[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 63 (Monday, April 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17128-17133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-1478]



[[Page 17128]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-382]


Entergy Operations, Inc.; Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 
3, Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 
Related to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum 
Reactor Power Level

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
SUMMARY: The NRC has prepared a final 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, Unit 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 final environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact 
is being published in the Federal Register.

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 Carr[eacute] Spillway. The Bonnet Carr[eacute] 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 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

[[Page 17129]]

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 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 at two different locations. Sanitary wastes 
from the training center are collected and discharged from an onsite 
sewage treatment plant that is regulated through LPDES Permit 
LA0007374. Sanitary wastes from all other site facilities are collected 
in one of seven sewage lift stations located around the plant site and 
then ultimately transferred to St. Charles Parish Killona sewage 
treatment facility. 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

[[Page 17130]]

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.
    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.

[[Page 17131]]



       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 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

[[Page 17132]]

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 ((3716-3390) 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.

         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 Functions;''
                                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 operation of fossil facilities outside the

[[Page 17133]]

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 December 21, 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.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
following: (1) The FES, dated September 1981 (NUREG-0779), (2) the EPU 
application dated November 13, 2003 (ADAMS Accession No. ML040260317), 
and (3) the April 15, 2004 (ML041110527), response to the request for 
additional information dated March 6, 2004. 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 
Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 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 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at [email protected].

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 in Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of March, 2005.

    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. E5-1478 Filed 4-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P