterford 3 by approximately 8 percent,
from 3441 MWt to 3716 MWt. The change is considered an EPU because it
would raise the reactor core power level more than 7 percent above the
originally
[[Page 60673]]
licensed maximum power level. The NRC originally licensed Waterford 3
on March 16, 1985, for operation at a reactor core power not to exceed
3390 MWt. On March 29, 2002, the NRC staff approved a power increase of
approximately 1.5 percent allowing Waterford 3 to operate at a core
power level not to exceed 3441 MWt. Therefore, this proposed action
would result in a total increase of approximately 9.6 percent over the
originally licensed maximum power level. The amendment would allow the
heat output of the reactor to increase, which would increase the flow
of steam to the turbine. This would allow the turbine generator to
increase the production of power as well as increase the amount of heat
dissipated by the condenser. Moreover, this would result in an increase
in temperature of the water being released into the Mississippi River.
Need for the Proposed Action
Entergy is requesting an amendment to the operating license for
Waterford 3 to increase the maximum thermal power level, thereby
increasing the electric power generation. The increase in electric
power generation provides Entergy with lower cost power than can be
obtained in the current and anticipated energy market.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
This assessment summarizes the non-radiological and radiological
impacts on the environment that may result from the licensee's
amendment request application dated November 13, 2003.
Non-Radiological Impacts
Land Use Impacts
The potential impacts associated with land use for the proposed
action include impacts from construction and plant modifications. The
Waterford 3 property is made up of 52 percent wetlands and 22 percent
of the land is used for agriculture. There is no residential or
recreational land on the property. There is no plan to construct any
new facilities or expand buildings, roads, parking lots, equipment
storage, or laydown areas. No changes to the onsite transmission and
distribution equipment, including power line rights-of-way, are
anticipated to support this action. No new construction outside of the
existing facilities will be necessary.
The proposed EPU will require a modification to the high pressure
turbine. The turbine is located within the turbine building, and the
modification will not require any land disturbance. The EPU would not
significantly affect material storage, including chemicals, fuels, and
other materials stored aboveground or underground. There is no
modification to land use at the site, and no impact on the lands with
historic or archeological significance. The proposed EPU would not
modify the current land use at the site significantly over that
described in the Final Environmental Statement (FES).
The licensee has stated that the proposed EPU will not change the
character, sources, or energy of noise generated at the plant. Modified
structures, systems, and components necessary to implement the power
uprate will be installed within existing plant buildings and no
noticeable increase in ambient noise levels within the plant is
expected.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental impacts
of the proposed EPU are bounded by the impacts previously evaluated in
the FES.
Transmission Facility Impacts
The potential impacts associated with transmission facilities for
the proposed action include changes in transmission line corridor
right-of-way maintenance and electric shock hazards due to increased
current. The proposed EPU would not require any physical modifications
to the transmission lines. Entergy's transmission line right-of-way
maintenance practices, including the management of vegetation growth,
would not be affected. No new requirements or changes to onsite
transmission equipment, operating voltages, or transmission line
rights-of-way would be necessary to support the EPU. The main plant
transformers will be modified and replaced to support the uprate;
however, replacement of the transformers would have been required
before the end of plant life as part of the licensee's ongoing
maintenance program. Therefore, no significant environmental impact
beyond that considered in the FES is expected from this kind of
replacement of onsite equipment.
The National Electric Safety Code (NESC) provides design criteria
that limit hazards from steady-state currents. The NESC limits the
short-circuit current to ground to less than 5 milli-ampere. There will
be an increase in current passing through the transmission lines
associated with the increased power level of the proposed EPU. The
increased electrical current passing through the transmission lines
will cause an increase in electromagnetic field strength. Since the
increase in power level is approximately 8 percent, the increase in the
electromagnetic field will not be significant. The licensee's analysis
shows that the transmission lines will continue to meet the applicable
shock prevention provisions of the NESC. Therefore, even with the
slight increase in current attributable to the EPU, adequate protection
is provided against hazards from electric shock.
