[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27804-27814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11423]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-416; NRC-2012-0105]


Entergy Operations, Inc.; Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Draft environmental assessment and finding of no significant 
impact, opportunity to comment.

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

DATES: Comments must be filed by June 11, 2012 Any potential party as 
defined in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 2.4 who 
believes access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information 
and/or Safeguards Information is necessary to respond to this notice 
must request document access by May 21, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may access information and comment submissions related 
to this document, which the NRC possesses and is publicly available, by 
searching on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2012-0105. 
You may submit comments by the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0105. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: [email protected].
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, 
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of

[[Page 27805]]

Administration, Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
     Fax comments to: RADB at 301-492-3446.
    For additional direction on accessing information and submitting 
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2012-0105 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access information related to this document, which the NRC possesses 
and is publicly available, by the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0105.
    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): 
You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC Library 
at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, 
select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-based 
ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-
4737, or by email to [email protected]. Documents may be viewed in 
ADAMS by performing a search on the document date and docket number. 
The Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the licensee), application for 
amendment is dated September 8, 2010, and supplemented by letters dated 
November 18, 2010, November 23, 2010, February 23, 2011 (four letters), 
March 9, 2011 (two letters), March 22, 2011, March 30, 2011, March 31, 
2011, April 14, 2011, April 21, 2011, May 3, 2011, May 5, 2011, May 11, 
2011, June 8, 2011, June 15, 2011, June 21, 2011, June 23, 2011, July 
6, 2011, July 28, 2011, August 25, 2011, August 29, 2011, August 30, 
2011, September 2, 2011, September 9, 2011, September 12, 2011, 
September 15, 2011, September 26, 2011, October 10, 2011 (two letters), 
October 24, 2011, November 14, 2011, November 25, 2011, November 28, 
2011, December 19, 2011, February 6, 2012, February 15, 2012, February 
20, 2012, March 13, 2012, March 21, 2012, April 5, and April 18, 2012 
(two letters). Portions of the letters dated September 8 and November 
23, 2010, and February 23, April 21, May 11, July 6, July 28, September 
2, October 10, November 14, November 25, and November 28, 2011, and 
February 6, February 15, February 20, March 13, March 21, April 5, and 
April 18, 2012, contain sensitive unclassified non-safeguards 
information (proprietary) and, accordingly, have been withheld from 
public disclosure. The licensee's letters are publicly available in 
ADAMS at the accession numbers listed in the table below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Document date                        Accession No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/8/2010...............................  ML120660409
11/18/2010.............................  ML103260003
11/23/2010.............................  ML103330093
2/23/2011..............................  ML110540534
2/23/2011..............................  ML110540540
2/23/2011..............................  ML110540545
2/23/2011..............................  ML110550318
3/9/2011...............................  ML110680507
3/9/2011...............................  ML110730025
3/22/2011..............................  ML110820262
3/30/2011..............................  ML110900275
3/31/2011..............................  ML110900586
4/14/2011..............................  ML111050134
4/21/2011..............................  ML11112A098
5/3/2011...............................  ML111240288
5/5/2011...............................  ML111250552
5/11/2011..............................  ML111320263
6/8/2011...............................  ML111590836
6/15/2011..............................  ML111670059
6/21/2011..............................  ML111730235
6/23/2011..............................  ML111750244
7/6/2011...............................  ML111880138
7/28/2011..............................  ML112101485
8/25/2011..............................  ML112370770
8/29/2011..............................  ML112410566
8/30/2011..............................  ML112420169
9/2/2011...............................  ML112490050
9/9/2011...............................  ML112521284
9/12/2011..............................  ML112550495
9/15/2011..............................  ML112580223
9/26/2011..............................  ML112690143
10/10/2011.............................  ML112840155
10/10/2011.............................  ML112840171
10/24/2011.............................  ML112980113
11/14/2011.............................  ML113190403
11/25/2011.............................  ML113290137
11/28/2011.............................  ML113320403
12/19/2011.............................  ML113530656
2/6/2012...............................  ML12039A071
2/15/2012..............................  ML120470138
2/20/2012..............................  ML12054A038
3/13/2012..............................  ML120740083
3/21/2012..............................  ML12082A025
4/5/2012...............................  ML12097A055
4/18/2012..............................  ML12109A308
4/18/2012..............................  ML12109A290
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2012-0105 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly 
disclosed. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS, and the NRC does not edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information in their comment submissions 
that they do not want to be publicly disclosed. Your request should 
state that the NRC will not edit comment submissions to remove such 
information before making the comment submissions available to the 
public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
    Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Public comments and supporting 
materials related to this notice can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID: NRC-2012-0105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan B. Wang, Project Manager, Plant 
Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1445; email: 
[email protected].

II. Introduction

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
NPF-29, issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy, the licensee), for 
operation of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (GGNS Unit 1), 
located in Claiborne County, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90. In 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC has prepared this draft 
Environmental Assessment (EA) and draft Finding of No Significant 
Impact (FONSI) for the proposed action. The draft EA and draft FONSI 
are being published in the Federal Register with a 30-day public 
comment period ending June 11, 2012.

III. Environmental Assessment

Plant Site and Environs

    The GGNS site is located in Claiborne County, Mississippi, on the 
east bank of the Mississippi River at River Mile (RM) 406, 
approximately 25 miles south of Vicksburg, Mississippi, and 37 miles 
north-northeast of Natchez, Mississippi.

[[Page 27806]]

The GGNS site consists of approximately 2,100 acres, comprised 
primarily of woodlands and former farms as well as two lakes, Hamilton 
Lake and Gin Lake. The land in the vicinity of GGNS is mostly rural. 
GGNS Unit 1 is a General Electric Mark 3 boiling-water reactor.

