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, 17128-17133 [E5-1478]
Download as PDF
17128
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 63 / Monday, April 4, 2005 / Notices
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
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.
AGENCY:
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.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:19 Apr 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
Additionally, the component cooling
water system serves as the station’s
ultimate heat sink and is designed to
remove heat from the plant during
normal operation, shutdown, or
emergency shutdown.
Three-quarters of a mile downstream
from the Waterford 3 site is the Bonnet
´
´
Carre Spillway. The Bonnet Carre
Spillway is a vital element of the
comprehensive plan for flood control in
the Lower Mississippi Valley. It is
located on the east bank of the
Mississippi River, approximately 25
miles above New Orleans and was
constructed to divert approximately
250,000 cubic feet per second of
floodwaters from the Mississippi River
to Lake Pontchartrain to prevent
overtopping of levees at and below New
Orleans, assuring the safety of New
Orleans and the downstream delta area
during major floods on the Lower
Mississippi.
Identification of the Proposed Action
By letter dated November 13, 2003,
Entergy proposed to increase the
maximum thermal power level of
Waterford 3 by approximately 8 percent,
from 3441 MWt to 3716 MWt. The
change is considered an EPU because it
would raise the reactor core power level
more than 7 percent above the originally
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
This assessment summarizes the nonradiological 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
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 63 / Monday, April 4, 2005 / Notices
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-ofway 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 milliampere. 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:19 Apr 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17129
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
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
17130
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 63 / Monday, April 4, 2005 / Notices
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
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:19 Apr 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
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-ofway 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
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 powergenerating 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 nonradiological 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 nonradiological impacts were identified or
would be expected. Table 1 summarizes
the non-radiological environmental
impacts of the proposed EPU at
Waterford 3.
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 63 / Monday, April 4, 2005 / Notices
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.
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.
No increase in the water withdrawal rate from the river. Water withdrawal rate remains consistent with previous levels.
No change in groundwater use.
No significant increase in temperature or heat load. Current LPDES Permit has adequate limits
to accommodate any expected temperature and heat load increases.
No expected change to chemical use and subsequent discharge, or sanitary waste systems;
no change in pollutants to once-through cooling water effluent. No changes to sanitary
waste discharges.
No expected increased impact on aquatic biota.
Historically not a problem. Additional heat is not expected to affect frequency of heat shock
events or significantly increase the impact to aquatic biota.
No additional impact on terrestrial biota.
No expected increased impact on threatened and endangered species as a result of the EPU.
No significant change in size of Waterford 3 workforce.
Transmission Facilities .......................................
Water Use Surface Water ..................................
Groundwater .......................................................
Discharge Thermal Discharge ............................
Chemical and Sanitary Discharge ......................
Aquatic Biota .......................................................
Thermal Discharge (Heat Shock) .......................
Terrestrial Biota ..................................................
Threatened and Endangered Species ................
Social and Economic ..........................................
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
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:19 Apr 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
17132
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 63 / Monday, April 4, 2005 / Notices
a linear increase in the occupational
exposure due to the EPU, the projected
in-plant occupational exposure would
increase to approximately 88 personrem/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 weightpercent 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 ................................
Gaseous Waste ..................................................
No change in design or operation of waste streams.
Slight increase in amount of radioactive material in gaseous effluents; within FES estimate; offsite doses would continue to be well within NRC criteria.
Slight increase in amount of radioactive material in liquid effluents; within FES estimate; offsite
doses would continue to be well within NRC criteria.
No significant change in radioactive resins; no significant changes in dry waste; no significant
changes in irradiated components.
Up to 9.6 percent increase in collective occupational dose possible; well within FES estimate.
Slight increase possible; not significant; offsite doses would continue to be within NRC criteria.
Up to 9.6 percent increase in calculated doses from some postulated accidents; calculated
doses within NRC criteria.
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.
Liquid Waste .......................................................
Solid Waste .........................................................
Dose Impacts Occupational Dose ......................
Offsite Direct Dose .............................................
Postulated Accidents ..........................................
Fuel Cycle and Transportation ...........................
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
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:19 Apr 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 fossilfueled plant would create impacts in air
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 63 / Monday, April 4, 2005 / Notices
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
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
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, https://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 email at pdr@nrc.gov.
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 email at nxk@nrc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 28th
day of March, 2005.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:19 Apr 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
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]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste
Meeting on Planning and Procedures;
Notice of Meeting
The Advisory Committee on Nuclear
Waste (ACNW) will hold a Planning and
Procedures meeting on April 18, 2005,
Room T–2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting
will be open to public attendance, with
the exception of a portion that may be
closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2)
and (6) to discuss organizational and
personnel matters that relate solely to
internal personnel rules and practices of
ACNW, and information the release of
which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy.
The agenda for the subject meeting
shall be as follows:
Monday, April 18, 2005—8:30 a.m.–
10:30 a.m.
The Committee will discuss proposed
ACNW activities and related matters.
The purpose of this meeting is to gather
information, analyze relevant issues and
facts, and formulate proposed positions
and actions, as appropriate, for
deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to
provide oral statements and/or written
comments should notify the Designated
Federal Official, Mr. Richard K. Major
(Telephone: 301/415–7366) between 8
a.m. and 5:15 p.m. (e.t.) five days prior
to the meeting, if possible, so that
appropriate arrangements can be made.
Electronic recordings will be permitted
only during those portions of the
meeting that are open to the public.
Further information regarding this
meeting can be obtained by contacting
the Designated Federal Official between
8:30 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. (e.t.). Persons
planning to attend this meeting are
urged to contact the above named
individual at least two working days
prior to the meeting to be advised of any
potential changes in the agenda.
March 29, 2005.
Michael L. Scott,
Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. E5–1477 Filed 4–1–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17133
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–51441; File No. SR–FICC–
2005–06]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed
Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To
Change the Minimum Margin
Deficiency Call Amount for
Participants in Its Mortgage-Backed
Securities Division
March 28, 2005.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Act’’),1 notice is hereby given that on
March 11, 2005, the Fixed Income
Clearing Corporation (‘‘FICC’’) filed
with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the
proposed rule change described in Items
I, II, and III below, which items have
been prepared primarily by FICC. The
Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested parties.
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Terms of Substance of
the Proposed Rule Change
The purpose of this proposed rule
change is to change the minimum
margin deficiency call amount for
participants in the Mortgage-Backed
Securities Division (‘‘MBSD’’) of FICC.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
In its filing with the Commission,
FICC included statements concerning
the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any
comments it received on the proposed
rule change. The text of these statements
may be examined at the places specified
in Item IV below. FICC has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B),
and (C) below, of the most significant
aspects of these statements.2
(A) Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
The purpose of the proposed rule
change is to change the minimum
margin deficiency call amount for
MBSD participants to the lesser of
$250,000 or 25 percent of the value of
a participant’s margin deposit.
Currently, the MBSD’s procedures
establish a minimum margin deficiency
1 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
Commission has modified the text of the
summaries prepared by FICC.
2 The
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 63 (Monday, April 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17128-17133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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, https://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 pdr@nrc.gov.
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 nxk@nrc.gov.
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