The impacts associated with transmission facilities for the
proposed action will not change significantly over the impacts
associated with current plant operation. There are no physical
modifications to the transmission lines; transmission line right-of-way
maintenance practices will not change. There are no changes to
transmission line rights-of-way or vertical clearances and the electric
current passing through the transmission lines will increase only
slightly. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there are no
significant impacts associated with transmission facilities for the
proposed action. The transmission lines are designed and constructed in
accordance with the applicable shock prevention provisions of the NESC.
Water Use Impacts
Potential water use impacts from the proposed action include
hydrological alterations to the Mississippi River and changes to the
plant water supply. The Mississippi River is the source of water for
cooling and most auxiliary water systems at Waterford 3. The cooling
water is withdrawn from the Mississippi River via an intake canal
approximately 49 meters (m) (162 feet (ft)) long leading from the river
to an intake structure containing four water pumps. The cooling water
for the circulating water system (CWS) is pumped through the condenser
to condense the turbine exhaust steam to water. The water then flows to
the discharge canal approximately 29 m (95 ft) long and is returned to
the river through the discharge structure. The water from the CWS is
also used in the turbine system heat exchangers and the steam generator
blowdown system.
The Mississippi River is the principal water source of all
municipal, industrial, and agricultural use for towns and water
districts downstream of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. All of the water
required for plant operation, except potable water, will be withdrawn
from the Mississippi River. The rate of withdrawal will not increase as
a result of the EPU. As a result, operation of Waterford 3 will not
affect the availability of water to downstream water users. Groundwater
is not used in
[[Page 60674]]
plant operations; therefore, there are no impacts to onsite groundwater
use. The NRC staff concludes that the EPU would not have a significant
impact on water usage as a result of hydrological alterations or
changes in the plant water supply.
Discharge Impacts
The potential impacts to the Mississippi River from the plant
discharge include turbidity, scouring, erosion, and sedimentation.
These impacts can occur as a result of significant changes in the
thermal discharge, sanitary waste discharge, and chemical discharge.
1. Thermal Discharge
Surface water and wastewater discharges at Waterford 3 are
regulated by the State of Louisiana via a Louisiana Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (LPDES) Permit. This permit is periodically reviewed
and renewed by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ). The EPU is expected to increase the temperature of the water
discharged to the Mississippi River.
The LPDES Permit (1) restricts the temperature rise in the
discharge water to five degrees Fahrenheit over the temperature of the
river water and (2) limits the temperature of the discharge water to
118 degrees Fahrenheit. The licensee has calculated the increased heat
load delivered to the CWS under EPU conditions and estimated an
expected increase in the discharge water temperature of 2.2 degrees
Fahrenheit. Based on this expected temperature increase from power
uprate, the temperature limits defined in the LPDES Permit are
adequate, and no changes to the LPDES Permit are necessary.
2. Chemical Discharge
Wastewater treatment chemicals that are currently regulated and
approved by the State of Louisiana through the LPDES Permit for use in
the once-through cooling water will not change as a result of the power
uprate. The concentration of pollutants in the once-through effluent
stream will remain the same and have insignificant impact.
3. Sanitary Waste Discharge
Sanitary wastes at the Waterford 3 facility are discharged to an
onsite sewage treatment plant. Since there will be no increase in the
Waterford 3 staffing levels as a result of the power uprate, there will
also be no increase in sanitary waste. The use of chemicals will not
change as a result of the power uprate, and the power uprate will have
no impact on current water chemical usage.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental impacts
associated with the plant discharge will not be significant.
Impacts on Aquatic Biota
The potential impacts to aquatic biota from the proposed actions
include impingement and entrainment, thermal discharge effects, and
changes associated with the transmission line rights-of-way. Aquatic
species found in the vicinity of Waterford 3 are associated with the
Mississippi River. The river near the Waterford 3 site region supports
aquatic biota ranging from microorganisms and various plankton to large
commercial finfish. The more abundant fish near the site area include
blue catfish, channel catfish, freshwater drum, and striped mullet.
There are no unique fish habitats in the river near Waterford 3.