Identification of the Proposed Action

    By application dated September 8, 2010, as supplemented, the 
licensee requested an amendment for an extended power uprate (EPU) for 
GGNS Unit 1 to increase the licensed thermal power level from 3,898 
megawatts thermal (MWt) to 4,408 MWt, which represents an increase of 
approximately 13 percent above the current licensed thermal power and 
approximately 15 percent over the original licensed thermal power level 
of 3833 MWt. This change in core thermal power level requires the NRC 
to amend the facility's operating license. The operational goal of the 
proposed EPU is a corresponding increase in net electrical output of 
178 megawatts electric (MWe). The proposed action is considered an EPU 
by the NRC because it exceeds the typical 7 percent power increase that 
can be accommodated with only minor plant changes. EPUs typically 
involve extensive modifications to the nuclear steam supply system.
    The licensee plans to make several extensive physical modifications 
to systems necessary to generate and/or accommodate the increased 
feedwater and steam flow rates to achieve EPU power levels during a 
refueling outage currently scheduled for 2012. In addition, there will 
be land disturbance involving installation of a new radial well system. 
The actual power uprate, if approved by the NRC, would occur following 
the refueling outage in 2012.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action provides GGNS with the flexibility to increase 
its potential electrical output and to supply additional electrical 
generation to the State of Mississippi and the surrounding region.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    As part of the licensing process for GGNS Unit 1, the NRC published 
a Final Environmental Statement (FES) in 1981, Final Environmental 
Statement for the Operation of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Units 1 
and 2 (NUREG-0777). The FES provides an evaluation of the environmental 
impacts associated with the construction and operation of GGNS Units 1 
and 2 (Unit 2 has since been cancelled) over their licensed lifetimes. 
The NRC staff used information from the licensee's license amendment 
request and the FES to perform its EA for the proposed EPU.
    There will be extensive changes made to the steam supply system of 
GGNS Unit 1 related to the EPU action, but no new construction is 
planned outside of existing facilities. No extensive changes are 
anticipated to existing buildings or plant systems that directly or 
indirectly interface with the environment. All necessary modifications 
would be performed in existing buildings at GGNS Unit 1 with the 
exception of the installation of a new radial well and additional 
cooling units being added to the auxiliary cooling tower. Modifications 
to the steam supply system of GGNS Unit 1 include the following: 
Replacing the reactor feed pump turbine rotors; replacing the main 
generator current transformers, replacing the high pressure turbine; 
replacing the moisture separator reheater shell and internals; 
replacing the steam dryer; and other modifications to upgrade the plant 
service water heat removal system.
    The sections below describe the non-radiological and radiological 
impacts to the environment that may result from the proposed EPU.

Non-Radiological Impacts

Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts
    Potential land use and aesthetic impacts from the proposed EPU 
include impacts from plant modifications at the GGNS site. The licensee 
states that any land disturbance activities, including those associated 
with EPU, are reviewed in accordance with Entergy procedures to ensure 
that necessary environmental protection measures are implemented during 
the project. They state that these measures would include provisions to 
protect such things as threatened and endangered species, cultural 
resources, wetland areas, water quality, etc.
    The licensee's analysis concluded that additional cooling tower 
make-up water is projected to be needed (~3,200 gallons per minute 
(gpm)) due to the increase in heat load generated as a result of EPU, 
which also results in an increase in water loss through evaporation, 
blowdown, and drift. A new radial well is being installed to ensure 
sufficient cooling water is available to support the higher EPU power 
level because GGNS' existing radial wells have degraded over time and 
thus cannot perform at their design capacity. Activities to support the 
well construction include clearing and grubbing of trees, construction 
of a working pad using engineered fill, and excavation of trenches for 
supply piping to the plant service water header, discharge piping into 
the river, and electrical equipment feeders. The proposed working pad 
is designed to contain all the equipment needed for construction of the 
well and to provide an area for material laydown and parking. 
Activities conducted in wetland areas would be managed under a Section 
404 permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 
The remaining non-wetland areas would be managed under Mississippi 
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) stormwater permitting 
program (Permit Number MSR15) and associated best management practices.
    Improvements are also being made to the Heavy Haul Road, which 
connects the site to the barge slip area, to support activities 
associated with the installation of the new radial well and potential 
delivery of heavy equipment as discussed below. These improvements 
consist of refurbishing the existing road and road base in low areas or 
areas that have become washed out over the years. These refurbishment 
activities would occur within the plant site boundary with appropriate 
best management practices applied and in accordance with GGNS' National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit MSR000883 and 
associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to control silt and 
erosion.
    Entergy plans to use either the Port of Claiborne or the existing 
barge slip area on site for delivery of new transformers and other 
heavy equipment associated with the proposed EPU. In the event it is 
not feasible to use the Port of Claiborne, GGNS may conduct dredging 
activities in the existing barge slip area to accommodate delivery of 
such equipment. Activities associated with upgrading the barge slip 
would be managed under a Section 404 Permit issued by the USACE as 
previously discussed.
    While some plant components would be modified, most changes related 
to the proposed EPU would occur within existing structures, buildings, 
and fenced equipment yards housing major components within the 
developed part of the site. Existing parking lots, road access, 
equipment lay-down areas, offices, workshops, warehouses, and restrooms 
would be used during plant modifications. Therefore, land use 
conditions would not change at the GGNS site. Also, there would be no 
land use changes along transmission line corridors, and no new 
transmission lines would be required.

[[Page 27807]]

