Entergy Operations, Inc.; Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-382]

Entergy Operations, Inc.; Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit

3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.

NPF-38, issued to Entergy Operations, Inc., (the licensee), for

operation of the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford

3), located in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would change the Waterford 3 Technical

Specifications to allow an increase in the Waterford 3 Spent Fuel Pool

(SFP) storage capacity from 1088 to 2398 fuel assemblies, and to allow

an increase in the maximum fuel enrichment from 4.9 w/o (weight

percent) to 5.0 w/o U-235. The increase in spent fuel storage capacity

is achieved by replacing the existing spent fuel storage racks by the

higher density racks, a process referred to herein as ``reracking.''

The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application

for license amendment dated March 27, 1997, as supplemented by letters

dated April 3, July 21, October 23, November 13, and December 12, 1997,

January 21, January 29, March 23, May 1, May 19, May 21, May 28, and

June 12, 1998.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The Waterford 3 SFP currently contains 1088 storage cells in 16

spent fuel racks and full core off-load capability would be lost in the

year 2000. Under the proposed reracking, the 16 existing racks, which

contain Boraflex as the neutron absorber, would be removed and replaced

by new high density modules. There are no commercial independent spent

fuel storage facilities operating in the U.S., nor are there any

domestic reprocessing facilities; therefore, the projected loss of

storage capacity in the Waterford 3 SFP would affect the licensee's

ability to operate Waterford 3. The proposed amendment will provide a

full core off-load capability through the end of Cycle 19 (Year 2018).

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

Radiological Impacts

The Waterford 3 uses waste treatment systems designed to collect

and process gaseous, liquid, and solid waste that might contain

radioactive material. These radioactive waste treatment systems are

evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated March 1973.

The proposed rerack will not involve any change in the waste treatment

systems described in the FES.

Radioactive Material Released to the Atmosphere

During reactor operation, a small percentage of the fuel assemblies

in the core are expected to develop leaks, resulting in a release of

fission products to the reactor coolant. The storage of additional

spent fuel assemblies in the SFP will not significantly affect the

release of radioactive gases from the SFP since fission products

generally do not escape from the SFP.

The higher fuel burnup used in the new rack analysis will result in

a higher concentration of Krypton-85 (Kr-85) in the reactor coolant,

some of which will be introduced into the SFP water during refuelings.

Accounting for this increased Kr-85 concentration in the SFP water, the

licensee calculated that the Kr-85 concentration in the air in the fuel

handling building would be two orders of magnitude lower than the

permissible effluent concentration for the general public (Appendix B

of 10 CFR Part 20).

Iodine-131 released from spent fuel assemblies to the SFP water

will not be significantly increased due to the expansion of the fuel

storage capacity since the Iodine-131 inventory in the fuel will decay

to negligible levels between refuelings.

Most of the tritium in the SFP water results from activation of

boron and lithium in the primary coolant. A relatively small amount of

tritium is produced during reactor operation by the fission process

within the reactor fuel. The subsequent diffusion of the tritium

through the fuel and cladding represents a small contribution to the

total amount of tritium in the SFP water. Tritium releases from the

fuel assemblies to the reactor coolant occur mainly during reactor

operation and, to a limited extent, shortly after shutdown. Since a

small portion of the tritium is due to fission in the fuel, the

increased fuel burnup will result in an increase in the amount of

tritium in the reactor coolant.

Most airborne releases of tritium from nuclear power plants result

during refuelings from evaporation of reactor coolant, which contains

tritium in higher concentrations than in the SFP. The storage of

additional spent fuel assemblies in the SFP is not expected to increase

the SFP bulk water temperature significantly above the 155 deg. used in

the design analysis and, therefore, evaporation rates from the SFP are

not expected to increase. The higher tritium concentrations in the SFP

water are expected to result in higher airborne tritium levels in the

fuel handling building. However, the licensee has calculated these

tritium levels to be lower than the permissible effluent concentrations

for the general public contained in Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 20.

Solid Radioactive Wastes

Spent resins are generated by the processing of SFP water through

the SFP purification system. These spent resins are replaced about two

to four times a year and are disposed of as solid radioactive waste.

The licensee will use a vacuum system with an underwater filtration

unit to clean the floor of the Cask Storage Pit prior to reracking and

the floor of the SFP following removal of the old SFP rack modules.

Vacuuming of the SFP and Cask Storage Pit will remove any extraneous

debris, reduce general contamination levels prior to diving operations,

and ensure visual clarity in the SFP to facilitate diving operations

and SFP rack changeout. The licensee also plans on hydrolazing the old

fuel rack modules with demineralized water before removal from the SFP

to remove any loose crud from the modules. If necessary, the licensee

may also use a wire brush or equivalent abrasive tool to assist in the

removal of hot particles. The licensee does not expect that the

additional fuel storage made possible by the increased storage capacity

will result in a significant change in the generation of solid radwaste

(in the form of spent resins).

