60672 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2004 / Notices 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

information and final status surveys 

submitted by Brooke Army Medical 

Center. Based on its review, the staff 

determined there were no radiological 

or non-radiological remediation 

activities required to complete the 

proposed action. Additionally, there are 

no outdoor areas affected by the use of 

licensed materials. The staff has 

therefore concluded that the release of 

Brooke Army Medical Center’s Building 

2630, except for rooms 120 and 156, for 

unrestricted use is acceptable. The only 

alternative to the proposed action of 

releasing the facility for unrestricted use 

is no action. The no-action alternative is 

not acceptable because it is inconsistent 

with the NRC’s Timeliness Rule (10 CFR 

30.36), which requires licensees to 

decommission their facilities when 

licensed activities cease in any separate 

building or outdoor area, and 

subsequently request release of the 

respective building or outdoor area. 

Denial of the license amendment 

request would result in no change to 

current conditions at the facility. 

III. Finding of No Significant Impact 

The staff has prepared an EA in 

support of the proposed license 

amendment to release Building 2630, 

except for rooms 120 and 156 for 

unrestricted use. The staff has found 

that the environmental impacts from the 

proposed amendment are bounded by 

the impacts evaluated by NUREG–1496, 

Volumes 1–3, ‘‘Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement in Support of 

Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for 

License Termination of NRC-Licensed 

Facilities’’ (ML042310492, 

ML042320379, and ML042330385). The 

staff has also found that the nonradiological impacts are not significant. 

On the basis of the EA, NRC has 

concluded that there are no significant 

environmental impacts from the 

proposed amendment and has 

determined not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

IV. Further Information 

Documents related to this action, 

including the application for 

amendment and supporting 

documentation, are available 

electronically at the NRC’s Electronic 

Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/

reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, 

you may access the NRC’s Agencywide 

Document Access and Management 

System (ADAMS), which provides text 

and image files of NRC’s public 

documents. The ADAMS accession 

numbers for the documents related to 

this notice are: Licensee’s Amendment 

Request (ML040570755), NRC’s Request 

for Additional Information 

(ML040960238), Licensee’s Response to 

Request (ML041600167), and 

Environmental Assessment 

(ML042670059). If you do not have 

access to ADAMS or if there are 

problems in accessing the documents 

located in ADAMS, contact the NRC 

Public Document Room (PDR) Reference 

staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737 

or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

These documents may also be viewed 

electronically on the public computers 

located at the NRC’s Public Document 

Room (PDR), O 1 F21, One White Flint 

North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

MD 20852. The PDR reproduction 

contractor will copy documents for a 

fee.

Dated at Arlington, Texas this 4th day of 

October, 2004.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Jack E. Whitten, 

Chief, Nuclear Materials Licensing Branch, 

Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region 

4.

[FR Doc. 04–22787 Filed 10–8–04; 9:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–382] 

Entergy Operations, Inc.; Waterford 

Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 Draft 

Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Related to the Proposed License 

Amendment To Increase the Maximum 

Reactor Power Level

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC).

ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The NRC has prepared a draft 

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 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 draft 

environmental assessment and finding 

of no significant impact is being 

published in the Federal Register with 

a 30-day public comment period. 

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 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2004 / Notices 60673

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 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 

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 

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 

60674 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2004 / Notices 

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 oncethrough cooling water will not change 

as a result of the power uprate. The 

concentration of pollutants in the oncethrough effluent stream will remain the 

same and have insignificant impact. 

3. Sanitary Waste Discharge 

Sanitary wastes at the Waterford 3 

facility are discharged to an onsite 

sewage treatment plant. 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 

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-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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2004 / Notices 60675

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 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.

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 Discharge ........ 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. 

Aquatic Biota ........................................ No expected increased impact on aquatic biota. 

Thermal Discharge (Heat Shock) ......... Historically not a problem. Additional 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 Species No expected increased impact on 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 

60676 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2004 / Notices 

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 

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 

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2004 / Notices 60677

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 Dose Up to 9.6 percent increase in collective 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 Function;’’ 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 fossilfueled 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 operator of 

fossil facilities outside the 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 August 13, 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.

DATES: The comment period expires 

November 12, 2004. Comments received 

after this date will be considered if it is 

practical to do so, but the Commission 

is able to assure consideration of 

comments received on or before this 

date.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments 

to Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, 

Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T–6 

D59, Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

Written comments may also be 

delivered to 11545 Rockville Pike, Room 

T–6D59, Rockville, Maryland 20852, 

from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. on Federal 

workdays. Copies of written comments 

received will be electronically available 

at the NRC’s Public Electronic Reading 

Room link http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html on the NRC Homepage 

or at the NRC’s Public Document Room 

located at One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland. If you do not have access to 

ADAMS or if there are problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS, contact the NRC Public 

Document Room Reference staff at 1–

800–397–4209, or 301–415–4737, or by 

e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC 

is considering issuance of an 

amendment to Facility Operating 

License No. NPF–38 issued to Entergy 

for operation of Waterford 3 located in 

St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.

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 email at nxk@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day 

of September 2004.

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. 04–22786 Filed 10–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Biweekly Notice; Applications and 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses Involving No Significant 

Hazards Considerations 

I. Background 

Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission or NRC 

staff) is publishing this regular biweekly 

notice. The Act requires the 

Commission publish notice of any 

amendments issued, or proposed to be 

issued and grants the Commission the 

authority to issue and make 

immediately effective any amendment 

to an operating license upon a 

determination by the Commission that 

such amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration, notwithstanding 

the pendency before the Commission of 

a request for a hearing from any person. 

This biweekly notice includes all 

notices of amendments issued, or 

proposed to be issued, from September 

17, 2004, through September 30, 2004. 

The last biweekly notice was published 

on September 28, 2004 (69 FR 57978).