NUREG-1437

Supplement 19

Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for

License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants

Supplement 19

Regarding

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2

Final Report.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Washington, DC 20555-0001
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS 1'

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at

NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at

http://www.nrc.cjov/readinp-rm.html.

Publicly released records include, to name a few,

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices;

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and

correspondence; NRC correspondence and Internal

memoranda; bulletins and information notices;

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event

reports; and Commission papers and their attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC

regulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Mail Stop SSOP

Washington, DC 20402-0001

Intemet: bookstore.gpo.gov

Telephone: 202-512-1800

Fax: 202-512-2250

2. The National Technical Information Service

Springfield, VA 22161-0002

www.ntis.gov

1-800-553-6847 or, locally. 703-605-6000

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written

request as follows:

Address: Office of the Chief Information Officer,

Reproduction and Distribution

Services Section

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION~nrc.gov

Facsimile: 301-415-2289

Some publications in the NUREG series that are

posted at NRC's Web site address httVn. tWc l/A^j^jg yVV.~ pnr. A4JI~*.** nn.Jrarinnrrm/n~r~n aIa.-.nne 0~*JM. .rane 

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical

libraries include all open literature items, such as

books, joumal articles, and transactions, Federal

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and

congressional reports. Such documents as theses,

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased

from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used In a

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are

maintained atThe NRC Technical Library

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852-2738

These standards are available in the library for

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the

originating organization or, if they are American

National Standards, fromAmerican National Standards Institute

11 West 427d Street

New York, NY 10036-8002

www.ansi.org

212-642-4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated

only In laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including

technical specifications; or orders, not in

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed

in contractor-prepared publications in this series are

not necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and

administrative reports and books prepared by the

staff (NUREG-XXXX) or agency contractors

(NUREGICR-XXXX), (2) proceedings of

conferences (NUREGICP-XXXX), (3) reports

resulting from Intemational agreements

(NUREG/IA-XXXX), (4) brochures

(NUREGIBR-X)XX), and (5) compilations of legal

decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic

and Safety Uicensing Boards and of Directors'

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC's regulations

(NUREG-0750).

&giu.Sw~w[|4.qvtgscuwa-|geuvu|~ I- - -4ult-:

are updated periodically and may differ from the last

printed version. Although references to material found

on a Web site bear the date the material was accessed,

the material available on the date cited may

subsequently be removed from the site.
NUREG-1437

Supplement 19

Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for

License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants

Supplement 19

Regarding

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2

Final Report

Manuscript Completed: April 2005

Date Published: April 2005

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001
Abstract

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considered the environmental impacts of

renewing nuclear power plant operating licenses (OLs) for a 20-year period in its Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License R enwalof Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437,

Volumes 1 and 2, and codified the results in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

Part 51. In the GEIS (and its Addendum 1), the staff identifies 92 environmental issues and

reaches generic conclusions related to environmental impacts for 69 of these issues that apply

to all plants or to plants with specific design or site characteristics. Additional plant-specific

review is required for the remaining 23 issues. These plant-specific reviews are to be included

in a supplement to the GEIS.

This supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to

an application submitted to the NRC by Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy), to renew the OL for

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2) for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54. This

SEIS includes the NRC staff's analysis that considers and weighs the environmental impacts of

the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and

mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. It also includes the

staff's recommendation regarding the proposed action.

Regarding the 69 issues for which the GEIS reached generic conclusions, neither Entergy nor

the staff has identified information that is both new and significant for any issue that applies to

ANO-2. In addition, the staff determined that information provided during the scoping process

did not call into question the conclusions in the GEIS. Therefore, the staff concludes that the

impacts of renewing the ANO-2 OL will not be greater than impacts identified for these issues in

the GEIS. For each of these issues, the staff's conclusion in the GEIS is that the impact is of

SMALL(a) significance (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and

high-level waste and spent fuel, which were not assigned a single significance level).

Regarding the remaining 23 issues, those that apply to ANO-2 are addressed in this SEIS. For

each applicable issue, the staff concludes that the significance of the potential environmental

impacts of renewal of the OL is SMALL. The staff also concludes that additional mitigation

measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial as to be warranted. The staff determined

that information provided during the environmental review did not identify any new issue that

has a significant environmental impact.

(a) Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor

noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

April 2005 ... Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Abstract

The NRC staff's recommendation is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for ANO-2 are not so great that preserving the option of

license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the Environmental Report

submitted by Entergy; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the staff's

own independent review; and (5) the staff's consideration of public comments.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 iv April 2005
Contents

Abstract..............................................................

Executive Summary .................. xv

Abbreviations/Acronyms ......... ......... xxi

1.0 Introduction .................. 1-1

1.1 Report Contents ............... ;.. 1-2

1.2 Background .1-3

1.2.1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement .1-3

1.2.2 License Renewal Evaluation Process .. 1-4

1.3 The Proposed Federal Action .1-7

1.4 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ....................... 1-8

1.5 Compliance and Consultations .................................... 1-8

1.6 References . .................................................. 1-9

2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site and Plant Interaction

with the Environment .2-1

2.1 Plant and Site Description and Proposed Plant Operation During the

License Renewal Term .2-1

2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting .2-4

2.1.2 Reactor Systems ......................................... 2-5

2.1.3 Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems .................... I ..... 2-7

2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems and Effluent

Control Systems ................... ........................... 2-7

2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent

Controls ........................................... 2-9

2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent

Controls .2-10

2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Processing .2-11

2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste'Systems .2-13

2.1.6 Plant Operation and Maintenance ............................. 2-13

April 2005 v Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Contents

2.1.7 Power Transmission System ................................ 2-14

2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment .............................. 2-16

2.2.1 Land Use ............ ................................... 2-16

2.2.2 Water Use ............ .................................. 2-16

2.2.3 Water Quality ............................................ 2-17

2.2.4 Air Quality ............ .................................. 2-17

2.2.5 Aquatic Resources ....................................... 2-19

2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources ..................................... 2-21

2.2.7 Radiological Impacts ...................................... 2-24

2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors .................................... 2-26

2.2.8.1 Housing .2-26

2.2.8.2 Public Services .......... ' . .......... 2-28

2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use .2-30

2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics and Noise .2-31

2.2.8.5 Demography .2-31

2.2.8.6 Economy .2-34

2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources ........................ 2-35

2.2.9.1 Cultural Background ................................ 2-35

2.2.9.2 Prehistoric and Historic Resources at the

Arkansas Nuclear One Site .......................... 2-37

2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations .... .......... 2-39

2.3 References ....................... ........................... 2-40

3.0 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment ................. ... ............ 3-1

3.1 References ....................... ........................... 3-3

4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation ....... ................ ............. 4-1

4.1 Cooling System ....................... ......................... 4-2

4.1.1 Water Use Conflicts (Makeup Water from a Small River) .... ...... 4-12

4.1.2 Microbiological Organisms (Public Health) ....................... 4-13

Final NUREG-1437. Supplement 19 vi April2005

11
Contents

4.2 Transmission Lines ........... .................................. 4-15

4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields - Acute Effects ........................ 4-18

4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields - Chronic Effects ...................... 4-19

4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations ......... .. ................ 4-20

4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations During the License

Renewal Term . ................................................. 4-21

4.4.1 Housing Impacts During Operations ............ ............... 4-23

4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts During Operations .... ...... 4-25

4.4.3 Offsite Land Use During Operations ........................... 4-27

4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts During Operations .... .... 4-28

4.4.5 Historic and Archaeologcicl Resources .4-29

4.4.6 Environmental Justice .4-31

4.5 Groundwater Use and Quality . 4-36

4.5.1 Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants Using Cooling Towers

Withdrawing Makeup Water from a Small River) .... ............. 4-37

4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species ............. .. ................. 4-38

4.7 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant Information on Impacts of

Operations During the License Renewal Term .. 4-39

4.8 Cumulative Impacts ........................... 4-40

4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Operation of the

Plant Cooling System .4-40

4.8.2 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Continued Operation of

Transmission Lines .4-41

4.8.3 Cumulative Radiological Impacts .4-42

4.8.4 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts .4-42

4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts on Groundwater Use and Quality . 4-43

4.8.6 Cumulative Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Species .... .... 4-43

4.9 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the License Renewal Term ..... 4-44

4.10 References . .................................................. 4-44

April 2005 vii Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Contents

5.0 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents .....................

5.1 Postulated Plant Accidents .................................

5.1.1 Design-Basis Accidents ..............................

5.1.2 Severe Accidents ...................................

5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives .......................

5.2.1 Introduction .......................................

5.2.2 Estimate of Risk ...................................

5.2.3 Potential Plant Improvements .........................

5.2.4 Evaluation of Risk Reduction and Costs of Improvements....

5.2.5 Cost-Benefit Comparison .............................

5.2.6 Conclusions ....................................

5.3 References ............................................

6.0 Environmental Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste

Management ................................................

6.1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle ...................................

6.2 References ............................................

7.0 Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning ........................

7.1 Decommissioning ........................................

7.2 References ............................................

8.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives to License Renewal .............

8.1 No-Action Alternative ......................................

8.2 Alternative Energy Sources .................................

.......

.......

.......

.......

.......

.......

.......

.......

.......

.......

.......

.......

5-1

5-1

5-2

5-3

5-4

5-5

5-5

5-7

5-7

5-8

5-8

5-9

6-1

6-2

6-9

7-1

7-2

7-4

.......

.......

.......

8-1

8-2

8-9

8.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation .....................................

8.2.1.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System ........................

8.2.1.2 Once-Through Cooling System .......................

A

8-11

8-11

8-22

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 viii ,pril 2005

i1
Contents

8.2.2 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation .................................. 8-23

8.2.2.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System ........................ 8-24

8.2.2.2 Once-Through Cooling System ....................... 8-34

8.2.3 Nuclear Power Generation ................ 8.................. -34

8.2.3.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System ........................ 8-36

8.2.3.2 Once-Through Cooling System ....................... 8-43

8.2.4 Purchased Electrical Power ................................. 8-44

8.2.5 Other Alternatives ............................................ 8-45

8.2.5.1 Oil-Fired Generation ................................. 8-46

8.2.5.2 Wind Power . ...................................... 8-46

8.2.5.3 Solar Power ....... . 8-47

8.2.5.4 Hydropower ...................................... 8-48

8.2.5.5 Geothermal Energy .: ............................... 8-49

8.2.5.6 Wood Waste . ..................................... 8-49

8.2.5.7 Municipal Solid Waste .......... .................... 8-50

8.2.5.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels ......... ................ 8-51

8.2.5.9 Fuel Cells ........................................ 8-51

8.2.5.10 Delayed Retirement .............. ................. 8-52

8.2.5.11 Utility-Sponsored Co6servation .......... .............. 8-53

8.2.6 Combination of Alternatives ................................. 8-53

8.3 Summary of Alternatives Considered ............................. 8-54

8.4 References ....................... ........................... 8-56

9.0 Summary and Conclusions ........................................... 9-1

9.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action - License Renewal ........ 9-4

9.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................... 9-5

9.1.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments ..... ......... 9-6

9.1.3 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity ..... ............ 9-6

April 2005 ix Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
- | 1s

Contents

9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of License

Renewal and Alternatives .................. ...................... 9-6

9.3 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations .................. . 9-7

9.4 References .............................................. 9-9

Appendix A - Comments Received on the Environmental Review ..... ............ A-1

Appendix B - Contributors to the Supplement ................................ B-i

Appendix C - Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to the Entergy Operations, Inc.'s Application for

License Renewal of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 ..... ............ C-1

Appendix D - Organizations Contacted ..................................... D-1

Appendix E - Entergy Operations, Inc. Compliance Status and

Consultation Correspondence ................................. E-1

Appendix F - GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 ................................. F-1

Appendix G - NRC Staff Evaluation of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

(SAMAs) for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, in Support of License

Renewal Application ........... .............................. G-1

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 x April 2005

if
Figures

2-1

2-2

2-3

2-4

Location of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 80-km (50-mi) Region. .- ................ 2-2

Location of Arkansas'Nuclear One, Unit 2 10-km (6-mi) Region .2-3

Arkansas Nuclear One Site Features .......................... 2-6

'Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 Transrmission Line .2-15

4-1 Geographic Distribution of Minority Populations (shown in shaded areas)

Within an 80-km (50-mi) Radius of the Arkansas Nuclear One Site Based

on Census Block Group Data .......................- . - .- 4-34

4-2 Geographic Distribution of Low-income Populations (shown in shaded areas)

'Within an 80-km (50-mi) Radius of the Arkansas Nuclear One Site Based

on Census Block Group Data . . .................. ; 4-35

April 2005 xi Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
I,

Tables

2-1 Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 Transmission Line Right-of-Way ..... ............ 2-14

2-2 Federally Listed and Arkansas State-Listed Aquatic Species Potentially Occurring

in Pope County, Arkansas, in the Vicinity of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 .... .... 2-20

2-3 Land Cover at the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 Site ...... .... ............ 2-22

2-4 Plant Species and Habitat Areas of Special Concern Along the Arkansas

Nuclear One, Unit 2 Transmission Line Right-of-Way ......................... 2-22

2-5 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Present in the Vicinity of

the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 or Its Transmission Line Right-of-Way .... ..... 2-23

2-6 Permanent Employee Residence Information by County and City in the Vicinity of

Arkansas Nuclear One ............. ................................... 2-27

2-7 Housing Units and Housing Units Vacant (Available) by County

During 1990 and 2000 ............. .................................... 2-28

2-8 Major Public Water Supply Systems Within a 16-km (10-mi) Radius of Arkansas

Nuclear One - 2002 ............... ................................... 2-29

2-9 Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department Traffic Counts (Cars/Day)

for Highways Near Arkansas Nuclear One ................................. 2-30

2-10 Population Growth in Pope County, Arkansas - 1970 to 2040 ....... ........... 2-33

2-11 Entergy Property Tax Distribution for Arkansas Nuclear One - 2002 .... ......... 2-34

3-1 Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation that are Applicable to

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 .......................................... 3-2

3-2 Category 2 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation that are Applicable to

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 .......................................... 3-3

4-1 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the Arkansas Nuclear One,

Unit 2 Cooling System During the License Renewal Term ..................... 4-2

4-2 Category 2 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the Arkansas Nuclear One,

Unit 2 Cooling System During the License Renewal Term ..................... 4-12

4-3 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2

Transmission Line During the License Renewal Term ........................ 4-15

4-4 Category 2 and Uncategorized Issues Applicable to the Arkansas Nuclear One,

Unit 2 Transmission Line During the License Renewal Term ................... 4-18

4-5 Category 1 Issues Applicable to Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

at Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 During the License Renewal Term .... ......... 4-20

4-6 Category 1 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics for Arkansas Nuclear One,

Unit 2 During the License Renewal Term .................................. 4-21

4-7 Environmental Justice and GEIS Category 2 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics

for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 During the License Renewal Term .... ......... 4-23

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 xii April 2005
Tables

4-8 Category 1 Issues Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality

During the License Renewal Term .................................... 4-36

4-9 Category 2 Issues Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality

During the License Renewal Term ....................................... 4-37

4-10 Category 2 Issue Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species

at Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 During the License Renewal Term ..... ......... 4-38

5-1 Category 1 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the License

Renewal Term ...................................................... 5-3

5-2 Category 2 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the License

Renewal Term ......................................................... 5-4

5-3 Estimated Core Damage Frequency for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 .... ....... 5-6 -

5-4 Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode ..... ............ 5-7

6-1 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste

Management at Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 During the License :

Renewal Term ........ 6-2

7-1 Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Decommissioning of Arkansas Nuclear One,

Unit 2 Following the License Renewal Term ................................ 7-2

8-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the No-Action Alternative and

Decommissioning Related to Renewal of the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 -;

Operating License .............. ..................................... 8-3

8-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation Using Closed-Cycle

Cooling at an Alternate Greenfield Site in the Entergy Service Area .... .......... 8-21

8-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation with Once-Through

Cooling at an Alternate Greenfield Site in the Entergy Service Area .... .......... 8-22

8-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Using

Closed-Cycle Cooling at the Existing Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 Site or

at an Alternate Greenfield Site in the Entergy Service Area .................... 8-25

8-5 Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Generation with

Once-Through Cooling at the Existing Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 Site or

at an Alternate Greenfield Site in the Entergy Service Area .................... 8-35

8-6 Summary of Environmental Impacts from Nuclear Power Generation with

Closed-Cycle Cooling at the Existing Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 Site or

at an Alternate Greenfield Site in the Entergy Service Area .................... 8-42

8-7 Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Generation Using

Once-Through Cooling at the Existing Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 Site or

at an Alternate Greenfield Site in the Entergy Service Area .................... 8-44

April 2005 ANi Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Tables

8-8 Summary of Environmental Impacts for an Alternate Greenfield Site for an

Assumed Combination of Generating (Combined-Cycle Natural-Gas-Fired

Generation, and DSM) and Acquisition Alternatives at the Existing Arkansas

Nuclear One, Unit 2 Site ............. .................................. 8-55

9-1 Summary of Environmental Significance of Arkansas Nuclear One,

Unit 2 License Renewal, the No-Action Alternative, and Alternative Methods

of Generation Using Closed-Cycle Cooling ................................. 9-8

A-1 Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period for

License Renewal of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 ........................... A-4

A.2 Comments Received on the Draft SEIS ................................... A-9

E-1 Consultation Correspondence Regarding License Renewal for

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 .......................................... E-1

E-2 Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and

Other Approvals for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 ........................... E-3

F-1 GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 ...... F-1

G-1

G-2

G-3

Estimated Core Damage Frequencies at Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2. ......... G-3

Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode ..... ............ G-4

SAMA CostlBenefit Screening Analysis ......... .......................... G-1 3

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 xiv April 2005

11
Executive Summary

By letter dated October 15, 2003, Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) submitted an application

to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating license (OL) for

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2) for an additional 20-year period. If the OL is renewed,

State regulatory agencies and Entergy will ultimately decide whether the plant will continue to

operate based on factors such as the need for power or other matters within the State's

jurisdiction or the purview of the owners. If the OL is not renewed, then the plant must be shut

down at or before the expiration date of the current OL for ANO-2, which is July 17, 2018.

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 USC 4321) directs

that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for major Federal actions that

significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The NRC has issued regulations

implementing Section 102 of NEPA in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

Part 51. In 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the Commission requires preparation of an EIS or a'

supplement to an EIS for renewal of a reactor OL. In addition, 10 CFR 51.95(c) states that the

EIS prepared at the OL renewal stage will be a supplement to the Generic Environmental

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1

and 2.(a)

Upon acceptance of the license renewal application from Entergy, the NRC began the

environmental review process described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a notice of intent to

prepare an EIS and conduct scoping. The staff visited the ANO-2 site' during February 2004

and held public scoping meetings on February 3, 2004, in Russellville, Arkansas. In the

preparation of this supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for ANO-2, the staff

reviewed the Entergy Environmental Report and compared it to the GEIS; consulted with other

agencies; conducted an indepehdent review of the issues following the guidance set forth in

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, the Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for

Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal; and considered public

comments received during the environmentalreview. The public comments received during the

scoping process that were considered to be within the scope of'the environmental review are

provided in Appendix A, Part 1, of this SEIS.

A draft SEIS was published for comment in September 2004. tThe staff held a public meeting in

Russellville, Arkansas, on October 21, 2004, to describe the, results of the NRC environmrental

review, to answer questions, and to provide members of the public with information to assist

them in formulating comments on this SEIS. All of the comments received on the draft SEIS

(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the 'GEIS" include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

April 2005 xv Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
'I

Executive Summary

were considered by the staff in developing the final SEIS. These comments are addressed in

Appendix A, Part 2, of the final SEIS.

This SEIS includes the NRC staff's analysis that considers and weighs the environmental

effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action,

and mitigation measures for reducing or avoiding adverse effects. It also includes the staff's

recommendation regarding the proposed action.

The Commission has adopted the following statement of purpose and need for license renewal

from the GEIS:

The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to

provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current

nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs, as such

needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC)

decisionmakers.

The goal of the staff's environmental review, as defined in 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) and the GEIS, is

to determine

... whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that

preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be

unreasonable.

Both the statement of purpose and need and the evaluation criterion implicitly acknowledge that

there are factors, in addition to license renewal, that will ultimately determine whether an

existing nuclear power plant continues to operate beyond the term of the current OL.

NRC regulations (10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)) contain the following statement regarding the content of

SEISs prepared at the license renewal stage:

The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not required to

include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of the

proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such benefits

and costs are either essential for a determination regarding the' inclusion of an alternative in

the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation. In addition, the supplemental

environmental impact statement prepared at the license renewal stage need not discuss

other issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed action and the

alternatives, or any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the facility within the scope of the

generic determination in § 51.23(a) ["Temporary storage of spent fuel after cessation of

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 xvi April 2005

i1
Executive Summary

reactor operation-generic determination of no significant environmental impact"] and in

accordance with § 51.23(b).

The GEIS contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the consequences of renewing an

OL and operating a nuclear power plant for'an additional 20 years. It evaluates

92 environmental issues using NRC's three-level standard of significance - SMALL,

MODERATE, or LARGE - developed using the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines.

The following definitions of the three'significance levels are set forth in footnotes to Table B-1 of

10 CFR Part 51 I-Subpart A, Appendix B:-

SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to

destabilize, important attributes of the resource. -

LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize

important attributes of the resource.

For 69 of the 92 issues considered in the GEIS, the analysis in the GEIS led to the following

conclusions:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

specified plant or site characteristics.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL,-MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from highlevel waste and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely

to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

These 69 issues were identified in-the GEIS as Category 1 issues. In the absence of new and

significant information, the staff relied on conclusions as amplified by supporting information in

the GEIS for issues designated as Category'lin Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B.

April 2005 xvii Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Executive Summary

Of the 23 issues that do not meet the criteria set forth above, 21 are classified as Category 2

issues requiring analysis in a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. The remaining two issues,

environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized.

Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and must be addressed in a

plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic

fields was not conclusive at the time the GEIS was prepared.

This SEIS documents the staff's consideration of all 92 environmental issues identified in the

GEIS. The staff considered the environmental impacts associated with alternatives to license

renewal and compared the environmental impacts of license renewal and the alternatives. The

alternatives to license renewal that were considered include the no-action alternative (not

renewing the OL for ANO-2) and alternative methods of power generation. Based on

projections made by the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, gasand coal-fired generation appear to be the most likely power-generation alternatives if the

power from ANO-2 is replaced. These alternatives are evaluated assuming that the

replacement power generation plant is located at either the ANO-2 site or some other

unspecified alternate location.

Entergy and the staff have established independent processes for identifying and evaluating the

significance of any new information on the environmental impacts of license renewal. Neither

Entergy nor the staff has identified information that is both new and significant related to

Category 1 issues that would call into question the conclusions in the GEIS. Similarly, neither

the scoping process nor the staff has identified any new issue applicable to ANO-2 that has a

significant environmental impact. Therefore, the staff relies on the conclusions of the GEIS for

all of the Category 1 issues that are applicable to ANO-2.

Entergy's license renewal application presents an analysis of the Category 2 issues plus

environmental justice and chronic effects from electromagnetic fields. The staff has reviewed

Entergy's analysis for each issue and has conducted an independent review of each issue.

Six Category 2 issues are not applicable, because they are related to plant design features or

site characteristics not found at ANO-2. Four Category 2 issues are not discussed in this SEIS

because they are specifically related to refurbishment. Entergy has stated that its evaluation of

structures and components, as required by 10 CFR 54.21, did not identify the need for

refurbishment of these structures and components to support the continued operation of ANO-2

for the license renewal term. In addition, any replacement of components or additional

inspection activities are within the bounds of normal plant component replacement, and are not

expected to affect the environment outside of the bounds of the plant operations evaluated in

the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's 1977 Final Environmental Statement Related to

Operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 xviii April 2005

11
Executive Summary

Eleven Category 2 issues related to operational impacts and postulated accidents during the

renewal term, as well as environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, are

discussed in detail in this SEIS. Five of the Category 2 issues and environmental justice apply

to both refurbishment and to operation during the renewal term, but are discussed in this SEIS

only in relation to operation during the renewal term. For all 11 Category 2 issues and

environmental justice, the staff concludes that the potential environmental effects are of SMALL

significance in the context of the standards set forth in the GEIS. In addition, the staff

determined that appropriate Federal health agencies have not reached a consensus on the

existence of chronic adverse effects from electromagnetic fields. Therefore, no further

evaluation of this issue is required. For severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs), the

staff concludes that a reasonable, comprehensive effort was made to identify and evaluate

SAMAs. Based on its review of the SAMAs for ANO-2, and the plant improvements already

made, the staff concludes that four candidate SAMAs are potentially cost-beneficial. However,

these SAMAs do not relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of

extended operation and, therefore, need not be implemented as part of the license renewal

pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54.

Mitigation measures were considered for each Category 2 issue. Current measures to mitigate

the environmental impacts of plant operation were found to be adequate, and no additional

mitigation measures were deemed sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

If the ANO-2 OL is not renewed and the unit ceases operation on or before the expiration of its

current OL, then the adverse impacts of likely alternatives will not be smaller than those

associated with continued operation of ANO-2. The impacts may, in fact, be greater in some

areas.

The recommendation of the NRC staff is that the Commission determine that the adverse

environmental impacts of license renewal for ANO-2, are not so great that preserving the option

of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the Environmental Report

submitted by Entergy; (3) consultation with other Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the

staff's own independent review; and (5) the staff's consideration of public comments.

April 2005 xix Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Abbreviations/Acronyms

° degree

pCi microcurie(s)

PCVml microcuries per milliliter

pGy microgray(s)

Pm micrometer(s)

PSv microsieverts

ac acre(s)

ACC averted cleanup and decontamination costs

ACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System

ADEQ Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality

AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

AGFC Arkansas Game and Fish Commission

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable

ANHC Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission

ANO-1 Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1

ANO-2 Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2

AOC present value of averted offsite property damage costs

AIE present value of averted occupational exposure

AOSC present value of averted onsite costs

APE present value of averted public exposure

A0l Air Quality Index

ASP Arkansas State Police

ASWCC Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission

ATWS anticipated transient without scram

AWEA American Wind Energy Association

Bq becquerel(s)

BMT basemat melt-through

Btu British thermal unit(s)

C Celsius

CCDP conditional core damage probability

CCF common cause failure

CCW component cooling water

CDF core damage frequency

CE Combustion Engineering

April 2005 xxi Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
I,

Abbreviations/Acronyms

CEOG Combustion Engineering Owners Group

CEO Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

CHRS containment heat removal system

Ci curie(s)

cm centimeter(s)

COE cost of enhancement

COPC chemicals of potential concern

CVCS chemical and volume control system

CWA Clean Water Act of 1977 (also known as the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act of 1977)

d day(s)

DBA design-basis accident

DCH direct containment heating

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOI Department of the Interior

DPR demonstration project reactor

DSM demand-side management

EDG emergency diesel generator

EERE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DOE)

EFW emergency feedwater

EIA Energy Information Administration (of DOE)

EIS environmental impact statement

ELF-EMF extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field

EOP Emergency Operating Procedure

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

EQ equipment qualification

ER Environmental Report

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

ESFAS engineered safety feature actuation system

ESRP Environmental Standard Review Plan, NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Operating

License Renewal

F Fahrenheit

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FE (DOE) Fossil Energy

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 xxii April 2005

it
Abbreviations/Acronyms

FES final environmental statement

FR Federal Register

FSAR final safety analysis report

ft foot/feet

FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act of

1977)

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

gal gallon(s)

GDC general design criteria

GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,

NUREG-1 437

gpm gallons per minute

GWPS Gaseous Waste Processing System

ha hectare(s)

HCLPF high-confidence, low-probability of failure

HHSI high head safety injection

HLW high-level waste

HPSI high-pressure safety injection

hr hour(s)

HVAC heating, ventilation and cooling

Hz Hertz

in. inch(es)

IPE Individual Plant Examination

IPEE Individual Plant Examination of External Events,

ISFSI independent spent fuel storage installation

ISLOCA interfacing systems loss-of-coolant accident

IWSA Integrated Waste Services Association

J joule(s)

kg kilogram(s)

km kilometer(s)

km2 square kilometer(s)

kV kilovolt(s)

kV/m kilovolt per meter

kWh kilowatt hour(s)

April 2005 xxiii Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Abbreviations/Acronyms L

lb

LNG

LLW

LOCA

LWR

liter(s)

pound(s)

liquefied natural gas

low-level waste

loss-of-coolant accident

light-water reactor

m

rns m3/d m3/s

mA

MAB

MACCS2

MGD

mGy

mi

mi2

mL

MOVs

mph

mrad

mrem

mSv

MT

MTU

MW

MWd/MTU

MW(e)

MW(t)

MWh

NA

NAS

NCI

NEI

NEPA

NESC

ng/J

NHPA

meter(s)

meter(s) per second

square meter(s)

cubic meters per day

cubic meter(s) per second

milliampere(s)

maximum attainable benefit

MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 

2

million gallons per day

milligray(s)

mile(s)

square mile(s)

milliliter(s)

motor-operated valves

miles per hour

millirad(s)

millirem(s)

millisievert(s)

metric ton(s) (or tonne[s])

metric ton(s)-uranium

megawatt(s)

megawatt-days per metric ton of uranium

megawatt(s) electric

megawatt(s) thermal

megawatt hour(s)

not applicable

National Academy of Sciences

National Cancer Institute

Nuclear Energy Institute

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

National Electric Safety Code

nanogram per joule

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 xxiv April 2005
Abbreviations/Acronyms

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOX nitrogen oxide(s)

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

NWPPC Northwest Power Planning Council

NWTC National Wind Technology Center

ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

OL operating license

PAR passive autocatalytic recombiners.

pCi picocuries(s)

PDS plant damage state

PM10 particulate matter, 10 microns or less in diameter

ppt parts per thousand

PRA Probabilistic Risk Assessment

PSA Probabilistic Safety Assessment

PSI pounds per square inch

PSW plant service water

PWR pressurized water reactor

RAB reactor auxiliary building

RAI request for additional information

RCP reactor coolant pump

RCS Reactor Coolant System

REMP radiological environmental monitoring program

rms root mean square

RPC replacement power cost

RWST Refueling Water Storage Tank

ry reactor year

s second(s)

SAG Severe Accident Guideline

SAMA Severe Accident Mitigation Alternative

SAMG Severe Accident Management Guideline

SAR safety analysis report

SBO station blackout

SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement

SER safety evaluation report

April 2005 xxv Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Abbreviations/Acronyms

SERI

SGTR

SHPO

S02

SOx

SRWP

TBq

TVA

UALR

UDB

UFSAR

U.S.

USC

USCB

USDA

W/m2

yd

yr

System Energy Resources, Inc.

steam generator tube rupture

State Historic Preservation Office

sulfur dioxide

sulfur oxide(s)

Solid Radioactive Waste Program

terabecquerel

Tennessee Valley Authority

University of Arkansas at Little Rock

urban development boundary

updated final safety analysis report

United States

United States Code

U.S. Census Bureau

U.S. Department of Agriculture

watts per square meter

yard(s)

year

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 xxvi April 2005

11
1.0 Introduction

Under the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) environmental protection regulations

in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, which implement the National

Enivironmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPAj, renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license

(OL) requires th'e preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). In preparing the

EIS, the NRC staff is required first to issue the statement in draft form for public' comment,' and

then issue a final statement after considering public comments on the draft." To support the'

preparation of the EIS, the staff has prepared a Generic Environmental Impact Staterm6nt for

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC i996,

1 999).(a) The GEIS is intended to (1) provide an understanding of the types and severity of

environmental impacts that may occur as a result of license renewal of nuclear power plants

under 10 CFR Part 54, (2) identify and assess' the impacts that are expected to be generic to

license renewal, and (3) support 10 CFR Part 51 to define the number and scope of issues-that

need to be addressed by the applicants in plant-by-plant renewal P'poceedings. Use of the-'

GEIS guides the preparation of complete plant-specific information in support of the OL renewal

process.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) operates Arkanisas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, in Westcentral Arkansas under OLs DPR-51 and NPF-6, issued by the NRC. Entergy holds the

licenses for these units, and is an operating subsidiary of the Entergy Corporation. The OL for

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 was renewed in June 2001, and will expire in 2034. 'The results

of the staff's environmental review for that action can be found in Supplement 3 to NUREG1437, dated April 2001, which is referenced throughout this document where appropriate. The

OL for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2) will expire on July 17, 2018. On October 15,:

2003, Entergy submitted an application to the NRC to renew the ANO-2 OL for an additional

20 years under 10 CFR Part 54. Entergy is a licensee for the purposes of its current OL and an

applicant for the renewal of the OL. Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.23 and 51.53(c), Entergy submitted

an Environmental Report (ER) (Entergy 2003a) in which Ente'rgy analyzed the environmental

impacts associated with the proposed license renewal action, considered alternatives to the

proposed action, and-evaluated mitigation measures for reducing adverse environmental

effects.

This report is the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS (the supplemental EIS [SEIS]) for the

Entergy license renewal application. This'SEIS is a supplermient to the GEIS because-it relies,

in part, on the findings of the GEIS. The staff will also prepare'a separate safety evaluation

report in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54.

(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the 'GEIS' include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

April 2005 1 1 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Introduction

1.1 Report Contents

The following sections of this introduction (1) describe the background for the preparation of

this SEIS, including the development of the GElS and the process used by the staff to assess

the environmental impacts associated with license renewal, (2) describe the proposed Federal

action to renew the ANO-2 OL, (3) discuss the purpose and need for the proposed action, and

(4) present the status of Entergy's compliance with environmental quality standards and

requirements that have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies that are

responsible for environmental protection.

The ensuing chapters of this SEIS closely parallel the contents and organization of the GEIS.

Chapter 2 describes the site, power plant, and interactions of the plant with the environment.

Chapters 3 and 4, respectively, discuss the potential environmental impacts of plant refurbishment and plant operation during the renewal term. Chapter 5 contains an evaluation of

potential environmental impacts of plant accidents and includes consideration of severe

accident mitigation alternatives. Chapter 6 discusses the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste

management. Chapter 7 discusses decommissioning, and Chapter 8 discusses alternatives to

license renewal. Finally, Chapter 9 summarizes the findings of the preceding chapters and

draws conclusions about the adverse impacts that cannot be avoided, the relationship between

short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term

productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. Chapter 9 also

presents the staff's recommendation with respect to the proposed license renewal action.

Additional information is included in appendixes. Appendix A contains public comments related

to the environmental review for license renewal and staff responses to those comments.

Appendixes B through G, respectively, list the following:

* the preparers of the supplement

* the chronology of NRC staff's environmental review correspondence related to this SEIS

* the organizations contacted during the development of this SEIS

* Entergy's compliance status and copies of consultation correspondence prepared and

sent during the evaluation process

* GEIS environmental issues that are not applicable to ANO-2

* severe accident mitigation alternatives.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 1-2 April 2005

it
Introduction

1.2 Background

Use of the GEIS, which examines the possible environmental impacts that could occur as a

result of renewing individual nuclear power plant OLS under 10 CFR Part 54, and the'

established license renewal evaluation process supports a thorough evaluation of the impacts

of the renewal of OLs.

1.2.1 Generic Environmental Impact Statement

The NRC initiated a generic assessment of the environmental impacts associated with the'

license renewal term to improve the efficiency of the license renewal process by documenting

the assessment results and codifying the results in the Commission's regulations. This assessment is provided in the GEIS, which serves'as the principal refererice for all nuclear power plant

license renewal ElSs.

The GEIS documents the results of the systematic approach that was taken to evaluate the

environmental consequences of renewing the licernses of individual nuclear power plants and

operating them for an additional 20 years. For each potential environmental issue, the GEIS

(1) describes the activity that affects the environment, (2) identifies the population or resource

that is affected, (3) assesses the nature and magnitude of the impact on the affected population

or resource, (4) characterizes the significance of the effect for both beneficial and adverse

effects, (5) determines whether the results' of the analysis apply to all plants, and (6) considers

whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted for impacts that would have the

same significance level for all plants.

The NRC's standard of significance for impacts was established using the Council on

Environmental Quality terminology for "significantly" (40 CFR 1508.27, which requires

consideration of both "context" and "intensity"). Using the Council on Environmental Quality

terminology, the NRC established three significance levels - SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE.

The definitions of the three significance levels are'set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, as follows:

SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize,

important attributes of the resource.

LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize

important attributes of the resource.'

April 2005 1 -3 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Introduction

In the GEIS, the staff assigned a significance level to each environmental issue, assuming that

ongoing mitigation measures would continue.

In the GEIS, the staff included a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental

issue could be applied to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be

warranted. Issues are assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the

GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of the following criteria:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

specified plant or site characteristics.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

impacts (except for collective off-site radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from highlevel waste and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

required in this SEIS unless new and significant information is identified.

Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1, and

therefore, additional plant-specific review for these issues is required.

In the GEIS, the staff assessed 92 environmental issues and determined that 69 qualified as

Category 1 issues, 21 qualified as Category 2 issues, and 2 issues, environmental justice and

chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized. Environmental justice was not

evaluated on a generic basis and must be addressed in a plant-specific supplement to the

GEIS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic fields was not conclusive at the

time the GEIS was prepared. Of the 92 issues, 11 are related only to refurbishment, 6 are

related only to decommissioning, 67 apply only to operation during the license renewal term,

and 8 apply to both refurbishment and operation during the license renewal term. A summary

of the findings for all 92 issues in the GEIS is codified in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart

A, Appendix B.

1.2.2 License Renewal Evaluation Process

An applicant seeking to renew its OL is required to submit an ER as part of its application. The

license renewal evaluation process involves careful review of the applicant's ER and assurance

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 1-4 April 2005

11
Introduction

that all new and potentially significant information not already addressed in or available during

the GEIS evaluation is identified, reviewed, and assessed to verify the environmental impacts of

the proposed license renewal.

In accordance with 10 CFR 51 .53(c)(2) and (3), the ER submitted by the applicant must

* provide an analysis of the Category 2 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)

* discuss actions to mitigate any adverse impacts associated with the proposed action

and environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action.

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2), the ER does not need to

* consider the economic benefits and costs of the proposed action and alternatives to the

proposed action except insofar as such benefits and costs are either (1) essential for

making a determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of

alternatives considered, or (2) relevant to mitigation

* consider the need for power and other issues not related to the environmental effects of

the proposed action and the alternatives

* discuss any aspect of the storage of spent fuel within the scope of the generic

determination in 10 CFR 51.23(a) in accordance with 10 CFR 51.23(b)

* contain an analysis of any Category 1 issue unless there is significant new information

on a specific issue - this is pursuant to 10 CFR 51 .53(c)(3)(iii) and (iv).

New and significant information is (1) information that identifies a significant environmental

issue not covered in the GEIS and codified in Table B-i of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, or (2) information that was not considered in the analyses summarized in the GEIS

and that leads to an impact finding that is different from the finding presented in the GEIS and

codified in 10 CFR Part 51. -,

In preparing to submit its application to renew the ANO-2 OL, Entergy developed a process to

ensure that information not addressed in or available during the GEIS evaluation regarding the

environmental impacts of license renewal for ANO-2 would be properly reviewed before

submitting the ER, and to ensure that such new-and potentially significant information related to

renewal of the license for ANO-2 would be identified, reviewed, and assessed during the period

of NRC review. Entergy reviewed the Category1 issues that appear in Table B-1 of 10 CFR

Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, to verify that the conclusions of the GEIS remained valid with

April 2005 1 -5 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
It

Introduction

respect to ANO-2. This review was performed by personnel from Entergy and its support

organization who were familiar with NEPA issues and the scientific disciplines involved in the

preparation of a license renewal ER.

The NRC staff also has a process for identifying new and significant information. That process

is described in detail in Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power

Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal (ESRP), NUREG-1 555, Supplement 1

(NRC 2000). The search for new information includes (1) review of an applicant's ER and the

process for discovering and evaluating the significance of new information; (2) review of

records of public comments; (3) review of environmental quality standards and regulations;

(4) coordination with Federal, State, regional, and local environmental protection and resource

agencies; and (5) review of the technical literature. New information discovered by the staff is

evaluated for significance using the criteria set forth in the GEIS.: For Category 1 issues for

which new and significant information is identified, reconsideration of the conclusions for those

issues is limited in scope to the assessment of the relevant new and significant information; the

scope of the assessment does not include other facets of the issue that are not affected by the

new information.

Chapters 3 through 7 discuss the environmental issues considered in the GEIS that are

applicable to ANO-2. At the beginningof the discussion of each set of issues, there is a table

that identifies the issues to be addressed and lists the sections in the GEIS where the issue is

discussed. Category 1 and Category 2 issues are listed in separate tables. For Category 1

issues for which there is no new and significant information, the table is followed first by a set of

short paragraphs that state the GEIS conclusion codified in Table B-1-of 10 CFR Part 51,

Subpart A, Appendix B, and then by the staff's analysis and conclusion. For Category 2 issues,

in addition to the list of GEIS sections in which the issue is discussed, the tables list the

subparagraph of 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) that describes the analysis required and the SEIS

sections where the analysis is presented. Discussions of the Category 2 issues are presented

immediately following the table.

The NRC prepares an independent analysis of the environmental impacts of license renewal

and compares these impacts with the environmental impacts of alternatives. The evaluation of

the Entergy license renewal application began with publication of a notice of acceptance for

docketing and opportunity for a hearing in the Federal Register(FR) (68 FR 65963) on

November 24, 2003. The staff published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct

scoping (68 FR 71174) on December 22, 2003. Two public scoping meetings were held on

February 3, 2004, in Russellville, Arkansas. Comments received during the scoping period

were summarized in the Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process: Summary Report

- Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, Pope County, Arkansas (NRC 2004). Comments that are

applicable to this environmental review are presented in Part 1 of Appendix A.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 1-6 April 2005

I'
Introduction

The staff followed the review guidance contained in NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Standard

Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating

License Renewal (NRC 2000). The staff and contractors retained to assist the staff visited the

ANO-2 site on February 3 and 4, 2004, to gather information and to become familiar with the

site and its environs. The staff also reviewed the comments received during scoping, and

consulted with Federal, State, regional, and local agencies. A list of the organizations

contacted is provided in Appendix D. Other documents related to ANO-2 were reviewed and

are referenced.

A draft SEIS was published for comment in September 2004. The SEIS presents the staff's

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed renewal of the OL

for ANO-2, the environmental impacts of alternatives to license renewal,' and the mitigation

measures available for avoiding adverse environmental effects. Chapter 9, "Summary and

Conclusions," provides the NRC staff's'recommendation to the Commission on whether or not

the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of

license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.

A 75-day comment period began on the date of publication of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency Notice of Availability of the draft SEIS to allow members of the public to

comment on the results of the NRC staff's review. During this comment period, a public

meeting was held in Russellville, Arkansas, on October 21, 2004. During this meeting, the staff

described the results of the NRC environmental review and answered questions related toit to

provide members of the public with information to assist them in formulating their comments.

1.3 The Proposed Federal Action

The proposed Federal action is renewal of the OL for ANO-2. The Arkansas Nuclear One site

is located in southwestern Pope County, Arkansas, approximately 91 km (57 mi) northwest of

Little Rock, Arkansas, and 109 km (68 rni)'east of Fort Smith, Arkansas. The plant has two

units; however, only ANO-2 is considered in this SEIS. ANO-2 is a pressurized water reactor

designed by Comrbustion Engineering, with a maximum reactor core power level of

3026 megawatts thermal and a rated electrical output of 1048 megawatts electric.' Plant cooling

is provided by a closed-cycle cooling system with a natural-draft cooling tower that dissipates

heat primarily to the atmosphere; The current OL for Unit 2 expires on July 17, 2018. By letter

dated October 15, 2003, Entergy submitted an application to the NRC (Entergy 2003b) to renew

this OL for an additional 20 years of operation (i.e., until July 17, 2038).

April 2005 -1-7 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Introduction

1.4 The Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

Although a licensee must have a renewed license to operate a reactor beyond the term of the

existing OL, the possession of that license is just one of a number of conditions that must be

met for the licensee to continue plant operation during the term of the renewed license. Once

an OL is renewed, State regulatory agencies and the owners of the plant will ultimately decide

whether the plant will continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power or other

matters within the State's jurisdiction or the purview of the owners.

Thus, for license renewal reviews, the NRC has adopted the following definition of purpose and

need (GEIS Section 1.3):

The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license)

is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the

term of a current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system

generating needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and where

authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers.

This definition of purpose and need reflects the Commission's recognition that, unless there are

findings in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 USC 2011 et seq.)

or findings in the NEPA environmental analysis that would lead the NRC to reject a license

renewal application, the NRC does not have a role in the energy-planning decisions of State

regulators and utility officials as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to

operate. From the perspective of the licensee and the State regulatory authority, the purpose

of renewing an OL is to maintain the availability of the nuclear plant to meet system energy

requirements beyond the current term of the plant license.

1.5 Compliance and Consultations

Entergy is required to hold certain Federal, State, and local environmental permits, as well as

meet relevant Federal and State statutory requirements. In its ER, Entergy provided a list of

the authorizations from Federal, State, and local authorities for current operations as well as

environmental approvals and consultations associated with the ANO-2 license renewal.

Authorizations and consultations relevant to the proposed OL renewal action are included in

Appendix E.

The staff has reviewed the list and consulted with the appropriate Federal, State, and local

agencies to identify any compliance or permit issues or significant environmental issues of

concern to the reviewing agencies. These agencies did not identify any new and significant

environmental issues. The ER states that Entergy is in compliance with applicable environFinal NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 1 -8 April 2005
Introduction

mental standards and requirements for ANO-2. The staff has not identified any environmental

issues that are both new and significant. -

1.6 References

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, 'Environmental

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part

1508, 'Terminology and Index."

68 FR 65963. November 24,2003. "Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Application and

Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing Regarding Renewal of License No. NPF-6 for an Additional

Twenty-Year Period." Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

68 FR 71174-71175. December 22,2003. "Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement and Conduct Scoping Process." Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA). 42 USC 2011, et seq.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2003a. Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating

License Renewal Stage Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2. Russellville, Arkansas.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2003b. Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 2, License Renewal

Application. Russellville, Arkansas.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1 437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. 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.

NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

April2005 1 -9 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Introduction

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Standard Review Plans for Environmental.

Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal. NUREG-1 555,

Supplement 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Environmental Impact Statement Scoping

Process: Summary Report - Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, Pope County, Arkansas.

May 20, 2004, Washington, D.C.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 1-10 April 2005

11
2.0 Description of Nuclear Power Plant and Site

and Plant Interaction with the Environment

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2) is located near Interstate Highway 40 (1-40) on a

peninsula formed by Lake Dardanelle in southwestern Pope County, Arkansas, approximately

109 km (68 mi) east of Fort Smith and about 91 km (57 mi) northwest of Little Rock.- The town

of Russellville is about 10 km (6 mi) east-southeast of the site. The site is in the west-central

part of the state, approximately 112 km (70 mi) east of the Oklahoma border and about the

same distance south from the Missouri border, as shown in Figure 2-1. Arkansas Nuclear One

is a two-unit plant, but only ANO-2 is being reviewed for license renewal. Arkansas Nuclear

One, Unit 1 (ANO-1) received a renewed license in June 2001, with a license expiration date of

May 20, 2034. ANO-2 is equipped with a nuclear steam supply system manufactured by

Combustion Engineering that uses a pressurized water reactor (PWR) and a closed-cycle

cooling system with a natural-draft cooling tower. The electricity generated is transferred to the

switchyards located at the Arkansas Nuclear One site. ANO-2 has a:'maximum reactor core

power level of 3026 megawatts thermal (MW[t]) and a rated electrical output of 1048 megawatts

electric (MW[e]). The plant and its environs are described in Section 2.1, and the plant's

interaction with the environment is presented in Section 2.2.

2.1 Plant and Site Description and Proposed Plant Operation

During the License Renewal Term

ANO-2 is located on the Arkansas Nuclear One site, which occupies 471 ha (11 64 ac) in a rural

part of west-central Arkansas. Figure 2-2 shows the location of ANO-2 in Arkansas. The site is

surrounded by an exclusion area of 1-km (0.7-mi) radius. Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy)

owns most of the property on the peninsula. The property not owned by Entergy is privately

owned. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) also owns easements around Lake

Dardanelle.

Based on criteria in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Re ewal of

Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437 (NRC 1996, 999)(a) the region surrounding ANO-2 has a

medium population density. Approximately 1260 people compose the nonoutage workforce at

the site. Normally, there are 1071 ;Entergy employees onsite. The remaining 187 people are

baseline contractor employees.' The plant is located near the towns of London and Russellville,

Arkansas. The site is located on a peninsula formed by Lake Dardanelle. Outside the property

(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the 'GEIS" include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

April 2005 2-1 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Plant and Environment

ins'

> ' Insa Nuclear J d

,> ~~~~~~~~One ar .: l m*'>

Reservoirw KV

Figure 21 Loatin f ATrkansasN0mission

Fia UE-47 upemadaent 19l2-2

' Orlt 

Roads Al

Lakes and Rivers 4<

0 10 20 40 r 0 so 8

0 5 10 20 30 40 iler, r - g

Figure 2-1. Location of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 80-km (50-mi) Region

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 2-2 April 2005
Plant and the Environment

;~ -:-E

@s 9. Kbrh 1 G * S S ,. , , . |D

Lakel/t Dadnel -sse\vi

. \ Darda~nelle b s

?gend . Ytz} \ liA

\/Roads, : .- . A

Lakes and Rivers - - 4g s

1.25 25 5 ~ ~7.5, .- Io B -c

Figure 2-2. Location of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 1 0-km (6-mi). Region

'April 2005 >2-3 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Plant and Environment

line on the southern end of the peninsula, the majority of the land area is forest and residential

property. Pasture and croplands are sparse on the peninsula.

The Arkansas Nuclear One site consists primarily of meadows, with surface elevations on the

peninsula ranging from about 120 to 150 m (400 to 500 ft). The site has excellent natural

drainage. Surface runoff from the site is collected in storm water drains, the intake canal, and

the emergency cooling pond from which it is discharged to Lake Dardanelle. The average

annual rainfall at the site is approximately 124 cm (49 in.).

Lake Dardanelle is part of the Arkansas River and is 80 km (50 mi) long. The lake was created

by the construction of Dardanelle Lock and Dam as part of a multi-purpose project for

improvement of the Arkansas River. Dardanelle Lock and Dam facilitates navigation on the

river and provides for generation of hydroelectric power, as well as recreational and fish and

wildlife resources. The lake was one of 17 impoundments built along the Arkansas River to

provide a 724-km (450-mi) navigable channel from the Mississippi River to Catoosa, Oklahoma.

Lake Dardanelle is more than 18 m (60 ft) deep at its lower end, and its average depth is 3 m

(10 ft). The lake has a surface area of approximately 14,975 ha (37,000 ac) and a storage

capacity of 6 x 108 m3 (486,000 ac-ft). The Arkansas Nuclear One site is about 9.5 km (6 mi)

upstream from the Dardanelle Dam. The Arkansas River navigation channel is about 2.2 km

(1.4 mi) south of the reactor buildings.

2.1.1 External Appearance and Setting

The cooling tower for ANO-2 is the most distinctive feature of the site and can be seen from a

considerable distance. The site is on a 3.2-km-wide by 3.2-km-long (2-mi-wide by 2-mi-long)

peninsula on Lake Dardanelle. The peninsula elevation varies from 120 to 150 m (400 to 500

ft).

North of the site, the land gradually ascends to 305 m (1000 ft) to the Boston Mountains, which

have a maximum height of 823 m (2700 ft). The Arkansas River flows along the base of the

Boston Mountains. Across from the Arkansas River, south and west of the site, is a range of

hills, with Mount Nebo at an elevation of 573 m (1880 ft). Magazine Mountain with an elevation

of 927 m (3042 ft), is 40 km (25 mi) west-southwest of the site. Magazine Mountain, is the

highest point in the state and is clearly visible from the site. The land east and south of the site

is moderately level, although it is interspersed with rolling hills and covered with woods.

The geological features of the site are fairly simple. Under the site is a 4- to 7-m (13- to 24-ft) -

deep layer of heavy clay or silty clay, which rests on horizontally laid hard shale and sandstone

of the McAlester formation. The nearest geological faults are 4 to 8 km (2.5 to 5 mi) from the

site and have not been active for more than 65 million years. After intermittent submergence by

relatively shallow seas during most of the Paleozoic Period, dramatic episodes of ocean-trough

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 2-4 April 2005

11
Plant and the Environment

development and thick sedimentary and volcanic depositions occurred during the late

Mississippian time. Mountain folding and faulting, which caused the bedrock features seen

today, occurred during the subsequent Pennsylvanian time. The bedrock under the site is part

of a large syncline, known as the Scranton syncline, which lies in an east and west direction

(AEC 1973).

Entergy has an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) on the Arkansas Nuclear

One site. This ISFSI is authorized pursuant to the general license issued in 10 CFR 72.210.

The ISFSI is outside the scope of this OL renewal review.

2.1.2 Reactor Systems

The two units at Arkansas Nuclear One are both PWRs. ANO-2, the unit that is the subject of

the current license renewal application, has a Combustion Engineering-supplied nuclear steam

supply system and a two-loop reactor system. ANO-2 was licensed and began commercial

operation in 1980 (Entergy 2003a), and was initially licensed for an output of 2815 MW(t).

In 2002, NRC approved an increase to the maximum reactor core power level to 3026 MW(t),

which corresponds to 1048 MW(e).

The primary structures at ANO-2 are its reactor building and auxiliary building, and a common

turbine building that is shared with ANO-1. In addition, ANO-2 has a natural-draft cooling tower.

The reactor and nuclear steam supply systems are housed in the reactor building. The

mechanical and electrical systems required for the safe operation of ANO-2 are located in the

auxiliary and reactor buildings. Figure 2-3 shows the general layout of the buildings and

structures at the site (Entergy 2003a).

The reactor containment structures for ANO-2 are designed with engineered safety features for

protecting the public and plant personnel from an accidental release of radioactive fission

products in the unlikely event of a loss-of-coolant accident. The containment structure can

withstand an internal pressure of 407 kilopascals (59 psi) above atmospheric pressure. The

safety features employed at ANO-2 will help localize, control, mitigate, and terminate events to

keep exposure levels to the public below applicable regulatory requirements and guidelines.

The reactor is controlled using a combination of chemical controls and solid absorber materials

(control rods).

The fuel used in ANO-2 is low enriched uranium oxide enclosed in Zircaloy. -The individual fuel

rod average burnup is not to exceed 60,000 megawatt-days per metric ton (Entergy 2003a).

April 2005 2-5 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
m

1D ___ __ _ 

--

_ 

-u w 1 : N ,gw D k 0.

G) I . tc xCDnln 

m

. IM. 

1/N 

m -D' - ' {S t' -- 

~. . I .

# D ik e 

CD

C 

00 Chairdiwk Fsnc

CD . L14 / -... t Railroad

Unit 2 -

Reato -- l--dg.

SUnit I

I Reactor Bldg.

Figur 2-R3 A ne eF takeucture

WASTE WATER IN INTAKE CAN4AL

o0

TREATMENT 

PLANT

.s~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __J_ _ _

CXI

C) Figure 2-3. Arkansas Nuclear One Site Features
Plant and the Environment

2.1.3 Cooling-and Auxiliary Water Systems'

ANO-2 uses a closed-cycle cooling system equipped with a natural-draft cooling tower to

dissipate waste heat to the atmosphere. After moving through the condenser, circulating water

rejects waste heat to the atmosphere through the natural-draft cooling tower. Evaporati6n in

the cooling tower occurs at an average rate of ap'proximately 625 Us (9900 gpm) with the

maximum evaporation rate expected to' be approximately 751 Us (11,900 gpm) (NRC 1977);.'

Remaining waste heat is discharged in the form of blowdown from the circulating water system

to a 158-m (520-ft)-long canal that discharges into Lake Dardanelle. This blowdown is mixed

with the ANO-1 circulating water system' discharge.

The ANO-2 service water system is the source of cooling water for the closed-loop component

cooling water system, cooling tower makeup water, and if necessary, the emergency cooling

pond. For the ANO-2 service water system, water is drawn from the Illinois Bayou arm of Lake

Dardanelle through a 1341-m (4400-ft)-long canal to the ANO-2 intake structure at an average

rate of approximately 1000 Us (16,000 gpm) or about 23 million gpd

(NRC 1977; Entergy 2003a). As the water enters the intake structure at an average velocity of

approximately 0.10 m/s (0.34 ftls) (NRC 1977), it passes through bar racks and traveling

screens' designed to intercept debris. After passirig through the traveling screens, the water is

pumped to the service water system. Although part of the intake structure,' the intake screens

and pumps associated with Unit 2 are dedicated only to that unit, and are not associated with

Unit 1 during normal operation. There is no communication between the water boxes behind

the screens.

There are barriers deployed along the water intake canal and the discharge embankment. One

barrier is a block net barrier that is deployed seasonally to control the movement of small fish'

(primarily threadfin shad) prior to entry into the intake canal from the Illinois Bayou. 'The other

barriers are used for'security purposes.

2.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management System's and Effluent Control Systems

Arkansas Nuclear One uses liquid, gase'66s,`and solid radioactive waste management systems

to collect and process the liquid, gaseous, and solid wastes that are the by-products of

operations, before they are released to the environment. The waste disposal systems meet the

design objectives of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations'(CFR) Pari_50, Appendix I

(Numerical Guide for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet theCriterion, "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) for Radioactive Material in Light-WaterCooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents). Radioactive material in the reactor coolant is the

source of gaseous, liquid, and solid radioactive wastes in PWRs. Radioactive fission products

build up in the fuel as a consequence of the fission process. These fission products mostly are

April 2005 2-7 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Plant and Environment

contained in the sealed fuel rods, but small quantities escape and contaminate the reactor

coolant. Neutron activation of the primary coolant system also is responsible for coolant

contamination.

Nonfuel solid wastes result from treating and separating radionuclides from gases and liquids

and from removing contaminated material from various reactor areas. Solid wastes also consist

of reactor components, equipment, and tools removed from service, as well as contaminated

protective clothing, paper, rags, and other trash generated from plant design modifications,

operations, and routine maintenance activities. Solid wastes may be shipped to a waste

processor for volume reduction before disposal at a licensed burial site. Spent resins and filters

are typically dewatered before packaging for shipment to a licensed offsite processing or

disposal facility.

Fuel rods that have exhausted a certain percentage of their fuel and are removed from the

reactor core for disposal are called spent fuel. The reactor core is refueled approximately every

18 months. Currently, spent fuel is stored in the spent fuel pool located in the reactor building

or in the ISFSI located onsite (Entergy 2003a).

The Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) for Arkansas Nuclear One (Entergy 2003c),

which is subject to NRC inspection, describes the methods and parameters used for calculating

offsite doses resulting from radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents. It is also used for

calculating gaseous and liquid effluent monitoring alarm/trip set points for release of effluents

from Arkansas Nuclear One. Operational limits for releasing liquid and gaseous effluents are

specified to ensure compliance with NRC regulations (NRC 1991).

In December 2000, Entergy submitted a request for a license amendment for a power uprate at

ANO-2 from 2815 to 3026 MW(t). In April 2002, NRC issued an "Environmental Assessment

and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to a Proposed License Amendment to Increase

the Licensed Power Level," addressing potential environmental impacts resulting from

increasing the licensed power level at ANO-2 to 3026 MW(t). The staff concluded that no

significant radiological environmental impacts would be associated with the increase in

generating capacity, although the power uprate would result in a small increase of radiological

releases assuming a linear relationship between releases and the power increase (NRC 2002).

The systems used at ANO-2 for processing liquid waste, gaseous waste, and solid waste are

described in the following sections.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 2-8 April 2005

11
Plant and the Environment

2.1.4.1 Liquid Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls

Radioactive liquid waste generated from the operation of ANO-2 may be released to Dardanelle

Reservoir in accordance with the limits specified in the ODCM. Liquid wastes enter the

reservoir through the discharge canal.

Liquid waste is processed by two major .systems: '(1) the boron management system, which

processes liquids'from reactor coolant system bleed and drains, reactor coolant auxiliary

system relief valves and drains, and radwaste system relief valves and drains, and (2) the

waste management system, which processes'waste from various floor drains and sumps. Theliquid radwaste system is used to reduce the radioactive material concentrations in liquid

wastes before discharge to ensure that they are consistent with limits specified in the ODCM.

Liquids entering the boron management'system are degasified to remove hydrogen and fission

product gases. The liquid wastes are then transferred to receiver tanks that provide temporary

storage to allow for radioactive decay, thus maintaining the radioactivity of releases to the

environment ALARA and ensuring that the concentrations in effluent are below the ODCM

limits. Wastes from the receiver tanks are processed through a vendor-supplied, skid-mounted

processing system or the installed pre-concentrator filter and pre-concentrator ion exchanger to

the waste condensate tanks or the boric acid condensate tank. Sampling and release of liquid

waste from the monitor tank is performed on a batch basis, rather than a continuous basis, to

provide better control over effluent discharge. If the activity level in the monitor tank is within

discharge limits, the liquid may be released to the circulating water system discharge in a

controlled, monitored fashion to meet the administrative limits in the ODCM. If radionuclide

levels in the liquids exceed the discharge limits, they are returned to the receiver tank for

additional decay time and treatment.

Liquids entering the waste management system are expected to contain lower levels of activity

than those in the boron management system, and are collected in one of two sections of a drain

tank. When there is sufficient volume in the online waste tank, the contents are transferred to

the'b6ron managemenrt system holding tank for processing either with boron management

system wastes or directly with the vendor processing skid to a waste condensate tank or a boric

acid condensate tank. The holding tank waste may be recirculated for processing prior to

transfer. If radionuclide concentrations-in the filtered waste tank exceed discharge limits, the

wastes are transferred to the clean liquid radwaste system for additional treatment:

Liquid effluents are-monitored continuously as wastes are discharged, and effluent release is

automatically discontinued if 'monitors indicate that radionuclide concentrations in the wastes

exceed permitted levels. Waste tanks are vented to a gas collection header and purged with

nitrogen to remove any accumulated gases.

April 2005 2-9 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Plant and Environment

Controls for limiting the release of radiological liquid effluents are described in the ODCM.

Controls are based on (1) concentrations of radioactive materials in liquid effluents and

projected dose or (2) dose commitment to a member of the public. Concentrations of

radioactive materials that may be released in liquid effluents to unrestricted areas are limited to

the concentration specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2, for radionuclides other

than dissolved or entrained noble gases. The total concentration of dissolved or entrained

noble gases in liquid releases is limited to 7.4 Bq/mL (2 x 104 iACi/ml). The ODCM dose limits

are 0.015 mSv (1.5 mrem) to the total body and 0.05 mSv (5 mrem) to the critical organ during

any calendar quarter, and 0.03 mSv (3 mrem) to the whole body and 0.10 mSv (10 mrem) to

the critical organ during the calendar year. Radioactive liquid wastes are subject to the

sampling and analysis program described in the ODCM.

During calendar year 2002, ANO-2 released a total of 2.06 x 1013 Bq (557.6 Ci) of radioactive

material in liquid effluents. There were 107 batch releases with a total volume of 1.33 x 1012 L

of dilution water (Entergy 2003c).

Entergy does not anticipate any increase on an annual basis in liquid waste releases during the

renewal period (Entergy 2003c).

2.1.4.2 Gaseous Waste Processing Systems and Effluent Controls

Radioactive gases generated by fission and neutron activation of materials in the plant are

managed by the Gaseous Waste Processing System (GWPS). Radioactive constituents in

gaseous effluents include noble gases, iodine, tritium, and fine particulate materials.

Radioactive gaseous effluents generated from operation of ANO-2 are released to the

atmosphere through the main vent stacks or the turbine building ventilation exhaust. Smaller,

intermittent releases may also take place through the emergency air lock, the plant compressed

air system, the main steam line penetrations, the containment equipment hatch, and the

auxiliary feedwater pumps.

The GWPS collects, stores, and disposes of gases from the liquid radwaste vacuum degasifiers, the volume control tanks, and other miscellaneous hydrogenated sources associated with

the primary reactor cooling system. During normal operation, the GWPS is designed to store

gases to allow for radioactive decay before release. The GWPS consists of a surge tank, two

compressors, waste gas decay tanks, and several filter systems. Each of the filter systems

contains a roughing filter, a high-efficiency particulate air filter, and a charcoal absorber. The

gas storage tanks are sampled prior to release via the gaseous waste discharge header. Both

activity and flow rates in the discharge stream are continuously monitored to ensure that the

effluents comply with discharge limits.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 2-10 April 2005

It
Plant and the Environment

The GWPS also processes effluents from the auxiliary system equipment and tanks, the spent

fuel storage area ventilation, and the radwaste area ventilation. These effluents contain air and

are separated from the hydrogenated primary system effluents to minimize the potential for -

explosion. These effluents typically contain low levels of activity and are released directly to the

station vent plenum through a filter system. These effluents are continuously monitored as they

are released, and are diverted to the GWPS surge tank for additional storage and decay if they

exceed discharge limits.

Entergy maintains gaseous releases within ODCM limits. The GWPS is used to reduce the

radioactive material in gaseous effluents prior to discharge to meet the dose design objectives

in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. In-addition, the' limits in the ODCM are designed to provide

reasonable assurance that radioactive material discharged in gaseous effluents would not result

in the exposure of a member of the publi6 in an unrestricted area in excess of the limits

specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B.

The quantities of gaseous effluents released from ANO-2 are controlled by the administrative

limits defined in the ODCM. The controls are specified for dose rate, dose due to noble gases,

and dose due to iodine and radionuclides in particulate form. For noble gases, the dose rate

limit at or beyond the site boundary is 5 mSv/yr (500 mrem/yr) to the total body and 30 mSv/yr

(3000 mrem/yr) to the skin. For iodine and particulates with half lives greater than 8 days, the

limit is 15 mSv/yr (1500 mrem/yr) to any organ. The limit for air dose due to noble gases

released in gaseous effluents to areas at or beyond the site boundary during any calendar

quarter is 0;05 mGy (5 mrad) for gamma radiation and 0.1 mGy (10 mrad) for beta radiation.

For any calendar year, the limit is 0.1 mGy (10 mrad) for gamma radiation and 0.2 mGy

(20 mrad) for beta radiation. The radioactive gaseous waste sampling and analysis program

specifications in the'ODCM address the gaseous release type, sampling frequency, minimum:

analysis frequency, type of activity analysis, and the lower limit of detection (Entergy 2003c).

During 2002, ANO-2 released 1.4 x 1012 Bq (28.1 Ci) in ground-level gaseous releases. These

releases were made up of fission gases, iodines, and particulates (Entergy 2003c).

Entergy does not anticipate any increase on an annual basis in gaseous waste releases during

the license renewal term (Entergy 2003a).

2.1.4.3 Solid Waste Processing

The Solid Radioactive Waste Program (SRWP) at Arkansas Nuclear One provides for

solidification, stabilization, encapsulation, and packaging of wastes. The SRWP processes

wastes from the liquid and gaseous effluent treatment systems, as well as other miscellaneous

solid wastes generated during plant operation and maintenance. Solid waste is packaged in

containers to meet the applicable requirements of 10 CFR Parts 61 and 71 for transportation

April 2005 2-11 AFinal NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Plant and Environment

and disposal. The SRWP provides the capability for preparing solid waste that can be shipped

to an offsite treatment or disposal facility. The system is designed to maintain radiation

exposure ALARA for personnel who handle solid wastes and to minimize the quantities of solid

waste generated at the plant.

The SRWP manages high specific activity wastes from the liquid and gaseous effluent

treatment systems, which consist mainly of spent ion exchanger resin and filter cartridges.

Spent ion exchanger resin is transferred to a storage tank where it is held for radioactive decay.

The resins are dewatered or solidified prior to shipment offsite for disposal. Radioactive filters

are transported from each filter housing to the waste disposal area. Other dry active wastes

are packaged in a low-level waste work area. Volume reduction treatments such as shredding

or compaction may be used where appropriate. All solid wastes are packaged in containers

suitable for transfer to an offsite treatment or disposal facility.

Entergy stores both high specific activity wastes and dry active wastes at Arkansas Nuclear

One in an onsite Low-Level Radioactive Waste Storage Building where the wastes are

prepared for shipment to offsite treatment or disposal facilities. The storage facility is designed

to accommodate more than 5 years of expected waste generated at ANO-2, based on normal

operation and generation. The functions of the facility include interim storage of high specific

activity wastes, dry active wastes, and other radioactively contaminated materials; receiving,

sorting, compacting, packaging, and shipment of dry active waste; and office space for

radwaste management activities. The high specific activity wastes storage area provides

shielding as needed to minimize doses to nearby workers, as well as remote-handling

equipment for high specific activity wastes containers. Dose rates within the facility are

continuously monitored. The facility ventilation system operates at negative pressure, and

effluents are continuously monitored after passing through a high-efficiency particulate air filter

system to remove particulate materials. A separate shielded facility is available for temporary

storage of radioactively contaminated but reusable tools and equipment.

All radioactive waste shipments from ANO-2 are packaged in accordance with NRC and

U.S. Department of Transportation requirements. The type and quantities of solid radioactive

waste generated and shipped from Arkansas Nuclear One would vary from year to year

depending on plant activities. Currently, the radioactive waste is shipped to licensed facilities in

Oak Ridge, Erwin, and Memphis, Tennessee. In 2002, 19 shipments consisting of approximately 432 cubic meters of solid waste (spent ion exchange resins, dry compressible waste,

contaminated equipment, and irradiated components) were shipped from Arkansas Nuclear

One (Entergy 2003c).

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 2-12 April 2005

11
Plant and the Environment

2.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Systems

Nonradioactive wastes at ANO-2 are generated primarily from plant maintenance and cleaning

processes. The wastes are produced by the boiler blowdown, water treatment sludges and

other wastes, boiler metal cleaning wastes, floor and yard drains, and storm water runoff.

Processes used to control the pH in -the coolant, control scale, regenerate resins, and clean and

defoul the condenser produce some chemical and biocide wastes. The waste liquids are

typically combined with cooling water discharges. Sanitary waste water is treated at an onsite

facility before discharge under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permit (see Section 2.2.3) from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

(Entergy 2003a).

Nonradioactive gaseous effluents result from operation of the oil-fired boiler used to heat the

plant and from testing of the emergency diesel generators. Discharge of regulated pollutants is

minimized by use of low-sulfur fuels and is within Arkansas air quality standards

(Entergy 2003a).

2.1.6 'Plant Operation and Maintenance ---

Routin'e' maintenance performed on plant systems and components is necessary for safe,

reliable operation of a nuclear power plant. Some of the maintenance activities conducted at

ANO-2 include inspection, testing, and surveillance to maintain the current licensing basis of the

plant and to ensure compliance with environmental and public safety requirements. Certain-,

activities can be performed while the reactor is operating. Others require that the plant be shut

down. Long-term outages are scheduled for refueling and for certain types of repairs or

maintenance, such as replacement of a major component. Scheduled refueling outages

commonly occur every 18 months and last approximately 30 days. Based on the activities

scheduled for the outage, an additional 1300 to 1400 workers may typically be onsite during an

outage. During the license renewal term, it is not expected that additional temporary staff will

be needed during outages (Entergy 2003a).

Entergy performed an aging management review; the results are described in Section 3 of its

license renewal application (Entergy 2003e). Section 3 has a summary of the information from

the aging management review; the aging management programs are described in'Appendix B

of the application. The results of the review are compared with NUREG-1 801, Generic Aging

Lessons Learmed (GALL) Report (NRC 2001 a).- This-review fulfills the requirements of 10 CFR

54.21 (a). The aging management review identified some new inspection activities necessary to

continue operation of ANO-2 during the license renewal term. Entergy does not expect to add

additional non-outage staff during the license renewal term (Entergy 2003a).

{-April 2005 2-13 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Plant and Environment

2.1.7 Power Transmission System

One approximately 146-km (91 -mi)-long, 500-kV, single-circuit transmission line connects

ANO-2 to the electric grid. It extends from the existing ANO-2, 500-kV station switchyard

southeasterly via the Mayflower substation (southwest of Mayflower) to the Mabelvale

substation (southwest of Little Rock) (Entergy 2003a). Figure 2-4 shows the location of the

ANO-2 transmission line. This 500-kV transmission line was constructed at the same time

ANO-2 was constructed, and was energized in 1976 (Entergy 2003a). If ANO-2 was removed

from service, this transmission line would continue to carry area transmission loads

(Entergy 2003a).