    Since land use conditions would not change at the GGNS site, and 
because any land disturbance would occur within previously disturbed 
areas, and those activities will be conducted in accordance with State 
and Federal permits to ensure the potential impacts are not 
significant, there would be little or no impact to aesthetic resources 
in the vicinity of GGNS Unit 1. Therefore, there would be no 
significant impact from EPU-related plant modifications on land use and 
aesthetic resources in the vicinity of the GGNS site.
Air Quality Impacts
    Major air pollution emission sources at the GGNS site are regulated 
by the MDEQ in accordance with GGNS Air Permit 0420-00023. 
Nonradioactive emission sources at GGNS Unit 1 result primarily from 
periodic testing of diesel generators and fire water pump diesel 
engines, and operation of the cooling towers. There will be no changes 
to the emissions from these sources as a result of the EPU.
    Some minor and short duration air quality impacts would occur 
during implementation of the EPU at the GGNS site. The main source of 
air emissions would come from the vehicles driven by outage workers 
needed to implement the EPU. However, this source will be short term 
and temporary. The majority of the EPU activities would be performed 
inside existing buildings and would not cause additional atmospheric 
emissions. Therefore, there would be no significant impact on air 
quality during and following implementation of the proposed EPU.
    The licensee also evaluated the potential for an increase in 
particulate emissions that could occur as a result of the modification 
to the auxiliary cooling tower and the addition of two 60-gallon lube 
oil tanks associated with the new radial well pumps. These sources will 
result in some minor emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC). The 
licensee plans to submit a modification to GGNS Air Permit 0420-00023 
to the MDEQ for approval prior to these activities occurring to reflect 
the increase in particulate emissions.
    Upon completion of the proposed EPU, non-radioactive air pollutant 
emissions would increase slightly due to the modification of the 
auxiliary cooling tower and the addition of two 60-gallon lube oil 
tanks for the new radial well pumps but will be regulated in accordance 
with the GGNS Air Permit with MDEQ. Therefore, there would be no 
significant impact on air quality in the region during and following 
implementation of the proposed EPU.
Water Use Impacts
Surface Water
    The western boundary of the GGNS site is defined by the Mississippi 
River's eastern bank. At the site, the Mississippi River is about 0.5 
miles wide at low flow and about 1.4 miles during a typical annual high 
flow period. The massive nature of the Mississippi River makes the 
liquid effluent discharges from the GGNS facility undetectable within 
the overall flow regime, and any changes in the quality are small and 
localized compared to the overall volume of water in the river. 
Hamilton and Gin are lakes on the GGNS site. These lakes are what 
remain of the former river channel after the Mississippi River moved to 
the west. Hamilton and Gin lakes are relatively small (Hamilton Lake is 
approximately 64 acres, and Gin Lake is approximately 55 acres) and 
shallow with an average depth of 8 to 10 feet. There is no effluent 
discharged or water drawn from these lakes for plant operations.
    Limitations and monitoring requirements for plant effluent 
discharges are specified in the NPDES Permit. Discharges directly to 
the Mississippi River are required to be monitored continuously. 
Modifications of the nonradiological drain systems or other systems 
conveying wastewaters are not required for the EPU, and biocide/
chemical discharges would be within existing permit limits. Although it 
is estimated that blowdown (the release of liquid effluent to clean the 
water in the system) would increase slightly (~825 gpm) based on 
evaporation, the EPU is not introducing any new contaminants or 
pollutants and is not increasing the amount of those potential 
contaminants presently allowed for release by GGNS Unit 1.
    Chemical and biocide wastes are produced from processes used to 
control the pH in the coolant, to control scale, to control corrosion, 
and to clean and defoul the condenser. These waste liquids are 
typically combined with cooling water discharges in accordance with the 
site's NPDES Permit MS0029521. Sanitary wastewater from all plant 
locations are regulated by GGNS NPDES Permit MS0029521, and flow to an 
onsite sewage treatment plant prior to discharge into the Mississippi 
River. Solids associated with treatment of the sanitary wastewater are 
placed in drying beds and then managed appropriately for eventual 
offsite disposal.
    Surface water and wastewater discharges are regulated by the MDEQ 
via the NPDES permit. The permits are reviewed by the MDEQ on a 5-year 
basis. The current GGNS NPDES permit, which has been administratively 
continued by the MDEQ based on Entergy's timely submittal of the permit 
renewal application, authorizes discharges from 11 outfalls into the 
Mississippi River. None of the NPDES permit limits would require a 
modification to support or implement the EPU.
    Total surface water withdrawals in Claiborne County are 
predominantly for agricultural use (livestock and irrigation), with no 
surface water usage reported for public supply, domestic self-supplied 
systems, mining, hydroelectric power, thermoelectric power, or 
industrial or commercial uses.
    The nearest downstream user of Mississippi River water is the 
Southeast Wood Fiber company located at the Claiborne County Port 
facility, 0.8 miles downstream of the GGNS site. The maximum intake 
requirement for this facility is less than 0.9 million gallons per day 
(mgd). There are only three public water supply systems in the State of 
Mississippi that use surface water as a source, and none of these are 
located within 50 miles of the GGNS site.
    Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed EPU 
will not have a significant impact on surface water in the area of 
GGNS, and operation under EPU conditions would not cause a water use 
conflict with other surface water users in the GGNS area.
Groundwater
    There are 16 groundwater wells currently used for withdrawal 
purposes at the GGNS site. Groundwater is used for domestic water, 
once-through cooling for plant air conditioners, and for regenerating 
the water softeners at the Energy Services Center.
    There are currently four radial wells which supply water to the 
plant service water system. Since additional cooling tower make-up 
water is projected to be needed (~3,200 gpm) due to the increase in 
heat load generated as a result of the EPU, and an increase in water 
loss through evaporation, blowdown, and drift, a new radial well is 
being installed to provide additional water needed during EPU operating 
conditions. As previously discussed, the existing radial wells have 
degraded over time and thus cannot perform at their full design 
capacity. The new radial well is scheduled to be completed and 
operational in May 2012. Although water being utilized for cooling 
tower make-up is projected to increase from current levels, the 
estimated EPU cooling tower makeup flow value of 27,860 gpm (62 cubic 
feet per second (cfs)) is less than the estimated 42,636

[[Page 27808]]

gpm (95 cfs) value identified in the GGNS FES; therefore, groundwater 
consumption remains lower than the value analyzed in the GGNS FES.
    Public water supply wells in Claiborne County (excluding GGNS) are 
supplied by the Catahoula Formation with well depths ranging from 166 
to 960 feet. Aside from GGNS Unit 1, the primary use of groundwater in 
Claiborne County is for public supply purposes with a small percentage 
used for domestic water, irrigation, and livestock. Within a two-mile 
radius of the plant site, essentially all groundwater is used for 
domestic purposes.
    GGNS groundwater is supplied from the Mississippi River Alluvium 
(radial wells) and the Upland Complex (potable wells) aquifers. 
Residents within the vicinity of GGNS are served by CS&I Water 
Association which withdraws water from the Miocene aquifer. Since the 
GGNS withdraws groundwater from the Mississippi River Alluvium and 
Upland Complex aquifers, the Miocene aquifers, including the Catahoula 
Formation, are unaffected.
    The impact to offsite groundwater users from the withdrawal of 
water by GGNS Unit 1 is limited by the recharge boundary created by the 
river, and thus, is not expected to extend to the west beyond the 
river. Based on estimates of the radius of anticipated drawdown of the 
GGNS radial wells, drawdown at the GGNS property boundaries would have 
limited impact on potential offsite use in the Mississippi River 
Alluvium aquifer. This is a conservative estimate of aquifer capacity 
impact, as aquifer recharge from sources other than the river (flooding 
and rainfall events) was not considered. GGNS's potable water wells are 
the closest wells withdrawing groundwater in the vicinity (although not 
from the Mississippi River Alluvium) and have operated to supply 
adequate water supply to the GGNS site without noticeable impact from 
the operation of the radial wells. There are no known withdrawals from 
the Mississippi River Alluvium aquifer other than GGNS Unit 1 between 
the Big Black River to the north, and Bayou Pierre River to the south.
    Water rights and allocations of groundwater are regulated by MDEQ. 
Therefore, all existing GGNS Unit 1 groundwater withdrawals, including 
those from the radial wells, are regulated by a groundwater allocation 
permitting program. These permits were granted considering their 
identified potential impact on other uses in the area and considering 
those withdrawals in the recharge area of the Mississippi River 
Alluvium aquifer. Based on the above, there are no groundwater use 
conflicts between GGNS and other local groundwater users.
    Approximately 40 percent of the GGNS site is bottomland, including 
forested, shrub, and emergent marsh wetlands. As stated above, the 
groundwater in the alluvium in the floodplain is in close hydraulic 
communication with the river. The groundwater contour figures reveal 
that the impact of the cone of depression surrounding the radial wells 
is dependent upon river stage. This impact is limited also by recharge 
to the alluvium derived from infiltration of precipitation, westward 
flow of groundwater across the terrace alluvium contact at the bluffs, 
and the flooding of the Mississippi River during high river stages. 
Thus, based on the localized influence of the drawdown zone surrounding 
the wells, the groundwater's hydraulic connection with the river, 
recharge from seasonal flooding and additional recharge from the Upland 
Terrace aquifer east of the bluffs, the impact of radial well 
groundwater withdrawal in the floodplain is of limited extent. Even 
though there is potentially greater impact to groundwater levels at the 
lowest river stages than at higher river stages, the low river stages 
are generally temporary. Therefore, the impact of the radial wells on 
nearby wetlands is minimal.
    Plant operation at the proposed EPU power level is not expected to 
cause impacts significantly greater than current operations. As 
previously discussed, groundwater withdrawals would continue to be 
lower than the values analyzed in the GGNS FES as a result of EPU and 
continued operational activities. The installation of an additional 
radial well is expected to reduce the per-well withdrawal rates without 
an increase in overall groundwater impacts. No major construction is 
planned, so additional groundwater withdrawals will not be required. 
Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the EPU will not have 
a significant impact on groundwater in the underlying aquifers, and 
operation under EPU conditions would not cause a water use conflict 
with other groundwater users in the GGNS area.
Aquatic Resources Impacts
    The potential impacts to aquatic biota from the proposed action 
could include thermal and chemical discharge effects. GGNS does not 
have an intake structure that withdraws surface water directly from a 
body of water, therefore, no entrainment or impingement of organisms 
would occur.
    GGNS uses groundwater from a series of radial wells to supply its 
plant service water system, as discussed in the Water Use Impacts 
section. The circulating water system is a closed system utilizing a 
natural draft cooling tower and a mechanical draft auxiliary cooling 
tower. The natural draft cooling tower is designed to operate alone or 
in conjunction with the auxiliary cooling tower to dissipate all excess 
heat removed from the main condensers. Additional cooling units will be 
added to the auxiliary cooling tower, as discussed in the Land Use and 
Aesthetics section. Makeup water, to compensate for drift, blowdown, 
and evaporation losses from the cooling towers, is supplied from the 
plant service water system by means of the radial wells. A new radial 
well will be installed to handle the increase in heat load associated 
with the EPU, as discussed in the Water Use section.
    The circulating water system is designed to supply the main 
condenser with cooling water at temperatures ranging from 2.8 degrees 
Celsius ([deg]C) (37 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) to 36.1 [deg]C 
(97[emsp14][deg]F) when the mechanical draft auxiliary cooling tower is 
not in service, and less than 32.2 [deg]C (90[emsp14][deg]F) with the 
natural draft and auxiliary cooling towers both in service. The 
licensee states that the auxiliary cooling towers remain in service 
year round, with the exception of a short period (i.e., hours) when 
they are taken out of service for cleaning. Therefore, water being 
supplied to the condenser is anticipated to be less than 32.2 [deg]C 
(90[emsp14][deg]F) year round.
    Thermal effluents associated with cooling tower blowdown are 
combined with other plant effluents and discharged into the Mississippi 
River. The conditions associated with thermal discharges as outlined in 
GGNS's MDEQ NPDES permit state that the receiving water shall not 
exceed a maximum water temperature change of 2.8 [deg]C 
(5.0[emsp14][deg]F) and that the maximum water temperature shall not 
exceed 32.2 [deg]C (90[emsp14][deg]F), except when ambient temperatures 
approach or exceed that number.
    GGNS is required by the MDEQ NPDES Permit to conduct thermal 
monitoring during the winter and summer months preceding the submittal 
year of the permit renewal application and include those results in the 
submittal. Based on previous years of operational experience, GGNS has 
not violated the thermal conditions outlined in the permit.

