![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Entergy Operations, Inc., Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to a Proposed License Amendment to Increase the Maximum Thermal Power Level
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: April 24, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 79)]
[Notices]
[Page 20176-20183]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24ap02-142]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-368]
Entergy Operations, Inc., Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2;
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related
to a Proposed License Amendment to Increase the Maximum Thermal Power
Level
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-6,
issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy or the licensee), for the
operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2), located in Pope
County, Arkansas. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is
issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant
impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would allow Entergy, the operator of ANO-2, to
increase its electrical generating capacity at ANO-2 by raising the
maximum reactor core power level from 2815 MWt to 3026 MWt. This change
is approximately 7.5 percent above the current maximum licensed power
level for ANO-2. The change is considered an extended power uprate
(EPU) because it would raise the reactor core power level at least 7
percent above the original licensed power level. ANO-2 has not
submitted a previous power uprate application. The EPU is accomplished
by increasing the heat output of the reactor, thereby increasing the
steam flow to the turbine for which increased feedwater flow is needed.
As a result, more heat will be rejected to the circulating water and
cooling tower complex. Increased heat load to the cooling tower will
cause evaporative losses to increase. Therefore, cooling tower makeup,
supplied from Lake Dardanelle, will increase due to the increased
evaporative losses.
The proposed action is in accordance with Entergy's application for
amendment dated December 19, 2000, as supplemented by letters dated May
30, June 20, 26 (two letters), 27, and 28, July 3 and 24 (two letters),
August 7, 13, 21, 23, and 30, September 14, October 1, 12 (two
letters), 17, 30 (two letters), and 31, November 9, 16 (three letters),
and 17, and December 5, 6 (two letters), 10, and 20, 2001, and January
14, 15, and 31, February 7 (two letters), and March 1, 2002.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is to provide an option that allows for power
generation capability beyond the 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 ANO-2 steam generators were replaced in 2000
due to primary water stress corrosion cracking. In evaluating the
options for the replacement steam generators (RSGs), Entergy determined
that the RSGs would be capable of supporting a 7.5 percent thermal
uprate which would increase the licensed core thermal power level to
3026 MWt. The proposed action to increase the licensed core thermal
power level to 3026 MWt is based on Entergy's operational goal of
increasing electrical generating capacity. According to Entergy, summer
peak temperatures in the South challenge the ability of Entergy and
other power producers to meet peak load demands, and nuclear power has
been shown to be a reliable energy source during these peak periods.
In addition, Entergy states that there is an ongoing need for
existing Entergy system generating capacity, including that provided by
ANO-2. Entergy also states that load growth is expected to further
increase the system's resource requirements. In view of the foregoing,
Entergy determined that the EPU for ANO-2 would provide an economically
sound choice with no significant impact to the environment.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes that the increase in the rated core thermal power can be
accomplished without significant impact on the environment.
The environmental impacts of ANO-2 have been described in (1) the
Final Environmental Statement (FES), dated June 1977 (NUREG-0254); (2)
the Power Uprate Licensing Report (PULR), which is Enclosure 5 to the
EPU application dated December 19, 2000, as supplemented; and (3) the
June 26 and December 10, 2001, and January 15, 2002, responses to NRC
requests for additional information (RAI). On January 31, 2000, Entergy
submitted a supplement to its environmental report supporting the
license renewal of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO-1), which resides
adjacent to ANO-2. Responses to NRC RAIs regarding the environmental
report for license renewal were submitted on June 26, July 31, and
September 21, 2000. The staff evaluation of that action was documented
in NUREG-1437, Supplement 3, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding Arkansas Nuclear One,
Unit 1,'' September 2000 (Supplement 3). Supplement 3 addresses many
balance-of-plant site features that are common to ANO-1 and ANO-2.
Supplement 3 was cited in Enclosure 5 of the December 19, 2000, license
application in instances where site characteristics common to both ANO-
1 and ANO-2 are unchanged by the EPU.