The transmission line right-of-way is 55 m (180 ft) wide (NRC 2001 b), encompasses 730 ha

(1804 ac) (Table 2-1), and crosses land that consists of rural property, forestland, and to a

limited degree, agricultural and timber production operations (Entergy 2003a). The

transmission line right-of-way does not cross State or Federal parks, wildlife refuges, or wildlife

management areas (Entergy 2003a).

Vegetation management along the ANO-2 transmission line right-of-way is performed approximately every 4 years and consists of mechanical and manual clearing only. No herbicides are

used. Mechanical clearing employs tractors with mowing and tree-cutting equipment in the

open areas of the right-of-way, while manual clearing involves cutting trees around poles, down

guys, anchor rods, and structure legs and foundations, and at fences and road crossings.

Hazard trees (trees that pose an immediate threat to line reliability because they are leaning

toward the line or are subject to falling on the line because of advanced soil erosion) outside the

right-of-way are also removed or topped. Semiannually, an aerial survey of the transmission

line right-of-way is performed to identify issues that would cause potential operational problems

(e.g., erosion, vegetation control, equipment maintenance, etc.) (Entergy 2003a, b).

Table 2-1. Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 Transmission Line Right-of-Way

Approximate Right-of-way Right-of-way

Number Distance Width Area

Substation of Lines kV km (mi) Corridor m (ft) hectares (acres)

Mabelvale 1 500 146 91 Southeast 55 180 730 1804

Source: Entergy 2003a.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 2-14 April 2005

I'
Plant and the Environment

VAN BUREN

PCWE 5,,. 4. :-.

t . . K ~CONWAYt- - -

:8 .A. . FAWR

-- ***-;m->< X-- * |ANG-_0^2SOKW

XJ \ - e i 2Transmission Line _A. ; . .

@Russ.ItllvIII X._,-.-.

Morwilten )C3a

_ Mayflower

PERRY - --

.t I

rV aer i H- |LN l ..l; .SAIJINE M P U I A S KI.

.e -.-...@- 

GARLAND

Figure 2-4. Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 Transmission Line

'April 2005 2-15 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19

I
Plant and Environment

2.2 Plant Interaction with the Environment

Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.8 provide general background information about the environment

near ANO-2. Detailed descriptions are included where needed to support the analysis of

potential environmental impacts of refurbishment and operation during the license renewal

term, as discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. Entergy's evaluation of structures and components, as

required by 10 CFR 54.21, did not identify any major plant refurbishment activities or modifications necessary to support the continued operation of ANO-2 beyond the end of the existing

operating license. Section 2.2.9 describes the historic and archaeological resources in the

area, and Section 2.2.10 describes possible impacts associated with other Federal project

activities.

2.2.1 Land Use

ANO-2 is located in southwestern Pope County, Arkansas. The plant site is approximately

10 km (6 mi) west-northwest of the town of Russellville, which is also the county seat of Pope

County.

The plant site occupies 471 ha (1164 ac). The plant site is on a peninsula in Lake Dardanelle,

which is formed by the Dardanelle Lock and Dam on the Arkansas River. The site topography

is primarily flat. The peninsula is approximately 3 km (2 mi) wide by 3 km (2 mi) long. Forests

and residential development cover the majority of the peninsula. Pasture and croplands are

insignificant to nonexistent on the peninsula.

The site is in an unincorporated portion of Pope County. No land-use or zoning restrictions are

applicable to land within unincorporated portions of Pope County.

2.2.2 Water Use

The primary source of water for ANO-2 is Lake Dardanelle, which is the impoundment created

by Dardanelle Lock and Dam. The lock and dam are operated by ACE as part of the Arkansas

River Navigation Project, which provides for navigation, flood control, hydropower production,

water supply, and recreation throughout the Arkansas River Basin. The average annual flow for

the Arkansas River at Lake Dardanelle is 1070 m3/s (37,800 cfs). Monthly average stream

flows of less than 40 m3/s (1400 cfs) have been recorded in only 3 months since 1977.

Currently, ACE has no anticipated plans to change the operation of Lake Dardanelle that might

affect the water supply available to ANO-2 (Entergy 2000).

The demand for Lake Dardanelle water from other downstream users is low, and there is no

reported water availability problem on the lake. Other than Arkansas Nuclear One, there are

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 2-16 April 2005

it
Plant and the Environment

only three registered off-stream users of water from the lake. During 2000, about 0.14 m3/s l

(5 cfs) was diverted from the lake for'irrigation, mining, and water supply uses (ASWCC 2002).

Although relatively small, the-consumptive loss of water at ANO-2 removes water from potential

hydropower uses downstream. Entergy, therefore, annually pays ACE for the loss of water that

would otherwise be used for hydropower generation at Dardanelle Lock and Dam. Compensation in the amount of approximately $11,000 per year is made for combined evaporative water

losses from both generating units at Arkansas Nuclear One.

Evaporative losses from the ANO-2 cooling tower are estimated to average 0.62 m3/s (22 cfs)

annually with the maximum annual average of 0.76 m3/s (27 cfs). No groundwater is withdrawn

for either ANO-1 or ANO-2.' Both units share about'l.1 Us (17 gpm) of water purchased from

City Corporation water system,'which is'owned by the City of Russellville. This purchased

water is used to serve potable water demands at both units.

2.2.3 Water Quality

Besides serving the needs of ANO-2, Lake Dardanelle serves a variety of other uses. Its water

quality has been designated as suitable for the propagation of fish and wildlife, priniary and

secondary contact recreation, and public~6hd industrial water supplies.

Discharges from the plant's cooling tower blowdown, liquid radioactive waste system, sanitary''

waste system, sumps, and drains are returned to Lake Dardanelle via the discharge canal. -

Pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 USC 1251), also' known as the Clean

Water Act of 1977, the water quality of plant effluent discharges is regulated through the

NPDES. ADEQ is delegated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to issue the NPDES

permit.- The current permit (AR0001392) 'was issued on January 1, 2003,' and is due to expire'

on December 31, 2007 (ADEQ 2002). The requirements of any new or amended regulations

promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the ADEQ would be addressed in

future permits' Under the conditions of the NPDES permit, discharge limitations are imposed

on total residual oxidants, oil and grease, temperature, zinc, and pH. Biomonitoring of the plant

discharge is also required under the terms of the permit.

2.2.4 Air Quality

ANO-2 is located in west-central Arkansas, approximately midway between Fort Smith and

Little Rock. It is on Lake Dardanelle at an elevation of about 120 m (400 ft) above mean sea

level. To the north of the site are the Boston Mountains, and the Ouachita Mountains are to the

south.

Pope County, in which ANO-2 is located, is hot in the summer and moderately cool during the

winter, and has fairly heavy rainfall that is well distributed throughout the year (USDA 1981).

April 2005 2-17 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Plant and Environment

Climatological records for Russellville, which would generally be representative of the site, show

normal daily maximum temperatures ranging from about 11 OC (51 OF) during January to about

340C (930F) during July; normal daily minimum temperatures range from about -30C (270F)

during January to about 21 0C (690F) during July. Precipitation averages about 124 cm (49 in.)

per year, with an average of about 7 cm (3 in.) of snow per year. Based on statistics for the

30-year period from 1954 through 1983, the probability of a tornado striking the site is

estimated to be approximately 3 x 10'4 per year (Ramsdell and Andrews 1986).

The primary wind resources in Arkansas are found in the Ouachita Mountains south of the site

and in the Boston Mountains north of the site (Elliott et al. 1986). In these areas, wind power

densities are estimated to be in the 400 to 500 W/m2 range at 50 m (164 ft) above ground. For

the remainder of the state, the wind power density is estimated to be less than 300 W/m2.

Pope County is in the Central Arkansas Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (40 CFR 81.138).

Air quality for this air quality control region is designated as better than national standards in

attainment, or unclassifiable for all primary pollutants (40 CFR 81.304). Air quality indices

(40 CFR Part 58, Appendix G),,which are calculated for metropolitan statistical areas, provide

air quality information for the public. The closest metropolitan statistical area to the Arkansas

Nuclear One site is the Little Rock/North Little Rock area, which is approximately 75 mi from the

site. During the years 2000, 2001, and 2002, the average number of days the Air Quality Index

(AQI) for the Little Rock area exceeded 100 was about 10 days per year. Ozone

concentrations caused the AQI to exceed 100 each of these days (EPA 2003). An AQI of 100

or less indicates good to moderate air quality. Air quality in Pope County is expected to be

better than the air quality in the Little Rock area.

Several diesel generators and boilers are used at the Arkansas Nuclear One site. Emissions

from these generators and boilers are limited by an air permit issued by ADEQ under the Clean

Air Act (42 USC 2011). The permit limits the fuel usage and hours of operation of these

emission sources. In practice, the sources are only operated a small fraction of the permitted

hours.

The Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Areas are the closest wilderness areas to the

site. These areas are designated in 40 CFR 81.404 as mandatory Class I Federal areas in

which visibility is an important value. The Caney Creek Wilderness Area is more than 160 km

(100 mi) from the Arkansas Nuclear One site, but the Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area is within

80 km (50 mi) of the site.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 2-18 April 2005
Plant and the Environment

2.2.5 Aquatic Resources

Lake Dardanelle was created when Dardanelle Lock and Dam was constructed on the

Arkansas River. The river was impounded and the lake formed in 1967. The water level of the

lake is controlled at Dardanelle Dam and other dams on the Arkansas River. The cooling water

intake structure for ANO-1 and ANO-2 is located at the end of a constructed canal that

connects to'the Illinois Bayou embayment. Discharge from both units is through a small canal

connecting to the discharge embayment and Lake Dardanelle.'

Lake Dardanelle also is designated as suitable for propagation of fish and wildlife, recreation,

and public and industrial water supplies. The water quality of Lake Dardanelle is monitored by

ADEQ. Water-based recreation activities, such as boating and fishing, are a focal point of

interest, and the'lake supported more than 40 fishing tournaments in 2004. Additionally,"the

region around the lake is used for camping, picnicking, sightseeing, photography, and nature

studies. The lake'also has a commercial fishing iMdustry.

The various trophic communities of Lake Dardanelle have been surveyed and monitored over

the years (Rickett 1994). Phytoplankton populations are diverse and fluctuate'seasonally. :

Green algae (Chlorophyta) are the dominant algal group throughout the year. Diatoms

(Chrysophyta) are secondary in-abundance and the bIuegreens (Cyanophyta) and

dinoflagellates (Pyrrhophyta) are minor constituents. Zooplankton abundance varies

seasonally. Rotifers dominate during the early suinrner. Other zooplankton species occurring

at Lake Dardanelle include Kellicottia bostoniensis, Platyias patulus, Brachionus spp., Keratella

cochlearis, Polyarthra sp., and Leptodora kindtii. The benthic community includes

Chironomidae, Oligochaeta, and Sphaeriidae (Rickett and Watson 1994). Additional benthic

organisms that hav ebeeh introduced into Lake Dardanelle include the Corbicula fluminea and

Dreissena polymorpha. -However, observations by Entergy staff have indicated that the

numbers of these introduced mollusks has been decreasing over the last few years.

The fish community of the area varies with the currents that exist in various parts of the lake.

Flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and blue catfish

(Ictalurus furcatus) occur where there is a current. 'Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides)

spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), bluegill sunfish

(Lepomis macrochirus), black crappie (Pornoxis nigronoaculatus), white crappie (Pomoxis

annularis), and warmouth (Lepomis gulosus) are found in slack water areas of Lake Dardanelle

and Illinois Bayou. - - -

The fish community near the site also changes seasonally. Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and

white bass (Morone chrysops) are generally more abundant in the spring. -Rough or --

'commercial fishes are generally abundant throughout the year. These fish include European

carp (Cyprinus carpio), bigmouth buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus), black buffalo (Ictiobus niger),

April 2005 2-19 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Plant and Environment

smallmouth buffalo (Ictiobus bubalus), carpsuckers (Carpiodes spp.), freshwater drum

(Aplodinotus grunniens), and redhorses (Moxostoma spp.). The most important forage fish

species in the lake are gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and threadfin shad (Dorosoma

petenense).

Arkansas Nuclear One is considered to be beneficial to fish and Wildlife of the region. The site

provides a number of diverse habitats such as fields, hardwood stands, conifer stands, and

wetlands. There are numerous transitional areas or edge communities resulting in high-quality

habitats for species diversity. The cooling water intake canal provides habitat for numerous

species of fish. During warm months, the intake flow mixes warm, less oxygenated surface

water with cool, more highly oxygenated channel water from Illinois Bayou, thus providing a

highly productive habitat within the canal. Numerous species of fish and waterfowl migrate to

the warm water effluent during cold water conditions. The use of the intake and discharge

canals by fish communities provides a fishery for the local sports fishers. A variety of

recreationally important fish species are thought to congregate in the vicinity of the block net

barrier in the Illinois Bayou Embayment at the mouth of the intake canal, as well as the security

barrier in the discharge embayment. The fish are probably attracted to the nets in what is

otherwise a rather scoured and muddy bottom in the waterways.

A small, inundated wetland south of the effluent bay provides habitat for mammals, fish,

reptiles, amphibians, and waterfowl. The aquatic environment at the site provides habitat for

fish and wildlife, thus providing fishing, hunting, and other recreational opportunities for the

public throughout the area.

Based on consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), one species of fish, the

Arkansas shiner (Notropis girardi), is Federally listed as threatened and has been reported from

the Arkansas River (Table 2-2) (Entergy 2003a). This small (usually less than 5 cm [2 in.])

shiner is straw-colored with silvery sides, and has scattered brown flecks on its sides behind the

head.

The Arkansas River shiner was thought to occur throughout the Arkansas River main channel'

and its major tributaries. Because of declines in stream flow during the summer months when

Table 2-2. Federally Listed and Arkansas State-Listed Aquatic Species Potentially Occurring in

Pope County, Arkansas, in the Vicinity of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status(a) State Status(")

Notropis girardi Arkansas River shiner Threatened No listing

(a) Source: Entergy 2003a, 2004b

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 2-20 April 2005
Plant and the Environment

the shiner is spawning, its distribution has'decreased to a few'stream reaches in Kansas,

Oklahoma, and Texas (Kansas Wildlife and Parks 2004). It is likely extirpated from the

Arkansas River in Arkansas (FWS 2004a). Critical habitat has been designated for the

Arkansas River shiner, but not in Arkansas or Lake Dardanelle.

Consultation with the Arkansas National Heritage Commission (ANHC) and Arkansas Game

and Fish Commission (AGFC) was initiated by Entergy in September 2002 with letters

requesting information about the presence of State listed species on and in the vicinity of ANO2 and its transmission line right-of-way. No State-listed aquatic species were identified by

either the ANHC or AGFC as occurring on or in the vicinity of ANO-2 or its transmission line

right-of-way (Entergy 2003a).

2.2.6 Terrestrial Resources

ANO-2 and its associated transmission line right-of-way lie within the oak-hickory biome of the

eastern deciduous forest. This biome ranges from dense forests of oaks (Quercus spp.) and

hickory (Catya spp.) to more open savanna habitat. Eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana)

and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) are common in the open habitats (NRC 2001 b).

The ANO-2 site is largely industrial and has experienced extensive alteration of its original

vegetation cover. Vegetation at the site includes mixed pine and hardwood forest and

disturbed, early successional habitat (Table 2-3). -Approximately 2 ha (5 ac) of wetlands are -

present on the site (Table 2-3) (NRC 2001 b). The transmission line right-of-way crosses" lands

thatfconsist of rural property, forestland, and to a limited degree, agricultural and timber -

production operations (Entergy 2003a).

Mammals at the ANO-2 site and transmission line right-of-way include white-tailed deer

(Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), red and grey foxes ( Vulpes fulva and

Urocyon cinereoargenteus), eastern gray and fox squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis and S. nige4),

eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), and a variety of mice and voles. White-tailed deer are the

most important game mammal (NRC 2001b).

The open water of Lake Dardanelle (Table 2-3) and the emergent wetland habitat support a

number of migrant waterfowl species, including common mergansers (Mergus merganser and

double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus). Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) use the lake

areas near the ANO-2 site. American white pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) use the open

water habitats of the reservoir. Great blue herons (Ardea herodias) nest in trees near the site

(NRC 2001 b).

April 2005 2-21 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Plant and Environment

Table 2-3. Land Cover at the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 Site

Land Cover Class Area, ha (acres) Percentage of Site

Mixed pine-hardwood forest 187 (461) 40

Early successional habitats 196 (485) 41

Developed areas 73 (180) 15

Open water 12 (30) 3

Wetlands 2(5) 1

Source: Entergy 2003a and NRC 2001b.

| No State-listed species were identified by ANHC as occurring on or in the vicinity of the ANO-2

| site or its transmission line right-of-way. However, ANHC identified two plant species that occur

in the vicinity of the transmission line right-of-way and three habitat areas crossed by the

I transmission line right-of-way that are of special concern (Table 2-4) (Entergy 2003a).

Table 2-4. Plant Species and Habitat Areas of Special Concern Along the Arkansas

Nuclear One, Unit 2 Transmission Line Right-of-Way

Common Reason for

Name Name Federal Status State Status ANHC Listing

Plants

Philadelphus hirsutus mock orange None None Uncommon in the

state; disjunct

from its eastern

range

Castanea pumila var. Ozark None None Declining

ozarkensis chinquapin numbers due to

chestnut blight

Habitats

Illinois Bayou -- None Extraordinary Limitations on new

Resource Waters impacts

Cadron Creek -- None Extraordinary Limitations on new

Resource Waters impacts

Goose Pond -- None Natural areaca) Conservation

Natural Area easement to

ANHC

(a) Owned and managed by AGFC.

Source: Entergy 2003a. I

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 2-22 April 2005

it
Plant and the Environment

FTN Associates, Ltd. (FTN) surveyed extensive portions of the ANO-2 transmission line rightof-way dominated by native vegetation on October 11 and 12, 2002. FTN evaluated these

areas for presence of individuals and potential habitats for mock orange (Philadelphus -

hirsutus), Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis), and Bachman's sparrow

(Aimophila aestivalis).- Bachman's sparrow is a state of Arkansas Watch List Species that is of

conservation concern. None of these three species were observed. Potential habitat for mock

orange and Ozark chinquapin was not observed. In the case of Bachman's sparrow, the

presence of potential habitat was inconclusive. Field surveys were not conducted of segments.-

of the right-of-way that passed through agricultural or roadside areas, or other areas that were

highly disturbed and/or dominated by introduced woody species (FTN 2004).

The only Federally listed terrestrial sPecies protected under the Endangered Species Act

(16 USC 1531) known to-occur in the vicinity of the ANO-2 site and its transmission line right-ofway are the endarngered least tern (Stema antillarum)'(interior population only) (FWS 2004b), |

threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (Entergy 2003a; FWS 2004a), and endangered gray bat (Myotis grisescens) (Entergy 2003a) (Table 2-5). No critical habitat has been

designated for any of these Federally listed species (FWS 2004a). No Federally listed plant

species are known to occur in the vicinity of the ANO-2 site or its transmission line right-of-way

(Entergy 2003a, 2004a). There are no other species currently proposed for formal listing or

considered candidates for listing in the vicinity (FWS 2004b).

The gray bat was listed by FWS as endangered in 1976 throughout its range primarily due to

human' disturbance and impoundment of waterways (Storming Media 2004). Gray bats are

year-round cave residents, but they migrate between caves located in wintering and summering

Table 2-5. Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Present in the Vicinity of the

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2'or Its Transmission Line Right-of-Way.:

State

Scientific Name 'Common Name Federal Status(a) Statusfb)

Haliaeetus leucocephalus- bald eagle i Threatened - Inventory

ElementMc)

Myotis grisescens -gray bat Endangered Inventory

Element

Sterna antillarum least tern (interior Endangered Inventory

population) Element

(a) Source: Entergy 2003a, 2004b.

(b) Source: ANHC 2002.

(c) Inventory Element: Species oa conservation concern that may be rare, peripheral, or of an undetermined

status in Arkansas.

I

April 2005 2-23 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Plant and Environment

areas of the midwestern and southeastern United States. Populations are mainly concentrated

in Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky. The gray bat is known to occur

near ANO-2, where it resides in caves upstream of Dardanelle Lock and Dam. However, these

caves are 16 km (10 mi) from ANO-2 and 3.2 km (2 mi) from the transmission line right-of-way.

No cave habitat is known to occur on the ANO-2 site or within its transmission line right-of-way

(NRC 2001 b).

Arkansas ranks in the top 10 states in the number of winter bald eagle sightings (AGFC 2004).

More than 1000 bald eagles are counted each winter, nearly triple the 368 recorded in 1979.

The bald eagle is a winter transient to the Lake Dardanelle area, where birds forage during

colder periods of the winter months. Nest sites have been reported at several localities on

Lake Dardanelle, but none are within 16 km (10 mi) of ANO-2, and none are within the

transmission line right-of-way (Entergy 2003a). Eagles also are not known to use the shoreline

of Lake Dardanelle in the vicinity of ANO-2 for roosting or foraging (Entergy 2003a; NRC

2001 b).

Interior least terns are present along the Arkansas and Red Rivers from April through August.

They nest in small colonies on exposed salt flats, reservoir beaches, and river sandbars. Major

threats include predation, human disturbance, and the construction and operation of main stem

reservoirs. The interior least tern requires sandbars with very low vegetation cover and

protection from predators and flooding. These conditions are not present at the ANO-2 site or

along its transmission line right-of-way. The interior least tern breeds on sandbars along the

Arkansas River near Atkins and Clarksville, Arkansas; however, these nesting locations are

beyond a 16-km (10-mi) radius from ANO-2 and its transmission line right-of-way (NRC 2001 b).

FTN conducted field surveys within the Arkansas Nuclear One site boundary on October 8

and 9, 1999, in support of the license renewal SEIS for ANO-1. At that time, the bald eagle was

considered to be the only Federally listed species that could occur within the Arkansas Nuclear

One site boundary (FTN 2004). No eagle nest or roost sites or foraging areas were reported

from within the Arkansas Nuclear One site boundary (FTN 2004; NRC 2001 b). FTN also

conducted field surveys of extensive portions of the ANO-2 transmission line right-of-way that

are dominated by native vegetation on October 11 and 12, 2002. FTN evaluated these right-ofway segments for presence of the bald eagle, interior least tern, and gray bat, and potential

habitat for these species. None of these three species or potential habitat was observed

(FTN 2004).

2.2.7 Radiological Impacts

Entergy has conducted a radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) around the

Arkansas Nuclear One site since 1974 (Entergy 2003d). Through this program, radiological

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 2-24 April 2005

11
Plant and the Environment

impacts to workers, the public, and the environment are monitored, documented, and compared

to applicable standards. The objectives of the REMP are to:

* analyze important pathways for anticipated types and quantities of radionuclides

released into the environment

* consider the possibility of a buildup of long-lived radionuclides in the environment and

identify physical and biological accumulations that may contribute to human exposures

* consider the potential radiation exposure to plant and animal life in the environment

surrounding the site

* correlate levels of radiation and radioactivity in the environment with radioactive releases

from station operation.

Recent radiological releases are summarized in the following annual reports: Arkansas Nuclear

One - Units 1 and2 Environmental Operating Report for 2002 (Entergy 2003d) and the ;- -

Arkansas Nuclear One - Units 1 and 2, Operating License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6 Annual

Radioactive Effluent Release Report, January 1 through December 31, 2002 (Entergy 2003c).

The limits for all radiological releases are specified in the ODCM; these limits are designed to

meet Federal standards and requirements.. The REMP includes monitoring of the aquatic

environment (fish, invertebrates, and shoreline sediment), atmospheric environment (airborne

radioiodine, gross beta and gamma), terrestrial environment (vegetation), and direct radiation

(Entergy 2003d).

A review of the historical data on releases and the resultant dose calculations revealed that the

doses to a maximally exposed individual in the vicinity of Arkansas Nuclear One were a small

fraction of the limits specified in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's environmental

radiation standards in 40 CFR Part 190, as required by 10 CFR 20.1301(d). During 2002 (the

most recent year for which data were available), the total effective dose equivalent resulting

from licensed activities inside the site boundary was 0.00011 mSv (0.011 mrem) for the total

body, which was 0.04 percent of the 40 CFR Part 190 limit of 0.25 mSv (25 mrem). The dose

limits are calculated on a per-reactor basis. For the liquid pathway, the dose limit is calculated

using the adult as the maximally exposed individual via the aquatic foods (sport freshwater fish)

and the potable water pathways. For dose resulting from exposure to iodine-131, tritium, and

particulates in gaseous effluents, the child is the controlling age group.

Entergy does not anticipate any significant changes to the radioactive effluent releases or

exposures from ANO-2 operations during the license renewal term; therefore, the impacts to

the environment are expected to be similar to those in recent years (Entergy 2003a).

April 200 5 2-25 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Plant and Environment

2.2.8 Socioeconomic Factors

The staff reviewed the Entergy Environmental Report (Entergy 2003a) and information obtained

from several county, city, and economic development staff during the February 2004 site visit to

Pope and Yell Counties or via telephone interviews. The following information describes the

economy, population, and communities near the ANO-2 site.

2.2.8.1 Housing

ANO-1 and ANO-2 employ approximately 1260 people on a full-time basis, with more than

85 percent of the normal operating workforce composed of Entergy employees. Approximately

78 percent of these employees (plant and contract employees) live in Pope County, about

9 percent in Yell County, and about 8 percent in Johnson County, and the remainder live in

other locations (Table 2-6). Because approximately 94 percent of the Entergy and baseline

contractor employees live in Pope, Yell, and Johnson Counties and Pope County is where the

plant is located, the focus of the socioeconomic analysis is on these three counties.

Information is not available for the individual units, but only for the entire facility. Roughly half

of plant employee and resource use is associated with ANO-2.

Between 1990 and 2000, total housing units in Pope County increased from 18,430 to 22,851

(USCB 2000a) (Table 2-7). Housing availability in the three-county area is not limited by

growth-control measures. The number of housing units in the three-county area has increased

by more than 20 percent since 1990, and the number of occupied units has increased at a

slightly slower rate, so the number and percentage of vacancies have grown during the decade

from about 10 percent to about 11 percent.

Entergy refuels ANO-2 on an 18-month cycle. Refueling and maintenance outages typically

last approximately 30 days. Depending on the scope of these outages, an additional 1300 to

1400 workers are typically onsite. The number of workers required for normal plant outages

during the period of extended operation is expected to be consistent with the number of

additional workers used for past outages (Entergy 2003a). These temporary employees

primarily stay at hotels, motels, and temporary rental housing available in Pope, Johnson, and

Yell Counties.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 2-26 April 2005

11
Plant and the Environment

Table 2-6. Permanent Employee Residence Information by County and City in the Vicinity

of Arkansas Nuclear One

Number of Employees Percent of

County and City(2) (Entergy and Baseline Contractor Employees) Employees

POPE COUNTY

Russellville 722 57.4

Dover 112 8.9

London 59 4.7

Atkins 40 3.2

Pottsville 28 2.2

Total Named Places 961 76.4

Total Pope County 976 77.6

JOHNSON COUNTY

Clarksville 38 3.0-

Lamar 38 3.0

Knoxville 10 0.8

Total Named Places 86 -6.8

Total Johnson County 99 7.9

YELL COUNTY

Dardanelle 70 5.6

Havana 10 0.8

Ola 10 0.8

Total Named Places 90 7.2

Total Yell County .111 8.8

Other Counties -- 72 5.7

GrandTotal 1258 .100.0

(a) Addresses are for both incorporated cities and towns and for rural areas with the same zip code: Only cities

and towns that are home to at least 10 employees are shown. -

Source: Entergy 2003a.- - -

* - I : ~~'0 .!.' ...

April 2005 2-27 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
IPlant and Environment

Table 2-7. Housing Units and Housing Units Vacant (Available) by County During

1990 and 2000

Approximate Percentage

1990 2000 Change

POPE COUNTY

Housing Units 18,430 22,851 24.0

Occupied Units 16,828 20,701 23.0

Vacant Units 1602 2150 34.2

YELL COUNTY

Housing Units 7984 9926 24.3

Occupied Units 7059 8738 23.8

Vacant Units 925 1188 28.4

JOHNSON COUNTY

Housing Units 7868 9157 16.4

Occupied Units 6907 7922 14.7

Vacant Units 961 1235 28.5

Sources: NRC 2001 b; USCB 2000a. I

2.2.8.2 Public Services

Public services include water supply, education, and transportation.

* Water Supply

Public water systems within a 16-km (1 0-mi) radius of Arkansas Nuclear One use either

groundwater or surface water sources. The area has six public water systems that serve the

incorporated towns and rural areas. The West Crow Mountain Water Association, previously

reported in the ANO-1 SEIS (NRC 2001 b), has merged with the Tri-County Regional Water

District (Yusuf 2002). Table 2-8 shows source and capacity information on selected water

supply systems in communities near Arkansas Nuclear One and the area served by each

(Yusuf 2002). The cities of Russellville, Dover, and London are primarily served with surface

water from the Illinois Bayou. Large areas of rural Pope County are not served by public water

supplies.

In 1997, City Corporation water system completed construction of a new water supply source,

the Huckleberry Creek Reservoir. The new reservoir, which significantly increased the system

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 2-28 April 2005

it
Plant and the Environment

Table 2-8. Major Public Water Supply Systems Within a 16-km (10-mi) Radius of

Arkansas Nuclear One - 2002

Maximum Daily Average Daily

Capacity Capacity,

Water System Source m3/day (MGD) m3/day. (MGD) Area'Served

City Corporation 100 percent surface 70,030 (18.50) 25,655 (6.78) City of Russeliville

water system from Illinois Bayou and

(Huckleberry Huckleberry Creek ' Creek)

Dardanelle 80 percent groundwater, 9,305 (2.46) 1,703 (0.45) City of Dardanelle

Waterworks 20 percent surface

Dover Waterworks 100 percent surface '1,090 (0.29) 602 (0.16) City of Dover and

from City Corporation surrounding rural

(Illinois Bayou and areas

Huckleberry Creek)

London 100 percent surface 818 (0.22) 367 (0.10) City of London and

Waterworks from City Corporation surrounding'rural (Illinois Bayou and areas

Huckleberry Creek)'

Northeast Yell 67 percent surface, 5,046 (1.33) 2,324 (0.61) Rural Yell, Conway,

County Water 33 percent groundwater and Perry Counties

Association, Inc. from Danville Water

Department (Cedar

Piney Reservoir)

Tri-County 100 percent surface 17,034 (4.51) 3,861 (1.02) Rural Pope County

Regional Water from City Corporation - from north of

Distribution District (Illinois Bayou) and - London east to

Atkins Water - Conway County line

Department (Galla Creek Lake)

Source: Arkansas Department of Health, facsimile correspondence dated September 25, 2002 (Yusuf 2002).

capacity, provides residential and industrial customers in the area with a reliable supply of highquality potable water. ' ;

Entergy and the City Corporation water system have also worked together to make several

changes in the water system near the plant. Additional water storage and pumping stations

have been added to reduce short-term shortages that occurred in the past. According to

representatives of the City Corporation water system, Arkansas'Nuclear One does not cause

capacity or flow concerns for the system, and the system should be able to meetfthe site's

water demands in the foreseeable future (Church 2002).

I

I

I

I

-April 2005 :2-29 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Plant and Environment

* Transportation

Pope County is on the north side of the Arkansas River and is served by 1-40, which runs east

and west through the southern part of the county. In addition, two-lane U.S. Highway 64 runs

parallel to 1-40. The primary state highways in Pope County are Highways 7 and 27. The

U.S. Forest Service has designated Highway 7 a National Forest Scenic Byway for part of its

route in Arkansas. In addition, the State of Arkansas has designated Highway 7 as a State

Scenic Byway. Highways 7 and 27 both are considered to be scenic highways. Secondary

state highways in Pope County are Highways 124, 164, and 333. Highway 333 provides access

to the Arkansas Nuclear One site from two intersections with U.S. Highway 64. The Arkansas

Highway and Transportation Department was contacted for information regarding highway

traffic counts near Arkansas Nuclear One (Boyles 2002). Arkansas Highway and

Transportation Department traffic count information is summarized in Table 2-9.

Yell County is not served by the interstate highway system, but has ready access to the

1-40 corridor via Arkansas Scenic Highways 10, 22, 27, and 154. State Highways 60 and 247

complete the major road network in the county. Johnson County is served by the 1-40 corridor,

as well as U.S. Highway 64 and State Highways 21, 103, and 123 (NRC 2001 b).

2.2.8.3 Offsite Land Use

The Arkansas Nuclear One site is centrally situated on a peninsula that extends into Lake

Dardanelle. Outside the site boundary, the majority of the area is forested with small areas of

open grassland and residential development, which is typical of land near Lake Dardanelle.

Much of the property along the shoreline of Lake Dardanelle is owned by the U.S. Government

and is managed and maintained by ACE in a natural condition.

Pope County encompasses an area of approximately 822 mi2 (526,080 ac). The land in the

county consists of approximately 68.5 percent forest, 25.5 percent agriculture (crops and

Table 2-9. Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department Traffic Counts (Cars/Day) for

Highways Near Arkansas Nuclear One

Location 1999 2000 2001

State Highway 333 near the east - 2700 2400

intersection with U.S. Highway 64

State Highway 333 near the west - - 1400

intersection with U.S. Highway 64

U.S. Highway 64 west of London - 2900 2500

U.S. Highway 64 near Mill Creek 6900 9500 7000

Source: Boyles 2002.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 2-30 April 2005
Plant and the Environment

pasture), 2.6 percent water, and 2.5 percent urban (residential and commerciaVindustrial)

(Entergy 2003a). About 60 percent of Pope County is mountainous or hilly with elevations

ranging from approximately 137 m (450 ft) to approximately 640 m (2100 ft) above minan sea

level. Most of this area is too steep for intensive use so it is used mainly for woodland and'

pasture. Less steep areas are suitable for improved pasture and truck crops. About 40 percent

of Pope County is level to gently sloping hilltops, valley fill, and alluvial fill. Bottom lands along

the Arkansas River are intensively farmed. The main crops include soy beans, rice, wheat, and

grain sorghum.' Acreage in crops and pasture has been declining in the Pope County area as

more land is converted to urban development.

Residential development is expected to continue around Lake Dardanelle because of the

availability of desirable lakefront property. Pope County has experienced moderate population

growth and moderate land-use changes in the last 10 years. Future lakefront development

would be facilitated by the presence of roads and water service, which are an indirect impact of

the tax payments made by Entergy for Arkansas Nuclear One.

2.2.8.4 Visual Aesthetics'and Noise,

From the air, the principal visual features of the area are Lake Dardanelle and the countryside,

which is generally wooded and residential. The position of the plant relative to Lake Dardanelle

is such that the ANO-2 reactor building is only visible from the water within the first few

kilometers to the south, southwest, and southeast. The cooling tower'of ANO-2, however, is

visible from at least 16 km (10 mi) away, and its plume can be seen from a' much greater

distance. From the lake, the shoreline appears to be mostly wooded, with housing

developments and boat launches (NRC 2001 b).

Because of the woods and topography, noise from Arkansas Nuclear One is generally not an

issue. -The only sounds heard offsite are from the plant loudspeakers and security force

shooting range, which can be heard on the lake (NRC 2001 b).

2.2.8.5 Demography

Entergy used 2000 census data and a geographic population analysis from the Arkansas State

Census Data Center at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock to assess the impact of the

proposed action to the region (UALR 2002a). .Geographical Information System software'

(ArcView,0 Version 8.1) was used in this analysis to determine the overall resident population

and demographic characteristics within an 80-km (50-mi) concentric radial grid surrounding the

site. The Census Data Center's method used 22.50 directional segments and 16 radial

distances. The method assigned a block group to.a geographical subsector within the grid if'

the centroid for the block group lay within the segment, whichjtends to underestimate the total

population within 80 km because it leaves out partial block groups where the centroid is outside

April 2005 2-31 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Plant and Environment

80 km. NRC staff's current procedure is to assign a block group to the 80-km radius if any part

of the block group is within 80 km. This procedure tends to overestimate the population within

80 km, because it includes population beyond 80 km.

Entergy's analysis of the 2000 census data indicates that 87,468 people live within 32 km

(20 mi) of the site, which equates to a population density of 27 people/km2 (70 people/mi 2).

NRC's estimate is 99,033 total persons and a density of 30 people/km2 (79 people/mi2).

According to the GEIS sparseness index, Arkansas Nuclear One is classified as Category 3

sparseness (having 60 to 120 persons per mi2 within 20 miles). The NRC staff's analysis

resulted in the same conclusion.

Entergy's analysis of the 2000 census data showed that 267,664 people live within 80 km

(50 mi) of the site, which equates to a population density of 13 persons/km2 (34 persons/mi 2).

NRC staff estimates this number at 311,904 and 15 persons/km2 (40 persons/mi2). According

to the GEIS proximity index, the site is classified as Category 1 proximity (no city with 100,000

or more people and less than 50 persons per mi2 within 80 km [50 mi]) by either estimate.

According to the GEIS sparseness and proximity matrix, the combination of sparseness,

Category 3, and proximity Category 1 results in the conclusion that the site is located in a

medium population area. The NRC staff reviewed Entergy's calculations of sparseness and

proximity and confirmed this conclusion.

All or parts of 19 Arkansas counties are located within 80 km (50 mi) of the Arkansas Nuclear

One site. Nearby towns include Russellville (Pope County), Clarksville (Johnson County), and

Dardanelle (Yell County). Pope, Johnson, and Yell Counties have a combined total population

of approximately 98,389 (USCB 2000a, b, c). From 1990 to 2000, Pope County had an annual

growth rate of 1.9 percent, Johnson County had an annual growth rate of 2.5 percent, and Yell

County had an annual growth rate of 1.9 percent. All three counties had a faster growth rate

than that of Arkansas as a whole during this same time period. From 1990 to 2000, Arkansas'

annual population growth rate was 1.3 percent (USCB 2000d). Table 2-10 shows estimated

populations and annual growth rates through 2040 for the three counties with the greatest

potential to be socioeconomically affected by license renewal activities.

Workforce

In 2000, Pope County employed 4834 people in major manufacturing facilities, compared with

3040 people in Johnson County and 2936 in Yell County (USCB 2000e, f, g). The State of

Arkansas reports that the Arkansas Nuclear One site is the second largest employer in Pope

County, following ConAgra. ANO-2 by itself would rank somewhere between third and fifth.

Other major employers with at least 250 employees include St. Mary's Regional Medical

Center, Arkansas Tech University, Tyson Foods, Wal-Mart, and Friendship Community Care

(Arkansas Department of Economic Development 2004).

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 2-32 April 2005
Plant and the Environment

Table 2-10. Population Growth' in Pope County, Arkansas - 1970 to 2040 I

Pope County Johnson County Yell County

. Annual Annual - Annual

Growth Growth Growth

Population Percent- Population - Percent Population -Percent

19701a) 28,607 - 13,630 - 14,208 --

1980(a) 38,964 3.6 17,423 2.8 17,026 2.0

1990(a) 45,883 1.8 18,221 - 0.5 17,759 0.4

2000(b) 54,469 1.9 22,781 -2.5 21,139 1.9

201 0(c) 61,899 1.4 23,418 0.3 23,620 1.2

2020(c) - 69,014 1.1 24,040 0.3 25,997 1.0

2030(l)- .:76,057 1 24,655 0.3 28,350 0.9

2040(c) 83,100 0.9 25,270 - 0.2 -. 30,703 0.8 -

(a) NRC 2001b.

(b) USCB 2000a, b, c.

(c) UALR 2002b. -

-- = No data available.

The transient population in the vicinity of Arkansas Nuclear One can be identified as daily or

seasonal. Daily transients are associated with places where a large number of people gather

regularly, such as local businesses, industrial facilities, and schools. Seasonal transients result

from the use of weekend recreational areas such as Lake Dardanelle or Mount Nebo, which is

located about 13 km (8 mi) directly south of the plant.

* Migrant Farm Labor -

Migrant farm workers are individuals whose employment requires travel to harvest agricultural

crops. These workers and other seasonal workers involved fri food processing may or may not

have a permanent residence. Some-migrant workers may follow the harvesting of crops,

particularly fruit, throughout the south-central U.'S. rural areas. Others may be permanent

residents near Arkansas Nuclear One who travel from farm to farm harvesting crops.

Migrant workers can be members of minority or low-income populations. Because they travel

and can spend a significant arbount of time in-an area without being actual residents, migrant

workers may be unavailable for counting by census takers. 'If uncounted, these workers would

be underrepresented in U.S. Census Bureau minority and low-income population counts.

April 2005 2-33 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Plant and Environment

In the year 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services funded a county-level

estimate of seasonal workers and their dependents in Arkansas (Larson 2000). According to

that profile, Pope County had 118 migrant workers and dependents, Johnson County had 502,

and Yell County had none, for a total of 620. It should be noted that the study excludes

seasonal work in the meat industry, so the estimate is probably low for the three-county area

because of the importance of poultry processing in the local economy.

2.2.8.6 Economy

Property taxes are used to fund schools, police and fire protection, road maintenance, and

other municipal services. Property taxes may be levied by counties, cities, towns, villages,

school districts, and special districts. The continued availability of Arkansas Nuclear One and

the associated tax base is an important feature in the ability of Pope County to continue to

invest in infrastructure and to draw industry and new residents. ANO-2 is roughly half of the

assessed valuation of the Arkansas Nuclear One site. In 2002, Entergy paid approximately

$8.5 million in property taxes for Arkansas Nuclear One, making Entergy the largest industrial

tax payer in the county. Table 2-11 identifies the distribution of these taxes within the four

principal Pope County tax units. Based on the information in this table, taxes associated with

Arkansas Nuclear One make up approximately 43 percent, 55 percent, and 43 percent of the

locally generated property tax revenues for the county general, roads, and library budgets,

respectively, with roughly half from ANO-2. The majority of Entergy's property taxes for

Arkansas Nuclear One are allocated to the Russellville School District. In 2002, Entergy's taxes

made up about 49 percent of the locally generated property tax revenues for the school district.

Table 2-11. Entergy Property Tax Distribution for Arkansas Nuclear One - 2002

I

I

I

I

Percent of

County Revenue County Property

2002 Approved from Property Entergy Tax Tax Revenue

Taxing Unit Budget(a) Taxes(') Distribution from Entergy

County General $7,236,541 $508,722 $220,893 43

County Roads $3,798,811 $999,579 $549,167 55

County Library $809,932 $508,722 $220,893 43

Russellville School

District $2 8,685 1,77 (b) $14,413,959 $7,090,478 49

(a) Lutrel 2003.

(b) Russel[ville School District 2003.

(c) McAlister 2003.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 2-34 April 2005
Plant and the Environment

2.2.9 Historic and Archaeological Resources

This section discusses the cultural background and the known historic and archaeological

resources at the Arkansas' Nuclear One site and in the surrounding area.

2.2.9.1 Cultural Background

The area around the site is rich in prehistoric and historic Native American and historic

Euro-American resources. This part of west-central Arkansas has an archaeological sequence

that extends back about 12,000 years, although human use of the region was probably limited,

during the first few thousand years of human presence. Similar to much of the surrounding

southeastern states, archaeological periods defined for this part of Arkansas fall into several

sequential cultural periods~of Native American occupation: the Paleo-lndianEra(abou '

9500 B.C. to 8000 B.C.), the Archaic Era (8000 B.C. to 500 B.C.), the Woodland Era (500 B.C.;

to A.D. 900), the Mississippian Era (A.D. 900 to A.D. 1541), and the Historic era, initiated by the

initial intrusion of Spanish explorers into the area (A.D. 1541 to A.D.- 1850) (Schambach and -

Newell 1990).

The prehistoric periods were marked by initial reliance on big game hunting subsistence,

followed by increased use of smaller game animals and plant foods in the Archaic Era. Trends

toward more sedentary villages with greater reliance on cultivated crops began late in the

Woodland era and increased in importance in the following Mississippian era. In Arkansas, the

Mississippian cultures were largely focused in the eastern part of the state, along the -

Mississippi River valley. In the region of western Arkansas, including the Arkansas River valley,

contemporaneous cultures included the Caddoan groups who, like the Mississippians',- grew''

cultivated crops, but, unlike their neighbors'to the east, continued to rely heavily on hunting,

fishing, and gathering of wild plants.'

Following initial contact by the Spanish, and later Euro-American settlers, the Native American

Historic era in the vicinity of the present Arkansas Nuclear One site was marked by nearly

continual occupation and visits by several tribes as they coped with the Euro-American

expansion into their former homelands (Sabo 1992). Before a large land cession' in 1808, the

region north of the Arkansas River was primarily occupied by the Osage, while the area south

of the river was occupied by the Quapaw until that land was ceded to the United States in 1818.

Other tribes that either visited or occupied smaller areas during this time included the historic

Caddos, Tunicas, Shawnee, and Delaware.

Beginning immediately after the 1808 Osage-cession and their removal to the region of presentday Oklahoma, the Arkansas River valley was'occupied by the Cherokees, who had begun to

be pushed from their traditional homelands in North and South Carolina. Known as the

"Arkansas Cherokees" (Markham 1972; Davis 1987), the Cherokees occupied the Arkansas

April 2005 2-35 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Plant and Environment

River corridor from Little Rock on the east to Fort Smith on the west during the period from

1809 to 1828. During 1817, a reservation that includes the present Arkansas Nuclear One site

was set aside for the Arkansas Cherokees on the north side of the river. Soon after, additional

tribe members moved into the area from the Southern Appalachian region. With this migration,

the population of Cherokees in the Arkansas River valley grew to between 4000 and 5000.

Increasing pressure from white settlers brought about another land cession by the Arkansas

Cherokees, and in 1828, they once again moved westward to the Oklahoma Territory, marking

the end of Native American occupation in the vicinity of the project area.

Though relatively brief, the Cherokee occupation of the area that includes the present Arkansas

Nuclear One site was fairly intense and left a lasting mark in the historic and archaeological

records. The primary historic site associated with this period is the Dwight Mission, a

Presbyterian mission to the Cherokees, established in 1820 on the west bank of Illinois Bayou,

about 2.4 km (1.5 mi) east of the present Arkansas Nuclear One property line (Turrentine

1962). When the Cherokees were forced from the area a few years later, the mission relocated

to Oklahoma as well. Lake Dardanelle inundated some of the original mission compound in the

1960s. The archaeological record from the Cherokee villages and home sites in the area

outside the Arkansas Nuclear One property line is relatively unknown, but recent investigations

indicate that the local archaeological remains hold great promise for significant research

potential (Stewart-Abernathy 1998).

Following Cherokee removal, the area was immediately taken up by Euro-American settlers,

including the May and Rye families, who settled the land in the immediate vicinity of the present

Arkansas Nuclear One site in the 1830s (Anonymous 1975; Vance 1970). Although early

Euro-American use of the land within the present Arkansas Nuclear One property was primarily

agricultural, numerous important Historic era resources exist a short distance north of the site

(Pope County Historical Association 1979, 1981; Vance 1970). Completed in 1823, a military

road passed through the river valley just north of the site. This road connected Memphis,

Little Rock, Fort Smith, and the.Oklahoma Territory. In the late 1830s, this road was used as

part of the final Cherokee removal from the Southern Appalachians and northern Georgia,

along the infamous "Trail of Tears." The area just northwest of the present Arkansas Nuclear

One site, which would eventually become the town of London, had a population of 65 people in

1832, although the town itself was not incorporated until 1882 with a population of 119. Three

cotton gins were in the vicinity of London at one time. One was built in 1847 on the Rye farm,

located just west of the present Arkansas Nuclear One property; the gin was torn down in 1902.

There were two routes of the 1838 Trail of Tears that passed by the present Arkansas Nuclear

One site (DOI 1992). The first was the water route that in part followed the Arkansas River into

Indian Territory. This route passed along the southern boundary of the present Arkansas

Nuclear One site, using the now submerged Arkansas River waterway. The second route

followed the land route along the north side of the Arkansas River and passed just to the north

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 2-36 April2005

II
Plant and the Environment

along the military road. During the summer of 1838, three groups of Cherokees followed the

water route to Fort Smith, west of Russellville,'then on into their new homelands. At the same

time, J. A. Bell led a detachment of 600 to 700 Cherokees along the second route. -

The Trail of Tears was' designated a National Historic Trail by Congress in 1987, and was

granted additional protection under the National Trails System Act as amended through 2002. |

The legislatively designated historic trail includes-only the water route' in the vicinity of the

present Arkansas Nuclear One site; Bell's Route was not formally included, although its

designation as part of the national trail system is still under study.

Transportation and communication'features soon followed. Just north of the Arkansas Nuclear

One property,- the Fort Smith and Little Rock Railroad was constructed in 1873; later, it was the

Iron Mountain Railroad; and currently, it is the Union-Pacific line. Telephone service to the area

began about 1900, and U.S. Highway 64 was constructed in 1921. The Arkansas-Louisiana

gas main was completed in 1928, and electrical power became available in the late 1930s.

2.2.9.2 Prehistoric and Historic Resources'at the Arkansas Nuclear One Site

prehistoric. 'Construction of ANO-1 within the -471 -ha (1164-ac) site began during 1968. During l

1969, the Arkansas Archaeological Society conducted a reconnaissance field survey of the

lands within the site'that were not within the construction zone and that were not heavily,

vegetated (Cole 1969).' From the report, it is' not possible to-define the actual acreage'

examined, although it is important to note that the goal of the fieldwork was to identify and

record Native American archaeological properties. '

Five prehistoric sites (3PP62-66) were recorded by' the survey. All represented light surface.

scatters of archaeological materials with fev' ag-diagnostic artifacts. No ceramics, which

would be indicative of later Caddoan occupation, were located, and the sites probably represent

pre-ceramic or Archaic Era campsites. Because each of the archaeological sites was located

away from the construction area, Cole (1969) recommended that no further analysis was

necessary at the time, although he stated that if any of the sites were to be impacted by project

activities, further evaluation would be necessary.' To date, none of these sites has been fully

evaluated for potential significance for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.

Until these evaluations are completed, the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program considers

these sites to be potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and,

therefore, subject to consideration under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act

of 1966 (16 USC 470) and its implementing regulations.

A search of the archaeological records maintained at the Arkansas Archaeological Society

Research Station of Arkansas Tech University in Russellville revealed another 13 prehistoric

archaeological sites that have been recorded within less than 1.6 km (1 mi) of the Arkansas

April 2005 2-37 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
IV

Plant and Environment

Nuclear One site boundary. These results, along with the reconnaissance-level survey

methodology employed during the 1969 survey, indicate a potential for additional prehistoric

Native American sites to exist on Arkansas Nuclear One property.

Cole (1972) conducted a search for five transmission line rights-of-way emanating from

Arkansas Nuclear One that were either already constructed, under construction, or proposed

for construction. Scant data of past archaeological surveys or known archaeological sites along

any of the transmission line rights-of-way were available. There is no record that archaeological

fieldwork was ever conducted along the ANO-2 transmission line right-of-way.

Historic. As noted above, the 1969 archaeological survey of the Arkansas Nuclear One site

only focused on potential Native American properties, even though Historic Era Euro-American

sites were present. Consequently, none of the Historic era properties has been recorded or

evaluated for National Register of Historic Places eligibility.

Review of Historic era records and maps during the ANO-1 site visit (NRC 2001 b) revealed that

more than 35 Historic era properties existed within the Arkansas Nuclear One property

boundaries, dating from approximately 1830 to 1967, when the property was acquired by

Arkansas Power and Light Company. Although occupation of the area was continuous during

the 1800s, specific information was not found on either the number of or precise locations of

Historic era sites. It is known that the May farm was located south of the present Arkansas

Nuclear One site and that the Rye farm, with its cotton gin, was located just west of the site.

No standing structures remain at any of these former historic sites except for a few storm

shelter/storage cellars. They exist as unrecorded and unevaluated Historic era archaeological

sites that exhibit house and outbuilding foundations, artifact scatters, trash dumps, and buried

features, along with the historic roads and trails that linked the farming community.

A more recent search for Historic era properties at the Arkansas Nuclear One site revealed the

presence of some 96 historic and archaeological sites at the Arkansas Nuclear One site

(Historic Preservation Associates 2001). However, this survey counted individual historic

structures as a single site, even though, in some cases, multiple structures may comprise a

single historic farmstead. In any event, substantial data exist to indicate the presence of a

significant number of unrecorded cultural resource properties at the Arkansas Nuclear One site.

Another recent field investigation of the Lake Dardanelle shoreline by Smith and StewartAbernathy (2003) further indicates the potential for the presence of both prehistoric and historic

properties in the vicinity of the Arkansas Nuclear One site. One Historic era property (3PP598)

located by this survey is on the Arkansas Nuclear One site. It consists of a scatter of early

twentieth century artifacts along both sides of the mouth of the cooling water intake canal.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 2-38 April 2005

It
Plant and the Environment

In addition to the farms, one Historic era cemetery, the May Cemetery, is located on Arkansas.

Nuclear One property, about 0.8 km (0.5 mi) south of the site. The cemetery is'protected by a

chain link fence and is well maintained. According to Lemley (1981), 106 marked and named

graves are in the cemetery, along with a number of unnamed graves,'both marked and

unmarked. The cemetery was established during 1885. Because the site property was initially

homesteaded about 55 years earlier, earlier interments were either buried elsewhere or are

co-located with early farmsteads in unknown and unmarked graves. Two other historic

cemeteries exist in proximity to the Arkansas Nuclear One site: the Swa'n (Finchum) Cemetery,

located about 0.8 km (0.5 mi) west of the northwest corner of the Arkansas Nuclear One

boundary, and the Crain Cemetery, situated immediately north of State Highway 333,'between

the site entrance and London, and about 183 m (200 yd) from the Arkansas Nuclear One -

property line (Lemley 1981). The Crain Cemetery does not appear on Arkansas Nuclear One

or U.S. Geological Survey base maps, but includes some 32 marked graves dating back to

1865.

2.2.10 Related Federal Project Activities and Consultations

The staff reviewed the possibility that activities of other Federal agencies might impact the

renewal of the operating license for ANOL2. Any such activities could result in cumulative

environmental impacts and the possible need for the Federal agency to become a cooperating

agency for preparation of this SEIS [10 CFR 51.1 0(b)(2)].

ANO-2 obtains its cooling water from Lake Dardanelle, which is formed by the Dardanelle Lock

and Dam. The Dardanelle Lock and Dam was authorized by Congress. It was constructed and

is now operated by ACE. The Dardanelle Lock and Dam produces hydroelectric'power. Under

the Federal Power Act of 1920, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission does not license

Federally owned hydroelectric facilities such as the Dardanelle Lock and Dam.

No Federal agencies participated in the s'coping meetings or submitted written scoping comments concerning related Federal project activities. The staff determined that there were no

Federal project activities directly related to renewal of the operating license for ANO-2 that

could result in cumulative environmental impacts or that would make it desirable for another

Federal agencysto become a cooperating agency for preparation of this SEIS.

NRC is required under Section 102(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to

consult with and obtain th6e comments' of any Federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or

special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. NRC consulted with the

FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Consultation correspondence is included in

Appendix E.

April 2005 2-39 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Plant and Environment

2.3 References

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for

Protection Against Radiation."

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing

of Production and Utilization Facilities."

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

10 CFR 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

10 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 61, "Licensing

Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, "Packaging and

Transportation of Radioactive Material."

40 CFR Part 58. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 58,

"Ambient Air Quality Surveillance."

40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81,

"Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes."

40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,

"Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.'

Anonymous. 1975. May Family in Pope County, Arkansas. Pope County Historical

Association Quarterly, 9(3):69-81.

Arkansas Department of Economic Development. 2004. Arkansas Department of Economic

Development Downloadable Reports, Major Employers by County: Pope County. Accessed on

the Internet March 29, 2004, at http://www.1800arkansas.com/Reports._Counties.htm

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 2002. "Application for Permit Number

AR0001392." November 30, 2002, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 2-40 April 2005

It
Plant and the Environment

Arkansas Department of Health.' 2002. Facsimile correspondence dated September 25, 2002.

Available on the Internet under Accession Number ML040610547 at -

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC). 2004.'' "Threatened and Endangered Species."

Accessed on the Internet May 9, 2004, at

http://www.agfc.com/critters/endangered-species.p3.html#Eagle

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC). 2002. State Species of Special Concern - l

Animals. Accessed on the Internet March 30, 2004,'at http://www.naturalheritage.com/

publications/rare/pdfs/lnventoryList-Animals.pdf (last updated September 13, 2002)-

Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission (ASWCC). 2002. Email message from

M. Guess, Water Resources Specialist, Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission to.'

B. West, FTN Associates, December 16, 2002. Available on the Internet under Accession l

Number ML040580438, dated March 16, 2004, at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html I

Boyles, M. 2002. Traffic'count data provided by Planning and Research Section,'Arkansas

Highway and Transportation Department. Personal communication with S. Holbrook, FTN

Associates, September 27, 2002. Available on the Internet under Accession Number -

ML040610925, dated March 16, 2004 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html I

Church, L. 2002. Water system capacity data provided by City Corporation Water System.

Personal communication with B. West, FTN Associates, September 25, 2002. Available on the |

Internet under Accession Number ML040610871, dated March 16, 2004 at I

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.htmIl'' , . .

Clean Air Act. 42 USC 2011, et seq.

Clean Water Act (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act). 33 USC 1251,

et seq.

Cole, K. W. 1969.- Archaeological Survey of the Arkansas Power and Light Company Nuclear

Power Plant Construction Area, Pope County, Arkansas, 1969. Arkansas Archaeological

Survey, University of Arkansas Museum,- Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Cole, K. W. 1972. Preliminary Investigation of the Power Transmission Lines Emanating from

Units One and Two of Nuclear One, The Arkansas Power and Light Company Nuclear Power

Generating Plant. Arkansas Archaeological'Survey, University of Arkansas Museum,

Fayetteville, Arkansas.

April 2005 2-41 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Plant and Environment

Davis, H. A. 1987. 'The Cherokee in Arkansas: An Invisible Archaeological Resource." Edited

by G. Sabo IlIl and W. M. Schneider, pp. 48-58, University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia.

Elliott, D. L., C. G. Holladay, W. R. Barchet, H. P. Foote, and W. F. Sandusky. 1986. Wind

Energy Resource Atlas of the United States. DOE/CH 10093-4, U.S. Department of Energy,

Washington, D.C.

Endangered Species Act. 16 USC 1531, et seq.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2000. Responses to Requests forAdditional Information

Conceming the License Renewal Application for Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 1. Russellville,

Arkansas.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2003a. Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating

License Renewal Stage Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2. Russellville, Arkansas.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2003b. Specification #4, Transmission Line Corridors,

"Mechanical Re-Clearing." October 2003. Russellville, Arkansas. Available on the Internet

under Accession Number ML040570386, dated March 16, 2004 at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2003c. Arkansas Nuclear One - Units 1 and 2, Operating

License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report, January 1

through December 31, 2002, Rev. 014-01-0. Russellville, Arkansas.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2003d. Arkansas Nuclear One - Units 1 and 2

Environmental Operating Report for2002. Russeliville, Arkansas.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2003e. Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 2, License Renewal

Application. Russellville, Arkansas.

FTN Associates, Ltd. (FTN). 2004. E-mail correspondence from B. West (FTN) to R. Buckley

(Entergy) regarding the results of biological surveys conducted by FTN on the ANO site and

transmission line rights-of-way, dated February 5, 2004. Available on the Internet under

Accession Number ML040580172, dated March 16, 2004 at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html

Historic Preservation Associates. 2001. EntergyArkansas Nuclear One Records Review.

Submitted to Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 2-42 April 2005

11
Plant and the Environment

Kansas Wildlife and Parks. 2004. "Arkansas River Shiner." Accessed on the Internet May 9,

2004, at http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us/PDFiEnvSrvs/TEFish/arkrivershiner.pdf

Larson, A. C. 2000. Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Enumeration Profiles Study:

Arkansas. Final Report. Prepared for the Migrant Health Program, Bureau of Primary Health

Care, Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services.

Lemley, J. B. (editor and compiler). 1981. Cemeteries of Pope County, Arkansas, Second

Edition. Pope County Genealogy and Family Group,.Russellville, Arkansas.

Lutrel, G. 2003. Budget and county property tax data provided by Pope County Treasurer.

Telephone conversation with B. West, FTN Associates, June 10, 2003. Available on the

Internet under Accession Number ML040610867, dated March 16, 2004 at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html: -. |

Markham, R. P. 1972. The Arkansas Cherokees: 1817-1828. Ph.D. Dissertation. The

Graduate College, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.

McAlister, B. 2003. Entergy property tax data provided by Pope County Tax Collector.

Telephone conversation with B. West, FTN Associates, June 10, 2003. Available on the

Internet under Accession Number ML040610860, dated March 16, 2004 at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et. seq.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 16 USC 470, et seq.

National Trails System Act. P.L. 90-543, as amended through P.L. 107-325, December 4,

2002. .

Pope County Historical Association. 1979. History pf Pope County, Arkansas. Hunter

Publishing Company, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Pope County Historical Association. 1981.. History of Pope County, Arkansas: Volume II.

Josten's Publishing Company, Topeka, Kansas..

Ramsdell, J. V. and G. L. Andrews. 1986. Tomado Climatography of the Contiguous United;

States. NUREG/CR-4461, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

April 2005 2-43 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Plant and Environment

Rickett, J. D. 1994. Dardanelle Reservoir - Illinois Bayou Embayment Survey Progress Report

No. 34. Submitted to Entergy Corporation, Arkansas Nuclear One, Russeliville, Arkansas, by

J. D. Rickett, University of Arkansas, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Rickett, J. D. and R. L. Watson. 1994. "First Record of Leptodora kindtii in Dardanelle,

Reservoir and the Status of other Recent Additions to Dardanelle Fauna." Proceedings of the

Arkansas Academy of Science 48:261-263. Available on the Internet under Accession Number

ML0406110857, dated March 16, 2004 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html

Russellville School District. 2003. Operating budget data provided by Russellville School

District. Telephone conversation with B. West, FTN Associates, June 2003. Available on the

Internet under Accession Number ML040610857, dated March 16, 2004 at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html

Sabo, G. Ill. 1992. Paths of Our Children: Historic Indians of Arkansas. Arkansas

Archaeological Survey, Popular Series Number 3, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Schambach, F. and L. Newell. 1990. Crossroads of the Past: 12,000 Years of Indian Life in

Arkansas. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Popular Series Number 2. Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Smith, A. and L. C. Stewart-Abernathy. 2003. A Survey of Portions of the Lake Dardanelle

Shoreline, Pope and Johnson Counties, Arkansas. Arkansas Archaeological Society,

Russellville, Arkansas.

Stewart-Abernathy, L. C. 1998. Some Archaeological Perspectives on the Arkansas

Cherokee. The Arkansas Archaeologist, Volume 37, pp. 39-54.

Storming Media. 2004. "Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens) on Military Installations in the

Southeastern United states." Accessed on the Internet May 9, 2004, at

http://www.stormingmedia.us/22/2232/A223243.html

Turrentine, G. R. 1962. Dwight Mission. Arkansas Valley Historical Papers, Number 25,

Russellville, Arkansas.

University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR). 2002a. U.S. Census total population dataset for

19 western Arkansas counties provided by the State Data Center, University of Arkansas-Little

Rock, Institute for Economic Advancement/GIS Applications Laboratory, 2801 South University,

Little Rock, Arkansas.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 2-44 April 2005
Plant and the Environment

University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR). 2002b. University of Arkansas at Little Rock,

Little Rock, Arkansas, Arkansas Census Data Center. Email communication between

Dr. G. Hamilton and B. West, FTN Associates, dated December 10, 2002. Available on the

Internet under Accession Number ML040610852, dated March 16, 2004 at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1. Arkansas Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-313,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. State and County Quick Facts: Pope County, Arkansas.

Accessed on the Internet December 4, 2003, at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/

05/05115.html

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000b. State and County Quick Facts: Johnson County,

Arkansas. Accessed on the Internet December 4, 2003, at http.//quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/

states/05/05071.html

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000c. State and County Quick Facts: Yell County, Arkansas.

Accessed on the Internet December 4, 2003, at http://quickfacts.census.gOv/qfd/states/

05/05149.html

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB).. 2000d. State and County Quick Facts: Arkansas. Accessed on

the Internet December 8, 2003, at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/05000.html

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000e. Table DP-1, Profile of General Demographic

Characteristics: 2000, Geographic area: -Pope County, Arkansas. Accessed on the Internet

December 4, 2003, at http://censtats.census.gov/data/AR/05005115.pdf#page=1

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000f. ,Table DP-1, Profile of General Demographic

Characteristics: 2000, Geographic area: Johnson County, Arkansas. Accessed on the

Internet December 4, 2003, at http://censtats.census.gov/data/AR/05005071.pdf#page=1

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000g. Table DP-1, Profile of General Demographic

Characteristics: 2000, Geographic area: Yell County, Arkansas. Accessed on the Internet

December 4, 2003, at http://censtats.census.gov/data/AR/05005149.pdf#page=1

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1981. Soil Survey of Pope County Arkansas.

Little Rock, Arkansas.

April 2005 2-45 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Plant and Environment

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 1992. Trail of Tears National Historic Trail:

Comprehensive Management and Use Plan (with Map Supplement volume). National Park

Service, Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. "Criteria Pollutants - Metropolitan Area

Trends." Accessed on the Internet April 2, 2004, at http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/metro.html

(Last updated October 9, 2003)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004a. Threatened and Endangered Species System.

Accessed on the Internet March 30, 2004, at http://ecos.fws.gov/tess..public/TESSWebpage

(updated daily)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004b. Letter from M. Harney (FWS Acting Field

Supervisor) to T. Kenyon (NRC Environmental Project Manager), dated January 14, 2004.

Available on the Internet under Accession Number ML040510185, dated January 14, 2004 at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Final Environmental Statement Related to

Operation of Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2. Arkansas Power and Light Company. Docket

No. 50-368, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1991. Offsite Dose Calculation. Calculations

Manual Guidance: Standard Radiological Effluent Controls for Pressurized Water Reactors.

NUREG-1301, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1 437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. 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 forlicense renewal ofnuclearpowerplants. NUREG1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001 a. Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL)

Report. NUREG-1801, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001 b. Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plant, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, NUREG-1 437,

Supplement 3, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C., April 2001.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 2-46 April 2005
Plant and the Environment

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Letter from T. W. Alexion, NRC to

C. G. Anderson, Entergy. April 2002. Subject: Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2- Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to a Proposed License Amendment

to Increase the Licensed Power Level, Washington, D.C.

Vance, D. L. 1970. Early History of Pope County: A History of Pope County in the Nineteenth

Century and in the Early Part of the Twentieth Century. Foreman-Payne Publishers,

Mabelville, Arkansas.

Yusuf, M. 2002. Water system data provided by Arkansas Department of Health. Personal

communication with B. West, FTN Associates, September 24, 2002. Available on the Internet

under Accession Number ML040610547, dated March 16, 2004 at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrml/adams.html

April 2005 2-47 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
3.0 Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

Environmental issues associated with refurbishment activities are' discussed in the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437,

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1 999).(a) The GEIS includes a determination of whether the

analysis of the environmental issues could be applied to all plants and whether additio nal- I

mitigation measures would be warranted. lsubs-a're then assigned a'Category 1 or a

Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of

the following criteria:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants havinfg a specific type of cooling system or other

specified plant or site characteristics. - -

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

impacts (except for collective off-site radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from highlevel waste and spent fuel disposal). - '

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

and it has been determined that additional plart-specific mitigation measures are likely not

to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

required in this supplemental environmental impact statement unless new and significant

information is identified. MCategory 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria for Category 1 and,

therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required.

License renewal actions may require refurbishment activities for the extended plant life. These

actions may have an impact on the environment that requires evaluation, depending on the type

of action and the plant-specific design. Environmental issues associated with refurbishment

that were determined to be Category 1 issues are listed in Table 3-1.'

Environmental issues related to refurbishment considered in the GEIS for which these

conclusions could not be reached for all plants, or for specific classes of plants, are Category 2

issues. These are listed in Table 3-2.

(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the 'GEIS" include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

April 2005 3-1 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

Table 3-1. Category 1 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation that are Applicable to

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2

ISSUE - 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

SURFACE-WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Impacts of refurbishment on surface-water quality 3.4.1

Impacts of refurbishment on surface-water use 3.4.1

AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Refurbishment 3.5

GROUND-WATER USE AND QUAUTY

Impacts of refurbishment on ground-water use and quality 3.4.2

LAND USE

Onsite land use 3.2

HUMAN HEALTH

Radiation exposures to the public during refurbishment 3.8.1

Occupational radiation exposures during refurbishment 3.8.2

SOCIOECONOMICS

Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation 3.7.4; 3.7.4.3;

3.7.4.4; 3.7.4.6

Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment) 3.7.8

The potential environmental effects of refurbishment actions would be identified, and the

analysis would be summarized within this section, if such actions were planned. Entergy

Operations, Inc. (Entergy) indicated that it has performed an evaluation of structures and

components pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21 to identify activities that are necessary to continue

operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 during the requested 20-year period of extended

operation. These activities include replacement of certain components as well as new

inspection activities and are described in the Entergy Environmental Report (Entergy 2003).

However, Entergy stated that the replacement of these components and the additional

inspection activities are within the bounds of normal plant component replacement and

inspections; therefore, they are not expected to affect the environment outside the bounds of

plant operations as evaluated in the final environmental statement (AEC 1977). In addition,

Entergy's evaluation of structures and components as required by 10 CFR 54.21 did not identify

any major plant refurbishment activities or modifications necessary to support the continued

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 3-2 April 2005

II
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

Table 3-2. Category 2 Issues for Refurbishment Evaluation that are Applicable to

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2

10 CFR 51.53

Se-tin -(c)(3)(ii)

ISSUE -10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section Subparagraph

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Refurbishment impacts 3.6 E

THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES (FOR ALL PLANTS)---

Threatened or endangered species 3.9 E

AIR QUALrTY

Air quality during refurbishment (nonattainment and 3.3 F

maintenance areas)

SOCIOECONOMICS

Housing impacts 3.7.2 I

Public services: public utilities 3.7.4.5 I

Public services: education (refurbishment) 3.7.4.1

Offsite land use (refurbishment) 3.7.5

Public services, transportation 3.7.4.2 J

Historic and archaeological resources 3.7.7 K

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Environmental justice Not Not

addressed(a addressed(a)

(a) Guidance related to environmental justice was not in place at the time the GEIS and the associated revision

to 1 0 CFR Part 51 was prepared. If an applicant plans to undertake refurbishment activities for license

renewal, environmental justice must be addressed in the applicant's environmental report and the staff's

environmental impact statement.

operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 beyond the end of the existing operating license.

Therefore, refurbishment is not considered in this supplemental environmental impact

statement.

3.1 References

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

I

April 2005 3-3 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Environmental Impacts of Refurbishment

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2003. Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating

License Renewal Stage Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2. Russellville, Arkansas.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1977. Final Environmental Statement Related to

Operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, Arkansas Power & Light Company. Docket

No. 50-368, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. 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.

NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 3-4 April 2005
4.0 Environmental Impacts of Operation

Environmental issues associated with operation of a nuclear power plant during the renewal

term are discussed in the Generic Environmental impact Statement for License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 'and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a) The GEIS - ;

includes a determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issues could be applied

to all plants and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted.- Issues are then

assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1

issues are those that meet all of the following criteria:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

specified plant or site characteristic.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, OR LARGE) has been assigned to

the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from

high-level waste and spent fuel disposal).-

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

For issues that meet the three-Category 1 criteria, no-additional plant-specific analysis is

required unless new and significant information is identified. - -

Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria for Category 1, and

therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required.

This chapter addresses the issues related to operation during the renewal term that are listed in

Table B-1 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, Subpart A,'Appe'ndix B,

and are applicable'to Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2). Section 4.1 addresses issues

applicable to the'ANO-2 cooling system. Section 4.2 addresses issues related to transmission

lines and onsite land use. Section 4.3 addresses the radiological impacts of normal operation,

and Section 4.4 addresses issues related to the socioeconomic impacts of normal operation

during the license renewal term. Section 4.5 addresses issues related to groundwater use and

quality, while Section 4.6 discusses the'impacts of license renewal-term operations on

threatened and endangered species. Section 4.7 addresses potentially new information that

was identified during the scoping period, and Section 4.8 discusses cumulative impacts. The

(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the 'GEIS" include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

April 2005 4-1 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Environmental Impacts of Operation

results of the evaluation of environmental issues related to operation during the license renewal

term are summarized in Section 4.9, and finally, the references cited are listed in Section 4.10.

Category 1 and Category 2 issues that are not applicable to ANO-2 because they are related to

plant design features or site characteristics not found at ANO-2 are listed in Appendix F.