[[Page 27809]]

    Based on the above, the NRC staff finds that although the heat load 
would increase as a result of the proposed EPU, the thermal discharge 
associated with GGNS operations would continue to remain at or slightly 
below current operating temperatures due to the additional cooling 
units being installed in the auxiliary cooling tower. As stated by the 
licensee, the auxiliary cooling towers operate in conjunction with the 
natural draft cooling tower year round. Consequently, the temperature 
of the cooling water being supplied to the condenser is not increasing, 
which ensures that the thermal conditions outlined in the GGNS MDEQ 
NPDES permit continue to be met. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 
there would be no significant adverse impacts to aquatic biota from 
thermal discharges.
    The plant service water system for GGNS is treated with sodium 
hypochlorite and biocides to control the pH in the coolant, to control 
scale, to control corrosion, and to clean and defoul the condenser. The 
liquid wastes produced from this process are combined with cooling 
water discharges in accordance with the site's MDEQ NPDES permit and 
discharged into the Mississippi River. Due to the additional cooling 
units being added to the auxiliary cooling tower, additional sodium 
hypochlorite injection will be needed to control biological fouling 
effectively. However, the liquid waste stream is dechlorinated with 
sodium bisulfite prior to being discharged to the Mississippi River. 
Consequently, effluent concentrations would continue to be below the 
NPDES permit limits specified by MDEQ. The licensee has noted that it 
will maintain compliance with the MDEQ NPDES permit held currently by 
the plant as a function of the proposed EPU. Therefore, the NRC staff 
concludes there would be no significant adverse impacts to aquatic 
biota from chemical discharges.
    Dredging activities could occur in the existing barge slip area to 
accommodate delivery of transformers and other heavy equipment 
associated with the proposed EPU if use of the Claiborne County Port 
facility is determined to be infeasible from an economical and 
technological standpoint. Any refurbishment activities associated with 
the barge slip would occur in an area that would be managed under a 
Section 404 Permit issued by USACE. Dredging of the barge slip, if 
necessary, will be coordinated by the licensee with the USACE and 
conducted in accordance with the USACE's Section 404 permitting 
process, which involves a site-specific evaluation of potential 
environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. Based on the 
above, the NRC staff concludes there would be no significant adverse 
impacts to aquatic biota from possible dredging activities.
Terrestrial Resources Impacts
    The GGNS site is bisected by a prominent bluff line that runs 
parallel to the Mississippi River. Areas below the bluff line are 
seasonally flooded, except for two oxbow lakes which are permanently 
inundated and are considered wetland areas. Above the bluff line, the 
two prominent habitat types are upland field and upland forest with the 
vast majority upland forest. One small area of wetland has been defined 
on the north side of the plant as permanently flooded. Most of the 
previously developed areas are in upland habitat; however, 
approximately 400 acres of upland forest remains on-site.
    The impacts that could potentially affect terrestrial resources 
include loss of habitat, construction and refurbishment-related noise 
and lighting, and sediment transport or erosion. Most of the activities 
associated with the EPU would occur on the developed portion of the 
site, would not directly affect any natural terrestrial habitats, and 
would not result in loss of habitat. As discussed in Land Use and 
Aesthetic Impacts section above, activities associated with 
installation of the new radial well would be managed in accordance with 
the Section 404 Permit and MDEQ's stormwater permitting program (Permit 
Number MSR15) as appropriate. Although there is no habitat present on 
the Heavy Haul Road, refurbishment activities associated with the road 
would be managed in accordance with the terms and conditions in State 
and Federal permits. Noise and lighting would not impact terrestrial 
species beyond what would be experienced during normal operations 
because refurbishment and construction activities would take place 
during outage periods, which are already periods of heightened 
activity. Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed 
EPU would have no significant effect on terrestrial resources.
Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts
    The licensee corresponded with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(USFWS) during the preparation of the Environmental Report for the EPU 
to ensure that the proposed EPU would not adversely affect any species 
protected under the Endangered Species Act. The following Table 1 
identifies federally listed and candidate species that are in the 
vicinity of GGNS.