The original operating license for ANO-2 allowed a maximum reactor
power level of 2815 MWt. Based upon on its independent analyses of the
non-radiological and radiological impacts, as described in more detail
below, the staff has determined that the environmental impacts of the
proposed EPU are essentially unchanged from the environmental impacts
previously evaluated in the staff's FES and, as common to both units,
Supplement 3. The EPU does not involve extensive changes to plant
systems that directly or indirectly interface with the environment.
Additionally, no changes are necessary to the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the Arkansas
Department of Environment Quality (ADEQ), formerly the Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology.
Non-Radiological Impacts
The following contains the NRC staff's analysis of the non-
radiological environmental impacts of the proposed EPU on land use,
water use, waste discharges, terrestrial and aquatic biota,
transmission facilities, and social and economic conditions at ANO-2.
Land Use Impacts
The proposed EPU would not modify land use at the site or have
impacts on lands with historic or archeological significance. The
licensee states that it has no plans to construct any new facilities or
alter the land around existing facilities, including buildings, access
roads, parking facilities, laydown areas, onsite transmission and
distribution equipment, or power line rights-of-way in conjunction with
the proposed EPU. The EPU would not significantly affect the storage of
materials, including chemicals, fuels, and other materials stored above
or under the ground. The EPU would not alter the aesthetics of the
site. Therefore, the conclusions in Supplement 3 for impacts on land
use that are common to
[[Page 20177]]
ANO-1 and ANO-2, and the conclusions on land use impacts in FES Section
5-2, augmented by information in the PULR and the June 26 and December
10, 2001, and January 15, 2002, RAI responses, will remain valid under
the proposed EPU conditions.
Noise was not addressed in the FES. However, FES Section 5.2 notes
that Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO) is located on 1,164 acres and FES
Section 2.2.2 states that the ``* * * station has altered the land use
in Pope County, primarily through the conversion of 430 acres to an
industrial site. Only 150 acres actually are being disturbed * * * The
total acreage of the land affected by the construction and operation of
ANO is extremely small. Most of the changes in land use have occurred
with the construction and operation of Unit 1. * * *'' Supplement 3,
Section 2.1 states that ``[t]he ANO site is located on a peninsula
formed by Lake Dardanelle, and three sides of the site are surrounded
by lake water.'' The two nearest residences are ``* * * approximately 3
and 1.2 miles, respectively, from the Unit 2 containment building
centerline* * *'' (ANO-2 Environmental Report (ER) Section 2.2.3.2. The
ANO-2 ER was submitted on March 1, 1974, and amended on July 11 and
December 13, 1974, June 13, October 6 and December 19, 1975, and June
21 and September 8, 1976.) The EPU will not change the character,
sources, or energy of noise generated at ANO-2. Modified structures,
systems, and components necessary to implement the proposed EPU will be
installed within existing plant buildings and no noticeable increase in
ambient noise levels within the plant is expected.
Water Use Impacts
The following is the NRC staff's evaluation of ground and surface
water use as environmental impacts of water usage at ANO-2. Ground and
surface water use impacts are also discussed in the ``Radiological
Impacts'' section below.
Groundwater Use
As stated in the RAI response to the NRC staff dated June 26, 2001,
ANO-1 and ANO-2 do not use any groundwater. Therefore, the EPU will
have no non-radiological effects on groundwater.
Surface Water Use
The EPU is accomplished by increasing the heat output of the
reactor, thereby increasing the steam flow to the turbine for which
increased feedwater flow is needed. The licensee has stated that, as a
result, more heat will be rejected to the circulating water and cooling
tower complex. Increased heat load to the cooling tower will cause a
slight increase in evaporative losses. Therefore, cooling tower makeup,
supplied from Lake Dardanelle, will slightly increase due the increased
evaporative losses.
While the EPU will require increased water use, the licensee has
stated that ANO-2 will not use more water from the lake than permitted.