4.1 Cooling System

Category 1 issues in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B that are applicable to

operation of the ANO-2 cooling system during the license renewal term are listed in Table 4-1.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) stated in its Environmental Report (ER) (Entergy 2003a) that

it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the ANO-2

operating license (OL). The staff has not identified any new and significant information during

its independent review of the ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of

other available information; Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related to

these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of the issues, the staff concluded in

the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not

likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

Table 4-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the Arkansas Nuclear One,

Unit 2 Cooling System During the License Renewal Term

ISSUE -10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

SURFACE WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures 4.2.1.2.1; 4.3.2.2; 4.4.2

Altered thermal stratification of lakes 4.2.1.2.2; 4.4.2.2

Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity 4.2.1.2.3; 4.4.2.2

Scouring caused by discharged cooling water 4.2.1.2.3; 4.4.2.2

Eutrophication 4.2.1.2.3; 4.4.2.2

Discharge of chlorine or other biocides 4.2.1.2.4; 4.4.2.2

Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills 4.2.1.2.4; 4.4.2.2

Discharge of other metals in wastewater 4.2.1.2.4; 4.3.2.2; 4.4.2.2

AQUATIC ECOLOGY (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota 4.2.1.2.4; 4.3.3; 4.4.3;

4.4.2.2

Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton 4.2.2.1.1; 4.3.3; 4.4.3

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-2 April 2005

if
Environmental Impacts of Operation

-

-

Table 4-1. (contd)

ISSUE -10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1

Cold shock

Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish

Distribution of aquatic organisms

Premature emergence of aquatic insects

Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease)

Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge

Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms

exposed to sublethal stresses

GEIS Sections

4.2.2.1.5; 4.3.3; 4.4.3

4.2.2.1.6; 4.4.3

4.2.2.1.6; 4.4.3

4.2.2.1.7; 4.4.3

-4.2.2.1.8; 4.4.3

4.2.2.1.9; 4.3.3; 4.4.3

4.2.2.1.10; 4.4.3

Stimulation of nuisance organisms 4.2.2.1.1 1; 4.4.3

AQUATiC ECOLOGY (FOR PLANTS WITH COOUNG-TOWER-BASED HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEMS)

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages 4.3.3

Impingement of fish and shellfish 4.3.3

Heat shock 4.3.3

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Cooling tower impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation 4.3.4

Cooling tower impacts on native plants 4.3.5.1

Bird collisions with cooling towers 4.3.5.2

HUMAN HEALTH

Microbial organisms (occupational health) 4.3.6

Noise - 4.3.7

A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for

each of these issues follows:

Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures. Based on information in the

GEIS, the Commission found that

Altered current patterns have not been found to be a problem at operating

. nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license

term. *renewal 

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

*April 2005 4-3 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Environmental Impacts of Operation

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of altered

current patterns at intake and discharge structures during the license renewal term beyond

those discussed in the GEIS.

Altered thermal stratification of lakes. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Generally, lake stratification has not been found to be a problem at operating

nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license

renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its review of monitoring

programs, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of altered thermal stratification of lakes during the license renewal

term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity. Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

These effects have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of

temperature effects on sediment transport capacity during the license renewal term beyond

those discussed in the GEIS.

* Scouring caused by discharged cooling water. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Scouring has not been found to be a problem at most operating nuclear power

plants and has caused only localized effects at a few plants. It is not expected to

be a problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its review of monitoring

programs, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of scouring caused by discharged cooling water during the license

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-4 April 2005

it
Environmental Impacts of Operation

* Eutrophication. Based on informationr in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Eutrophication has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its review of monitoring

programs, or its evaluation of other available information including plant monitoring data and

technical reports. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of eutrophication

during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in'the GEIS.

* Discharge of chlorine or other biocides.' Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Effects are not a concern among regulatory and resource agencies, and are not

expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit for ANO-2. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of

discharge of chlorine or other biocides during the license renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

* Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills.' Based on information in the

GEIS, the Commission found that -"

Effects are readily controlled through NPDES permit and periodic modifications,.

if needed, and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information includirig the NPDES permit for ANO-2, or discussion with the- NPDES

complianc'e office (Arkan'sas Department of Environmental Quality [ADEQ]). Therefore, the

staff concludes that there are no impacts of discharges of 'sanitary wastes -and minor

chemical spills during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

,,~~ .............................. ' - ,.- ' - ............................................ .. '.....

April 2005 4-5 I Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Environmental Impacts of Operation

* Discharge of other metals in wastewater. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

These discharges have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

power plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have been

satisfactorily mitigated at other plants. They are not expected to be a problem

during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information including the NPDES permit for ANO-2, and discussions with the

NPDES compliance office (ADEQ). Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts

of discharges of other metals in wastewater during the license renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

* Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota. Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

Accumulation of contaminants has been a concern at a few nuclear power plants

but has been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy condenser tubes

with those of another metal. It is not expected to be a problem during the license

renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of

accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota during the license renewal term beyond

those discussed in the GEIS.

* Entrainment of Phvtoplankton and zooolankton. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton has not been found to be a

problem at operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem

during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its review of monitoring

programs, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton during the

license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-6 April 2005

11
Environmental Impacts of Operation

* Cold shock. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Cold shock has been satisfactorily mitigated at operating nuclear plants with

once-through cooling systems, has not endangered fish populations or been

found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or

cooling ponds, and is not expected to be a'problem during the license renewal

term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent.:

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the'scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the'staff concludes that there are no impacts of cold

shock during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS. -

* Thermal plume barrier to migrating fishf Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Thermal plumes have not been found to be'a problem at operating nuclear:,-

power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore,' the staff concludes that there are no impacts of thermal

plume barriers to migrating fish during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in

the' GEIS.

* Distribution of aquatic organisms. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is not expected to effect the

larger geographical distribution of aqiuatic organisms.

The staff has not identified any hew'and significant information during its independent

review of 'the Entergy ER, the staff's' site'visit, the'scoping process, its review of monitoring

programs, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts on distribution of aquatic organisms during the license renewal

term beyond those'discussed in the GEIS.'

April 2005 4-7 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Environmental Impacts of Operation

* Premature emergence of aquatic insects. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Premature emergence has been found to be a localized effect at some operating

nuclear power plants but has not been a problem and is not expected to be a

problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of premature

emergence of aquatic insects during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in

the GEIS.

* Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease). Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small number of operating nuclear

power plants with once-through cooling systems but has been satisfactorily

mitigated. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem

during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of gas

supersaturation during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Low dissolved oxygen has been a concern at one nuclear power plant with a

once-through cooling system but has been effectively mitigated. It has not been

found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or

cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, its review of monitoring

programs, or its evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of low dissolved oxygen during the license renewal term beyond

those discussed in the GEIS.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-8 April 2005
Environmental Impacts of Operation

* Losses from predation,'parasitism. and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal

stresses. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

These types of losses have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal

term.

The staff has not identified any new'and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of losses

from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses

during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Stimulation of nuisance organisms. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been satisfactorily mitigated at the single

nuclear power plant with a once-through cooling system where previously it was

a problem. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem

during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of

stimulation of nuisance organisms during the license renewal term beyond those discussed

in the GEIS.

* Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages (cooling-tower-based systems).

Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Entrainment of fish has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

power plants with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a

problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

reviiew of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of

entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages for cooling-tower-based systems during

the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

April 2005 4-9 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Environmental Impacts of Operation

* Impingement of fish and shellfish (cooling-tower-based systems). Based on information

in the GEIS, the Commission found that

The impingement has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear

power plants with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a

problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of

impingement of fish and shellfish for cooling-tower-based systems during the license

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Heat shock (cooling-tower-based systems). Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Heat shock has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a problem

during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of heat

shock for cooling-tower-based systems during the license renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

* Cooling tower impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation. Based on information in the

GEIS, the Commission found that

Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased humidity associated with

cooling tower operation have not been found to be a problem at operating

nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license

renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no cooling tower

impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation during the license renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-10 April 2005
Environmental Impacts of Operation

* Cooling tower impacts on native vegetation. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased humidity associated with

cooling tower operation have not been found to be a problem at operating

nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license

renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no cooling tower

impacts on native vegetation during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the

GEIS.

* Bird collisions with cooling towers. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

These collisions have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power

plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of bird

collisions with cooling towers during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the

GEIS.

* Microbiological organisms (occupational health). Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that --

Occupational health impacts are expected to be controlled by continued

application of accepted industrial hygiene practices to minimize worker

exposures.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of

microbiological organisms during the liien'se renewal term beyond those discussed in the

GEIS.

April 2005 4-11 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Environmental Impacts of Operation

* Noise. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Noise has not been found to be a problem at operating plants and is not

expected to be a problem at any plant during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of noise

during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

The Category 2 issues related to cooling system operation during the license renewal term that

are applicable to ANO-2 are listed in Table 4-2 and are discussed in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2.

Although the Entergy ER identified only microbiological organisms (public health) as an

applicable Category 2 issue, the staff determined that all the Category 2 issues pertaining to

plants with cooling towers are applicable to ANO-2.

Table 4-2. Category 2 Issues Applicable to the Operation of the Arkansas Nuclear One,

Unit 2 Cooling System During the License Renewal Term

10 CFR

ISSUE - 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS 51.53(c)(3)(ii) SEIS

Appendix B, Table B-1 Sections Subparagraph Section

SURFACE WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Water use conflicts (plants with cooling ponds 4.3.2.1; 4.4.2.1 A 4.1.1

or cooling towers using make-up water from a

small river with low flow)

HUMAN HEALTH

Microbiological organisms (public 4.3.6 G 4.1.5

health)(plants using lakes or canals, or cooling

towers or cooling ponds that discharge to a

small river)

4.1.1 Water Use Conflicts (Makeup Water from a Small River)

Consumptive water use can adversely impact riparian vegetation and associated animal

communities by reducing the amount of water available for plant growth, maintenance, and

reproduction. While changes, albeit small, in average annual stream flow downstream of Lake

Dardanelle are inevitable because of the decrease in the total water supply, any changes that

might occur in the pool elevation will be the result of other considerations in the operation of the

Arkansas River system.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-12 April 2005

11
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Because ANO-2 is located on a river impoundment and there are no water availability problems

in Lake Dardanelle, the relatively small consumptive water loss from its operation does not have

a significant adverse impact on instream'ecological communities. Resource agencies have

concurred with this assessment (AGFC 1995). Evaporative losses from the ANO-2 cooling

tower are estimated to average'0.62 m3/s (22 cfs) annually with the maximum annual average

of 0.74 m3/s (26 cfs). Under low-flow water conditions of 40 m3/s (1400 cfs), the maximum

evaporative losses only represent 2 percent'reduction in the stream flow downstream.

Consumptive use of water at ANO-2 is not expected to change during the period of the

proposed license renewal. It is impossible to reliably predict the quantity of future withdrawals

for all other users. However, State' and Federal regulations are in place to ensure future

withdrawals do not adversely impact the aquatic and riparian communities in Lake Dardanelle

and downstream.

The staff has reviewed the impact of the consumptive use of water by ANO-2 on the aquatic

communities in Lake Dardanelle. The staff has reviewed the available information, including

that provided by the applicant, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, discussions with other

agencies, and other public sources. Using this information, the staff evaluated the potential

impacts from the consumptive use of water by ANO-2 on the aquatic communities in Lake

Dardanelle during the license renewal term. It is the staff's conclusion that the potential impacts

during the license renewal term are SMALL.

During the course of preparing this supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), the

staff considered mitigation measures for the continued operation of ANO-2. When continued

operation for an additional 20 years is considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the

environment (whether or not "significant") were considered. Based on this assessment, the

staff expects that the measures in place'at ANO-2 provide mitigation for all impacts related tothe consumptive use of water by ANO-2 on the aquatic communities in Lake Dardanelle, and no

new mitigation measures are warranted. ' -

4.1.2 Microbiological Organisms (Public Health)

The Arkansas River, which was impounded tofform Lake Dardanelle, has an annual average

flow rate of 1070 mr3 /s (37,800 cfs). ANO-2 uses a closed-cycle cooling'system equipped with a

natural-draft'cooling tower to dissipate waste heat to the atmosphere. After moving through the

condenser, circulating water rejects waste heat to the atmosphere through the natural-draft

cooling tower.- Evaporation in the cooling tower occurs at an average'rate of approximately

0.62 m3/s (22 cfs) with the maximum evaporation rate expected to be approximately 0.76 m 3 /s

(27 cfs). Remaining waste heat is discharged in the form of blowdown from the circulating

water system to a 158-m (520-ft)-long canal discharging into Lake Dardanelle. This blowdown

is mixed with the ANO-1 circulating water system discharge.

April 2005 4-13 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Environmental Impacts of Operation

In 1981, 11 nuclear plants took part in a study to determine if thermophilic pathogens existed in

cooling water systems. Arkansas Nuclear One was one of 10 plants in the study that had

thermophilic free-living amoebae in cooling water samples. However, the amoebae were not

pathogenic. Naegleria sp., which is pathogenic, was not detected in the water or sediment

samples from the Arkansas Nuclear One intake canal or discharge embankment. Legionella

sp. was detected in water samples collected in Lake Dardanelle at Arkansas Nuclear One, but

the concentrations were similar to the concentrations in local surface water control sources

(NRC 2001).

Studies on thermophilic pathogens at Arkansas Nuclear One have concluded that risk of

infection from aerosols containing Legionella sp. is not a public health risk, but rather, a

potential industrial hygiene concern that is managed through appropriate industrial hygiene

practices (NRC 2001).

The Arkansas Department of Health was contacted to determine whether it had concerns

regarding thermophilic pathogens in Lake Dardanelle or the Arkansas River. The Arkansas

Department of Health had no information indicating that a human-health exposure problem

exists with thermophilic pathogens in Lake Dardanelle or the Arkansas River (McGrew 2003;

Meyers 2003).

There has been no known impact of ANO-2 operation on public health related to thermophilic

microorganisms. Although there is a potential for deleterious thermophilic microorganisms

associated with cooling systems, the actual hazard to public health from closed-cycle cooling

systems at nuclear plants has not been documented or substantiated.

The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by Entergy, the staff's

site visit, the scoping process, discussions with other agencies, and other public sources.

Using this information, the staff evaluated the potential public health impacts resulting from

operation of ANO-2 during the license renewal term. It is the staff's conclusion that the

potential public health impacts during the license renewal term are SMALL.

While preparing this SEIS, the staff considered mitigation measures for the continued operation

of ANO-2. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is considered as a whole, all of

the specific effects on the environment (whether or not "significant") were considered. Based

on this assessment, the staff expects that the measures in place at ANO-2 provide mitigation

for all impacts related to public health, and no new mitigation measures are warranted.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-14 April 2005

11
Environmental Impacts of Operation

4.2 Transmission Lines

One 500-kV, single-circuit transmission line, which is approximately 146 km (91 mi) long,

connects ANO-2 to the power distribution grid. It 'extends from the existing ANO-2, 500-kV

station switchyard southeasterly via the Mayflower substation (southwest of Mayflower) to the

Mabelvale substation (southwest of Little Rock) (Entergy 2003a). Its right-of-way is 55 m

(180 ft) wide (Entergy 2003a), encompasses 730 ha (1804 ac), and crosses lands that consist

of rural property, forestland, and to a limited degree, agricultural and timber production -

operations. Vegetation management along the ANO-2 transmission line right-of-way involves

mechanical and manual'clearing only. No herbicides are used to manage vegetation along this

right-of-way (Entergy 2003a).

Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that are applicable to

the ANO-2 transmission line are listed in Table 4-3. Entergy stated in its ER (Entergy 2003a)

that it is not aware of any new and significant information concerning the transmission line or

right-of-way maintenance for the Category 1 issues associated with the renewal of the ANO-2

OL. The staff conducted an independent review of the Entergy ER, a site visit, the scoping

process, consultation with the U.S. Fish'and Wildlife Service'(FWS) and the Arkansas Natural

Heritage Commission (ANHC), and an evaluation of other available information. As a result of

this review, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those

discussed in the GEIS (NRC 1996). For all those issues, the staff concluded that the impacts

are SMALL, and additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently

beneficial to'be warranted.

Table 4-3. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2

Transmission Line During the License Renewal Term

ISSUE - 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Power line right-of-way management (cutting 'and herbicide application) 4.5.6.1

Bird collisions with power lines 4.5.6.2

Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, 4.5.6.3

honeybees,'wildlife, livestock) -

Floodplains and wetland on power line right-of-way 4.5.7

AIR QUALITY

Air quality effects of transmission lines - - 4.5.2

- LAND USE

Onsite land use - - 4.5.3

Power line right-of-way 4.5.3

April 2005 4-15 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Environmental Impacts of Operation

A brief description of the staff's review and GEIS conclusions, as codified in 10 CFR Part 51,

Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, for each of these issues follows:

* Power line richt-of-way management (cutting and herbicide application). Based on

information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

The impacts of right-of-way maintenance on wildlife are expected to be of small

significance at all sites.

During the staff site visit, the staff observed several instances of erosion on moderate

grades beneath the 500-kV power line. However, these were not sufficiently extensive to

alter the conclusions in the GEIS. The staff has not identified any new and significant

information during its independent review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the

scoping process, or its evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff concludes that

there are no impacts of power line right-of-way management during the license renewal

term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Bird collisions with power lines. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

Impacts are expected to be of small significance at all sites.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, consultation with the

FWS, or its evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

impacts of bird collisions with power lines during the license renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

* Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops,

honeybees. wildlife, livestock). Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

No significant impacts of electromagnetic fields on terrestrial flora and fauna

have been identified. Such effects are not expected to be a problem during the

license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of electromagnetic

fields on flora and fauna during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the

GEIS.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-16 April 2005

,.
Environmental Impacts of Operation

* Floodplains and wetlands on Dower line right-of-way. Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

Periodic vegetation control is necessary in forested wetlands underneath power

lines and'can be achieved with minimal damage to the wetland. No significant

impact is expected at any nuclear power plant during the license renewal term.

On October 11 and 12, 2002, FTN Associates, Ltd. conducted biological field surveys where

the ANO-2 transmission line right-of-way crosses Illinois Bayou, Cadron Creek, and Goose

Pond Natural Area (three areas of concern to the ANHC [ANHC 2002]). FTN found no

evidence that these areas had been previously impacted or would be impacted in the future

by continued maintenance of the transmission line right-of-way (FTN 2004). The staff has

not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of the

Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other information.

Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of the ANO-2 power line right-ofway on floodplains and wetlands during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in

the GEIS.

* Air quality effects of transmission lines. Based on the information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is insignificant and does not

contribute measurably to ambient levels of these gases.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no air quality impacts of the

ANO-2 transmission line during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the

GEIS.

* Onsite land use. Based on information 1

nr the GEIS, the Commission found that

Projected onsite land use changes' required during ... the renewal period would

be a small fraction of anybnuclear power plant site and would involve land that is

controlled by the applicant.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no onsite land-use impacts during

the license renewal termnbeyond those'discussed in the GEIS.

April 2005 4-17 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Environmental Impacts of Operation

* Power line right-of-way. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Ongoing use of power line right of ways would continue with no change in

restrictions. The effects of these restrictions are of small significance.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of the ANO-2 power

line right-of-way on land use during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the

GEIS.

Category 2 and uncategorized issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1,

that are applicable to the ANO-2 transmission line are listed in Table 4-4 and are discussed in

Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.

Table 4-4. Category 2 and Uncategorized Issues Applicable to the Arkansas Nuclear One,

Unit 2 Transmission Line During the License Renewal Term

ISSUE -10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) SEIS

Appendix B, Table B-1 Sections Subparagraph Section

HUMAN HEALTH

Electromagnetic fields, acute effects 4.5.4.1 H 4.2.1

(electric shock)

Electromagnetic fields, chronic effects 4.5.4.2 NA 4.2.2

4.2.1 Electromagnetic Fields - Acute Effects

In the GEIS (NRC 1996), the staff found that without a review of the conformance of each

nuclear plant transmission line with National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) (NESC 1997)

criteria, it was not possible to determine the significance of the electric shock potential.

Evaluation of individual plant transmission lines is necessary because the issue of electric

shock safety was not addressed in the licensing process for some plants. For other plants, land

use in the vicinity of transmission lines may have changed, or power distribution companies

may have chosen to upgrade line voltage. To comply with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H), Entergy

must provide an assessment of the potential shock hazard if the transmission lines that were

constructed for the specific purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission system do not

meet the recommendations of the NESC for preventing electric shock from induced currents.

One 500-kV transmission line was constructed to connect ANO-2 to the power distribution grid.

The onsite transmission line meets the 1997 NESC criteria. The offsite portion of the line runs

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-18 April 2005

it
Environmental Impacts of Operation

approximately 146 km (91 mi) from the ANO-2 switchyard to the Mayflower substation and then

to the Mabelvale substation. This line, which has been operated at the same voltage since it

was energized in 1973 (Entergy 2003a), meets the 1997 NESC clearance criterion of 8.64 m

(28.35 ft) at a maximum operating temperature of 1000C (212'F). The ENVIRO code

(EPRI 1992) was used to evaluate the electric field strength 1 m (3 ft) above ground level

assuming that a large tractor-trailer truck was parked beneath the line at each of 16 major road

crossings. The steady state current was calculated from these estimated field strengths. At

two of the 16 crossings, the calculated steady state current exceeded the 5 mA NESC criterion.

The two highway crossings were both where the transmission lines cross 1-40. The highest

current prediction, about 6.2 mA, was for the east-bound lanes of 1-40 near Conway, Arkansas,

and the other was near the Arkansas Nuclear One site. It is highly unlikely that a tractor-trailer

truck would park under either of these transmission line spans because 1-40 is a limited-access

highway, so except for emergencies, parking on the highway is not allowed.

Additionally, state regulations limit large vehicles on minor and dirt roads. The largest steady

state current for a large school bus on such roads or an agricultural combine in a field where

the transmission line crosses was calculated to be less than 4 mA.

The staff has reviewed Entergy evaluation and computational results. Based on this review, the

staff concludes that the impact of the potential for electric shock is SMALL and additional

mitigation is not warranted.

4.2.2 Electromagnetic Fields - Chronic-Effects

In the GEIS, the chronic effects of 60-Hz electromagnetic fields from transmission lines is not

designated as a Category 1 or 2 issue, and will not be so designated until a scientific

consensus is reached on the health implications of these fields.

The potential for chronic effects from these fields continues to be studied and is not known at

this time. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) directs related

research through the U.S. Department of Energy. A recent report (NIEHS 1999) contains the

following conclusion:

The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF [extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field]

exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that

exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to

warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the

United States uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive

regulatory action is warranted such as a continued emphasis on educating both the

public and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures. The

April 2005 4-19 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
'I

Environmental Impacts of Operation

NIEHS does not believe that other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide

sufficient evidence of a risk to currently warrant concern.

This statement is not sufficient to cause the staff to change its position with respect to the

chronic effects of electromagnetic fields. The staff concludes that the GEIS finding of 'not

applicable" is still appropriate, and will continue to follow developments on this issue.

4.3 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations

Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that are applicable to

ANO-2 in regard to radiological impacts are listed in Table 4-5. Entergy stated in its ER that it

is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the ANO-2

OL. The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related to these

issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For these issues, the staff concluded in the GEIS

that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to

be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

Table 4-5. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations at

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 During the License Renewal Term

ISSUE- 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

HUMAN HEALTH

Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term) 4.6.2

Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal term) 4.6.3

A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for

each of these issues follows:

Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term). Based on information in the

GEIS, the Commission found that

Radiation doses to the public will continue at current levels associated with

normal operations.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-20 April 2005

11
Environmental Impacts of Operation

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of radiation

exposures to the public during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the

GEIS.

Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal term). Based on information in the

GEIS, the Commission found that

Projected maximum occupational doses during the license renewal term are

within the range of doses experienced during normal operations and normal

maintenance outages, and would be well below regulatory limits.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of

occupational radiation exposures during the license renewal term beyond those discussed

in the GEIS.

There are no Category 2 issues related to radiological impacts of routine operations.

4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts of Plant Operations During the

License Renewal Term

Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that are applicable to

socioeconomic impacts during the license renewal term are listed in Table 4-6. Entergy stated

in the its ER that it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the

renewal of the ANO-2 OL. The staff has not identified any new and significant information

during

Table 4-6. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics for Arkansas Nuclear One,

Unit 2 During the License Renewal Term

ISSUE -10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Sections

SOCIOECONOMICS

Public services: public safety, social services,a'rid tourism and recreation 4.7.3; 4.7.3.3; 4.7.3.4;

4.7.3.6

Public services: education (license renewal term) 4.7.3.1

Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term) 4.7.6

Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term) 4.5.8

April 2005 4-21 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
-I

Environmental Impacts of Operation

its independent review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, discussions

with other agencies, or its evaluation of other information. Therefore, the staff concludes that

there are no impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For these

issues, the staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL, and additional

plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for

each of these issues follows:

* Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation. Based on

information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Impacts to public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation are

expected to be of small significance at all sites.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts on public

safety, social services, and tourism and recreation during the license renewal term beyond

those discussed in the GEIS.

* Public services: education (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

Only impacts of small significance are expected.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts on education

during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term). Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no aesthetic impacts

during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-22 April 2005
Environmental Impacts of Operation

* Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term). Based on information in

the GEIS, the Commission'found that -

No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no aesthetic impacts of transmission -

lines during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Table 4-7 lists the Category 2 socioeconomic issues, which require plant-specific analysis, and

environmental justice, which was not addressed in the GEIS. These issues are discussed in

Sections 4.4.1 through 4.4.6.

Table 4-7. Environmental Justice and GEIS Category 2 Issues Applicable to Socioeconomics

for Arkansas Nuclear'One, Unit 2 During the License Renewal Term

ISSUE - 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii --

- Appendix B, Table B-i Sections Subparagraph SEIS Section

SOCIOECONOMICS

Housing impacts 4.7.1 1 4.4.1

Public services: public utilities 4.7.3.5 I 4.4.2

Offsite land use (license renewal term) 4.7.4 - I 4.4.3

Public services, transportation 4.7.3.2 J 4.4.4

Historic and archaeological resources 4.7.7 K 4.4.5

Environmental justice . Not Not 4.4.6

addressed(a) addressed(a)

(a) Guidance related to environmental justice was not in place at the time the GEIS and the associated revision

to 10 CFR Part 51 was prepared. Therefore, environmental justice must be addressed in the licensee's ER

and the staff's EIS.

4.4.1 Housing Impacts During Operations'

Impacts on housing are considered SMALLwhen a small or not easily discernible change in

housing availability occurs. Impacts are considered MODERATE when there-is discernible but

short-lived reduction in available housing units because of project-induced migration. Impacts

are considered'LARGE when project-related housing demands result in very limited housing

availability and would increase rentai rates and housing values-Well above normal inflation

(NRC 1996).

April 2005 4-23 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
1.

Environmental Impacts of Operation

In determining housing impacts, the applicant chose to follow Appendix C of the GEIS

(NRC 1996), which presents a population characterization method that is based on two factors,

"sparseness" and "proximity." Sparseness measures population density within 32 km (20 mi) of

the site, and proximity measures population density and city size within 80 km (50 mi). Each

factor has categories of density and size (NRC 1996), and a matrix is used to rank the

population category as low, medium, or high (NRC 1996).

Entergy used 2000 census data from the Arkansas State Census Data Center (UALR 2002)

and Geographical Information System software (ArcView,9 Version 8.1) to determine the overall

resident population and demographic characteristics in the vicinity of Arkansas Nuclear One.

Entergy's analysis of the 2000 census data indicates that 87,468 people live within 32 km

(20 mi) of Arkansas Nuclear One, which equates to a population density of 27 persons/km2

(70 persons/mi 2). According to the GEIS sparseness index, the area around Arkansas Nuclear

One is classified as Category 3 sparseness (having 60 to 120 persons per mj2 within 20 miles).

Entergy's analysis of the 2000 census data shows that 267,664 people live within 80 km (50 mi)

of Arkansas Nuclear One, which equates to a population density of 13 people/km2

(34 people/mi 2). According to the GEIS proximity index, the Arkansas Nuclear One site is

classified as Category 1 (no city with 100,000 or more people and fewer than 50 persons per

mj2 within 80 km [50 mi]). According to the GEIS sparseness and proximity matrix, the

combination of Category 3 sparseness and Category 1 proximity leads to the conclusion that

Arkansas Nuclear One is located in a medium population area.

The staff confirmed these analyses using an independently confirmed methodology

(Section 2.2.8.5). During 2000, the population living within 32 km (20 mi) of ANO-2 was

estimated to be 99,033 (USCB 2000a). This total converts to a population density of about

30 persons/km 2 (79 persons/mi2) living on the land area within a 32-km (20-mi) radius of

Arkansas Nuclear One. This concentration falls into the GEIS sparseness Category 3

(i.e., having fewer than or equal to 46 persons/km2 [120 persons/mi 2]).

An estimated 311,904 people live within 80 km (50 mi) of the Arkansas Nuclear One site

(USCB 2000a), equating to a population density of around 15 persons/km2 (40 persons/mi 2) on

the available land area. Applying the GEIS proximity measures (NRC 1996), the area around

Arkansas Nuclear One is classified as Category 1 (i.e., having fewer than 19 persons/km2

[50 persons/mi 2] within 80 km [50 mi] of the site). According to the GEIS criteria, these

sparseness and proximity scores place Arkansas Nuclear One in a medium population area.

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 states that impacts on housing availability

are expected to be of SMALL significance at plants located in a medium population area where

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-24 April 2005
Environmental Impacts of Operation

growth-control measures are not in effect. The ANO-2 site is located in a medium population

area. Pope, Johnson, and Yell Counties are not subject to growth-control measures that would

limit housing development.

SMALL impacts result when no discernible change in housing availability occurs, changes in

rental rates and housing values are similar to those occurring statewide, and no housing

construction or conversion is required to meet new demand (NRC 1996). The GEIS assumes

that an additional staff of 60 permanent per-unit workers might be needed during the license

renewal period to perform routine maintenance and other activities. Entergy assumes that no

additional workers will be needed. Entergy does not plan any new refurbishment activity as part

of the license renewal process; therefore, employment will not change in the area as result of

license renewal. Thus, Entergy concludes that there are no impacts to housing from license

renewal activities (Entergy 2003a). As a result, Entergy concludes that the impacts would be

SMALL, and mitigation measures would not be necessary or effective (Entergy 2003a).

The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by Entergy, the staff's

site visit, the scoping process, discussions with other agencies, and other public sources.

Using this information, the staff evaluated the potential housing impacts resulting from

operation of ANO-2 during the license renewal term. -It is the staff's conclusion that the

potential housing impacts during the license renewal term are SMALL.

During the course of this SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

continued operation of ANO-2. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is

considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not

"significant") were considered. Based on this assessment, it is the staff's conclusion that the

measures in place at ANO-2 provide mitigation for all impacts related to housing, and no new

mitigation measures are warranted.

4.4.2 Public Services: Public Utility Impacts During Operations

Impacts on public utility services are considered SMALL if there is little or no change in the

ability of the system to respond to the level of demand, so there is no need to. add capital

facilities. Impacts are considered MODERATE if overtaxing of service capabilities occurs

during periods of peak demand.' Impacts are considered LARGE if existing levels of service

(e.g., water or sewer services) are substantially degraded and additional capacity is needed to

meet ongoing demands for services. The GEIS indicates that, in the absence of new and

significant information to the contrary, the only impacts on public utilities that could be

significant are impacts on public water supplies (NRC 1996).

Analysis of impacts on the public water supply system considered both plant demand and

plant-related population growth. Section 2.2.2 describes the permitted withdrawal rate for

April 2005 ~4-25 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
if

Environmental Impacts of Operation

ANO-2 and actual use of water. Entergy plans no refurbishment at ANO-2, so plant water

demand would not change beyond current demands (Entergy 2003a).

In its ER, Entergy stated that it does not anticipate a need for additional workers during the

period of extended operation. Therefore, there will be no expected impact to public utilities from

additional plant workers.

Plant operations during the period of extended operation were not projected to cause a

noticeable effect on the local water supply. Sanitary sewage is treated in an onsite wastewater

treatment plant (Entergy'2003a). There would be no effect on offsite sewage systems. In

1997, City Corporation water system (owned by the city of Russellville) completed construction

of a new water supply source, the Huckleberry Creek Reservoir, which significantly increased

the system capacity, and will provide residential and industrial customers in the area with a

reliable supply of high-quality potable water in the future.

According to City Corporation water system, Arkansas Nuclear One does not cause capacity or.

flow concerns for the system, and the system should be able to meet the ANO-2 water demand

in the foreseeable future (Church 2002). In addition, Entergy and City Corporation water

system have worked together to upgrade the water system near the plant. A 3.8-million L

(1-million gal) storage tank was installed just north of the facility. Eighty percent of the capacity

of the tank is reserved for Arkansas Nuclear One with the remaining amount assigned to meet

the needs of the city of London (Entergy 1999).

Current potable water usage by the site is approximately 0.1 percent of the maximum daily

capacity of the city of Russellville water system.

The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by Entergy, the staff's

site visit, the scoping process, discussions with other agencies, and other public sources.

Using this information, the staff evaluated the potential impacts of increased water use resulting

from the potential increase in employment. It is the staff's conclusion that the potential impacts

of increased water use resulting from the potential increase in employment during the license

renewal term are SMALL.

During the course of this SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

continued operation of ANO-2. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not 'significant')

were considered. Based on this assessment, it is the staff's conclusion that the measures in

place at ANO-2 provide mitigation for all impacts related to public services, and no new

mitigation measures are warranted.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-26 April 2005
Environmental Impacts of Operation

4.4.3 Offsite Land Use During Operations

Land use in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant rriay change as a result of plant-related

population growth. Offsite land use during the license renewal term is a Category 2 issue

(10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1).' Table B-1 at 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, notes that "significant changes in land use may be associated with population and

tax revenue changes resulting from license'renewal." Entergy has not identified any increases

in plant staffing related to license renewal;'consdquently, there are no corresponding increases

in direct or indirect workers in Pope County.

Section 4.7.4 of the GEIS defines the magnitude of land-use changes as a result of plant

operation during the license renewal term as follows:

SMALL''-' Little new development and minimal changes to an area's land-use pattern.

MODERATE - Considerable new development and some changes to the land-use pattern.

LARGE - Large-scale new development and major changes in the land-use pattern.

Section 4.7.4.1 of the GEIS (NRC 1996) states that the assessment of tax-driven, land-use

impacts during the license renewal term should 'consider (1) the size of the plant's payments

relative to the community's total revenues, (2) the nature of the community's existing land-use

pattern, and (3) the extent to which the community already has public services in place to

support and guide development. If the plant's tax payments are projected to be small relative to

the community's total revenue, new tax-driven, land-use changes attributable to the plant during

the plant's license renewal term would be SMALL, especially where the' community has preestablished patterns of development and has provided adequate public services to support and

guide development. If the plant's tax payments are projected to be medium-to-large relative to

the community's total revenue, new tax-driven, land-use changes would be MODERATE. This

is most likely to be true where the community has no-pre-established patterns of development

(i.e., land-use plans or controls) or has not provided adequate public services to support and

guide development in the past, especially infrastructure that would allow industrial development.

If the plant's tax payments are projected to be'a dominant source of the community's total

revenue, new tax-driven, land-use changes would be LARGE. This would be especially true

where the community has'no preestablished pattern of development or has not provided

adequate public services to support and guide'development in the past.

Pope County is the only jurisdiction that taxes Entergy directly for Arkansas Nuclear One, and it

is the principal jurisdiction that receives direct tax revenue as a result of Arkansas Nuclear

One's presence. Because there are no major refurbishment activities and no new construction

as a result of the proposed license renewal,;no new sources of plant-related tax payments are

April 2005 4-27 AFinal NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Environmental Impacts of Operation

expected that could significantly influence land use in Pope County. During the license renewal

term, however, new land-use impacts could result from the use by local government entities of

the tax revenue paid by Entergy for ANO-2. As discussed in Section 2.2.8.6, Entergy paid

Pope County $8.5 million in property taxes for ANO-1 and ANO-2 in 2002. Taxes associated

with Arkansas Nuclear One make up approximately 43 percent, 55 percent, and 43 percent of

the locally generated property tax revenues for the county general, roads, and library budgets,

respectively (Entergy 2003a). The majority of Entergy's property taxes for Arkansas Nuclear

One are allocated to the Russellville School District. In 2002, Entergy's taxes made up about

49 percent of the locally generated property tax revenues for the school district

(Entergy 2003a).

Residential development is expected to continue around Lake Dardanelle because of the

availability of desirable lakefront property. Pope County has experienced moderate population

growth and moderate land-use changes in the last 10 years. Although recent population growth

is not directly related to the presence of Arkansas Nuclear One, future lakefront development

would be facilitated by the presence of roads and water service, which are an indirect impact of

Arkansas Nuclear One. Continuation of Pope County's tax receipts from Arkansas Nuclear

One keeps tax rates below what they otherwise would have to be to fund the county

government and also provides for a higher level of public infrastructure and services than

otherwise would be possible. This enhances the county's attractiveness as a place to live and

may tend to accelerate the conversion of open space to residential and commercial uses.

The Arkansas Nuclear One site was one of the case studies examined in the GEIS (NRC

1996). Section C.4.1.5.2 of the GEIS concluded that the indirect land-use impacts associated

with the license renewal term are expected to be MODERATE. The GEIS case study finding,

however, was for both ANO-1 and ANO-2 and also assumed a certain level of refurbishment

activity. Entergy stated in its license renewal application that it will not conduct any refurbishment activities for ANO-2 beyond routine replacement of certain components (Entergy 2003b).

Consequently, it is the staff's conclusion that the land-use impact during the license renewal

term of ANO-2 will be SMALL. Additional mitigation for land-use impacts during the license

renewal term does not appear to be warranted.

4.4.4 Public Services: Transportation Impacts During Operations

On October 4, 1999, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J) and 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B,

Table B-1, were revised to clearly state that "Public Services: Transportation Impacts During

Operations' is a Category 2 issue (see NRC 1999 for more discussion of this clarification). The

issue is treated as such in this SEIS.

The transportation infrastructure appears to adequately serve the residents living in the area

around ANO-2. However, Entergy identified two current traffic issues from interviews with the

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-28 April 2005
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department and local law enforcement agencies.

One issue is occasional congestion at the east intersection of State Highway 333 and

U.S. Highway 64, which serves as a major ingress and egress point for traffic associated with

Arkansas Nuclear One (see Section 2.1, Figure 2-2, and Section 2.2.8, Table 2-9). Congestion

at this intersection has been reduced by using staggered work schedules and shift changes at

ANO-1 and ANO-2. According to the Arkansas State Police, only one recorded accident

occurred at this intersection in 2001 (ASP 2002). 'The other issue is the potential for construction of an l-40 east-bound on-ramp between London and Lake Dardanelle. There currently is

only an east-bound off-ramp at this location. The addition of an eastbound on-ramp would

reduce local traffic congestion caused by site workers on State Highway 7 and U.S. Highway 64

and local streets in Russellville.

Because there are no major refurbishment activities required for ANO-2 license renewal and

there are no expected increases in the total number of employees that will be onsite during the

period of extended operation, Entergy concluded that the impacts on transportation during the

license renewal term would be SMALL, and no mitigative measures would be warranted

(Entergy 2003a).

The staff has reviewed the available information, including that provided by Entergy, the staff's

site visit, the scoping process, discussions with other agencies, and other public sources. -

Using this information, the staff evaluated the potential impacts to transportation service

resulting from extended operation of ANO-2; It is the staff's conclusion that the potential

impacts to transportation service degradation during the license renewal term are SMALL.

During the course of this SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

continued operation of ANO-2. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not "significant")

are considered. Based on this assessment,'it is the staff's conclusion that measures in place at

ANO-2 or identified above provide mitigation for all impacts related to transportation, and no

additional mitigation measures are warranted.

4.4.5 Historic and Archaeological Resources

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), requires that Federal

agencies take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The historic

preservation review process mandated by Section 106 of the NHPA is outlined in regulations

issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR Part 800. Renewal of an OL

is an undertaking that 'could potentially affect historic properties. Therefore, according to the

NHPA, NRC is to make a reasonable effort to identify historic properties in the area of potential

April 2005 4-29 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
- I

Environmental Impacts of Operation

effects.) If no historic properties are present or affected, the NRC is required to notify the

State Historic Preservation Officer before proceeding. If it is determined that historic properties

are present, the NRC is required to assess and resolve possible adverse effects of the

undertaking.

Because the Entergy license renewal application (Entergy 2003b) covering an additional

20 years of operation of ANO-2 does not include plans for future land disturbances or structural

modifications beyond routine maintenance activities at the plant, there would be no identifiable

adverse effects to known historic and archaeological resources.

The staff initiated discussions with the Arkansas State Historic Preservation Officer and the

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Appendix E). In addition, the staff initiated consultations with the following tribes: Caddo Nation, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Cherokee Nation

of Oklahoma, Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma, Osage Nation, Quapaw Tribe of

Oklahoma, and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. Based on the tribal consultations, no

potential traditional cultural properties or other culturally sensitive areas/resources have been

identified at the Arkansas Nuclear One site.

As discussed in Section 2.2.9.1, the water route of the 1838 Trail of Tears National Historic

Trail near the plant has been inundated by earlier development of the McClellan-Kerr

Navigation System, Lake Dardanelle in this case. Bell's Route of the Trail of Tears passes in

the vicinity (within 0.9 km [0.5 mi]) of the northern property boundary of Arkansas Nuclear One

site, close to the paths occupied today by U.S. Highway 64 and the Union Pacific Railroad.

Based on separation distance from the site, the staff concludes that the potential for impacts to

elements (e.g., campsites, ruts, middens) adjacent to the Trail of Tears from continued

operation of ANO-2 is SMALL.

Entergy indicated in its application for license renewal (Entergy 2003b) that it has performed an

evaluation of structures and components pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21 to identify activities that are

necessary to continue operation of ANO-2 during the requested 20-year period of extended

operation. These activities include replacement of certain components as well as new

inspection activities. However, Entergy stated that the replacements of these components and

(a) In accordance with the NHPA, the NRC staff has determined that the area of potential effects for a

license renewal action is the area at the power plant site and its immediate environs that may be

impacted by post-license renewal land-disturbing operations or projected refurbishment activities

associated with the proposed action. The area of potential effects may extend beyond the immediate

environs in those instances where post-license renewal land-disturbing operations or projected

refurbishment activities, specifically related to license renewal, may potentially have an effect on

known or proposed historic sites. This determination is made irrespective of ownership or control of

the lands of interest.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-30 April 2005
Environmental Impacts of Operation

the additional inspection activities are within the bounds of normal plant component

replacement and inspections; therefore, they are not expected to affect the environment outside

the bounds of plant operations as evaluated in the final environmental impact statement for

Arkansas Nuclear One (AEC 1973). In addition, Entergy's evaluation of structures and

components did not identify any major plant refurbishment activities beyond the period for which

the existing OL was issued. Had Entergy anticipated the need for refurbishment activities and,

if such refurbishment activities would have adverse effects on historic properties, then it would

be expected that Entergy would seek ways to avoid or reduce the effects on such properties.

Additional care should be taken during normal operational or maintenance conditions to ensure

that potential historic properties are not inadvertently impacted. These activities may include

not only operation of the plant itself, but also land management-related actions such as

recreation, wildlife habitat enhancement, or maintaining/upgrading access roads throughout the

plant site. To assist in protecting known and unrecorded historic properties, Entergy has

implemented administrative procedural controls. These procedural controls include steps to

ensure that historic and archaeological sites/areas will not be inadvertently dam-aged during

onsite activities that involve land disturbances.

Based on the finding that Entergy did not identify any major refurbishment activities related to

the renewal of the ANO-2 OL and that operations will continue within the bounds of plant

operations as evaluated in the final environmental impact statement for ANO-2 (AEC 1977),

and the steps taken by Entergy to preclude adverse impacts to cultural resources in the future,

it is the staff's conclusion that the potential impacts on historic and archeological resources are

expected to be SMALL, and mitigation is not warranted.

4.4.6 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice refers to a Federal policy, requiring that Federal agencies identify and

address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental

effects of its actions on minority(a) or low-income populations. The memorandum accompanying

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) directs Federal executive agencies to consider

environmental justice under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Council on

Environmental Quality has provided guidance for addressing environmental justice (CEQ 1997).

Although the Executive Order is not mandatory for independent agencies, the NRC has

voluntarily committed to undertake environmental justice reviews. Specific guidance is provided

(a) The NRC Guidance for performing environmental justice reviews defines "minority" as American

Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; Black races; or Hispanic

ethnicity. "Other" races and multi-racial individuals may be considered as'separate minorities

(NRC 2004a).

April 2005 4-31 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Environmental Impacts of Operation

in NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 1, Procedural

Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues

(NRC 2004a).

The scope of the review as defined in NRC guidance (NRC 2004a) includes identification of

impacts on minority and low-income populations, the location and significance of any

environmental impacts during operations on populations that are particularly sensitive, and

information pertaining to mitigation. It also includes evaluation of whether these impacts are

likely to be disproportionately high and adverse.

The staff examined the geographic distribution of minority and low-income populations within

80 km (50 mi) of the ANO-2 site, employing the 2000 census for minority and low-income

populations (USCB 2000a, b). The populations within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of ANO-2

encompassed parts of 19 counties. The staff supplemented its analysis by field inquiries to

county planning departments and social service agencies in Pope, Johnson, and Yell Counties,

and Pope County elected officials and staff.

For the purpose of the staff's review, a minority population is defined to exist if the percentage

of each minority, or aggregated minority category within the census block groups(a) potentially

affected by the license renewal of ANO-2, exceeds the corresponding percentage of minorities

in the entire State of Arkansas by 20 percent, or if the corresponding percentage of minorities

within the census block group is at least 50 percent. A low-income population is defined to exist

if the percentage of low-income population within a census block group exceeds the

corresponding percentage of low-income population in the entire State of Arkansas by

20 percent, or if the corresponding percentage of low-income population within a census block

group is at least 50 percent.

Entergy used 2000 census data from the Arkansas State Census Data Center (UALR 2002) to

identify minority populations within 80 km (50 mi) of ANO-2. ArcView, Geographical

Information System software (Version 8.1) was used to identify 218 census block groups within

the 80-km (50-mi) radius, compile the minority and low-income population data, and produce

maps showing the geographic location of minority and low-income populations in relation to

Arkansas Nuclear One. The information for these block groups was then reviewed with respect

to the NRC criteria for minority and low-income populations. Overall, minority populations within

(a) A census block group is a combination of census blocks, which are statistical subdivisions of a census

tract. A census block is the smallest geographic entity for which the U.S. Census Bureau collects and

tabulates decennial census information. A census tract is a small, relatively permanent statistical

subdivision of counties delineated by local committees of census data users in accordance with

U.S. Census Bureau guidelines for the purpose of collecting and presenting decennial census data.

Census block groups are subsets of census tracts (USCB 2001).

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-32 April 2005
Environmental Impacts of Operation

the 80-km (50-mi) radius impact site were small and well dispersed. Based on the "exceeds

50 percent" and "more than 20 percent greater" criteria, minority populations existed in only 4

of the 218 block groups. These block groups are located in the communities of Dardanelle,

Morrilton, and Conway. The nearest minority population to ANO-2 was in census block group

952300-3 located approximately 13 km (8 mi) southeast of the plant.

The staff also followed the convention of employing 2000 census block group data to identify

minority and low-income block groups within the 80-km (50-mi) radius of ANO-2 (USCB

2000a, b) and confirmed Entergy's findings by independent analysis.

Figure 4-1 from the Entergy ER (Entergy 2003a) shows the distribution of minority populations

(shaded areas) within the 80-km (50-mi) radius. The NRC staff identified one additional

minority block group (9525002-2 in Yell County, immediately east-southeast of the town of

Danville, and 20 miles south-southwest of block group 952500-3 shown in Figure 4-1). Figure

4-2 shows the locations of the low-income populations within 80 km (50 mi) of ANO-2. There

are only seven low-income census block groups within 80 km (50 mi). The majority of these

block groups are located in the communities of Clarksville, Russellville, and Conway. The

nearest low-income population to Arkansas Nuclear One was in census block group 951400-2,

located approximately 8 km (5 mi) east of the site. One of the low-income block groups

(census tract 030700, group 3) was also defined as a minority population block group. It is

about 79 km (49 mi) from ANO-2.

With the locations of minority and low-income populations identified, the staff evaluated whether

any of the environmental impacts of the proposed action could affect these populations in a

disproportionately high and adverse manner. Based on staff guidance (NRC 2004a), air, land,

and water resources within about 80 km (50 mi) of the ANO-2 site were examined. Within that

area, a few potential environmental impacts could affect human populations as discussed

throughout this report, but all of these impacts were considered SMALL for the general

population.

The pathways through which the environmental impacts associated with ANO-2 license renewal

can affect human populations are discussed throughout this report. During its review of the

information, including that provided by Entergy, the staff's site visit, the scoping process,

discussions with other agencies, and other public sources, the staff found no unusual resource

dependencies or practices, such as subsistence agriculture, hunting, or fishing, through which

minority and/or low-income populations could be disproportionately highly and adversely

affected. In addition, the staff did not identify any location-dependent disproportionately high

and adverse impacts that would affect these minority and low-income populations. Because the

environmental impacts are considered SMALL for the general population, special circumstances

would be necessary for there to be a disproportionate'impact to minoritie'sor low-income

April 2005 4-33 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Environmental Impacts of Operation

Figure 4-1. Geographic Distribution of Minority Populations (shown in shaded areas)

Within an 80-km (50-mi) Radius of the Arkansas Nuclear One Site Based on

Census Block Group Data

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-34 April 2005
Environmental Impacts of Operation

I

, ....

Figure 4-2. Geographic Distribution of Low-Income Populations (shown in shaded areas)

Within an 80-km (50-mi) Radius of the Arkansas Nuclear One Site Based on

Census Block Group Data

April 2005 4-35 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Environmental Impacts of Operation

populations. During its review, the staff did not identify any such circumstances. Therefore, the

staff concludes that the potential offsite impacts from ANO-2 to minority and low-income

populations during the renewal term are SMALL

During the course of this SEIS preparation, the staff considered mitigation measures for the

continued operation of ANO-2. When continued operation for an additional 20 years is considered as a whole, all of the specific effects on the environment (whether or not "significant')

were considered. Based on the assessment above, the staff concludes that the measures in

place at ANO-2 provide mitigation for all impacts related to environmental justice, and no new

mitigation measures are warranted.

4.5 Groundwater Use and Quality

The Category 1 issue in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that is applicable to

ANO-2 groundwater use and quality is listed in Table 4-8. Entergy stated in its ER that "no new

information existed for the issues that would invalidate the GEIS conclusions" (Entergy 2003a).

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of

the ANO-2 ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related to this issue

beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For this issue, the GEIS concluded that the impacts are

SMALL, and plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to be

warranted.

Table 4-8. Category 1 Issues Applicable to Groundwater Use and Quality During the

License Renewal Term

GEIS

ISSUE -10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 Sections

GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY

Groundwater use conflicts (potable and service water; plants that use <100 gpm). 4.8.1.1

A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1,

10 CFR 51, follows.

* Groundwater use conflicts (potable and service water: plants that use <100 ppm).

Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Plants using less than 100 gpm are not expected to cause any ground-water use

conflicts.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-36 April 2005

11
...

Environmental Impacts of Operation

As discussed in Section 2.2.2, there is no groundwater use at ANO-2. The staff has not

identified any new and significant information during its independent review of the Entergy ER,

the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available information.

Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no groundwater use conflicts during the license

renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

The Category 2 issue related to groundwater use that is applicable to ANO-2 is listed in

Table 4-9 and discussed in Section 4.5.1.

Table 4-9. Category 2 Issues Applicable t6Groundwater Use and Quality During the'

License Renewal Term

ISSUE- 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) SEIS

Appendix B8 Table B-1 Sections Subparagraph Section

GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY

Groundwater use conflicts (plants using 4.8.1.3 A 4.5.1

cooling towers withdrawing make-up water 4.4.2.1

from a small river)

4.5.1 Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants Using Cooling Towers Withdrawing

Makeup Water from a Small River)

Reductions in the total surface water supply in Lake Dardanelle and the Arkansas River

downstream could reduce the water available to groundwater users. In some regions, surface

water is a significant source of recharge to groundwater aquifers. However, the consurmptive

use of water'resulting from evaporation from the cooling towers is relatively small compared

with the flow in the Arkansas River.

The Arkansas River is impounded behind Dardanelle Lock and Dam to form Lake Dardanelle.

The lock and dam are operated by ACE as part of the Arkansas River Navigation Project, which

provides for navigation, flood control, hydropower production, water supply, and recreation

throughout the Arkansas River Basin. The average annual flow for the Arkansas River at -

Dardanelle is' 1070 m3/s (37,800 cfs). Monthly average stream flows of less than 40 m3/s

(1400 cfs) have been recorded in only 3 months since 1977. Currently, ACE has no plans to

change the operation of Lake Dardanelle that might affect the water-supply available to ANO-2.

Evaporative losses from the ANO'2 cooling tower are estimated to average 0.62 me/s (22 cfs)

annually with the maximum annual average of 0.74 m3/s (26 cfs). Under low flow water

conditions of 40 m3/s (1400 cfs), the maximum evaporative losses only represent 2 percent

reduction in the stream flow downstream.

April 2005 4-37 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Environmental Impacts of Operation

The consumptive use of surface water associated with evaporative losses at ANO-2 is not

expected to change during the period of the proposed license renewal. It is impossible to

reliably predict the quantity of future withdrawals and groundwater demands by other water

users over the license renewal term. However, there are State and Federal regulations in place

to ensure that future withdrawals do not adversely impact the groundwater resources around

Lake Dardanelle and downstream. Furthermore, the consumptive use of less than 2 percent of

the Arkansas River flow past the Arkansas Nuclear One site would not detectably alter the

groundwater resource downstream of the facility. Therefore, it is the staff's conclusion that the

impact of the consumptive use of surface water by ANO-2 on groundwater use is considered to

be SMALL, and additional mitigation is not warranted.

4.6 Threatened or Endangered Species

Threatened or endangered species are listed as a Category 2 issue in 10 CFR Part 51,

Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. This issue is listed in Table 4-10.

Table 4-10. Category 2 Issue Applicable to Threatened or Endangered Species at

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 During the License Renewal Term

ISSUE- 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) SEIS

Appendix B, Table B-1 Section Subparagraph Section

THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Threatened or endangered species 4.1 E 4.6

This issue requires consultation with appropriate agencies to determine whether threatened or

endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act are present and whether they

would be adversely affected by continued operation of ANO-2 during the license renewal term.

The presence of threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the ANO-2 site and its

transmission line right-of-way is discussed in this SEIS (Sections 2.2.5 and 2.2.6).

Entergy contacted FWS by letter on September 17, 2002, requesting information about the

presence of Federally listed threatened or endangered species on and in the vicinity of the

ANO-2 site and its transmission line right-of-way. FWS responded to Entergy on December 20,

2002, identifying the endangered interior population of the least tern (Stema antillarum) as

occurring along portions of the Arkansas River, and the threatened Arkansas River shiner

(Notropis girardt) as having had an historic occurrence in the river (Entergy 2003a). FWS

stated that no threatened or endangered species had been observed in the vicinity of the ANO2 site and its transmission line (Entergy 2003a).

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-38 April 2005

11
Environmental Impacts of Operation

The NRC contacted FWS by letter on December 9, 2003, (NRC 2003) also requesting information about Federally protected species. FWS responded to the NRC on January 14, 2004,

identifying the least tern and the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) as present

in the vicinity of the ANO-2 site and its transmission line (FWS 2004a). FWS also stated that

no threatened or endangered species would be likely to be impacted by continued operation of

ANO-2 during the license renewal term (FWS 2004a). National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) Fisheries was contacted by NRC on December 11, 2003. NOAA

Fisheries indicated that they had no listed species or critical habitat in their purview associated

with ANO-2 (NOAA 2003).

In addition to the above Federally listed species, the Entergy ER identified the endangered gray

bat (Myotis grisescens) as occurring in the vicinity of the ANO-2 site and its transmission line

(Entergy 2003a). No critical habitat has been designated for any of the above Federally listed

terrestrial species (FWS 2004b). Critical habitat has been designated for the Arkansas Rivershiner, but not in the State of Arkansas (FWS 2004b).

The staff has reviewed the available informnation, including that provided by Entergy, FWS,

ANHC, AGFC, the scoping process, and other public information sources. Based on this review

and its independent analysis, the staff prepared'a Biological Assessment (Appendix E) that

assesses the potential impact of license renewal on the Arkansas River shiner, the bald eagle,

the least tern (interior population), and the gray bat. The Biological Assessment was

transmitted to the FWS by letter dated June 8, 2004, and FWS responded to the NRC by letter

on July 29, 2004, concurring with the findings in the Biological Assessment. The staff

concludes that continued operation of ANO-2 and continued operation and maintenance of its

transmission line right-of-way is likely to have'no effect on any Federally listed threatened or

endangered species.

4.7 Evaluation of Potential New and Significant --

Information on Impacts of Operations During the

License Renewal Term -

During the scoping period, comments related to a shad block net barrier and security barrier

were received from FWS. In the Januuary 14,'2004, letter from FWS to NRC, FWS commented

that the use of the shad barrier, when necessary, will have limited effect on fisheries and

recreation. Additionally, FWS recognized that the security barrier may result in a loss of

recreational access. However, the barrier'may'also benefit fish by creating fisheries refugia.

The staff has reviewed the potential impacts on the fish and the recreational fishery near the

Arkansas Nuclear One site. The staff concludes that the impacts to fish or the recreational

fishery from continued operation of ANO-2 are SMALL, as concluded in the GEIS, and that

additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not warranted at this time.'

April 2005 4-39 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Environmental Impacts of Operation

The staff has not identified significant new information on environmental issues listed in

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, related to operation during the license

renewal term. The staff reviewed Entergy's process and their conclusions related to new and

significant information (NRC 2004b). The staff also reviewed the discussion of environmental

impacts associated with operation during the license renewal term in this SEIS and has

conducted its own independent review, including public scoping meetings, to identify new and

significant information. Processes for identification and evaluation of new information are

described in Section 1.2.2.

4.8 Cumulative Impacts

The staff considered potential cumulative impacts during the evaluation of information

applicable to each of the potential impacts of operations during the license renewal term

identified within the GEIS. For the purposes of this analysis, past actions were those related to

the resources at the time of the plant licensing and construction, present actions are those

related to the resources at the time of current operation of the power plant, and future actions

are considered to be those that are reasonably foreseeable through the end of plant operation.

Therefore, the analysis considers potential impacts through the end of the current license term,

as well as the 20-year license renewal term. The geographical area over which past, present,

and future actions that could contribute to cumulative impacts is dependent on the type of

action considered, and is described below for each impact area.

The impacts of the proposed action, as described in Section 4.0, are combined with other past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions at ANO-2 regardless of what agency

(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. These combined impacts

are defined as "cumulative" in 40 CFR 1508.7 and include individually minor but collectively

significant actions taking place over a period of time. It is possible that an impact that may be

SMALL by itself could result in a MODERATE or LARGE impact when considered in

combination with the impacts of other actions on the affected resource. Likewise, if a resource

is regionally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL individual impact could be important if it

contributes to or accelerates the overall resource decline.

4.8.1 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Operation of the Plant Cooling System

For the purposes of this analysis, the geographic area considered is Lake Dardanelle. As

described in Section 4.1, the staff found no new and significant information indicating that the

conclusions regarding any of the cooling-system-related Category 1 issues applicable to ANO-2

are inconsistent with the conclusions in the GEIS. Additionally, the staff determined that none

of the cooling-system-related Category 2 issues were likely to have greater than a SMALL

impact on local water quality or aquatic resources.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-40 April 2005
Environmental Impacts of Operation

The staff, while preparing this assessment, assumed that other industrial, commercial, or public

installations will be located in the general vicinity of ANO-2 prior to the end of operation. Intake

of water from and discharge of water to Lake Dardanelle for these facilities would be regulated

by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality and other agencies, just as the Arkansas

Nuclear One plant is presently regulated. 'The intake and discharge limits for each installation

are set considering the overall or cumulative impact of all of the other regulated activities in the'

area.. Therefore, the staff concludes that the potential cumulative impacts of continued

operation of ANO-2 will be SMALL, and that no additional mitigation measures are warranted.

4.8.2 Cumulative Impacts Resulting from Continued Operation of

Transmission Lines

The continued operation of the ANO-2 electrical transmission facilities was evaluated to deter-.

mine if there is the potential for interactions with other past, present, and future actions that

could result in adverse cumulative impacts to terrestrial resources such as wildlife populations,

and the size and distribution of habitat areas; aquatic resources such as wetlands and floodplains; and both the acute and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields. For the purposes of

this analysis, the geographic area encompassing past, present, and foreseeable future actions

that could contribute to adverse cumulative effects is the area within the 146-km (91-mi)-long

500-kV, single-circuit transmission line that connects ANO-2 to the power distribution grid. This

line extends from the existing ANO-2 500-kV station switchyard southeasterly via the Mayflower

substation (southwest of Mayflower) to the Mabelvale substation (southwest of Little Rock)

(Figure 2-4).

As described in Section 4.2, the staff found no new and significant information indicating that

the conclusions regarding any of the transmission line-related Category 1 issues as related to

ANO-2 are inconsistent with the conclusions within the GElS. The applicant follows right-of-way

management procedures (Entergy 2003a) that protect wildlife and habitat resources, including

floodplains and wetlands. There are no State or Federally regulated wetlands at the ANO-2 site

or within the transmission line right-of-way connecting the power plant to the power distribution

grid. Therefore, continued operation and maintenance of this right-of-way 'is not likely to

contribute to a regional decline in wetland or floodplain resources.-The maintenance

procedures ensure minimal disturbance to'wildlife.

Therefore, the staff concludes that the cumulative impacts of the continued operation of the

ANO-2 transmission line will be SMALL, and no additional mitigation is warranted.

April 2005 4-41 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Environmental Impacts of Operation

4.8.3 Cumulative Radiological Impacts

The radiological exposure limits for protection of the public and for occupational exposures

have been developed assuming long-term exposures, and therefore incorporate cumulative

impacts. As described in Section 2.2.7, the public and occupational doses resulting from

ANO-2 are well below regulatory limits, and as described in Section 4.3, the impacts of these

exposures are SMALL. For the purposes of this analysis, the geographical area is the area

included within an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the Arkansas Nuclear One site (Figure 2-1). NRC

would regulate any reasonably foreseeable future actions that could contribute to cumulative

radiological impacts.

Therefore, the staff determined that the cumulative radiological impacts of continued operation

of ANO-2 will be SMALL, and that additional mitigation is not warranted.

4.8.4 Cumulative Socioeconomic Impacts

Much of the analyses of socioeconomic impacts presented in Section 4.4 of this SEIS

incorporate cumulative impact analysis. For instance, the impact of the total number of

additional housing units that may be needed can only be evaluated with respect to the total

number that will be available in the impacted area. Therefore, the geographical area of the

cumulative analysis varies depending on the particular impact considered, and may depend on

specific boundaries, such as taxation jurisdictions or may be distance related, as in the case of

environmental justice.

The continued operation of ANO-2 is not likely to add to any cumulative socioeconomic impacts

beyond those already evaluated in Section 4.4. In other words, the impacts of issues such as

transportation or offsite land use are likely to be nondetectable beyond the regions previously

evaluated and will quickly decrease with increasing distance from the site. The staff determined

that the impacts on housing, public utilities, public services, and environmental justice would all

be SMALL. The staff determined that the impact on offsite land use is SMALL because, even

though ANO-2 provides greater than 10 percent of the property tax revenue for the local

jurisdictions, the tax-related, land-use changes are expected to be small, and there are no

refurbishment actions planned at ANO-2 that would add either to the population or the tax base.

There are no reasonably foreseeable scenarios that would alter these conclusions in regard to

cumulative impacts.

Related to historic and archaeological resources, the continued operation of ANO-2 would not

add to any cumulative impacts to these resources beyond those identified in Section 4.4.5.

Entergy has implemented procedures to ensure that either known or potential historical and

archaeological sites will not be inadvertently impacted during onsite activities that involve land

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-42 April2005

11
Environmental Impacts of Operation

disturbances. Continued operation and maintenance of ANO-2 would not affect land use

beyond the geographic area currently in use for these activities; therefore, additional cumulative

impacts would be negligible.

Based on these considerations, the staff concludes that continued operation of ANO-2 is not

likely to make a detectable contribution to the cumulative effects associated with any of the

socioeconomic issues discussed in Section 4.4. Therefore, the cumulative impacts will be

SMALL, and no additional mitigation measures are warranted.

4.8.5 Cumulative Impacts on Groundwater Use and Quality

There are no groundwater withdrawals at ANO-2, and Entergy imports'less than 4 m3/min

(100 gpm) of potable water from local utilities for plant use. As noted previously, surface water

is the primary source of potable water for local water utilities. The impact of current water

usage has been determined in Section 4.5 to be'SMALL. Because there are no groundwater

withdrawals at ANO-2 and there are none anticipated in the future, Arkansas Nuclear One does

not cause a detectable change in the regional groundwater usage. Therefore, the cumulative

impact will be SMALL, and no mitigation measures are warranted.

4.8.6 Cumulative Impacts on Threatened or Endangered Species

The geographic area considered in the analysis of potential cumulative impacts to threatened or

endangered species includes Pope County and the waters of Lake Dardanelle. As discussed in

Sections 2.2.5 and 2.2.6, there are several threatened or endangered species that occur within

this area. However, the Biological Assessment determined that continued operation of ANO-2

would have no effect on any of these species, because none are known'to occur'in' the vicinity

of ANO-2 or its transmission line right-of-way. Therefore, the continued operation of ANO-2 will

not contribute to a regional cumulative impact on these species because ANO-2 is not

adversely affecting any of these species. -Furthermore, there are no species currently

considered to be candidates for, or proposed for, listing as threatened or endangered known to

occur in the vicinity of the site. Also, it is unlikely that any Federally or State-listed species will

increase its known range to an extent that it would become adversely affected by continued

plant operation.

Therefore, the staff has determined that the cumulative impacts to threatened or endangered

species due to continued operation of ANO-2 and its associated transmission line will be

SMALL, and no additional mitigation measures are warranted.

April 2005 4-43 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Environmental Impacts of Operation

4.9 Summary of Impacts of Operations During the

License Renewal Term

Neither Entergy nor the staff is aware of information that is both new and significant related to

any of the applicable Category 1 issues associated with the ANO-2 operation during the license

renewal term. Consequently, the staff concludes that the environmental impacts associated

with these issues are bounded by the impacts described in the GEIS. For each of these issues,

the GEIS concluded that the impacts would be SMALL and that additional plant-specific

mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

Plant-specific environmental evaluations were conducted for 10 Category 2 issues applicable to

ANO-2 operation during the license renewal term and for environmental justice and chronic

effects of electromagnetic fields. For 10 issues and environmental justice, the staff concluded

that the potential environmental impact of license renewal term operations of ANO-2 would be

of SMALL significance in the context of the standards set forth in the GEIS and that additional

mitigation is not warranted. In addition, the staff determined that a consensus has not been

reached by appropriate Federal health agencies regarding chronic adverse effects from

electromagnetic fields. Therefore, no evaluation of this issue is required. Cumulative impacts

of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions were considered, regardless of

what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. For purposes

of this analysis, where ANO-2 license renewal impacts are deemed to be SMALL, the staff

concludes that these impacts would not result in significant cumulative impacts on potentially

affected resources.

4.10 References

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,

Part 800, "Protection of Historic Properties."

40 CFR Part 1508.7. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Protection of Environment,

Part 1508, "Terminology and Index, Section."

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-44 April 2005

11
Environmental Impacts of Operation

59 FR 7629. 'February 16, 1994. "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

and Low-Income Populations." Executive Order 12898, Federal Register.

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC). 1995. Letter from A. Carter, Chief Fisheries

Division, to J. Yelverton, Vice President, Entergy Operations, Inc. March 8, 1995. Available on

the Internet under'Accession Number ML040580449, dated March 16, 2004 at

http://www.nrc.gov/readinrg-rm/adams.html

Arkansas State Police (ASP). 2002. Personal communication between Lt. Coffman, Arkansas

State Police, Russellville, Arkansas and S. Holbrook, FTN Associates. Available on the Internet

under Accession Number ML040580443, dated March 16, 2004 at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html

Church, L. 2002. Water system capacity data provided by City Corporation. Personal

communication with B. West, FTN Associates. Available on the Internet under Accession

Number ML040610871, dated March 16,'2004 'at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).' 1997. ."Environmental Justice Guidance Under the

National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C.'

Accessed on the Internet December 9, 2003, at http:/lceq.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 1999. Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating

License Renewal Stage. Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1. Russellville, Arkansas.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2003a. Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating

License Renewal Stage Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 2. Russellville, Arkansas.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2003b. Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 2, License Renewal

Application. Russellville, Arkansas.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI); 1992. Electromagnetic Workstation: ENVIRO Code

Version 1.13. Electric Power Research Institute,' Palo Alto, California.

FTN Associates, Ltd. (FTN). 2004. E-mail correspondence from B. West (FTN) to R. Buckley

(Entergy) regarding the results of biological surveys conducted by FTN on the ANO site and

transmission line right-of-way, dated February 5, 2004. Available on the Internet under

Accession Number ML040580172, dated March 16,2004 at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rrm/adams.htrrl ::

April 2005 4-45 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Environmental Impacts of Operation

McGrew, C. 2003. Personal communication between C. McGrew (Assistant Director),

Arkansas Department of Health - Communicable Diseases, Little Rock, Arkansas and B. West,

FTN Associates, January 21, 2003. Available on the Internet under Accession Number

IML040580199, dated March 16, 2004 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html

Meyers, C. 2003. Personal communication between C. Meyers, Arkansas Department of

Health, Russellville, Arkansas and B. West, FTN Associates, January 21, 2003. Available on

the Internet under Accession Number ML040580192, dated March 16, 2004 at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rmladams.html

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq.

National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). 1997. Institute of Electrical and Electric Engineers,

New York.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 16 USC 470, et seq.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 1999. NIEHS Report on Health

Effects from Exposure to Power Line Frequency and Electric and Magnetic Fields. Publication

No. 99-4493, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003. Letter from G. Cranmore

(NOAA Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources) to NRC, dated December

17, 2003. Available on the Internet under Accession Number ML040130740, dated March 16,

2004 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1. Arkansas Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-313,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1977. Final Environmental Statement Related to

Operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, Arkansas Power & Light Company. Docket

No. 50-368. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. 2000 Census Redistricting Data. GeoLytics Release 1.1

Census CD 2000 Redistricting. GeoLytics, Inc., East Brunswick, New Jersey.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2000b. 2000 Census State File 3 (SF 3). GeoLytics

Release 2.0 Census CD 2000 Long Form SF3. GeoLytics, Inc., East Brunswick, New Jersey.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 4-46 April 2005
Environmental Impacts of Operation

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2001. "Glossary - Definition and Explanations - Decennial

Census Terms." Accessed on the Internet December 9, 2003, at

http://landview.census.gov/dmd/www/advglossary.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004a. Letter from M. Harney (FWS Acting Field

Supervisor) to T. Kenyon (NRC Environmental Project Manager), dated January 14, 2004.

Available on the Internet under Accession Number ML040510185, dated March 16, 2004 at

http:///www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004b. Threatened and Endangered Species System.

Accessed on the Internet March 30, 2004 at http://ecos.fws.gov/tess-public/TESSWebpage

(updated daily)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. 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.

NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1. NUREG-1 437,

Supplement 3. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. Letter from T. Kenyon (NRC

Environmental Project Manager) to M. Harney (FWS Senior Field Biologist), dated

December 9, 2003. Available on the Internet under Accession Number ML033440389, dated

March 16, 2004 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004a. "Procedural Guidance for Preparing

Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues.' Appendix D to NRR

Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 1, Washington, D.C., dated May 24, 2004.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004b. "Summary of Site Audit to Support

Review of Renewal Application of ANO-2." Washington, D.C., March 16, 2004.

University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR). 2002. U.S. Census total population dataset for

19 western Arkansas counties provided by the State Data Center, University of

Arkansas-Little Rock, Institute for Economic Advancement/GIS Applications Laboratory,

Little Rock, Arkansas.

April 2005 4-47 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
5.0 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents

Environmental issues associated with postulated accidents are discussed in the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License FReiiewal of Nuclear Plants (GElS), NUREG- 437,

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1 999).(a) The GEIS includes a determination of whether the

analysis of the environmental issue could be applied to all plants and whether additional

mitigation measures would be'warranted. Issues are then assigned a'Category 1 or a

Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those that meet all of

the following criteria:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other '

specified plant or site'characteristic.