 Table 1--Federally Listed Species in the Vicinity of Grand Gulf Nuclear
                                 Station
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Scientific                     Name              Status \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birds:
    Picoides borealis..........  red-cockaded                         E
                                  woodpecker.
    Sterna antillarum..........  least tern (interior                 E
                                  pop.).
Clams:
    Potamilus capax............  fat pocketbook........               E
    Quadrula cylindrica          rabbitsfoot...........                C
     cylindrica.
Fish:
    Etheostoma rubrum..........  bayou darter..........               T
    Acipenser oxyrinchus desoto  gulf sturgeon.........               T
    Scaphirhynchus albus.......  pallid sturgeon.......               E
Mammals:
    Ursus americanus luteolus..  Louisiana black bear..               T
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ C = candidate; E = endangered; T = threatened.
Data source: [FWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Find Endangered
  Species Database. Available at <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/>
  (accessed 13 December 2011).


[[Page 27810]]

    As discussed in the Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts section, the 
only EPU activities involving land disturbance is the installation of a 
new radial well, Heavy Haul Road improvements, and potential dredging 
activities in the barge slip. These activities would be handled in 
accordance with the terms and conditions in State and Federal permits.
    The licensee states that procedures are in place at GGNS to ensure 
that threatened and endangered species would be adequately protected, 
if present, during the outage and during plant operations. Any traffic 
and worker activity on the plant site during its 2012 refueling outage 
would be on the developed portion of the site and would not affect any 
federally listed species.
    As stated above, the licensee consulted with the USFWS regarding 
threatened and endangered species in the vicinity of GGNS. No issues 
were identified that would impact any of the federally listed species 
as a result of the proposed EPU. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 
that the proposed EPU would have no significant impacts on any 
Federally listed threatened or endangered species for the proposed 
action.
Historic and Archaeological Resources Impacts
    The licensee states that at the recommendation of the Mississippi 
Department of Archives and History (MDAH), a Phase I archaeological 
survey was conducted in 2007 on two onsite study areas. Eleven 
archaeological sites and eight isolated finds/small artifact scatters 
were identified during this survey. One historic site within the study 
area and located south of the plant in a wooded area, was identified as 
having the potential to be eligible for the National Register of 
Historic Places (NRHP). The remaining sites were determined to be 
ineligible for listing on the NRHP. The MDAH required no further 
actions from GGNS provided that no construction activities occurred in 
this specific area.
    As discussed in Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts section, the only 
EPU activities involving land disturbance is the installation of a new 
radial well, Heavy Haul Road improvements, and potential dredging 
activities in the barge slip area. Entergy has a procedure in place, 
applicable to all of its power plants, for management of cultural 
resources ahead of any future ground-disturbing activities. This 
procedure, which requires reviews, investigations, and consultations, 
as needed, ensures that existing or potentially existing cultural 
resources are adequately protected and assists Entergy in meeting State 
and Federal expectations.
    As previously discussed, EPU-related plant modifications would take 
place within existing buildings and facilities at GGNS, except for the 
addition of the cooling units being added to the auxiliary cooling 
tower which will be installed on an existing foundation. Since ground 
disturbance or construction-related activities would not occur in any 
areas with the potential to be eligible for the NRHP, and that Entergy 
has procedures in place for management of cultural resources, the NRC 
staff concludes that there would be no significant impact from the 
proposed EPU on historic and archaeological resources in the vicinity 
of GGNS Unit 1.
Socioeconomic Impacts
    Potential socioeconomic impacts from the proposed EPU include 
temporary increases in the size of the workforce at GGNS, and the 
associated increased demand for goods, public services, and housing in 
the region. The proposed EPU also could generate increased tax revenues 
for the State and surrounding counties.
    Currently, approximately 690 full-time employees work at GGNS. 
During regularly scheduled refueling outages, the workforce is 
typically increased by additional 700-900 persons. Refueling outages 
usually last 25-30 days every 18 months, although GGNS plans to change 
to a 24-month refueling cycle in the future. Entergy estimates that 
operating at the proposed EPU power level would not affect the size of 
the regular workforce. The 2012 outage workforce will be larger than 
previous outages due to the EPU modifications but would be of short 
duration. Once EPU-related plant modifications have been completed, the 
size of the refueling outage workforce at GGNS would return to normal 
levels and would remain similar to pre-EPU levels, with no significant 
increases during future refueling outages. Entergy expects most of the 
temporary workers expected for the EPU related work will temporarily 
reside in Claiborne County. This will result in short-term increases in 
the local population along with increased demands for public services 
and housing. Because plant modification work would be short term and 
temporary, most workers are expected to stay in available rental homes, 
apartments, mobile homes, and camper-trailers. The 2010 American 
Community Survey 1-year estimate for vacant housing units reported 783 
vacant housing units in Claiborne County; that could potentially ease 
the demand for local rental housing. Therefore, the NRC expects that 
the temporary increase in plant employment for a short duration would 
have little or no noticeable effect on the availability of housing in 
the region.
    The additional number of outage workers and material and equipment 
deliveries needed to support EPU-related plant modifications would 
cause short-term level of service impacts (restricted traffic flow and 
higher incident rates) on secondary roads in the immediate vicinity of 
GGNS. As EPU-related plant modifications would occur during a normal 
refueling outage, there could be noticeable short-term (during certain 
hours of the day), level-of-service traffic impacts beyond what is 
experienced during normal outages.
    Nuclear power plants in Mississippi currently pay the Mississippi 
Department of Revenue a sum based on the assessed value of the plant. 
Based upon this assessment, nuclear power plants are then taxed 2 
percent of its assessed value, or $20,000,000, whichever is greater. 
GGNS currently pays $20,000,000 annually to the Mississippi Department 
of Revenue. Tax revenue is distributed in proportion to the amount of 
electric energy consumed by the retail customers in each county, with 
no county receiving an excess of 20 percent of the funds. Ten percent 
of the remainder of the tax payment is then transferred from the 
Mississippi Department of Revenue to the General Fund of the State. The 
increased property value of GGNS as a result of the EPU and increased 
power generation could affect future tax payments by GGNS.
    Due to the short duration of EPU-related plant modification 
activities, there would be little or no noticeable effect on tax 
revenues generated by temporary workers residing in Claiborne County. 
In addition, GGNS is currently paying the maximum tax on the assessed 
value of the plant. Therefore, the NRC expects no significant 
socioeconomic impacts from EPU-related plant modifications and 
operations under EPU conditions in the vicinity of GGNS.
Environmental Justice Impacts
    The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential 
for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 
effects on minority and low-income populations that could result from 
activities associated with the proposed EPU at GGNS. Such effects may 
include human health, biological, cultural, economic, or social 
impacts. Minority and low-income populations are subsets