ANO-2 has a contract with the U.S. Corps of Engineers that allows water
to be withdrawn from the lake at an average rate of 22 ft\3\/sec;
withdrawals can exceed this average without an adverse environmental
impact. An average evaporation rate of 22 ft\3\/sec (9,900 gpm) and
maximum evaporation rate of 27 ft\3\/sec (11,900 gpm) was analyzed in
FES Section 5.3.4. PULR Section 10.4.1.2, stated that the maximum
cooling tower make-up for evaporation will increase from 12,180 (27.1
ft\3\/sec) to 13,020 gpm (29.0 ft\3\/sec) under EPU conditions.
However, by allowing the cooling tower cycles of concentration to
increase from 3.5 to 3.8, still a low concentration value, cooling
tower evaporation at design conditions will be about 11,600 gpm (25.8
ft\3\/sec). (While water will also be withdrawn from the lake at a rate
of 4,150 gpm (9.2 ft\3\/sec) to satisfy blowdown needs, this water is
returned to the lake.) Cooling tower design conditions continue to be
81.0 deg.F wet bulb temperature (Wbt) and 37.0 percent relative
humidity. These are conservative values. The meteorological worst day
on record, July 17, 1934, reflects a worst average 4-hour Wbt and
relative humidity of 82.4 deg.F and 59.20 percent, respectively. The
Wbt during this worst 4-hour period exceeds the tower design
temperature by only 1.4 deg.F and the relative humidity was 22.2
percent higher than design.
The limits on withdrawal (i.e., consumption via evaporation) from
Lake Dardanelle are based on economics. By withdrawing from the lake,
less stream flow is available to flow through Corps of Engineers'
hydroelectric generation plants. The licensee compensates the Corps of
Engineers for reduction of the flow of the stream (Lake Dardanelle),
and the resultant power generation losses to its hydroelectric projects
(see FES Section 5.3.4), and will continue to do so for any additional
water withdrawal from Lake Dardanelle as a result of the EPU under the
terms of the contract.
Surface water hydrology is discussed in ER Sections 2.5.1 and
5.1.3, and FES Section 2.3.2. The EPU results in no increase in the
water use permitted. In addition, any changes would be subject to
approval by the ADEQ and subject to the NPDES permit. Accordingly, the
NRC staff finds that the licensee's conclusions that ANO-2 ``cooling
water facilities will have no adverse effects on the local environment,
agriculture, housing, roads, airports, and other facilities,'' and that
``* * * measures are being provided to control the formation of slime
and algae in the circulating water system, without causing unnecessary
harm to aquatic life and biota,'' remains true for the EPU. In
addition, FES Section 2.3.2 statements remain unaffected by the EPU.
See the discussion below on drift regarding replacing chlorination with
bromination at ANO-2.
Waste Discharge Impacts
The NRC staff evaluated the environmental impacts such as cooling
tower fogging, icing, drift, noise, chemical discharges to surface
water, sanitary waste discharges, blowdown, thermal plume spread,
temperature of the lake, cold shock to aquatic biota, hazardous waste
effluents, and air emissions that were presented in the FES. The NRC
staff, as set forth below, finds that the proposed EPU causes no
significant change to the FES evaluations and conclusions relating to
waste discharge.
Cooling Tower Fogging, Icing, Drift
The ANO-2 cooling tower is discussed extensively in FES Section
5.4. Entergy's predecessor prepared the ANO-2 ER and submitted its
seventh and final amendment attached to a September 8, 1976, letter. As
stated in Section 10.1 of the ER, several types of cooling systems such
as a cooling pond, a spray pond, a mechanical draft cooling tower, and
dry cooling towers were evaluated before a natural draft cooling tower
was selected as the best option.