(2) Single significance level (i.e., SMALLNMODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from highlevel waste and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

required unless new and significant information is identified.

Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one'or more of the criteria for Category 1, and -

therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required.

This chapter describes the environmental impacts from postulated accidents that might occur

during the license renewal term.

5.1 Postulated Plant Accidents'

Two classes of accidents are evaluated in the GEIS. These are design-basis accidents (DBAs)

and severe accidents, as discussed below.

(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999.

Hereafter, all references to the "GEIS" include the GEIS and Addendum 1.

April 2005 5-;1 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
1,

Postulated Accidents

5.1.1 Design-Basis Accidents

In order to receive NRC approval to operate a nuclear power facility, an applicant must submit a

safety analysis report (SAR) as part of its application. The SAR presents the design criteria

and design information for the proposed reactor and comprehensive data on the proposed site.

The SAR also discusses various hypothetical accident situations and the safety features that

are provided to prevent and mitigate accidents. The NRC staff reviews the application to

determine whether the plant design meets the Commission's regulations and requirements and

includes, in part, the nuclear plant design and its anticipated response to an accident.

DBAs are those accidents that both the licensee and the NRC staff evaluate to ensure that the

plant can withstand normal and abnormal transients and a broad spectrum of postulated

accidents without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public. A number of these

postulated accidents are not expected to occur during the life of the plant but are evaluated to

establish the design basis for the preventive and mitigative safety systems of the facility. The

acceptance criteria for DBAs are described in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR) Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 100.

The environmental impacts of DBAs are evaluated during the initial licensing process, and the

ability of the plant to withstand these accidents is demonstrated to be acceptable before

issuance of the operating license (OL). The results of these evaluations are found in license

documentation such as the staff's safety evaluation report (SER), the final environmental

statement (FES), the licensee's updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR), and Section 5.1

of this supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). The licensee is required to

maintain the acceptable design and performance criteria throughout the life of the plant,

including any extended-life operation. The consequences for these events are evaluated for

the hypothetical maximally exposed individual; as such, changes in the plant environment will

not affect these evaluations. Because of the requirements that continuous acceptability of the

consequences and aging management programs be in effect for license renewal, the

environmental impacts as calculated for DBAs should not differ significantly from initial licensing

assessments over the life of the plant, including the license renewal term. Accordingly, the

design of the plant relative to DBAs during the extended period is considered to remain

acceptable, and the environmental impacts of those accidents were not examined further in the

GEIS.

The Commission has determined that the environmental impacts of DBAs are of SMALL

significance for all plants because the plants were designed to successfully withstand these

accidents.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 5-2 April 2005
Postulated Accidents

Therefore, for the purposes of license renewal, DBAs are designated as a Category 1 issue in

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. The early resolution of the DBAs makes

them a part of the current licensing basis of the plant; the current licensing basis of the plant is

to be maintained by the licensee under its current license and, therefore, under the provisions

of 10 CFR 54.30, is not subject to review under license renewal." This issue, applicable to

ANO-2, is listed in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1. Category 1 lssue7Applicable to Postulated

Accidents During the License Renewal Term

ISSUE -10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS

Appendix B, Table B-11 Section

POSTULATED ACCIDENTS

Design-basis accidents -- 5.3.2; 5.5.1

Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

The NRC staff has concluded that the'environmental impacts of design-basis accidents

are of small significance for all plants.-

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) stated in its Environmental Report (ER) (Entergy 2003) that

it is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2) OL. The staff has not identified any new and significant

information during the staff's independent review of the ANO-2 ER (Entergy 2003), the scoping

process, the staff's site visit,-the staff's evaluation of other available information, and public

comments. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of DBAs during the license

renewal term'n beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

5.1.2 Severe Accidents -

Severe nuclear accidents are those that are more severe than DBAs because they could result

in substantial damage to the reactor core, whethersor not there are serious offsite consequences. The GEIS assessed the impacts of severe accidents during the license renewal term,

using the results of existing analyses and site-specific information'to conservatively predict the

environmental impacts of severe accidents for each plant during the renewal period.

April2005 5-3 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Postulated Accidents

Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

The probability weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open

bodies of water, releases to ground water, and societal and economic impacts from

severe accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate severe

accidents must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives.

Therefore, the Commission has designated mitigation of severe accidents as a Category 2

issue in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1. This issue, applicable to ANO-2, is

listed in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2. Category 2 Issue Applicable to Postulated Accidents During the License

Renewal Term

ISSUE - 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(11) SEIS

Appendix B, Table B-1 Sections Subparagraph Section

POSTULATED ACCIDENTS

Severe Accidents 5.3.3; 5.3.3.2; L 5.2

5.3.3.3; 5.3.3.4;

5.3.3.5; 5.4; 5.5.2

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during the staff's independent

review of the Entergy ER (Entergy 2003), the scoping process, the staff's site visit, the staff's

evaluation of other available information, and public comments. Therefore, the staff concludes

that there are no impacts of severe accidents beyond those discussed in the GEIS. However,

in accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), the staff has reviewed severe accident mitigation

alternatives (SAMAs) for ANO-2. The results of the staff's review are discussed in Section 5.2.

5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) requires that license renewal applicants consider alternatives to

mitigate severe accidents if the staff has not previously evaluated severe accident mitigation

alternatives (SAMAs) for the applicant's plant in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or

related supplement or in an environmental assessment. The purpose of this consideration is to

ensure that plant changes (i.e., hardware, procedures, and training) with the potential for

improving severe accident safety performance are identified and evaluated. SAMAs have not

been previously considered for ANO-2; therefore, the remainder of Chapter 5 addresses those

alternatives.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 5-4 A pril 200 5
Postulated Accidents

5.2.1 Introduction ...

This section presents a summary of the SAMA evaluation for ANO-2 conducted by Entergy and

described in its ER (Entergy' 2003) and of the NRC's review of that evaluation. The details of

the review are described in the NRC staff evaluation prepared by the staff with contract

assistance from Information'Systems Laboratories, Inc. The entire evaluation is presented in

Appendix G.

The SAMA evaluation for ANO-2 was a four-step process. In the first step, Entergy quantified

the level of risk associated with potential reactor accidents using the plant-specific probabilistic

risk assessment and other risk models.

The second step was the examination of the major risk contributors to identify areas where

plant improvements might have the greatest chance to reduce risk. Then possible ways of

reducing those risks were identified. Common'ways of reducing risk are changes to

components, systems, procedures, and training. Entergy identified 192 potential SAMAs.

Using a set of screening criteria, the number of SAMAs requiring further consideration was

reduced to 93. Preliminary cost estimates were made for these 93 SAMAs, and any SAMAs

costing more than the maximum attainable benefit were removed from further consideration.

In the third step, the benefits and costs for the remaining candidate SAMAs were estimated.

Estimates were made of how much each proposed SAMA could reduce risk. Those estimates

were developed in terms of dollars in accordance with NRC guidance for performing regulatory

analyses (NRC 1997). The costs of implementing the proposed SAMAs were also estimated.

Finally in the fourth step, the costs and benefits of each of the remaining SAMAs were

compared to determine whether the SAMA was cost-beneficial, meaning the benefits of the

SAMA were greater than the costs (a positive cost-benefit). In the final analysis, Entergy

concluded that none of these'192 SAMAs were cost-beneficial for ANO-2. However, the staff

concluded that two of the SAMAs may be cost-beneficial, and two other SAMAs may be costbeneficial when uncertainties are taken into account.'

Each of these four steps is discussed in more detail in the sections that follow.

5.2.2 Estimate of Risk

Entergy submitted an assessment of SAMAs for ANO-2 as part of its ER (Entergy 2003). This

assessment was based on the most recent ANO-2 Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA)

available at that time, a plant-specific offsite consequence analysis performed using the

MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2 (MACCS2) computer program, and insights

from the ANO-2 Individual Plant Examination (IPE) (Entergy 1992) and Individual Plant

April 2005 5-5 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Postulated Accidents

Examination of External Events (IPEEE) (Entergy 1996). The SAMA analysis is based on the

most recent PSA model available (referred to as Revision 3p2) when the ER was prepared.

The scope of the ANO-2 PSA does not include external events. The baseline core damage

frequency (CDF) for ANO-2 is approximately 7.2 x 10-6 per year, based on internally initiated

events. Entergy did not include the contribution to CDF from external events in these

estimates; however, it did account for the potential risk reduction benefits associated with

external events by doubling the estimated benefits for internal events. The breakdown of CDF

by initiating event/accident class is summarized in Table 5-3. Transients and small break lossof-coolant accidents (LOCAs) are dominant contributors to the CDF.

Table 5-3. Estimated Core Damage Frequencies for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2

CDF % Contribution

Initiating Event/Accident Class (per year) to CDF

Transients 4.2 x 10-6 58

Small break LOCA 1.7 x 10-6 24

Interfacing system LOCA (ISLOCA) 3.3 x 10'7 5

Vessel rupture 2.7 x 10'7 4

Medium break LOCA 1.9 x 10-7 3

Large break LOCA 2.8 x 10-7 4

Steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) 1.5 x 10'7 2

Total CDF (from internal events) 7.2 x 10.6 100

Entergy estimated the dose from all postulated accidents to the population within 80 km (50 mi)

of the ANO-2 site to be approximately 0.0172 person-Sv (1.72 person-rem). The breakdown of

the population dose by containment release mode is summarized in Table 5-4. Steam

generator tube rupture and late containment failures dominate the population dose.

The staff reviewed Entergy's data and evaluation methods and concludes that the quality of the

risk analyses is adequate to support an assessment of the risk reduction potential for the

candidate SAMAs. Accordingly, the staff based its assessment of offsite risk on the CDF and

offsite doses provided by Entergy.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 5-6 April 2005
Postulated Accidents

Table 5-4. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode

Population Dose

(person-Sv per year

Containment Release Mode [person-rem per year]) % Contribution

SGTR 0.0074 (0.74) 43

ISLOCA 0.00006 (0.006) <1

Early containment failure 0.0025 (0.25) 15

Late containment failure 0.0073 (0.73) 42

No containment failure 0 (0) 0

Total Population Dose 0.0172 (1.72) 100

5.2.3 Potential Plant Improvements -

Once the most risk significant parts of the plant design and operation were identified, Entergy

searched for ways to reduce those risks. To identify potential plant improvements, Entergy

reviewed improvements identified in the ANO-2 IPE and IPEEE and subsequent PSA revision

processes, SAMA analyses submitted for other nuclear power plants, and NRC and industry

documents discussing potential plant improvements. Entergy identified 192 potential riskreducing improvements to plant components, systems, procedures, and training (SAMAs).

All but 93 of these SAMAs were removed from further consideration because (1) the SAMA was

not applicable at ANO-2 because of design differences, (2) the SAMA had already been

implemented at ANO-2, or (3) the SAMA was sufficiently similar to and combined with other

SAMA candidates. A preliminary cost estimate was prepared for each of the remaining

93 SAMAs.

The staff reviewed Entergy's process for identifying and screening potential SAMAs, and

concluded that the process was systematic and comprehensive.

5.2.4 Evaluation of Risk Reduction and Costs of Improvements

Entergy evaluated the risk reduction potential of the remaining 93 SAMAs. The majority of the

SAMA evaluations were performed in a bounding fashion in that the SAMA was assumed to

completely eliminate the risk associated with the proposed enhancement. Such bounding

calculations overestimate the benefit and are conservative. The benefits (i.e., the estimated

dollar value of these risk reductions) were developed by calculating and adding the averted

public exposure, offsite property damage, occupational exposure, and onsite costs associated

with each SAMA (Entergy 2003).

April 2005 5-7 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Postulated Accidents

The staff reviewed Entergy's bases for calculating the risk reduction for the various plant

improvements and concluded that the rationale and assumptions for estimating risk reduction

were reasonable and generally conservative. Therefore, the staff based its estimates of

averted risk for the various SAMAs on Entergy's risk reduction estimates. However, the staff

concluded that the benefit estimates should be increased by a factor of five to account for the

potential impacts of external events.

The staff reviewed the cost estimates and concluded that the cost ranges provided by Entergy

were reasonable and appropriate for use in the SAMA evaluation.

5.2.5 Cost-Benefit Comparison

For the 93 candidate SAMAs identified through the screening process, a more detailed

assessment and cost estimate were developed. Entergy applied a multiplier of two to the

averted cost estimates (for internal events) for each SAMA to account for external events. As a

result of this assessment, the cost-benefit analysis showed that none of the candidate SAMAs

were cost-beneficial. Therefore, Entergy concluded that there were no cost-beneficial SAMAs

(Entergy 2004).

The staff reviewed Entergy's calculation methods and logic arguments in the final cost-benefit

comparisons and concluded that Entergy's original benefit estimates should be increased by a

factor of five to account for the potential impact of external events. Based on this evaluation,

and the use of more realistic estimates of risk reduction and/or implementation costs, two of the

SAMAs appear to be cost-beneficial: SAMA AC/DC-1 6, which involves development of

procedures to emphasize the steps in plant recovery following station blackout, and SAMA

CW-06, which involves procedural changes to shed component cooling water (CCW) loads to

extend the CCW heat-up time in the event of a loss of essential raw cooling water. Additionally,

two SAMAs could be cost-beneficial when uncertainties are taken into account. These SAMAs

involve (1) installing backwash filters in place of the existing raw cooling water system strainers

(SAMA CW-27) and (2) replacing either containment sump valve 2CV-5649-1 or 2CV-5650-2

with an air-operated valve (SAMA CC-20).

5.2.6 Conclusions

The staff reviewed the Entergy SAMA analysis and concluded that the methods used and the

implementation of those methods were sound. The treatment of SAMA benefits and costs, the

generally large negative net benefits, and the inherently small baseline risks support the

general conclusion that the SAMA evaluations performed by Entergy are reasonable and

sufficient for the license renewal submittal. However, the staff concluded that two SAMAs

appear to be cost-beneficial: SAMA AC/DC-1 6, development of procedures to emphasize the

steps in plant recovery following station blackout; and SAMA CW-06, procedural changes to

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 5-8 April 2005
Postulated Accidents

shed CCW loads to extend the CCW heat-up time in the event of a loss of essential raw cooling |

water. Additionally, two SAMAs could be cost-beneficial when uncertainties are taken into

account: (1) SAMA CW-27, installation of backwash filters in place of the existing raw cooling

water system strainers, and (2) SAMA CC-20, replacing either containment sump valve 2CV5649-1 or 2CV-5650-2 with an air-operated valve. However, these SAMAs do not relate to

adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation. Therefore,

they need not be implemented as part of license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. Entergy

has not made any commitment to implement these SAMAs.

The staff concludes that none of the other candidate SAMAs are cost-beneficial. This

conclusion is consistent with the low residual level of risk indicated in the ANO-2 PSA and the

fact that ANO-2 has already implemented many plant improvements identified from the IPE and

IPEEE process.

5.3 References

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, uDomestic Licensing

of Production and Utilization Facilities."

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, uReactor Site

Criteria."

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 1992. Letter from Entergy to NRC Document Control

Desk. Subject: Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Results of Individual Plant Examination

for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities (Generic Letter 88-20), August 1992.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 1996. Letter from Entergy to NRC Document Control

Desk. Subject: Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4,

"Individual Plant Examination for External Events for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities,"

May 31, 1996.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2003. Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating

License Renewal Stage, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2. Russellville, Arkansas. October 2003.

April 2005 5-9 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
I,

Postulated Accidents

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2004. Letter from T. G. Mitchell, Entergy to NRC

Document Control Desk. Subject: Clarification of a Request for Additional Information

Response for Environmental Report TAC No. MB8405, Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 2, Docket

No. 50-368, License No. NPF-6, July 15, 2004.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1 437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997. RegulatoryAnalysis Technical Evaluation

Handbook. NUREG/BR-0184, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. 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, Final

Report." NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 5-10 April 2005
6.0 Environmental Impacts of the Uranium

Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management

Environmental issues associated with the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management are

discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear

Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).a) The GEIS includes a

determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issue could be applied to all plants

and whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then assigned a

Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the'GEIS, Category 1 issues are those

that meet all of the following criteria:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

specified plant or site characteristic.

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

impacts (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from highlevel waste [HLW] and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is

required unless new and significant information is identified.

Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria for Category 1, and

therefore, additional plant-specific review of these issues is required.

This chapter addresses the issues that are related to the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste

management during the license renewal term that are listed in Table B-1 of Title 10 of the Code

of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, and are applicable to Arkansas

Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2). The generic potential impacts of the radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle and transportation of nuclear fuel

and wastes are described in detail in the GEIS. This description is based, in part, on the

generic impacts provided in 10 CFR 51.51(b), Table S-3, 'Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle

Environmental Data," and in 10 CFR 51.52(c), Table S-4, uEnvironmental Impact of

(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the "GEIS" include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

April 2005 6-1 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
I,

Fuel Cycle

Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power

Reactor." The staff also addresses the impacts from radon-222 and technetium-99 in the

GEIS.

6.1 The Uranium Fuel Cycle

Category 1 issues in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, that are applicable to

ANO-2 from the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management are listed in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste

Management at Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 During the License Renewal Term

ISSUE - 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

URANIUM FUEL CYCLE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other than the 6.1; 6.2.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.2.3;

disposal of spent fuel and high level waste) 6.2.3; 6.2.4; 6.6

Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects) 6.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.3; 6.2.4; 6.6

Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high level waste disposal) 6.1; 6.2.2.1; 6.2.3; 6.2.4; 6.6

Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle 6.1; 6.2.2.6; 6.2.2.7; 6.2.2.8;

Low-level waste storage and disposal

Mixed waste storage and disposal

On-site spent fuel

Nonradiological waste

Transportation

6.2.2.9; 6.2.3; 6.2.4; 6.6

6.1; 6.2.2.2;6.4.2; 6.4.3;

6.4.3.1; 6.4.3.2; 6.4.3.3;

6.4.4; 6.4.4.1; 6.4.4.2;

6.4.4.3; 6.4.4.4; 6.4.4.5;

6.4.4.5.1; 6.4.4.5.2;

6.4.4.5.3; 6.4.4.5.4;

6.4.4.6;6.6

6.4.5.1; 6.4.5.2; 6.4.5.3;

6.4.5.4; 6.4.5.5; 6.4.5.6;

6.4.5.6.1; 6.4.5.6.2;

6.4.5.6.3; 6.4.5.6.4; 6.6

6.1; 6.4.6; 6.4.6.1; 6.4.6.2;

6.4.6.3; 6.4.6.4; 6.4.6.5;

6.4.6.6; 6.4.6.7; 6.6

6.1; 6.5; 6.5.1; 6.5.2; 6.5.3;

6.6

6. 1; 6.3. 1; 6.3.2.3; 6.3.3;

6.3.4; 6.6, Addendum 1

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 6-2 April 2005
Fuel Cycle

Entergy Operations Inc. (Entergy) stated in its Environmental Report (ER) (Entergy 2003) that it

is not aware of any new and significant information associated with the renewal of the ANO-2

operating license. The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its

independent review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its

evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

impacts related to these issues beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For these issues, the

staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts are SMALL except for the collective offsite

radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from HLW and spent fuel disposal, as discussed

below, and that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently

beneficial to be warranted.

A brief description of the staff review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1,

10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i, for each of these issues follows:

Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other than the disposal of spent fuel

and high level waste). Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Off-site impacts of the uranium fuel cycle have been considered by the

Commission in Table S-3 of this part [10 CFR 51.51 (b)]. Based on information in

- the GEIS, impacts on individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases

including radon-222 and technetium-99 are small.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no offsite radiological

impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the license renewal term beyond those discussed

in the GEIS.

* Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects). Based on information .in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

The 100 year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the

fuel cycle, high level waste and spent fuel disposal excepted, is calculated to be

about 14,800 person rem [148 person Sv], or 12 cancer fatalities, for each

additional 20-year power reactor operating term. Much of this, especially the

contribution of radon releases from mines and tailing piles, consists of tiny doses

summed over large populations. This same dose calculation can theoretically be

extended to include many tiny doses over additional thousands of years as well

as doses outside the U.S. The result of such a calculation would be thousands of

cancer fatalities from the fuel cycle, but this result assumes that even tiny doses

have some statistical adverse health effect which will not ever be mitigated (for

April 2005 .6-3 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
I'

Fuel Cycle

example no cancer cure in the next thousand years), and that these doses

projected over thousands of years are meaningful. However, these assumptions

are questionable. In particular, science cannot rule out the possibility that there

will be no cancer fatalities from these tiny doses. For perspective, the doses are

very small fractions of regulatory limits and even smaller fractions of natural

background exposure to the same populations.

Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory

NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] implications of these matters should

be made and it makes no sense to repeat the same judgement in every case.

Even taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission concludes that these

impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be sufficiently large to

require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation

under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission

has not assigned a single level of significance for the collective effects of the fuel

cycle, this issue is considered Category 1.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no offsite radiological

impacts (collective effects) from the uranium fuel cycle during the license renewal term

beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high level waste disposal). Based on

information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

For the high level waste and spent fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle,

there are no current regulatory limits for offsite releases of radionuclides for the

current candidate repository site. However, if we assume that limits are

developed along the lines of the 1995 National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

report, "Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards," and that in accordance

with the Commission's Waste Confidence Decision, 10 CFR 51.23, a repository

can and likely will be developed at some site which will comply with such limits,

peak doses to virtually all individuals will be 100 millirem [1 mSv] per year or

less. However, while the Commission has reasonable confidence that these

assumptions will prove correct, there is considerable uncertainty since the limits

are yet to be developed, no repository application has been completed or

reviewed, and uncertainty is inherent in the models used to evaluate possible

pathways to the human environment. The NAS report indicated that 100 millirem

[1 mSv] per year should be considered as a starting point for limits for individual

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 6-4 April 2005
Fuel Cycle

doses, but notes that some measure of consensus exists among national and

international bodies that the limits should be a fraction of the 100 millirem [1

mSv] per year. The lifetime individual risk from 100 millirem [1 mSv] annual dose

limit is about is about 3x103.

Estimating cumulative doses to populations over thousands of years is more

problematic. The likelihood and consequences of events that could seriously

compromise the integrity of a deep geologic repository were evaluated by the

-Department of Energy in the "Final Environmental Impact Statement:

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste," October 1980

[DOE 1980]. The evaluation estimated the 70-year whole-body dose commitment

to the maximum individual and to the regional population resulting from several

modes of breaching a reference repository in the year of closure, after

1,000 years, after 100,000 years, and after 100,000,000 years. Subsequently,

the NRC and other federal agencies have expended considerable effort to

develop models for the design and for the licensing of a high level waste

repository, especially for the candidate repository at Yucca Mountain. More

meaningful estimates of doses to population may be possible in the future as

more is understood about the performance of the proposed Yucca Mountain

-repository. Such estimates would involve very great uncertainty, especially with

respect to cumulative population doses over thousands of years. The standard

proposed by the NAS is a limit on maximum individual dose. The relationship of

potential new regulatory requirements, based on the NAS report, and cumu ative

population impacts has not been determined, although the report articulates the

view that protection of individuals will adequately protect the population for a

repository at Yucca Mountain. However, EPA's generic repository standards in

40 CFR part 191 generally provide an indication of the order of magnitude of

cumulative risk to population that could result from the licensing of a Yucca

Mountain repository, assuming the ultimate standards will be within the range of

standards now under consideration. The standards in 40 CFR part 191 protect

the population by imposing 'containment requirements" that limit the cumulative

amount of radioactive material released over 10,000 years. Reporting

performance standards that will be required by EPA are expected to result in

releases and associated health consequences in the range between 10 and

100 premature cancer deaths with an upper limit of 1,000 premature cancer

deaths world-wide for a 100,000 metric tonne (MTHM) repository.

Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgement as to the regulatory

NEPA implications of these matters should be made and it makes no sense to

repeat the same judgement in every case. Even taking the uncertainties into

account, the Commission concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that

.April 2005 6-5 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
II

Fuel Cycle

these impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for

any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR part 54 should be

eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of

significance for the impacts of spent fuel and high level waste disposal, this issue

is considered Category 1.

On February 15, 2002, based on a recommendation by the Secretary of the Department of

Energy, the President recommended the Yucca Mountain site for the development of a

repository for the geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste. The

U.S. Congress-approved this recommendation on July 9, 2002, in Joint Resolution 87,

which designated Yucca Mountain as the repository for spent nuclear waste. On July 23,

2002, the President signed Joint Resolution 87 into law; Public Law 107-200, 116 Stat. 735

(2002) designates Yucca Mountain as the repository for spent nuclear waste. This

development does not represent new and significant information with respect to the offsite

radiological impacts from license renewal related to disposal of spent nuclear fuel and highlevel nuclear waste.

EPA developed Yucca Mountain-specific repository standards, which were subsequently

adopted by the NRC in 10 CFR Part 63. In an opinion, issued July 9, 2004, the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) vacated EPA's radiation protection

standards for the candidate repository, which required compliance with certain dose limits

over a 10,000 year period. The Court's decision also vacated the'compliance period in

NRC's licensing criteria for the candidate repository in 10 CFR Part 63.

Therefore, for the high-level waste and spent fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle,

there is some uncertainty with respect to regulatory limits for offsite releases of radioactive

nuclides for the current candidate repository site. However, prior to promulgation of the

affected provisions of the Commission's regulations, we assumed that limits would be

developed along the lines of the 1995 National Academy of Sciences report, "Technical

Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards," and that in accordance with the Commission's

Waste Confidence Decision, 10 CFR 51.23, a repository that would comply with such limits

could and likely would be developed at some site. Peak doses to virtually all individuals will

be 1 mSv (100 mrem) per year or less.

Despite the current uncertainty with respect to these rules, some judgment as to the

regulatory NEPA implications of offsite radiological impacts of spent fuel and high-level

waste disposal should be made. The staff concludes that these impacts are acceptable in

that the impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion that the

option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 6-6 April 2005
Fuel Cycle

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no offsite radiological

impacts related to spent fuel and HLW disposal during the renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle. Based on information in the GEIS,

the Commission found that

The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle resulting from the renewal

of an operating license for any plant are found to be small.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no nonradiological

impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the license renewal term beyond those discussed

in the GEIS.

* Low-level waste storage and disposal. Based on information in the GEIS, the

Commission found that

The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the low public

doses being achieved at reactors ensure that the radiological impacts to the

environment will remain small during the term of a renewed license. The

maximum additional on-site land that may be required for low-level waste

storage during the term of a renewed license and associated impacts will be

small. Nonradiological impacts on air and water will be negligible. The

radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of

low-level waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition,

the Commission concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient lowlevel waste disposal capacity will be made available when needed for facilities to

be decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning requirements.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore; the staff concludes that there are no impacts of low-level

waste storage and disposal associated with the license renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

April 2005 6-7 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
II

Fuel Cycle

* Mixed waste storage and disposal. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission

found that

The comprehensive regulatory controls and the facilities and procedures that are

in place ensure proper handling and storage, as well as negligible doses and

exposure to toxic materials for the public and the environment at all plants.

License renewal will not increase the small, continuing risk to human health and

the environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of mixed waste from

any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition, the Commission

concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient mixed waste

disposal capacity will be made available when needed for facilities to be

decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning requirements.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of mixed

waste storage and disposal associated with the license renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

* On-site spent fuel. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of

operation can be safely accommodated on site with small environmental effects

through dry or pool storage at all plants if a permanent repository or monitored

retrievable storage is not available.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts of onsite

spent fuel associated with license renewal beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Nonradiolopical waste. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

No changes to generating systems are anticipated for license renewal. Facilities

and procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling and disposal at

all plants.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 6-8 April 2005
Fuel Cycle

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no nonradiological

waste impacts during the license renewal term beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

Transportation. Based on information contained in the GEIS, the Commission found

that

The impacts of transporting spent fuel enriched up to 5 percent uranium-235 with

average burnup for the peak rod to current levels approved by NRC up to

62,000 MWd/MTU and the cumulative impacts of transporting high-level waste to'

a single repository, such as Yucca Mountain, Nevada are found to be consistent

with the impact values contained in 10 CFR 51.52(c), Summary

Table S-4-Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and

from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor. If fuel enrichment or

burnup conditions are not met, the applicant must submit an assessment of the

implications for the environmental impact values reported in § 51.52.

ANO-2 meets the fuel-enrichment and burnup conditions set forth in Addendum 1 to the

GEIS (NRC 1999). The staff has not identified any new and significant information during

its independent review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its

evaluation of other available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no

impacts of transportation of spent fuel associated with license renewal beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

There are no Category 2 issues for the uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management.

6.2 References

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

10 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 63, "Disposal of HighLevel Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada."

40 CFR Part 191. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 191,

"Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear

Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Waste."

April 2005 6-9 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Fuel Cycle

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2003. Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating

License Renewal Stage Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 2. Russellville, Arkansas.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, 42 USC 4321, et. seq.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1980. Final Environmental Impact Statement:

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste. DOE/EIS-0046F,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1 437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. 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. NUREG1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 6-10 April 2005
7.0 Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

Environmental impacts from the activities associated with the decommissioning of any reactor

before or at the end of an initial or renewed license are evaluated in the Generic Environmental'

Impact Statement for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Regarding the Decommissioning

of Nuclear Power Reactors, NUREG-0586,' Supplement 1 (NRC 2002). The staff's evaluation

of the environmental impacts of decommissioning presented in Supplement 1 resulted in a

range of impacts for each environmental issue. These results may be used by licensees as a

starting point for a plant-specific evaluation of the decommissioning impacts at their facilities.

The incremental environmental impacts associated with decommissioning activities resulting

from continued plant operation during the license renewal term are evaluated in the GenericEnvironmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437,

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999).(a) The evaluation in NUREG-1437 includes a

determination of whether the analysis of the environmental issue could be applied to all plants

and Whether additional mitigation measures would be warranted. Issues are then assigned a

Category 1 or a Category 2 designation. As set forth in the GEIS, Category 1 issues are those

that meet all of the following criteria:

(1) Th'eenvironmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

specified plant or site characteristic. -

(2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

impacts (except for collective off-site radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high

level waste and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. For issues that meet the three

Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is required unless new and

significant information is identified.

Category 2 issues are those that do not meet 6ne or more of the criferia for Category 1, and

therefore, additional p!ant-specific review of these issues is required, There are no Category 2

issues related to decommissioning..-

(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the "GEIS" include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

April 2005 7-1 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
if

Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

7.1 Decommissioning

Category 1 issues in Table B-1 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51,

Subpart A, Appendix B that are applicable to Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2) decommissioning following the license renewal term are listed in Table 7-1. Entergy Operations, Inc.

(Entergy) stated in its Environmental Report (ER) (Entergy 2003) that it is aware of no new and

significant information regarding the environmental impacts of ANO-2 license renewal. The

staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent review of the

Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other available

information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts related to these issues

beyond those discussed in the GEIS. For all of these issues, the staff concluded in the GEIS

that the impacts are SMALL, and additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to

be sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

Table 7-1. Category 1 Issues Applicable to the Decommissioning of Arkansas Nuclear One,

Unit 2 Following the License Renewal Term

ISSUE -10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B, Table B-1 GEIS Section

DECOMMISSIONING

Radiation Doses 7.3.1; 7.4

Waste Management 7.3.2; 7.4

Air Quality 7.3.3; 7.4

Water Quality 7.3.4; 7.4

Ecological Resources 7.3.5; 7.4

Socioeconomic Impacts 7.3.7; 7.4

A brief description of the staff's review and the GEIS conclusions, as codified in Table B-1, for

each of the issues follows:

* Radiation doses. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Doses to the public will be well below applicable regulatory standards regardless

of which decommissioning method is used. Occupational doses would increase

no more than 1 man-rem [0.01 person-Sv] caused by buildup of long-lived

radionuclides during the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 7-2 April 2005
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no radiation dose

impacts associated with decommissioning following the license renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

Waste management. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Decommissioning at the end of a 20-year license renewal period would generate

no more solid wastes than at the end of the current license term. No increase in

the quantities of Class C or greater than Class C wastes would be expected.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts from solid

waste associated with decommissioning following the license renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

Air quality. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Air quality impacts of decommissioning'are expected to be negligible either at

the end of the current operating term or at the end of the license renewal term.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts on air quality

associated with decommissioning following the license renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

* Water quality. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

The potential for significant water quality impacts from erosion or spills is no

greater whether decommissioning occurs after a 20-year license renewal period

or after the original 40-year operation period, and measures are readily available

to avoid such impacts.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts on water'- -

quality associated with decommissioning following the license renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

April 2005 7-3 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
1.

Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

* Ecological resources. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Decommissioning after either the initial operating period or after a 20-year

license renewal period is not expected to have any direct ecological impacts.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no impacts on

ecological resources associated with decommissioning following the license renewal term

beyond those discussed in the GEIS.

* Socioeconomic Impacts. Based on information in the GEIS, the Commission found that

Decommissioning would have some short-term socioeconomic impacts. The

impacts would not be increased by delaying decommissioning until the end of a

20-year relicense period, but they might be decreased by population and

economic growth.

The staff has not identified any new and significant information during its independent

review of the Entergy ER, the staff's site visit, the scoping process, or its evaluation of other

available information. Therefore, the staff concludes that there are no socioeconomic

impacts associated with decommissioning following the license renewal term beyond those

discussed in the GEIS.

7.2 References

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2003. Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating

License Renewal Stage Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2. Russellville, Arkansas.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. 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.

NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 7-4 April 2005
Environmental Impacts of Decommissioning

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power

Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

April 2005 7-5 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
8.0 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

to License Renewal

This chapter examines the potential environmental impacts associated with denying the renewal

of the operating license (OL) (i.e., the no-action alternative); the potential environmental

impacts from power generating sources other than Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2); the }

possibility of purchasing electric power from other sources to replace power generated by

ANO-2 and the associated environmental impacts; the potential environmental impacts from a

combination of generating and conservation measures; and other generation alternatives that

were deemed unsuitable for replacement of power generated by ANO-2. The environmental

impacts are evaluated using the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's'(NRC's) three-level

standard of significance - SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE - developed using Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines and set forth in the footnotes to Table B-1 of Title 10 of

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B:

SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to

destabilize important attributes of the resource.

LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize

important attributes of the resource.

The impact categories evaluated in this chapter are the same as those used in the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) NUREG-1 437,

Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1 999)(a) with the additional impact category of environmental

justice.

The impact assessments discussed for these alternatives for ANO-2 are, in some cases,

different from those assessments discussed in the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO-1) final

supplemental environmental impact staternent, Supplement 3 to NUREG-1437. These

differences result from changes in the tim6 both units could be operating (i.e., ANO-1 can now

continue operating until 2034), comparis6ns betwe'en facilities using cooling towers or oncethrough cooling systems, updated information obtained since the review of ANO-1 (i.e., census

data), or revisions in methodology and considerations that have resulted from the staff's

(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the "GEIS" include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

April 2005 8-1 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Alternatives

experience with license renewal at other facilities. Where appropriate, the staff identified the

reasons for any differences in these assessments.

8.1 No-Action Alternative

The NRC's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

specify that the no-action alternative be discussed in an NRC environmental impact statement

(EIS) (10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix A(4)). For license renewal, the no-action

alternative refers to a scenario in which NRC would not renew the ANO-2 OL, and Entergy

Operations, Inc. (Entergy) would then cease operations at the plant and initiate

decommissioning no later than July 17, 2018.

Entergy will be required to comply with NRC decommissioning requirements whether or not the

OL is renewed. If the ANO-2 OL is renewed, shutdown of the unit and decommissioning

activities will not be avoided but may be postponed for up to an additional 20 years. If the OL is

not renewed, Entergy would conduct decommissioning activities according to the requirements

in 10 CFR 50.82.

The environmental impacts associated with decommissioning following a license renewal term

of up to 20 years or following the no-action alternative would be bounded by the discussion of

impacts in Chapter 7 of the GEIS (NRC 1996), Chapter 7 of this SEIS, and the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, NUREG-0586,

Supplement 1 (NRC 2002). The impacts of decommissioning after 60 years of operation are

not expected to be significantly different from those occurring after 40 years of operation.

Impacts from the decision to permanently cease operations are not considered in

NUREG-0586, Supplement 1.(a) Therefore, immediate impacts that occur between plant

shutdown and the beginning of decommissioning are considered here. These impacts, which

will occur when the unit shuts down regardless of whether the license is renewed or not, are

discussed below, with the results presented in Table 8-1. Plant shutdown will result in a net

reduction in power production capacity. The power not generated by ANO-2 during the license

renewal term would likely be replaced by (1) power purchased from other electricity providers,

(2) generating alternatives other than ANO-2, (3) demand-side management (DSM) and energy

conservation, or (4) some combination of these options. The environmental impacts of these

options are discussed in Section 8.2.

(a) Appendix J of NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, discusses the socioeconomic impacts of plant closure,

but the results of the analysis in Appendix J are not incorporated in the analysis presented in the main

body of the NUREG.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-2 April 2005
Alternatives

Table 8-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the No-Action Alternative and

Decommissioning Related to Renewal of the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2

Operating License

Impact Category Impact Comments

Land Use SMALL Closure will result in decreased land use. Decommissioning onsite

impacts expected to be temporary. No offsite impacts expected from

plant closure or decommissioning.

Ecology SMALL Plant closure will immediately reduce impacts to terrestrial and

aquatic ecology. Decommissioning impacts to ecology are expected

to be temporary and will be mitigated by using best management

practices. Some Increased impacts would occur in the immediate

vicinity of the plant where local population may have become

adapted to life In the cooling ponds and the warm effluent streams.

However, these effects would be similar whether the license period is

extended or not.

Water Use and Quality SMALL Water use will decrease. Water quality unlikely to be adversely

affected.

Air Quality SMALL All emissions will decrease following shutdown. During

decommissioning, the greatest impact is likely to be from fugitive

dust; impact can be mitigated by using best management practices.

Waste SMALL Low-level radioactive waste will be disposed of in licensed facilities.

A permanent disposal facility for high-level waste (HLW) is not

currently available; however, the Yucca Mountain' repository for these

wastes is under consideration.

Human Health SMALL Radiological doses to workers and members of the public are

expected to be within regulatory limits and comparable to, or lower

than, doses from operating plants. Occupational injuries, during,

decommissioning, are possible, but injury rates at nuclear power

plants are below the U.S. average industrial rate. :

Socioeconomics SMALL to Following plant closure there will be a decrease in employment in

MODERATE Pope County and the surrounding counties, and a decrease in tax

revenues for Pope County. Some temporary increases in

employment will be created during decommissioning. Reduced

employment would mean reduced traffic following plant shutdown.

There will be some offsetting employment and traffic increases

during decommissioning.

Aesthetics SMALL Positive impact from eventual removal of buildings and structures.

Some noise impact during decommissioning operations.

Historic and Archaeological SMALL Use of the properties will decrease following plant closure, and

Resources access will be controlled during decommissioning.

Environmental Justice SMALL to Some loss of employment opportunities and social programs is

MODERATE expected.

The staff's assessments of the impacts of the no-action alternative on each impact category are

provided in the following sections. The assessment of each impact category is supplemented

with information about the potential impacts of decommissioning.

I

April 2005 -8-3 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
I,

Alternatives

* Land Use

Cessation of ANO-2 operations would result in a reduced use of the Arkansas Nuclear One site.

Land use on and off the site will be reduced and eventually eliminated. During decommissioning, some temporary changes in onsite land use could occur. These changes may include

additional or expanded staging and laydown areas or construction of temporary buildings and

parking areas. No offsite land-use changes are expected as a result of decommissioning.

After cessation of operations and following decommissioning, the ANO-2 site would likely be

retained by Entergy for other corporate purposes. Eventual sale or transfer of the site,

however, could result in changes to land use. Notwithstanding this possibility, the impacts of

the no-action alternative and decommissioning on land use are considered SMALL.

* Ecology

In Chapter 4 of this SEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the ecological impacts of plant

operation were SMALL. Impacts on aquatic ecology would be reduced immediately following

cessation of plant operations. Water withdrawal and cooling tower blowdown will end when the

reactor is shut down. Some increased impacts may occur in the immediate vicinity of the plant

where local populations may have become adapted to life in the cooling ponds and the warm

effluent streams. However, these effects would be similar whether the license period is

extended or not. Decommissioning activities may have some short-term impacts to site

ecology. Impacts on aquatic ecology could result from removal of in-water pipes and structures

or the filling of the discharge canal. Impacts to aquatic ecology would likely be short term and

could be mitigated. The environmental impacts to aquatic species, including threatened and

endangered species associated with these changes, are generally positive. The impact of plant

closure on the terrestrial ecosystem will be negligible because the transmission lines to the

plant will remain energized. Impacts on terrestrial ecology, related to decommissioning

activities, could occur as a result of land disturbance for additional laydown yards, stockpiles,

and support facilities. Land disturbance is expected to be minimal and would result in relatively

short-term impacts that can be mitigated using best management practices. The land is

expected to recover naturally. Overall, the impacts associated with the no-action alternative

and decommissioning on terrestrial and aquatic ecology are considered SMALL.

* Water Use and Quality

In Chapter 4 of this SEIS, the NRC staff concluded that impacts of plant operation on surface

water and groundwater use and quality were SMALL. The impact to aquatic resources resulting

from cessation of ANO-2 operation would be elimination of consumptive water losses (e.g.,

evaporation associated with the cooling system) because reactor cooling will no longer be

required. As plant staff size decreases, the demand for potable water is expected to also

decrease. Water use during decommissioning is expected to be less than during operation.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-4 April 2005
Alternatives

The water quality is unlikely to be adversely affected. Overall, water use and quality impacts of

the no-action alternative and decommissioning are considered SMALL.

Air Quality

In Chapter 4 of this SEIS, the staff found the impacts of plant operations on air quality to be

SMALL. When the plant stops operating, there will be a reduction in emissions from activities

related to plant operation such as use of diesel generators and workers' transportation.

Emission from diesel generators, boilers; and other activities associated with ANO-2 operations

will cease or be greatly reduced. Decommissioning activities that can adversely affect air

quality include dismantlement of systems and equipment, demolition of buildings and

structures, and the operation of internal combustion engines. The most likely adverse impact

would be the generation of fugitive dust. Best management practices, such as seeding and

wetting, could be used to minimize the generation of fugitive dust. Air quality impacts

associated with the no-action alternative and decommissioning are considered SMALL.

* Waste

The impacts of waste generated by plant operations are discussed in Chapter 6. Liquid,

gaseous, and solid radioactive wastes are by-products of reactor operations. Liquid wastes are

generated primarily by plant maintenance and service operations. Gaseous waste displaced

from the chemical and volume control system tanks that are used to store liquids is the primary

source of the waste form. Solid wastes include dry active waste, sludge, oil, bead resin, and

filters. These wastes will be eliminated or greatly reduced by the cessation of operations..

Decommissioning activities would result in the generation of radioactive and non-radioactive

waste; however, when the plant stops operating, the plant will stop generating spent nuclear

fuel, and generation of low-level waste (LLW) and mixed waste associated with plant operation

and maintenance will be reduced. Therefore, the staff concludes that the impact of waste

generated after shutdown of the plant would be SMALL.

The staff concluded that the volume of LLW generated during decommissioning could vary

greatly depending on the type and size of the plant, the length of time it operated, the

decommissioning option chosen, and the waste treatment and volume reduction procedures

used (NRC 2002). LLW must be disposed of in a facility licensed by NRC or a state with

authority delegated by NRC. -Recent advances in volume reduction and waste processing have

significantly reduced waste volumes. A permanent repository for HLW is not currently

available, but is under consideration at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The NRC has made a

generic determination that, if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored

safely and without significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years beyond the licensed

life for operation (which may include the term of.a revised or renewed license) of that reactor at

its spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage

April 2005 8-5 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
I,

Alternatives

installations (10 CFR 51.23(a)). Onsite and offsite licensed disposal facilities would be used for

disposal of nonradioactive waste. Overall, waste impacts associated with the no-action

alternative and decommissioning are considered SMALL.

e Human Health

In Chapter 4 of this SEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts of plant operation on

human health were SMALL. During ANO-2 operations, the doses to maximally exposed

individuals in the vicinity of ANO-2 have been a small fraction of the limits specified to meet

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. The assessment of radiation dose to

the general public from effluents indicates the dose is only a fraction of the regulatory limit.

These potential exposures will be reduced following cessation of plant operations. Radiological

doses to occupational workers during decommissioning activities'are estimated to average

approximately 5 percent of the dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20, and to be similar to or lower than

the doses experienced by workers in operating nuclear power plants. Effluent releases from

decommissioning activities are estimated to be well below the limits in 10 CFR Part 20, and to

be similar to or lower than effluent releases from operating nuclear power plants. These

effluent releases will result in doses to the public well below 10 CFR Part 20 requirements.

Occupational injuries to workers engaged in decommissioning activities are possible. However,

historical injury and fatality rates at nuclear power plants have been lower than the average

U.S. industrial rates. For years, the commercial nuclear energy industry has ranked among the

safest employment sectors in the United States. In 2001, its industrial safety accident rate,

which tracks the number of accidents that result in lost work time; restricted work, or fatalities,

was 0.24 per 200,000 worker-hours (NEI 2002). This is lower than the accident rate for the

U.S. manufacturing industry (i.e., 4.0 per 200,000 worker-hours), and even lower than the

accident rate for the workplaces of the U.S. finance, insurance, and real estate industries

(i.e., 0.7 per 200,000 worker-hours) (BLS 2001). In addition, the variety of potential accidents

at the plant will be reduced to a limited set associated with shutdown events and fuel handling.

Overall, the human health impacts associated with the no-action alternative and

decommissioning are considered SMALL.

* Socioeconomics

In Chapter 4 of this SEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the socioeconomic impacts of

continued plant operation would be SMALL to MODERATE. There would be immediate

socioeconomic impacts associated with the shutdown of the plant because of the reduction in

the staff at the plant. In the GEIS, the NRC staff concludes that the socioeconomic impacts of

plant shutdown could range from SMALL to LARGE. Some of these impacts could be offset if

new power-generating facilities are built at or near the current site. Appendix J of

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-6 April 2005
Alternatives

NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, provides additional discussion of the potential impacts of plant

shutdown (NRC 2002).

The no-action alternative would result in the loss of the taxes attributable to ANO-2 as well as

the loss of plant payrolls 20 years earlier than if the OL was renewed. There would also be an

adverse impact on housing values and the local nearby economy if ANO-2 ceased operations.

Both Chapter 7 of the GEIS (NRC 1996) and Supplement 1 to NUREG-0586 (NRC 2002) note

that socioeconomic impacts would be expected as a result of the decision to close a nuclear

power plant, and that the direction and magnitude of the overall impacts would depend on the

state of the economy, the net change in workforce at the plant, and the changes in local

government tax receipts. The socioeconomic impacts of decommissioning activities are

expected to be SMALL. Appendix J of NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, shows that the overall

socioeconomic impact of plant closure plus decommissioning could be SMALL to MODERATE.

The workforce employed at ANO-2 resides primarily in the adjacent counties. The impacts

associated with the loss of these jobs would be concentrated in Pope, Johnson, and Yell

Counties. The loss of these jobs would be an adverse impact to the economies of these

counties. Employees at ANO-2 constitute approximately 2 percent of total employment in Pope

County, but are among the highest-paid employees in the county. Loss of these jobs is

considered to have a SMALL to MODERATE socioeconomic impact.

ANO-2 employees also contribute time and resources to community activities, such as schools,

churches, community groups, and civic activities. The loss of jobs would have'an adverse

impact on involvement with these activities.

There would also be an immediate reduction in property tax revenues for Pope County. As'

discussed in Section 2.2.8, the property taxes paid by Entergy for both units at Arkansas

Nuclear One represented approximately 43 percent, 55 percent, and 43 percent of the locally

generated tax revenues for the 2002 Pope County General, County Roads, and County Library

budgets, respectively. The majority of Entergy's property taxes are allocated to the RusselIville

School District.- In 2002, tax payment from Entergy made up about 49 percent of the locally

generated property tax revenues for the school district. The loss of about half of the tax

revenues would be an adverse impact to the economies of these counties.

In Chapter 4 of this SEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts of continued plant

operation on transportation would be SMALL. Cessation of operations would be accompanied

by a reduction in traffic in the vicinity of the plant. There would be some offsetting employment

and traffic increases during decommissioning. Most of the reduction would be associated with

a reduction in the plant workforce, but there will also be a reduction in shipment of material to

IApril 2005 8-7 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
it

Alternatives

and from the plant. Therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts of plant closure on

transportation would be SMALL.

Overall, the staff concludes that the socioeconomic impacts associated with the no-action

alternative are considered SMALL to MODERATE, and the impacts of decommissioning are

considered SMALL.

Aesthetics

Recognizing that ANO-1 will still be operating, cessation of ANO-2 plant operations would

probably result in the dismantlement of some buildings and structures at the site, particularly

the natural draft cooling tower used exclusively by ANO-2. Removal of the ANO-2 cooling

tower would result in a lower plant visual profile and a positive aesthetic impact. Some

operational noise also would be reduced or eliminated. Decommissioning would result in the

eventual dismantlement of buildings and structures at the site resulting in a positive aesthetic

impact. Noise generated during decommissioning operations may be detectable offsite;

however, the impact is unlikely to be of large significance and can normally be mitigated. Thus,

the aesthetic impacts associated with the no-action alternative and decommissioning are

considered SMALL.

Historic and Archaeological Resources

Use of land resources at the site would be reduced following ANO-2 closure. Because ANO-1

would still be operating, the site would be retained by Entergy for nuclear energy production.

In Chapter 4 of this SEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts of continued plant

operation on historic and archaeological resources would be SMALL. Onsite land use will not

be affected immediately by the cessation of operations. Plant structures and other facilities are

likely to remain in place until decommissioning, and access will be controlled during

decommissioning. The transmission line associated with ANO-2 is expected to remain in

service after plant shutdown. As a result, maintenance activities on the transmission line

right-of-way will continue as before. Therefore, the staff concludes that the impacts on historic

and archaeological resources from plant shutdown would be SMALL.

* Environmental Justice

In Chapter 4 of this SEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the environmental justice impact of

continued operation of the plant would be SMALL because continued operation of the plant

would not have a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income

populations. No environmental pathways have been identified that would cause

disproportionate impacts if the no-action alternative is implemented. Closure of ANO-2 would

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-8 April 2005
Alternatives

result in decreased employment opportunities and tax revenue in Pope County and surrounding

counties, with possible negative and disproportionate impacts on-minority or low-income

populations ranging from SMALL to MODERATE. Plant closure may have an indirect negative

effect on minority and low-income polulations'due to loss of tax revenues and community

services, but the most direct effects would be on' plant workers who lose their jobs. As noted

earlier, plant workers tend to be on the higher'end of the income scale; therefore, it is not clear'

that effects on the minority and low-income populations would be disproportionate relative to

those on displaced plant workers. Decommissioning activities are not expected to adversely

impact the minority and low-income populations of Pope County and surrounding counties.

Thus,' the environmental justice impacts under the no-action alternative and decommissioning

are considered SMALL to MODERATE.

Summary of the No-Action Alternative'

The environrmental impacts associated with the-no-action alternative are summarized in

Table 8-1. Implementation of the no-action alternative would also have certain positive impacts

because adverse environmental impacts associated with current operation of ANO-2 (i.e., solid

waste generation) would be eliminated.

8.2 Alternative Energy Sources -

This section describes the environmental impacts associated with alternative sources' of electric

power to replace the power generated by ANO-2, assuming that the OL is not renewed. The

order of presentation of these alternative energy sources does not im Iply which alternative'would |

be most likely to occur or to have the least environmental impact.

The following generation alternatives are considered in detail:

* coal-fired generation at an alternate site (Section 8.2.1)

* natural-gas-fired generation at the existing ANO-2 site or at an alternate site

(Section 8.2.2)

* nuclear generation at the existing ANO-2 site or at an alternate site (Section 8.2.3).

The alternative of purchasing power from other sources to replace power generated by ANO-2

is discussed in Section 8.2.4. Other power generation alternatives and conservation '

alternatives considered by the staff and found not to be reasonable replacements for ANO-2

are discussed in Section 8.2.5. The environmental impacts of a combination of generation and

conservation alterniatives are'discussed in Section 8.2.6.

April 2005 8-9 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
^ - -its

Alternatives

The entire Arkansas Nuclear One site encompasses 471 ha (1164 ac). Of this total land area,

73 ha (180 ac) are developed (Entergy 2003). Some types of replacement power plant could

be located at this site and could therefore use existing infrastructure (e.g., cooling water

system, transmission lines, roads,, and technical and administrative support facilities). However,

a conventional coal-fired power plant and coal pile requires about 700 ha (1700 ac) (NRC

1996), so it could not be accommodated on the existing site.

Each year the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a component of the U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE), issues an Annual Energy Outlook. In its Annual Energy Outlook 2002 with

Projections to 2025, EIA projects that natural-gas-fired combined-cycle(') or combustion turbine

technology (including distributed generation capacity) will make up 63 percent of new

electric-generating capacity through the year 2025 (DOE/EIA 2003a). Both technologies are

designed primarily to supply peak and intermediate capacity, but combined-cycle technology

can also be used to meet base-load requirements. Coal-fired plants are projected by EIA to

account for approximately 31 percent of new capacity during this period. Coal-fired plants are

generally used to meet base-load requirements. Renewable energy sources, primarily wind,

geothermal, and municipal solid waste units, are projected by EIA to account for the remaining

5 percent of capacity additions. The EIA projections are based on the assumption that

providers of new generating capacity will seek to minimize cost while meeting applicable

environmental requirements. Combined-cycle plants are projected by EIA to have the lowest

generation cost in 2010 and 2025. These costs are about equal to coal-fired plants and less

than the cost of generation at wind farms (DOEIEIA 2004a).

EIA projects that oil-fired plants will account for very little new generation capacity in the

United States through the year 2025 because of higher fuelcosts and lower efficiencies

(DOE/EIA 2004a).

EIA also projects that new nuclear power plants will not account for any new generation

capacity in the United States through the year 2025 because natural-gas-fired and coal-fired

plants are projected to be more economical (DOE/EIA 2004a). In spite of this projection, a new

nuclear plant alternative for replacing power generated by ANO-2 is considered for reasons

stated in Section 8.2.3. NRC established a New Reactor Licensing Project Office in 2001 to

prepare for and manage future reactor and site licensing applications (NRC 2001 a).

If an alternative generating technology were selected to replace power generated by ANO-2,

the plant would be decommissioned. Environmental impacts associated with decommissioning

are discussed in Section 8.1 and are not otherwise addressed in Section 8.2.

(a) In a combined-cycle unit, hot combustion gas in a combustion turbine rotates the turbine to generate

electricity. The hot exhaust from the combustion turbine is routed through a heat-recovery boiler to

make steam to generate additional electricity.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-10 April 2005
Alternatives

8.2.1 Coal-Fired Generation

Environmental impact information for a replacement coal-fired power plant using closed-cycle

cooling with cooling towers is presented in Section 8:2.1.1 and using once-through cooling in

Section 8.2.1.2.

The staff and Entergy assumed that it would take about 1000 megawatts electric (MW[e]) of

coal-fired generation capacity to replace'the approximratelyl1 023 MW(e) output of ANO-2. The

typical capacity (in MW[e]) and configuration used by the electric power industry in the

application of coal-fired generation techn'ology vary. ;For evaluation of the coal-fired generation

alternative, Entergy used information from evaluations already conducted in the ANO-1 SEIS --

(NRC 2001b). Therefore, the coal-fired evaluation is based on information about the Delmarva

Power and Light Company's Dorchester Power Plant and the South Carolina Electric and Gas

Company's Cope Power Plant, with estimates adjusted appropriately to develop a -

representative alternative coal-fired plant (NRC 2001 b).

Unless otherwise indicated, the assumptions and numerical values used in Section 8.2.1 are

from the Entergy Environmental Report (ER) (Entergy 2003). The staff reviewed this

information and compared it to environmental impact information in the GEIS. Although the OL

renewal period is'only 20 years, the impact of operating the coal-fired alternative for 40 years is

considered (as a reasonable projection of the operating life of a coal-fired plant).

8.2.1.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System

The overall impacts at an alternate greenfield site of the'coal-fired generating system using a

closed-cycle cooling system with cooling towers are discussed in the following sections. The

magnitude of impacts for the alternate site will depend on the location of the particular site

selected. ANO-2 currently uses a closed-cycle cooling system. For the purposes of comparison with an alternative site, it is assumed that the replacement coal-fired plant sited at an

alternate site also would use a closed-cycle cooling system.

Land Use

The GEIS estimates that approximately 700 ha (1700 ac) would be needed for a 1000-MW(e)

coal-fired plant, which would amount to a considerable loss of natural habitat or agricultural land

for the plant site alone, excluding'that required for mining and other fuel-cycle impacts.

Additional lan'd might also be needed for transmission lines and rail lines, depending on the_

location of the site relative to the nearest intertie connection and rail spur. Entergy estimates

that it would require 200 to 800 ha (500 to 2000 ac) of land. The staff's assessment is based

on the 700 ha (1700 ac) that is defined in the GEIS, which is encompassed by Entergy's

-April 2005 8-11 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
I,

Alternatives

estimate. Depending on the transmission line routing and nearest rail line, these alternatives

could result in MODERATE to LARGE land-use impacts.

To supply cool for the plant, land-use changes would occur at a mining site of undetermined

location. In the GEIS, the staff estimated that approximately 8900 ha (22,000 ac) would be

affected for mining the coal and disposing of the waste to support a 1 000-MW(e) coal-fired

plant during its operational life (NRC 1996). Partially offsetting this offsite land use would be

the elimination of the need for uranium mining and processing to supply fuel for ANO-2. In the

GEIS, the staff estimated that approximately 400 ha (1000 ac) would be affected for mining and

processing the uranium during the operating life of a 1 000-MW(e) nuclear power plant

(NRC 1996).

The impact of a coal-fired generating unit with a closed-cycle cooling system on land use

located at an alternate site is considered as MODERATE to LARGE.

* Ecology

Constructing a coal-fired plant at an alternate site would alter ecological resources because of

the need to convert roughly 700 ha (1700 ac) of land at the site to industrial use for plant, coal

storage, and ash and scrubber sludge disposal. However, some of this land might have been

previously disturbed.

Coal-fired generation at an alternative site would introduce construction impacts and new

incremental operational impacts. Even assuming siting at a previously disturbed area, the

impacts would alter the ecology. Impacts could include wildlife habitat loss, reduced

productivity, habitat fragmentation, and a local reduction in biological diversity. Use of cooling

makeup water from a nearby surface water body could have adverse impacts on aquatic

resources. If needed, construction and maintenance of power transmission line and a rail spur

would have ecological impacts. There would be some impact on terrestrial ecology from water

drift from the cooling towers. Overall, the ecological impacts of constructing a coal-fired plant

with a closed-cycle cooling system at an alternate site are considered to be MODERATE to

LARGE and would be greater than renewal of the ANO-2 OL.

* Water Use and Quality

Surface water. Cooling water at an alternate site would likely be withdrawn from a surface

water body and would be regulated by permit. Depending on the water source, the impacts of

water use for cooling system makeup water and the effects on water quality caused by cooling

tower blowdown could have noticeable impacts. Therefore, the staff considers the impacts of a

new coal-fired plant utilizing a closed-cycle cooling system at an alternate site to be SMALL to

MODERATE.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-12 April 2005
Alternatives

Groundwater. Impacts of groundwater withdrawal would be SMALL if only used for potable

water. If groundwater is used to supply makeup water, then the impacts could be MODERATE

to LARGE. Therefore, groundwater impacts from a coal-fired plant on the aquifer would be

site-specific and dependent on aquifer recharge and other withdrawals. The overall impacts

would be SMALL to LARGE. .

*'Air Quality

The air-quality impacts of coal-fired generation differ considerably from those of nuclear

generation due to emissions of sulfur oxides (SO.), nitrogen oxides (NOJ), particulates, carbon

monoxide, hazardous air pollutants such as mercury, and naturally occurring radioactive

materials.

A new coal-fired generating plant would likely need a prevention of significant deterioration

permit and an operating permit under the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401). The plant would need

to comply with the new source performance'standards for such plants set forth in 40 CFR

Part 60, Subpart Da. The standards establish emission limits for particulate matter and opacity

(40 CFR 60.42a), sulfur dioxide (SO2) (40 CFR 60.43a), and NO. (40 CFR 60.44a). The facility

would be designed to meet Best Available Control Technology or Lowest Achievable Emissions

Rate standards, as applicable, for control of criteria air emissions.

EPA has various regulatory requirements for visibility protection in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P,

including a specific requirement for review of any new major stationary source in an area

designated as attainment or unclassified for criteria'pollutants under the Clean Air Act. All of

the potential alternative power plant sites most likely will be located in areas that are designated

as attainment or unclassified for criteria pollutants.

Section 1 69A of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401) establishes a national goal of preventing

future, and remedying existing, impairnlent of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas when

impairment is caused by air pollution that results from human activities. In addition, EPA

regulations provide that, for each mandatory Class i Federal area located within a state, the

state must establish goals that provide for reasonable progress toward achieving natural

visibility conditions. The reasonable progre6s goals must provide for an improvement in

visibility for the most-impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no

degradation in visibility for the least-impaired days over the same period (40 CFR 51 .308(d)(1)).

If a new' coal-fired power station were located close to a rmancdatory Class 1 Federal area,

additional air pollution control requirements could be'imposed. The Caney Creek and Upper

Buffalo Wilderness areas are the closest wilderness areas to Arkansas Nuclear One. These

areas are designated in -40 CFR 81.404 as mandatory-Class 1 Federal areas'in which visibility

is an important value. The Caney Creek Wildemess area is'more than 161 km (100 mi) from

April 2005 8-1 3 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
if

Alternatives

the Arkansas Nuclear One site and the Upper Buffalo Wilderness area is within 80 km (50 mi)

of the site (NRC 2001 b).

Filters and electrostatic precipitators (99.9 percent particulate removal efficiency), a wet

lime/limestone flue gas desulfurization system (95 percent scrubber removal efficiency), and an

operating factor of 83.9 percent would result in annual emissions of 120 MT of filterable

particulates, 30 MT of particulate matter having a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), and

1820 MT of SO,,. Carbon monoxide emissions would be approximately 580 MT per year

(NRC 2001 b).

Impacts for specific pollutants are as follows:

Sulfur oxides. A new coal-fired power plant would be subject to the requirements in Title IV of

the Clean Air Act. Title IV was enacted to reduce emissions of S02 and NO,, the two principal

precursors of acid rain, by restricting emissions of these pollutants from power plants. Title IV

caps aggregate annual power plant S02 emissions and imposes controls on S02 emissions

through a system of marketable allowances. EPA issues one allowance for each ton of S02

that a unit is allowed to emit. New units do not receive allowances, but are required to have

allowances to cover their SO2 emissions. Owners of new units must therefore either acquire

allowances from owners of other power plants by purchase or reduce SO2 emissions at other

power plants they own. Allowances can be banked for use in future years. Thus, a new

coal-fired power plant would not add to net regional SO2 emissions, although it might do so

locally. Regardless, SO2 emissions would be greater for the coal alternative than the OL

renewal alternative because a nuclear power plant releases almost no SO2 during normal

operations.

Entergy estimates that using current SO, emissions control technology, the total annual stack

emissions would include approximately 1820 MT of SO,, most of which would be SO2-

Additional reductions could become necessary. The acid rain provision of the Clean Air Act

(Sections 403 and 404) capped the nation's SO2 emissions from power plants. Under the

Clean Air Act, affected fossil-fired steam units are allocated a number of SO2 emission

allowances. To achieve compliance, each utility must hold enough allowances to cover its S02

emissions annually or be subject to certain penalties. If the utility's SO2 emissions are less than

its annually allocated emission allowances, then the utility may bank the surplus allowances for

future use. An SO2 allowances market has been established for the buying and selling of allowances. Entergy may have to purchase additional allowances to operate a coal-fired alternative.

Because of allowances, a major new combustion facility in Arkansas would not add SO2

impacts on a regional basis, though it might do so locally (Entergy 2003).

Nitrogen oxides emissions. Section 407 of the Clean Air Act establishes technology-based

emission limitations for NOX emissions. The market-based allowance system used for SO2

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-14 April 2005
Alternatives

emissions is not used for NOX emissions. 'Anew coal-fired power plant would be subject to the

new source performance standard for such plants at 40 CFR 60.44a(d)(1), which-limits the

discharge of any gases that contain NOx (expressed as NO2) to 200 ng/J of gross energy output

(1.6 lb/MWh), based on a 30-day rolling average.

Entergy assumed that the coal-fired unit could be tangentially fired with dry-bottom boilers. This

firing configuration was chosen because it would have moderate uncontrolled emissions of NOX

compared with other configurations. The NO' ernission controls would include low-NOX burners,

overfire'air, and post-combustion selective catalytic reduction. The combination of low-NOXr

burners and overfire air would achieve a NOX-reduction of 40 to 60 percent from uncontrolled

levels. The combustion controls, along with selective catalytic reduction, can achieve the

current upper limit of NO, control (95 percent reduction). Based on an operating capacity factor

of 83.9 percent, the resulting annual NOX emissions would be approximately 850 MT

(Entergy 2003). Regardless of the control technology, this level of NO, emissions would be

greater than the OL renewal alternative, because a nuclear power plant releases almost no NO,

during normal operations.

Particulate emissions. Entergy estimates that the total annual stack emissions would include

120 MT of filterable particulate matter and 30 MT of PM,0. 'in addition, coal-handling equipment

would introduce fugitive particulate emissions (Entergy 2003). Particulate emissions would be

greater under the coal alternative than the OL renewal alternative because a'nuclear plant

releases few particles during normal operations. During the construction of a coal-fired plant,

fugitive dust would be generated. In additionr, exhaust emissions would come from vehicles and

motorized equipment used during constriuction; Emissions would be greater for the coal

alternative than the OL renewal alternative because a' nuclear power plant releases almost no

particulates during normal operations.

Carbon monoxide emissions. Entergy estimates that total carbon monoxide emissions would

be approximately 580 MT per year (Entergy 2003). 'This level of emissions is greater than the

OL renewal alternative.

Hazardous air Dollutants including mercury. In December 2000, EPA issued regulatory findings

on emissions of hazardous air pollutants fro'm electric'utility steam-generating units

(65 FR 79825). EPA'determined that coal-fired and oil-fired electric'utility steam-generating

units are significant emitters of hazardous air pollutants. Coal-fired power plants were found by

EPA to emit arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,'dioxins, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen

fluoride, lead, manganese, seleniumand mercury (65 FR 79825). EPA concluded that,

mercury is the hazardous air pollutant of greatest concern. EPA found that (1) there is a link

between coal consumption and mercury emissions, (2) electricutility steam-generating units are

the largest domestic source of mercury'e missions,- and (3) certain segments of the U.S.

population (e.g., the developing fetus and subsistence fish-eating populations) are believed to

April 2005 8-15 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
i _ it

Alternatives

be at potential risk of adverse health effects due to mercury exposures resulting from

consumption of contaminated fish (65 FR 79825). Accordingly, EPA added coal-fired and

oil-fired electric utility steam-generating units to the list of source categories under

Section 112(c) of the Clean Air Act for which emission standards for hazardous air pollutants

will be issued (65 FR 79825).

Uranium and thorium. Coal contains uranium and thorium. Uranium concentrations are

generally in the range of 1 to 10 parts per million. Thorium concentrations are generally about

2.5 times greater than uranium concentrations (Gabbard 1993). One estimate is that a typical

coal-fired plant had an annual release of approximately 4.7 MT (5.2 tons) of uranium and

11.6 MT (12.8 tons) of thorium in 1982 (Gabbard 1993). The population dose equivalent from

the uranium and thorium releases and daughter products produced by the decay of these

isotopes has been calculated to be significantly higher than that from nuclear power plants

(Gabbard 1993).

Carbon dioxide. A coal-fired plant would have unregulated carbon dioxide emissions that could

contribute to global warming.

Summary. The GEIS analysis did not quantify emissions from coal-fired power plants but

implied that air impacts would be substantial. The GEIS also mentioned global warming from

unregulated carbon dioxide emissions and acid rain from SOX and NOX emissions as potential

impacts (NRC 1996). Adverse human health effects such as cancer and emphysema have

been associated with the products of coal combustion. There have been a number of studies

showing cardiovascular and respiratory effects from air pollution caused by fossil fuel combustion as well. Although local air quality would noticeably be reduced from the presence of a coal

plant, equivalent regional allowances for SO2 emissions would have to be obtained, and credits

to more than offset NOX emissions by a ratio of 1.15:1.00 would also have to be obtained. Airquality impacts from coal-fired generation at an alternate site are considered to be

MODERATE. The impacts would be clearly noticeable, but would not destabilize air quality.

Waste

Coal combustion generates waste in the form of ash, and equipment for controlling air pollution

generates additional ash, spent catalyst used for NOX reduction, and scrubber sludge. Total

waste volume would be about 800,000 MT/yr of ash and scrubber sludge. Spent catalyst used

for NOX reduction would be regenerated or disposed of offsite. Construction-related debris

would be generated during construction activities. Waste impacts to groundwater and surface

water could extend beyond the operating life of the plant if leachate and runoff from the waste

storage area occurs. Disposal of the waste could noticeably affect land use and groundwater

quality, but with appropriate management and monitoring, it would not destabilize any

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-16 April 2005
Alternatives

resources. After closure of the waste site and revegetation, the land could be available for

some other uses.

In May 2000, EPA issued a 'Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the

Combustion of Fossil Fuels" (65 FR 32214). EPA concluded that some form of national

regulation is warranted to address coal combustion Waste products because (1) the composition of these wastes could present dang'er to human health and the environment under certain

conditions, (2) EPA has identified 11 documented cases of proven damage to human healthK

and the environment by improper management of these wastes iri landfills and surface

impoundments, (3) present disposal practices are'such that, in 1995, these wastes were being

managed in 40 percent to 70 percent of landfills and surface impoundments without reasonable

controls in place, particularly in the area of groundwater monitoring, and (4) EPA identified gaps

in state oversight of coal combustion wastes. Accordingly, EPA announced its intention to

issue regulations for disposal of coal combustion waste'under subtitle D of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (42 USC'6901).

For all of the preceding reasons, the impacts from waste generated by a coal-fired plant using

once-through cooling at an alternate site are considered to be MODERATE; the impacts would

be clearly noticeable but would not destabilize any important resource.

Human Health

Coal-fired power generation introduces worker risk from coal and limestone mining, worker and.

public risk from coal and lime/limestone transportation, worker and public risk from disposal of

coal combustion wastes, and public risk from inhalation of stack emissions. Emission impacts

can be widespread and health risk is difficult to quantify. The coal alternative also introduces

the risk of coal pile fires and attendant inhalation risk.

The staff stated in the GEIS that there could be' human health impacts (cancer and

emphysema) from inhalation-of toxins'and particulates from a coal-fired plant, but the GEIS

does not identify the significance of these-impacts'(NRC 1996). In addition, the discharges of

uranium and thorium from coal-fired plants can potentially produce radiological doses in excess

of those arising from nuclear power plant operations (Gabbard 1993).

Regulatory agencies, including the EPA and State agencies, set air emission standards and -

requirements based on human health impacts: `These agencies also impose site-specific

emission limit s needed to pr6tect human health.: As discussed previously,-EPA has con-.-

cluded that certain segments of the U.S. population (e.g., the developing fetus and subsistence

fish-eating populations) are believed to be at potential risk of adverse health effects due to

mercury exposures from sources such as coal-fired power plants. However, in the absence of

April 2005 8B-17 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
it

Alternatives

more quantitative data, human health impacts from radiological doses and inhaling toxins and

particulates generated by a coal-fired plant at an alternate site are considered to be SMALL.

* Socloeconomics

If a coal-fired power plant were built at an alternate site to replace power produced by ANO-2,

the communities around the site would experience the impact of ANO-2 operational job losses,

and the Russellville School District and Pope County would lose the ANO-2 tax base. These

losses would have MODERATE to LARGE socioeconomic impacts, because ANO-2, which is

roughly half the tax base of the Arkansas Nuclear One site, provides more than 20 percent of

the total revenue in Pope County and slightly over 25 percent of the total revenue in Russellville

School District.

During construction of the new coal-fired plant, communities near the construction site would

experience demands on housing and public services that could have a MODERATE to LARGE

impact at an alternative site. After construction, the nearby communities would be impacted by

the loss of construction jobs. Construction of the coal-fired alternative would take

approximately 5 years. The peak workforce is estimated to range from 1200 to 2500 additional

workers during the 5-year construction period, based on estimates given in the GEIS.