1. Impingement and Entrainment
Fish and other organisms removed from the cooling water by the
traveling water screens are washed to a trough to a point downstream of
the intake. The EPU will not increase the withdrawal rate or change
current pumping operations. Therefore, the water velocity through the
traveling screens will not change as a result of the EPU. The flowrate
of water being withdrawn from the intake canal at the intake structure
would not increase and no change would be made in the design of the
intake structure screens. Therefore, changes in the entrainment of
aquatic organisms or in the impingement of fish are not anticipated as
a result of the EPU.
2. Thermal Discharge Effects (Heat Shock)
Entergy has conducted thermal studies in the Mississippi River in
the vicinity of the Waterford 3 discharge for over 25 years and no
adverse impacts on fish have been observed. The temperature of the
water discharged to the river will remain within the limits of the
LPDES Permit. The LPDES Permit states that the bounding thermal limit
adequately regulates the amount of heat discharged to the Mississippi
River from this facility such that it protects the balanced indigenous
population.
3. Transmission Line Rights-of-Way
There will not be changes in transmission line right-of-way
maintenance practices associated with the EPU. Therefore, no changes
are expected in the amount of water or in the water quality of the
water run-off to the streams or the river.
The EPU will not increase the flow of the water withdrawn from the
river, and the amount of heat discharged to the Mississippi River will
remain within the thermal limit specified by the LPDES Permit. There
are no changes in transmission line right-of-way maintenance practices
associated with the proposed action. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes
that there are no significant impacts to aquatic biota for the proposed
action.
Impacts on Terrestrial Biota
The potential impacts to terrestrial biota from the proposed action
include construction activities and changes associated with the
transmission line right-of-way maintenance. The power uprate will not
disturb land, and no construction activities are planned for the EPU.
The proposed EPU will not change the land use at Waterford 3, and no
habitat of any terrestrial plant or animal species will be disturbed as
a result of this power uprate. In addition, none of Entergy's
transmission line rights-of-way maintenance practices will change.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there will be no significant
impact to the habitat of any terrestrial plant or animal species as a
result of the EPU.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species from the
proposed action include the impacts assessed in the aquatic and
terrestrial biota sections of this environmental assessment. These
impacts include impingement and entrainment, thermal discharge effects,
and impacts due to transmission line right-of-way maintenance for
aquatic species, and impacts to terrestrial species from transmission
line right-of-way maintenance and construction activities.
There are five species listed as threatened or endangered under the
Federal Endangered Species Act within St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.
These are the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), brown pelican
(Pelecanus occidentalis), Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi),
pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), and the West Indian manatee
(Trichechu manatus). There have been reported sightings of the bald
eagle (H. leucocephalus), gulf sturgeon (A. oxyrinchus desotoi), and
the pallid sturgeon (S. albus) in St. Charles Parish. Thermal studies
documented in the LPDES fact sheet found that no threatened or
endangered species were present near Waterford 3.
[[Page 60675]]
In a letter dated March 15, 2004, the Louisiana Fish and Wildlife
Service (LFWS) commented on the endangered species in the vicinity of
the station. The pallid sturgeon was identified as an endangered fish
found in both the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers. The West Indian
manatee (T. manatus) was also listed as a Federally protected species
known to inhabit Lakes Pontchartrain and Maurepas and associated
coastal waters and stream during summer months. The LFWS did not
identify any critical habitat in the vicinity of the site.
According to Entergy, the impacts from the Waterford 3 EPU to these
species is insignificant because: (1) the EPU for Waterford 3 will not
result in a decline of suitable habitat for these species; and (2)
sightings of these species are rare and infrequent. Therefore, the NRC
staff concludes that the proposed EPU would not affect threatened and
endangered species significantly over the effects described in the FES.
Social and Economic Impacts
Potential social and economic impacts due to the proposed action
include changes in tax revenue for St. Charles Parish and changes in
the size of the workforce at Waterford 3. The NRC staff has reviewed
information provided by the licensee regarding socioeconomic impacts.