Fogging, Icing and Drift
The licensee has stated in ER Section 10.1.6.3.C, that based on
studies done at the Keystone Station in Pennsylvania, ``[f]ogging and
icing were not problems in the area surrounding these towers.'' This ER
section also noted that ``* * * the physical conditions at the Arkansas
Nuclear One site were comparable to the installation at Pennsylvania,
and the winters less severe.'' The NRC staff found that fogging and
icing caused by cooling tower evaporation and drift has either a
``minimal'' or no effect on ground transportation, air transportation,
and water transportation, and is not affected by the EPU.
In Section 10.4.1.2 of the PULR, the increase in circulating water
makeup
[[Page 20178]]
rate is approximately 840 gpm (1.87 ft\3\/sec) due to increased
evaporation. As stated above, makeup due to evaporation will increase.
However, PULR Section 10.4.1.4 states that the circulating water flow
rate actually decreased slightly after the condenser was refurbished
during a recent refueling outage (2R13). Since drift is a function
(i.e., is some fractional amount) of circulating water flow rate, the
NRC staff finds that the drift due to the proposed EPU will not exceed
that evaluated in the FES.
FES Section 5.4.1.1 assesses cooling tower drift. In this section,
the licensee states that ``[c]hlorides were selected by the staff as
the primary component of TDS [total dissolved solids]
which may cause
potential vegetation damage above certain deposition rates.'' The
chlorination system for biological control was revised to include a
bromination process for the circulating water systems on both ANO-1 and
ANO-2 in early 1990. Chlorination was abandoned in 1991 in lieu of the
preferred bromination process. This approach was discussed in a follow-
up ANO response to Generic Letter 89-13, ``Service Water System
Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment,'' in 1992.
Since drift has not increased and the evaporation increase is
relatively small, the NRC staff finds that the conclusions of the ER
and FES regarding fogging, icing, and drift are not altered due to the
proposed EPU.
Chemical and Sanitary Discharges
Surface water and wastewater discharges are regulated by the ADEQ.
The NPDES permit is periodically reviewed and reissued by the ADEQ. The
present NPDES permit for ANO-2 authorizes discharges from nine
outfalls, only one of which will be affected by the EPU. The one
affected outfall is the cooling tower blowdown that is addressed below.
The use of chemicals and their subsequent discharge to the
environment will not change significantly as a result of the EPU. The
cooling tower concentration cycle will remain a low concentration value
(3.8). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that concentration of
pollutants in the effluent stream will remain low.
Sanitary wastes are described in ER Section 3.7.1 and ANO-2 Safety
Analysis Report Section 9.2.4.2. Sanitary wastes from ANO-2 are
discharged directly to the ANO-2 sewage treatment plant in accordance
with a permit issued by the ADEQ. Since there is no increase in the ANO
staff as a result of the EPU, there is no increase in sanitary waste.
Therefore, the EPU requires no changes to the sanitary waste systems or
to the parameters regulated by the NPDES permit.
Blowdown
The NRC staff evaluated blowdown, which is discussed in PULR
Section 10.4.1.2. As discussed in the ANO-2 Safety Analysis Report
Section 10.4.5, Circulating Water, the cooling tower blowdown system,
which discharges through the Unit 1 discharge flume, maintains the
concentration of the circulating water below the solubility limit of
calcium sulfate, thereby preventing condenser tube scale precipitation.
FES Section 5.3.2 evaluated the concentrating effect of evaporation
of cooling tower water. The FES states that ``[s]ubstances brought into
the circulating water system with the makeup will be concentrated by a
factor which will range from 3 to 14 due to evaporation of the water in
the cooling tower.'' The licensee states that the EPU will not increase
the number of cooling tower concentration cycles beyond this range.
Cycles of concentration will remain at the lower end of the range
cited, as discussed below. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that
current water appropriation limits are maintained and the conclusions
in the FES will remain valid under the EPU conditions.