Communities around the new site would have to absorb the impacts of a large, temporary

workforce (up to 2500 workers at the peak of construction) and a permanent workforce of

approximately 200 workers. The coal-fired plant would provide a new tax base for the local

jurisdiction at an alternate site. The staff stated in the GEIS that socioeconomic impacts at a

rural site would be larger than at an urban site because more of the peak construction

workforce would need to move to the area to work (NRC 1996). Socioeconomic impacts at a

rural site could be MODERATE to LARGE.

Transportation-related impacts associated with commuting construction workers at an alternate

site are site-dependent but could be MODERATE to LARGE. Transportation impacts related to

commuting of plant operating personnel would also be site-dependent, but can be characterized

as SMALL to MODERATE, because by the end of construction, the local road network likely

would have expanded to accommodate the much larger construction workforce.

Coal and lime/limestone would likely be delivered to the alternate site by rail or barge. Socioeconomic impacts associated with rail transportation would likely be SMALL to MODERATE.

For example, there would be delays to highway traffic as trains pass, and there could be

negative impacts on the value of property close to the train tracks. Barge delivery of coal and

lime/limestone would likely have SMALL socioeconomic impacts.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-18 April 2005
Alternatives

Overall, the socioeconomic impacts of constructing and operating a coal-fired generating plant

at an alternate site are considered to be MODERATE to LARGE depending on the alternate site

location.

Aesthetics

The two coal-fired power block units could be as much as 61 m (200 ft) high and be visible

offsite during daylight hours. The exhaust stacks could be as much as 152 m (500 ft) high.

The stacks would likely be highly visible in daylight hours for distances greater than 16 km (10

mi). Cooling towers and associated plumes would also have an aesthetic impact. -Natural-draft

cooling towers could be as much as 160 m (520 ft) high, and mechanical draft towers could be

as much as 30 m (100 ft) high. The stacks would be visible from parks, other recreational

areas, and wildlife refuges in the vicinity of the plant. -The power block units and associated

stacks and cooling towers would also be visible at night because of outside lighting. The

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) generally requires that all structures exceeding an overall

height of 61 m (200 ft) above ground level have markings and/or lighting so as not to impair

aviation safety (FAA 2000). Visual impacts of a new coal-fired plant could be mitigated by

landscaping and color selection for buildings that is consistent with the environment. Visual

impact at night could be mitigated by using the minimum level of lighting that meets FAA

requirements and appropriate shielding. Overall, the coal-fired units and the associated

exhaust stacks and cooling towers would likely have a MODERATE to LARGE aesthetic impact.

There would also be an aesthetic impact that could be LARGE if construction of a new electric

power transmission line is needed.

Coal-fired generation would introduce mechanical sources of noise that would be audible

offsite- Sources contributing to the noise'produced by plant operation are classified as,

continuous or intermittent. Continuous 'sources include the mechanical equipment associated

with normal plant operations and mechanical draft cooling towers. Intermittent sources include

the equipment related to coal handling, solid waste disposal, and transportation related to coal

and lime/limestone delivery; use of outside loudspeakers; and traffic during commuting times.

Noise impacts'associated with rail delivery of coal and lime/limestone would be most significant

for residents living in the vicinity of the facility 'and along the rail route. Although sounds from

passing trains significantly increases noise levels near.the rail corridor, the short duration of the

noise reduces' the impact. Nevertheless, given 'the frequency of train transport and the fact that

many people are likely to-be withiri hearing distance of the rail route, the impacts of noise on

residents inrthe vicinity of the facility and the'rail line is considered MODERATE. Noise

associated with barge transportation of coal and lime/limestone would not be significant. Noise

and light from the plant would be detectable offsite. Aesthetic impacts at the plant site would be

mitigated if the plant were located in an industrial area or adjacent to other power plants.

April 2005 8-19 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
I ly

Alternatives

Overall, the aesthetic impacts associated with locating a coal-fired plant with a closed-cycle

cooling system at an alternate site are considered to be MODERATE to LARGE.

* Historic and Archaeological Resources

An inventory of historic and archaeological resources would likely be needed for any onsite

property that has not been previously surveyed. Other lands, if any, that are acquired to

support the plant would also likely need an inventory of field cultural resources, identification

and recording of existing historic and archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of

adverse effects from subsequent ground-disturbing actions related to physical expansion of the

plant site.

Before construction, studies would likely be needed to identify, evaluate, and address mitigation

of the potential impacts of new plant construction on historic and archaeological resources.

The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the proposed plant

site and along associated rights-of-way where new construction would occur (e.g., roads,

transmission lines, rail lines, or other rights-of-way). Historic and archaeological resource

impacts can generally be effectively managed or mitigated to some extent. Therefore, the

impacts of a new coal-fired plant at an alternate site would be SMALL.

* Environmental Justice

Closure of ANO-2 would result in the loss of approximately 630 operating jobs (half of the total

number of jobs at the Arkansas Nuclear One site). Resulting economic conditions could reduce

employment prospects for minority or low-income populations. Pope County would also

experience a loss of property tax revenue, which could affect its ability to provide services and

programs. However, these losses would likely have SMALL to MODERATE environmental

justice impacts given the large proportion of the tax base in Pope County attributable to ANO-2

(Section 2.2.8.6).

Environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations associated with a replacement

coal-fired plant built at an alternate site would depend upon the site chosen and the nearby

population distribution. Some impacts on housing availability and prices during construction

might occur, and this could disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations.

Therefore, impacts of a new coal-fired plant at an alternate site are considered to be SMALL to

LARGE because of the potential for disproportional impacts on minority or low-income

populations, depending on the site.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-20 April 2005
Alternatives

* Summary

The potential impacts of replacing the power produced by ANO-2 with a coal-fired generating

plant'with 'a closed-cycle cooling system are summarized in Table 8-2.

Table 8-2. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation Using Closed-Cycle

Cooling at an Alternate Greenfield Site in the Entergy Service Area

Impact Category Impact Comments

Land Use MODERATE to 'Approximately 200 to 800 ha (500 to 2000 ac), including

LARGE transmission lines and rail line for coal delivery (Entergy

estimate).

Ecology MODERATE to mrnpact will depend on ecology of site.

LARGE

Water Use and Quality

Surface Water SMALL to Impact will depend on volume and other characteristics

MODERATE of the water source.

Groundwater SMALL to - Impact will depend on site characteristics and availability

LARGE of groundwater.

Air Quality MODERATE Sulfur oxides

-- 1820 MT/yr

allowances required

Nitrogen oxides . 850 MT/yr

* allowances required

Particulate

120 MT/yr (filterable)

* 30 MT/yr (unfilterable)

--Carbon monoxide

* 580 MT/yr

Trace amounts of mercury, arsenic, chromium,

beryllium, and selenium

Waste - MODERATE Total waste volume would be about 800,000 MT/yr of

ash and scrubber sludge.

Human Health SMALL Impacts considered minor.

Socioeconomics MODERATE to Communities would have to absorb impacts of a large,

LARGE temporary workforce (up to 2500 workers at the peak of

construction) and a permanent workforce of

approximately 200 workers. Impacts at a rural site would

be'larger. Pope County would lose part of Arkansas

Nuclear One site employment and tax base. - -

Transportation-related impacts associated with

commuting construction workers would be site-specific.

April 2005 8-21 Final NUREG-1437, Supplemnent 19
II

Alternatives

Table 8-2. (contd)

I

Impact Category Impact Comments

Aesthetics MODERATE to Could reduce aesthetic impact if siting is in an industrial

LARGE area; impact would be LARGE if siting is largely in an

undeveloped area.

Historic and SMALL Alternate location would necessitate cultural resource

Archaeological studies. Impacts can generally be managed or

Resources mitigated.

Environmental Justice SMALL to Impacts at alternate site vary depending on population

LARGE distribution and characteristics at site. Pope County

would lose tax revenue and jobs, with SMALL to

MODERATE impacts on minority and low-income

populations.

8.2.1.2 Once-Through Cooling System

The environmental impacts of constructing a coal-fired generation system at an alternate

greenfield site using once-through cooling are similar to the impacts for a coal-fired plant using

a closed-cycle cooling system. However, there are some environmental differences between

the closed-cycle and once-through cooling systems. Table 8-3 summarizes the incremental

differences.

Table 8-3. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Coal-Fired Generation with Once-Through

Cooling at an Alternate Greenfield Site in the Entergy Service Area

Impact Category Impact Comments

Land Use MODERATE to Compared with a closed-cycle cooling system, 10 to

LARGE 12 ha (25 to 30 ac) less land would be required

because cooling towers and associated

infrastructure are not needed.

Ecology MODERATE to Slightly reduced environmental impacts because

LARGE there are no cooling towers; however, increased

water withdrawal may impact aquatic resources.

Water Use and Quality

Surface Water SMALL to Impact would depend on the characteristics of the

MODERATE surface water body, volume of water withdrawn, and

characteristics of the discharge.

I

I

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-22 April 2005
Alternatives

Table 8-3. (contd)

Impact Category Impact Comments

Groundwater SMALL to. Impact would depend on site characteristics and

LARGE availability of groundwater. It is unlikely that - groundwater would be used for once-through

cooling, but could be used for sanitary water.

Air Quality MODERATE No change

Waste MODERATE No change

Human Health SMALL No change

Socioeconomics MODERATE to No change

LARGE

Aesthetics SMALL to Reduced aesthetic impact because cooling towers

MODERATE would not be used.

Historic and Archaeological SMALL Less land impacted

Resources

Environmental Justice SMALL to No change LARGE

8.2.2 Natural-Gas-Fired Generation

Entergy assumed that a replacement natural-gas-fired plant would use combined-cycle

technology. In the combined-cycle unit, hot combustion gases in a combustion turbine rotate'

the turbine to generate electricity. Waste combustion heat from the combustion turbine is

routed through a heat-recovery steam generator to generate additional electricity. The sizes,

types, and configurations of natural-gas-fired generation units currently operational in the

United States vary and include single-cycle combustion and combined-cycle units that range in

size from 25 to 600 MW(e). As with coal-fired technology, multiple units may be configured and

combined at one location to produce the desired amount of megawatts, and construction can

be phased to meet electrical power needs (NRC 2001 b).

Providing 1000 MW(e) of replacement power with a combined-cycle system would require

45 ha (110 ac) of land. Natural gas typically has an average heating value of 3.7 x 10'

Joules/cubic meter (J/m3) (1000 British' thermal units/cubic foot [Btu/ft3]), and it would be the

primary fuel; the natural-gas-fired alternative plant would burn approximately' 1.24 Jm31/s

(100 billion ft3/yr) (NRC 2001.b).

As a surrogate for a similar-sized natural-gas-fired alternative plant, Entergy used Baltimore

Gas and Electric's Perryman Power Plant and Polk Power Plant described in the ANO-1 SEIS

(NRC 2001b). The ANO-1 SEIS assumed that each unit would be less than 30 m (100 ft) high

I

I

I

.April 2005 8-23 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Alternatives

and would be designed with dry, low-NO. combustors, water injection, and selective catalytic

reduction. Each unit would exhaust through a 70-m (230-ft) stack after passing through heatrecovery steam generators. This stack height is consistent with EPA regulations (40 CFR

51.100), which address requirements for determining the stack height of new emission sources

(NRC 2001 b).

The surrogate natural-gas-fired generation plant described in the ANO-1 SEIS was used to

measure the impacts of replacing the 1023-MW(e) generating capacity of ANO-2. Natural gas

would have to be delivered via pipeline. Reliant and Ozark are the two nearest natural gas

pipelines, located approximately 8 km (5 mi) from the ANO-2 site. Construction cost of

installing a gas line has been estimated to be an average of approximately $1 million per mile.

To the degree the existing right-of-way could be used, the level of impact could be reduced

(NRC 2001 b).

Unless otherwise indicated, the assumptions and numerical values used throughout this section

are from the Entergy ER. The staff reviewed this information and compared it to environmental

impact information in the GEIS. Although the license renewal term is only 20 years, the impact

of operating the natural-gas-fired alternative for 40 years is considered a reasonable projection

of the operating life of a natural-gas-fired plant.

The impacts of a plant with a closed-cycle cooling system with cooling towers are discussed in

Section 8.2.2.1, and the impacts of a plant with once-through cooling are discussed in

Section 8.2.2.2.

8.2.2.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System

The overall impacts of the natural-gas-generating system with a closed-cycle cooling system

located at the Arkansas Nuclear One site or an alternate site are summarized in Table 8-4 and

discussed in the following sections. The magnitude of impacts at an alternate site will depend

on the location of the particular site selected.

Land Use

Natural-gas-fired generation at the ANO-2 site would require converting the existing industrial

site to a gas plant. Almost all the converted land would be used for the power block. Additional

land would be disturbed during pipeline construction. Some additional land would also be

required for backup oil storage tanks. Natural-gas-fired generation land-use impacts at the

existing ANO-2 site are SMALL to MODERATE; the impacts could noticeably alter the habitat

but would not destabilize important attributes of the resource. The difficulties of operating a

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-24 April 2005
Alternatives

Table 8-4. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Using

Closed-Cycle Cooling at the Existing Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 Site or at an

Alternate Greenfield Site in the Entergy Service Area

Existing ANO-2 Site Alternate Site

Impact Category - Impact Comments Impact Comments

Land Use SMALL to Approximately 24 ha (60 ac) SMALL to Up to 200 ha (500 ac) required for

MODERATE required for power block. 60 ha MODERATE site, pipelines, transmission line

(150 ac) would be disturbed for connection; additional land needed

pipeline construction. Additional for backup oil storage tanks.

land needed for backup oil storage

tanks.

Ecology MODERATE Constructed on land within the SMALL to Impact depends on location and

existing site. Possible significant MODERATE ecology of site; potential habitat

habitat loss because of pipeline loss and fragmentation; reduced

construction. productivity and biological

diversity.

Water Use and Quality

Surface Water SMALL Uses existing Intake and discharge SMALL to Impact depends on volume and

structures and cooling system.--- MODERATE- characteristics of receiving water

body.

Groundwater SMALL ANO-2 does not use groundwater, SMALL to Groundwater impacts would

nor Is a replacement facility LARGE depend on uses and available

expected to use groundwater supply.

during license renewal period.

Air Quality MODERATE Primarily NO,. Impacts could be MODERATE Same impacts as existing site

noticeable but not destabilizing.

Plant would emit SO,, NO,, carbon

monoxide, PM,,'particulates, and

some hazardous air pollutants.

Waste SMALL Small amount of ash produced SMALL Same impacts as existing site

Human Health SMALL Impacts considered minor SMALL Same Impacts as existing site

Socioeconomics SMALL to 500 to 700 additional workers MODERATE Construction Impacts would be

MODERATE needed during 3-year construction to LARGE - relocated. Community near

period, followed by reduction from Arkansas Nuclear One would still

current Arkansas Nuclear One . experience workforce reduction.-

workforce. Tax base partially - Pope County would lose ANO-2

preserved. Daily commuting by - tax base. 'Daily commuting by 500

500 to 700 additional workers - to 700 additional workers during

during 3-year construction period 3-year construction period

-(MODERATE Impact), followed by (MODERATE impact), followed by

reduction from current workforce to reduction from current workforce to - 100 workers (SMALL during - 100 workers (SMALL during

- operations). , operations).

I

I

April 2005 :8-25 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Alternatives

Table 8-4. (contd)

Existing ANO-2 Site Alternate Site

Impact Category Impact Comments Impact Comments

Aesthetics SMALL to Visual impact of stacks and SMALL to Alternate location could reduce

MODERATE equipment would be noticeable, LARGE aesthetic impact if siting is in an

but not as significant as coal industrial area.

option.

Historic and SMALL Only previously disturbed and SMALL Alternate location would

Archaeological adjacent areas would be affected. necessitate cultural resource

Resources studies.

Environmental Justice SMALL to Pope County would lose tax SMALL to Impacts at alternate site vary

MODERATE revenue and jobs, with SMALL to MODERATE depending on population

MODERATE impacts on minority distribution and makeup at site.

and low-income populations. Pope County would lose tax

revenue and jobs, with SMALL to

MODERATE impacts on minority

and low-income populations.

natural-gas-fired plant and the remaining nuclear unit (ANO-1) at the same site are expected to

be less than with a coal-fired plant because of the much smaller"footprint" of a natural-gas-fired

plant (NRC 2001b).

In addition to the land required for the natural-gas-fired plant, construction at a greenfield site

would impact approximately 8 to 20 ha (20 to 50 ac) for offices, roads, parking areas, and a

switchyard. The Entergy ER assumed that the power block would require 24 ha (60 ac). Some

additional land would also be required for backup oil storage. In addition, Entergy assumed that

another 172 ha (424 ac) would be necessary for transmission lines (assuming the plant is sited

16 km (10 mi) from the nearest intertie connection) although this would depend on the actual

plant location. Plants of this type are usually built very close to existing natural gas pipelines.

Including the land required for pipeline construction, an alternate site would require approximately 200 ha (500 ac). Depending on the transmission line routing, the alternate site could

result in SMALL to MODERATE land-use impacts (NRC 2001 b).

The GEIS estimated that land-use requirements for a 1000-MW natural-gas-fired plant (which

would be just 2 percent smaller than required to replace ANO-2) at an alternate site would be

SMALL (approximately 45 ha [110 ac] for the plant site), and that co-locating with a retired

nuclear plant would reduce these impacts. Therefore, the impacts would be SMALL to

MODERATE, depending on the length and routing of required pipelines and transmission lines

(NRC 2001 b).

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-26 April 2005
Alternatives

Partially offsetting these offsite land requirements would be the elimination of the need for

uranium mining and processing to supply fuel for ANO-2. NRC staff stated in the GEIS

(NRC 1996) that approximately 400 ha (1000 ac) would be affected for mining and processing

the uranium during the operating life of a 1000-MW(e) nuclear power plant. However, there

would be some impacts associated with developing new natural gas generating capacity.

Overall, land-use impacts for a natural-gas-fired plant with a closed-cycle cooling system at the

ANO-2 site are considered SMALL to MODERATE, and the impacts to land use of a new

natural-gas-fired plant with a closed-cycle cooling system located at an alternate site are

considered to be SMALL to MODERATE. --

Ecology

Siting natural-gas-fired generation at the existing ANO-2 site would have MODERATE

ecological impacts because the facility would be constructed partly on previously disturbed

areas and would disturb relatively little acreage at the site. However, significant habitat would

be disturbed by approximately 8 km (5 mi) of pipeline construction. -Ecological impacts could be

reduced by using the existing intake and discharge system. Past operational monitoring of the

effects of closed-cycle cooling at ANO-2 has not shown significant negative impacts to the

ecology of Lake Dardanelle, and this would be expected to remain unchanged (NRC 2001 b).

The GEIS noted that land-dependent ecological impacts from construction would be SMALL

unless site-specific factors indicate a particular sensitivity and that operational impact would be

smaller than for other fossil fuel technologies of equal capacity. -The ANO-1 SEIS (NRC 2001 b)

identified the gas pipeline as a site-specific factor that would make the natural-gas-fired

alternative's ecological impacts larger than those of license renewal. Therefore, in this case,

the appropriate characterization of natural-gas-fired-generation ecological impacts at the

existing Arkansas Nuclear One site is MODERATE (NRC 2001b).

Construction at an alternate site could alter the ecology of the site and could impact threatened

and endangered species and result in wildlife habitat loss and reduced productivity, habitat

fragmentation, and a local reduction in biological diversity. Intake and discharge of cooling |

system makeup water could impact aquatic resources. There would be ecological impacts

related to habitat loss and cooling tower drift associated with siting of the natural-gas-fired

plant. If a new underground gas pipeline and/or power transmission line to the site were

needed, there would also be temporary ecological impacts associated with bringing them to the

site. Ecological impacts would depend on the amount and nature of the land converted for the

plant. These ecological impacts could be SMALL to MODERATE (NRC 2001 b).

Because it would use existing site land areas and infrastructure but would require a new branch

pipeline, a new natural-gas-fired plant with closed-cycle cooling at the ANO-2 site is considered

April 2005 .8-27 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Alternatives

to have a MODERATE impact on ecological resources. A new natural-gas-fired plant with

closed-cycle cooling at an alternate site will have SMALL to MODERATE impacts on ecological

resources.

Water Use and Quality

Surface Water. A replacement natural-gas-fired plant would use the existing ANO-2 intake and

discharge structures as part of a closed-cycle cooling system; therefore, water quality impacts

would continue to be SMALL. Plant discharges would consist mostly of cooling tower

blowdown, characterized primarily by an increased temperature and concentration of dissolved

solids relative to the receiving water body and intermittent low concentrations of biocides (e.g.,

chlorine). Treated process waste streams and sanitary waste water may also be discharged.

All discharges would be regulated by the State of Arkansas through a National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System permit. There would be a consumptive use of water resulting

from evaporation from the cooling towers. Some erosion and sedimentation would likely occur

during construction (NRC 1996). The GEIS categorized water-quality impacts from sedimentation as SMALL. The GEIS also noted that operational water-quality impacts would be similar to,

or less than, those from other centralized generating technologies. The NRC concluded that

water-quality impacts from coal-fired generation would be SMALL and water use at a naturalgas-fired alternative would be less than that for coal-fired generation. Surface water impacts

would remain SMALL; the impacts would not be detectable or would be so minor that they

would not noticeably alter important attributes of the resource (NRC 2001 b).

For alternate sites, the impact on surface water would depend on the volume and other

characteristics of the receiving body of water. Cooling water at an alternate site would likely be

withdrawn from a surface water body and would be regulated by permit. Depending on the

source water body, the impacts of water use for cooling system makeup water and the effects

on water quality due to cooling tower blowdown could have noticeable impacts. The impacts

would be SMALL to MODERATE (NRC 2001 b).

Groundwater. ANO-2 does not use groundwater, and it is unlikely that a replacement naturalgas-fired plant would do so. Therefore, groundwater impacts at the Arkansas Nuclear One site

would be SMALL; the impacts would be so minor that they would not noticeably alter any important attribute of the groundwater resource. For alternate sites, the impact to the groundwater

would depend on the volume of groundwater withdrawn and the site characteristics, including

the amount of groundwater available. Groundwater withdrawal could require a permit. The

impacts would be SMALL to LARGE (NRC 2001 b).

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-28 April 2005
Alternatives

* Air Quality

Natural gas is a relatively clean-burning fuel. The natural-gas-fired alternative would release

similar types of emissions but in lesser quantities than the coal-fired alternative. Because

ANO-2 is not in a nonattainment area for ozone, air quality impacts of natural-gas-fired

generation would not be of concern. -The GEIS noted that air quality impacts resulting from the

alternative natural-gas-fired power plant would be less than other fossil technologies because

fewer pollutants are emitted and S is not emitted. Emission levels from the natural-gas-fired

alternative would be less than emission levels from the coal-fired alternative. However, the

natural-gas-fired alternative would contribute NOx emissions to an area that in the future may

become a nonattainment area for ozone. Because NOX contributes to ozone formation, the NOX

emissions are still of future concern, and low NOX combustors, water injection, and spent

catalyst reduction could be mitigation measures required by regulatory agencies (NRC 2001 b)..

A new natural-gas-fired generating plant would likely need a prevention of significant

deterioration permit and an operating permit under the Clean Air Act. A new combined-cycle,

natural-gas-fired power plant would also be subject to the new source performance standards

for such units specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts Da and GG. These regulations establish

emission limits for particulates, opacity, SO2, and NO,. The facility would be designed to meet

Best Available Control Technology or Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate standards, as

applicable, for control of criteria air emissions.

Section 169A of the Clean Air Act establishes a national goal of preventing future impairment of

visibility and remedying existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas

when impairment results from air pollution created by human activities. In addition, EPA

regulations provide that for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within a state, the

state must establish goals that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural

visibility conditions. The reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in

visibility for the most-impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no

degradation in visibility for the least-impaired days over the same period (40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)).

There is a Class 1 Federal area located within 80 km (50 mi) of the Arkansas Nuclear One site

and an additional area more than 161 km (100 mi) away.

Entergy did not provide quantitative estimates of air emissions from a natural-gas-fired plant

equipped with appropriate pollution control technology. However, it is known from the GEIS

that such emissions are generally much less than from an equivalent-capacity coal-fired plant.

A natural-gas-fired power plant would emit SO,,; NON, carbon monoxide, and PM10 particulates.

A natural-gas-fired plant would also have unregulated carbon dioxide emissions that could

contribute to global warming, although less than a coal-fired plant. During December 2000,

EPA issued regulatory findings on emissions of hazardous air pollutants from electric utility

steam-generating units (65 FR 79825). Natural-gas-fired power plants were found by EPA to

April 2005 8-29 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Alternatives

emit arsenic, formaldehyde, and nickel (65 FR 79825). Unlike coal- and oil-fired plants, EPA

did not determine that regulation of emissions of hazardous air pollutants from natural-gas-fired

power plants should be regulated under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.

Construction activities would result in temporary fugitive dust. Exhaust emissions would also

come from vehicles and motorized equipment used during the construction process.

For these reasons, the appropriate characterization of air impacts from a natural-gas-fired plant

would be MODERATE; the impacts, primarily NOR, would be clearly noticeable but would not be

sufficient to destabilize air resources as a whole (NRC 2001 b).

Siting the natural-gas-fired plant elsewhere would not significantly change air-quality impacts

because the alternate site could be in an area that is not a serious nonattainment area for

ozone. In addition, more or less stringent pollution control equipment could be installed to meet

the regulations. Therefore, the impacts would be MODERATE (NRC 2001 b)

* Waste

There are only small amounts of solid waste products (i.e., ash) from burning natural gas.

Combustion of natural gas results in few by-products because of the clean nature of the fuel.

The GEIS concluded that waste generation from natural-gas-fired technology would be minimal

(NRC 1996). Other than spent catalyst used for NO. reduction, waste generation at an operating natural-gas-fired plant would be largely limited to typical office wastes. Construction-related

debris would be generated during construction activities. This impact would be SMALL; waste

generation impacts would be so minor that they would not noticeably alter important resource

attributes (NRC 2001b).

Siting the facility at an alternate site would not alter the waste generation; therefore, the impacts

would continue to be SMALL (NRC 2001b).

* Human Health

In the GEIS, the staff identified cancer and emphysema as potential health risks from

natural-gas-fired plants (NRC 1996). The risk may be attributable to NO, emissions that

contribute to ozone formation, which in turn contributes to health risks.

As discussed in Section 8.2.1.1 for the coal-fired alternative, legislative and regulatory control of

the nation's emissions and air quality are protective of human health, and the human health

impacts from natural-gas-fired generation would be SMALL: human health effects would not be

detectable or would be so minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter

important attributes of the resource (NRC 2001b).

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-30 April 2005
Alternatives

Siting of the facility at an alternate greenfield site would not alter the possible human health

effects. Therefore, the impacts would be SMALL (NRC 2001 b).

Socioeconomics

The staff assumed that natural-gas-fired plant construction would take place while ANO-2

continues operation, with completion of the replacement plant timed to coincide with the end of

operations for the nuclear plant. The natural-gas-fired alternative would take much less time to

construct than other alternative plants. According to the GEIS, a 1 000-MW(e) plant would take

a peak of up to about 1200 workers (fewer most of the time) and about 3 years to construct

(NRC 1996), but Entergy assumed that the construction workforce would be smaller, about 500

to 700 workers (Entergy 2003). During construction, the surrounding communities would

experience demands on housing and public services that could have MODERATE impacts.

After construction, the communities would be impacted by the loss of jobs, construction workers

would leave, the ANO-2 workforce would decline through a decommissioning period to a

minimal maintenance size, and the natural-gas-fired plant would introduce a replacement tax

base and about 100 new jobs (NRC 2001 b).

The GEIS concluded that socioeconomic impacts from constructing a natural-gas-fired plant

would not be very noticeable and that the small operational workforce would have the lowest

socioeconomic impacts (local purchases and taxes) of nonrenewable technologies. Compared

to the coal-fired and nuclear alternatives, the smaller size of the construction workforce, the

shorter construction time frame, and the smaller size of the operations workforce would reduce

some of the socioeconomic impacts. For these reasons, the socioeconomic impacts of naturalgas-fired generation would be SMALL to MODERATE. Depending on other growth in the area,

socioeconomic effects could be noticed, but they would not destabilize important attributes of

the resource (NRC 2001b).

Construction at an alternate site would relocate, but not eliminate, some socioeconomic

impacts. The community around the site would still experience the impact of the loss of ANO-2

operational jobs and the tax base. The communities around the new site would have to absorb

the impacts of a temporary workforce and a small permanent workforce. Therefore, the

impacts would be MODERATE to LARGE, based on net job and tax-base losses in the area.

This impact is about the same in the area as for the no-action alternative (NRC 2001 b).

In the GEIS, the staff concluded that socioeconomic impacts from constructing a naturalgas-fired plant would not be very noticeable and that the small operational workforce would

have the lowest socioeconomic impacts of any nonrenewable technology (NRC 1996).

Transportation impacts associated with construction personnel commuting to the plant site

would depend on the population density and transportation infrastructure in the vicinity of the

April 2005 8-31 Final NUREG-1437,'Supplement 19
Alternatives

site. The impacts can be classified as MODERATE. Impacts associated with operating

personnel commuting to the plant site would be SMALL.

Overall, socioeconomic impacts resulting from construction of a natural-gas-fired plant at the

ANO-2 site would be SMALL to MODERATE, but the impacts would be MODERATE to LARGE

(including impacts in Pope County) if the replacement plant were built elsewhere.

* Aesthetics

The combustion turbines and heat-recovery boilers would be relatively low structures and would

be screened from most offsite vantage points by woodlands. The taller steam turbine building

(approximately 30 m [100 ft] in height) and the exhaust stacks (approximately 70 m [230 ft] in

height) would be visible offsite (NRC 2001 b).

The GEIS analysis noted that land-related impacts, such as aesthetic impacts, would be SMALL

unless site-specific factors indicate a particular sensitivity. As in the case of the coal-fired

alternative, aesthetic impacts from the natural-gas-fired alternative would be noticeable. However, because structures associated with natural-gas-fired power plant are shorter than structures for coal-fired plants and are more amenable to screening by vegetation, it was determined

that the aesthetic resources would not be destabilized by the natural-gas-fired alternative. For

these reasons, aesthetic impacts from a natural-gas-fired plant would be SMALL to

MODERATE; the impacts would be clearly noticeable, but would not destabilize this important

resource (NRC 2001b).

Alternate locations could reduce the aesthetic impact of natural-gas-fired generation if siting

was in an area that was already industrialized. In such a case, however, the introduction of the

steam generator building, stacks, and cooling tower plumes would probably still have a SMALL

to MODERATE incremental impact (NRC 2001 b). If a new electric power transmission line

were needed, the aesthetic impact at an alternate site could be LARGE. Aesthetic impacts

would be mitigated if the plant were located in an industrial area adjacent to other power plants.

Overall, the aesthetic impacts associated with a replacement natural-gas-fired plant with a

closed-cycle cooling system at an alternate site can be categorized as SMALL to LARGE, with

site-specific factors determining the final categorization.

Historic and Archaeological Resources

The GEIS analysis noted, as for the coal-fired alternative, that cultural resource impacts of the

natural-gas-fired alternative would be SMALL unless important site-specific resources were

affected. Construction of a natural-gas-fired alternative at the existing ANO-2 site would affect

a smaller area within the footprint of the coal-fired alternative. As discussed in Section 8.2.1.1

of this SEIS, site knowledge minimizes the possibility of cultural resource impacts. Cultural

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-32 April 2005
Alternatives

resource impacts would be SMALL; that is, cultural resource impacts would not be detectable or

would be so minor that they would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter important attributes of

the resource (NRC 2001b).

An inventory of historic and archaeological resources would likely be needed for any onsite

property that has not been previously surveyed. Other lands, if any, that are acquired to

support the plant would also likely need an inventory of field resources, identification and

recording of existing historic and archaeological resources, and possible mitigation of adverse

effects from subsequent ground-disturbing actions related to physical expansion of the plant

site.

Before construction, studies would likely be needed to identify, evaluate, and address mitigation

of the potential impacts of new plant construction on historic and archaeological resources.

The studies would likely be needed for all areas of potential disturbance at the proposed plant

site and along associated rights-of-way where new construction would occur (e.g., studies in

rights-of-way for new roads, transmission lines,- and pipelines).

Impacts to historic and archaeological resources can be managed and mitigated to a certain'

extent under current laws and regulations. Therefore, impacts to historical and archaeological

resources from a natural-gas-fired plant at the existing ANO-2 site are considered to be

SMALL.

Construction at an alternate site could necessitate instituting cultural resource preservation

measures, but impacts could generally be managed and maintained as SMALL. Surveys of

historic and archaeological resources would be required prior to pipeline construction and for

other areas associated with this alternative where ground would be disturbed (NRC 2001 b).

Environmental Justice

Environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations associated with a replacement

natural-gas-fired plant built at an alternate site would depend upon the site chosen and the

nearby population distribution. Some impacts on housing availability and prices during

construction might occur, and this could disproportionately affect minority and low-income

populations. Closure of ANO-2 would result in the loss of approximately 606 operating jobs

(half those at the Arkansas Nuclear One site), only about 100 of which would be replaced.

Resulting economic conditions could reduce employment prospects for minority or low-income

populations in the area encompassed by Pope, Johnson, and Yell Counties. Pope County

would also experience a loss of property tax revenue, which could affect its ability to provide

services and programs. These losses would likely have SMALL to MODERATE environmental

justice impacts, given the large proportion of the tax base in Pope County attributable to

April 2005 8-33 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Alternatives

ANO-2. Overall, impacts of a new natural-gas-fired plant at either the Arkansas Nuclear One

site or an alternate site are considered to be SMALL to MODERATE.

8.2.2.2 Once-Through Cooling System

The environmental impacts of constructing a natural-gas-fired generation system at an alternate

site using a once-through cooling system are similar to the impacts for a natural-gas-fired plant

using closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers. However, there are some environmental differences between the closed-cycle and once-through cooling systems. Table 8-5 summarizes the

incremental differences.

8.2.3 Nuclear Power Generation

Since 1997, NRC has certified three new standard designs for nuclear power plants under

I10 CFR Part 52, Subpart B: (1) the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (10 CFR Part 52,

Appendix A), (2) the System 80+ Design (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix B), and (3) the AP600

Design (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix C). All of these plants are light-water reactors. Although no

applications for a construction permit or a combined license based on these certified designs

have been submitted to the NRC, the submission of the design certification applications

indicates continuing interest in the possibility of licensing new nuclear power plants. Recent

volatility in prices of natural gas and electricity has made new nuclear power plant construction

more attractive from a cost standpoint. Additionally, System Energy Resources, Inc.; Exelon

Generation Company, LLC; and Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC have recently submitted

applications for early site permits for new advanced nuclear power plants under the procedures

in 10 CFR Part 52, Subpart A (SERI 2003; Dominion 2003; Exelon 2003). Therefore, construction of a new nuclear power plant, either at the ANO-2 site or at an alternate site using both

closed- and open-cycle cooling is considered in this section. The staff assumed that the new

nuclear plant would have a 40-year operating life.

The NRC has summarized environmental data associated with the uranium fuel cycle in

Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51. The impacts shown in Table S-3 are representative of the impacts

that would be associated with a replacement nuclear power plant built to one of the certified

designs. The impacts shown in Table S-3 are for a 1000-MW(e) reactor and would need to be

adjusted slightly to reflect replacement of ANO-2, which has a capacity of 1023 MW(e). The

environmental impacts associated with transporting fuel and waste to and from a light-water

nuclear power reactor are summarized in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52. The summary of NRC's

findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants in Table B-i of 10 CFR

Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, is also relevant, although not directly applicable, for consideration of environmental impacts associated with the operation of a replacement nuclear power

plant. Additional environmental impact information for a replacement nuclear power plant using

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-34 April 2005
Alternatives

closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers or once-through cooling is presented in Section 8.2.3.1

and Section 8.2.3.2, respectively.

Table 8-5. Summary of Environmental Impacts of Natural-Gas-Fired Generation with

Once-Through Cooling at the Existing Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 Site or at

an Alternate Greenfield Site in the Entergy Service Area

Existing ANO-2 Site Alternate Site

Comparison with Comparison with

Closed-Cycle Closed-Cycle

Impact Category Impact Cooling System Impact Cooling System

Land Use SMALL to 10 to 12 ha (25 to SMALL to 10 to 12 ha (25 to

MODERATE 30 ac) less'land MODERATE 30 ac) less land

required because required because

cooling towers and cooling towers and

associated associated

infrastructure are infrastructure are not

not needed. needed.

Ecology SMALL Less terrestrial SMALL to Impact would depend

habitat lost and MODERATE on ecology at the site.

cooling tower No impact to '

effects eliminated. terrestrial ecology

Increased water from cooling tower'

withdrawal, but drift. Increased water

aquatic imipact withdrawal and

would be similar to possible greater

current ANO-2 impact to aquatic

operations. ecology.

Water Use and Quality

Surface Water SMALL No discharge of SMALL to No discharge of

cooling tower MODERATE cooling tower

blowdown blowdown. Increased

containing' water withdrawal and

dissolved solids. - more thermal load on

Increased water receiving body of

withdrawal would water.

be insignificant to

Lake Dardanelle.

Groundwater SMALL No change SMALL to Groundwater impacts LARGE -would depend on

- . uses and available

supply.. It is unlikely

that groundwater

would be used for

once-through cooling,

but could be used for

sanitary water.

April 2005 8-35 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Alternatives

Table 8-5. (contd)

Existing ANO-2 Site Alternate Site

Comparison with Comparison with

Closed-Cycle Closed-Cycle

Impact Category Impact Cooling System Impact Cooling System

Air Quality MODERATE No change MODERATE No change

Waste SMALL No change SMALL No change

Human Health SMALL No change SMALL No change

Socioeconomics SMALL to No change MODERATE to No change

MODERATE LARGE

Aesthetics SMALL to Reduced aesthetic SMALL to Reduced aesthetic

MODERATE impact because LARGE impact because

cooling towers cooling towers would

would not be used. not be used.

Historical and SMALL Less land affected. SMALL Less land affected.

Archaeological

Resources

Environmental Justice SMALL to No change SMALL to No change

MODERATE MODERATE

I

8.2.3.1 Closed-Cycle Cooling System

The overall impacts of a new nuclear generating plant using a closed-cycle cooling system at

the Arkansas Nuclear One site or an alternate site are discussed in the following sections. The

extent of impacts at an alternate site will depend on the location of the particular site selected.

A summary of the potential impacts follows.

- Land Use

If a new nuclear plant were to be constructed at the ANO-2 site, the staff assumed that the

current facilities would be used to the extent practicable, reducing the amount of new

construction that would be required. Specifically, the staff assumed that a replacement nuclear

power plant would use the existing cooling system, switchyard, offices, and transmission line

rights-of-way.

Land use could require disturbance of previously undeveloped land. There would be no net

change in land needed for uranium mining because land needed to supply the new nuclear

plant would offset land needed to supply uranium for fueling the existing ANO-2 reactor. The

impact of a replacement nuclear generating plant on land use at the existing site is best

characterized as MODERATE. The impact would be greater than the OL renewal alternative

(NRC 2003).

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-36 April 2005
Alternatives

According to the GEIS, land-use requirements for a new nuclear unit at an alternate greenfield

site would be approximately 200 to 400 ha'(500 to 1000 ac) (NRC 1996). Additional land could

be needed for an electric power transmission line, a rail spur to bring building materials to the

construction site, and/or pipelines to supply coolind-water intake and discharge. Depending

particularly on' transmission line routing, siting a new nuclear"plant with closed-cycle cooling at

an alternate site would result in MODERATE to LARGE land-use impacts.

Ecology

Locating a replacement nuclear power plant at the existing site would alter ecological resources

because of the need to convert additional land to'industrial use. Some of this land, however,

would have been previously disturbed. Even'assuming siting in a previously disturbed area, the

impacts likely would somewhat alter the ecology of the site. Intake and discharge of cooling

water from Lake Dardanelle could have adverse aquatic resource impacts. There would be

some impact on terrestrial ecology from c6olirid tower drift. Siting at'a new plant at the existing

site would have a MODERATE ecological impact that would be greater than the impact

associated with renewal of the ANO-2 OL primarily due to construction-related impacts.

A new nuclear plant at an alternate site would introduce construction impacts and new

incremental operational impacts. Even assuming siting at a previously disturbed area, the

impacts would alter the ecology. Impacts could include wildlife habitat loss, reduced productivity, habitat fragmentation, and a local reduction in biological diversity. Use of cooling water

from a nearby surface water body could have adverse aquatic resource impacts. If needed,

construction and maintenance of the transmission line would have ecological impacts. Overall,

the ecological impacts at an alternate site would be MODERATE to LARGE (NRC 2003).

Water Use and Quality

Surface Water. A replacement nuclear power plant located at the existing site would probably

use the existing closed-cycle cooling systenm. -'It would obtain potable water from the City

Corporation water system (owned by the city of Russellville) in a rimanner similar to the current

practice. Thus, the environmental inmoacts would be similar to those from current operations at

the existing site.' Surface water impacts are expected to remain SMALL; the impacts would be

sufficiently minor that they would not noticeably alter important attributes of the resource.

For a replacement reactor located at an alternate site, new intake structures would need to be

constructed to provide water needs for the facility. Impacts would depend on the volume of

water withdrawn for makeup relative to the amount available from the intake source and the

characteristics of the surface water. Plant discharges would be regulated by agencies of the

State of Arkansas. Some erosion and sedimentation may occur during construction. The

impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE.

April2005 8-37 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
l

Alternatives

Groundwater. No groundwater is currently used for operation of ANO-1 or ANO-2. It is unlikely

that groundwater would be used for an alternative nuclear power plant sited at the existing site,

so the impacts would be SMALL. However, a nuclear power plant sited at an alternate site may

use groundwater. The impacts of such a withdrawal rate on an aquifer would be site-specific

and dependent on aquifer recharge and other withdrawal rates from the aquifer. Therefore, the

overall impacts would be SMALL to LARGE.

* Air Quality

Construction of a new nuclear plant at the Arkansas Nuclear One site or an alternate site would

result in fugitive emissions during the construction process. Exhaust emissions would also

come from vehicles and motorized equipment used during the construction process. An

operating nuclear plant would have minor air emissions associated with diesel generators.

These emissions would be regulated. Emissions for a plant sited in Arkansas would be

regulated by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. Overall, emissions and

associated impacts would be SMALL (NRC 2003).

* Waste

The waste impacts associated with operation of a nuclear power plant either at the existing

ANO-2 site or at an alternate site are set forth in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B. In addition to the impacts shown in Table B-1, construction-related debris would

be generated during construction activities and removed to an appropriate disposal site. Siting

the replacement nuclear power plant at an alternate site would not alter waste generation.

Overall, waste impacts of a new nuclear plant at either the existing site or at an alternate site

are considered SMALL (NRC 2003).

* Human Health

Human health impacts for an operating nuclear power plant at either the ANO-2 site or an

alternate site are set forth in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B. Siting the

replacement nuclear power plant at an alternate site would not alter human health impacts.

Overall, human health impacts of a new nuclear power plant at either the ANO-2 site or an

alternate site are considered SMALL (NRC 2003).

* Socioeconomics

The staff assumed that the construction period for a new nuclear plant would be 5 years and

the peak workforce would be 2500. The staff also assumed that construction would take place

while the existing nuclear unit continues operation and would be completed by the time ANO-2

permanently ceases operation. During construction, the communities surrounding the Arkansas

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-38 April 2005
Alternatives

Nuclear One site would experience demands on housing and public services that could have

MODERATE impacts. In the GEIS, the staff noted that socioeconomic impacts at a rural site

would be larger than at an urban site because more of the peak construction workforce would

need to move to the area to work (NRC 1996). These impacts would be tempered by construction workers commuting to the site from other counties. After construction, the communities

would be impacted by the loss of construction jobs (NRC 2003).

The replacement nuclear unit is assumed to have an operating workforce comparable to the

approximately 630 workers currently at ANO-2. The replacement nuclear unit would provide a

new tax base to offset the loss of tax base associated with decommissioning ANO-2. The'

appropriate characterization of socioeconomic impacts not related to transportation for

operating replacement nuclear units constructed at the site is SMALL to MODERATE.

During the 5-year construction period, up to 2500 construction workers would be working at the

site in addition to the approximately 1260 workers at ANO-1 and ANO-2. The addition of the

construction workers could place significant traffic loads on existing highways, particularly those

leading to the site. Such impacts could be MODERATE to LARGE. Transportation impacts

related to commuting of plant operating personnel would be similar to current impacts

associated with operation of ANO-2 and are considered SMALL.

Construction of a replacement nuclear power plant at an alternate site would relocate some

socioeconomic impacts but would not eliminate them. The communities around the existing

ANO-2 site would still experience the impact of ANO-2 operational job loss and loss of tax base

(although potentially tempered by projected economic growth), and the communities around the

new site would have to absorb the impacts of a large, temporary workforce (up to 2500 workers

at the peak of construction) and a permanent workforce of approximately 630 workers. In the

GEIS, the NRC noted that socioeconomic impacts at a rural site would be larger than at an

urban site because more of the peak construction workforce would need to move to the area to

work (NRC 1996). Impacts at alternate sites would need to be analyzed on a case-by-case

basis. Socioeconomic impacts at rural sites could be LARGE (NRC 2003).

Transportation-related impacts associated with commuting workers at an alternate site are sitedependent, but could be MODERATE to LARGE.- Transportation impacts related to commuting

of plant operating personnel would also be site-dependent, but can be characterized as SMALL

(NRC 2003).

If a replacement nuclear unit was built at an alternate site, the communities around the existing

ANO-2 site would experience the impact of operational job losses, and Pope County would lose

April 2005 8-39 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Alternatives

a portion of its tax base. These losses would have MODERATE to LARGE socioeconomic

impacts, given the fact that ANO-2 represents about one-fourth of all property tax the total

revenue in Pope County and the Russellville School District (half of the total due to ANO-1 and

ANO-2). Overall, the staff considers the potential impacts of a new nuclear plant at either the

existing site or an alternate site to be SMALL to LARGE.

Aesthetics

The containment buildings for a replacement nuclear power plant built at the existing site and

other associated buildings would be visible offsite during daylight hours. The nuclear unit would

also be visible at night because of outside lighting. Visual impacts could be mitigated by landscaping and selecting a color for buildings that is consistent with the environment. Visual

impact at night could be mitigated by reduced use of lighting and appropriate use of shielding.

No exhaust stacks would be needed. No additional cooling towers would be needed, assuming

use of the existing closed-cycle cooling system (NRC 2003).

A replacement nuclear plant at the existing site would be visible from Lake Dardanelle.

However, with appropriate mitigation, the visual impact could be kept SMALL to MODERATE.

Noise from operation of a replacement nuclear power plant would potentially be audible offsite

in calm wind conditions or when the wind is blowing in the direction of the listener. Mitigation

measures such as reduced or no use of outside loudspeakers could be employed to reduce

noise levels, thus keeping the impact SMALL (NRC 2003).

At an alternate site, depending on placement, there would be an aesthetic impact from the

buildings. The containment buildings for a replacement nuclear power plant, other associated

buildings, the cooling towers, and the plume from the cooling towers would be visible during

daylight hours. Natural draft towers could be up to 160 m (520 ft) high. Mechanical draft

towers could be up to 30 m (100 ft) high and also would have an associated impact from noise

and condensate plumes. Noise and light from the plant would be detectable offsite. Visual

impacts of buildings and structures could be mitigated by landscaping and selecting a color that

is consistent with the environment. Visual impact at night could be mitigated by reduced use of

lighting and appropriate use of shielding. There also would be a significant aesthetic impact

associated with construction of a new transmission line (if needed) to connect to other lines to

enable delivery of electricity. The impact of noise and light would be mitigated if the plant is

located in an industrial area adjacent to other power plants, in which case the impact could be

SMALL. The impact could be MODERATE if a transmission line needs to be built to the

alternate site. The impact could be LARGE if a previously undisturbed site is selected or if a

lengthy transmission line is required to connect the replacement plant to the power grid

(NRC 2003).

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-40 April 2005
Alternatives

* Historic and Archaeological Resources

At the existing site, an inventory of historic and archaeological resources would be needed for

onsite property that has not been previously developed. Other lands acquired to support the

plant would also need an inventory of field resourbces, identification aid recording of existing

historic and archeological resources, and possible mitigation of adverse effects from'

subsequent ground-disturbing actions related to physical expansion of the plant site.

Before construction at the Arkansas Nuclear One site or an alternate site, studies would likely

be needed to identify, evaluate, and address mitigation of the potential impacts of new plant

construction on historic and archeological resources. The studies would likely be needed for all

areas of potential disturbance at the proposed plant site and along associated rights-of-way

where new construction would occur (e.g., rights-of-ways for new roads, transmission lines, and

rail lines). Historic and archaeological resource impacts can generally be managed and

mitigated. Therefore, the staff considers the impacts to historic and archeological resources of

a new nuclear plant at either the existing site or an alternate site to be SMALL.

* Environmental Justice

Environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations associated with a replacement

nuclear plant built at an alternate site would depend on the site chosen and the nearby

population distribution. The environmental justice impact of replacing ANO-2 with a new

nuclear unit at the existing site would be SMALL to MODERATE. Some impacts on housing

availability and prices during construction might occur, and this could disproportionately affect

minority and low-income populations. Closure of ANO-2 would result in the loss of

approximately 600 operating jobs, which would be replaced if the new plant is built at the

existing site, but not if it is built at an alternate site. Resulting economic conditions could reduce

employment prospects for minority or low-income populations. Pope County would experience

a loss of about one-fourth of its property tax revenue, which could affect its ability to provide

services and programs. However, these losses would likely have SMALL to MODERATE

environmental justice impacts, and would be similar to the no-action alternative (Section 8.1).

Therefore, th6'staff considers the environmental justice impacts of a new nuclear plant at either

the existing site or at an alternate site to be SMALL to MODERATE.

* Summary

The staff's conclusions regarding the environmental impacts of a new nuclear plant with

closed-cycle cooling are summarized in Table 8-6.

April 2005 8-41 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Alternatives

Table 8-6. Summary of Environmental Impacts from Nuclear Power Generation with

Closed-Cycle Cooling at the Existing Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 Site or at an

Alternate Greenfield Site in the Entergy Service Area

Existing ANO-2 Site Alternate Site

Impact Category Impact Comments Impact Comments

Land Use MODERATE Requires 200 to 400 ha (500 to MODERATE to Same as Arkansas Nuclear One

1000 ac) for the plant and 400 ha LARGE site, plus land for transmission

(1000 ac) for uranium mining. line

Ecology MODERATE Potential disturbance of undeveloped MODERATE to Impact depends on location and

areas at the current site. Some LARGE ecology of the site, surface

impacts from cooling tower drift on water body used for intake and

terrestrial ecology. discharge, and transmission line

routes; potential habitat loss

and fragmentation; reduced

productivity and biological

diversity.

Water Use and Quality

Surface Water SMALL Uses existing intake and discharge SMALL to Impact will depend on the

structures and cooling system MODERATE volume of water withdrawn and

discharged, and the

characteristics of the surface

water body.

Groundwater SMALL ANO-2 does not use groundwater nor SMALL to Groundwater impacts would

is expected to use groundwater during LARGE depend on uses and available

license renewal. supply.

Air Quality SMALL Fugitive emissions and emissions SMALL Same as Arkansas Nuclear One

from vehicles and equipment during site

construction. Small amount of

emissions from diesel generators and

possibly other sources during

operation. Emissions would be similar

to current releases at the site.

Waste SMALL Waste impacts for an operating SMALL Same as Arkansas Nuclear One

nuclear power plant are set out in site

10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B. Table B1. Debris would be generated and

removed during construction.

Human Health SMALL Human health impacts for an SMALL Same as Arkansas Nuclear One

operating nuclear power plant are set site

out in 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B,

Table B

I

I

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-42 April 2005
Alternatives

Table 8-6. (contd)

Existing ANO-2 Site Alternate Site

Impact Category Impact Comments- Impact Comments

Socioeconomics SMALL to During construction, impacts would be SMALL to Construction impacts depend on

LARGE SMALL to MODERATE. Up to LARGE location. Impacts at a rural

- 2500 workers during peak period of location could be LARGE. Pope

the 5-year construction period. County would experience loss of

- Operating workforce assumed to be tax base and employment with

similar to ANO-2; tax base preserved. MODERATE impacts.

Impacts during operation would be Transportation impacts

SMALL. Transportation impacts associated with construction

associated with construction workers workers could be MODERATE

could be MODERATE to LARGE. to LARGE. Transportation

Transportation Impacts of commuting impacts of commuting workers

workers during operations would be during operations would be

SMALL. SMALL

Aesthetics SMALL to Likely would use existing cooling tower SMALL to Impacts would depend on the

MODERATE at the current site. LARGE characteristics of the alternate

site. Impacts would be SMALL

if the plant is located adjacent to

an industrial area. New

transmission lines would add to

the impacts and could be

MODERATE. If a previously

undisturbed site is selected, the

impacts could be LARGE.

Historic and SMALL Potential impacts can be effectively SMALL Potential impacts can be

Archaeological managed. effectively managed.

Resources

Environmental SMALL to Pope County would lose tax revenue SMALL to Impacts at alternate site vary

Justice MODERATE and jobs, with SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE depending on population

impacts on minority and low-income distribution and characteristics

populations. at site. Pope County would lose - tax revenue and jobs, with

SMALL to MODERATE impacts

on minority and low-income

populations.

I

8.2.3.2 Once-Through Cooling System

The environmental impacts of constructing a nuclear power plant that uses once-through

cooling either at the existing site or at an alternate site are similar to the impacts for a nuclear

power plant using closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers. However, there are some

differences in the environmental impacts between the closed-cycle and once-through cooling

systems. In those impact categories related to land-area requirements, such as land use,

terrestrial ecology, and cultural resources, the impacts are likely to be smaller if the'site uses a

once-through cooling system rather than a closed-cycle cooling system. However, the impacts

of a plant with a'once-through cooling systemr'are likely to be greater than a plant with a

closed-cycle cooling system in the areas of water use and aquatic ecology because of the need

for greater quantities of cooling water. Table 8-7 summarizes the incremental differences.

April 2005 8-43 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Alternatives

Table 8-7. Summary of Environmental Impacts of New Nuclear Generation Using

Once-Through Cooling at the Existing Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 Site or

at an Alternate Greenfield Site in the Entergy Service Area

Existing ANO-2 Site Alternate Site

Comparison with Closed-Cycle Comparison with ClosedImpact Category Impact Cooling System Impact Cycle Cooling System

Land Use MODERATE 10 to 12 ha (25 to 30 ac) less MODERATE 10 to 12 ha (25 to 30 ac) less

land required because cooling to LARGE land required because

towers and associated cooling towers and associnfrastructure are not needed. iated infrastructure are not

needed.

Ecology MODERATE Slightly less terrestrial habitat MODERATE Impact would depend on

loss, no cooling tower drift, but to LARGE ecology at the site. No

increased water usage with impact to terrestrial ecology

increased impacts to the aquatic from cooling tower drift.

ecology. Increased water withdrawal

with possible greater impact

to aquatic ecology.

Water Use and Quality

Surface Water SMALL No discharge of cooling tower SMALL to No discharge of cooling tower

blowdown. Increased water MODERATE blowdown. Increased water

withdrawal and more thermal withdrawal and more thermal

load on receiving body of water. load on receiving body of

water.

Groundwater SMALL No change SMALL to No change

LARGE

Air Ouality SMALL No change SMALL No change

Waste SMALL No change SMALL No change

Human Health SMALL No change SMALL No change

Socioeconomics SMALL to No change MODERATE No change

MODERATE to LARGE

Aesthetics SMALL Reduced aesthetic impact SMALL to Reduced aesthetic impact

because cooling towers would LARGE because cooling towers

not be used would not be used, but

impacts could still be large if

lengthy transmission line is

required.

Historic and SMALL Less land impacted SMALL Less land impacted

Archaeological

Resources

Environmental Justice SMALL to No change SMALL to No change

MODERATE LARGE

8.2.4 Purchased Electrical Power

If available, purchased power from other sources could potentially obviate the need to renew

the ANO-2 OL. "Purchased power" is power purchased and transmitted from electric

I generation plants not owned by the applicant and located elsewhere within the region, nation,

Canada, or Mexico.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-44 April 2005
Alternatives

Entergy purchases substantial amounts of electric capacity on the wholesale market. The:

majority of the power is purchased on the wholesale market from the Tennessee Valley

Authority (TVA). For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that replacement power would

come from the TVA. Approximately 45 percent of electricity from the TVA is generated using

fossil fuels; therefore, air emissions would be greater from purchased power than from

generation by ANO-2. Other large generators in the region would have as high, if not higher,

emissions rates, because energy production in the region is generally from older coal-fired

plants that have the highest emission per kilowatt hour (kWh) of all generation sources (NRC

2001). If new generating units were used to provide purchased electricity, considering the

current and projected development of additional generating capabilities in the country,

natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle units, such as those described in Section 8.2.2, would be the

most likely candidates. These also would have larger environmental impacts than the

relicensing option, as discussed in Section 8.2.2.

In theory, imported power is a feasible alternative to ANO-2 license renewal. There is no

assurance, however, that sufficient capacity or energy would be available in the 201 8 through

2038 time frame to replace the 1023-MW(e) net base load generating capacity of ANO-2. For,-

example, EIA projects that total gross U.S. imports of electricity from Canada and Mexico will

gradually increase from 38.4 billion kWh in year 2001 to 48.9 billion kWh in year 2005 and then

gradually decrease to 24.4 billion kWh in year 2020 (DOE/EIA 2004a). On balance, it appears

unlikely that electricity imported from Canada or Mexico would be able to replace the ANO-2

generating capacity.

More importantly, regardless of the technology used to generate imported power, the-.

generating technology would be one of those described in this SEIS and in the GEIS (probably

coal, natural gas, nuclear, or hydroelectric). The GElS description of other technology impacts

is representative of imported power impacts related to ANO-2 license renewal alternatives

(NRC 2001 b).

The staff has assumed that any environmental impacts associated with the production of

purchased power would be evaluated under separate NEPA or comparable environmental

analyses and, therefore do not need to be reconsidered in relation to the ANO-2 OL renewal.

8.2.5 Other Alternatives

Other generation technologies are discussed in the following sections. As described in the

following sections, none-of these alternatives is considered feasible as a replacement for the

1023 net MW(e) base load capacity of ANO-2. -

April 2005 8-45 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Alternatives

8.2.5.1 Oil-Fired Generation

Oil is not considered a stand-alone fuel because it is not cost-competitive when natural gas is

available. The cost of an oil-fired operation is about eight times as expensive as a nuclear or

coal-fired operation. In addition, future increases in oil prices are expected to make oil-fired

generation increasingly more expensive than coal-fired generation. EIA projects that oil-fired

plants will account for very little of the new generation capacity in the United States through the

year 2025 because of higher fuel costs and lower efficiencies compared to other available

technologies (DOE/EIA 2004a). For these reasons, oil-fired generation is not a feasible

alternative to ANO-2 license renewal, nor is it likely to be included in a mix with other resources

except as a backup fuel (NRC 2001 b). In Section 8.3.11 of the GEIS, the staff estimated that

construction of a 1000-MW(e) oil-fired plant would require about 49 ha (120 ac) (NRC 1996).

Operation of oil-fired plants would have environmental impacts (including impacts on the

aquatic environment and air) that would be similar to those from a coal-fired plant

(Section 8.2.1).

8.2.5.2 Wind Power

Wind turbines typically operate at a 25 to 35 percent capacity factor compared to 80 to

95 percent for a base load plant (NWPPC 2000). This low capacity factor results from the high

degree of intermittence of wind energy in many locations. Current energy storage technologies

are too expensive to permit wind power plants to serve as large base load plants. The largest

commercially available wind turbines are in the range of 1 MW to 1.5 MW; therefore, at least

682 to 1023 units would be required to replace the ANO-2 generating capacity. Given the

intermittent nature of the wind resource (perhaps 30 to 35 percent availability), approximately

three times this number would be required to replace the power generated by ANO-2.

Wind energy has a large land requirement, approximately 150,000 acres of land to generate

1000 MW(e) of electricity. Also, new easements, road building, and some clearing for towers

and blades would be required. This eliminates the possibility of co-locating a wind-energy

facility with a retired nuclear power plant. A siting plan would be required. Construction of

several hundred wind turbines would also require extensive construction of transmission lines to

bring the power and the energy to market. This would have a LARGE impact upon much of the

natural environment in the affected areas (NRC 2001b).

Most of Arkansas is in wind power Class 1 or 2 regions (average wind speeds at a 10-m [33-ft]

elevation of 0 to 4.4 m/s [0 to 9.8 mph]) (Elliott et al. 1986; NWTC 2000). In general, Class 3 or

higher can be used for utility-scale commercial power production, but wind turbines are

considered economical in wind power Classes 4 through 7 (average wind speeds of 5.6 to

9.4 m/s (12.5 to 21.1 mph]) (NREL 2004a). There are Class 3 and 4 areas along ridge tops in

the Boston Mountains and the Ouachita Mountains (Elliott et al. 1986).

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-46 April 2005
Alternatives

As of October 2003, there were approximately 0.1 MW of grid-connected wind power facilities in

Arkansas, with an additional 410 MW of additional capacity in various stages of planning

(AWEA 2003). Access to many of the best wind power sites would require extensive road

building, as well as clearing (for towers and blades) and leveling (for the tower bases and

associated facilities) in steep terrain. Also, many of the best quality wind sites are on ridges

and hilltops that could have greater archaeological sensitivity than surrounding areas.

Wind power could be included in a combination of alternatives to replace ANO-2. The

environmental impacts of a large-scale wind farm are described in the GEIS (NRC 1996). The

construction of roads, transmission lines, and turbine tower supports would result in short-term

impacts, such as increases in erosion and sedimentation, and decreases in air quality from

fugitive dust and equipment emissions.- Construction in undeveloped areas would have the

potential to disturb and impact cultural resources-or habitat for sensitive species. During

operation, some land near wind turbines could be available for compatible uses such as

agriculture. The continuing aesthetic impact would be considerable, and there is a potential for

bird collisions with turbine blades. Wind farms generate very little waste and pose no human

health risk other than from occupational injuries. Although most impacts associated with a wind

farm are SMALL or can be mitigated,- some impacts such as the continuing aesthetic impact

and impacts to sensitive habitats could be LARGE, depending on the location.

8.2.5.3 Solar Power

Solar technologies use the sun's energy and light to provide heat and cooling, light, hot water,

and electricity for homes, businesses, and industry. Neither photovoltaic nor thermal solar

power technologies currently can compete with conventional fossil-fueled generation technologies in grid-connected applications because of higher capital costs per kilowatt of capacity.

The average capacity factor of photovoltaic cells is about 25 percent (NRC 1996), and the

capacity factor for solar thermal systems is about 25 to 40 percent (NRC 1996). Energy

storage requirements limit the use of solar-energy systems as base load electricity supply.

There are substantial impacts to natural resources (wildlife habitat, land-use, and aesthetic

impacts) from construction of solar-generating facilities. As stated in the GEIS, land requirements are high. Approximately 140 km2 (54 mi2) for photovoltaic technology (NRC 1996) and

approximately 60 km2 (23 mi2) for solar thermal systems (NRC 1996) would be required to

replace the 1023 MW(e) produced by ANO-2. There is not enough land for either type of solar

electric system at the existing ANO-2 site and both would have LARGE environmental impacts

at an alternate site. -

The construction impacts would be similar to those associated with a large wind farm as

discussed in Section 8.2.5.2. The operating facility would also have considerable aesthetic

impact. Solar installations pose no human health risk other than from occupational injuries.

April 2005 8-47 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Alternatives

The manufacturing process for constructing a large amount of photovoltaic cells would result in

waste generation, but this waste generation has not been quantified. Some impacts, such as

impacts to sensitive areas, loss of productive land, and the continuing aesthetic impact, could

be LARGE, depending on the location.

The existing ANO-2 site receives about 4.5 kWh of direct normal solar radiation per square

meter per day (using Little Rock as a proxy) compared to greater than 7 kWh of solar radiation

per square meter per day in areas of the western United States such as California or Arizona,

which are most promising for solar technologies (NREL 2004b). Because of the natural

resource impacts (land and ecological), the relatively low rate of solar radiation in the area, the

intermittent nature of the resource in the area, and the high cost, solar power is not deemed a

feasible base load alternative to renewal of the ANO-2 OL. Some onsite-generated solar power

(e.g., from rooftop photovoltaic applications) may substitute for a portion of the electric power

from the grid. Implementation of solar generation on a scale large enough to replace the

ANO-2 generating capacity would likely result in LARGE environmental impacts.

Installations of solar panels on residential and commercial rooftops are referred to as

"distributed solar power." Based on an average house size of 139 m2 (1500 ft2) with a usable

roof space of 70 m2 (753 ft2) and an optimistic conversion efficiency of 15 percent, more than

466,500 new or existing homes would have to be fitted with solar panels to replace the power

generated on an average daily basis from ANO-2 (no capacity credit could be given for solar

power at night or during periods of heavy cloudiness, unless power storage were included in the

system). Without significant government or utility incentives, installation of distributed solar

panels on this scale is unlikely. However, distributed solar power could be included in a

combination of alternatives to replace ANO-2. Distributed solar power would result in fewer

construction-related impacts because solar panels would usually be placed on existing

buildings, eliminating the need for land clearing or transmission lines. Aesthetic impacts would

be only marginally greater than those already created by the existing or new buildings. Impacts

from the manufacture of solar panels would still occur.

8.2.5.4 Hydropower

Hydroelectric power has an average annual capacity factor of 46 percent. Section 8.3.4 of the

GEIS indicates that the percentage of the U.S. electrical generation consisting of

hydroelectricity is expected to decline because hydroelectric facilities have become difficult to

site as a result of public concern over flooding, land requirements, destruction of natural habitat,

and alteration of natural river courses (NRC 1996). Section 8.3.4 of the GEIS estimates land

use of 405,000 ha (1 x 106 ac) per 1000 MW(e) for hydroelectric power, resulting in a LARGE

environmental impact. Due to the lack of locations for siting a hydroelectric facility large

enough to replace the generating capacity of ANO-2, local hydropower is not a feasible

alternative to ANO-2 license renewal (NRC 2001 b).

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-48 April 2005
Alternatives

Arkansas has an estimated 737 MW of undeveloped hydroelectric resource (Francfort 1993).

This amount is less than needed to replace the 1000-MW(e) generating capacity of ANO-2.

However, as stated in Section 8.3.4 of the GEIS, the percentage of U.S. generating capacity

supplied by hydropower is expected to decline. DOE/EIA states that potential sites for hydroelectric dams have already been largely established in the United States, and environmental

concerns are expected to prevent the development of any new sites in the future

(DOE/EIA 2003a).

In the GEIS, the staff estimated that approximately 405,000 ha (1 x 106 ac) of land would be'

required to replace the 1023 MW(e) produced by ANO-2 using large-scale hydroelectric power

(NRC 1996). Due to the relatively low amount of undeveloped hydropower resource in

Arkansas and the large land-use and related environmental and ecological resource impacts

associated with siting hydroelectric facilities large enough to replace ANO-2, the staff concludes

that local hydropower is not a feasible alternative to renewal of the ANO-2 OL. Any

development of hydroelectric facilities large enough to replace ANO-2 would result in LARGE

environmental impacts.

8.2.5.5 Geothermal Energy

Geothermal energy generation technology has an average capacity factor of 90 percent and

can be used for base load power where available. However, geothermal technology is not

widely used as base load generation due to the limited geographical availability of the resource

and immature status of the technology (NRC 1996). As discussed in the GEIS, geothermal

plants might be located in the western continental United States (e.g., Alaska and Hawaii)

where hydrothermal reservoirs are prevalent (NRC 1996), but this technology is'not applicable

to the region where the replacement of 1023 MW(e) is needed. Arkansas has geothermal

resources, but they are low- to moderate-temperature resources suitable only for direct

applications such as heat pumps, not for electricity production (DOE/EERE 2003). There is no

feasible location for geothermal generation of electricity within the En'tergy service area

(NRC 2001 b). The staff concludes that generation of electricity from geothermal resources is

not a feasible alternative to renewal of the ANO-2 OL.

8.2.5.6 Wood Waste

A wood-burning facility can provide base load power and operate with an average annual

capacity factor of around 70 to 80 percent and with 20 to 25 percent energy conversion

efficiency (NRC 1996). The energy conversion efficiency of a conventional fossil-fired plant is'

on the order of 35 percent. The cost of the fuel required for this type of facility is highly variable

and site-specific. Entergy has estimated that the rough cost for construction of this type of

facility in the ANO-2 area, where the replacement of 1023 MW(e) is needed, is approximately

$800 per kW (Entergy 2003). Among the factors influencing costs are the environmental

April2005 8-49 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Alternatives

considerations and restrictions that are influenced by public perceptions, easy access to fuel

sources, and environmental factors. In addition, the technology is expensive and inefficient.

Therefore, economics alone eliminate biomass technology as a reasonable alternative

(NRC 2001 b).

The larger wood-waste power plants are only 40 to 50 MW(e) in size. Estimates in the GEIS

suggest that the overall level of construction impact per MW of installed capacity should be

approximately the same as that for a coal-fired plant, although facilities using wood waste for

fuel would be built at smaller scales (NRC 1996). Like coal-fired plants, wood-waste plants

require large areas for fuel storage and processing and involve the same type of combustion

equipment.

Because of uncertainties associated with obtaining sufficient wood and wood waste to fuel a

base load generating facility, ecological impacts of large-scale timber cutting (e.g., soil erosion

and loss of wildlife habitat), and relatively low energy conversion efficiency, the staff has

determined that wood waste is not a feasible alternative to renewing the ANO-2 OL.

8.2.5.7 Municipal Solid Waste

The initial capital costs for this technology are much greater than the comparable steam-turbine

technology found at wood-waste facilities. This is due to the need for specialized municipal

solid waste-handling and waste-separation equipment and stricter environmental emissions

controls. The decision to burn municipal waste to generate energy is usually driven by the need

for an alternative to landfills rather than by energy considerations (NRC 2001 b). Entergy has

concluded that high costs prevent this technology from being economically competitive

(Entergy 2003).

Municipal waste combustors incinerate waste and use the resultant heat to generate steam, hot

water, or electricity. The combustion process can reduce the volume of waste by up to

90 percent and the weight of the waste by up to 75 percent (EPA 2002). Municipal waste

combustors use three basic types of technologies: mass burn, modular, and refuse-derived

fuel (DOE/EIA 2001a). Mass burning technologies are most commonly used in the United

States. This group of technologies process raw municipal solid waste "as is," with little or no

sizing, shredding, or separation before combustion. Because of the need for specialized wasteseparation and waste-handling equipment for municipal solid waste, the initial capital costs for

municipal solid-waste plants are greater than for comparable steam-turbine technology at

wood-waste facilities (NRC 1996).

Growth in the municipal waste combustion industry slowed dramatically during the 1990s after

rapid growth during the 1980s. The slower growth was due to three primary factors: (1) the

Tax Reform Act of 1986, which made capital-intensive projects such as municipal waste

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-50 April 2005
Alternatives

combustion facilities more expensive relative to less capital-intensive waste disposal alternative

such as landfills; (2) the .1994 Supreme Court decision (C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of

Clarkstown), which struck down local flow-control ordinances that required waste to be

delivered to specific municipal waste combustion facilities rather than landfills with lower fees;

and (3) increasingly stringent environmental regulations that increased the capital cost

necessary to construct and maintain municipal waste combustion facilities (DOE/EIA 2001 b).

Similar to the combustion of coal, municipal solid-waste combustors generate an ash residue

that is buried in landfills. The ash residue is composed of bottom ash and fly ash. Bottom ash

refers to that portion of the unburned waste that falls to the bottom of the grate or furnace. Fly

ash represents the small particles that rise from the furnace during the combustion process.

Fly ash is generally removed from flue gases using fabric filters and/or scrubbers

(DOE/EIA 2001 b).

Currently, there are approximately 98 waste-to-energy plants operating in the United States.

These plants generate approximately 2750 MW(e), or an average of approximately 28 MW(e)

per plant (IWSA 2003). Therefore, approximately 37 typical waste-to-energy plants would be

required to replace the 1023-MW(e) base load capacity of ANO-2. Therefore, the staff

concludes that generating electricity from municipal solid waste would not be a feasible

alternative to renewal of the ANO-2 OL.