Waterford 3 is a major employer in the community with approximately 750
full-time employees. Entergy is also a major contributor to the local
tax base. Entergy personnel also contribute to the tax base by paying
sales taxes. Because the plant modifications needed to implement the
EPU would be minor, any increase in sales tax and additional revenue to
local and national business will be negligible relative to the large
tax revenues generated by Waterford 3. It is expected that the proposed
uprate will reduce incremental operating costs, enhance the value of
Waterford 3 as a power-generating asset, and lower the probability of
early plant retirement. Early plant retirement would be expected to
have a significant negative impact on the local economy and the
community as a whole by reducing tax revenues and limiting local
employment opportunities, although these effects could be mitigated by
decommissioning activities in the short term. The proposed EPU would
not significantly affect the size of the Waterford 3 labor force and
would have no material effect upon the labor force required for future
outages after all stages of the modifications needed to support the EPU
are completed.
Summary
In summary, the proposed EPU would not result in a significant
change in non-radiological impacts in the areas of site, land use,
transmission facility operation, water use, discharge, aquatic biota,
terrestrial biota, threatened and endangered species, or social and
economic factors. No other non-radiological impacts were identified or
would be expected. Table 1 summarizes the non-radiological
environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at Waterford 3.
Table 1.--Summary of Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use..................... No change in land use or aesthetics; will
not impact lands with historic or
archeological significance. No
significant impact due to noise.
Transmission Facilities...... No physical modifications to the
transmission lines and facilities; no
changes to rights-of-way; no significant
change in electromagnetic field around
the transmission lines; shock safety
requirements will be met.
Water Use Surface Water...... No increase in the water withdrawal rate
from the river. Water withdrawal rate
remains consistent with previous levels.
Groundwater.................. No change in groundwater use.
Discharge thermal discharge.. No significant increase in temperature or
heat load. Current LPDES Permit has
adequate limits to accommodate any
expected temperature and heat load
increases.
Chemical and Sanitary No expected change to chemical use and
Discharge. subsequent discharge, or sanitary waste
systems; no change in pollutants to once-
through cooling water effluent. No
changes to sanitary waste discharges.
Aquatic Biota................ No expected increased impact on aquatic
biota.
Thermal Discharge (Heat Historically not a problem. Additional
Shock). heat is not expected to affect frequency
of heat shock events or significantly
increase the impact to aquatic biota.
Terrestrial Biota............ No additional impact on terrestrial
biota.
Threatened and Endangered No expected increased impact on
Species. threatened and endangered species as a
result of the EPU.
Social and Economic.......... No significant change in size of
Waterford 3 workforce.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiological Impacts
Radioactive Waste Systems
Waterford 3 uses Waste Treatment Systems designed to collect,
process, and dispose of radioactive gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes
in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. The NRC
staff concludes that the proposed power uprate will not result in
changes to the operation or design of equipment used in the radioactive
gaseous, liquid, or solid waste systems.
Gaseous Radioactive Waste
The Waterford 3 Gaseous Waste Treatment System is designed to
collect, process, and dispose of radioactive gaseous waste in
accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50,
appendix I.
The licensee calculated that the EPU will increase the potential
doses to the public from gaseous effluents by less than 0.1 millirem
per year over current doses, which are less than one millirem per year.
These potential doses are well within the dose design objectives of 10
CFR part 50, appendix I and the annual doses projected in the FES.
Therefore, the estimated increase in the offsite dose from gaseous
effluents due to the EPU will be small with no significant impact on
human health.
Liquid Radioactive Waste
The Waterford 3 Liquid Waste Treatment System is designed to
collect, process, and dispose of radioactive liquid waste in accordance
with the requirements of 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I.
The licensee calculated that the EPU will increase the potential
doses to the public from liquid effluents by approximately 10 percent
over the current doses, which are less than 0.01 millirem per year.
These potential doses are well within the dose design objectives of 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix I and the annual doses projected in the FES.
Therefore, the estimated increase in the offsite dose from liquid
effluents
[[Page 60676]]
due to the EPU will be small with no significant impact on human
health.
Solid Radioactive Waste
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. From
1998 through 2002, approximately 22,520 cubic feet of low level
radioactive waste was generated, for an average of about 4,500 cubic
feet per year.
