[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 75 (Friday, April 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19144-19147]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-10071]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-416]
Entergy Operations, Inc.; System Energy Resources, Inc.; South
Mississippi Electric Power Association; Entergy Mississippi, Inc.;
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1; Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering the issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License
No. NPF-29, issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for
operation of the Grand Gulf Nuclear
[[Page 19145]]
Station, Unit 1 (GGNS), located in Claiborne County, Mississippi.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
GGNS is currently licensed to operate until June 16, 2022, which is
40 years from the issuance of the low-power license on June 16, 1982.
The proposed action would extend the expiration date of the operating
license from June 16, 2022, to November 1, 2024. The extended date
under consideration would be 40 years after the full-power license was
issued on November 1, 1984.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application for amendment dated July 21, 1995.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action would allow the licensee to operate GGNS until
November 1, 2024. This would allow the licensee to recapture
approximately 2.5 years of low-power operation from June 16, 1982, to
November 1, 1984, which was an unusually long period for low-power
operation. For the low-power license, the licensee was only authorized
to operate the plant up to 5 percent of rated power or 191 megawatts
thermal. On August 31, 1984, the Commission amended the low-power
license to allow the licensee to operate up to 100 percent rated power
or 3833 megawatts thermal. However, in response to a court challenge to
the amendment, the Commission issued CLI-84-19 on October 25, 1984,
directing the Staff to issue a separate full power license to GGNS.
This action by the Commission prevented the licensee from operating
GGNS at full power. On November 1, 1984, a full power license was
issued to GGNS whose expiration date was 40 years from the date of
issuance of the low power license. In the full-power license, the
licensee was authorized to operate up to 100 percent of rated power.
Therefore, this proposed action would allow the licensee to operate
GGNS for approximately two additional operating cycles before the plant
would be shut down for the expiration of the operating license. The
licensee stated that the benefits of the proposed action were the
following:
Reduction in the need for buying replacement power,
because of operating GGNS, on the order of $120 million using
current estimates;
Additional flexibility in long-range planning by the
licensee and a savings in excess of $100,000 in construction costs;
Deferral of additional system construction;
Delayed application for license renewal under 10 CFR
part 54 until the process has been implemented;
Compatibility with projected refueling outage schedules
for GGNS.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that there are no significant environmental
considerations involved with the proposed action. The extension of the
operating license does not affect the design or operation of the plant,
does not involve any modifications to the plant or any increase in the
licensed power for the plant, and will not create any new or unreviewed
environmental impacts that were not considered in the Final
Environmental Statement (FES) related to the operation of GGNS, NUREG-
0777, dated September 1981. The evaluations presented in the FES were
the environmental impacts of generating power at GGNS and the basis for
granting a 40-year operating license for GGNS. The environmental
impacts of the proposed action are based on the evaluations in the FES.
The FES also considered the environmental impacts of operating both
Unit 1 and Unit 2; however, Unit 2 was abandoned in 1985 and was never
completed.
Although the FES considered a specific operating period of 30 years
for GGNS, the staff concluded in the full-power license issued on
November 1, 1984, that the environmental impacts associated with a 40-
year operating period were sufficiently addressed in the FES. This was
based on a consideration of the FES which in general, assesses various
impacts associated with operation of the facility in terms of annual
impacts and balances these against the anticipated annual energy
production benefits. Thus, the overall assessment and conclusions would
not be dependent on a specific operating life. There are, however,
three areas in which a specific operating life was assumed:
1. Project costs are based on a 30-year levelized cost.
2. Radiological assessments are based on a 15-year plant midlife.
3. Uranium fuel cycle impacts are based on one initial core load and
annual refuelings.
These were assessed by the staff to determine whether the use of a
40-year operating period rather than a 30-year operating period would
significantly affect the staff's assessment concerning these areas.
1. Projected Costs
The projected costs of the facility which includes the cost of
decommissioning are based on a 30-year operating life and are levelized
over that period of time. The use of a 40-year operating period rather
than a 30-year period would not significantly affect the operating and
maintenance cost. If the facility's capital cost were spread over a 40-
year period, the overall resulting cost of facility operation would be
lowered. Therefore, any extension in the operating life of the facility
would result in savings in system production costs. The production of
energy at reduced cost results in an incremental net benefit for the
use of a 40-year operating life of the facility.
2. Radiological Assessments
The NRC staff calculates dose commitments to the human population
residing around nuclear power reactors to assess the impact on people
from radioactive material released from these reactors. The annual dose
commitment is calculated to be the dose that would be received over a
50-year period following the intake of radioactivity for 1 year under
the conditions that would exist 15 years after the plant began
operation.