[[Page 27811]]

of the general public residing around GGNS, and all are exposed to the 
same health and environmental effects generated from activities at 
GGNS.
    NRC considered the demographic composition of the area within a 50-
mile (mi) (80.5-kilometer (km)) radius of GGNS to determine whether 
minorities may be affected by the proposed action. The NRC examined the 
distribution of minority populations within 50 mi (80.5 km) of GGNS 
using the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) data for 2010.
    According to the 2010 Census data using the University of 
Missouri's Circular Area Profiling System, an estimated 316,387 people 
live within a 50-mi (80.5-km) radius of GGNS. Minority populations 
within 50 mi (80.5 km) comprise 53.2 percent (168,166 persons). The 
largest minority group was Black or African-American (approximately 
157,707 persons or 49.8 percent), followed by Hispanic or Latino (of 
any race) (approximately 6,115 persons or 1.9 percent). Minority 
populations within Claiborne County comprise 85.2 percent of the total 
population with the largest minority group being Black or African-
American at 84.6 percent.
    NRC examined low-income populations within Claiborne County using 
the 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. According to 
census data, approximately 35 percent of the population (3,186 
individuals) residing within Claiborne County was considered low-
income, defined as living below the 2010 Federal poverty threshold. 
Approximately 27.6 percent of families were determined to be living 
below the Federal poverty threshold in Claiborne. The 2010 Federal 
poverty threshold was $22,314 for a family of four and $11,139 for an 
individual. The median household income for Claiborne County was 
approximately $24,150, which is 51 percent lower than the median 
household income (approximately $47,031) for Mississippi.
    Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations would 
mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, 
dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Radiation doses from 
plant operations after the EPU are expected to continue to remain well 
below regulatory limits.
    Noise and dust impacts would be temporary and limited to onsite 
activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site 
access roads could experience increased commuter vehicle traffic during 
shift changes. Increased demand for inexpensive rental housing during 
the EPU-related plant modifications could disproportionately affect 
low-income populations; however, due to the short duration of the EPU-
related work and the availability of housing properties, impacts to 
minority and low-income populations would be of short duration and 
limited. According to the 2010 census information, there were 
approximately 783 vacant housing units in Claiborne County.
    Based on this information and the analysis of human health and 
environmental impacts presented in this EA, the proposed EPU would not 
have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 
effects on minority and low-income populations residing in the GGNS 
vicinity.
Non-Radiological Cumulative Impacts
    The NRC considered potential cumulative impacts on the environment 
resulting from the incremental impact of the proposed EPU when added to 
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. For the 
purposes of this analysis, past actions are related to the construction 
and licensing of GGNS Unit 1; present actions are related to current 
operations; and future actions are those that are reasonably 
foreseeable through the end of station operations, including operations 
following implementation of the EPU.
    Entergy submitted a combined license application (COL) to the NRC 
for an Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor, designated as GGNS 
Unit 3, on February 27, 2008. On January 9, 2009, Entergy informed the 
NRC that it was considering alternate reactor design technologies and 
requested the NRC suspend its review effort until further notice. The 
application to build GGNS Unit 3 on the GGNS site is considered a 
reasonably foreseeable future action that is considered in this review. 
It is expected, however, that the proposed EPU, if approved, would be 
completed prior to the construction of any proposed new reactor. Thus, 
the cumulative impacts discussed in this section consider GGNS Unit 1 
operations (under the EPU) combined with the environmental impacts from 
the proposed construction and operation of any new proposed unit.
    It is important to note that submitting the COL application does 
not commit Entergy to build a new nuclear power unit and does not 
constitute approval of the proposal by the NRC. The COL application 
will be evaluated on its merits, and after considering and evaluating 
the environmental and safety implications of the proposal, the NRC will 
decide whether to approve or deny the license. Environmental impacts of 
constructing and operating a new unit will depend on their actual 
design characteristics, construction practices, and power plant 
operations. These impacts will be assessed by the NRC in a separate 
NEPA document. The cumulative impacts presented in this EA may differ 
from those impacts assessed for the COL application.
    For some resource areas (e.g., air quality, water, aquatic, 
terrestrial resources, and threatened and endangered species), the 
contributory effect of ongoing actions within a region are regulated 
and monitored through a permitting process (e.g., NPDES and 401/404 
permits under the Clean Water Act) under State or Federal authority. In 
these cases, impacts are appropriately managed as long as these actions 
are in compliance with their respective permits and conditions of 
certification.
    Any new proposed reactor power unit, transmission lines, and 
related infrastructure improvements would be constructed and operated 
according to Federal and State regulations, permit conditions, existing 
procedures, and established best management practices. Nevertheless, 
wildlife may be destroyed or displaced during land clearing for any new 
proposed unit. Less mobile animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, and 
small mammals, would incur greater mortality than more mobile animals, 
such as birds. As construction activities end, habitats could be 
restored either naturally or through mitigation activities.
    Terrestrial species and habitat could be affected by any new 
proposed unit's cooling system operations. New capacity for cooling and 
its placement will have to be determined. Also, any land needed for any 
new proposed units and any additional cooling capacity will need to be 
surveyed for historical and archaeological sites.
    Socioeconomic impacts from the construction and operation of any 
proposed units would occur several years after the EPU. The large 
construction and operation workforces combined with ongoing operation 
of GGNS Unit 1 under the EPU would be expected to have a noticeable 
effect on socioeconomic conditions in local communities from the 
increased demand for temporary and permanent housing, public services 
(e.g., public schools), and increased traffic.
Non-Radiological Impacts Summary
    As discussed above, the proposed EPU would not result in any 
significant non-radiological impacts. Table 2 summarizes the non-
radiological

[[Page 27812]]

environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at GGNS.

       Table 2--Summary of Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use..........................  The proposed EPU is not expected to
                                     cause a significant impact on land
                                     use conditions and aesthetic
                                     resources in the vicinity of the
                                     GGNS.
Air Quality.......................  The proposed EPU is not expected to
                                     cause a significant impact to air
                                     quality.
Water Use.........................  The proposed EPU is not expected to
                                     cause impacts significantly greater
                                     than current operations. No
                                     significant impact on groundwater
                                     or surface water resources.
Aquatic Resources.................  The proposed EPU is not expected to
                                     cause impacts significantly greater
                                     than current operations. No
                                     significant impact to aquatic
                                     resources due to additional
                                     chemical or thermal discharges.
Terrestrial Resources.............  The proposed EPU is not expected to
                                     cause impacts significantly greater
                                     than current operations. No
                                     significant impact to terrestrial
                                     resources.
Threatened and Endangered Species.  The proposed EPU would not cause
                                     impacts significantly greater than
                                     current operations. No significant
                                     impact to Federally listed species.
Historic and Archaeological         No significant impact to historic
 Resources.                          and archaeological resources on
                                     site or in the vicinity of the
                                     GGNS.
Socioeconomics....................  No significant socioeconomic impacts
                                     from EPU-related temporary increase
                                     in workforce.
Environmental Justice.............  No disproportionately high and
                                     adverse human health and
                                     environmental effects on minority
                                     and low-income populations in the
                                     vicinity of the GGNS site.
Cumulative Impacts................  The proposed EPU would not cause
                                     impacts significantly greater than
                                     current operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radiological Impacts

Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid Effluents and Solid Waste
    GGNS Unit 1 uses waste treatment systems to collect, process, 
recycle, and dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that contain 
radioactive material in a safe and controlled manner within NRC and EPA 
radiation safety standards. The licensee's evaluation of plant 
operation under the proposed EPU conditions shows that no physical 
changes would be needed to the radioactive gaseous, liquid, or solid 
waste systems.
Radioactive Gaseous Effluents
    The gaseous waste management systems include the ventilation 
systems of normally and potentially radioactive components, building 
ventilation systems, the off-gas system, and the mechanical vacuum pump 
system. The licensee's evaluation concluded that the proposed EPU is 
expected to increase the production and activity of gaseous effluents 
approximately 13 percent; however, the increase would be below the 
design basis values the system is designed to handle. The licensee's 
evaluation concluded that the proposed EPU would not change the 
radioactive gaseous waste system's design function and reliability to 
safely control and process the waste. The projected gaseous releases 
following implementation of the EPU would remain within the values 
analyzed in the FES for GGNS Unit 1. The existing equipment and plant 
procedures that control radioactive releases to the environment will 
continue to be used to maintain radioactive gaseous releases within the 
dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1302 and the as low as is reasonably 
achievable (ALARA) dose objectives in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
Radioactive Liquid Effluents
    The liquid waste management system collects, processes, and 
prepares radioactive liquid waste for disposal. Radioactive liquid 
wastes include liquids from various equipment drains, floor drains, 
chemical wastes, and miscellaneous plant equipment subsystems, and 
alternative liquid radioactive waste processing equipment. Entergy is 
installing a condensate full flow filter (CFFF)--iron control system 
upstream of the condensate demineralizers to reduce the corrosion 
product loading on the demineralizer resins. The addition of iron 
control to the CFFF would prevent iron from being deposited on the 
demineralization resin. The amount of liquid waste generated by the 
condensate demineralizer system is expected to remain unchanged or even 
decrease. The licensee's evaluation shows that the proposed EPU 
implementation would not significantly increase the inventory of liquid 
normally processed by the liquid waste management system. This is 
because the system functions are not changing, and the volume inputs 
remain the same. The proposed EPU would result in a 13 percent increase 
in the equilibrium radioactivity in the reactor coolant which in turn 
would impact the concentrations of radioactive nuclides in the liquid 
waste disposal systems.
    Since the composition of the radioactive material in the waste and 
the volume of radioactive material processed through the system are not 
expected to significantly change, the current design and operation of 
the radioactive liquid waste system will accommodate the effects of the 
proposed EPU. The projected liquid effluent release following EPU 
implementation would remain within the values analyzed in the FES for 
GGNS Unit 1. The existing equipment and plant procedures that control 
radioactive releases to the environment will continue to be used to 
maintain radioactive liquid releases within the dose limits of 10 CFR 
20.1302 and ALARA dose standards in Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50.
Radioactive Solid Wastes
    The solid radwaste system is designed to provide solidification and 
packaging for radioactive wastes that are produced during shutdown, 
startup, and normal operation, and to store these wastes until they are 
shipped offsite for burial. Solid radwaste is processed on a batch 
basis and would increase slightly, resulting in an increase in batch 
processing. The licensee's evaluation concluded that the annual volume 
of solid waste is expected to increase from 152.83 cubic meters (m\3\) 
at current licensed thermal power to 153.65 m\3\ per year, or 0.82 m\3\ 
per year. Although EPU implementation increases the amount of solid 
waste produced, the design capability of the solid radwaste system and 
the total volume capacity for handling solid waste are unaffected, and 
the system will be able to handle the additional waste without any 
modifications. The equipment is

[[Page 27813]]

designed and operated to process the waste into a form that minimizes 
potential harm to the workers and the environment. Waste processing 
areas are monitored for radiation, and there are safety features to 
ensure worker doses are maintained within regulatory limits. The 
proposed EPU would not generate a new type of waste or create a new 
waste stream.
    The licensee manages low level radioactive waste (LLRW) 
contractually with an offsite vendor and expects to continue to ship 
LLRW offsite for processing and disposal. Entergy currently transports 
radioactive waste to licensed processing facilities in Tennessee, 
including Duratek (owned by EnergySolutions) or Race (owned by 
Studsvik), where the wastes are processed prior to being sent for 
disposal at EnergySolutions in Clive, Utah.
    Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the impact from 
the proposed EPU on the management of radioactive solid waste would not 
be significant.
Occupational Radiation Dose at EPU Power Levels
    The licensee stated that the in-plant radiation sources are 
expected to increase approximately linearly with the proposed increase 
in core power level. To protect the workers, the licensee's radiation 
protection program monitors radiation levels throughout the plant to 
establish appropriate work controls, training, temporary shielding, and 
protective equipment requirements so that worker doses will remain 
within the dose limits of 10 CFR part 20 and ALARA.
    The licensee states that GGNS Unit 1 has been designed using an 
extremely conservative basis for water and steam radionuclide 
concentrations such that changes in actual concentrations as a result 
of EPU are well within the original design limits. Inside containment, 
the radiation levels near the reactor vessel are assumed to increase by 
13 percent. However, the reactor vessel is inaccessible during 
operation, and because of the margin in the shielding around the 
reactor vessel, an increase of 13 percent would not measurably increase 
occupational doses during power operation. The radiation levels due to 
spent fuel are anticipated to increase by 13 percent. Expected 
increases in these values would occur primarily in fuel handling 
operations during refueling outages. However, a review of existing 
radiation zoning design concluded that no changes in the radiation zone 
designations or shielding requirements would need to be made as a 
result of EPU, and operation under EPU conditions would have no 
significant effect on occupational and onsite radiation exposure.
    Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed EPU 
is not expected to significantly affect radiation levels within the 
plants and, therefore, there would not be a significant radiological 
impact to the workers.
Offsite Doses at EPU Power Levels
    The licensee states that normal operational gaseous activity levels 
may increase slightly. The increase in activity levels is generally 
proportional to the percentage increase in core thermal power, which is 
approximately 13 percent. However, this slight increase does not affect 
the large margin to the offsite dose limits established by 10 CFR part 
20, allowing GGNS to operate well below the regulatory limits even at 
the higher power level.
    The sources of offsite dose to members of the public from GGNS Unit 
1 are radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents and direct radiation. As 
previously discussed, operation at the proposed EPU conditions will not 
change the radioactive waste management systems' abilities to perform 
their intended functions. Also, there would be no change to the 
radiation monitoring system and procedures used to control the release 
of radioactive effluents in accordance with NRC radiation protection 
standards in 10 CFR part 20 and Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50.
    Based on the above, the NRC staff concluded that the offsite 
radiation dose to members of the public from the proposed EPU would 
continue to be within the NRC and EPA regulatory limits and, therefore, 
would not be significant.
Spent Nuclear Fuel
    Spent fuel from GGNS Unit 1 is stored in the plant's spent fuel 
pool and in dry casks in the independent spent fuel storage 
installation. The current typical average enrichment of a batch of fuel 
at GGNS is approximately 4 percent by weight uranium-235. The 
additional energy requirements for the EPU are met by an increase in 
fuel enrichment, an increase in the reload fuel batch size, and/or 
changes in the fuel loading pattern to maintain the desired plant 
operating cycle length. The equilibrium core evaluated for the EPU has 
an average enrichment well below 4.5 percent uranium-235 by weight. 
Entergy's EPU evaluation also considered a possible future change to a 
24-month refueling cycle; the combination of the EPU and the longer 
cycle length could result in an increase in fuel bundle assembly size 
from 312 to about 380 assemblies. The maximum average burnup level of 
any fuel rod would continue to be less than 62,000 megawatt-days per 
metric tonne (MWd/MTU), and reload design goals would maintain the GGNS 
Unit 1 fuel cycles within the burnup and enrichment limits bounded by 
the impacts analyzed in 10 CFR part 51, Table S-3--Table of Uranium 
Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, and Table S-4--Environmental Impact of 
Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled 
Nuclear Power Reactor, as supplemented by NUREG-1437, Volume 1, 
Addendum 1, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 
Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report. Section 6.3--Transportation 
Table 9.1, Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of 
nuclear power plants.'' Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there 
would be no significant impacts resulting from spent nuclear fuel.
Postulated Design-Basis Accident Doses
    Postulated design-basis accidents are evaluated by both the 
licensee and the NRC to ensure that GGNS Unit 1 can withstand normal 
and abnormal transients and a broad spectrum of postulated accidents 
without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public.
    The NRC staff is reviewing the applicant's analyses to 
independently verify the applicant's calculated doses under accident 
conditions. The NRC staff's evaluation results will be contained in the 
safety evaluation that will be issued concurrently with the proposed 
EPU amendment, if so approved by the NRC staff. However, for the 
purpose of this EA, the NRC staff concludes that, based on the 
information provided by the licensee, the proposed EPU would not 
significantly increase the radiological consequences of postulated 
accidents.
Radiological Cumulative Impacts
    The radiological dose limits for protection of the public and 
workers have been developed by the NRC and EPA to address the 
cumulative impact of acute and long-term exposure to radiation and 
radioactive material. These dose limits are codified in 10 CFR Part 20 
and 40 CFR part 190.
    The cumulative radiation dose to the public and workers are 
required to be within the limits set forth in the regulations cited 
above. The public dose limit of 25 millirem (mrem) (0.25 millisievert 
(mSv)) in 40 CFR part 190 applies to all reactors that may be on a