There are three types of solid radioactive waste: wet waste, dry
waste, and irradiated reactor components. The typical contributors to
solid radioactive wet waste are secondary and primary resin,
contaminated filters, oil, and sludge from various plant systems. The
EPU will not change either reactor water cleanup flow rates or filter
performance. However, the increased core inventory of radionuclides may
lead to slightly more frequent replacement of filters and resins.
Therefore, implementation of the EPU will not have a significant impact
on the volume or activity of solid radioactive wet waste generated at
Waterford 3.
Dry radioactive waste consists primarily of air filters, paper
products, rags, clothing, tools, equipment parts that cannot be
effectively decontaminated, and solid laboratory wastes. No significant
change in the amount of dry waste is expected as a result of the EPU.
Irradiated reactor components such as in-core detectors and fuel
assemblies must be replaced periodically. The volume and activity of
waste generated from spent fuel assemblies and in-core detectors will
increase slightly with the EPU conditions. The EPU would increase the
number of fresh fuel bundles needed during each refueling cycle by
four. This increase in the number of bundles will result in a slight
increase in spent fuel discharge to the spent fuel pool.
The NRC staff concludes that any projected increases in solid waste
generation under the EPU conditions will not be significant.
Direct Radiation Dose
The licensee evaluated the direct radiation dose to the
unrestricted area and concluded that it is not a significant exposure
pathway. Since the EPU will slightly increase the core inventory of
radionuclides and the amount of solid radioactive wastes, the NRC staff
concludes that direct radiation dose will not be significantly affected
by the EPU and will continue to meet the limits in 10 CFR part 20.
Occupational Dose
Occupational exposures from in-plant radiation primarily occur
during routine maintenance, special maintenance, and refueling
operations. An increase in power at Waterford 3 could increase the
radiation levels in the reactor coolant system. However, plant programs
and administrative controls such as shielding, plant chemistry, and the
radiation protection program will help compensate for these potential
increases. The average collective worker dose at Waterford 3 over the
five-year period from 1998 to 2002 was 80.3 person-rem/yr.
Conservatively assuming a linear increase in the occupational exposure
due to the EPU, the projected in-plant occupational exposure would
increase to approximately 88 person-rem/yr, which is well below the
1300 person-rem/yr estimated in the Waterford 3 FES. The increase is
based on the power uprate ratio of .096 (3716 MWt/3390 MWt). Therefore,
no significant occupational dose impacts will occur as a result of the
EPU.
The EPU will not result in a significant increase in normal
operational radioactive gaseous and liquid effluent levels, direct
doses offsite, or occupational exposure. Potential doses to the public
from effluents will continue to be well within the dose design
objectives of 10 CFR part 50, appendix I and the annual doses projected
in the FES. Any increase in direct doses offsite will continue to be
within the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and the slight potential increase
in occupational exposure will be well within the FES estimate.
Postulated Accident Doses
As a result of implementation of the proposed EPU, there will be an
increase in the source term used in the evaluation of some of the
postulated accidents in the FES.
The inventory of radionuclides in the reactor core is dependent on
power level; therefore, the core inventory of radionuclides could
increase by as much as 9.6 percent. The concentration of radionuclides
in the reactor coolant may also increase by as much as 9.6 percent;
however, this concentration is limited by the Waterford 3 Technical
Specifications and is more dependent on the degree of leakage occurring
through the fuel cladding. The overall quality of fuel cladding has
improved since the FES was published and Waterford 3 has been
experiencing very little fuel cladding leakage in recent years.
Therefore, the reactor coolant concentration of radionuclides would not
be expected to increase significantly. This coolant concentration is
part of the source term considered in some of the postulated accident
analyses.
For those postulated accidents where the source term increased, the
calculated potential radiation dose to individuals at the site boundary
(the exclusion area) and in the low population zone would be increased
over the values presented in the FES. However, the calculated doses
would still be below the acceptance criteria of 10 CFR part 100,
``Reactor Site Criteria,'' and the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800).