8.2.5.8 Other Biomass-Derived Fuels

In addition to wood and municipal solid waste fuels, there are several other concepts for fueling

electric generators, including burning energy crops, converting crops to a liquid fuel such as

ethanol (ethanol is primarily used as a gasoline additive for automotive fuel), and gasifying

energy crops (including wood waste). In the GEIS, the staff stated that none of these technologies has progressed to the point of being competitive on a large scale or of being reliable

enough to replace a base load plant such as ANO-2 (NRC 1996). In addition, these systems

have LARGE impacts on land use (NRC 2001 b)., For these reasons, such fuels do not offer a

feasible alternative to renewal of the ANO-2 OL.

8.2.5.9 Fuel Cells

Fuel cells work without combustion so the environmental side effects of combustion are

avoided. Power is produced electrochemically by passing a hydrogen-rich fuel over an anode

and air over a'cathode, and then separating the two by an electrolyte. The only by-products are

heat, water, and carbon dioxide-. Hydrogen fuel can come from a variety of hydrocarbon

resources by subjecting them to steam under pressure. Natural gas is typically used as the

source of hydrogen.

April 2005 8-51 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Alternatives

Phosphoric acid fuel cells are the most mature fuel cell technology, but they are only in the

initial stages of commercialization. Recent estimates suggest that to be competitive, a

company would have to achieve a price of $1000 to $1500 per kW. The current production

capacity of all fuel cell manufacturers only totals about 100 MW per year and costs are still

above $3000 per kW (California Stationary Fuel Cell Collaborative 2003). The use of fuel cells

for base load capacity requires very large energy-storage devices that are not feasible for

storage of sufficient electricity to meet the base load generating requirements. This is a very

expensive source of generation, which prevents it from being competitive. Therefore, fuel cells

are not considered a feasible alternative to license renewal (NRC 2001 b).

Phosphoric acid fuel cells are generally considered first-generation technology. These are

commercially available today at a cost of approximately $4000 to $4500 per kW of installed

capacity (DOE/FE 2004a). Higher-temperature, second-generation fuel cells achieve higher

fuel-to-electricity and thermal efficiencies. The higher temperatures contribute to improved

efficiencies and give the second-generation fuel cells the capability to generate steam for

cogeneration and combined-cycle operations.

DOE has had a performance target that by 2010, second-generation fuel cell technologies

using molten carbonate and solid oxide technology will be commercially available at a cost

of $400 per kW of installed capacity by the end of the decade (approximately 2010)

(DOE/FE 2004b). Molten carbonate fuel cells have progressed to the threshold of commercial

availability (DOE/FE 2004b). DOE has launched the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance

with industrial and research partners with the goal to bring solid oxide fuel cells cost down to

$400 per kW by the end of this decade (DOE/FE 2004c). For comparison, the installed

capacity cost for a natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle plant is approximately $456 per kW

(DOE/EIA 2001 a). As market acceptance and manufacturing capacity increase, naturalgas-fueled fuel cell plants in the 50- to 100-MW range are projected to become available. At

the present time, however, fuel cells are not economically or technologically competitive with

other alternatives for base load electricity generation, and progress in market growth and cost

reduction has been slower than anticipated (California Stationary Fuel Cell Collaborative 2003).

Fuel cells are, consequently, not a feasible alternative to renewal of the ANO-2 OL.

8.2.5.10 Delayed Retirement

The delayed retirement of fossil generation sources could not be used to replace ANO-2's

1023-MW(e) generating capacity because the sources facing retirement in the Entergy system

are used for peaking and intermediate generation. Additionally, there is no guarantee that

these fossil units could economically operate for an additional 20 years after the current

decision dates. Entergy does not have plans to retire any of its base load fossil plants

(Entergy 2003). Therefore, delayed retirement of base load fossil generation could not be used

as an alternative.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-52 April 2005
Alternatives

8.2.5.11 Utility-Sponsored Conservation

The concept of conservation as a resource does not meet the primary NRC criterion, "...that a

reasonable set of alternatives should be limited to analysis of single, discrete electric generation

sources, and only electric generation sources that are technically feasible and commercially

viable." Conservation is neither single nor discrete, nor is it a source of generation

(NRC 2001 b).

As a result of a review of electricity conservation success nationally as reported by EIA, which

shows companies saving about 1.4 percent of annual electricity generation and 2.5 percent of

peak demand through energy efficiency and load management programs (DOE/EIA 2003b), it

is assumed that it would potentially be possible to displace approximately 2.5 percent of the

generation in Arkansas with an ambitious targeted program (a saving of about 136 to 283 MW,

depending on whether average or peak conditions are assumed [DOE/EIA 2003c for Arkansas

production]). The environmental imparcts'of an energy conservation programnwould be SMALL,

but the potential to displace the entire generation at ANO-2 solely with conservation is not

realistic. Therefore, the conservation option by itself is not considered a reasonable

replacement for the ANO-2 OL renewal alternative.

8.2.6 Combination of Alternatives

NRC indicated in the GEIS that, while many methods are available for generating electricity and

a huge number of combinations or mixes can be assimilated to meet system needs, such

expansive consideration would be too unwieldy given the purposes of the alternatives analysis

(NRC 1996). Therefore, NRC determined that a reasonable set of alternatives should be

limited to analysis of single discrete electrical generation sources and only those electric

generation technologies that are technically reasonable and commercially viable (NRC 1996).

Consistent with the NRC determination, Entergy has not evaluated mixes of generating

sources.

Even though individual alternatives might not be sufficient on their own to replace the ANO-2

generating capacity because of the small size of the resource or lack of cost-effective

opportunities, it is conceivable that a combination of alternatives might be cost effective.

ANO-2 has an average net generating capacity of 1023 MW(e). There are many possible

combinations of alternatives. Table 8-8 contains a summary of the environmental impacts of

one assumed combination of alternatives consisting of 500 MW(e) of combined-cycle, naturalgas-fired generation at either the existing ANO-2 site or an alternate site using closed-cycle

cooling, 240 MW(e) purchased from other generators, and 240 MW(e) gained from additional

DSM measures. The impacts associated with the combined-cycle, natural-gas-fired units are

based on the natural-gas-fired generation impact assumptions discussed in Section 8.2.2,

April 2005 8-53 Final NUREG-1437, Sppplement 19
Alternatives

adjusted for the reduced generating capacity. For the combination of alternatives, the staff

assumed that a replacement natural-gas-fired plant would use the existing intake and discharge

structures, while a natural-gas-fired plant located at an alternative site would use a closed-cycle

cooling system. While the DSM measures would have few environmental impacts, operation of

the new natural-gas-fired plant would result in increased emissions (compared to the OL

renewal alternative) and other environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of power

generation associated with power purchased from other generators would still occur, but would

be located elsewhere within the region, nation, or another country, as discussed in

Section 8.2.4. The environmental impacts associated with purchased power are not shown in

Table 8-8. The staff concludes that it is unlikely that the environmental impacts of any

reasonable combination of generating and conservation options could be reduced to the level of

impacts associated with renewal of the ANO-2 OL.

8.3 Summary of Alternatives Considered

The environmental impacts of the proposed action, renewal of the ANO-2 OL, are SMALL for all

impact categories (except collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from

HLW and spent fuel disposal, for which a single significance level was not assigned).

Alternative actions (i.e., no-action alternative (Section 8.11, new-generation alternatives (from

coal, natural gas, and nuclear discussed in Sections 8.2.1 through 8.2.3, respectively],

purchased electrical power [Section 8.2.4], alternative technologies [Section 8.2.5], and the

combination of alternatives [Section 8.2.6]) were considered.

The no-action alternative would result in decommissioning ANO-2 and would have SMALL

environmental impacts for all impact categories except socioeconomics, which may have

SMALL to MODERATE impacts. The no-action alternative would result in a net reduction in

power production. The power not generated by ANO-2 during the license renewal term would

likely be replaced by (1) DSM and energy conservation, (2) power purchased from other

electricity providers, (3) generating alternatives other than ANO-2, or (4) some combination of

these options. This replacement power would produce additional environmental impacts, as

discussed in Section 8.2.

For each of the new-generation alternatives (coal, natural gas, and nuclear), the environmental

impacts would be greater than the impacts of license renewal. For example, the landdisturbance impacts resulting from construction of any new facility would be greater than the

impacts of continued operation of ANO-2. The impacts of purchased electrical power would still

occur, but would occur elsewhere. Alternative technologies are not considered feasible at this

time for replacement of the ANO-2 base load power and it is unlikely that the environmental

impacts of any reasonable combination of generation and conservation options could be

reduced to the level of impacts associated with renewal of the ANO-2 OL.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-54 April 2005
Alternatives

Table 8-8. Summary of Environmental Impacts for an Alternate Greenfield Site for an

Assumed Combination of Generating (Combined-Cycle Natural-Gas-Fired

Generation, and DSM) and Acquisition Alternatives at the Existing Arkansas

Nuclear One, Unit 2 Site

Existina ANO-2 Site Alternate Site

Impact Categorv

Land Use..

Ecology

MC

Impact - Comments

'MALL to 8 ha (20 ac) for natural-gas-fired

DDERATE plant power block, offices, roads,

and parking areas. Additional

impact for construction of an

underground natural gas pipeline,

electric power transmission line,

and cooling-water Intake/discharge

piping.

SMALL Uses previously disturbed areas of

the existing site, plus gas pipeline.

Impacts to terrestrial ecology from

cooling tower drift.

-

Impact

SMALL to 'No change MODERATE

Comments

SMALL to Impact depends on location and

MODERATE ecology of the sites, surface water

body used for Intake and discharge,

and transmission and pipeline routes;

potential habitat loss and . -

fragmentation; reduced productivity

and biological diversity; impacts to

-- terrestrial ecology from cooling tower

drift. Some increase in bird mortality

associated with wind towers.

Water Use and Quality

Surface Water

Groundwater

Air Quality

Waste

Human Health

SMALL Uses part of the existing cooling -

system. Discharge of cooling

tower blowdown will have impacts.

SMALL Use of groundwater unlikely.

MODERATE Primarily NO.. Impacts could be

noticeable but not destabilizing.

Plant would emit SO., carbon

monoxide, PM,, particulates, and

some hazardous air pollutants.

Roughly half the emissions as for

the natural gas altemative, plus

additional emissions from

producers of purchased power.

SMALL Minimal waste generated.

SMALL Imoacts considered minor.

SMALL to Impact depends on volume of water

MODERATE withdrawal and discharge, the

constituents in the discharge water,

and the characteristics of the surface

- - water body. Discharge of cooling

. tower blowdown will have impacts.

SMALL to Impact depends on the quantity of

MODERATE water withdrawn.

MODERATE No change

SMALL . No change

SMALL No chance I

April 2005 8-55 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Alternatives

Table 8-8. (contd)

Existing ANO-2 Site Alternate Site

Impact Category Impact Comments Impact Comments

Socioeconomics

Aesthetics

Historic and

Archaeological

Resources

Environmental Justice

SMALL to During construction impacts would

MODERATE be SMALL to MODERATE.

Possibly over 200 additional

workers needed during the peak

construction period followed by

reduction from current workforce.

Impacts during operation would be

SMALL Net loss of much of the

ANO-2 tax base with SMALL to

MODERATE effects.

SMALL to SMALL aesthetic impact resulting

MODERATE from the impact of plant unit and

stack for gas plant (similar to

existing plant). May be

MODERATE if other power

supplies involve new transmission

lines or coal-fired generation.

SMALL Impacts can generally be managed

or mitigated.

SMALL to Impacts on minority and lowMODERATE income communities should be

similar to those experienced by the

population as a whole. Some

impacts on housing may occur

during construction; loss of existing

jobs on minority and low-income

populations most likely SMALL to

MODERATE, slightly less than in

the no-action alternative.

MODERATE Construction impacts depend on

location, but could be significant if

location is in a rural area. Pope

County would experience loss of tax

base and employment with potentially

SMALL to MODERATE impacts.

Impacts during operation would be

SMALL Transportation impacts

associated with construction workers

would be MODERATE.

SMALL to Altemate location could reduce

MODERATE aesthetic impact if siting is in an

industrial area.

MODERATE impact from the naturalgas-fired plant, stacks, and cooling

towers and associated plumes.

SMALL No change

SMALL to Impacts vary depending on population

MODERATE distribution and makeup water at site.

Pope County would lose tax revenue

and jobs; however, the impacts on

minority and low-income populations

would likely be SMALL to MODERATE.

8.4 References

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for

Protection Against Radiation."

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing

of Production and Utilization Facilities."

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Early Site Permits,

Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plant."

40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51,

"Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans."

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-56 April 2005
Alternatives

40 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 60,

"Standards for Performance for New Stationary Sources."

40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40. Protection of Environment, Part 81,

"Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes." -

65 FR 79825. December 20, 2000. "Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of Hazardous Air

Pollutants from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units." Federal Register, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.

65 FR 32214. May 22, 2000. "Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the

Combustion of Fossil Fuels." Federal Register, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2003. Wind Project Data Base. Accessed on the

Internet January 8, 2004, at http://www.awea.6rg/projects/arkansas.html

C&A Carbone, inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 US 383 (U.S. Supreme Court 1994).

California Stationary Fuel Cell Collaborative. 2003. 'White Paper Summary of Interviews with

Stationary Fuel Cell Manufacturers." Accessed on the Internet May 26, 2004, at

http://stationaryfuelcells.org/Documents/PDFdocs/lndustrySurveyReport.pdf

Clean Air Act. 42 USC 7401, et seq.

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion). 2003. "North Anna Early Site Permit

Application." Letter from D. A. Christian, Dominion, to J. E. Dyer,-NRC, dated September 25,

2003, Richmond, Virginia.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon). :2003. ."Early Site Permit Application." Letter from

M. C. Kray, Exelon, to NRC, September 25, 2003, Kenneth Square, Pennsylvania.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2003. Applicant's' Environmental Report, Operating

License Renewal Stage, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2. Russellville, Arkansas.

Elliott, D. L., C. G. Holladay, W. R. Barchet, H. P. Foote, and W. F. Sandusky. 1986. Wind

Energy Resource Atlas of the United States. DOE/CH 10093-4, U.S. Department of Energy,

Washington D.C. -

Francfort, J. E. 1993. U.S. Hydropower Resource Assessment for Arkansas. DOE/ID-10430

(AR). Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Idaho Falls, Idaho. Appendix A. "Arkansas

April 2005 '8-57 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Alternatives

Hydropower Capacity Summary." Accessed on the Internet January 8, 2004, at

http:llhydropower.inel.gov/resourceassessment/ar/arappa.shtml

Gabbard, A. 1993. "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory Review. Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, Tennessee." Accessed on

the Internet December 11, 2003, at http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/

textfcolmain.html

Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA). 2003. "About Waste to Energy." Accessed on

the Internet January 9, 2004, at http://www.wte.org/waste.html

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2004a. "Wind." Accessed on the Internet

January 8, 2004, at http://www.nrel.gov/gis/ilwind.html

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2004b. "Solar Radiation Data Manual for

Flat-Plate and Concentrating Collectors." Accessed on the Internet May 24, 2004, at

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/pubs/redbook/HTML

National Wind Technology Center (NWTC). 2000. "United States - Wind Resource Map."

Accessed on the Internet January 8, 2004, at http://www.nrel.gov/wind/wind-map.html

Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC). 2000. "Northwest Power Supply

Adequacy/Reliability Study Phase I Report." Accessed on the Internet January 8, 2004, at

http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/2000/2000-4.pdf

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2002. "Industrial Safety Accident Rate." Nuclear Energy

Institute, Washington, D.C. Accessed on the Internet December 10, 2003, at

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=95

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended (RCRA). 42 USC 6901, et seq.

System Energy Resources, Inc. (SERI). 2003. "Early Site Permit Application." Letter from

W.A.- Eaton, SERI, to NRC, October 16, 2003, Jackson, Mississippi.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2001. "Incidence rates of nonfatal occupational injuries

and illnesses by industry and selected case types, 2000." Accessed on the Internet

December 10, 2003, at http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshsum.htm#OOSummary%2OTables

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-58 April 2005
Alternatives

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DOE/EERE). 2003.

Arkansas Geothermal Resources. Accessed on the Internet January 9, 2004, at

http://www.eere.energy.gov/state energy/tech-geothermal.cfm?state=AR

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001a. "Annual

Energy Outlook 2002 with Projections to 2020." DOE/EIA-0383(2002). Washington D.C.

Accessed on the Internet January 9, 2004, at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/

0383(2002).pdf

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2001 b.

"Renewable Energy 2000: Issues and Trends." DOE/EIA-0628(2000), Washington, D.C.

Accessed on the Internet January 9, 2004, at

httpi/tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/renewables/06282000.pdf

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2003a.

"International Energy Outlook 2003." DOE/EIA-0484(2003), Washington, D.C. Accessed on

the Internet January 8, 2004 at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2003b. "Electric

Power Annual 2002." DOE/EIA-0348(2002), Washington, D.C. Accessed on the Internet

April 1, 2004, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epasum.html

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2003c. "State

Electricity Profiles 2002." DOE/EIA-0348(01)/2. Washington, D.C. Accessed on the Internet

April 1, 2004, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st-profiles/e profilessum.html

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2004a. "Annual

Energy Outlook 2004 with Projections to 2025." DOE/EIS-0383, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy, Fossil Energy (DOE/FE). 2004a. "Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cells."

Accessed on the Internet January 9, 2004, at http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/powersystems/

fuelcells/fuelcells-phosacid .shtml

U.S. Department of Energy, Fossil Energy (DOE/FE). 2004b. "Future Fuel Cells." Accessed

on the Internet May 26, 2004, at

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/fuelcellslindex.shtm

U.S. Department of Energy, Fossil Energy (DOE/FE). 2004c. "Solid State Energy Conversion

Alliance." Accessed on the Internet May 26, 2004, at

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/fuelcells/fuelcells_seca.shtml

April 2005 8-59 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Alternatives

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. "Municipal Solid Waste Disposal."

Accessed on the Internet January 9, 2004, at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/

disposal.htm

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2000. "Obstruction Marking and Lighting."

Advisory Circular AC 70/7460-1 K. Accessed on the Internet December 12, 2002, at

http://www.faa.gov/ats/ata/aicircV.pdf

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1 437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. 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.

NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001 a. "NRC Organizes Future Licensing

Project Organization." Press Release No. 01-035, March 30, 2001, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001 b. Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 3, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power

Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1., Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants" Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 10, Washington, D.C.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 8-60 April 2005
9.0 Summary and Conclusions

By letter dated October 15, 2003, Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) submitted an application

to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating license (OL) for

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2) foran an dditional 20-year period (Entergy 2003a). -If the

OL is renewed, State regulatory agencies and Entergy will ultimately decide whether the plant

will continue to operate based on factors such' as the need for power or other matters within the

State's jurisdiction or the purview of the owners. If the OL is not renewed, then the plant must

be shut down at or before the expiration of the current OL, which expires on July 17, 2018.

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 USC 4321) directs

that an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for major Federal actions that

significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The NRC has implemented

Section 102 of NEPA in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, which

identifies licensing and regulatory actions that require an EIS. In 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the

Commission requires preparation of an EIS or a supplement to an EIS (SEIS) for renewal of a

reactor OL; 10 CFR 51.95(c) states that the EIS prepared at the OL renewal stage -will be a'

supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear

Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996,1999).(a)

Upon acceptance of the Entergy application, the NRC began the environmental review process

described in 10 CFR Part 51 by publishing a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct

scoping (68 FR 71174) on December 22,2003. The staff visited the ANO-2 site in

February 2004 and held public scoping meetings on February 3, 2004, in Russellville, Arkansas

(NRC 2004). The staff reviewed the Entergy Environmental Report (ER) (Entergy 2003b) and

compared it to the GEIS, consulted with other agencies, and conducted an independent'review

of the issues following the guidance set forth in NUREG-1 555, Supplement 1, Standard Review |

Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating Licenise

Renewal (NRC 2000). The staff also considered the public comments received during the

scoping process for preparation of the draft version of this SEIS. The public comments

received during the scoping process that were considered to be within the scope of the

environmental review are provided in Appendix A, Part 1, of this SEIS.

The draft SEIS was published and distributed for public comment on September 7, 2004. The

staff held a public meeting in Russellville, Arkansas, in October 2004, to describe the'results of

the NRC environmental review and to answer questions to provide members of the public with

information to assist them in formulating their comrrmrents on this SEIS. All comments on the

(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the 'GEIS' include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

April 2005 9 1 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Summary and Conclusions

draft SEIS were considered by the staff in developing the final SEIS. These comments are

addressed in Appendix A, Part 2, of the SEIS.

This SEIS includes the NRC staff's analysis that considers and weighs the environmental

effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action,

and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse effects. It also includes the

staff's recommendation regarding the proposed action.

The NRC has adopted the following statement of purpose and need for license renewal from

the GEIS:

The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to

provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a

current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs,

as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal

(other than NRC) decisionmakers.

The goal of the staff's environmental review, as defined in 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) and the GEIS, is

to determine

...whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that

preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be

unreasonable.

Both the statement of purpose and need and the evaluation criterion implicitly acknowledge that

there are factors, in addition to license renewal, that will ultimately determine whether an

existing nuclear power plant continues to operate beyond the period of the current OL.

NRC regulations [10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)] contain the following statement regarding the content of

SEISs prepared at the license renewal stage:

The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not required to

include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of

the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such

benefits and costs are either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an

alternative in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation. In addition,

the supplemental environmental impact statement prepared at the license renewal stage

need not discuss other issues not related to the environmental effects of the proposed

action and the alternatives, or any aspect of the storage of spent fuel for the facility

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 9-2 April 2005
Summary and Conclusions

within the scope of the generic determination in § 51.23(a) and in accordance with §

51.23(b).(a)

The GEIS contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the consequences of renewing an

OL and operating a nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years. It evaluates

92 environmental issues using the NRC's three-level standard of significance - SMALL,

MODERATE, or LARGE - developed using the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines.

The following definitions of the three significance levels are set forth in the footnotes to

Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,'Appendix B:

SMALL - Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.

MODERATE - Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to

destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

LARGE - Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize

important attributes of the resource.

For 69 of the 92 issues considered in the GEIS, the staff analysis in the GEIS shows the

following:

(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either

to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other

specified plant or site characteristic.

(2) A single significance level (i.e.-, SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the

impacts (except for collective off-site radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from highlevel waste [HLW] and spent fuel disposal).

(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts-associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,

and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not

to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.

(a) The title of 10 CFR 51.23 is "Temporary storage of spent fuel after cessation of reactor operations -

generic determination of no significant environmental impact."

April 2005 9-3 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
I

Summary and Conclusions

These 69 issues were identified in the GEIS as Category 1 issues. In the absence of new and

significant information, the staff relied on conclusions as amplified by supporting information in

the GEIS for issues designated Category 1 in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A,

Appendix B.

Of the 23 issues that do not meet the criteria set forth above, 21 are classified as Category 2

issues requiring analysis in a plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. The remaining two issues,

environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized.

Environmental justice was not evaluated on a generic basis and must also be addressed in a

plant-specific supplement to the GEIS. Information on the chronic effects of electromagnetic

fields was not conclusive at the time the GEIS was prepared.

This SEIS documents the staff's consideration of all 92 environmental issues identified in the

GEIS. The staff considered the environmental impacts associated with alternatives to license

renewal and compared the environmental impacts of license renewal and the alternatives. The

alternatives to license renewal that were considered include the no-action alternative (not

renewing the OL for ANO-2) and alternative methods of power generation. These alternatives

were evaluated assuming that the replacement power generation plant is located at either the

Arkansas Nuclear One site or some other unspecified greenfield location.

9.1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action -

License Renewal

Entergy and the staff have established independent processes for identifying and evaluating the

significance of any new information on the environmental impacts of license renewal. Neither

Entergy nor the staff has identified information that is both new and significant related to

Category 1 issues that would call into question the conclusions in the GEIS. Similarly, neither

the scoping process, Entergy, nor the staff has identified any new issue applicable to ANO-2

that has a significant environmental impact. Therefore, the staff relies upon the conclusions of

the GEIS for all Category 1 issues that are applicable to ANO-2.

Entergy's license renewal application presents an analysis of the Category 2 issues that are

applicable to ANO-2, plus environmental justice and chronic effects from electromagnetic fields.

The staff has reviewed the Entergy analysis for each issue and has conducted an independent

review of each issue plus environmental justice and chronic effects from electromagnetic fields.

Six Category 2 issues are not applicable because they are related to plant design features or

site characteristics not found at ANO-2. Four Category 2 issues are not discussed in this SEIS

because they are specifically related to refurbishment. In its ER (Entergy 2003b), Entergy

stated that its evaluation of structures and components, as required by 10 CFR 54.21, did not

identify any major plant refurbishment activities or modifications necessary to support the

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 9-4 April 2005
Summary and Conclusions

continued operation of ANO-2 for the license renewal term. In addition, any replacement of

components or additional inspection activities are within the bounds of normal plant component

replacement and, therefore, are not expected to affect the environment outside of the bounds of

the plant operations evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (AEC 1977).

Eleven Category 2 issues related to operational impacts and postulated accidents during the

license renewal term, as well as environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic

fields, are discussed in detail in'this SEIS. Five of the Category 2 issues and environmental

justice apply to both refurbishment and to operation 'during the license renewal term and are

only discussed in'this SEIS in relation to operation during the license renewal term. For all

11 Category 2 issues and environmental justice, the staff concludes that the potential

environmental effects are of SMALL significance in the context of the standards set forth in the

GEIS. In addition, the staff determined that appropriate Federal health agencies have not

reached a consensus on the existence of chronic adverse effects from electromagnetic fields.

Therefore, no further evaluation of this issue is required. For severe accident mitigation :

alternatives (SAMAs), the staff concludes that a-reasonable, comprehensive effort was made to

identify and evaluate SAMAs. Based on its review of the SAMAs for ANO-2, and the plant

improvements already made, the staff concludes that four candidate SAMAs are potentially

cost-beneficial. However, these SAMAs do not relate to adequately managing the effects of

aging during the period of extended operation and, therefore, need not be implemented as part

of the license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54.

Mitigation measures were considered for each Category 2 issue. Current measures to mitigate

the environmental impacts of plant operation were found to be adequate, and no additional

mitigation measures were deemed sufficiently beneficial to be warranted.

The following sections discuss unavoidable adverse impacts, irreversible or irretrievable

commitments of resources, and the relationship between local short-term use of the

environment and long-term productivity.

9.1.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

An environmental review conducted at the license renewal stage differs from the review

conducted in support of a construction permit because the plant is in existence at the license

renewal stage and has operated for a number of years. As a result, adverse impacts

associated with the initial construction have been' avoided, have been mitigated, or have

already occurred. The environmental impacts to be evaluated for license renewal are those

associated with refurbishment and continued 6peration during the license renewal term.

April 2005 9-5 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Summary and Conclusions

The adverse impacts of continued operation identified are considered to be of SMALL significance, and none warrants implementation of additional mitigation measures. The adverse

impacts of likely alternatives if ANO-2 ceases operation at or before the expiration of the current

OL will not be smaller than those associated with continued operation of this unit, and they may

be greater for some impact categories in some locations.

9.1.2 Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments

The commitment of resources related to construction and operation of ANO-2 during the

current license renewal term was made when the plant was built. The resource commitments

to be considered in this SEIS are associated with continued operation of the plant for an

additional 20 years. These resources include materials and equipment required for plant

maintenance and operation, the nuclear fuel used by the reactors, and ultimately, permanent

offsite storage space for the spent fuel assemblies.

The most significant resource commitments related to operation during the license renewal

term are the fuel and the permanent storage space for spent nuclear fuel. Entergy replaces

approximately one-third of the fuel assemblies during every refueling outage, which occurs on

an 18-month cycle (Entergy 2003a).

The likely power generation alternatives if ANO-2 ceases operation on or before the expiration

of the current OL will require a commitment of resources for construction of the replacement

plants as well as for fuel to run the plants.

9.1.3 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity

An initial balance between short-term use and long-term productivity of the environment at the

ANO-2 site was set when the plant was approved and construction began. That balance is now

well established. Renewal of the OL for ANO-2 and continued operation of the plant will not

alter the existing balance, but may postpone the availability of the site for other uses. Denial of

the application to renew the OL will lead to shutdown of the plant and will alter the balance in a

manner that depends on subsequent uses of the site. For example, the environmental

consequences of turning the site into a park or an industrial facility are quite different.

9.2 Relative Significance of the Environmental Impacts of

License Renewal and Alternatives

The proposed action is renewal of the OL for ANO-2. Chapter 2 describes the site, power

plant, and interactions of the plant with the environment. As noted in Chapter 3, no

refurbishment and no refurbishment impacts are expected at ANO-2. Chapters 4 through 7

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 9-6 April 2005
Summary and Conclusions

discuss environmental issues associated with renewal of the OL. Environmental issues

associated with the no-action alternative and alternatives involving power generation and use

reduction are discussed in Chapter 8.

The significance of the environmental impacts from the proposed action (approval of the

application for renewal of the OL), the no-action alternative (denial of the application),

alternatives involving nuclear, coal-fired, or gas-fired generation of power at the existing ANO-2

site and an unspecified alternate greenfield site, and a combination of alternatives are

compared in Table 9-1. Continued use of a closed-cycle cooling system for ANO-2 is assumed

for Table 9-1. Substitution of once-through cooling for the recirculating cooling system in the

evaluation of the nuclear and natural-gas-fired and coal-fired generation alternatives would

result in somewhat greater environmental impacts in some impact categories.

Table 9-1 shows that the significance of the environmental effects of the proposed action are

SMALL for all impact categories (except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel

cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal, for which a single significance level

was not assigned [Chapter 6]). The alternative actions, including the no-actiori alternative, may

have environmental effects in at least some impact categories that reach MODERATE or

LARGE significance.

9.3 Staff Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS (NRC 1996, 1999); (2) the ER submitted by

Entergy (Entergy 2003b); (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the staff's

own independent review; and (5) the staff's consideration of public comments received during

the environmental review, the recommendation of the staff is that the Commission determine

that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for ANO-2 are not so great that

preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be

unreasonable.

April 2005 9-7 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
z

C

~-o

3

Co

(0

'a

Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Significance of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 License Renewal, the No-Action

Alternative, and Alternative Methods of Generation Using Closed-Cycle Cooling 0

0

0

0

CD

Proposed No-Action Coal-Fired New Nuclear Combination of

Action Alternative Generation Natural-Gas-Fired Generation Generation Alternatives

License Denial of Existing Greenfield Existing Existing

Impact Category Renewal Renewal Greenfield SiteW ANO-2 Site Site(' ANO-2 Site Greentield Site'I ANO-2 Site Greenfleld Site"'

Land Use . SMALL ' SMALL'- MODERATEto'- _MSMALLMt tM o . _- ' MODERATEE -..- MODERATE to"'J. SMALL-to -a SMALL to

-. '>LARGE- ''. : .. ' MODERATE -.._.MODERATE -LARGE -:MODERATE MODERATE

Ecology SMALL SMALL MODERATE to MODERATE SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE to SMALL SMALL to

LARGE MODERATE LARGE MODERATE

Water Use SMALL SMALL ''. SMALL to . '" SMALL: SMALL to - SMALL ': SMALL to -' ' SMALL SMALL to

and Quality-Surface ' . MODERATE-.', MODERATE - -MODERATE. - MODERATE

Water ; ' - - -

Water Use and SMALL SMALL SMALL to SMALL SMALL to LARGE SMALL SMALL to SMALL SMALL to

Quality-Groundwater LARGE LARGE MODERATE

Air Quality SMALL SMALL M> MODERATE ''' MODERATE' MODERATE)S-MAL .' SMALL ' M T MODERATE

Waste SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Human Health SMALLb' . S SM LL .' '. SAL-L SMA.L SMALL

Socioeconomics SMALL SMALL to MODERATE to SMALL to MODERATE to SMALL to SMALL to SMALL to MODERATE

MODERATE LARGE MODERATE LARGE LARGE LARGE MODERATE

Aesthetics SMALL . SMALL - MODERATEto -SMALLto . '.SMAJ*Lto .^ SMALLto 'K+SMALLto.:_ SMALLtoV ' SMALLto

- . LARGE. F MODERATE LARGEERA MODERATE:. 'MODERATE

Historic and SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL

Archaeological

Resources

Environmental SMALL SMALL to toMALLto . '-SMALLto ' ' 'M ; .SMALLtOLS

EniomnS - AG,'. :.MDRT .MOEALL 

t

o:"! ODERAIL 7 MLLt 'SALL to SMALL to Justice DE ARG - "'.,.- )RAE :-.'.O fA MO'.'.DEAT Ji' ' ' .T -MODERATE'RATE ERATE .- MODERATE

(a) For the purpose of bounding potential impacts, a greenfield site is assumed to be an undeveloped site with no previous construction.

(b) Except for collective ottsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent-fuel disposal, for which a significance level was not assigned. See

Chapter 6 for details.

~0

0

C'
Summary and Conclusions

9.4 References

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, Requirements for

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

68 FR 71174. December 22, 2003. uNotice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement and Conduct Scoping Process." Federal Register, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2003a. Application for Renewed Operating License,

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2. Russellville, Arkansas.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2003b. Applicant's Environmental Report, Operating

License Renewal Stage Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2. Russellville, Arkansas.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1977. Final Environmental Statement Related to

Operation of Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2, Arkansas Power & Light Company, Docket

No. 50-368. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1 437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. 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.

NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Standard Review Plans for Environmental

Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal. NUREG-1 555,

Supplement 1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Environmental Impact Statement Scoping

Process: Summary Report -Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, Pope County, Arkansas.

May 20, 2004, Washington, D.C.

April 2005 9_9 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix A

Comments Received on the Environmental Review
Appendix A

Comments Received on the Environmental Review

Part I - Comments Received During Scoping

On October 15, 2003, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an application

from Entergy Operations,' Inc. (Entergy) dated October 14, 2003, for renewal of the operating

license (OL) of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2).- ANO-2 is located in Pope County,

Arkansas. There are two nuclear power units at the Arkansas Nuclear One site. A final

environmental impact statement regarding renewal of the license for Arkansas Nuclear One,

Unit 1 (ANO-1) was issued on April 15, 2001, and NRC issued its decision to renew the OL of

ANO-1 'on June 12,2001. The OL for ANO-1 -was renewed and will expire in 2034. The current

ANO-2 OL 'expires on July 17, 2018. ANO-2 is a pressurized water reactor designed by

Combustion Engineering.

As part of the application for renewal of the ANO-2 OL, Entergy submitted an Environmental

Report (ER) prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR) 51, which contains the NRC requirements for implementing the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the implementing regulations promulgated by the Council on

Environmental Quality., Section 51.53 outlines requirements for preparation and submission of

post-construction ERs to NRC.-

Section 51.53(c)(3) was based upon the findings documented in NUREG-1437, Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (G EIS). .The

GEIS, in which the staff identified and evaluated the environmental impacts associated with

license renewal, was first issued as a draft for public comment. The staff received input from -

Federal and State agencies, public organizations, and private citizens before developing the

final document. As a result of the assessments in the GEIS, a number of impacts were

determined to be small and to be generic to all nuclear power plants. These small, generic

impacts were designated as Category 1 impacts.: In the absence of new and significant

information that may cause the conclusions to fall outside those of the GEIS, an applicant for,

license renewal may adopt the conclusions contained in the GEIS for Category 1 impacts.

Category 2 impacts are those impacts that have been determined to be plant-specific and are

required to be evaluated in the applicant's ER.

The Commission determined that NRC does not have a role in energy planning decisionmaking

for existing plants, which should be left to State regulators and utility officials. Therefore, an

applicant for license renewal need not provide an analysis of the need for power or the

economic costs and economic benefits of the proposed action. Additionally, the Commission

determined that the applicant's ER need not discuss any aspect of spent-fuel storage for the

April 2005 A-1 Final NUREG-1437,-Supplement 19
Appendix A

facility that is within the scope of the generic determination in 10 CFR 51.23(a) and in

accordance with 10 CFR 51.23(b). This determination was based on the Nuclear Waste Policy

Act of 1982 and the Commission's Waste Confidence Rule, 10 CFR 51.23.

On December 22, 2003, NRC published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (68 FR

71174) to notify the public of the staff's intent to prepare a plant-specific supplement to the

GEIS to support the renewal application for the ANO-2 OL. The plant-specific supplement to

the GEIS will be prepared in accordance with requirements and guidance provided by NEPA,

the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ), and 10 CFR Part 51. As outlined by NEPA, NRC

initiated the scoping process with the issuance of the Federal Register Notice of Intent. The

NRC invited the applicant, Federal, State, and local government agencies; local organizations;

and individuals to participate in the scoping process by providing oral comments at the

scheduled public meetings and/or submitting written suggestions and comments no later than

February 20, 2004. The scoping process included two public scoping meetings held at the

Russeliville Holiday Inn in Russeliville, Arkansas, on February 3, 2004. NRC announced the

meetings in local newspapers (Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Russellville Courier, Dardanelle

Post Dispatch, and Dover Times), on a cable television channel (Cox Cable), in issued press

releases, and through flyers distributed locally. Approximately 40 people attended the

meetings, including the NRC environmental review team, members of the public,

representatives from Entergy, and representatives from State and local government agencies.

Both sessions began with NRC staff members providing a brief overview of the license renewal

process and the NEPA process. Following the prepared statements presented by the NRC

representatives, the meetings were opened for public participation. The transcripts of the

meetings can be found as an attachment to the meeting summary, which was issued on

February 24, 2004. The meeting summary is available electronically for public inspection in the

NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records component of NRC's

document system (ADAMS) under accession number ML040570279. ADAMS is accessible

from the NRC Website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic

Reading Room) (note the URL is case-sensitive).

The scoping process provides an opportunity for public participation to identify issues to be

addressed in the plant-specific supplement to the GEIS and to highlight public concerns and

issues. The Notice of Intent identified the following objectives of the scoping process:

* define the proposed action

* determine the scope of the supplement to the GEIS and identify significant issues to be

analyzed in depth

* identify and eliminate peripheral issues

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 A-2 April 2005
Appendix A

* identify any environmental assessments and other environmental impact statements

being prepared that are related to the supplement to the GEIS

* identify other environmental review and consultation requirements |

* indicate the schedule for preparation of the supplement to the GEIS

* identify any cooperating agencies

* describe how the supplement to the GEIS will be prepared.

At the conclusion of the scoping period, the NRC staff and its contractor reviewed the

transcripts and all written material received, and identified individual comments. Four letters

containing comments were received during the scoping period. All comments and suggestions

received orally during the scoping meetings or in writing were considered. Each set of

comments from a given commenter was given a unique alpha identifier (Commenter ID letter),

allowing each set of comments from a commenter~to be traced back to the letter in which the

comments were submitted. - - -

Table A-1 identifies the individuals providing comments and the Commenter ID letter associated

with each person's set of comments. The Commenter ID letter is preceded by ANO2-S (which

stands for Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 scoping). The comments are listed in the order in

which they were received. Accession numbers indicate the location of the written comments in

ADAMS.

The comments were grouped into the following'subsections:

1. Comments Regarding License Renewal and Its Processes (Section A.1.1)

2. Comments Concerning Threatened or Endangered Species Issues (Section A.1.2)

3. Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues (Section A.1.3)

4. Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Isssues (Section A.1.4)

Each comment is summarized in the following pages. For reference, the unique identifier for

each comment (Commenter ID letter listed in Table A-1 plus the comment number) is provided.

April 2005 A-3 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix A

Table A-1. Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period for

License Renewal of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2

Comment Source and

ADAMS Accession

Commenter ID Commenter Affiliation Date Number

ANO2-S-A G. Cranmore National Oceanic December 17, 2003 Comment Letter

and Atmospheric ML040130740

Administration

ANO2-S-B S. Formica Arkansas January 30, 2004 Comment Letter

Department of ML040500677

Environmental

Quality

ANO2-S-C S. R. King United Keetoowah January 15, 2004 Comment Letter

Band ML040580312

ANO2-S-D M. Hamey U.S. Fish and January 14, 2004 Comment Letter

Wildlife Service ML040510185

The afternoon and evening transcripts can be found under accession number ML040570279.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

In those cases where no new environmental information was provided by the commenter, no

further evaluation will be performed.

The ANO-2 supplement to the GEIS (which is the supplemental environmental impact

statement [SEIS]) takes into account all the relevant issues raised during the scoping process.

The SEIS addresses both Category 1 and Category 2 issues, along with any new information

identified as a result of scoping. The SEIS relies on conclusions supported by information in

the GEIS for Category 1 issues and includes the analysis of Category 2 issues. The ANO-2

supplement to the GEIS was made available for public comment. The comment period offered

the opportunity for the applicant; interested Federal, State, and local government agencies;

local organizations; and members of the public to provide input to NRC's environmental review

process. The comments received on the draft SEIS were considered in the preparation of the

final ANO-2 SEIS. The final ANO-2 SEIS, along with the staff's Safety Evaluation Report, will

provide much of the basis for the NRC's decision on the ANO-2 license renewal application.

A.1 Comments and Responses

The comments and suggestions received as part of the scoping process are discussed below.

Parenthetical numbers after each comment refer to the Commenter's ID letter and the comment

number. Comments can be tracked to the commenter and the source document through the

ID letter and comment number listed in Table A-1.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 A-4 April 2005
Appendix A

A.1.1 Comments Regarding License Renewal and Its Processes

Comment: The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality has reviewed the information

submitted on the referenced project. We have no comments at this time. (AN02-S-B-1)

Comment: We have no comment at this time, but reserve the right for future comment.

Please keep us informed about this project. (AN02-S-C-1)

Response: The comments are general in nature and do not provide any significant, new

information; therefore, they will not be evaluated further.

A.1.2 Comments Concerning Threatened or Endangered Species Issues

As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, threatened or endangered species issues are a

Category 2 issue.

Comment: It is National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries' opinion

that the project will have no effect on listed species or critical habitat protected by the

Endangered Species Act under NOAA Fisheries' purview. No further consultation with NOAA

Fisheries pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act is required. Consultation

with NOAA Fisheries, Habitat Conservation'Division,' pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management Act's requirements for essential fish habitat

consultation (16 U.S.C. 1855 (b)(2) and 50 CFR 600.905-.930, Subpart K), may be required.

(ANO2-S-A-1)

Comment: The endangered least tern (Sterna'antillarum) and the threatened bald eagle

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are present in the'vicinity of the projected area. However, the

proposed relicensing of the existing plant is not likely to impact any listed species.

(AN02-S-D-1)

Response: The comments regarding the presence of threatened or endangered species in the

vicinity of the ANO-2 site are general in nature and do not provide significant, new information.

Discussions of threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the ANO-2 site can be found

in Chapters 2 and 4 of this draft SEIS.

April 2005 -A-5 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix A

A.1.3 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues

As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 1 and 2 aquatic ecology issues include:

Category 1 Issues

* Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota

* Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton

* Cold shock

* Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish

* Distribution of aquatic organisms

* Premature emergence of aquatic insects

* Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease)

* Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge

* Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to

sublethal stresses

* Stimulation of nuisance organisms.

Cateaorv 2 Issues

* Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages

* Impingement of fish and shellfish

* Heat shock.

Comment: The Service has become aware that a block net shad barrier is now being used on

the entrance to the intake canal during the fall and winter months. The detailed use and effects

of this barrier should be included in any environmental assessments and/or environmental

impact statements regarding ANO operations. We believe this barrier may have both positive

and negative effects on the fishery. In addition to reducing temperature induced shad entrainment and impingement the barrier may also prevent impingement of other healthy species.

However, the barrier appears to prevent and/or discourage other species from entering the

intake canal, which is a valuable fisheries habitat and a popular recreation fishing location for

much of the year. The Service recommends the establishment of specific protocols for the

deployment of the barrier only when necessary to prevent increased temperature induced shad

entrainment and impingement. Water temperature monitoring, meteorological data, and

forecasts should provide sufficient indication of water temperatures approaching and departing

shad thermal intolerances. Limiting shad barrier use by having deployment coincide with these

water temperatures will maintain habitat availability and recreational use to the maximum

extent, while maintaining ANO's ability to reduce shad impingement when necessary. Fisheries

and recreational use of the intake canal have historically been reduced during the winter and for

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 A-6 April 2005
Appendix A

this reason along with the benefits to ANO operations, the Service believes that the use of the

barrier when necessary will have limited effects on fisheries or recreation. (ANO2-S-D-2)

Response: The comments are noted. Chapter2 of this draft SEIS provides a discussion of

the block net shad barrier. Chapter 4 provides an analysis of the environmental impacts of that

barrier.

A.1.4 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues

As stated in 10 CFR Part 51, Table B-1, Category 1 and 2 socioeconomic issues include:

Category 1 Issues

* Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation

* Public services; education (license renewal term)

* Aesthetics impacts (refurbishment)

* Aesthetics impacts (license renewal)

* Aesthetics impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term).

Categorv 2 Issues

* Housing impacts

* Public services: public utilities

* Public services, education (refurbishment)

* Offsite land use (refurbishment)

* Offsite land use (license renewal term)

* Public services, transportation

* Historic and archaeological resources.

Comment: Further, the Service is aware that security barriers have been placed in the intake

and effluent canals restricting access and recreational use. These restrictions and the effects

of these barriers on the fisheries and recreation access should be included in any

environmental assessment and/or environmental impact statements regarding ANO operations.

These areas provide high quality habitat and water conditions that attract high densities of fish

seasonally and therefore these areas and the adjacent waters have been and continue to be

popular recreational fishing areas. The Service recommends documenting the loss of these

valuable recreational uses and the benefits of creating a fisheries refugia. By restricting access

to these areas, ANO is providing high-quality habitat refugia for fish by limiting take or

harassment from recreational fishing to adjacent areas. In the past the dense fish

concentrations in these areas have resulted in high levels of take. Limiting take will improve the

April 2005 -A-7 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix A

quality and quantity of the fisheries and recreational fishing in Lake Dardanelle as a whole

annually and in the long term. The Service recommends coordinating with the Arkansas Game

and Fish Commission and/or other fisheries researchers to examine the effects of these

changes on the fisheries in Lake Dardanelle. (ANO2-S-D-3)

Response: The comments are noted. Chapter 2 of the draft SEIS provides a discussion of the

security barriers and the role they play in restricting recreational fishing in the intake and

effluent canals. Chapter 4 discusses in detail the environmental impacts the barriers may have

on recreational fishing.

Part 11- Comments Received on the Draft SEIS

| Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, the staff transmitted the Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, Draft Report

| for Comment (NUREG-1437, Supplement 19, referred to as'the'draft'SEIS) to Federal, State,

Native American Tribal, and local government agencies as well as interested members of the

public. As part of the process to solicit public comments on the draft SEIS, the staff:

| * placed a copy of the draft SEIS in the NRC's electronic Public Document Room, on its

| license renewal website at http://www.nrc.gov, and at the Ross Pendergraft Library at

I Arkansas Tech University, Russeliville, Arkansas

* sent copies of the draft SEIS to the applicant, members of the public who requested

| copies, and certain Federal, State, Native American Tribal, and local agencies

I * published a notice of availability of the draft SEIS in the Federal Register on

September 7, 2004, (69 FR 54161)

* issued public announcements, such as advertisements in local newspapers and

postings in public places, of the availability of the draft SEIS

I * announced and held a public meeting in Russellville, Arkansas, on October 21, 2004, to

describe the results of the environmental review and answer related questions

* issued public service announcements and press releases announcing the issuance of

the draft SEIS, the public meetings, and instructions on how to comment on the draft

SEIS

| * established a website to receive comments on the draft SEIS through the Internet.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 A-8 April 2005
Appendix A

During the comment period, the staff received a total of four comment letters. No comments I

were received during the public meeting; the staff has reviewed the public meeting transcripts |

and the comment letters that are part of the docket file for the application, all of which are

available in the NRC's electronic Public Document Room. Appendix A, Part II, Section A.2, I

contains a summary of the comments and the staff's responses. Appendix A, Part II, Section

A.3, contains copies of the comment letters.

Each comment identified by the staff was assigned a specific alphanumeric identifier (marker).

That identifier is typed in the margin of the letter at the beginning of the discussion of the

comment. -A cross-reference of the alphanumeric identifiers, the author of the comment, the

page where the comment can be found, and the section(s) of this report in which the comment l

is addressed is provided in Table A-2. The four written comment letters are identified by the

letters A through D. The accession number is provided for the written comments after the letter |

date to facilitate access to the document through the Public Electronic Reading Room (ADAMS) I

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/login.html. I

The staff has determined that comments received are general in nature. In addition, the

comments provide no new and significant information and do not relate to safety considerations |

reviewed under 1 0 CFR Part 54. -

Table A-2. Comments Received on the Draft SEIS

Commenter Comment Source and Page of Section(s) Where

ID Commenter ADAMS Accession Number Comment Addressed

ANO2-D-A1 Sandi Formica, Arkansas Comment Letter A-1 1 A.2.1

Department of ML0433502621

Environmental Quality

AN02-D-B1 Ken Grunewald, Comment Letter, A-12 A.2.1

Department of Arkansas ML0434102730

Heritage

ANO2-D-C1 Michael P. Jansky, United Comment Letter, A-1 3 A.2.1

States Environmental ML0434102710

Protection Agency

ANO2-D-D1 Stephen R. Spencer, Comment Letter, A-14 A.2.1

United States Department ML0434102750

of the Interior

-April 2005 A-9 AFinal NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix A

A.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft SEIS

A.2.1 General Comments

Comment: The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has reviewed the

information submitted in the referenced Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Arkansas

Nuclear One, Unit 2. We have no comments. (Al)

Comment: We have no objection to the renewal of the license for Unit 2 at Nuclear One with

the stipulation that any future ground disturbing activity the results from this renewal should be

submitted to this office for review. (B1)

Comment: EPA classified your DSEIS and proposed action as "LO," i.e., EPA has 'Lack of

Objections" to the proposed alternative. (Cl)

Comment: The U.S. Department of the Interior has reviewed the Draft Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement, Supplement 19, for License Renewal of Entergy Operations,

Inc.'s Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, Pope County, Arkansas. In this regard, we have NO

COMMENT. (Dl)

| Response: The comments are general in nature. The comments did not provide significant,

new information; therefore, they will not be evaluated further.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 A-1 0 April 2005
Appendix A

A.3 Comment Letters I

I

ADEQ q/i/o-i

A R K A N S A 5

Department of Environmental Ovaritr -

November 1, 2004

Chief

Rules and Directives Branch

Division of Administrative Services

Office of Administration

Mallstop T-6D59

-U.S.-Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

RE: Notice of Availability of the Draft Plant-Speciic Supplement 19 to the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) Regarding Ucense Renewal of Arkansas

Nudear One. Unit 2, Pope County,.Arkansas; TAC NO. MB8405

Dear.CheTh

The Arkansas Department of Enimronmental Quality (ADEQ) has reviewed the

Information submittd'Ir the referenced Generic Environmental Impact Statement for

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2.

We hiave no comments.

If you have anyquestions, please contactAudree Millerat501-682-0015.

Sincerely,

ANO2-D-A1

Sandi Formica

Chief,-Environmental Preservation Division -

cc:- Mary Leath,.Chief Deputy Director.

Martin Maner, Water Divislon

Mike Hile. Air Division

Deinis Green, Hazardous Waste Division e5a4lll =/Ir

DRCNA EPARTMENT OF ENVIRONME1NflA OUAUTY

* .L7 0 13

April 2005 A-1 1 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix A

I e ,, --- !)L 4 -

The Department of

Arkansas

Heritage

Mlle HucSabee. Governor

CathieMjtxihcsm Dircror

Arkansas Ms Council

Arkansas tLal Hr4We

Countlsston

Historic Arkansas XSetuD

Am.

Detra C~kwat Center

OWd Scle llouse Muaseum

Arknsas Hitrc

Preservation Program

1500 Tower BufllDrng

323 Center Strect

Little ROdC AR 72201

(501)324-980

fa. (5C1)324-9tS4

tdds (501)324-9811

e-maiL

Inroartkansaspresmv.tiomLorg

awebsIte

rhkansasptseavsatbtLort

November 5, 2004

W. Sznsoni S. Lcic'

Acting Prograrrirector'

License Rencwal aid Eiviroiirnzntal lmpacts

ucaren tilatory Commrrissioi -- Division of Regulatory Improvemcot Progamns

oflice orNuclear Reactor Regulation

NWashington, D.C. 20555-0001

f17141 "/~

RE: Pope County- Russellville

Section 106 Review - NRC

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 Liccnse Renewal Review

(Docket No.: 50-369)

AHPP Tracking No: 53729

Dear Mr. Lee:

Mystalthas revievved Supplement 19 to the 'GenericEnvironmental Impact

Statemnent for License Renewal ofNuclear'Plants.' W~ehave no objection to

the renewal of tec license for Unit 2 at'Nuclear One with the stipulation that

any fuiirotirdi disturbing activity the resalts from this renewal should be

submitted to this office for review. We also remind Entergy Arkansas that it

would be In their lorg term interest to survey the Nuclear One property for

cultural resources so that they can be more effectively managed.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this tundertaking. If you have

any questions, please cointact Steve Imhoff of my staff at (501) 324-9880.

Siner

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer

cc: Dr. Richard Allen, Cherokee Nation

Mr. R. Perry B eamrs, Muscogee Creek Nation

Mr. Robert Cast, Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma

Mr. Terry Cole, Choctaw Nation of'Oklahoma

Ms. Susmn D'Auteuil, Arkansas Public Service Commission

Dr. Ann M. Early, Arkansas Archeological Survey

Ms. Carrie V. Wilson, Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma

Mr. Garry Young, Entcrgy Operations, Ine.

AN02-D-B1

* ArtEqualOppouruilty Emplpto

'5:~0 f-A

7,- zr 4~7 : P-,Q , / ':

-t -a --'

17.

< J a R --') G) ,

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 A-12 April 2005
. 11. - .,oral k, R. 1% R. I

. G

,=N

I11;z

tUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL'PROTECTION AGENCY )

:';REGtONJ a * .... , . 4ii45 FOSS AVEUE, CUIE 1200.

DALLA. TX75202.2733

N6;i*'r'I 0,'2004

ixA

Tbomas J. Kcnyon

Chief, llules Review and Directives Brarnch'

U.S. Nxuclear Regulatory Cdifibissiori

Mail Stop T6:D59

Waishingtoni. DC 20555-0001 )

Dear Mr. Kcnvon&

In accordance vith our responsibilities unde Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the

Nalioma1 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Council on Environmental Quality

Regulations (CEQ) for Implmeznting NEPA, the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA)

Region 6 office In Dallas, Texas, has completed Its review of the Draft Supplemetal

Envirorimental ImpactStatbncnt (DSEIS) forthe proposed operating liccnsc (OL)rcnewal of

Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO); Unit 2, 1o'ated in southwestern Pope County, Arkansas, for an

additional 20-ycar pcriod.

The DEIS evaluates and identifi's thE pofcittial environmental impacts associatcd With

the rroposed Action and Alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative. The DSEIS

concludes that the impacts of the OL renewal for ANO, Unit 2, are not so great that preserving

the option of licences renewal would be unreasonable. This recommendation is based on the

analysis and findings in the DSEIS, the Environmental Report submitted byEntergr, consultation

with Federal, State, and local agencies, NRC staffindepcndent review, and consideramion of

public conments received during thc scoping proccss.

EPA classified your DSEIS and proposed action as 'LO," i'e., EPA has 'Lack of

Objections" to the proposed allemative. Ourclassificateon will bcpublished in thc Fcral

Registcr according to our responsibility under Section 309 of the Clcan Air Act, to inform the

public ofour vies on proposed Federal aaIons.7

AN02-D-C1

EPA appreciates the opporamity to review the DSEIS. We request that you scid our

officc one (l) copy ofthe Final SEIS at the sane time that It is sent to the Office ofFederal

Activities (225 1A), EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20044.

Sincercly yours.

Michael P. Ja

Regional EIS Coordinator

o -t69d e.-

Wenitis Addmes (URL) -tff-w a o.e Ow?~yj,~

Racyc~adflecyc~iabe . Pedied vt~h Vegeable O Based Inks an Recycod Paper tL~mki~m 3a% Postommsmq

April 2005 A-13 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix A

I

United States Department of the Interior

OFFIC6 OF TIE SECRETARY.-

OlCC o0fEnrVkntat2L Po0ICy snd CompHiiOee

* P.O. Box 26567 (MC-9) . Albuquaque, New MexoE 7125-6567

TAKE PRIDE' I'AMERICA,

Novcmber23, 2004

/7/0

9043.1 cfi N- /

ER 041666

CheiC Rules and Directives Branch

Division of Administative SenvicesOfrice orAdmristration

Mailstop T-6D59

U.S. Nuclear RCgulatoy Commission

Wadhigton. DC 20555-0001

Dear Sir/Madan:

The U.S. Dcpktrcnt of the Interior has reviewed the Drnml Supplementa Environental rrnpact

St:atement, Supplemxnt 19. for Ucecse Rcncwal of Entergy Operations, Inc.'s Arkansas Nuclear

One. Unit2, Pope County, Arkarms. Tn this regard, we have Nd COMMENT.

ANO2-D-D1

Thnk you forthc opportnity to review this document

Sincerely,

Steoen R. SpenOecr.

Reeonal E-nvironmnental OM&ic

'SU6 e 4 &1e

"e-x:7 -0 0

45ae_ I --, ;" -Y-11-) (11 ?- -?-)

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 A-1 4 April 2005
Appendix B

Contributors to the Supplement
Appendix B

Contributors to the Supplement

The overall responsibility for the preparation of this supplement was assigned to the Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The statement was

prepared by members of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation with assistance from Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory and Information Systems Laboratory.

Name Affiliation Function or Expertise

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

T. J. Kenyon Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager

S. Imboden Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Manager

A. Kugler Nuclear Reactor Regulation Section chief

M. Masnik Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project Management, Ecology

J. Tappert Nuclear Reactor Regulation Former Section Chief

R. Palla Nuclear Reactor Regulation Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

A. Williamson Nuclear Reactor Regulations General Scientist

PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYO

D. A. Neitzel Task Leader

K. D. Leigh Deputy Task Leader

J.A. Stegen Deputy Task Leader

J. V. Ramsdell, Jr. Meteorology and Air Quality

M. J. Scott Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice,

and Alternatives

E. E. Hickey Decommissioning and Radiation

Protection

A. L. Bunn Aquatic Ecology

C. A. Brandt Terrestrial Ecology

L. W. Vail Hydrology and Alternatives

P. L. Hendrickson Land Use and Related Federal Programs

P. R. Nickens Cultural Resources

C. A. Counts Technical Editor

B. K. Wilson Publication Assistant

T. 1. Russell Publication Design

D. A. Schulz Publication Design

S. M. Tackett Publication Design

R. M. Urbina Publication Design

INFORMATION SYSTEMS LABORATORY

K. Green Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

(a) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial Institute.

April 2005 B-1 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix C

Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to Entergy Operations, Inc.'s

Application for License Renewal of

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2
Appendix C

Chronology of NRC Staff Environmental Review Correspondence

Related to Entergy Operations, Inc.'s

Application for License Renewal of

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2.'

This appendix contains a chronological listing of correspondence between the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) and other

correspondence related to the NRC staff's environmental review, under Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations Part 51, of Entergy's application for renewal of the Arkansas Nuclear One,

Unit 2 (ANO-2) operating license. All documents, with the exception of those containing

proprietary information, have been placed in the Commission's Public Document Room, at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, MD, and are available

electronically from the Public Electronic Reading Room found on the Internet at the following

web address: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.- From this site, the public can gain access to

the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management Systems (ADAMS), which provides

text and image files of NRC's public documents in the Publicly Available Records (PARS)

component of ADAMS. The ADAMS accession numbers for each document are included

below.

October 14, 2003

October 14, 2003

October 21, 2003

October 24, 2003

October 24, 2003

Letter from Mr. Craig G. Anderson, Entergy, to NRC, submitting the

application for the renewal of the operating license for ANO-2

(Accession No. ML032890492).

Letter from NRC to Ms. Francis Hager, Ross Pendergraft Library,

regarding the maintenance of reference material for the ANO-2 license

renewal application (Accession No. ML032870521).

Letter from NRC to Mr. Craig G. Anderson, Entergy, regarding the receipt

and availability of the license renewal application for ANO-2

(Accession No. ML032940160).

Federal Register Notice of receipt of application for renewal of Facility

Operating License No. NPF-6 for an additional 20-year period

(68 FR 61020).

NRC press release announcing the availability of the license renewal

application for ANO-2 (Accession No. ML032970035).

April 2005 C-1 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix C

November 14, 2003

November 20, 2003

November 24, 2003

December 9, 2003

December 11, 2003

December 13, 2003

December 13, 2003

December 15,2003

December 15, 2003

December 15, 2003

Letter from NRC to Mr. Craig G. Anderson, Entergy, regarding

acceptance of the application for license renewal of ANO-2 and

opportunity for a hearing (Accession No. ML033210028).

NRC press release announcing opportunity for hearing on application for

license renewal of ANO-2 (Accession No. ML033240195).

Federal Register Notice of acceptance for docketing of the application

and notice of opportunity for a hearing regarding the application for

license renewal of ANO-2 (68 FR 65963).

Letter from NRC to Ms. Margaret Harney, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

requesting a list of protected species within the area under evaluation for

license renewal of ANO-2 (Accession No. ML033440389).

Letter from NRC to Dr. Roy Crabtree, NOAA Fisheries, requesting a list

of protected species within the area under evaluation for license renewal

of ANO-2 (Accession No. ML033450067).

Letter from NRC to Chief Jerry G. Haney, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma,

inviting participation in the environmental scoping process for the license

renewal of ANO-2 (Accession No. ML0335001 98).

Letter from NRC to Chief Chadwick Smith, Cherokee Nation of

Oklahoma, inviting participation in the environmental scoping process for

the license renewal of ANO-2 (Accession No. ML033500127).

Letter from NRC to Chief R. Perry Beaver, Muscogee (Creek) Nation of

Oklahoma, inviting participation in the environmental scoping process for

the license renewal of ANO-2 (Accession No. ML033500439).

Letter from NRC to Chairman John Berrey, Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma,

inviting participation in the environmental scoping process for the license

renewal of ANO-2 (Accession No. ML033500225).

Letter from NRC to Chief Jim Gray, Osage Nation, inviting participation in

the environmental scoping process for the license renewal of ANO-2

(Accession No. ML033500352).

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 C-2 April 2005
Appendix C

December 15, 2003

December 17, 2003

December 17, 2003

December 17, 2003

December 17, 2003

December 18, 2003

December 22, 2003

January 14, 2004

Letter from NRC to Chief Gregory E. Pyle, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma,

inviting participation in the environmental scoping process for the license

renewal of ANO-2 (Accession'No. ML033510533).

Letter from NOAA Fisheries providing a response to the December 11,

2003 NRC staff letter requesting information regarding protected species

within the area under evaluation for license renewal of ANO-2

(Accession No. MLO4oi30740).

Letter from NRC to Mr'Jeff 'Forbes, Entergy, forwarding the Notice of

Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct

Scoping Process'foer the licerise renewal of ANO-2

(Accession No. ML033520123).

Letter from NRC to Mr. Don Klima, Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation, inviting comments on the effects of license renewal of

ANO-2 on historic properties in accordance with the National Historic

Preservation Act (Accession No. ML033520264).

Letter from NRC to Mr. George McCluskey, State Historic Preservation

Office, inviting participation in the environmental scoping process for

license renewal of ANO-2 and requesting a determination of effects of

license renewal on historic properties in accordance with the National

Historic Preservation Act (Accession No. ML033520174).

Letter from NRC to Chairperson LaRue Parker, Caddo Nation, inviting

participation in the environmental scoping process for the license renewal

of ANO-2 (Accessionr No. ML033520394).

Federal Register Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement and Conduct Scoping Process regarding the application for

license renewal 'of ANO-2 (68 FR 71174).

NRC meeting notice announcing public meeting in Russellville, Arkansas

on February 3, 2004, to discuss the environmental scoping process for

the application for the license renewal of ANO-2

(Accession No. ML040160640).

April 2005 C-3 Final NUREG-1437,-Supplement 19
Appendix C

January 14, 2004

January 15, 2004

January 30, 2004

February 24, 2004

February 24, 2004

March 16, 2004

April 23, 2004

April 27, 2004

May 20, 2004

June 8, 2004

Letter from Margaret Harney, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, providing a

response to the December 9, 2003 NRC staff letter requesting

information regarding protected species within the area under evaluation

for license renewal of ANO-2 (Accession No. ML040510185).

Letter from Summer R. King, United Keetoowah Band, providing no

comments on environmental scoping process for the license renewal of

ANO-2 (Accession No. ML040580312).

Letter from Sandi Formica, Arkansas Department of Environmental

Quality, providing no comments on environmental scoping process for the

license renewal of ANO-2 (Accession No. ML040500677).

Letter from NRC to Mr. Jeff Forbes, Entergy, transmitting request for

additional information regarding severe accident mitigation alternatives

for ANO-2 (Accession No. ML040570889).

Summary of Public Scoping Meetings to Support Review of the ANO-2

License Renewal Application (Accession No. ML040570279).

Summary of Site Audit to Support Review of the ANO-2 License Renewal

Application (Accession No. ML040760664).

Letter from Timothy G. Mitchell, Entergy, to NRC regarding February 24,

2004 request for additional information regarding severe accident

mitigation alternatives for ANO-2 (Accession No. ML041190272).

Summary of Telecommunication with Entergy to discuss the response to

the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Requests for Additional

Information (Accession No. ML041200441).

Issuance of Environmental Scoping Summary Report associated with the

Staff's Review of the Application by Entergy for renewal of the Operating

License for ANO-2 (Accession No. ML041420534).

Letter from NRC to Ms. Margaret Harney, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

providing a Biological Assessment of impacts to listed species from the

proposed license renewal of ANO-2 (Accession No. ML041610069).

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 C-4 April 2005
Appendix C

June 29,2004 --

July 6, 2004

July 8, 2004

July 15, 2004

August 30, 2004

August 30, 2004

September 7, 2004

October 4, 2004

October 6, 2004

Letter from Ms. Margaret Harney, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

concurring with conclusions of the Biological Assessment

(Accession No. ML042010064).

Letter from Ms. Sandi Formica, Arkansas Department of Environmental

Quality, providing comments on the Biological Assessment dated

June 8,2004 (Accession No.-ML043070230).

Summary of Telecommunication with Entergy to discuss the response to

the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Requests for Additional

Information (Accession No. ML041950152).

Letter from Mr. Timothy G. Mitchell, Entergy, to NRC providing

clarification to a response to a request for additional information

(Accession No. ML042100600).

Letter from NRC to Mr. Jeffery Forbes, Entergy, regarding the notice of

availability of draft Supplement 19 to the Generic Environmental Impact

Statement Regarding License Renewal for ANO-2

(Accession No. ML042430627).

Letter from NRC to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency transmitting

draft Supplement 19 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement

Regarding License Renewal for ANO-2 (Accession No. ML042430559).

Federal Register Notice of availability of the draft Supplement 19 to the

Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Public Meeting for the

License Renewal of ANO-2 (69 FR 54161).

NRC press release announcing the availability of the draft Supplement 19

to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement Regarding License

Renewal for ANO-2 (Accession No. ML042780231).

NRC meeting notice announcing public meeting in Russeliville, Arkansas,

on October 21, 2004, to discuss the draft Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement for the license renewal of ANO-2

(Accession No. ML042800087).

April 2005 C-5 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix C

November 1, 2004

November 5, 2004

November 10, 2004

November 19, 2004

November 23, 2004

Letter from Ms. Sandi Formica, Arkansas Department of Environmental

Quality, regarding the draft Supplement 19 to the Generic Environmental

Impact Statement Regarding License Renewal for ANO-2

(Accession No. ML043350262).

Letter from Mr. Ken Grunewald, State Historic Preservation Office, to

NRC providing comments on the draft Supplement 19 to the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement Regarding License Renewal for ANO-2

(Accession No. ML043410273).

Letter from Mr. Michael Jansky, US Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, to NRC regarding the draft Supplement 19 to the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement Regarding License Renewal for ANO-2

(Accession No. ML043410271).

Summary of Public draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Meeting to Support Review of the ANO-2 License Renewal Application

(Accession No. ML043280679).

Letter from Mr. Stephen Spencer, U.S. Department of Interior, to NRC

regarding the draft Supplement 19 to the Generic Environmental Impact

Statement Regarding License Renewal for ANO-2

(Accession No. ML043410275).

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 C-6 April 2005
Appendix D

Organizations Contacted
Appendix D

Organizations Contacted

During the course of the staff's independent review of environmental impacts from operations

during the renewal term, the following Federal, State, regional, local, and Native American tribal

agencies were contacted:

Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Russeliville, Arkansas

Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Arkansas Tech University, Russeliville, Arkansas

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, Little Rock, Arkansas

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas

Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, Little Rock, Arkansas

Arkansas River Valley Regional Library, Russellville, Arkansas

Arkansas Valley Alliance, Russellville, Arkansas

Caddo Nation, Binger, Oklahoma

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Tahlequah, Oklahoma

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Durant, Oklahoma

Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma, Okmulgee, Oklahoma

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, St. Petersburg, Florida

Osage Nation, Pawhuska, Oklahoma

Pope County Collector, Russellville, Arkansas

Pope County Department of Human Services, Russellville, Arkansas

Pope County Judge, Judge J. Ed Gibson, Russeliville, Arkansas

Pope County Salvation Army, Russellville, Arkansas

April 2005 D-1 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix D

Pope County Treasurer, Russellville, Arkansas

Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, Fayetteville, Arkansas

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Wewoka, Oklahoma

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Conway, Arkansas

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 D-2 April 2005
Appendix E

Entergy Operations, Inc.

Compliance Status and Consultation Correspondence
Appendix E

Entergy Operations Inc.

Compliance Status and Consultation Correspondence

Correspondence sent and received during the process of evaluating the application for renewal

of the license for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2) is identified in Table E-1. Copies of

the correspondence are included at the end of this appendix.

The licenses, permits, consultations, and other approvals obtained from Federal, State,

regional, and local authorities for ANO-2 are listed in Table E-2.

Table E-1. Consultation Correspondence Regarding License Renewal for Arkansas

Nuclear One, Unit 2

Source Recipient Date of Letter

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ms. M. Harney, U.S. Fish and December 9, 2003

Commission Wildlife Service (Accession No.

ML033440389)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. R. Crabtree, National Oceanic December 11, 2003

Commission Atmospheric Administration (Accession No.

Fisheries - ML033450067)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. J. Haney, Principal Chief, December 13, 2003

Commission Seminole Nation of Oklahoma (Accession No.

ML033500198)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. C. Smith, Principal Chief, December 13, 2003

Commission Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (Accession No.

ML033500127)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. R. Beaver, Principal Chief, December 15, 2003

Commission Muscogee (Creek) Nation of (Accession No.

Oklahoma ML033500439)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. J. Berrey, Chairman, Quapaw December 15, 2003

Commission Tribe of Oklahoma - (Accession No.

ML033500225)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. J. Gray, Principal Chief, December 15, 2003

Commission Osage Nation (Accession No.

ML033500352)

April 2005 E-1 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix E

Table E-1. (contd)

Source Recipient Date of Letter

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. G. Pyle, Chief, Choctaw Nation December 15, 2003

Commission of Oklahoma (Accession No.

ML033510533)

G. Cranmore, NOAA Fisheries U.S. Nuclear Regulatory December 17, 2003

Commission (Accession No.

ML040130740).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. D. Klima, Director, Advisory December 17, 2003

Commission Council on Historic Preservation (Accession No.

ML033520264)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. G. McCluskey, State Historic December 17, 2003

Commission Preservation Office (Accession No.

ML033520174)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ms. L. Parker, Tribal Chairperson, December 18, 2003

Commission Caddo Nation (Accession No.

ML033520394)

Ms. M. Hamey, U.S. Fish and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory January 14, 2004

Wildlife Service Commission (Accession No.

ML040510185)

S. R. King, United Keetoowah Band U.S. Nuclear Regulatory January 15, 2004

Commission (Accession No.

ML040580312)

S. Formica, Arkansas Department of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory January 30, 2004

Environmental Quality Commission (Accession No.

ML040500677)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ms. M. Harney, U.S. Fish and June 8, 2004

Commission Wildlife Service (Accession No.

ML041610066)

Ms. M. Harney, U.S. Fish and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory June 29, 2004

Wildlife Service Commission (Accession No.

ML0420100640)

I

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-2 April 2005
0

0

U'n

C

G1)

-A.