The 15-year period is chosen as representing the midpoint of plant
operation and factors into the dose models by allowing for buildup of
long life radionuclides in the soil. It affects the estimated doses
only for radionuclides ingested by humans that have half-lives greater
than a few years. For a plant licensed for 40 years, increasing the
buildup period from 15 to 20 years would increase the dose from long
life radionuclides via the ingestion pathways by 33% at most. It would
have much less effect on dose from shorter life radionuclides. Tables
D-4 and D-5 of Appendix D to the FES indicate that the estimated doses
via the ingestion pathways are only a fraction of the regulatory design
objectives. For example, the ingestion dose to the thyroid is 7.0 mrem/
yr compared to an Appendix I design objective of 15 mrem/yr. Thus, for
7 mrem/yr, an increase of even as much as 33% in these pathways results
in a dose within the Appendix I guidelines and would still not be
significant.
3. Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts
The impacts of the uranium fuel cycle are based on 30 years of
operation of a model light water reactor (LWR). The fuel requirements
for the model LWR were assumed to be one initial core load and 29
annual refuelings (approximately \1/3\ core). The annual fuel
requirements for the model LWR averaged out over a 40-year operating
life (1 initial core and 39 refuelings of approximately \1/3\ core)
[[Page 19146]]
would be reduced slightly as compared to the annual fuel requirement
averaged for a 30-year operating life.
The net result would be an approximately 1.5% reduction in the
annual fuel requirement for the model LWR. This small reduction in fuel
requirements would not lead to significant changes in the impacts of
the uranium fuel cycle. The staff does not believe that there would be
any changes to Grand Gulf FES Table 5.10 (S-3) that would be necessary
in order to consider 40 years of operation. If anything, the values in
Table 5.10 become more conservative when a 40-year period of operation
is considered.
The staff has concluded, based on the reasons discussed above, that
the impacts associated with a 40-year operating license duration are
not significantly different from those associated with a 30-year
operating license duration assessed in the Grand Gulf FES. Therefore,
the staff concluded that the Grand Gulf FES sufficiently addresses the
environmental impacts associated with a 40-year operating period.
The considerations involved in completing the Commission's
evaluation for the proposed action are discussed below.
1. Radiological Impacts of Design Basis Accidents
The offsite exposure from releases during postulated accidents has
been previously evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) for GGNS. The results are acceptable when compared with the
criteria defined in 10 CFR Part 100, as documented in the Commission's
Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-0831, dated September 1981, and its
seven supplements.
This conservative design-basis evaluation is a function of four
parameters: (1) The type of accident postulated, (2) the radioactivity
calculated to be released during the accident, (3) the assumed
meteorological conditions at the site, and (4) the population
distribution versus distance from the plant. An environmental
assessment of accidents is also provided in Section 5.9.2 of the FES.
The type of accidents and the calculated radioactivity released do not
change with the proposed action. The site meteorology as defined in
Chapter 2 of the UFSAR is essentially constant. The Commission staff
has concluded that the population size and distribution is the only
parameter in the accident analyses that is considered to change for the
proposed action.
The licensee presented information on the population distribution
in the general vicinity of GGNS as new data from the 1980 and 1990
census compared to the data presented also in Chapter 2 of the UFSAR.
The 1980 and 1990 census show a general reduction in the near site
population (up to 10 miles) and in Mississippi communities and
population centers within 50 miles of the site. Because of the general
reduction in population near the site and the short 2.5 years that the
license is proposed to be extended, the staff concludes that the
proposed action will not significantly change previous conclusions on
the potential environmental of offsite releases from postulated
accidents.
2. Radiological Impacts of Annual Releases
The annual occupational exposure of workers at the plant, station
employees and contractors, is reported in the Annual Operating Report
for GGNS submitted by the licensee. For 1989 through 1995, the annual
exposure has been measured at values between 56 and 484 person-rems,
with the average annual exposure over 7 years being 327 person-rems.
The lowest exposure value is for a year without a refueling outage and
the highest value is for a year with a refueling outage. In Section
5.9.1.1.1 of the FES, the average occupational exposure for a boiling
water reactor, as is GGNS, was reported as 740 person-rems. Therefore,
the expected annual occupational exposure for the proposed extended
period of operation does not change previous conclusions presented in
the FES on occupational exposure.
The offsite exposure from releases during routine operations has
been previously evaluated in Section 5.9.1 of the FES. During the low-
power license up to August 31, 1984, the plant was restricted to no
more than 5 percent of rated power and the generation of radioactivity
at the plant was significantly smaller than would have occurred if the
plant was at full-power operation. The licensee provided in its
application the annual public dose from releases of radioactive
materials in gaseous and liquid effluents from GGNS for 1987 through
1994. These doses for 1995 were reported in the 1995 Annual Radioactive
Effluent Release Report which was submitted in the licensee's letter of
May 2, 1996. These doses were a small fraction of the dose design
objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 which were the estimates of
doses to the public that the FES was based on. The average of the 9
years was less than 10 percent of the Appendix I values. Therefore, the
additional 2.5 years of operation that the licensee has requested does
not change previous conclusions presented in the FES on annual public
doses.
3. Environmental Impact of the Uranium Fuel Cycle
In addition to the impacts associated with the operation of the
plant, there are impacts associated with the uranium fuel cycle. The
uranium fuel cycle includes those facilities and processes (e.g.,
uranium mills, fuel fabrication plants, and fuel enrichment facilities)
that are necessary to support the operation of the plant by providing
the fuel for the reactor. Section 5.10 of the FES described the impacts
associated with the fuel cycle for GGNS.