Once the old SFP rack modules have been hydrolazed, they will be

placed into anti-contamination bags and loaded into shipping containers

for shipment offsite for decontamination and disposal. The licensee has

stated that the shipping containers and procedures will conform to all

applicable U.S.

[[Page 36723]]

Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or U.S. NRC regulations.

Liquid Radioactive Wastes

There should not be a significant increase in the liquid release of

radionuclides from the plant as a result of the modifications. The SFP

cooling and purification system operates as a closed system. The SFP

ion exchanger resins remove soluble radioactive materials from the SFP

water and the frequency of resin changeout may increase during the

installation of the new racks due to the more frequent fuel shuffling

and underwater hydrolazing of the old racks during removal. When the

resins are changed out, a small amount of resin sluice water is

released. However, the amount of liquid radioactive released to the

environment as a result of the proposed reracking is expected to be

negligible.

Occupational Doses

Radiation Protection personnel will constantly monitor the doses to

the workers during the reracking operation. Divers used to perform work

in the SFP will be equipped with five remote readout radiation

detectors, which will be continuously monitored by Radiation Protection

personnel. The total occupational dose to plant workers as a result of

the reracking operation is estimated to be between 6 and 12 person-rem.

This dose estimate is comparable to doses for similar SFP modifications

performed at other plants. The upcoming reracking operation will follow

detailed procedures prepared with full consideration of ALARA

principles. On the basis of our review of the Waterford 3 proposal, the

staff concludes that the Waterford 3 SFP rack modification can be

performed in a manner that will ensure that doses to workers will be

maintained as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). The estimated

dose of 6 to 12 person-rem to perform the proposed SFP rerack is a

small fraction of the annual collective dose accrued at Waterford 3.

Uranium Fuel Cycle and Transportation

The environmental impacts of transportation resulting from the use

of higher enrichment fuel are discussed in the staff assessment

entitled ``NRC Assessment of the Environmental Effects of

Transportation Resulting from Extended Fuel Enrichment and

Irradiation,'' dated July 7, 1988. This was published in the Federal

Register on August 11, 1988 (53 FR 30355), as corrected on August 24,

1988 (53 FR 32322), in connection with an Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact related to the Sheron Harris Nuclear

Power Plant, Unit 1. As indicated therein, the environmental cost

contribution of an increase in fuel enrichment of up to 5 weight

percent U-235 and irradiation limits of up to 60 gigawatt days per

metric ton (GWD/MT) are either unchanged, or may in fact be reduced

from those summarized in Table S-4 as set forth in 10 CFR 51.52(c).

These findings are applicable to the proposed amendment for Waterford

3. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that this proposed action

would result in no significant radiological environmental impact.

Accident Considerations

In its application, the licensee evaluated the possible

consequences of a fuel handling accident to determine the thyroid and

whole-body doses at the Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB), Low Population

Zone (LPZ), and Control Room. The proposed reracking of the Waterford 3

SFP will not affect any of the assumptions or inputs used in evaluating

the dose consequences of a fuel handling accident and therefore will

not result in an increase in the doses from a postulated fuel handling

accident.

Nonradiological Impact

The proposed amendment does not modify land use at the site; no new

facilities or laydown areas are needed to support the rerack or

operation after rerack; therefore, the proposed amendment does not

affect land use or land with historical or archeological sites. The

proposed action does not result in any significant changes to the types

and amounts of effluents that may be released offsite. Therefore, no

changes or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are

expected as a result of the amendment.

Summary

The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action.

The change will not increase the probability or consequences of

accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that

may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the

allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant

radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does not affect nonradiological plant effluents. Accordingly,

the Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological

environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable

environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any

alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be

evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff

considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the application

would not result in any significant change in current environmental

impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the

alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use of any resources not

previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the

Waterford 3.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy, on June 17, 1998, the staff

consulted with the Louisiana State official, Dr. Stan Shaw of the

Louisiana Radiation Protection Division, regarding the environmental

impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the

quality of the human environment.

Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an

environmental impact statement for the proposed action.

For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the

licensee's letter dated March 27, 1997, as supplemented by letters

dated April 3, July 21, October 23, November 13, and December 12, 1997,

January 21, January 29, March 23, May 1, May 19, May 21, May 28, and

June 12, 1998, which are available for public inspection at the

Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at

the University of New Orleans Library, Louisiana Collection, Lakefront,

New Orleans, LA 70122.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of June 1998.

[[Page 36724]]

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John N. Hannon,

Director, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects III/

IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98-17919 Filed 7-6-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P