CIO

Cn

a

CD

3

CD

CD

Table E-2. Federal, State, Local, and Regional Licenses, Permits, Consultations, and Other Approvals for Arkansas

Nuclear One, Unit 2

Expiration Agency Authority Description Number Issue Date Date Remarks

NRC 10 CFR Part 50 Operating license, NPF-6 July 17, 1978 July 17, 2018 Authorizes operation of Unit 2

Arkansas Nuclear

One, Unit 2

NRC 10 CFR Part 50 Operation license, DPR-51 May 21,1974 May 20, 2034 Authorizes operation of Unit 1

Arkansas Nuclear

One, Unit I

ADED Federal Water Pollution NPDES Permit ARD0001392 January 1, December 31, Plant wastewater

Control Act 2003 2007 discharges to Lake

Section 402 Dardanelle

ADEQ Resource Conservation Hazardous Waste ARD0006327 Not Applicable Not Applicable Hazardous waste

and Recovery Act - Generator 52 generation

Subtitle C

ADEQ Clean Air Act Section 112 Discharge Permit October 11, No expiration Operation of air emission sources

2002 (diesel generators and boilers)

ASWCC Not Applicable Water Use 4124 Not Applicable Not Applicable Divert water from Lake

Registration Dardanelle for plant use

ADEQ RCRA - Subtitle I Petroleum Storage 58000008 July 31, 2003 July 31, 2004 Underground diesel fuel

Tank Registration 58000009 storage

CILRWC Export Authorization Export Permit None July 2, 2002 Expires June Shipment of radioactive

Letter 30, 2004 waste outside the regional

compact

ACE Clean Water Act Dredging Permit 00241-5 Issued March No expiration Dredging of Intake canal

Section 404 27, 1997 as needed

ACE Title 10 USC Section 2668 Dardanelle Water Use DACW03-71- November 3, No expiration Evaporative water loss from Lake

Agreement 0002 1972 Dardanelle

DOT 49 CFR 107, Subpart G Registration 053002 034 May 9, 2003 June 30, 2004 Radioactive and hazardous

034K materials shipments

SCDHEC South Carolina Radioactive Radioactive Waste 0047-03-03-X December 31, December 31, Transportation of radioactive waste

Waste Transportation and Transport Permit 2003 2004 to disposal facility In South

Disposal Act (SC Code of Laws Carolina

13-7.110 et seq.)

TDEC TCA 58-202-206 Radioactive Waste for T-AR001-L03 January 5, December 31, Shipment of radioactive waste to

License 2004 2004 disposal/processing facility in

Tennessee

-a

CD

CX

m
-n5'

a)

z

C

r13 m

G) 3

Cn

CD

CD

3

co

Table E-2. (contd)

Expiration

Agency Authority Description Number Issue Date Date Remarks

UDEQ Land Disposal for Utah R313-26 Radioactive Waste 0209001642 October 9, October 10, Shipment of low-level radioactive

Transport Permit 2003 2004 waste to Envirocare of Utah, Inc

ACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

ADEQ = Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality

ASWCC = Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission

CILRWC = Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission

CFR = Code of Federal Regulations

DOT = U.S. Department of Transportation

NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

UDEO = Utah Department of Environmental Quality (Division of Radiation Control)

SCDHEC = South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

TDEC = Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

USC = United States Code

CD.

x

m

_,

0

01Ul
Appendix E

December 9. 2003

Ms. Margaret HarnekSenior Field Biologist

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office

1500 Museum Road, Suite 105

Conway, AR 72032

SUBJECT: -REQUEST FOR LIST OF PROTECTED SPECIES WITHIN THE AREA UNDER

EVALUATION FOR ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE UNIT 2 LICENSE RENEWAL

Dear Ms. Harney:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is reviewing an application submitted by

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) for the renewal of the operating license for Arkansas Nuclear

One Unit 2 (ANO-2). ANO-2 is located in Pope County, Arkansas, approximately 6 miles westnorthwest of Russellville, Arkansas. As part of the review of the license renewal application, the

NRC is preparing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) under the provision

of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, which includes an

analysis of pertinent environmental issues, including endangered or threatened species and

impacts to fish and wildlife. This letter is being submitted under the provisions of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of

1934, as amended.

The proposed action would include use and continued maintenance of existing plant facilities

and transmission lines and would not result in new construction or disturbance. Any

maintenance activities would be limited to previously disturbed areas. In total, for the specific

purpose of connecting ANO-2 to the regional transmission system, there is one 500-kilovolt line

which is approximately 91 miles in length. In Arkansas, this transmission line traverses the

counties of Pope, Conway, Faulkner, Saline and Pulaski. Enclosure I is a figure from Entergy's

Environmental Report showing the location of the 500-kilovolt transmission line. Enclosure 2 is

a figure from Entergy's Environmental Report showing the site boundary.

ANO-2 uses a closed-cycle cooling system with one natural-draft cooling tower used to

dissipate waste heat to the atmosphere. Cooling water is drawn from Lake Dardanelle through

a canal to the intake structure. After moving through the condenser, circulating water rejects

waste heat to the atmosphere using the natural-draft cooling tower. Approximately 75% of the

cooling water is evaporated in the natural-draft cooling tower and the remaining waste heat is

discharged in the form of blowdown from the circulating water system to a canal which

discharges to Lake Dardanelle. This blowdown is mixed with the ANO-1 circulating water

system discharge. The plant does not use groundwater to meet its water supply needs.

Drinking water is provided by the City of Russeliville.

To support the environmental impact statement preparation process and to ensure compliance

with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the NRC requests a list of species and

April 2005 -E-5 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
I

Appendix E

M. Harney 2

information on protected, proposed, and candidate species and critical habitat that may be in

the vicinity of ANO-2 and its associated transmission line. In addition, please provide any

information you consider appropriate under the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination

Act of 1934.

Beginning on February 3, 2004. we plan to conduct a site audit. We plan to hold two public

NEPA scoping meetings on February 3. 2004. at the Holiday Inn, 2407 North Arkansas Avenue,

Russellville, Arkansas 72802. You and your staff are invited to attend both the site audit and

the public meetings. Your office will receive a copy of the draft SEIS along with a request for

comments. The anticipated publication date for the draft SEIS is September 2004.

If you have any questions concerning ANO-2, the license renewal application, or other aspects

of this project, please contact Mr. Thomas Kenyon. Environmental Project Manager, at

(301) 415-1120 or by e-mail at TJK2e@nrc.aov.

Sincerely,

IRAN

Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director

License Renewal and Environmental Impacts

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket Nos.: 50-368

Enclosures: As stated

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-6 April 2005
Appendix E

December 11, 2003

Dr. Roy Crabtree

Regional Administrator

NOAA Fisheries

Southeast Regional Office

9721 Executive Center Drive North

St. Petersburg, FL 33702 -

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR LIST OF PROTECTED SPECIES WITHIN THE AREA UNDER

EVALUATION FOR ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE UNIT 2 LICENSE RENEWAL

Dear Dr. Crabtree:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is reviewing an application submitted by

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) for the renewal of the operating license for Arkansas Nuclear

One, Unit 2 (ANO-2). ANO-2 is located in Pope County. Arkansas, approximately 6 miles westnorthwest of Russellville, Arkansas. As part of the review of the license renewal application, the

NRC is preparing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) under the provisions

of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, which includes an

analysis of pertinent environmental issues, including endangered or threatened species and

impacts to fish and wildlife. This letter is being submitted under the provisions of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973. as amended, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of

1934, as amended.

The proposed action would include use and continued maintenance of existing plant facilities

and transmission lines and would not result in any newconstruction or disturbance. Any

maintenance activities would be limited to previously disturbed areas. In total, for the specific

purpose of connecting ANO-2 to the regional transmission system, there is one 500-kilovolt line

which is approximately 91 miles in length. In Arkansas, this transmission line traverses the

counties of Pope. Conway, Faulkner, Saline and Pulaski. Enclosure 1 is a figure from Entergy's Environmental Report showing the location of the 500-kilovolt transmission line. Enclosure 2 is

a figure from Entergy's Environmental Report showing the site boundary.

ANO-2 uses a closed-cycle cooling system with one natural-draft cooling tower used to

dissipate waste heat to the atmosphere. Cooling water is drawn from Lake Dardanelle through

a canal to the intake structure. After moving through the condenser, circulating water rejects

waste heat to the atmosphere using the natural-draft cooling tower. Approximately 75% of the

cooling water Is evaporated in the natural-draft cooling tower and the remaining waste heat is

discharged in the form of blowdown from the circulating water system to a canal which

discharges to Lake Dardanelle. This blowdown is mixed with the ANO-1 circulating water

system discharge. The plant does not use groundwater to meet its water supply needs.

Drinking water is provided by the City of Russellville.

To support the environmental impact statement preparation process and to ensure compliance

with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the NRC requests that NOAA Fisheries provide

April 2005 E-7 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix E

R. Crabtree 2

a list of species and information on protected, proposed, and candidate species and critical

habitat that may be in the vicinity of ANO-2 and its associated transmission line. In addition,

please provide any information you consider appropriate under the provisions of the Fish and

Wildlife Coordination Act. The NRC has also contacted the Fish and Wildlife Service and

requested a list of species and information on protected, proposed, and candidate species and

critical habitat that may be in the vicinity of ANO-2 and its associated transmission line.

Beginning on February 3, 2004, vee plan to conduct a site audit. We plan to hold two public

NEPA scoping meetings on February 3, 2004, at the Holiday Inn, 2407 North Arkansas Avenue,

Russellville, Arkansas 72802. You and your staff are invited to attend both the site audit and

the public meetings. Your office will receive a copy of the draft SEIS along with a request for

comments. The anticipated publication date for the draft SEIS is September 2004.

If you have any questions concerning ANO-2, the license renewal application, or other aspects

of this project, please contact Mr. Thomas Kenyon, Environmental Project Manager, at

(301) 415-1120 or by e-mail at TJK2QTnrc.aov.

Sincerely,

IRA/

Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director

License Renewal and Environmental Impacts

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket Nos.: 50-368

Enclosures: As stated

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-8 April 2005
Appendix E

December 13, 2003

Mr. Jerry G. Haney

Principal Chief

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 1498

Wewoka, Oklahoma 74884

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE

'ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION

Dear Mr. Haney:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking input for its environmental review

of an application from Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) to renew its operating license for

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2), located in Pope County,'Arkansas, approximately 6

miles west-northwest of Russellville, Arkansas. 'ANO-2 is in close proximity to lands that may

be of interest to the Seminole Nation. As described below, the NRC process includes an

opportunity for public participation in the environmental review. We want to ensure that you are

aware of our efforts and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.28(b), the NRC invites the Seminole Tribal

Community to provide input to the scoping process relating to the NRC's environmental review

of the application. In addition, as outlined in 36 CFR 800.8, the NRC plans to coordinate.

compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 through the

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

The NRC will hold public scoping meetings for the ANO-2 license renewal supplement to the

NRC's 'Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'

(GEIS) (NUREG-1437). These scoping meetings will be held at the Holiday Inn, 2407 North

Arkansas Avenue, Russellville, Arkansas 72802, on Tuesday, February'3, 2004. There will be

two sessions to accommodate interested parties: The first session will convene at 1:30 p.m.

and will continue until 4:30 p.m., as necessary. The second session will convene at 7:00 p.m.,

with a repeat of the overview portions of the meeting, and will continue until 10:00 p.m., as'

necessary. Additionally, the NRC staff will host informal discussions one hour before the start

of each session. No formal comments on the proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS

will be accepted during the informal discussions. To be considered, comments must be

provided either at the transcribed public meetings or in writing. The application and the

environmental review process are described below.

Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a nuclear power plant is issued for up

to 40 years. The license may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC requirements

are met. The current operating license for ANO-2 will expire in 2018. Entergy submitted an

environmental report as part of its application for renewal of the ANO-2 operating license on

October 15, 2003. The application is electronically available for inspection from the Publicly

Available Records component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management

System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible at http://wwN.nrc.aov/readina-rmIadams.html, which

April 2005 E-9 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix E

J. Haney -2-

provides access through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR) fink. If you do not

have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,

contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-(800)-397-4209.

(301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdrtnrc.gov. In addition, the application can be viewed on the

Intemet at http:/lwvv.nrc.-ov/reactorsloperatingflicensing/renewallapplications/ano-2.html.

A paper copy of the document can be viewed at the NRC's PDR. located at One White Flint

North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 20852-2738, and at the Ross

Pendergraft Library at Arkansas Tech University. located at 305 West Q Street, Russellville,

Arkansas. 72801. Also, the GEIS assesses the scope and impact of environmental effects that

would be associated with license renewal at any nuclear power plant site. A copy of this

document can also be found on the NRC's website or at the NRC's PDR.

The NRC is gathering information for the document that will be a ANO-2 site-specific

supplement to the GEIS. The supplement will contain the results of the review of the

environmental impacts on the area surrounding the ANO site that are related to terrestrial

ecology, aquatic ecology, hydrology, cultural resources, and socioeconomic issues (among

others) and will contain a recommendation regarding the environmental acceptability of the

license renewal action.

Please submit any written comments the Seminole Tribal Community may have to offer on the

scope of the environmental review by February 20, 2004. Comments should be submitted

either by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services,

Mail Stop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001. or by

e-mail to ANOEIS~nrc.gov.

At the conclusion of the scoping process, the NRC staff will prepare a summary of the

significant issues identified, the conclusions reached, and will mail a copy to you.

The NRC will prepare a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for public

comment, and will hold another public meeting in the site vicinity to solicit comments on the

draft. A copy of the draft SEIS will be sent to you for your review and comment. After

consideration of public comments received on the draft, the NRC will prepare a final SEIS. The

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-1 0 April 2005
Appendix E

J. Haney -3-

final environmental impact statement for ANO-2 is planned for April 2005. f you need

additional information regarding the environmental review process, please contact

Thomas Kenyon. Environmental Project Manager, at (301) 415-1120.

Sincerely,

IRAI

Pao-Tsin Kuo. Program Director

License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket Nos.: 50-368

- - . 1'' .t. ,- . . - . , .1 .

.. . - , -q

April 2005 E-1 1 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
I

Appendix E

December 13, 2003

Mr. Chadwick Smith

Principal Chief

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 948

Tahlequah, OK 74465

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE

ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE. UNIT 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION

Dear Mr. Smith:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking input for its environmental review

of an application from Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) to renew its operating license for

Arkansas Nuclear One. Unit 2 (ANO-2), located in Pope County, Arkansas, approximately 6

miles west-northwest of Russellville, Arkansas. ANO-2 is in close proximity to lands that may

be of interest to the Cherokee Nation. As described below, the NRC process includes an

opportunity for public participation in the environmental review. We want to ensure that you are

aware of our efforts and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.28(b). the NRC invites the Cherokee Tribal

Community to provide input to the scoping process relating to the NRC's environmental review

of the application. In addition, as outlined in 36 CFR 800.8. the NRC plans to coordinate

compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 through the

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

The NRC will hold public scoping meetings for the ANO-2 license renewal supplement to the

NRC's 'Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants"

(GEIS) (NUREG-1437). These scoping meetings will be held at the Holiday Inn, 2407 North

Arkansas Avenue, Russellville, Arkansas 72802, on Tuesday, February 3,2004. There will be

two sessions to accommodate interested parties. The first session will convene at 1:30 p.m.

and will continue until 4:30 p.m., as necessary. The second session will convene at 7:00 p.m..

with a repeat of the overview portions of the meeting, and will continue until 10:00 p.m., as

necessary. Additionally, the NRC staff will host informal discussions one hour before the start

of each session. No formal comments on the proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS

will be accepted during the informal discussions. To be considered, comments must be

provided either at the transcribed public meetings or in writing. The application and the

environmental review process are described below.

Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a nuclear power plant is issued for up

to 40 years. The license may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC requirements

are met. The current operating license for ANO-2 will expire in 2018. Entergy submitted an

environmental report as part of its application for renewal of the ANO-2 operating license on

October 15, 2003. The application is electronically available for inspection from the Publicly

Available Records component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management

System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible at http://wwvv.nrc.aov/reading-rmladams.htnd, which

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-12 April 2005
Appendix E

C. Smith -2-

provides access through the NRCs Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link. If you do not

have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,

contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-(800)-397-4209,

(301) 415-4737. or by e-mail to pdrcnrc.gov. In addition, the application can be viewed on the

Internet at http:/IwAvw.nrc.povlreactorslooeratinalicensinalrenewal/acolicationslano-2.html.

A paper copy of the document can be viewed at the NRC's PDR. located at One White Flint

North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 20852-2738, and at the Ross

Pendergraft Ubrary at Arkansas Tech University. located at 305 West Q Street, Russellville,

Arkansas, 72801. Also, the GEIS assesses the scope and impact of environmental effects that

would be associated with license renewal at any nuclear power plant site. A copy of this

document can also be found on the NRC's website or at the NRC's PDR.

The NRC is gathering information for the document that wil be a ANO-2 site-specific

supplement to the GEIS. The supplement will contain the results of the review of the

environmental impacts on the area surrounding the ANO site that are related to terrestrial

ecology, aquatic ecology, hydrology, cultural resources, and socioeconomic issues (among

others) and will contain a recommendation regarding the environmental acceptability of the

license renewal action.

Please submit any written comments the Cherokee Tribal Community may have to offer on the

scope of the environmental review by February 20, 2004. Comments should be submitted

either by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services,

Mail Stop T-6D59. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, or by

e-mail to ANOEIS(nrc.gov.

At the conclusion of the scoping process, the NRC staff will prepare a summary of the

significant issues identified, the conclusions reached, and will mail a copy to you.

The NRC will prepare a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for public

comment, and will hold a public meeting in the site vicinity to solicit corments on the draft. A

copy of the draft SEIS will be sent to you for your review and comment. After consideration of

public comments received on the draft, the NRC will prepare a final SEIS. The issuance of a

final environmental impact statement for ANO-2 is planned for April 2005. If you need

April 2005 E-1 3 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
I

Appendix E

C. Smith -3-

additional information regarding the environmental review process, please contact

Thomas Kenyon, Environmental Project Manager, at (301) 415-1120.

Sincerely,

IRA/

Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director

License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket Nos.: 50-368

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-14 April 2005
Appendix E

December 15,2003

Mr. R. Perry Beaver

Principal Chief

Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Box 580

Okmulgee, Oklahoma 74447

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REVIEW OFTHE

ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION

Dear Mr. Beaver:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking input for its environmental review

of an application from Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) to renew its operating license for.

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2), located in Pope County, Arkansas, approximately 6

miles west-northwest of Russeliville, Arkansas. -ANO-2 is in close proximity to lands that may

be of interest to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. As described below, the NRC process includes

an opportunity for public participation in the environmental review. We want to ensure that you

are aware of our efforts and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.28(b), the NRC invites the Muscogee

(Creek) Tribal Community to provide input to the scoping process relating to the NRCs

environmental review of the application. In addition, as outlined in 36 CFR 800.8, the NRC

plans to coordinate compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation

Act of 1966 through the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

The NRC will hold public scoping meetings for the ANO-2 license renewal supplement to the

NRC's "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants"

(GEIS) (NUREG-1437). These scoping meetings will be held at the Holiday Inn, 2407 North

Arkansas Avenue, Russellville, Arkansas 72802, on Tuesday, February 3, 2004. There will be

two sessions to accommodate interested parties. The first session will convene at 1:30 p.m.

and will continue until 4:30 p.m., as necessary. The second session will convene at 7:00 p.m.,

with a repeat of the overview portions of the meeting, and will continue until 10:00 p.m., as

necessary. Additionally, the NRC staff will host informal discussions one hour before the start

of each session. No formal comments on the proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS

will be accepted during the informal discussions. To be considered, comments must be

provided either at the transcribed public meetings or in writing. The application and the

environmental review process are described below.

Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a nuclear power plant is issued for up

to 40 years. The license may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC requirements

are met. The current operating license for ANO-2 will expire in 2018. Entergy submitted an

environmental report as part of its application for renewal of the ANO-2 operating license on

October 15, 2003. The application is electronically available for inspection from the Publicly

Available Records component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management

System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible at http:/Ivvw.nrc.aovIreadina-rmradams.htmi, which

April 2005 E-15 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix E

R. Beaver -2-

provides access through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link. If you do not

have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,

contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209.

(301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr~nrc.gov. In addition, the application can be viewed on the

Internet at htto:IwIwvwnrec.ov/reactors/operatinallicensina/renewallapolications/ano-2.html.

A paper copy of the document can be viewed at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint

North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 20852-2738, and at the Ross

Pendergraft Library at Arkansas Tech University. located at 305 West Q Street. Russellville,

Arkansas, 72801. Also, the GEIS assesses the scope and impact of environmental effects that

would be associated with license renewal at any nuclear power plant site. A copy of this

document can also be found on the NRCs website or at the NRC's PDR.

The NRC is gathering information for the document that will be a ANO-2 site-specific

supplement to the GEIS. The supplement will contain the results of the review of the

environmental impacts on the area surrounding the ANO site that are related to terrestrial

ecology, aquatic ecology, hydrology, cultural resources, and socioeconomic issues (among

others) and will contain a recommendation regarding the environmental acceptability of the

license renewal action.

Please submit any written comments the Muscogee (Creek) Tribal Community may have to

offer on the scope of the environmental review by February 20, 2004. Comments should be

submitted either by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative

Services, Mail Stop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington. D.C. 20555-

0001, or by e-mail to ANOEIS@nrc.gov.

At the conclusion of the scoping process, the NRC staff will prepare a summary of the

significant issues identified, the conclusions reached, and will mail a copy to you.

The NRC will prepare a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for public

comment, and will hold another public meeting in the site vicinity to solicit comments on the

draft. A copy of the draft SEIS will be sent to you for your review and comment. After

consideration of public comments received on the draft, the NRC will prepare a final SEIS. The

issuance of a final environmental impact statement for ANO-2 is planned for April 2005. If you

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-16 April 2005
Appendix E

R. Beaver -3-

need additional information regarding the environmental review process, please contact

Thomas Kenyon. Environmental Project Manager, at (301) 415-1120.

Sincerely,

IRA!

Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director

License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket Nos.: 50-368

April 2005 E-17 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
- I11

Appendix E

December 15, 2003

Mr. John Berrey

Chairman

Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma

223 East Lafayette

Fayetteville, AR 72703

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION REVIEWOFTHE

ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION

Dear Mr. Berrey:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking input for its environmental review

of an application from Entergy Operations. Inc. (Entergy) to renew its operating license for

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2), located in Pope County, Arkansas, approximately 6

miles west-northwest of Russellville, Arkansas. ANO-2 is in close proximity to lands that may

be of interest to the Quapaw Tribe. As described below, the NRC process includes an

opportunity for public participation in the environmental review. We want to ensure that you are

aware of our efforts and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.28(b), the NRC invites the Quapaw Tribal

Community to provide input to the scoping process relating to the NRC's environmental review

of the application. In addition, as outlined in 36 CFR 800.8, the NRC plans to coordinate

compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 through the

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

The NRC will hold public scoping meetings for the ANO-2 license renewal supplement to the

NRC's 'Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'

(GEIS) (NUREG-1437). These scoping meetings will be held at the Holiday Inn, 2407 North

Arkansas Avenue, Russellville, Arkansas 72802, on Tuesday, February 3, 2004. There will be

two sessions to accommodate interested parties. The first session will convene at 1:30 p.m.

and will continue until 4:30 p.m., as necessary. The second session will convene at 7:00 p.m.,

with a repeat of the overview portions of the meeting, and will continue until 10:00 p.m., as

necessary. Additionally, the NRC staff will host informal discussions one hour before the start

of each session. No formal comments on the proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS

will be accepted during the informal discussions. To be considered, comments must be

provided either at the transcribed public meetings or in writing. The application and the

environmental review process are described below.

Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a nuclear power plant is issued for up

to 40 years. The license may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC requirements

are met. The current operating license for ANO-2 will expire in 2018. Entergy submitted an

environmental report as part of its application for renewal of the ANO-2 operating license on

October 15, 2003. The application is electronically available for inspection from the Publicly

Available Records component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management

System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible at http:I//ww.nrc.gov/readina-rmi/adams.html, which

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-18 April 2005
Appendix E

J. Berrey -2-

provides access through the NRCs Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link. If you do not

have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,

contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-(800)-397-4209,

(301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr~nrc.gov. In addition, the application can be viewed on the

Intemet at http:/Iwwv.nrc.ov/reactorsloperatinalicensinp/renewal/aoplications/ano-2.html.

A paper copy of the document can be viewed at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint

North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 20852-2738. and at the Ross

Pendergraft Library at Arkansas Tech University, located at 305 West Q Street, Russellville,

Arkansas, 72801. Also, the GEIS assesses the scope and impact of environmental effects that

would be associated with license renewal at any nuclear power plant site. A copy of this

document can also be found on the NRC's website or at the NRC's PDR.

The NRC is gathering information for the document that will be a ANO-2 site-specific

supplement to the GEIS. The supplement will contain the results of the review of the

environmental impacts on the area surrounding the ANO site that are related to terrestrial

ecology, aquatic ecology, hydrology, cultural resources, and socioeconomic issues (among

others) and will contain a recommendation regarding the environmental acceptability of the

license renewal action.

Please submit any written comments the Quapaw Tribal Community may have to offer on the

scope of the environmental review by February 20, 2004. Comments should be submitted

either by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services,

Mail Stop T-6D59. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, or by

e-mail to ANOEIS@nrc.gov.

At the conclusion of the scoping process, the NRC staff will prepare a summary of the

significant issues identified, the conclusions reached, and will mail a copy to you.

The NRC will prepare a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for public

comment, and will hold another public meeting in the site vicinity to solicit comments on the

draft. A copy of the draft SEIS will be sent to you for your review and comment. After

consideration of public comments received on the draft, the NRC will prepare a final SEIS. The

issuance of a final environmental impact statement for ANO-2 is planned for April 2005. If you

April 2005 E-1 9 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix E

J. Berrey -3-

need additional information regarding the environmental review process, please contact

Thomas Kenyon. Environmental Project Manager, at (301) 415-1120.

Sincerely,

IRA/

Pao-Tsin Kuo. Program Director

License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket Nos.: 50-368

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-20 April 2005
Appendix E

December 15,2003

Mr. Jim Gray

Principal Chief

Osage Nation

P.O. Box 779

Pawhuska, OK 74056

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION REVIEWOFTHE

ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION

Dear Mr. Gray:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking input for its environmental review

of an application from Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) to renew its operating license for

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2), located in Pope County, Arkansas, approximately 6

miles west-northwest of Russellville,-Arkansas. 'ANO-2 is in close proximity to lands that may

be of interest to the Osage Nation. As described below, the NRC process includes an

opportunity for public participation in the environmental review. We want to ensure that you are

aware of our efforts and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.28(b), the NRC invites the Osage Tribal

Community to provide input to the scoping process relating to the N RC's environmental review

of the application. In addition, as outlined in 36 CFR 800.8, the NRC plans to coordinate

compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 through the

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

The NRC will hold public scoping meetings for the ANO-2 license renewal supplement to the

NRC's 'Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants"

(GEIS) (NUREG-1437). These scoping meetings will be held at the Holiday Inn, 2407 North

Arkansas Avenue, Russellville, Arkansas 72802, on Tuesday, February 3,2004. There will be

two sessions to accommodate interested parties. The first session will convene at 1:30 p.m.

and will continue until 4:30 p.m., as necessary. The second session will convene at 7:00 p.m.,

with a repeat of the overview portions of the meeting, and will continue until 10:00 p.m., as

necessary. Additionally, the NRC staff will host informal discussions one hour before the start

of each session. No formal comments on the proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS

will be accepted during the informal discussions. To be considered, comments must be

provided either at the transcribed public meetings or in writing. The application and the

environmental review process are described below.

Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a nuclear power plant is issued for up

to 40 years. The license may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC requirements

are met. The current operating license for ANO-2 will expire in 2018. Entergy submitted an

environmental report as part of its application for renewal of the ANO-2 operating license on

April 2005 E-21 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix E

J. Gray -2-

October 15, 2003. The application is electronically available for inspection from the Publicly

Available Records component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management

System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible at htt /llwww.nrc.aov/readina-rmladams.html, which

provides access through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link. If you do not

have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS.

contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-(800)-397-4209.

(301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdrtnrc.gov. In addition, the application can be viewed on the

Intemet at htt://vlwu. nrc.pov/reactors/ooeratina/licensina/renewal/aoplications/ano-2.html.

A paper copy of the document can be viewed at the NRC's PDR. located at One White Flint

North. 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor). Rockville, Maryland, 20852-2738, and at the Ross

Pendergraft Library at Arkansas Tech University. located at 305 West Q Street, Russeliville,

Arkansas, 72801. Also, the GEIS assesses the scope and impact of environmental effects that

would be associated with license renewal at any nuclear power plant site. A copy of this

document can also be found on the NRC's website or at the NRC's PDR.

The NRC is gathering information for the document that will be a ANO-2 site-specific

supplement to the GEIS. The supplement will contain the results of the review of the

environmental impacts on the area surrounding the ANO site that are related to terrestrial

ecology, aquatic ecology, hydrology, cultural resources, and socioeconomic issues (among

others) and will contain a recommendation regarding the environmental acceptability of the

license renewal action.

Please submit any written comments the Osage Tribal Community may have to offer on the

scope of the environmental review by February 20, 2004. Comments should be submitted

either by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch. Division of Administrative Services,

Mail Stop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, or by

e-mail to ANOEIS~nrc.gov.

At the conclusion of the scoping process, the NRC staff will prepare a summary of the

significant issues identified, the conclusions reached, and will mail a copy to you.

The NRC will prepare a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for public

comment, and will hold another public meeting in the site vicinity to solicit comments on the

draft. A copy of the draft SEIS will be sent to you for your review and comment. After

consideration of public comments received on the draft, the NRC will prepare a final SEIS. The

issuance of a final environmental impact statement for ANO-2 is planned for April 2005. If you

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-22 April 2005
Appendix E

J. Gray - 3

need additional information regarding the environmental review process, please contact

Thomas Kenyon, Environmental Project Manager, at (301) 415-1120.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director

License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket Nos.: 50-368

April 2005 ~E-23 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix E

December 15, 2003

Mr. Gregory E. Pyle

Chief

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

P.O. Drawer 1210

16th and Locust Streets

Durant, Oklahoma 74702-1210

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE

ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION

Dear Mr. Pyle:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking input for its environmental review

of an application from Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) to renew its operating license for

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2). located in Pope County, Arkansas, approximately 6

miles west-northwest of Russellville, Arkansas. ANO-2 is in close proximity to lands that may

be of interest to the Choctaw Nation. As described below, the NRC process includes an

opportunity for public participation in the environmental review. We want to ensure that you are

aware of our efforts and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.28(b), the NRC invites the Choctaw Tribal

Community to provide input to the scoping process relating to the NRC's environmental review

of the application. In addition, as outlined in 36 CFR 800.8, the NRC plans to coordinate

compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 through the

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

The NRC will hold public scoping meetings for the ANO-2 license renewal supplement to the

NRC's 'Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'

(GEIS) (NUREG-1437). These scoping meetings will be held at the Holiday Inn, 2407 North

Arkansas Avenue, Russellville, Arkansas 72802, on Tuesday, February 3, 2004. There will be

two sessions to accommodate interested parties. The first session will convene at 1:30 p.m.

and will continue until 4:30 p.m., as necessary. The second session will convene at 7:00 p.m.,

with a repeat of the overview portions of the meeting, and will continue until 10:00 p.m., as

necessary. Additionally, the NRC staff will host informal discussions one hour before the start

of each session. No formal comments on the proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS

will be accepted during the informal discussions. To be considered, comments must be

provided either at the transcribed public meetings or in writing. The application and the

environmental review process are described below.

Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a nuclear power plant is issued for up

to 40 years. The license may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC requirements

are met. The current operating license for ANO-2 will expire in 2018. Entergy submitted an

environmental report as part of its application for renewal of the ANO-2 operating license on

October 15, 2003. The application is electronically available for inspection from the Publicly

Available Records component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-24 April 2005
Appendix E

G. Pyle -2-

System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible at http:llwwwv.nrc.qov/readinq-rmladams.html. which

provides access through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link. If you do not

have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,

contact the NRCs Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-(800)-397-4209,

(301) 415-4737. or by e-mail to pdr~nrc.gov. In'addition, the application can be viewed on the

Internet at htt :I/www.nrc.aovlreactorsloperatinallicensinalrenewal/a pplications/ano-2.html.

A paper copy of the document can be viewed at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint

North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 20852-2738, and at the Ross

Pendergraft Library at Arkansas Tech University, located at 305 West Q Street, Russellville,

Arkansas. 72801. Also, the GEIS assesses the scope and impact of environmental effects that

would be associated with license renewal at any nuclear power plant site. A copy of this

document can also be found on the NRC's website or at the NRC's PDR.

The NRC is gathering information for the document that will be a ANO-2 site-specific

supplement to the GEIS. The supplement will contain the results of the review of the

environmental impacts on the area surrounding the ANO site that are related to terrestrial

ecology, aquatic ecology, hydrology, cultural resources, and socioeconomic issues (among

others) and will contain a recommendation regarding the environmental acceptability of the

license renewal action.

Please submit any written comments the Choctaw Tribal Community may have to offer on the

scope of the environmental review by February 20, 2004. Comments should be submitted

either by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch. Division of Administrative Services,

Mail Stop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, or by

e-mail to ANOEIS~nrc.gov.

At the conclusion of the scoping process, the NRC staff will prepare a summary of the

significant issues identified, the conclusions reached, and will mail a copy to you.

The NRC will prepare a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for public

comment, and will hold another public meeting in the site vicinity to solicit comments on the

draft. A copy of the draft SEIS will be sent to you for your review and comment. After

consideration of public comments received on the draft, the NRC will prepare a final SEIS. The

issuance of a final environmental impact statement for ANO-2 is planned for April 2005. If you

April 2005 E-25 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix E

G. Pyle -3-

need additional information regarding the environmental review process, please contact

Thomas Kenyon, Environmental Project Manager, at (301) 415-1120.

Sincerely,

/RAI

Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director

License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket Nos.: 50-368

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-26 April 2005
Appendix E

I . _.. t * vCf .....

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE I National DOeanic and Atmospheric Administration

3.,-9-'/ NATIONAL MARINC FSHERIES SERVCE

ioutheast Regional Office

9721 Executive Center Drive North

St. Petersburg, FL 33702

(727) 570-5312. FAX 570-5517

DEC 17 2003 htto:caidera.scro~nmfs !OVC,.'. .

Dear Colfieiu~e:>

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) Protected Resources Division has reviewed

your letterpursuantto section 7(a)(2 ofthe Endangered Species Act (ESA) concemin r- sM tTr

?i4 f o~T;r t!Ve4r PLsnt'es ;i c 4drA ut iiitk etkJ~t4,-ie 6%, Arp~a .44."

_A1Aic e r .,.g#z ;g r . L;.-e5c, : n t Aed 7ec -a b / *Z.'s3.

- We cannot determine impacts to threatened or endangered species, or designated critical habitat,

under NOAA Fisheries' purview because the letter lacks sufficient information to evaluate the project

Enclosed are guidelines to conduct a proper biological evaluation.

-_As requested, enclosed Is a list of federally-protected species under the jurisdiction of NOAA

Fisheries for the state of _ Biological information on federally-protected sea turtles,

shortnose and gulrsturgeon, snmalltooth sawfish, and other listed species and candidate species can be

found at the following wcbsite addresses: NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office

(hmtr/kcaldera scro.nnifs gov/nrotect/protect.htm): NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources

(htrop fvm.nnmfs.noaa govlr rot res/prot res.htrnl); US. Fish and Wildlife Service

(etrp llnoflorida fws.grovNSeaTurtles.sesturtle-info htmIn htto l7vv1 w.turtles.or2:

httpl/www/scaturtle.org; htto:/talabama.fwvs.zov/r5s: httpltlendangered.fvs.govfwildlife.htznlSpecies;

the Ocean Conservancy (htto It/vwwv.cmc-ocean-oroimain.nhD3); the Caribbean Conservation

Corporation (httyn://vww.cccturtle.or t); Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Comrmnission

(litt:Ifloridseoniervation oritonsmturtlesiturtle.htm: htto-//obis.env.duke edutdata/sp orofiles.phy:

v.w.mote on-,olrns/Sa tishfSevfishforePaue html: wvw.floridasawfish.ecom

www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharksILnNewslsawprop.ht.L

Z t is NOAA Fisheries' opinion that the project will have no effect on listed species or critical

habitat protected by the ESA under NOAA Fisheries' purview. No further consultation with

NOAA Fisheries pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the ESA Is required. Consultation with NOAA

Fisheries, Habitat Conservation Division, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheiy Conservation and

Management Act's requirements for essential fish habitat consultation (16 U.S.C. 1855 (bX2) and 50

CFR 600.905-.930, subpart K), may be required. Please contact our Habitat Conservation Division at

(727)570-5317.

If you have any questions, please contact the ESA section 7 coordinator, Eric Hawk at (727) 570-5312, or by e-mail at eric.hawvVt&noaa.nov.

since 1:fr~ 6

Georgia Cranmore

Assistant Regional Administrator

for Protected Resources

Enclosure

Fike: 1514-22. M . JV~eO.fors'no-effect letter.wpd 11SERJ2003/ ot 5 B;o

/7- >xg- fz3

g r-e . /5,,. -13

6::'. -

April 2005 E-27 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix E

December 17.2003

Mr. Don Klima, Director

Office of Federal Agency Programs

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Old Post Office Building

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 809

Washington. DC 20004

SUBJECT: ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE UNIT 2 LICENSE RENEWAL REVIEW

Dear Mr. Klima:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application to renew the

operating license for Arkansas- Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2), which is located in Pope County,

Arkansas, approximately 6 miles west-northwest of Russellville, Arkansas. ANO-2 is operated

by Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). The application for renewal was submitted by Entergy

on October 15, 2003. pursuant to NRC requirements at Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations Part 54 (10 CFR Part 54). The NRC has established that, as part of the staff

review of any nuclear power plant license renewal action, a site-specific Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to its "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants' (GEIS), NUREG-1437, will be prepared pursuant to

10 CFR Part 51, the NRC regulations that implement the National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA of 1969. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8, the SEIS will include analyses of potential

impacts to historic properties. A draft SEIS is scheduled for publication in September of 2004,

and will be provided to you for review and comment.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the Environmental

Project Manager for the ANO-2 project, Mr. Thomas Kenyon at 301-415-1120 or

TJK20nrc aov.

Sincerely,

IRAN

Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director

License Renewal and Environmental Impacts

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No.: 50-368

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-28 April 2005
Appendix E

December 17, 2003

Mr. George McCluskey

Senior Archeologist

State Historic Preservation Office

323 Center Street. Suite 1500

Little Rock, AR 72201

SUBJECT: ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 2 LICENSE RENEWAL REVIEW

(AHPP TRACKING NUMBER 47149)

Dear Mr. McCluskey:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is reviewing an application to renew the

operating license for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2). which is located in Pope County,

Arkansas, approximately 6 miles northwest of Russellville, Arkansas. ANO-2 is operated by

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). The application for renewal was submitted by Entergy on

October 15, 2003, pursuant to NRC requirements at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

Part 54 (10 CFR Part 54). The NRC has established that, as part of the staff review of any

nuclear power plant license renewal action, a site-specific Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement (SEIS) to its Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of

Nuclear Plants" (GEIS), NUREG-1437, will be prepared under the provisions of

10 CFR Part 51, the NRC rules that implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA). In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8, the SEIS will include analyses of potential impacts

to historic and cultural resources.

In the context of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. as amended, the NRC staff has

determined that the area of potential effect (APE) for a license renewal action is the area at the

power plant site and its immediate environs that may be impacted by post-license renewal land

disturbing operations or projected refurbishment activities associated with the proposed action.

The APE may extend beyond the immediate environs in those instances where post-license

renewal land disturbing operations or projected refurbishment activities, specifically related to

license renewal, may potentially have an effect on known or proposed historic sites. This

determination is made irrespective of ownership or control of the lands of interest.

While preparing its application, Entergy contacted your office by letter dated October 4, 2002,

and your office responded on November 12, 2002. In its letter, Entergy stated that there are no

plans to alter current operations over the license renewal period. Entergy further stated that no

refurbishment, construction, or modification activities are planned for the purpose of license

renewal. Also, Entergy has an administrative procedure in place that requires an archeological

survey to be performed prior to any ground-disturbing activities on any previously undisturbed

areas of the ANO site.

April 2005 E-29 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix E

G. McCluskey 2

On February 3, 2004, the NRC will conduct two public NEPA scoping meetings at the Holiday

Inn. 2407 North Arkansas Avenue, Russellville, Arkansas 72802. You and your staff are invited

to attend. Your office will receive a copy of the draft SEIS along with a request for comments.

The anticipated publication date for the draft SEIS is September 2004. If you have any

questions or require additional information, please contact the Environmental Project Manager

for the ANO-2 license renewal project, Mr. Thomas Kenyon at 301-415-1120 or TJK2(bnrcov.

Sincerely,

/RAN

Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director

License Renewal and Environmental Impacts

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket Nos.: 50-368

Enclosure: As stated

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-30 April 2005
Appendix E

December 18,2003

Ms. LaRue Parker - -

Tribal Chairperson

Caddo Nation

P.O. Box 487

Binger, OK 73009

SUBJECT: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE

ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE; UNIT2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION

Dear Ms. Parker:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking input for its environmental review

of an application from Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) to renew its operating license for

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2), located in Pope County, Arkansas, approximately 6

miles west-northwest of Russellville, Arkansas. ANO-2 is in close proximity to lands that may

be of interest to the Caddo Nation. As described below, the NRC process includes an

opportunity for public participation in the environmental review. We want to ensure that you are

aware of our efforts and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.28(b), the NRC invites the Caddo Tribal

Community to provide input to the scoping process relating to the NRC's environmental review

of the application. In'addition, as outlined in 36 CFR 800.8. the NRC plans to coordinate

compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 through the

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

The NRC vwill hold public scoping meetings for the ANO-2 license renewal supplement to the

NRC's 'Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'

(GEIS) (NUREG-1437). These scoping meetings will be held at the Holiday Inn, 2407 North

Arkansas Avenue, Russellville, Arkansas 72802, on Tuesday, February 3. 2004. There will be

two sessions to accommodate interested parties. The first session will convene at 1:30 p.m.

and will continue until 4:30 p.m., as necessary. The second session will convene at 7:00 p.m.,

with a repeat of the overview portions of the meeting, and will continue until 10:00 p.m., as

necessary. Additionally, the NRC staff will host informal discussions one hour before the start

of each session. No formal comments on the proposed scope of the supplement to the GEIS

will be accepted during the informal discussions. To be considered, comments must be

provided either at the transcribed public meetings or in writing. The application and the

environmental review process are described below.

Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a nuclear power plant is issued for up

to 40 years. The license may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC requirements

are met. The current operating license for ANO-2 will expire in 2018. Entergy submitted an

environmental report as part of its application for renewal of the ANO-2 operating license on

April 2005 E-31 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix E

L. Parker -2-

October 15, 2003. The application is electronically available for inspection from the Publicly

Available Records component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management

System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible at httD://wIAwnrc.aov/readina-rrr/adams.htmi, which

provides access through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link. If you do not

have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,

contact the NRCs Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-(800)-397-4209,

(301) 415-4737. or by e-mail to pdr~nrc.gov. In addition, the application can be viewed on the

Internet at httpo:l/wv.nrc.pov/reactorsloperating/licensinplrenewal/applications/ano-2.html.

A paper copy of the document can be viewed at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint

North. 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 20852-2738, and at the Ross

Pendergraft Library at Arkansas Tech University. located at 305 West Q Street, Russellville,

Arkansas, 72801. Also, the GEIS assesses the scope and impact of environmental effects that

would be associated with license renewal at any nuclear power plant site. A copy of this

document can also be found on the NRC's website or at the NRC's PDR.

The NRC is gathering information for the document that will be a ANO-2 site-specific

supplement to the GEIS. The supplement will contain the results of the review of the

environmental impacts on the area surrounding the ANO site that are related to terrestrial

ecology, aquatic ecology, hydrology, cultural resources, and socioeconomic issues (among

others) and will contain a recommendation regarding the environmental acceptability of the

license renewal action.

Please submit any written comments the Caddo Tribal Community may have to offer on the

scope of the environmental review by February 20, 2004. Comments should be submitted

either by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services,

Mail Stop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington. D.C. 20555-0001, or by

e-mail to ANOEIS~nrc.gov.

At the conclusion of the scoping process, the NRC staff will prepare a summary of the

significant issues identified, the conclusions reached, and will mail a copy to you.

The NRC will prepare a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for public

comment, and will hold another public meeting in the site vicinity to solicit comments on the

draft. A copy of the draft SEIS will be sent to you for your review and comment. After

consideration of public comments received on the draft, the NRC will prepare a final SEIS. The

issuance of a final environmental impact statement for ANO-2 is planned for April 2005. If you

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-32 April 2005
Appendix E

L. Parker -3-

need additional information regarding the environmental review process, please contact

Thomas Kenyon, Environmental Project Manager, at (301) 415-1120.

Sincerely.

IRA!

Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director

License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No.: 50-368

April 2005 E-33 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix E

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

1500 Muq=a Rol.Szk lS05

Y(OOw yAtas72032

January 14,2004

Mr. Thomas Kenyon

Fnvironnmental Projcct Manager

l.icense Renewal and Frnvironmental Impacts

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555-001

Dear Mr. Kenyon:

The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information supplied with your letter

dated December 9, 2003 concerning the potential impacts of relicensing the Arkansas Nuclear

One Unit 2 (ANO-2), Pope county, Arkansas. Our comments are submitted in accordance with

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (87 Stat 884. as amended 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16U.S.C. 661-667e).

The endangered least tern (Sterna antIltrum) and the threatened bald eaglc (Hfiaiaeetus

Icucocephalus) are present in the vicinity of the project area. However, the proposed relicensing

of the existing plant is nut likely to impact any listed species.

The Service has become aware that a block net shad barrier is nonw being used on the entrance to

the intake canal during the fall and winter months. The detailed use and effects of this barrier

should be included in any environmental assessments andlor environmental impact statements

regarding ANJO operations. We believe this barrier may have both positive and negative effects

on the fishery. In addition to reducing temperature induced shad entrainment and impingement

the barrier may also prevent impingemcnt of other healthy species. However, the barrier appears

to prevent and/or discourage other species from entering the intake canal, which is valuable

fisheries habitat and a popular recreation fshing location for muchof the ycar. The Service

recommends the cstablishment of specific protocols for the deployment of the barrier only when

necessary to prevent increased temperature induced shad entrainment and impingerncut Water

temperature monitoring, meteorological data, and forecasts should provide sufficient indication

of water temperatures approaching and departing shad thermal intolerances. Limiting shad

barrier use by having deployment coincide with these water tempcratures will maintain habitat

availability and recreational use to the maximumn extent, while maintaining ANO's ability to

reduce shad impingement when necessary. Fisheries and recreational use of the intake canal

have historically been reduced during the winter and for this reason along with the benefits to

s , { * . ' .; ;!. 

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-34 April 2005
Appendix E

ANO operations, the Scrvice believes that the tsc oflthe barrier when necessary will have limited

effects on fisheries or recreation. -

Further, the Service is avare that security barriers have bcen placed in the Intake and effluent

canals restricting access and recreational use. Tlese restrictions and the efrects of these barriers

on the fisheries and recreation access should be included in any environmental assessmrnts

andfor environmental impact statements regarding ANO operations. Th1cs arcas provide high

quality habitat and water conditions that attract high densities of fish seasonally and thcrefore

these areas and the adjacent waters have been and and continue lo be popular recreational fishing

rtcas. The Service recommends documenting the loss orthesc valuable recreational uses and the

benerits orcreating a fsheries refugla. By restricting access to these areas ANO is providing

high quality habitat refugia for fish by limiting take or harassment from recreational fishing to

adjacent arcas. In the past the dense fish concentrations In these areas have resulted In high

levels of take. Limiting take will improve the quttity'nnd quantityofth1e fisheries and_ _

reatidl fishmg~ ini Ljak Dardandlle as a whole annua15y and in the long terra. lht Service

recommrends coordinating with the Arkansas Gamne and Fish Comm~ission atnd/or other fisheries

researchers to examine the clfects of these changes on the fisheries in Lake Dardanelle.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.

Sincerely,

Margaret Hamey

Acting Field Supervisor

cc:

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas

Attr: Bob Leonard

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas

Attn: Cindy Osborne

April 2005 E-35 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix E

United Keetoowah Band

P.O. Box 746 * Tahlequali, Oklahoma 74465

Phone:(918)456.8698 * Fax: (918) 456-9877 i

i CZ ?C ri

,2003 7 0

uo, Program Director -newal .nA Fnvnmental T '

I "

;-

?I

kes

:r

F-7

C1

0?

January 15

Pao-Tsin 1

Administration T ;u.c. 1g

Dallas Proctor

Cbief

Stephen 'Archie' Mouse

Assistant chier

Ernestine Be"ty

Secretary

Julie Moss

Treasurer

Council

Eddie Sacks

Canadian District

Cliff WofTord

Cooweescoowce District

Adalene Smith

Dclaware District

Frank Swimmer

Flint District

Charles B. Dcason

Goingsnakc District

Linda Morris

Illinois District

Division of Regulatory Compliance

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

* Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

Dear Director Kuo:

Thank you for notifying the United Keetoowvah Band of Cherokee Indians

about Entergy Operations, Inc.'s application for the renewval of the operating

license for Arkansas Nuclear One Unit. We have no comment at this time, but

reserve the right for future comment. Please keep us informed about this

project.

Sincerely,

Summer R. King

Environmental Technician

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians

P.O. Box 457

Park Hill, OK 74451

Phone: (918) 453-2823

Fax: (918) 453-2838 * '. - -

Email: UKBenvtecheyahoo.com

Betty Mouse

Saline District

Henry Dreadrulwater

Sequoyah District

Betty Holcomb

Tahlequah District

,6-2-$S 4? -e3

C e6 =12%C (TKM)

<<R4.-o e- -( &Skh fFinal NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-36 April 2005
Appendix E

ADEQ

A R K A N S A S

Department of Environmental Cuafity

January 30,2004 v76"'e j~//

RECEIVED

2fq FED 12 III 8& Iq

Rules and Direczives

Branch

USN'RC

Chief, Rules and Directives Branch

Division of Administrative Services

Office of Administration. Majlstop T-6D59

U.S: Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

RE: NOI to Prepare EIS and Conduct Scoping Process for License Renewal for

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, Pope County. Arkansas

Dear Chief:

The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has reviewed the

information submitted on the referenced projecL

We have no comments at this time.

If you have any questions, please contact Audree Miller at 501-682-0015.

Sincerely.

Sandi Formica

Chief, Environmental Preservation Division

SF:MVE:AM:am

cc Mary Leath. Chief Deputy Director .. -

Martin Maner, Water Division -

Dennis Green, Hazardous Waste Division

Dick Cassat. Technical Services Division ,seZD7y!_ ='9Z)A4D

ARKNS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALrrY 7 800I NATIONALDRIE / POSTOFFrICEBOX893 / LTWROCARJ2A572219.8913 / TELEPHONE501l682-0744 I FAX501-682-079 X '-deq.s0devrxs w' Z

April 2005 E-37 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix E

June 8. 2004

Ms. Margaret Harney

Senior Field Biologist

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office

1500 Museum Road, Suite 105

Conway, AR 72032

SUBJECT: BIOLOGICALASSESSMENT FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF ARKANSAS

NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 2. AND A REQUEST FOR INFORMAL CONSULTATION

(TAC NO. MB8405)

Dear Ms. Hamey:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared the enclosed biological

assessment (BA) to evaluate whether the proposed renewal of the operating license for

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2) for an additional 20 years would have adverse effects

on listed species. The proposed action (license renewal) is not a major construction activity.

ANO-2 is located on Lake Dardanelle, upstream of the Dardanelle Lock and Dam on the

Arkansas River at river mile 205.5.

By letter dated December 9, 2003, the NRC requested a list of Federally threatened or

endangered species that may be in the vicinity of ANO-2 and its associated transmission lines.

In a letter dated January 14. 2004. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) provided a list of

Federally listed species. The FWS identified one threatened species, the bald eagle

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and one endangered species, the least tern (Sterna antillarum), as

being present in the vicinity of the project area, but stated that the ANO-2 license renewal is not

likely to impact any listed species.

The NRC, for documentation purposes, has included all species mentioned in the ANO-2

Environmental Report in the enclosed BA. The NRC included, in addition to the

aforementioned species, the gray bat (Myotis gnsescens) and the Arkansas River shiner

(Notropis girardi). This BA provides an evaluation of the potential impact of relicensing ANO-2

for an additional 20 years of operation on the four listed species (Table 1 of enclosed BA).

The NRC has determined that the proposed action will have no effect on gray bats (Myotis

grisescens). bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), least terns (Sterna antillarum), and

Arkansas River shiners (Notropis girardi). No critical habitat has been designated in Arkansas

for these four listed species.

We are placing this BA in our project files and are requesting your concurrence with our

determination. In reaching our conclusion, the NRC staff relied on information provided by the

licensee, on research performed by NRC staff, and information from FWS (i.e., including

information provided by the FWS. Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office).

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-38 April 2005
Appendix E

M. Harney 2

If you have any questions regarding this BA or the staff's request, please contact

Mr. Thomas Kenyon. Senior Environmental Project Manager, at (301) 415-1120.

Sincerely,

IRA/

Pao-Tsin Kuo. Program Director

License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programrs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No.: 50-368

Enclosure: Biological Assessment

April 2005 E-39 A 0Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix E

Biological Assessment

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2

License Renewal Review

Pope County, Arkansas

May 2004

Docket No. 368

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Rockville, Maryland

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-40 April 2005
Appendix E

Biological Assessment

-Evaluation of the Potential Effects on

Endangered or Threatened Species from the

Proposed License Renewal for the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2

Setting

The proposed license renewal will apply to the facilities at the she of Arkansas Nuclear One,

Unit 2 (ANO-2) located near Interstate Highway 40 (1-40) on a peninsula formed by Lake

Dardanelle in southwestern Pope County, Arkansas (Figure 1). The site is located approximately 109 km (68 mi) east of Fort Smith, Arkansas, and about 91 km (57 mi) northwest of

Little Rock, Arkansas (Figure 2).

The ANO-2 site is located about 9.5 km (6 mi) upstream from Dardanelle Dam on Lake

Dardanelle. Lake Dardanelle, a run-of-the-river impoundment, is part of the Arkansas River and

is 80 km (50 mi) long. The lake was created as part of the multi-purpose project for improvement of the Arkansas River by the construction of the Dardanelle Lock and Dam. The

Dardanelle Lock and Dam facilitate navigation on the river and provide for generation of

hydroelectric power as well as recreation and fish and wildlife resources. The lake was one of

17 impoundments built along the Arkansas River to provide a 724-km (450-mi) navigable

channel from the Mississippi River to Catoosa, Oklahoma. Lake Dardanelle is more than 18 m

(60 ft) deep at its lower end, and its average depth is 3 m (10 ft). The lake has a surface area of

approximately 14,975 ha (3700 ac) and a storage capacity of 6 x 10" m3 (486,000 ac-ft). The

Arkansas River navigation channel is about 2.2 km (1.4 mi) south of the ANO-2 reactor building.

The site is located on a 3.2-km-wide and 3.2-km-long (2-mi-wide and 2-mi-long) peninsula. The

peninsula elevation varies from 122 to 150 m (400 to 500 ft). The land around the site is mostly

maintained meadow, and outside the property line, it is mostly forest, with the remaining land

use being pasture and residential development. The site drains naturally, and surface runoff is

collected in storm water drains, the intake canal, and the emergency cooling pond from which it

is discharged to Lake Dardanelle. The average annual rainfall at the site is approximately

124 cm (49 in.).

North of the she, the land gradually ascends in elevation to 305 m (1000 ft) and then continues

to ascend to the Boston Mountains, which have a maximum elevation of 823 m (2700 ft). The

Arkansas River flows along the base of the Boston Mountains. A range of hills lies directly

across the Arkansas River and south and west of the site. Mount Nebo, at an elevation of

573 m (1880 ft). is 40 km (25 mi) directly south of the site. Magazine Mountain, southwest of

May 2004 1

April 2005 - E-41 iFinal NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix E

Bidlogical Assessment

London1

,, . y /g ,Gf . . "o'",'

Cooling Twer |

0/ .

41,,

t''h't- -Sge '_'t.i"' a £ -;';'.

t- - ) _ ;\ * _/ _ -- /.. f f'f~-^

Lake-. , 4J / 

Dardanele K., Approximate

. S , ,.-PropertyLine /.7"

. -

;>- -^-f q-4 (*;- 1:-

Figure 1. Arkansas Nudear One. Unit 2 Site Map

2 May 2004

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-42 April 2005
Appendix E

Biological Assessment

Figure 2. Location of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 and its Transmission Line

May 2004 3

April 2005 E-43 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix E

Biological Assessment

the site at an elevation of 927 m (3042 ft), is the highest point in Arkansas. The land east and

south of the site is moderately level, but is interspersed with rolling hills and covered with

woods.

The geology around the ANO-2 site is mostly clay with underlying bedrock. Under the site is a

4- to 7-m (13- to 24-ft)-deep layer of heavy clay or silty clay that rests on horizontally laid hard

shale and sandstone of the McAlester formation. The nearest geological faults are 4 to 8 km

(2.5 to 5.0 mi) from the site and have not been active for more than 65 million years. After

intermittent submergence by relatively shallow seas during most of the Paleozoic Periods, the

late Mississippian time opened dramatic episodes of ocean-trough development and thick

sedimentary and volcanic depositions. This period was followed by late Pennsylvanian

mountain-folding and faulting, which caused the bedrock features seen today. The bedrock

under the site is part of a large syncline, known as the Scranton syncline, which lies in an east

and west direction (AEC 1973).

ANO-2 is connected to the electric grid by a 500-kV. single-circuit transmission line that is

approximately 146-km (91-mi) long (Figure 1). The transmission line extends from the existing

ANO-2 500-kV station switchyard southeasterly via the Mayflower substation (southwest of

Mayflower. Arkansas) and terminates at the Mabelvale substation (southwest of Little Rock,

Arkansas). Throughout its length, the transmission line rights-of-way are 55 m (180 ft) wide

(NRC 2001), encompass 730 ha (1804 ac), and crosses land that consists of rural property,

forestland, and to a limited degree, agricultural and timber production operations (Entergy

2003a). The transmission line rights-of-way do not cross State or Federal parks, wildlife

refuges, or wildlife management areas (Entergy 2003a). No critical habitat has been designated

in Arkansas for any of the Federally listed species known to or that may occur in the vicinity of

the ANO-2 site and its transmission line rights-of-way (FWS 2004a).

Proposed Action

The proposed action is the renewal of the operating license (OL) for ANO-2. Entergy

Operations, Inc. (Entergy) operates Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 (ANO-1) and 2. under OLs

DPR-51 and NPF-6, issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Entergy, an

operating subsidiary of the Entergy Corporation, holds the licenses for these units. The OL for

ANO-1 was already renewed for an additional 20 years, and now will expire in 2034. The OL for

ANO-2 will expire in July 2018. Therefore, on October 15. 2003, Entergy submitted an

application to the NRC to renew the ANO-2 OL for an additional 20 years of operation until

July 17, 2038.

ANO-2 is a pressurized water reactor designed by Combustion Engineering, with a maximum

reactor core power level output of 3026 megawatts thermal (MWt) and 1048 megawatts electric

(MWe). Plant cooling is provided by a closed-cycle cooling system equipped with a natural-draft

4 May 2004

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-44 April 2005
Appendix E

Biological Assessment

cooling tower that dissipates heat primarily to the atmosphere. After moving through the

condenser, circulating water rejects waste heat to the atmosphere through the natural-draft

cooling tower. Remaining waste heat is discharged in the form of blowdown from the circulating

water system to a 158-m (520-ft)-long canal discharging into Lake Dardanelle. This blowdown

is mixed with the ANO-1 circulating water system discharge. For the ANO-2 service water

system, water is drawn from Lake Dardanelle through a 1341-m (4400-ft)-long canal to the

ANO-2 intake structure at an average rate of approximately 1009 Usec (16,000 gpm) (NRC

1977).

The extension of the icense term will result in'continued operafion and maintenance of the

nuclear power reactor, the cooling water intake, and discharge structures and canals, cooling

tower, and support facilities at the plant site. No changes are expected in terms of ecological or

environmental impacts to current operations. 'In addition, renewal of the OL is not anticipated to

require any significant new construction at the site or modification of existing terrestrial or

aquatic habitats.

Vegetation management along the ANO-2 transmission line rights-of-way, which consists of

mechanical and manual clearing only, will continue during the renewal period. No herbicides

are used along the rights-of-way. Mechanical clearing employs tractors with mowing and treecutting-equipment in the open areas of the rights-of-way, while manual clearing Involves cutting

trees around poles, down guys, anchor rods, and structure legs and foundations, and at fences

and road crossings. Hazard trees (trees that pose an immediate threat to line reliability

because they are leaning toward the line or p'tentially could fall on the line because of

advanced soil erosion) outside the rights-of-way'are also removed or topped. Semiannually, an

aerial survey of the transmission line rights-of-way is performed to identify issues that would

cause potential operational problems (e.g., erosion, vegetation control, equipment maintenance)

(Entergy 2003a,2003c). -

The staff has determined that it would consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as

part of Its review of the proposed action. Consultation with FWS was initiated by Entergy on

September 17, 2002 (FTN 2002a), and by the NRC on December 9, 2003 (NRC 2003), with

letters requesting information about the presence of Federally listed threatened or endangered

species on and in the vicinity of the ANO-2 site and its transmission line. FWS responded to

Entergy on December 20,2002, identifying the endangered interior population of the least tern

(Sterna antillarum) as occurring along portions of the Arkansas River and the threatened

Arkansas River shiner (Notropis girardi) as having had an historic occurrence in the river (FWS

2002). FWS concurrently concluded that no threatened or endangered species had been:

observed in the vicinity of the ANO-2 site and its transmission line rights-of-way (FWS 2002). In

contrast, FWS responded to NRC on January 14, 2004, identifying the least tern and the

threatened bald eagle (Haflaeetus leucocephalus) as present in the vicinity of the ANO-2 site

and its transmission line (FWS 2004a). FWS concurrently concluded that no threatened or

May 2004 5

April 2005 -E-45 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix E

Biological Assessment

endangered species would be likely to be impacted by continued operation of ANO-2 during the

license renewal term (FWS 2004a). Consultation with NOAA indicated that they had no listed

species or critical habitat in their purview associated with ANO-2 (NOAA 2003). In addition to

these three Federally listed species, the Entergy Environmental Report identified the

endangered gray bat (Myotis grisescens) as occurring in the vicinity of the ANO-2 site and its

transmission line (Entergy 2003a). No critical habitat has been designated for any of the above

three Federally listed terrestrial species (FWS 2004b). Critical habitat has been designated for

the Arkansas River shiner, but not in the state of Arkansas (FWS 2004b).

Consultation with the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC) (FTN 2002b) and

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) (FTN 2002c) was initiated by Entergy in

September 2002 with letters requesting information about the presence of State-listed species

on and in the vicinity of the ANO-2 site and its transmission line. No State-listed species were

identified by either the ANHC (ANHC 2002) or AGFC (AGFC 2003) as occurring on or in the

vicinity of the ANO-2 site or its transmission line rights-of-way.

Species Evaluated

The only Federally listed terrestrial species protected under the Endangered Species Act known

to occur in the vicinity of the ANO-2 site and its transmission line rights-of-way are the least tern

(interior population only) (FWS 2002; 2004b, c). bald eagle (Entergy 2003a; FWS 2004a), and

gray bat (Entergy 2003a) (Table 1). No critical habitat has been designated for any of these

Table 1. Species Listed as Endangered or Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act

that have been Reported to Occur Within Pope County, Arkansas, and the Arkansas

River

Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status Determination

Birds

Sterna antillarurn least tern Endangered No Effect or Not

Likely to Affect

Haliaeetus leuocephalus bald eagle Threatened No Effect or Not

Likely to Affect

Mammals

Myotis gnisescens gray bat Endangered No Effect or Not

Likely to Affect

Fish

Notropis girardi Arkansas River Threatened No Effect or Not

shiner Likely to Affect

Source: (http:llecos.fws.qovitess publiidTESSWebpageVipListed?code=V&Itstings=O) as of May 11, 2004.

6 May 2004

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-46 April 2005
Appendix E

Biological Assessment

Federally listed terrestrial species (FWS 2004a). No Federally listed plant species are known to

occur in the vicinity of the ANO-2 site or its transmission line rights-of-way (Entergy 2003a; FWS

2002, 2004b). The Federally protected Arkansas River shiner is known to occur along portions

of the Arkansas River. However, none have been observed in the vicinity of ANO-2 or the

transmission line rights-of-way. Critical habitat has not been designated in Arkansas by the

FWS or the AGFC for these species (FWS 2004d).

List of Species

There are no species currently proposed for formal listing or considered candidates for listing in

the vicinity. The NRC has determined that the proposed action will either have no effect or will

be not likely to adversely affect the endangered or threatened species in the vicinity of the ANO2 plant and associated transmission line rights-of-way (Table 1). The basis for the

determinations for each species in the vicinity of the plant site and transmission corridor is

discussed in the following paragraphs.

1. Myotis grisescens, gray bat

The gray bat is a medium-sized bat with gray or chestnut-brown fur. The species was listed as

Federally endangered in 1976 throughout its range by FWS (Storming Media 2004), primarily

because of human and environmental disturbances and impoundment of waterways. Gray bats

are year-round cave residents but migrate between caves in wintering and summering areas of

the Midwestern and southeastern United States. Populations are mainly concentrated in

Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky.

The gray bat is known to occur near ANO-2,'where it resides in caves upstream of the

Dardanelle Lock and Dam. However, these caves are 16 km (10 mi) from ANO-2 and 3.6 km

(2 mi) from the transmission line rights-of-way (NRC 2001). None have been observed in the

vicinity of ANO-2 or the transmission line rights-of-way. Therefore. NRC has determined that

the proposed action will have either have no effect or will not be likely to adversely affect gray

bats.

2. Hafaeetus feucocephalus, bald eagle

Arkansas ranks in the top 10 states in the nuumber of winter bald eagle sightings (AGFC 2004).

More than 1000 bald eagles are counted each winter, nearly triple the 368 recorded in 1979. -

Bald eagles are winter transients to the Lake Dardanelle area, where birds forage during colder

periods of the winter months. Eagles have been sighted flying near-the ANO-2 site, but there

are no reports of eagles on the site. Nest sites have been reported at several localities on Lake

Dardanelle, but none are within 16 km (10 mi) of ANO-2 or within the transmission line

May 2004 7

April 2005 E-47 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix E

Biological Assessment

rights-of-way. Therefore, NRC has determined that the proposed action will have either no

effect or will not be likely to adversely affect bald eagles.

3. Sterna antillarum, least tern

The interior least tern is a small white bird with grayish back and wings (FWS 2004c). The

species is distinguished by the combination of a black crown, white forehead, and black-tipped

yellow bill. Interior least terns are present in the Arkansas and Red rivers from April through

August. They nest in small colonies on exposed salt flats, reservoir beaches, and river

sandbars along most of the larger rivers. Nests are small scrapes in the sand with 2 to 3 eggs

laid in a clutch. The young are fairly mobile soon after hatching, and both parents feed and

remain with the young until fall migration. They feed mostly on small fish. Major threats include

predation, human disturbance, and the construction and operation of main stem reservoirs.

For habitat, the species requires sandbar conditions that include very low vegetation cover and

protection from predators and flooding. These conditions are not present within the site area.

The interior least tern breeds on sandbars in the Arkansas River near Atkins and Clarksville

(about 35 and 39 river-km [22 and 24 river-mn up- and downstream, respectively, from the

ANO-2 site [Figure 1D. These nesting locations are beyond a 16-km (10-mi) radius from ANO-2

and its transmission line rights-of-way. Therefore, NRC has determined that the proposed

action will have either no effect or will not be likely to adversely affect interior least terns.

4. Notropis girardi, Arkansas River shiner

This small (usually less than 5 cm 12 in.]) shiner is straw-colored with silvery sides. Scattered

brown flecks occur on its sides behind the head. The anal fin has 8 rays compared to 7 on

other shiner species found in the same habitat. This fish inhabits the main channels of sandy

rivers, especially those with highly variable flows, high water temperatures and dissolved solids.

During the past 20 to 30 years their abundance and distribution has declined markedly, possibly

due to flow modification (USDA 2004).

The Arkansas River shiner formerly occurred throughout the main stem and in the major right

bank (southern) tributary basins of the Arkansas River (Kansas Wildlife and Parks 2004). The

fish is extremely dependent on flood flows from June through August to successfully spawn.

Declining stream flows have now restricted its probable range to a few stream reaches in

Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas (over 290 km [180 mi] from the ANO-2 site). The fish occurs in

the upper reaches of the Cimarron River only during high stream flow events.

Designated critical habitat for the Arkansas River shiner does not occur in Arkansas (FWS

2004d). Therefore, NRC has determined that the proposed action will have either no effect or

will not be likely to adversely affect Arkansas River shiners.

8 May 2004

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-48 April 2005
Appendix E

Biological Assessment

Conclusions

The only Federally listed terrestrial species protected under the Endangered Species Act that

are known to or may occur in the vicinity of the ANO-2 site and its transmission line rights-ofway are the least tern, bald eagle, and gray bat. No critical habitat has been designated for any

of these Federally listed terrestrial species. No Federally listed plant species are known to

occur in the vicinity of the ANO-2 site or its transmission line rights-of-way. The Federally

protected Arkansas River shiner is known to occur along portions of the Arkansas River.

However, none have been observed in the vicinity of ANO-2 or its transmission line rights-ofway. Critical habitat has not been designated in Arkansas by FWS or AGFC for these species.

There are no species currently proposed for formal listing or considered candidates for listing in

the vicinity of ANO-2. NRC has determined that the proposed action will either have no effect or

will not be likely to adversely affect the'endanrgered or threatened species in the vicinity of ANO2 and its transmission line rights-of-way.

References

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC). 2003. Letter from R. Leonard (AGFC River

Basin Division) to G. Tucker (FTN Associates, LTD). February 7,2003.

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC). 2004. 'Threatened and Endangered Species."

Accessed on the Internet May 9,2004. at

http:.lwww.agfc.com/critterslendangered speciesp3.html#Eagle

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC). 2002. Letter from C. Osbome (ANHC Data

Manager) to G. Tucker (FTN Associates, LTD). October 4,2002.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2003a. Applicant's EnvironmentaiRepod- Operating

License Renewal Stage Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 2. Russeliville, Arkansas.

Entergy Operations. Inc (Entergy). 2003c. Specification #4, Transmission Line Corridors,

'Mechanical Re-Clearing." October 2003.

FTN Associates. Ltd. (FTN). 2002a. Letter from G. Tucker (FTN) to M. Harney (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service), dated September 17.2002.

FTN Associates, Ltd. (FTN). 2002b. Letter from G. Tucker (FTN) to C. Osborne (Arkansas

Natural History Commission Data Manager), dated September 17. 2002.

FTN Associates, Ltd. (FTN). 2002c. Letter from G. Tucker (FTN) to C. Uyeda (AGFC River

Basin Division). dated September 16, 2002.

May 2004 9

April 2005 E-49 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
1.

Appendix E

Biological Assessment

Kansas Wildlife and Parks. 2004. 'Arkansas River Shiner." Accessed on the Internet May 9,

2004, at httpilwww.kdwp.state.ks.us/PDF/EnvSrvs/TEFish/arkrivershiner.pdf

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2003. Letter from G. Cranmore

(NOAA Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources) to NRC, dated December 17,

2003.

Storming Media. 2004. 'Gray Bat (Myotis gnrsescens) on Military Installations in the

Southeastern United States." Accessed on the Internet May 9. 2004, at

httpl/www.stormingmedia.usl2212232/A223243.html

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2. Arkansas Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-313,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2002. Letter from A. Mueller (FWS Field Supervisor) to

Gary Tucker (FTN Associates, Ltd), dated December 20. 2002.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004a. 'Threatened and Endangered Species System."

Accessed on the Internet March 30. 2004. at http:i/ecos.fws.gov/tesspublic/TESSWebpage

(updated daily)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004b. Letter from M. Hamey (FWS Acting Field

Supervisor) to T. Kenyon (NRC Environmental Project Manager), dated January 14, 2004.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004c. "Arkansas Red Rivers Ecosystem, Endangered

Species." Accessed on the Internet May 9, 2004, at

httpJ/endangered.fws.gov/redriver.html#lnkO1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004d. 'Arkansas River Shiner." Accessed on the

Internet May 9. 2004, at http:/ifw2es.fws.gov/Oklahomalshiner.htm

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Oklahoma District (USDA). 2004. 'National

Forest Lands in Oklahoma. The Endangered Species in Eastern Oklahoma." Accessed on the

Internet May 19, 2004. at http:/lvww.fs.fed.usloonf/oklahomalplanlendanger.html

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. FinalEnvironmentalStatementRelatedto

Operation of Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2. Arkansas Power and Light Company. Docket

No. 50-368, Washington. D.C.