The operation of the plant from June 16, 1982, to November 1, 1984,
did not consume sufficient fuel to require the licensee to use any more
fuel than was expected in the estimate for 40 years of operations. If
the plant had operated at the maximum power level allowed by the low-
power license from June 16, 1982, to November 1, 1984, the impact on
fuel of this operation would be less than 1 percent of that for the 40
years of operation at 100 percent power which is allowed by the full-
power license. Therefore, the proposed action does not change the
estimates of the impacts of the fuel cycle that were presented in the
FES.
4. Transportation of Fuel and Radioactive Waste
The environmental impacts of transportation of fuel to and from the
site and the transportation of solid radioactive wastes from the site
to a waste burial grounds were considered in Table 5.3 of the FES.
Because the proposed action should not change the amount of fuel that
is expected to be used in 40 years of operations, the impacts in the
FES associated with the transportation of fuel should not change due to
the proposed action.
The licensee provides the amount of solid radioactive wastes
shipped from the site in its annual (after 1992) and semi-annual (up
through 1992) radioactive effluent release reports. In these reports
for 1991 through 1995, the average amount of solid radioactive wastes
shipped for these 5 years was 46 truck shipments of less than 190 cubic
meters per year. This is less than the annual impact reported in the
FES for transportation of solid radioactive wastes; therefore, the
proposed action should not exceed the environmental impacts given in
the FES.
[[Page 19147]]
5. Nonradiological Impacts
The staff has reevaluated the non-radiological impacts associated
with the operation of the plant for the proposed action. The non-
radiological impacts, primarily on water and land use, are shown in the
FES to be minor. The major non-radiological impact is the
concentrations in and the temperature of the water discharged from the
plant to the nearby Mississippi River. The plant makeup and service
water is supplied by a series of radial collector wells located in the
floodplain parallel to the Mississippi, as described in Section 2.4 of
the UFSAR and Section 4.2.3 of the FES. The wells are cylindrical
concrete caissons sunk into the alluvial aquifer adjacent to the
Mississippi River with perforated pipes projecting horizontally into
the aquifer, which draw water from the aquifer and the Mississippi
River. The cooling of water for power generation is provided by a
cooling tower. The water discharged from the plant to the Mississippi
River is the cooling tower blowdown from the cooling tower basin to
maintain water quality.
As explained in Section 5.6 of the FES, the plant's discharges to
the Mississippi are regulated by applicable Federal effluent
limitations under Sections 401 and 402 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. Section 401 is a certification and Section 402 is the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, which
are issued by the State of Mississippi. These restrictions on the plant
effluent into the Mississippi River are not affected by the proposed
action.
In NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Plants,'' dated October 27, 1995, the use of
groundwater at GGNS, from the radial collector wells for the cooling
tower makeup, is discussed in Sections 4.8.1.4 and 4.8.2.2, in terms of
the impact of the groundwater intake on the groundwater level and the
water quality. These sections state that the intake of cooling water by
GGNS does not conflict with other groundwater uses in the area and that
the intake water quality will not be lower than that in the nearby
Mississippi River. This is consistent with Section 2.4 of the UFSAR.
Therefore, NUREG-1437 shows no adverse environmental impact by the
proposed action; however, if the licensee should apply for license
renewal of the GGNS full-power operating license under 10 CFR Part 54,
``Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power
Plants,'' the issue of other groundwater uses in the vicinity of the
plant would be addressed.
6. Conclusion
Beyond the impacts discussed above, the proposed action will not
increase the probability or consequences of any accidents and will not
change the licensed power level for the plant. No changes are being
made to any structure, system, or component in the plant, to how the
plant is operated, in the types of any effluents that may be released
offsite, and in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational
radiation exposure for the plant. Accordingly, the Commission concludes
that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action does involve features located entirely within the restricted
area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect nonradiological
plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the
Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission has concluded there is no significant
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be
evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff
considered denial of the proposed action. In this case, GGNS would shut
down upon expiration of the present full-power operating license.
Denial of the application would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action
and the alternative action are similar.
In Section 6.4 of the FES, a benefit-cost analysis was presented
for the operation of GGNS. The environmental costs for the extended
period of operation would be less than the cost of the replacement
power or the installation of new electrical generating capacity.
Moreover, with the extended period of operation, the overall financial
cost per year of the plant would decrease because the initial capital
outlay would be averaged over a greater number of years of operation.
In summary, the benefit-cost of operating GGNS would improve with the
extended plant operating lifetime.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the FES for the GGNS.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on April 8, 1997, the staff
consulted with Mississippi State officials, Robert Goff and Robert Bell
of the Division of Radiological Health, State Board of Health,
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State
officials had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated July 21, 1995, which is available for public
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public
document room located at the Judge George W. Armstrong Library, 220 S.
Commerce Street, Natchez, Mississippi 39120.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of April, 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William D. Beckner,
Director, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects III/
IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-10071 Filed 4-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