[[Page 27814]]

site and also includes any other nearby nuclear facilities. Currently, 
there is no other nuclear power reactor or uranium fuel cycle facility 
located near GGNS Unit 1. However, as previously discussed, Entergy is 
considering the construction of an additional nuclear power reactor at 
the GGNS site. The NRC staff reviewed several years of radiation dose 
data contained in the licensee's annual radioactive effluent release 
reports for GGNS Unit 1. The data demonstrate that the dose to members 
of the public from radioactive effluents is within the limits of 10 CFR 
part 20 and 40 CFR Part 190. To evaluate the projected dose at EPU 
power levels for GGNS Unit 1, the NRC staff increased the actual dose 
data contained in the reports by 13 percent. The projected doses for 
GGNS Unit 1 at EPU power level remained within regulatory limits. The 
NRC staff expects continued compliance with NRC's and EPA's public dose 
limits during operation at the proposed EPU power level and at the 
proposed new reactor, if it is constructed and operated. Therefore, the 
NRC staff concludes that there would not be a significant cumulative 
radiological impact to members of the public from increased radioactive 
effluents from GGNS Unit 1 at the proposed EPU operation and the 
proposed new reactor.
    As previously discussed, the licensee has a radiation protection 
program that maintains worker doses within the dose limits in 10 CFR 
part 20 during all phases of GGNS Unit 1 operations. The NRC staff 
expects continued compliance with NRC's occupational dose limits during 
operation at the proposed EPU power level and at the proposed new 
reactor, if it is constructed and operated.
    Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that operation of GGNS Unit 1 at 
the proposed EPU power level and the proposed new reactor would not 
result in a significant impact to the worker's cumulative radiological 
dose.
Radiological Impacts Summary
    As discussed above, the proposed EPU would not result in any 
significant radiological impacts. Table 3 summarizes the radiological 
environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at GGNS Unit 1.

         Table 3--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radioactive Gaseous Effluents.....  Amount of additional radioactive
                                     gaseous effluents generated would
                                     be handled by the existing system.
Radioactive Liquid Effluents......  Amount of additional radioactive
                                     liquid effluents generated would be
                                     handled by the existing system.
Occupational Radiation Doses......  Occupational doses would continue to
                                     be maintained within NRC limits.
Offsite Radiation Doses...........  Radiation doses to members of the
                                     public would remain below NRC and
                                     EPA radiation protection standards.
Radioactive Solid Waste...........  Amount of additional radioactive
                                     solid waste generated would be
                                     handled by the existing system.
Spent Nuclear Fuel................  The spent fuel characteristics will
                                     remain within the bounding criteria
                                     used in the impact analysis in 10
                                     CFR Part 51, Table S-3, and Table S-
                                     4.
Postulated Design- Basis Accident   Calculated doses for postulated
 Doses.                              design-basis accidents would remain
                                     within NRC limits.
Cumulative Radiological...........  Radiation doses to the public and
                                     plant workers would remain below
                                     NRC and EPA radiation protection
                                     standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternatives to the 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, if the EPU were not approved for GGNS 
Unit 1, other agencies and electric power organizations may be required 
to pursue other means, such as fossil fuel or alternative fuel power 
generation, to provide electric generation capacity to offset future 
demand. Construction and operation of such a fossil-fueled or 
alternative-fueled plant could result in impacts in air quality, land 
use, and waste management greater than those identified for the 
proposed EPU for GGNS Unit 1.

Alternative Use of Resources

    The action does not involve the use of any different resources than 
those previously considered in the GGNS FES.

IV. Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the details provided in the EA, the NRC concludes 
that granting the proposed EPU license amendment is not expected to 
cause impacts significantly greater than current operations. Therefore, 
the proposed action of implementing the EPU for GGNS Unit 1 will not 
have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment 
because no significant permanent changes are involved, and the 
temporary impacts are within previously disturbed areas at the site and 
the capacity of the plant systems. As discussed in the EA, if any new 
land disturbances are required to support the proposed EPU, those 
activities will be conducted in accordance with State and Federal 
permits to ensure the potential impacts are not significant. 
Accordingly, the NRC has determined it is not necessary to prepare an 
environmental impact statement for the proposed action. A final 
determination to prepare an environmental impact statement or a final 
finding of no significant impact will not be made until the public 
comment period expires.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of May 2012.
Alan B. Wang,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-11423 Filed 5-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P