10 May 2004

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-50 April 2005
Appendix E

Biological Assessment

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

forLicense RenewalofNuclearPlant, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1. NUREG-1437,

Supplement 3. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. Letter from T. Kenyon (NRC

Environmental Project Manager) to M. Harney (FWS Senior Field Biologist), dated December 9,

2003.

May 2004 11

April 2005 E-51 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix E

N UPLYMMtZ1

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERViCE

1500 Manum Road. Suke 105

Conay, Arkaas72032

June 29,2004

Dr. Pao-Tsin Kuo

Program Director

License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program

Office of Nuclear.Reactor Regulation

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

Dear Dr. Kuo:

The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Biological Assessment for

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, Pope County, Arkansas (Docket No. 50-368) supplied

with your letter dated Juno 8, 2004. Our cornments are subrnittcd in accordance with the

Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

The Service concurs with the conclusions ofthe Biological Assessment that the proposed

license renewal would have no effect on any. federally endangered or threatencd specics.

Ve appreciate the opportunity to provide thes cdmP ents.

Sinceelyj

Margaret Harney

-,Acting-Field Supervisor

-*,. , '.ri . , : ;. .* . .~ */:.. .2 .&e

.a * - .3.; *et.r.!X ' LI ; . (.*.-*. ,j jde*f ** i3 {F '

-! 1.;, * !t.S f. r: .* ±r ,'4 '' .... .:'';'''i! ; ')-!4: . :- :'- '

I; * -- ... ..'-.1111 T'I * el1I8-: I I 'VCV.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 E-52 April 2005
Appendix E

_ _ £ntrdf Operadons. Inc. Entergy I

ft$.ftib.AR 7

2CAN070403

Jufy 15.2004

U.S. Nudear Regulatory Commisason

Attn: Docurnert Control Desk

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject Clarification of a Request for Additional Irformation Response for Enviromnental Repot TAC No. MBS405

Arkansas Nuclear One - Unk 2

Docket No. 50.368

Ucense No. NPF-6

Dear Sir or Madam:

By ltter dated Aprit 23.2004 (2CAN040402), Entergy proded responses to NRC requests

for aWddonat honnation (RAls) an the Arkasas MNclear One. Unit 2 (ANO-2) Liense

RenewalApprlcation Environmental Report. The responses to the RAls were related to the severe acddern nitgation dseraivs (SAMAs). In a elebconference on June 15, 2004, the

Staff requested a cdar~ication to RAI 7. The cauification to RAI 7 Is contained in the

attachment

There are no new cornnfftents contained hI Nhis subnittal. Should you have any questions concering this submittal, please contac Ms. Nsal4 Mosher at (479) 858-e35.

I declare under penalty of pejury that tew foregoing Is tVUe and correct Executed on

July 15. 2004.

G.Mitdtief

etor. Nucear Safety Assurarne

TGWnbm

Attachmern

April 2005 E-53 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix F

GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable

to Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2
Appendix F

GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable

to Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2

Table F-1 lists those environmental issues listed in the Generic Environmental Impact

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) (NRC 1996, 1 999)(a) and Title 10 of

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 that are not

applicable to Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2), because of plant or site characteristics.

Table F-1. GEIS Environmental Issues Not Applicable to Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2

ISSUE -10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS

Appendix B, Table B-1 Category Sections Comment

SURFACE WATER QUALITY, HYDROLOGY, AND USE (FOR ALL PLANTS)

Altered salinity gradients 1 4.2.1.2.2 The ANO cooling system does

- 4.4.2.2 not discharge to an estuary.-

Water-use conflicts (plants with once- 1 - 4.2.1.3 ANO-2 uses a cooling tower -

through cooling systems) rather than once-through

cooling.

AQUATiC ECOLOGY

(FOR PLANTS WITH ONCE-THROUGH AND COOLING POND HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEMS)

Entrainment of fish and shellfish in 2 4.2.2.1.2 This issue is related to heatearly life stages 4.4.3 dissipation systems that are not

installed at ANO-2.

Impingement of fish and shellfish 2 4.2.2.1.3 This issue is related to heat4.4.3 dissipation systems that are not

installed at ANO-2.

Heat shock 2 4.2.2.1.4 This issue is related to heat4.4.3 dissipation systems that are not

installed at ANO-2.

GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY

Groundwater use conflicts (potable 2 - 4.8.1.1 ANO-2 uses <100 gpm ofand service water, and dewatering; -4.8.2.1 groundwater.

plants that use >100 gpm)

-

(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all

references to the "GEIS' include the GEIS and its Addendum 1.

April 2005 F-1 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix F

Table F-1. (contd)

ISSUE - 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, GEIS

Appendix B, Table B-1 Category Sections Comment

GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY (CONTD)

Groundwater-use conflicts (Ranney 2 4.8.1.4 ANO-2 does not have or use

wells) Ranney wells.

Groundwater quality degradation 1 4.8.2.2 ANO-2 does not have or use

(Ranney wells) Ranney wells.

Groundwater quality degradation 1 4.8.2.1 Not applicable due to the

(saltwater intrusion) location of ANO-2.

Groundwater quality degradation 1 4.8.3 Not applicable due the location

(cooling ponds in salt marshes) of ANO-2.

Groundwater quality degradation 2 4.8.3 ANO-2 does not use a cooling (cooling ponds at inland sites) pond heat dissipation system.

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial 1 4.4.4 This issue is related to a heatresources dissipation system that is not

installed at ANO-2.

F.1 References

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. 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.

NUREG-1 437, Volume 1, Addendum 1, Washington, D.C.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 F-2 April 2005
Appendix G

NRC Staff Evaluation of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 in Support of

License Renewal Application
Appendix G

NRC Staff Evaluation of Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

for Arkansas Nuclear One,, Unit 2 in Support of

License Renewal Application

G.1 Introduction

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) submitted an assessment of severe accident mitigation

alternatives (SAMAs) for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2) as part of its Environmental

Report (ER) (Entergy'2003). This assessment was based on the most recent ANO-2

Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) available at that time, a plant-specific offsite

consequence analysis performed using the MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 2

(MACCS2) computer program, and insights from the ANO-2 Individual Plant Examination (IPE)

(Entergy 1992) and Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) (Entergy 1996). In

identifying and evaluating potential SAMAs, Entergy considered SAMA analyses performed for

other operating plants that have submitted license renewal applications, as well as industry and

NRC documents that discuss potential plant improvements, such as NUREG-1560 (NRC

1997a). Entergy identified 192 potential SAMA candidates. This list was reduced to 93 unique

SAMA candidates by eliminating SAMAs that were not applicable to ANO-2 because of design

differences, had already been implemented, or were similar in nature and could be combined

with another SAMA. Entergy assessed the' costs and benefits associated with each of the

remaining SAMAs and concluded in the ER that none of the candidate SAMAs evaluated would

be cost-beneficial for ANO-2.

Based on a review of the SAMA assessment,- the NRC issued a request for additional

information (RAI) to Entergy by letter dated February 24, 2004 (NRC 2004). Key questions

concerned dominant risk contributors at ANO-2 and the SAMAs that address these contributors,

the potential impact of external event initiators and uncertainties on the assessment results, and

detailed information on some specific candidate' SAMAs. Entergy submitted additional information by letters'dated April 23, 2004 (Entergy 2004a), and July 15, 2004 (Entergy 2004b),

including summaries of peer review comments arid their impact on the SAMA analysis, a

breakout of the internal events core damage frequency (CDF) by major contributor, importance

measures, and more realistic estimates of the benefits and implementation costs for several

SAMAs that appeared to be cost-beneficial based on a revised screening.' Entergy's responses

addressed the staff's concerns.

Based on its review, the staff concluded that the contribution to risk from fire events could be

higher than assumed in Entergy's SAMA analysis. The staff adjusted Entergy's risk reduction

April 2005 G-1 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix G

estimates to account for a higher contribution to risk (and risk reduction) from fire events and

found that two of the candidate SAMAs would be cost-beneficial and two additional SAMAs are

close to being cost-beneficial. However, none of these SAMAs relate to adequately managing

the effects of aging during the period of extended operation and, therefore, need not be

implemented as part of license renewal pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR) Part 54.

An assessment of SAMAs for ANO-2 is presented below.

G.2 Estimate of Risk for ANO-2

Entergy's estimates of offsite risk at ANO-2 are summarized in Section G.2.1. The summary is

followed by the staff's review of Entergy's risk estimates in Section G.2.2.

G.2.1 Entergy's Risk Estimates

Two distinct analyses are combined to form the basis for the risk estimates used in the SAMA

analysis: (1) the ANO-2 PSA model, and (2) a supplemental analysis of offsite consequences

and economic impacts (essentially a Level 3 PRA model) developed specifically for the SAMA

analysis. The SAMA analysis is based on the most recent PSA model available (referred to as

Revision 3p2) at the time the ER was produced. It contains a Level 1. analysis to determine the

CDF from internally initiated events and a Level 2 analysis to assess containment performance

during severe accidents. The scope of the ANO-2 PSA does not include external events.

The baseline CDF for the purpose of the SAMA evaluation is approximately 7.2 x 10 6 per year,

and is based on the risk assessment for internally-initiated events. Entergy did not include the

contribution to risk from external events within the ANO-2 risk estimates; however, it did

account for the potential risk reduction benefits associated with external events by doubling the

estimated benefits for internal events. This is discussed further in Section G.6.2.

The breakdown of CDF by initiating event is provided in Table G-1. As shown in this table,

transients and small break loss of coolant accidents (LOCAs) are dominant contributors to the

CDF. Bypass events (i.e., interfacing systems LOCA and steam generator tube rupture)

contribute less than 10 percent to the total internal events CDF. Anticipated transients without

scram (ATWS) events and internal floods are not included in the internal events CDF. In

response to a request for additional information (RAI), Entergy stated that the nominal ATWS

CDF is estimated to be 1.6 x 1 0 per reactor year, and the CDF due to internal floods is less

than 1 x 10- for all plant zones (Entergy 2004a). SAMAs to address ATWS events

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 G-2 April 2005
Appendix G

Table G-1. Estimated Core Damage Frequencies at Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2

CDF % Contribution

Initiating Event/Accident Class (per year) to CDF.

Transients 4.2x 104 58

Small break LOCA 1.7 x 104 24

Interfacing system LOCA (ISLOCA) 3.3 x 10-7 5

Vessel rupture 2.7x 10'7 4

Medium break LOCA 1.9 x 107 3

Large break LOCA 2.8 x 107

' 4

Steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) 1.5 x 10'7 2

Total CDF (from Internal events) 7.2 x 104 100

(Entergy 2004a). SAMAs to address ATWS events were considered in the SAMA evaluation.

SAMAs to address flooding events were not explicitly considered, but would not significantly

impact the risk profile given the low CDF for internal floods.

The Level 2 analysis utilized the containment event tree logic from the IPE and fault tree linking

to combine the Level 1 core damage sequence failures with the Level 2 containment

safeguards systems fault trees. The fault tree linking method was used to resolve

dependencies that occur between the Level 1 core damage sequence failures and containment

safeguards system failures. The combined sequences were then mapped into plant damage

states (PDS) using the same method employed in the IPE. The updated fission product release

fractions for each release category were provided in response to anRAI (Entergy 2004a).

The MACCS2 code was used to determine the offsite risk impacts on the surrounding environment and public in the offsite consequences and economic impact analyses. Inputs for this

analysis include plant-specific and site-specific input values for core radionuclide inventory,

source term and release characteristics, site meteorological data, projected population

distribution (within a 80-km [50-mi] radius) for the year 2040, emergency response evacuation

modeling, and economic data. -

In its ER, Entergy estimated the dose to the population within 80 km (50 mi) of the ANO-2 site

to be approximately 0.0172 person-Sv .72 person-rem) per year. The breakdown of the total

population dose by containment release mode is summarized in Table G-2. Steam generator

tube ruptures and late containment failures dominate the population dose risk at ANO-2.

April 2005 G-3 AFinal NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix G

Table G-2. Breakdown of Population Dose by Containment Release Mode

Population Dose

Containment Release Mode (person-rem') per year) % Contribution

SGTR 0.74 43

ISLOCA 0.006 <1

Early containment failure 0.25 15

Late containment failure 0.73 42

No containment failure 0 0

Total Population Dose 1.72 100

(a) One person-Rem = 0.01 person-Sv

G.2.2 Review of Entergy's Risk Estimates

Entergy's determination of offsite risk at ANO-2 is based on the following three major elements

of analysis:

* the Level 1 and 2 risk models that are the bases for the 1992 IPE submittal (Entergy

1992) and the 1996 IPEEE submittal (Entergy 1996)

* the major modifications to the IPE model incorporated in the ANO-2 PSA

* the MACCS2 analyses performed to translate fission product source terms and release

frequencies from the Level 2 PRA model into offsite consequence measures.

Each of these analyses was reviewed to determine the acceptability of Entergy's risk estimates

for the SAMA analysis, as summarized below.

The staff's review of the ANO-2 IPE is described in an NRC report dated May 5, 1997

(NRC 1997c). In that review, the staff evaluated the methodology, models, data, and

assumptions used to estimate' the CDF and characterize containment performance and fission

product releases. The staff concluded that Entergy's analysis met the intent of Generic Letter

88-20 (NRC 1988); that is, the IPE was of adequate quality used to look for design or

operational vulnerabilities. Although the staff reviewed certain aspects of the IPE in more detail

than others, it primarily focused on the licensee's ability to examine ANO-2 for severe accident

vulnerabilities and not specifically on the detailed findings or quantification estimates. Overall,

the staff believed that the ANO-2 IPE was of adequate quality to be used as a tool in searching

for areas with high potential for risk reduction and to assess such risk reductions, especially

when the risk models are used in conjunction with insights, such as those from risk importance,

sensitivity, and uncertainty analyses.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 G-4 April 2005
Appendix G

A comparison of internal events risk profiles between the IPE and the PSA used in the SAMA

analysis indicate a decrease of nearly 80 percent in the total CDF (from 3.4 x 1 O5 per year to

7.2 x I0O per year). The reduction is mainly attributed to plant design changes and modeling

improvements that have been implemented at ANO-2 since the IPE was submitted. A summary

listing of those changes that resulted in the greatest impact on the total CDF was provided in

the ER and in response to an RAI (Entergy 2004a). The list includes:

* added alternate AC power source for station blackout (SBO)

* added auxiliary feedwater pump

* added component cooling water (CCW) relief capacity to mitigate reactor coolant pump

(RCP) seal cooler tube rupture

* addressed asymmetry issues associated with removing service water (SW) pumps from

service

* updated events that challenge primary safety relief valves

* revised fault tree logic to correctly account for plant risk associated with powering AC power

sources 2RS-1 and 2RS-2 via swing inverters

* revised modeling for SW flow diversion to CCW

* modeled procedure change associated with fast transfer of startup transformer #2 to 2A1.

The IPE CDF value for ANO-2 is comparable to the CDF values reported in the IPEs for other

Combustion Engineering (CE) plants. Figure 11.6 of NUREG-1560 shows that the IPE-based

total internal events CDF for CE plants ranges from x0 1 to2 x 1IQ per reactor-year

(NRC 1 997a). It is recognized that other plants have reduced their values for CDF subsequent

to the IPE submittals through modeling and hardware changes. The current internal events

CDF results for ANO-2 are at the low end for CE plants even when ATWS and internal floods

are included in the CDF.

The staff considered the peer reviews performed for the ANO-2 PSA, and the potential impact

of the review findings on the SAMA evaluation. In response to an RAI, Entergy described the

previous reviews, the most significant of which was the Combustion Engineerinig Owners Group

(CEOG) Peer Review of PSA Revision 3p0 performed in February 2002 (Entergy 2004a). The

CEOG review concluded that the technical elements of the PRA were such that the PSA is

generally suitable for plant risk-informed applications. Most of the recommendations from this

review were addressed or reflected in Revision 3p2 of the ANO-2 PSA, which is the version that

April 2005 -G-5 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix G

was used for the SAMA analysis. Those recommendations not yet incorporated are in the

areas of common cause failures (CCF), and the application and value of recovery actions to

address failure to recover sump suction valves 2CV-5649-1 and 2CV-5650-2 (YHF2CSSUMP).

Entergy evaluated the impact of these two issues on the SAMA evaluation. For CCF, Entergy

stated that the current analysis is sufficient to support the SAMA analysis, and the conclusion of

the evaluation would be unchanged by the resolution of the peer review comment. With regard

to the application and value of recovery action YHF2CSSUMP, Entergy performed a sensitivity

analysis in which the model was changed to conservatively account for failure to recover the

sump suction valves. The results of the sensitivity analysis showed that SAMA CC-20 (make

containment sump recirculation outlet motor-operated valves 2CV-5649-1 and 2CV-5650-2

diverse from one another by replacing one of them with an air-operated valve) may be costbeneficial. This is discussed further in Section G.6.2.

Given that (1) the ANO-2 PSA has been peer-reviewed and the potential impact of the peerreview findings on the SAMA evaluation has been assessed, (2) Entergy satisfactorily

addressed staff questions regarding the PSA (Entergy 2004a), and (3) the CDF is in the range

of contemporary CDFs for CE plants, the staff concludes that the Level 1 and Level 2 PSA

models are of sufficient quality to support the SAMA evaluation.

Entergy submitted an IPEEE by letter dated May 31,1996 (Entergy 1996). Entergy did not

identify any fundamental weaknesses or vulnerabilities to severe accident risk in regard to the

external events related to fire, high winds, floods, and other external events. However, a

number of areas were identified for improvement in the seismic area. In a letter dated

February 27, 2001 (NRC 2001), the staff concluded that the submittal met the intent of

Supplement 4 to Generic Letter 88-20, and that the licensee's IPEEE process is capable of

identifying the most likely severe accidents and severe accident vulnerabilities.

The IPEEE uses a focused scope Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) seismic margins

analysis. This method is qualitative and does not provide the means to determine the

numerical estimates of the CDF contributions from seismic initiators. Entergy found that, based

on the EPRI assessment methodology, some of the plant's high-confidence, low-probability of

failure (HCLPF) values were less than the 0.3-g review level earthquake used in the IPEEE.

The most limiting (or lowest) HCLPF values were associated with the emergency diesel

generator fuel tanks 2T-57A and 2T-57B that had calculated HCLPF capacities of 0.2-g peak

ground acceleration. Other findings were associated with electrical cabinets and motor control

centers. Outstanding findings were scheduled for resolution under the USI A-46 program. At

the time of the IPEEE, 10 outliers remaining for ANO-2 were listed in Table 7-1 of the IPEEE

Summary Report. In response to an IPEEE RAI regarding the status of the outliers, Entergy

stated that all outliers in Table 7-1 had been resolved, and that no further modifications were

planned (Entergy 1996, 1999).

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 G-6 April 2005
Appendix G

The ANO-2 fire analysis employed the Fire Induced Vulnerability Evaluation methodology for

screening of compartments. The licensee's overall approach in the IPEEE fire analysis is

similar to other fire analysis techniques, employing a graduated focus on the most important fire

zones using qualitative and quantitative screening criteria. The fire zones or compartments

were subjected to at least two screening phases. In the first phase, a compartment was

screened out if it was found to not contain any safety-related equipment or reactor trip initiators.

In the second phase, a CDF criterion of 1 x 1 04 per year was applied. The licensee used the

PSA model of internal events to quantify the CDF resulting from a fire initiating event. The

conditional core damage probability (CCDP) was based on the equipment and systems

unaffected by the fire. The CDF for each zone was obtained by multiplying the frequency of a

fire in a given fire zone by the conditional core damage probability associated with that fire

zone. The screening methodology applied by the licensee makes less and less conservative

assumptions (e.g., equipment that may survive the fires in the area) until a fire zone is screened

out. After the screening, six fire zones remained that contributed more than the screening

value of 1.0 x 10o6. In response to an RAI, Entergy provided a listing of the unscreened fire

zones and the associated CDF values based on the latest fire analysis. In this latest fire

analysis, 15 fire zones remain that contribute more than the screening value of 1 x 1 04. These

zones are:

Fire Zone

Turbine building

Cable spreading room

Intake structure

Electrical equipment room

Lower south electricalpiping penetration room

Diesel corridor

South switchgear room

North switchgear room ;

Auxiliary building el. 354'

Control room

New CPC room

MCC2B63 room

East CD equipment room

Auxiliary building ext

Transformer yard

CDF

2.00 x 10-5

1.61 x 105

1.21 x 105

7.26 x 10.6

5.18 x 10.6

4.87 x 1046

3.72 x 106

2.28 x 1046

1.93 x 1046

1.90 X 10.6

1.79 x 10.6

1.75 x 10.6

1.73 x 10.6

1.22 x 10.6

1.09 x 10-6

The fire CDF for ANO-2 is approximately 8.3 x 10 5 per year, which is about a factor of 12 higher

than the internal events CDF of 7.2 x 10.6 per year. In light of this value, the staff asked

April 2005 G-7 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix G

Entergy to justify their approach of doubling the internal events CDF to account for the fire

events CDF, and to assess the impact on the initial and final screenings if the internal events

risk reduction estimates were increased by a factor that would bound the risk from fire and

seismic events (NRC 2004). In response to the RAI, Entergy stated that the doubling of the

benefit to account for external events provides bounding results because the fire analysis was

done as a screening analysis only and not as a determination of the fire CDF at ANO-2

(Entergy 2004a). Additionally, Entergy stated that since the fire zone CCDP is calculated by

failing all equipment in the fire zone, a SAMA that reduces internal events CDF may not reduce

the fire CDF for a zone; thus, the resulting benefit value is inflated and, therefore, is overly

conservative. Entergy's position is that given the conservative nature of the analysis, there is

reasonable assurance that the risk associated with a fire would be bounded by increasing the

benefit by a factor of two.

In the staff's view, the multiplier of two used by Entergy could be justified if the external event

and internal event CDFs are comparable. For ANO-2, this would imply that the fire CDF from

the screening analysis would have to be conservative by a factor of 12. The staff agrees that

the ANO-2 fire analysis contains numerous conservatisms and that a more realistic assessment

could result in a substantially lower fire CDF. However, the staff believes that the information

provided by Entergy is not sufficient to support a reduction of a factor of 12, and that a more

realistic fire CDF may be closer to a factor of two to three less than the screening value. Given

a factor of three reduction, the resulting fire CDF would be about 2.8 x 10-5 per year, which is

four times higher than the internal events CDF. This would justify use of a multiplier of five to

the averted cost estimates (for internal events) to represent the additional SAMA benefits in

external events. The staff's review of the cost-benefit evaluation is described in Section G.6.2.

In that review, the staff applied a multiplier of five to the internal events benefits.

The ANO-2 IPEEE evaluated high winds, floods, and other events using the progressive

screening approach recommended in NUREG-1407 (NRC 1991). Based on this evaluation, the

licensee determined that the risks from high winds, floods, and other events (transportation and

nearby facility accidents) were not significant vulnerabilities at the plant.

The staff reviewed the process used by Entergy to extend the containment performance

(Level 2) portion of the PSA to an assessment of offsite consequences (essentially a Level 3

PSA). This included consideration of the source terms used to characterize fission product

releases for the applicable containment release category and the major input assumptions used

in the offsite consequence analyses. The MACCS2 code was used to estimate offsite consequences. Plant-specific input to the code includes the ANO-2 reactor core radionuclide inventory, source terms for each release category, emergency evacuation modeling, site-specific

meteorological data, and projected population distribution within an 80-km (50-mile) radius for

the year 2040. This information is provided in Attachment E to the ER (Entergy 2003).

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 G-8 April 2005
Appendix G

Entergy grouped the accident sequences into a set of 51 release modes based on their

expected source term results. The frequency and calculated consequences for each of the 51

release modes are reported in Tables E.1-2 and E.1-5 of the ER, respectively (Entergy 2003).

The break-out of the source term by release mode is provided in Table E.1-2 (Entergy 2003).

The staff concludes that the process used to assign release categories and source terms is

consistent with typical PRA practices and acceptable for use in the SAMA analysis.

The reactor core inventory input to the MACCS2 code was obtained from the MACCS2 User's

Guide, and corresponds to the end-of-cycle values for a 3412 MW(t) PWR plant. A scaling

factor of 0.887 was applied to provide a representative core inventory value of 3026 MW(t) for

ANO-2.

Entergy used site-specific meteorological data obtained from the plant meteorological tower,

processed from hourly measurements for the calendar year 1996. Because the site did not

have precipitation records for 1996, data were obtained from the National Climatic Data Center

of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for the nearest available recording site.

Entergy stated that the weather data used in the analysis are representative and typical for the

site.

The population distribution the applicant used as input to the MACCS2 analysis was estimated

for the year 2040, based on U.S. Census population data for 2000, which was adjusted to

account for transient population. The 1990 and 2000 census data were then used to project the

future rosette section populations for the year 2040. A growth factor was determined by

dividing the 80-km (50-mi) radius population in 2000 by the 1990 population. This scaling factor

was then applied to the 2000 population in that sector to obtain a year 2040 projection. The

staff considers the methods and assumptions for estimating population reasonable and

acceptable for purposes of the SAMA evaluation.

The emergency evacuation model was modeled as a single evacuation zone extending out

16 km (10 mi) from the plant. It was assumed that 15 percent of the population will start moving

30 minutes after the alarm sounds, 80 percent of the population will start moving 90 minutes

after the alarm sounds, and 5 percent of the population will starting moving'120 minutes after

the alarm sounds at an average speed of 1.0 ms' (Entergy 2003). This assumption is

conservative relative to the NUREG-1 150 study (NRC 1990), which assumed evacuation of

99.5 percent of the population within the emergency planning zone. A sensitivity analysis that

assumed that only 90 percent of the population within the emergency planning zone

participated in the evacuation was performed. Another sensitivity analysis was performed to

assess the importance of the warning and release delay times. The results of both sensitivity

analyses showed that evacuation population and the duration have a small impact on the

population dose. The evacuation assumptions'and analysis are deemed reasonable and

acceptable for the purposes of the SAMA evaluation.

April 2005 G-9 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix G

Site-specific economic data to a distance of 80 km (50 mi) were specified for each of the

counties surrounding the plant. Agricultural economic data from the ANO-1 ER were used

(taken from the 1992 Census of Agriculture).

The staff concludes that the methodology used by Entergy to estimate the offsite

consequences for ANO-2 provides an acceptable basis from which to proceed with an

assessment of risk reduction potential for candidate SAMAs. Accordingly, the staff based its

assessment of offsite risk on the CDF and offsite doses reported by Entergy as discussed in

Section G.6.2.

G.3 Potential Plant Improvements

The process for identifying potential plant improvements and an evaluation of that process are

discussed in this section.

G.3.1 Process for Identifying Potential Plant Improvements

Entergy's process for identifying potential plant improvements (SAMAs) consisted of the

following elements:

* review of SAMA analyses submitted in support of original licensing and license renewal

activities for other operating nuclear power plants

* review of other NRC and industry documentation discussing potential plant improvements

(e.g., NUREG-1560)

* review of the ANO-1 SAMA evaluation, and the ANO-2 IPE and IPEEE

* review of the ANO-2 PSA model top 100 cut sets.

Based on this process, an initial set of 192 candidate SAMAs was identified, as reported in the

ER. In Phase 1 of the evaluation, Entergy performed a qualitative screening of the initial list of

SAMAs and eliminated SAMAs from further consideration using the following criteria:

* the SAMA is not applicable at ANO-2 because of design differences

* the SAMA has already been implemented at ANO-2

* the SAMA is sufficiently similar to and was combined with other SAMA candidates.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 G-1 0 April 2005
Appendix G

Based on this screening, 99 SAMAs were eliminated leaving 93 for further evaluation. Of the

99 SAMAs eliminated, 40 were eliminated because they were not applicable to ANO-2, 47 were

eliminated because they already had been implemented at ANO-2, and 12 were similar to and |

combined with other SAMAs (Entergy 2004a). A benefit analysis was performed for each of the

93 remaining candidates. -To account for external events, the maximum attainable benefit

(MAB) was doubled to approximately $632,000, and then applied to the remaining candidates

(see discussion in Section G.6.1 for a derivation of the MAB).

The 93 remaining SAMAs were further evaluated and subsequently eliminated in the final

screening, as described in Sections G.4 and G.6.1.

G.3.2 Review of Entergy's Process

Entergy's efforts to identify potential SAMAs focused primarily on areas associated with internal

initiating events. The initial list of SAMAs generally addressed the accident categories that are

dominant CDF and containment failure contributors or issues that tend to have a large impact

on a number of accident sequences at ANO-2.

The preliminary review of Entergy's SAMA identification process raised some concerns

regarding the completeness of the set of SAMAs identified and the inclusion of plant-specific

risk contributors. The staff requested clarification regarding the portion of risk represented by

the dominant risk contributors. Because a review of the importance ranking of basic events in

the PRA could identify SAMAs that may not be apparent from a review of the top cut sets, the

staff also questioned whether an importance analysis was used to confirm the adequacy of the

SAMA identification process. In response to the RAI, Entergy stated that importance measures

were not used to identify candidate SAMAs; however, a list of dominant equipment failures and

operator actions based on importance measures was provided (Entergy 2004a). The table

provided in the response describes the basic event, its Fussel-Vesely and risk achievement

values, whether it is in the top 100 cut sets, and which SAMAs address the basic event. For

those basic events not addressed by a SAMA, a screening analysis was performed to estimate

the' benefit of completely eliminating the event/failure. For the failures whose elimination would

have a benefit exceeding $35,000 (the approximate cost of revising a procedure), Entergy

provided a discussion of the proposed modification and associated costs. Entergy concluded

that none of the SAMAs would be cost-beneficial (Entergy 2004a). Based on this additional

assessment, Entergy concluded that the set of SAMAs evaluated in the ER addresses the

major contributors to CDF and offsite dose, and that the review of the top risk contributors does

not reveal any new SAMAs.

The staff notes that the set of SAMAs submitted is not all inclusive because additional, possibly

even less expensive, design alternatives can always be postulated. However, the staff

concludes that the benefits of any additional modifications are unlikely to exceed the benefits of

April 2005 G-1 1 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix G

the modifications evaluated and that the alternative improvements would not likely cost less

than the least expensive alternatives evaluated, when the subsidiary costs associated with

maintenance, procedures, and training are considered.

The staff concludes that Entergy used a systematic and comprehensive process for identifying

potential plant improvements for ANO-2, and that the set of potential plant improvements

identified by Entergy is reasonably comprehensive and therefore acceptable. This process

included reviewing insights from the IPE and IPEEE and other plant-specific studies, reviewing

plant improvements considered in previous SAMA analyses, and using the knowledge and

experience of its personnel. While explicit treatment of external events in the SAMA

identification process was limited, it is recognized that the prior implementation of plant

modifications for seismic events and the absence of external event vulnerabilities reasonably

justifies examining primarily the internal events risk results for this purpose.

G.4 Risk Reduction Potential of Plant Improvements

Entergy evaluated the risk-reduction potential of the 93 SAMAs that were applicable to ANO-2.

The majority of the SAMA evaluations were performed in a bounding fashion in that the SAMA

was assumed to completely eliminate the risk associated with the proposed enhancement.

Such bounding calculations overestimate the benefit and, therefore, are conservative.

Entergy used model requantification to determine the potential benefits. The CDF and

population dose reductions were estimated using the Revision 3p2 of the ANO-2 PSA. The

changes made to the model to quantify the impact of SAMAs are detailed in Section E.2.3 of

Attachment E to the ER (Entergy 2003) and in response to an RAI (Entergy 2004a, b).

Table G-3 lists the assumptions considered to estimate the risk reduction for each of the

93 Phase 2 SAMAs, the estimated risk reduction in terms of percent reduction in CDF and

population dose, and the estimated total benefit'(present value) of the averted risk. The

determination of the benefits for the various SAMAs is further discussed in Section G.6.

The staff has reviewed Entergy's bases for calculating the risk reduction for the various plant

improvements and concludes that the rationale and assumptions for estimating risk reduction

are reasonable and generally conservative (i.e., the estimated risk reduction is higher than what

would actually be realized). Accordingly, the staff based its estimates of averted risk for the

various SAMAs on Entergy's risk reduction estimates reported in the ER, but applied a multiplier

to these values to account for benefits in external events as discussed in Section G.6.2.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 G-12 April 2005
*0

0

0)

01

Table G-3. SAMA Cost/Benefit Screening Analysis

c)

Ca~

at

z

C

-c

-D

23

to

-

C

% Risk Reduction

Population Total Cost

Analysis Case and Applicable SAMAsM AssumptIons CDF Dose Benefitb' (S) (S)

AIR Plant air compressor failure events are set to 0 0 -0 >100,000

zero IA-02 - Replace current air compressors with more reliable

models -

ATWS1 Eliminate CDF caused by ATWS 22 0 350,000

AT-01- Provide alternative ATWS pressure relief valves 1.000,000

AT-02 - Create a boron Injection/shutdown system to backup [Eliminate failure of borated water injection [200,0001 [412,0001

the mechanical control rods following an ATWSJ

AT-03 - Provide a diverse plant protection system 3,000,000

ATWS2 Charging pumps are perfectly reliable 2 0 30,000 >100,000

CW-07 - Increase charging pump lube oil capacity

BRKR Eliminate all 4160-V breaker failures 1 1 15,000 35,000

AC/DC-15 - Develop enhanced procedures to repair or change

out failed 4 kV breakers

CAVITY . Eliminate CDF attributed to plant damage state 1 5 17,000"c'

IVKI

EV-15 - Create a reactor cavity flooding system 8,750,000

EV-16 - Create other options for reactor cavity flooding (drill >100,000

pathways in reactor vessel support structure)

EV-17 - Create other options for reactor cavity flooding (flood >100,000

reactor cavity via systems like diesel-driven fire pumps)

EV-31 - Remove reactor vessel cavity check valve 2BS-46 >35,000

internals§

I

I

I

I

*0

CD

0.

G)
-n

:3

z

C

-c

-oA.D

3

CD

(0

Table G-3. (contd)

I

I

-P

% Risk Reduction

Population Total Cost

Analysis Case and Applicable SAMAs~') Assumptions CDF Dose Benefifb) (S)

CBPEN Already implemented

CB-23 - Develop enhanced procedures for SBO to prevent

containment bypass

CST Realignment of emergency feedwater (EFW) 2 1 25,000 >100,000

suction to alternate condensate storage tank is

FW-19 - Create ability to automatically align the EFW suction perfectly reliable

to the other condensate storage tank on low-low level of

2T-41 A or 2T-41 B

DCPWR Eliminate battery discharge and battery failure 6 4 85,000

events

AC/DC-04 - Use fuel cells in lieu of conventional lead-acid 2,000,000

batteries

AC/DC-05 - Provide additional DC battery capability >150,000

AC/DC-10 - Incorporate alternate battery charging capabilities [Eliminate failure to align the 125-VDC buses to [71,000] [155,000]

alternate power sources]

AC/DC-12 - Replace current station batteries with more >150,000

reliable model

AC/DC-24 - Create the ability to automatically transfer battery [Eliminate failure to align 2D01 to an alternate [49,000] [131,000]

charger/eliminator 2D318 to an alternate power source upon power source]

demand

EDGCOOL Emergency diesel cooling is perfectly reliable 3 3 50,000 1,700,000

AC/DC-1 9 - Create a back-up source for diesel cooling

EFW EFW system is perfectly reliable 18 13 259,000

FW-13 - Install an independent diesel for the condensate [Eliminate failure to align to the alternate [26,000] [314,000]

storage tank makeup pumps condensate storage tank]

HV-05 - Create ability to switch fan power supply to station [628,000]

batteries in an SBO

-O

CD

C)

-o

0C)

Wo I

_ ;
- X

0

0

0n

C)

-n

SI)

z

C:

_.

m

-NCA)

4,

U) IC

-c

CD

3

CD

Table G-3. (contd)

% Risk Reduction

Population Total Cost

Analysis Case and Applicable SAMAs ) Assumptions CDF Dose Benefit*' (S) (S)

EFWCV Already Implemented 4

FW-17 - Enhance EFW flow control in the emergency

operating procedures

ESFASRELAY Eliminate CDF due to common cause failure 2 2 38,000 >100,000

(CCF) of engineered safety feature actuation CC-22 - Incorporate diversity among recirculation actuation system (ESFAS) and solid state relays

signal and ESFAS signal actuation relays

FDW Eliminate CDF due to loss of feedwater 20 12 280,000

CW-01 - Cap downstream piping of normally closed CCW [827,000)

drain and vent valves

FW-01 - Install a digital feedwater upgrade Already lmplemented'd)

FILTER - Eliminate all CCFs of service water pump .. .16 .250,000

CW-26 - Increase Inspections of service water pump discharge discharge filters 655,000

filters

CW-27 - Replace current service water pump discharge [Reduce CCF of service water pump [225,0001 (247,000]

filters with backwash filters discharge strainers]

HPSICV Eliminate CDF due to failure of the high- 5 3 73,000 [1.000,000]

CC-19 - Provide an additional flow path from the refueling pressure safety Injection (HPS flow path

water tank to the HPSI system through a diversified suction check valves

flow path check valve

HPSIMOV Eliminate CDF due to common cause failure of 4 2 55,000 [425,000]

the HPSI valves

CC-21 - Provide actuator diversity for the motor-operated

valves (MOVs) in the HPSI system

-c

CD

x,

CL
-n

z

C

-D.

C

-a'a

CD

(0

0)

I Table G-3. (contd)

% Risk Reduction

Population Total Cost

Analysis Case and Applicable SAMAsM Assumptions CDF Dose Benefitfb" ($) ($)

HVAC Shutdown heat exchanger room cooling is 27 30 435,000 [1,200,000]

HV-03 - Develop enhanced procedures for temporary HVAC, peecy reliable

including use of temporary equipment

ISLOCA Eliminate CDF due to ISLOCA events 5 36 86,000(C)

CB-13 - Install additional instrumentation for ISLOCA 2,300,000

sequences

CB.14 Increase frequency of valve leak testing 963,000

CB-19- Ensure all ISLOCA releases are scrubbed >1,000.000

CB*20 -Add redundant and diverse limit switch to each 1,000.000

containment isolation valve

ISLOCAHEP [Eliminate ISLOCA contribution from failure of 3 26 [27 ,

000](C) 70,000

low-pressure safety injection lines and half CBh26- Enhance plant procedures to improve credit for ISLOCA contribution from RCP seal cooler

human action to prevent and cope with an ISLOCA tube rupture]

LBLOCA Eliminate CDF due to large LOCAs 4 3 24,000(C) >100,000

OT-07 - Provide digital large break LOCA protection

LOCCW Eliminate CDF due to loss of component 13 11 190,000

CW-15 - Install an additional CCW pump cooling water system >1,000,000

CW-22 - Improve ability to cool residual heat removal heat 565,000

exchangers

-a

CD

0.

0

-0

0

Co

Ln

L
-0

CnC0

06

Table G-3. (contd) I

% Risk Reduction

Population Total Cost

Analysis Case and Applicable SAMAs' ' Assumptions CDF Dose Benefit"b) (S) (S)

LOOP Eliminate all loss of offsite power (LOOP) 6 6 98,000

initiators

I

AC/DC-02 - Install a combustion turbine generator

AC/DC-09 - Improve bus cross-tie capability

AC/DC-13 - Create AC power cross-tie capability across units

at a-multi-unit site'

AC/DC-20 - Use fire protection system as a backup for diesel

cooling

AC/DC-21 - Provide a connection to an alternate off-site power

source

3,350,000

1,119,000

>1,000,000

>497.000

>25,000,000

11

a,

C: M

G)

CD

CD

'2

CD

-A

CD

AC/DC-22 - Implement underground offsite power lines >25,000,000

LOOPREC [Reduce probability of failure to recover 5 5 [76,0001 35,000

from LOOP]

AC/DC-1 6 - Emphasize steps In plant recovery following

SBO

LOSW Eliminate CDF due to loss of service water 32 33 505,000

CW-09 - Provide an additional diversified service water pump [1,158,000]

CW-13 - Replace emergency core cooling system pump >1,000,000

motors with air cooled motors

LOWSHEP 5 3 35,000

CW-06 - Proceduralize shedding CCW loads to extend the [Reduce failure to trip reactor coolant [46,000]

CCW heat up time pumps (RCPs) upon loss of CCW]

CW-21 - Implement procedure and operator training [Reduce individual support system human [11,000]

enhancements for support system failure sequences, with an failure events]

emphasis on anticipating problems and coping

CW-23 - Develop enhanced procedures for loss of service [Eliminate failure to recover failed service] [15,000]

water

'a

CD

0.
*T1

z

=3

C

M

G)

C.)

Cn

(0

I Table G-3. (contd)

I

0

V

-0

0

01

% Risk Reduction

Population Total Cost

Analysis Case and Applicable SAMAs(8 Assumptions CDF Dose Benefit(b) (S) (S)

RASLEVEL Eliminate CDF due to failure of the recirculation 1 -0 13,000 >100,000

actuation signal level transmitters CC-23 - Provide an additional recirculation actuation signal

level transmitter (2LT-5636-5) and change recirculation

actuation logic from 2-out-of-4 to 2-out-of-5

SEALLOCA Eliminate all seal LOCAs 12 11 178,000

CW-IO - Create an independent RCP seal injection system, >1,000,000

with dedicated diesel

CW-11 - Create an independent RCP seal injection system, >1,000,000

without dedicated diesel

CW-14 - Install improved RCP seals 2,500,000

CW-24 - Provide the ability to automatically trip the RCPs on a [Reduce failure to trip RCPs upon loss of CCWj [46,000] [100,000]

loss of CCW

SIGNAL 120 VAC buses are perfectly reliable 1 <1 13,000 35,000

AC/DC-06 - Train operations crew for response to inadvertent

actuation signals

SIMOV Eliminate CDF due to failure of safety injection 1 <1 10,000 >100,000

tank discharge valves CC-24 - Provide bypass flow paths for all safety injection tanks

SGTR Eliminate all SGTRs 2 8 25,000(c

CB-01 - Perform 100% inspection of steam generator tubes 1,500,000

during each refueling outage

CB-03 - Increase the pressure capacity of the secondary side >',000,000

CB-04 - Install a redundant spray system to depressurize the 5,000,000

primary system during a SGTR

CB-10 - Direct steam generator flooding after a SGTR, prior to [Eliminate failure to properly handle a ruptured [

1,000](C) 35,000

core damage steam generator]

~0

'D

CD

x

.1-
-0

0

0

'm

co

-n

1'.

3.

z

C

M

CD6

CA)

Co

Table G-3. (contd) I

% Risk Reduction

Population Total Cost

Analysis Case and Applicable SAMAs(' Assumptions CDF Dose Benefit'b) ($) (S)

SPRAYMOV Eliminate CDF due to CCF of containment 7 4 95,000 [425,000]

EV-30 - Provide actuator diversity for MOVs in the spray valves

containment spray system

SUMPMOV (Remove CCF of sump suction valve 6 3 [260,000] [425,000]

operators. Reduce excess conservatism In CC-20 - Make containment sump recirculation outlet valve failure to recover sump suction valves.)

MOVs 2CV-5649.1 and 2CV-5650-2 diverse from one

another

SUMPSTRAIN Eliminate CDF due to sump strainer plugging 8 1 90,000 >1,000,000

CC-18 - Modify the containment sump strainers to prevent

plugging

SWMOV Eliminate CDF due to service water to 2 2 25,000 >100,000

component cooling water isolation valve failure CW-26 -'Add redundant control valve in series with

2CV-1530-1

TDPUMPDC Eliminate turbine-driven pump dependence on 1 <1 13,000 >35,000

DC power results FW-08 - Provide hookup for portable generators

MAXBENEFIT Eliminate all severe accidents 100 100 1,580,000

CC-01 - Provide capability for diesel-driven, low pressure 3,000,000

vessel makeup

CC-02 - Provide an additional high pressure injection pump 5,000,000

with independent diesel

CC-07 - Extend the reactor water storage tank source [Used analysis case SGTR to re-evaluate [25,0 00

jtc) [1,300,000]

benefit]

CC-14 - Replace two of the four electric safety injection pumps 2,000,000

with diesel-powered pumps

FW-15 - Create passive secondary side coolers >1,000,000

-o

CD

C)
Table G-3. (contd) -n

M

C:

.rP.

-4

C

CD

0. CD

x

c)

I

I

G)

0(7

M

% Risk Reduction

Population Total Cost

Analysis Case and Applicable SAMAs(1) Assumptions CDF Dose Benefit (5) (M)

FW-18 - Replace current pilot operated relief valves with larger 2,700,000

ones such that only one is required for successful feed and

bleed

OT-02 - Create a reactor coolant depressurization system 4,600,000

OT*06 - Install secondary side guard pipes up to the main [Eliminate main steam line breaks] (6,000]"'c 1.100,000

steam isolation valves

OFFSITE Eliminate all offsite releases 0 100 445,000

CB-07 * Provide main steam safety valve and automatic 9.500,000

depressurization valve scrubbing

EV-02 - Install automatic containment spray pump header (934,000]

throttle valves

EV-04 - Develop an enhanced drywell spray system 1,500,000

EV-05 - Provide a dedicated drywell spray system 1 .000,000

EV-07 - Install a filtered containment vent 5,700,000

EV-08 - Install an unfiltered containment vent 3,100,000

EV-09 - Create/enhance hydrogen control system with 1.000,000

independent power supply

EV-10 -Create a passive hydrogen control system 800.000

EV-1 1 -Create a refractory-lined crucible with heat removal 108,000,000

potential under the basemat to contain molten debris

EV-12 - Create a water cooled rubble bed on the pedestal 19,000,000

EV-19 - Provide a core debris control system 45,000,000

EV-21 - Provide containment inerting capability 10,900,000
:0

r .

C) C)

En

r'3

G)

z

m

C)

CI)

ED.

W

V

C

CD

Table G-3. (contd) I

% Risk Reduction

Population Total Cost

Analysis Case and Applicable SAMAsO) Assumptions CDF Dose Benefitfb) (S) (S)

EV-22 - Use fire water spray pump for containment spray [Eliminate failure to provide water to [72,0001 565,000

containment spray]

EV-23 - Install a passive containment spray system >1,000,000

EV-25 - Increase containment design pressure >1,000,000

EV-26 - Provide an alternative concrete composition In the 5,000,000

reactor cavity

EV-27 - Provide a reactor vessel exterior cooling system 2,500,000

EV-28 * Create a vacuum building >1,000,000

EV-29 - Add ribbing to containment shell >1,000,000

(a) Unless noted by brackets, the assumptions, percent risk reduction, and total benefit apply to all SAMAs for a given analysis case. The information within

brackets indicates revised values provided by the licensee In response to an RAI (Entergy 2004b).-

(b) Values are based on Entergy averted cost estimates, but are multiplied by five to account for additional risk reduction benefits in external events, except where

noted.

(c) These SAMAs either (1) relate to specific Internal event Initiators such as ISLOCA, large LOCA, main steam line break, or SGTR events, and would not offer

substantial risk reduction in external events, or (2) in the cavity analysis case, only Impact population dose (rather than CDF) and would offer less benefit than

estimated in the ER. Thus, the internal events benefits were multiplied by two rather than five.

(d) Subsequent to the Initial screening, Entergy determined that this SAMA had been previously Implemented. The SAMA was not further pursued.

:D

CD

C)
Appendix G

G.5 Cost Impacts of Candidate Plant Improvements

Entergy estimated the costs of implementing the 93 candidate SAMAs through the application

of engineering judgment and review of other plants' estimates for similar improvements. The

cost estimates conservatively did not include the cost of replacement power during extended

outages required to implement the modifications, nor did they include recurring maintenance

and surveillance costs or contingency costs associated with unforeseen implementation

obstacles. The cost estimates provided in the ER did not account for inflation, but for certain

SAMAs that were close to being cost-beneficial, a refined look at implementation costs did

include inflation (Entergy 2004b).

The staff reviewed the bases for the applicant's cost estimates. For certain improvements, the

staff also compared the cost estimates to estimates developed elsewhere for similar improvements, including estimates developed as part of other licensees' analyses of SAMAs for

operating reactors and advanced light-water reactors. The staff reviewed the costs and found

them to be consistent with estimates provided in support of other plants' analyses.

The staff concludes that the cost estimates provided by Entergy are sufficient and appropriate

for use in the SAMA evaluation.

G.6 Cost-Benefit Comparison

Entergy's cost-benefit analysis and the staff's review are described in the following sections.

G.6.1 Entergy Evaluation

The methodology used by Entergy was based primarily on NRC's guidance for performing costbenefit analysis (i.e., NUREG/BR-01 84, Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook)

(NRC 1 997b). The guidance involves determining the net value for each SAMA according to

the following formula:

Net Value = (APE + AOC + AOE + AOSC) - COE

where

APE = present value of averted public exposure ($)

AOC = present value of averted offsite property damage costs ($)

AOE = present value of averted occupational exposure costs (S)

AOSC = present value of averted onsite costs ($)

COE = cost of enhancement ($).

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 G-22 April 2005
Appendix G

If the net value of a SAMA is negative, the cost of implementing the SAMA is larger than the

benefit associated with the SAMA and it is not considered cost-beneficial. Entergy's derivation

of each of the associated costs is summarized below.

Averted Public Exposure (APE) Costs

The APE costs were calculated using the following formula:

APE = Annual reduction in public exposure (Aperson-remryear)

x monetary equivalent of unit dose ($2000 per person-rem)

x present value conversion factor ($i 3.05based on a 35-year period with a

7 percent discount rate).

As stated in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997b), it is important to note that the monetary value of

the public health risk after discounting does not represent the expected reduction in public

health risk due to a single accident. Rather, it is the present value of a stream of potential

losses extending over the remaining lifetime (in this case, the renewal period) of the facility.

Thus, it reflects the expected annual loss due toa single accident, the possibility that such an

accident could occur at any time over the renewal period, and the effect of discounting these

potential future losses to present value. For the' purposes of initial screening, Entergy -

calculated an APE of approximately $45,000 for the 35-year period, which assumes elimination

of all severe accidents.

Averted Offsite Property Damage Costs (AOC)

The AOCs were calculated using the following formula:

AOC = Annual CDF reduction

x offsite economic costs associated with a severe accident (on a per-event basis)

x present value conversion factor.

For the purposes of initial screening which assuimes all severe accidents are eliminated,

Entergy calculated an annual offsite economic risk of about $3400 based on the Level 3 risk

analysis. This results in a discounted value of approximately $44,200 for the 35-year period.

Averted Occupational Exposure (AME) Costs;'

The AOE costs were calculated using the following formula:

AOE = Annual CDF reduction

x occupational exposure per core damage event

x monetary equivalent of unit dose

April 2005 G-23 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix G

x present value conversion factor.

Entergy derived the values for averted occupational exposure from information provided in

Section 5.7.3 of the regulatory analysis handbook (NRC 1997b). Best estimate values provided

for immediate occupational dose (3300 person-rem) and long-term occupational dose

(20,000 person-rem over a 10-year cleanup period) were used. The present value of these

doses was calculated using the equations provided in the handbook in conjunction with a

monetary equivalent of unit dose of $2000 per person-rem, a real discount rate of 7 percent,

and a time period of 35 years to represent the license renewal period. For the purposes of

initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents are eliminated, Entergy calculated an

AOE of approximately $3300 for the 35-year period.

Averted Onsite Costs (AOSC)

The AOSC include averted cleanup and decontamination costs and averted power replacement

costs. Repair and refurbishment costs are considered for recoverable accidents only and not

for severe accidents. Entergy derived the values for AOSC based on information provided in

Section 5.7.6 of the regulatory analysis handbook (NRC 1997b).

Entergy divided this cost element into two parts: (1) the Onsite Cleanup and Decontamination

Cost, also commonly referred to as averted cleanup and decontamination costs, and (2) the

replacement power cost.

Averted cleanup and decontamination costs (ACC) were calculated using the following formula:

ACC = Annual CDF reduction

x present value of cleanup costs per core damage event

x present value conversion factor.

The total cost of cleanup and decontamination subsequent to a severe accident is estimated in

the regulatory analysis handbook to be $1.5 x 109 (undiscounted). This value was converted to

present costs over a 10-year cleanup period and integrated over the 35-year period. For the

purposes of initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents are eliminated, Entergy

calculated an ACC of approximately $101,000 for the 35-year period.

Long-term replacement power costs (RPC) were calculated using the following formula:

RPC = Annual CDF reduction

x present value of replacement power for a single event

x factor to account for remaining service years for which replacement power is

required

x reactor power scaling factor.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 G-24 April 2005
Appendix G

For the purposes of initial screening, which assumes all severe accidents are eliminated,

Entergy calculated an RPC of approximately-$122,000 for the 35-year period.

Using the above equations, Entergy estimated the total present dollar value equivalent

associated with completely eliminating severe accidents from internal events at ANO-2 to be

about $316,000. To account for additional risk reduction in external events, Entergy doubled

this value to $632,000.

Enteray's Results

The total benefit associated with each of the 93 SAMAs was evaluated by Entergy. These

values were determined based on the above equations for the various averted costs together

with estimated annual reductions in CDF and person-rem dose. As a result, all SAMAs that

were evaluated were eliminated because the cost was expected to exceed the estimated

benefit.

As described below, the staff applied a multiplier of five to the averted cost estimates for each

SAMA to account for the potential impact of external events, except for SAMAs that are related

to specific internal event initiators, such as ISLOCA and SGTR, or to the "cavity" analysis case,

for which a multiplier of two was retained. As a result, 15 of the SAMAs appeared to be

potentially cost-beneficial, and several additional SAMAs appeared to be within a factor of two

of being cost-beneficial. Entergy performed a more detailed assessment of each of these

SAMAs to more realistically estimate the risk reduction and/or implementation costs for each

SAMA. The revised values are denoted by brackets in Table G-3. Based on this assessment,

two of the SAMAs are cost-beneficial, and two of the SAMAs are within a factor of two of being

cost-beneficial. These SAMAs are highlighted in BOLD in Table G-3.

G.6.2 Review of Entergy's Cost-Benefit Evaluation

The cost-benefit analysis performed by Entergy was based primarily on NUREG/BR-01 84

(NRC 1997b) and was 'executed consistent with this guidance.

In response to an RAI, Entergy provided the fire CDF (based on a summation of the

unscreened fire zones' CDF values) based on the latest fire analysis. The fire CDF for ANO-2

is approximately 8.3 x 105 per year which is about a factor of 12 higher than the internal events

CDF of 7.2 x 104 per year. Because of the relatively large contribution from fire events, the

staff asked Entergy to justify their approach of doubling the internal events CDF to account for

the fire events CDF, and to assess the impact on the initial and final screenings if the internal

events risk reduction estimates were increased by a factor that would bound the risk from fire

and seismic events. In' response to the RAI, Entergy stated that the doubling of the benefit to

account for external events provides bounding results because the fire analysis was done as a

April 2005 G-25 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix G

screening analysis only and not as a determination of the fire CDF at ANO-2 (Entergy 2004a).

Additionally, Entergy stated that since the fire zone CCDP is calculated by failing all equipment

in the fire zone, a SAMA that reduces internal events CDF may not reduce the fire CDF for a

zone, thus the resulting benefit value is inflated and, therefore, is overly conservative.

Entergy's position is that given the conservative nature of the analysis, there is reasonable

assurance that the risk associated with a fire would be bounded by increasing the benefit by a

factor of two.

As discussed in Section G.2.2, it is the staff's view that the multiplier of two used by Entergy

could be justified if the external event and internal event CDFs are comparable. For ANO-2,

this would imply that the fire CDF from the screening analysis would have to be conservative by

a factor of 12. The staff agrees that the ANO-2 fire analysis contains numerous conservatisms

and that a more realistic assessment could result in a substantially lower fire CDF. However,

the staff believes that the information provided by Entergy is not sufficient to support a

reduction of a factor of 12, and that a more realistic fire CDF may be closer to a factor of two to

three less than the screening value. Given a factor of three reduction, the resulting fire CDF

would be about 2.8 x 10-5 per year, which is four times higher than the internal events CDF.

This would justify use of a multiplier of five to the averted cost estimates (for internal events) to

represent the additional SAMA benefits in external events. Consideration of uncertainties would

result in further increases in this multiplier.

In view of the large relative contribution to risk from fire events at ANO-2, the staff applied a

multiplier of five to the averted cost estimates for internal events to obtain a baseline estimate

of the benefits for each SAMA, except for SAMAs that are related to specific internal event

initiators, such as ISLOCA and SGTR or to the 'cavity" analysis case (see Table G-3) for which

a multiplier of two was retained. This implicitly assumes that each SAMA would offer the same

percentage reduction in external event CDF and population dose as it offers in internal event

CDF and population dose. As a result, 15 of the SAMAs appeared to be potentially costbeneficial, and several additional SAMAs appeared to be within a factor of two of being costbeneficial. Entergy performed a more detailed assessment of each of these SAMAs to more

realistically estimate the risk reduction and/or implementation costs for each SAMA, and revised

the estimated averted costs and implementation costs accordingly. The benefit values are

shown in Table G-3 for the 93 SAMAs. For those SAMAs that were re-evaluated by Entergy,

revised assumptions, benefit values, or costs are indicated in brackets (these revised values

also reflect a multiplier of five or two, depending on the event initiator).

As shown in Table G-3, the benefits exceed the estimated implementation costs for two of the

SAMAs (AC/DC-1 6 and CW-06).

* SAMA AC/DC-16 involves a procedural change to emphasize the steps in plant recovery

following SBO. A benefit of $17,000 was initially calculated for this SAMA (for internal

events) assuming that the procedure change would result in "instantaneously" recovering

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 G-26 April 2005
Appendix G

onsite equipment during a loss of offsite power. When a multiplier of five is included, the

benefit increases to $85,000. Because the cost of a procedure revision and training is

estimated to be $35,000, this SAMA would be cost-beneficial. In response to a'staff RAI,

-Entergy re-evaluated the SAMA by reducing the probability of failure to recover from loss of

offsite power, rather than assuming instantaneous recovery of onsite equipment (Entergy

2004b). Entergy noted that a more in-depth review of the proposed SAMA revealed that

steps in plant recovery are already emphasized within the current operations training cycle.

-Specifically, standard post-trip actions direct operators to assess plant conditions and enter

the SBO emergency operating procedure (EOP) if at least one 4160-V vital bus is notl

energized. The SBO EOP delineates steps in plant recovery following an SBO event. As

part of the standard post-trip actions, the instructions are repeatedly addressed during

classroom training and simulator exercises. Based on Entergy's re-evaluation, the benefit

was reduced from $85,000 to $76,000 (including a multiplier of five for external events).

Accordingly, the staff concludes that this SAMA would still be cost-beneficial.

SAMA CW-06 involves a procedural change to shed CCW loads to extend the CCW heatup time on loss of essential raw cooling water. This would increase the time before RCP

seal failure during loss of service water sequences. A benefit of $12,500 was initially

calculated for this SAMA based on internal events. When a multiplier of five is included, the

benefit increases to $62,500. Because the cost of a procedure revision and training is

estimated to be $35,000, this SAMA would be cost-beneficial. In response to a staff RAI,

Entergy re-evaluated the SAMA by reducing the failure to trip RCPs upon loss of component

cooling water (Entergy 2004b). This results in a slightly reduced benefit of $46,000

(including a multiplier of five for external events). Accordingly, this SAMA would still be

cost-beneficial. Entergy noted that adding procedural steps to shed CCW'loads-may

adversely impact the probability of successful completion of other steps critical to event

mitigation, and that the benefit of this SAMA is small enough that its implementation is not

warranted in light of the potential detrimental impact on operator performance. The staff

agrees that the benefits of this SAMA are only slightly greater than the estimated

implementation costs, and that the risk reduction provided by the SAMA would be relatively

-small. However, given the potential risk reduction and the modest implementation costs,

further evaluation of this SAMA by Entergy appears warranted. Any potential for this

procedural enhancement to adversely impact other procedural steps could be' assessed as

part of this evaluation, and factored into the decision regarding implementation.

The staff also considered the impact that further increases in the contribution from analysis

uncertainties would have on the estimated costs and benefits. Entergy currently does not have

an uncertainty analysis for the ANO-2 PSA. In response to an RAI regarding-uncertainty

analyses, Entergy stated that there is sufficient conservatism throughout the SAMA analysis to

account for uncertainty in the estimation of CDF (Entergy 2004a). Some of the areas that

contain conservatism include calculation of the 2040 population, performance of sensitivity

cases, performance of bounding calculations for the benefits, and estimation of costs (Entergy

April 2005 G-27 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix G

2004a). Entergy included an additional conservatism by calculating averted cost over a 35-year

period (from 2003 until the end of the period of extended operation), as indicated in Section

G.6.i0. Entergy states that the expense to perform a proper uncertainty analysis is not

commensurate with the estimated benefits of the study and that the conclusions of the SAMA

analysis are not expected to change as a result of a quantitative analysis of uncertainty. Based

on the staff's review of previous plants' ERs, the ratio of 95' confidence level CDF value to the

mean CDF value vary from two to five. The staff considered the impact if the benefits were

altered by a factor of two to account for uncertainties. Two SAMAs, CW-27 and CC-20, have

estimated benefits within a factor of two of the estimated implementation costs.

* SAMA CW-27 involves the installation of backwash filters in place of the existing strainers,

thereby reducing the probability of CCF of service water discharge filters. This would

reduce the failure frequency of the service water system. A benefit of $50,000 was initially

calculated for this SAMA based on internal events. When a multiplier of five is included, the

benefit increases to $250,000. The cost of implementation was estimated to be $247,000.

In response to a staff RAI, Entergy re-evaluated the SAMA by reducing the CCF of the

service water pump discharge filters (Entergy 2004b). This results in a slightly reduced

benefit of $225,000 (including a multiplier of five for external events). Thus, this SAMA is

close to being cost-beneficial, and could be cost-beneficial when uncertainties are taken into

account. Although not a commitment related to managing the effects of aging during the

period of extended operation, Entergy indicates that this SAMA is currently undergoing

evaluation as a potential future modification at ANO-2.

* SAMA CC-20 involves replacing either containment sump valve 2CV-5649-1 or 2CV-5650-2

with an air-operated valve, thereby reducing the probability for CCF. In response to an RAI

regarding peer review comments, Entergy states that a sensitivity analysis showed this

SAMA to be potentially cost-beneficial. In response to an RAI regarding the estimated cost

and benefit of this SAMA, Entergy re-evaluated the SAMA by removing the CCF of the

sump suction valve operators and reducing the excess conservatism in the basic event

(failure to recover sump suction valves). This results in a benefit of $260,000 (including a

multiplier of five for external events). Implementation costs are estimated to be $425,000.

Thus, this SAMA is within a factor of two of being cost-beneficial, and could be costbeneficial when uncertainties are taken into account.

The staff notes that several additional SAMAs were marginally within a factor of two of being

cost-beneficial, but that the implementation costs for these SAMAs are clearly underestimated

(e.g., SAMAs AC/DC-05, AC/DC-12, and CW-13), or the benefits are substantially

overestimated (e.g., SAMAs CC-01, CC-14, FW-15, FW-18, and EV-10). Accordingly, these

SAMAs were not further evaluated.

Finally, three SAMAs were included within the 93 SAMAs listed in Table G-3, that were, in

retrospect, determined by Entergy to have been previously implemented at ANO-2.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 G-28 April 2005
Appendix G

Specifically, SAMAs FW-1 7 and CB-23 were identified in the IPE and implemented in early

1993, while SAMA FW-01 was addressed by a feedwater upgrade installed during the late

1 990s (Entergy 2004a). These SAMAs were not further evaluated.

The staff reviewed the SAMAs analyzed by Entergy to determine if lower cost alternatives had

been evaluated, including the use of portable battery chargers and a direct-drive diesel auxiliary

feedwater (AFW) pump. ANO-2 already has'a third non-safety-related AFW pump. Therefore,

this alternative has already been implemented. Entergy also evaluated the use of temporary

connections such as portable generators to power the turbinie-driven emergency feedwater

pump controls after station batteries are depleted (see SAMA FW-08). The estimated benefit of

this SAMA is approximately $15,000 which is significantly less than the cost that would be

incurred for such a modification. In 'SAMA AC/DC-10,' Entergy assessed the use of a portable

diesel-driven battery charger. The estimated benefit associated with this SAMA is around

$100,000, which is less than the cost that would be incurred for such a modification.' The staff

considers the evaluation and estimation of these'lower cost alternatives reasonable and

acceptable for purposes of the SAMA evaluation.

Entergy also performed sensitivity analyses that addressed variations in the discount rate. The

use of a 5-percent real discount rate (rather than 7 percent used in the baseline) results in an

increase in the maximum attainable benefit of approximately 9 percent; The results of the

sensitivity study are bounded by the staff's averted cost estimates, which applied a multiplier of

five or two to the internal events benefits to obtain a baseline estimate for each SAMA.

The staff concludes that the costs of all of the SAMAs assessed would be higher than the

associated benefits, with the exception of the-SAMAs discussed above. Improvements realized

as a result of the IPE and IPEEE processes and resolution of seismic outliers would minimize

the likelihood of identifying further cost-beneficial enhancements.

G.7 Conclusions

Entergy compiled a list of 192 SAMA candidates using the SAMA analyses as submitted in

support of licensing activities for other nuclear power plants, NRC and industry documents

discussing potential plant improvements, and insights from the IPE, IPEEE, and current PSA.

A qualitative screening removed SAMA candidates that (1) were not applicable'at ANO-2 due to

design differences, (2) had already been implemented at ANO-2, or (3) were sufficiently similar

to other SAMAs anrd; therefore, combined with another SAMA. A-total of 99 SAMA candidates,

were eliminated based on the above criteria, leaving 93 SAMA candidates for further evaluation.

Using guidance in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997b), the current PSA model, and a Level 3

analysis developed specifically for SAMA~evaluation, an MAB of about $31 6,000K, representing

the total present dollar value equivalent associated with completely eliminating severe accidents

April 2005 G-29 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix G

at ANO-2, was derived. For the 93 remaining SAMA candidates, a more detailed assessment

and cost estimate were developed. To account for external events, Entergy doubled the

estimated averted costs from the internal events analysis. Entergy concluded in the ER that

none of the candidate SAMAs evaluated would be cost-beneficial for ANO-2 because their

implementation costs would exceed their estimated benefits.

The staff reviewed the Entergy analysis and concluded that the methods used and the

implementation of those methods were sound. The unavailability of a seismic and fire PRA

model precluded a detailed quantitative evaluation of SAMAs specifically aimed at reducing risk

of these initiators. However, in view of the large relative contribution to risk from fire events

indicated from the ANO-2 fire analysis, the staff applied a multiplier of five to the averted cost

estimates for each SAMA to account for the potential impact of external events (except for

SAMAs that are related to specific internal event initiators, such as ISLOCA and SGTR, for

which a multiplier of two was retained.) As a result, 15 of the SAMAs appeared to be potentially

cost-beneficial, and several additional SAMAs appeared to be within a factor of two of being

cost-beneficial. Entergy performed a more detailed assessment of each of these SAMAs to

more realistically estimate the risk reduction and/or implementation costs for each SAMA, and

revised the estimated averted costs and implementation costs accordingly. Based on this

reevaluation, two of the SAMAs appear to be cost-beneficial. Additionally, two SAMAs could

become cost-beneficial when uncertainties are taken into account. These SAMAs are

highlighted in BOLD in Table G-3.

Based on its review of the Entergy SAMA analysis, the staff concurs that none of the candidate

SAMAs are cost-beneficial, except as noted above. This is based on conservative treatment of

costs and benefits. This conclusion is consistent with the low residual level of risk indicated in

the ANO-2 PSA and the fact that ANO-2 has already implemented all of the plant improvements

identified from the IPE and IPEEE processes. Given the potential risk reduction and the

relatively modest implementation costs of the four SAMAs identified in this appendix, the staff

concludes that further evaluation of these SAMAs by Entergy is warranted. However, these.

SAMAs do not relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of extended

operation. Therefore, they need not be implemented as part of license renewal pursuant to

10 CFR Part 54.

G.8 References

10 CFR 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Paret 54, "Requirements for

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 1992. Letter from J. Fisicaro (Entergy) to NRC, Document

Control Desk. Subject: Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Results of Individual Plant

Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities (Generic Letter 88-20), August 28, 1992.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 G-30 April 2005
Appendix G

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 1996. Letter from D. Mims (Entergy) to NRC, Document

Control Desk. Subject: Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Generic Letter 88-20,

Supplement 4, "Individual Plant Examination for External Events for Severe Accident

Vulnerabilities," May 31, 1996.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 1999. Letter from J. D. Vandergrift (Entergy) to NRC,

Document Control Desk. Subject: Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50-313

and 50-368, License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6, Additional Information Pertaining to GL 87-02

and 88-20, (TAC Nos. M69426, M69427, M83588 and M83589), March 30,1999.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2003. Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating

License Renewal Stage, Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2. Russeliville, Arkansas. October 2003.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2004a. Letter from T. Mitchell (Entergy) to NRC Document

Control Desk. Subject: Request for Additional Information Responses for Environmental Report

TAC No. MB8405, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, Docket No. 50-368, License No. NPF-6,

April 23, 2004.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy). 2004b. Letter from T. Mitchell (Entergy) to NRC Document

Control Desk. Subject: Clarification of a Request for Additional Information Response for

Environmental Report TAC No. MB8405, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, Docket No. 50-368,

License No. NPF-6, July 15, 2004.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1988. Generic Letter 88-20, "Individual Plant

Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities," November 23, 1988.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990. Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment

for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1 150, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission (NRC). 1991. Procedural and Submittal Guidance to the

Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities.

NUREG-1407, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997a. Individual Plant Examination Program:

Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant Performance. NUREG-1 560, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997b. RegulatoryAnalysis Technical

Evaluation Handbook. NUREG/BR-01 84, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997c. Letter from G. Kalman, NRC, to

C. R. Hutchinson, Entergy Operations, Inc. Subject: Staff Evaluation Report (SER) and

April 2005 G-31 Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19
Appendix G

Technical Evaluation Report (TER) for Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Individual Plant

Examination (IPE) Submittals, Internal Events (TAC Nos. M74376 and M74377), May 5, 1997.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. Letter from T. W. Alexion, NRC, to

C. G. Anderson, Entergy Operations, Inc. Subject: Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2 -

Individual Plant Examination of External Events (TAC NOS. M83588 and M83589),

February 27, 2001.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002a. Perspectives Gained From the IPEEE

Program, Final Report, Vols. 1 and 2, NUREG-1742, Washington, D.C., April 2002.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Letter from T.J. Kenyon, NRC, to

J. Forbes, Entergy Operations, Inc. Subject: Request for Additional Information (RAI)

Regarding Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives for ANO-2, February 24, 2004.

Final NUREG-1437, Supplement 19 G-32 April 2005
NRC FORM 335 US. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

(9-2004) (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,

NRCMIID 3.7 and Addendum Numbers, It any.)

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See instructions on the reverse) NUREG-1437, Supplement 19

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, MONTH YEAR

Supplement 19

Regarding Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 April 2005

Final Report 4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT

See Appendix B of report. Technical

7. PERIOD COVERED (inclusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC. provide Division. Office or Region. US. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor.

provide name and mariing address.)

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commision

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (ItNR. twe 'Same as above'. ifcantractor, provide NRICDivision, Office or Region, U.S. Nurdear Regulatory Commission,

and mailing address.)

Same as above

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Docket No. 50-368

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

This final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to an application submitted to

the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) to renew the operating license (OL) for

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 for an additional 20 years under 10 CFR Part 54. This final SEIS includes the NRC staff's

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental impacts of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of the

alternatives to the proposed action, and mitigation measures available for reducing or avoiding adverse impacts. It also

Includes the staff's recommendation regarding the proposed action and responses to the draft SEIS.

The NRC staff's recommendation is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal

for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision

makers would be unreasonable. The recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the

Environmental Report submitted by Entergy; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the staff's own

independent review; and (5) the staff's consideration of public comments.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words orphrases that willassistresearchers in kcating the report) 13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 unlimited

Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement 14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

GEIS (This Page)

National Environmental Policy Act - unclassified

NEPA (This Report)

License Renewal unclassified

ANO-2

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRIC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON FIECYCLED PAPER
Federal Recycling Program
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

-- I