As stated in the section above, additional cooling tower
evaporation will require a small (1.87 ft \3\/sec) increase in cooling
tower makeup rate. However the blowdown rate will only increase
slightly or be kept at the current rate. With blowdown rate at the
current rate, cooling tower cycles of concentration will increase by
about 0.3 from approximately 3.5 to 3.8. The effect is negligible with
either maintaining the current blowdown rate by increasing cycles of
concentration or with increasing blowdown. This is because the blowdown
is normally mixed with the ANO-1 circulating water system discharge,
which has a flow rate of 383,000 gpm (853 ft \3\/sec) with two of the
four circulating water pumps in operation. Mixing of the blowdown with
the Unit 1 circulating water is discussed in FES summary and conclusion
paragraph 3.b and Section 5.3.2.
There are no blowdown flow limitations established in ANO NPDES
Permit Number AR0001392, issued by ADEQ. Other parameters such as pH,
free available chlorine, and total zinc will continue to be monitored
in accordance with the permit to ensure that State water quality
standards are met.
Thermal Plume Spread and Temperature of Lake Dardanelle
These two topics are discussed in PULR Section 10.4.1.3. As stated
above, the ANO-2 cooling tower makeup rate will increase by 840 gpm
(1.87 ft \3\/sec) from 12,180 (27.1 ft \3\/sec) to 13,020 gpm (29.0 ft
\3\/sec), but blowdown will remain at essentially the current rate. As
stated above, this blowdown is normally mixed into the ANO-1
circulating water system discharge, which has a greater flow rate.
Since the blowdown temperature will increase by less than 1 deg.F due
to the EPU, the effect of the EPU on thermal plume spread and Lake
Dardanelle temperature is negligible.
Cold Shock
Cold shock to an aquatic biota occurs when the warm water discharge
from a plant abruptly stops because of an unplanned shutdown, resulting
in a rapid temperature drop of the discharge water to the lake and
possible adverse impact on aquatic biota. The FES does not discuss cold
shock caused by an unplanned trip of ANO-2, and the likelihood of an
unplanned shutdown is independent of a power uprate. As stated above,
the ANO-2 blowdown is normally mixed with the much larger ANO-1
circulating water discharge. An unplanned shutdown of ANO-1 can cause
cold shock as evaluated in Supplement 3. However, even if the ANO-1
circulating water pumps are not in service, the amount of ANO-2
blowdown flow into Lake Dardanelle at the ANO-1 circulating water
discharge, even at EPU conditions, is too small to cause cold shock.
The NRC staff concludes that the risk of aquatic biota mortality by
cold shock is not applicable to ANO-2 even at the proposed EPU
conditions. Therefore, the discussion in FES Section 5.4.2 regarding
winter lake water temperature effects on shad (FES pages 5-8 and 5-9)
remains unchanged.
Hazardous Waste Generation and Air Emissions
As stated in PULR Section 10.4.1.4, ANO holds an Air Permit that
was issued and is monitored by the ADEQ Air Division. This permit
identifies emission sources at ANO. These sources include, but are not
limited to, emergency diesel generators, plant heating boilers, cooling
tower, start-up boiler, and bulk storage tanks.
ANO generates hazardous waste from routine plant operations. ANO
has a hazardous waste generator's identification number assigned by the
[[Page 20179]]
ADEQ Solid Waste Division. ANO files Annual Hazardous Waste Reports to
the ADEQ.
The EPU has no impact on the quality or quantity of effluents from
these sources, and operation under EPU conditions will not reduce the
margin to the limits established by the applicable permits.
Terrestrial Biota Impacts
The licensee states that the EPU will not change the previously
evaluated land use at ANO and will not disturb the habitat of any
terrestrial plant or animal species. There are no significant increases
in previously evaluated environmental impacts from cooling tower
operation at EPU conditions.
According to a 1999 review by the Arkansas National Heritage
Commission, documented in Supplement 3, Section 4.6, there are no known
rare or endangered plant species within the area of the site boundary.
As stated in Supplement 3, Section 4.6, the Arkansas Natural Heritage
Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have recently stated
(June 2000) that no endangered species have been identified at the ANO
site or along the transmission rights-of-way. This is consistent with
the subsection on ``Fishes'' in FES Section 2.5.1. (See the first
paragraph after FES Table 2.4.)