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the increased environmental
impact in terms of potential increased doses from the postulated
accidents are not significant.
Fuel Cycle and Transportation
The environmental impacts of the fuel cycle and transportation of
fuels and wastes are described in Tables S-3 and S-4 of 10 CFR 51.51
and 10 CFR 51.52, respectively. An additional NRC generic environmental
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 cycle. 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 less
than 60 gigawatt-day per metric ton of uranium (GWd/MTU) from the
parameters evaluated in Tables S-3 and S-4. In an amendment dated July
10, 1998, Waterford 3 was granted the ability to increase the fuel
enrichment from 4.9 percent to 5.0 percent. Since the fuel enrichment
for the power uprate 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 power uprate will remain bounded
by these conclusions and will not be significant.
Summary
The proposed EPU would not result in a significant increase in
occupational or public radiation exposure, would not significantly
increase the potential doses from postulated accidents, and would not
result in significant additional fuel cycle environmental impacts.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Table 2 summarizes the radiological environmental impacts of the
proposed EPU at Waterford 3.
[[Page 60677]]
Table 2.--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiological Waste Stream.... No change in design or operation of waste
streams.
Gaseous Waste................ Slight increase in amount of radioactive
material in gaseous effluents; within
FES estimate; offsite doses would
continue to be well within NRC criteria.
Liquid Waste................. Slight increase in amount of radioactive
material in liquid effluents; within FES
estimate; offsite doses would continue
to be well within NRC criteria.
Solid Waste.................. No significant change in radioactive
resins; no significant changes in dry
waste; no significant changes in
irradiated components.
Dose Impacts Occupational Up to 9.6 percent increase in collective
Dose. occupational dose possible; well within
FES estimate.
Offsite Direct Dose.......... Slight increase possible; not
significant; offsite doses would
continue to be within NRC criteria.
Postulated Accidents......... Up to 9.6 percent increase in calculated
doses from some postulated accidents;
calculated doses within NRC criteria.
Fuel Cycle and Transportation Increase in bundle average enrichment.
Fuel enrichment and burnup would
continue to be within bounding
assumptions for Tables S-3 and S-4 in 10
CFR Part 51, ``Environmental Protection
Regulations for Domestic Licensing and
Related Regulatory Function;''
conclusions of tables regarding impact
would remain valid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives to Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered
denial of the proposed EPU (i.e., the ``no-action alternative'').
Denial of the application would result in no change in the current
environmental impacts; however, other fossil-fuel generating facilities
may need to be built in order to maintain sufficient power-generating
capacity. As an alternative, the licensee could purchase power from
power generating facilities outside the service area. The additional
power would likely also be generated by fossil fuel facilities.
Construction and operation of a fossil-fueled plant would create
impacts in air quality, land use, and waste management significantly
greater than those identified for the EPU at Waterford 3.
Implementation of the proposed EPU would have less impact on the
environment than the construction and operation of a new fossil-fueled
generating facility or the operator of fossil facilities outside the
service area. Furthermore, the EPU does not involve environmental
impacts that are significantly different from those presented in the
1981 FES for Waterford 3.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the 1981 FES for Waterford 3.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on August 13, 2004, the NRC
staff consulted with the Louisiana State official, Ms. Nan Calhoun of
the LDEQ, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.
The State official had no comments.
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.
DATES: The comment period expires November 12, 2004. Comments received
after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the
Commission is able to assure consideration of comments received on or
before this date.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to Chief, Rules and Directives
Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Mail Stop T-6 D59, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Written comments may also
be delivered to 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-6D59, Rockville, Maryland
20852, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Copies of
written comments received will be electronically available at the NRC's
Public Electronic Reading Room link http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html on the NRC Homepage or at the NRC's Public Document Room
located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC
Public Document Room Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-
4737, or by e-mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC is considering issuance of an
amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-38 issued to Entergy
for operation of Waterford 3 located in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N. Kalyanam, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, Mail Stop O-7D1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at (301) 415-1480, or by e-mail
at [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of September 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael K. Webb,
Acting Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 04-22786 Filed 10-8-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P