Entergy Operations, Inc.; Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 41814-41824 [2012-17228]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41814-41824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17228]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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


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

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final environmental assessment and finding of no significant 
impact; issuance.

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

SUMMARY: 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, Mississippi, in accordance with NRC's 
regulations. Therefore, the NRC has prepared this final environmental 
assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the 
proposed action.

ADDRESSES: 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 are publicly available, using any of the following 
methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2012-0105. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): 
You may access publicly available documents online in the NRC Library 
at https://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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number 
for each document referenced in this notice (if that document is 
available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is 
referenced. 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), April 26, 2012, May 9, 2012, and June 12, 
2012. 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, 
April 18, 2012 (two letters), April 26, 2012, and May 9, 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:

[[Page 41815]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Document date                   Accession No.          Document date          Accession No.         Document date          Accession No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/8/2010...........................  ML120660409..............           6/8/2011  ML111590836.............         11/14/2011  ML113190403
11/18/2010.........................  ML103260003..............          6/15/2011  ML111670059.............         11/25/2011  ML113290137
11/23/2010.........................  ML103330093..............          6/21/2011  ML111730235.............         11/28/2011  ML113320403
2/23/2011..........................  ML110540534..............          6/23/2011  ML111750244.............         12/19/2011  ML113530656
2/23/2011..........................  ML110540540..............           7/6/2011  ML111880138.............           2/6/2012  ML12039A071
2/23/2011..........................  ML110540545..............          7/28/2011  ML112101485.............          2/15/2012  ML120470138
2/23/2011..........................  ML110550318..............          8/25/2011  ML112370770.............          2/20/2012  ML12054A038
3/9/2011...........................  ML110680507..............          8/29/2011  ML112410566.............          3/13/2012  ML120740083
3/9/2011...........................  ML110730025..............          8/30/2011  ML112420169.............          3/21/2012  ML12082A025
3/22/2011..........................  ML110820262..............           9/2/2011  ML112490050.............           4/5/2012  ML12097A055
3/30/2011..........................  ML110900275..............           9/9/2011  ML112521284.............          4/18/2012  ML12109A308
3/31/2011..........................  ML110900586..............          9/12/2011  ML112550495.............          4/18/2012  ML12109A290
4/14/2011..........................  ML111050134..............          9/15/2011  ML112580223.............          4/26/2012  ML12118A145
4/21/2011..........................  ML11112A098..............          9/26/2011  ML112690143.............           5/9/2012  ML12131A535
5/3/2011...........................  ML111240288..............         10/10/2011  ML112840155.............          6/12/2012  ML12165A250
5/5/2011...........................  ML111250552..............         10/10/2011  ML112840171.............                     ........................
5/11/2011..........................  ML111320263..............         10/24/2011  ML112980113.............                     ........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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.

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: 
AlanWang@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    The NRC published a notice in the Federal Register requesting 
public review and comment on a draft EA and FONSI for the proposed 
action on May 11, 2012 (77 FR 27804), and established June 11, 2012, as 
the deadline for submitting public comments. The NRC has received no 
comments regarding the draft EA.

II. Environmental Assessment

Plant Site and Environs

    The GGNS Unit 1 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. The GGNS Unit 1 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 Unit 1 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

[[Page 41816]]

those associated with EPU, are reviewed in accordance with Entergy 
procedures to ensure that necessary environmental protection measures 
are implemented during the project. Entergy states 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 the 
EPU, which will also results in an increase in water loss through 
evaporation, blowdown, and drift. A new radial well has been installed 
to ensure sufficient cooling water is available to support the higher 
EPU power level because GGNS's 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 used the Port of Claiborne for delivery of new transformers 
and other heavy equipment associated with the proposed EPU. As such 
Entergy did not need to conduct any dredging activities in the existing 
barge slip area to accommodate delivery of such equipment.
    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.
    Since land use conditions would not change at the GGNS Unit 1 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 Unit 1 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). By 
letter dated September 9, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML112521284), the 
licensee informed the NRC that based on the determination that the 
modification to increase circulating water flow is not needed to 
support EPU conditions, the particulate emissions will not change 
significantly. In addition, the emission impact due to the lube oil 
tanks associated with the new radial wells is minor. Therefore, no 
change is required to the GGNS Air Permit 0420-00023 to the MDEQ prior 
to these activities occurring.
    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 and 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

[[Page 41817]]

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 was 
installed to provide additional water needed during EPU operating 
conditions. The new radial well was completed and made operational 
during the spring 2012 refueling outage. As previously discussed, the 
existing radial wells have degraded over time and thus cannot perform 
at their full design capacity. 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 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 
minimal 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

[[Page 41818]]

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 
[deg]F) when the mechanical draft auxiliary cooling tower is not in 
service, and less than 32.2 [deg]C (90 [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 [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 [deg]F) 
and that the maximum water temperature shall not exceed 32.2 [deg]C (90 
[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.
    Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes 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 be slightly higher but 
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.
    As the delivery of transformers and other heavy equipment 
associated with the proposed EPU were made at the Claiborne County Port 
facility, no dredging activities were needed at the existing barge slip 
area.
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

[[Page 41819]]

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 Unit 1.