As stated in the June 2001 environmental impact RAI response, the
EPU will not disturb land, and land use will remain unchanged. The EPU
will not adversely impact the habitat of any terrestrial plant or
animal species. There are no deleterious effects on the diversity of
biological systems or the sustainability of species due to the EPU, and
it does not involve additional changes to the stability or integrity of
ecosystems. Therefore, the NRC staff has concluded that the description
of the impact on terrestrial ecology, including endangered and
threatened plant and animal species, will remain valid for the EPU.
Aquatic Biota Impacts
ANO-1 has a traveling water screen system that protects the suction
to both its large circulating water pumps and the much smaller safety-
related service water pumps. This same traveling water screen system is
used for ANO-2, only for its safety-related service water pumps. The
licensee indicates that the EPU does not require larger service water
pumps, and the pumps were evaluated at their permitted flowrate as part
of the NPDES permit. Therefore, the EPU will have no increased impact
on the traveling water screen system. The effect of the proposed EPU on
the impingement and entrainment of organisms is unchanged and,
therefore, remains insignificant. Therefore, the NRC staff conclusions
regarding impingement, entrainment, and endangered and threatened
aquatic species as discussed in FES Sections 2.5.1 and 5.4.2, and
Supplement 3 Section 4.1.1 will remain valid for the EPU. The EPU does
not affect ANO's compliance with Sections 316(a) or 316(b) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Transmission Facility Impacts
Environmental impacts, such as exposure to electromagnetic fields
(EMFs) and shock, could result from a major modification to
transmission line facilities. However, the licensee states that no
change is being made to the existing transmission line design or
operation as a result of the EPU. As stated in one of the licensee's
supplemental letters dated October 30, 2001, main transformer capacity
is adequate to deliver the additional power to the offsite grid. Grid
stability is addressed in PULR Section 2.2.1, which cites ANO procedure
changes to avoid grid instability with either the Mablevale or Pleasant
Hill 500 kV line out of service or during minimum load conditions.
These modifications are consistent with Entergy's program of
maintaining grid stability. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that no
significant environmental impacts from any changes in transmission
facility design and equipment are expected, and the conclusions of FES
Sections 3.3, 4.2, and 5.2 remain valid.
The generator output associated with the EPU will slightly increase
the current and the EMFs in the onsite transmission line between the
main generator and the plant substation. The line is located entirely
within the fenced, ANO-controlled boundary of the plant, and neither
members of the public nor wildlife are expected to be affected.
Exposure to EMFs from the offsite transmission system is not expected
to increase significantly, and any such increase is not expected to
change any conclusion in FES Section 5.4.1.3 that no significant
biological effects are attributable to EMFs from high voltage
transmission lines.
ANO-2 transmission lines are designed and constructed in accordance
with the applicable shock prevention provisions of the National
Electric Safety Code and the EPU will not cause the transmission line
design to deviate from these provisions. Therefore, the NRC staff
concludes that the expected increase in current attributable to the EPU
does not change the conclusion in FES Section 5.4.1.3 (i.e., adequate
protection is provided against hazards from electrical shock).
Social, Economic, and Physical Impacts
The NRC staff has reviewed information provided by the licensee
regarding the social, economic, and physical impacts associated with
the EPU. ANO employs more than 1,000 people and is a major contributor
to the local tax base. The EPU will not significantly affect the size
of the ANO workforce and will have no material effect on the labor
force required for future outages. Because the plant modifications
needed to implement the EPU will be minor, any increase in sales taxes
and local and national business revenues will be negligible relative to
the large amount of taxes paid by ANO. It is expected that improving
the economic performance of ANO-2 through cost reductions and lower
total bus bar costs per kilowatt hour will enhance the value of ANO-2
as a generating asset and lower the probability of early plant
retirement.
