[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 146 (Monday, July 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39020-39021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18685]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-382]
Entergy Operations, Inc., Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit
No. 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an exemption
[[Page 39021]]
from Facility Operating License No. NPF-38, issued to Entergy
Operations, Inc., (the licensee), for operation of the Waterford Steam
Electric Station Unit, No. 3 (Waterford 3) located in St. Charles
Parish, Louisiana.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address
potential environmental issues related to the licensee's application of
November 16, 1993, as supplemented on August 19, 1994, march 30, and
June 19, 1995. The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Paragraph III.D.1.(a), to
the extent that a one-time interval extension for the Type A test
(containment integrated leak rate test) by approximately 18 months,
from the September 1995 refueling outage to the refueling outage in
1997, would be granted.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to permit the licensee to defer the
Type A test from the September 1995 refueling outage, to the 1997
refueling outage, thereby saving the cost of performing the test and
eliminating the test period from the critical path time of the outage.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that the proposed one-time exemption would not increase
the probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and
the proposed one-time exemption would not affect facility radiation
levels or facility radiological effluents. The licensee has analyzed
the results of previous Type A tests performed at Waterford 3 to show
good containment performance and will continue to be required to
conduct the Type B and C local leak rate tests which historically have
been shown to be the principal means of detecting containment leakage
paths with the Type A tests confirming the Type B and C test results.
It is also noted that the licensee will perform the visual containment
inspection although it is only required by Appendix J to be conducted
in conjunction with Type A tests. The NRC staff considers that these
inspections, though limited in scope, provide an important added level
of confidence in the continued integrity of the containment boundary.
The change will not increase the probability or consequences of
accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that
may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the
allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action does 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 so measurable
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be
evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff
considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the application
would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The
environmental impact of the proposed action and the alternative action
are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the
Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit No. 3.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on June 30, 1995, the NRC
staff consulted with the Louisiana State official, Prosanta Chowdhun of
the LA Radiation Protection Division, regarding the environmental
impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated November 16, 1993, as supplemented by letters
dated August 19, 1994, March 30, and June 19, 1995, which are available
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and the local
public document room located at the University of New Orleans Library,
Louisiana Collection, Lakefront, New Orleans, LA 70122.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of July 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Chandu P. Patel,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects
III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-18685 Filed 7-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