    Table 1--Federally Listed Species in the Vicinity of GGNS Unit 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           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 https://www.fws.gov/endangered/
  (accessed 13 December 2011).

    As discussed in the Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts section, the 
only EPU activities involving land disturbance are the installation of 
a new radial well and Heavy Haul Road improvements. 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 Unit 1 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 Unit 1. 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 and Heavy Haul Road improvements. 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

[[Page 41820]]

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 a maximum of $20,000,000. 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 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 include the construction and 
licensing of GGNS Unit 1. Present actions include operations and 
maintenance activities associated with operations under the current NRC 
operating license through the date of that license's expiration 
(November 1, 2024). Reasonably foreseeable future actions are discussed 
below.
    Entergy submitted an application to the NRC for license renewal on 
October 28, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML113080132). The NRC is 
currently in the process of reviewing this application and intends to 
publish a draft supplement to NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental 
Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,'' in December 
2012. If the NRC grants Entergy a new license, that license would 
authorize Entergy to operate GGNS Unit 1 for an additional 20 years 
(through November 1, 2044). For purposes of this analysis, the proposed 
license renewal is considered a reasonably foreseeable future action. 
In its Environmental Report for the proposed license renewal, Entergy 
concludes that cumulative impacts during the proposed license renewal

[[Page 41821]]

term would be small to moderate for land use and ecological resources 
but that these impacts would be effectively mitigated. Cumulative 
impacts to air quality and socioeconomics would be beneficial and small 
to moderate in scale, and the impacts to the remaining resources areas 
would be small. However, the draft supplement to NUREG-1437 will 
document the NRC's independent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
analysis and consider potential cumulative impacts of the proposed 
license renewal.
    Entergy submitted a combined license (COL) application to the NRC 
for an Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (designated as ``Grand 
Gulf, Unit 3'') on February 27, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML083570119). 
Entergy's COL application submission does not commit Entergy to build a 
new nuclear power unit; the application also does not constitute NRC's 
approval of the proposal. The NRC initiated a NEPA review as part of 
the review of Entergy's COL application. However, on January 9, 2009 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML090130174), Entergy informed the NRC that it was 
considering alternate reactor design technologies and requested that 
the NRC stop its COL application review until further notice. The NRC 
suspended its review associated with the COL application (including the 
NEPA review) and, to date, has not resumed that review. The NRC was in 
the process of preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) to 
evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed Grand Gulf, Unit 3. 
However, because the review was suspended, the NRC did not publish the 
EIS. At this time, NRC does not consider licensing of Grand Gulf, Unit 
3 to be a reasonably foreseeable future action because Entergy has not 
requested NRC to reinitiate its COL review to date. If in the future, 
Entergy submits a revised reactor design to the NRC for Grand Gulf, 
Unit 3, the NRC will evaluate the merits of that COL application and 
will decide whether to approve or deny the license after considering 
and evaluating the environmental and safety implications of the 
proposal. The environmental impacts of constructing and operating a new 
unit will depend on the unit's actual design characteristics, 
construction plans, and operations procedures. These impacts, including 
cumulative impacts, would be assessed by the NRC in a separate NEPA 
document.
    Previous to the COL application, the NRC issued an Early Site 
Permit (ESP) for Grand Gulf on April 5, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML070780457). Entergy submitted its ESP application for the Grand Gulf 
site to the NRC on October 16, 2003 (ADAMS Accession No. ML032960373). 
The NRC published NUREG-1817, ``Environmental Impact Statement for an 
Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Grand Gulf ESP Site, Final Report,'' in 
April 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML060900037), to document its NEPA 
analysis associated with the ESP application review. Chapter 7 of 
NUREG-1817 addresses cumulative impacts and concludes that impacts 
would range from small to moderate depending on the particular resource 
area, but that in several cases (land use, water use and water quality, 
terrestrial ecosystems, nonradiological health, radiological impacts of 
operation of non-light-water reactor designs, and decommissioning), 
information was not available to determine the level of impact. In 
these cases, the NRC noted that a future COL application would be 
required for the staff to determine the specific impacts based on 
proposed design characteristics, construction plans, and operations 
procedures. However, as discussed above, Entergy has requested that NRC 
suspend its COL application review, and thus, NRC does not have the 
information required to make determinations on the cumulative impacts 
that would result from a new reactor.
Non-Radiological Impacts Summary
    As previously discussed, the proposed EPU would not result in any 
significant non-radiological impacts. Table 2 summarizes the non-
radiological 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 have no effect on Federally threatened
                                                  and endangered species.
Historic and Archaeological Resources..........  The proposed EPU would have no significant impact to historic
                                                  and archaeological resources on site or in the vicinity of the
                                                  GGNS.
Socioeconomics.................................  The proposed EPU would have no significant socioeconomic
                                                  impacts from EPU-related temporary increase in workforce.
Environmental Justice..........................  The proposed EPU would have 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

[[Page 41822]]

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 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

[[Page 41823]]

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.
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 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        Calculated doses for postulated design-
 Accident Doses.                basis accidents would remain within NRC
                                limits.

[[Page 41824]]

 
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.

III. 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 not to prepare an environmental 
impact statement for the proposed action.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of July 2012.
Michael T. Markley,
Chief, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor 
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-17228 Filed 7-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P