Early plant retirement would have a negative, long-term impact upon
the local economy and the community as a whole by reducing public
services, employment, income, business revenues, and property values.
Conclusions in FES Section 10 and Supplement 3 regarding social and
economic impacts and benefits from ANO remain valid under EPU
conditions for ANO-2.
The potential for direct physical impacts of the EPU, such as
vibration and dust from construction activities, has been considered.
The EPU will be accomplished primarily by changes in station operation
and few physical modifications to the facility. These limited
modifications will be accomplished without physical changes to
transmission corridors, access roads, other offsite facilities, or
additional project-related transportation of goods or materials.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that no significant additional
construction disturbances causing noise, odors, vehicle exhaust, dust,
vibration, or shock from blasting are anticipated, and the conclusions
in FES Sections 4.1 and 5.2 remain valid.
Summary
In summary, the NRC staff has concluded that the EPU will not
result in a significant change in non-radiological impacts on land use,
water use, waste discharges, terrestrial and aquatic biota,
transmission facilities, or social and economic factors, and will have
no non-radiological environmental impacts other than those evaluated in
[[Page 20180]]
the FES. Table 1 provides a tabular summary of the non-radiological
results.
Table 1.--Summary of Non-Radiological Environmental Impacts of Power
Uprate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use Impacts............. No change in land use or aesthetics; will
not impact lands with historic or
archeological significance. No
significant impact due to noise.
Water Use Impacts:
Groundwater Use.......... No groundwater use.
Surface Water Use........ There is only a small increase in water
withdrawal (i.e., for consumption) rate
from the lake. The maximum consumption
rate will remain at 27ft\3\/sec which is
within permitted levels.
Waste Discharge Impacts:
Cooling Tower Fogging, Fogging, evaluated as minimal in ER Table
Icing, Drift. 10.1-2. Remains minimal for EPU. No
significant change in icing. Icing,
evaluated as minimal in ER Table 10.1-2.
Remains minimal for EPU. No significant
change in cooling tower drift per PULR
10.4.1.4.
Chemical and Sanitary No expected change to chemical use and
Discharges. subsequent and discharge, or sanitary
waste systems; cooling towers will
operate in the current cycle range. No
changes to sanitary waste discharges.
Blowdown................. Increase in blowdown discussed in PULR
Section 10.4.1.2. Maximum 9.2 ft\3\/sec
blowdown normally mixed with 853 ft\3\/
sec circulating water system discharge
from ANO-1's once-through cooling
system. Blowdown remains within
permitted limits.
Thermal Plume Spread and Negligible and unnoticeable increase in
Temperature of Lake thermal plume size. No discharge
Dardanelle. temperature increase; lake temperature
primarily affected by ANO-1 once-through
cooling system; remains in NPDES limit.
Cold Shock............... Risk of aquatic biota mortality by cold
shock is not applicable to ANO-2;
discussed in FES Section 5.4.2.
Hazardous Waste No changes to hazardous waste sources or
Generation and Air air emissions.
Emissions.
Terrestrial Biota Impacts.... No change in terrestrial biota impacts;
no known threatened or endangered
species within the site boundary.
Aquatic Biota Impacts........ No change in aquatic biota impacts; no
known threatened or endangered species
in the area of surface water intake or
discharge.
Transmission Facility No change to transmission line design or
Impacts. operation; main transformer capacity to
deliver additional power is unchanged;
no significant change in exposure to
EMFs.
Social, Economic, and No significant change in the local
Physical Impacts. economy. Few modifications to physical
station facility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiological Impacts
The NRC staff has evaluated radiological environmental impacts on
waste streams, in-plant and offsite doses, accident analyses, and fuel
cycle and transportation factors. The following is a general
description of the waste treatment streams at ANO-2 and an evaluation
of the environmental impacts. The NRC finds that the proposed EPU will
not cause any radiological effects to surface water in the station
environs. Even though there is no discussion in the ANO-2 FES regarding
radiological impacts on surface water, ER Table 10.1-2 states that the
impact on groundwater due to chemical, radionuclides, or ``other''
impacts is ``NA'' (i.e., not applicable). As stated in ER Section
2.5.2, Ground Water Hydrology, ``[c]ontamination of underground water
by radioactivity pre-supposes the discharge of radioactive liquids from
a leaking or ruptured tank into the general environs of the plant
site.''
As discussed in ER Section 7.1, the liquid released by the rupture
of any tank in the Boron Management System or Waste Management System
will be contained within the Auxiliary Building and safely processed.
This statement remains true for the EPU as does the FES statements
regarding the refueling water tank.
Radiological Waste Stream Impacts
ANO-2 uses waste treatment systems designed to collect, process,
and dispose of radioactive gaseous, liquid, and solid waste in
accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix I, ``Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting
Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion ``As Low As Is
Reasonably Achievable'' for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled
Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents.'' These radioactive waste treatment
systems are discussed in the FES. The proposed EPU will not affect the
environmental monitoring of these waste streams or the radiological
monitoring requirements contained in licensing basis documents. The
proposed EPU does not result in any changes in operation or design of
equipment in the gaseous, liquid, or solid waste systems. The proposed
EPU will not introduce new or different radiological release pathways
and will not increase the probability of an operator error or equipment
malfunction that will result in an uncontrolled radioactive release.
The NRC staff evaluated the changes in the gaseous, liquid, and solid
waste streams for radiological environmental impact of the proposed
EPU, which are set forth below.
Gaseous Radioactive Waste Impacts
During normal operation, the gaseous effluent systems control the
release of gaseous radioactive effluents to the site environs,
including small quantities of noble gases, halogens, particulates, and
tritium. Routine offsite releases from station operation remain below
the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 (10 CFR
Part 20 includes the requirements of 40 CFR Part 190, ``Environmental
Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations''). The
gaseous waste management systems include the offgas system and various
building ventilation systems. The EPU results in an increase in the
release rate that is assumed to be linearly proportional to the power
increase. An increase in gaseous effluents is, therefore, assumed to
occur. The resultant effluent increases in noble gas and iodine-131
activity are 4.98E-02 µCi per second and 0.00E+00 µCi
per second, respectively. A release rate of zero is assumed for iodine
because no iodine has been released over the past three years. The
estimated dose values will be below 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I
requirements after the EPU. These dose
[[Page 20181]]
levels are very small and have no significant impact on human health.
Averaging ANO-2's dose for the three most recent years and adding
the effect of the EPU on gamma in air and beta in air, results in EPU
dose rates of 6.92E-04 and 2.15E-03 millirad per year (mrad/yr),
respectively. Comparing these dose rates to same-type dose rates in FES
Table 5.7 demonstrates that ANO-2 is not only far below the RM-50-2 \1\
design objective values of 10 mrad/yr and 20 mrad/yr for gamma and
beta, respectively, but that the EPU dose rates for gamma and beta are
about 86 and 884 times lower, respectively, than the calculated dose
for gamma (0.06 mrad/yr) and beta (1.9 mrad/yr) listed in the FES
table. A 3-year average allows averaging with and without refueling
outages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Guides on Design Objectives proposed by the NRC staff on
February 20, 1974; considers doses to individuals from all units on
site. From ``Concluding Statement of Position of the Regulatory
Staff,'' Docket No. RM-50-2, February 20, 1974, pp. 25-30, U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the 3-year average plus projected EPU dose rate for
iodine, tritium, and particules (ITP) is 1.56E-02 millirem per year
(mrem/yr). Again, this EPU ITP dose rate is not only far below the RM-
50-2 design objective dose rate of 15 mrem/yr, but is also about 192
times lower in dose consequence than the 3.0 mrem/yr calculated dose
for ITP in the FES table.
These low dose rates projected for the EPU, when combined with the
most recent 3-year average, clearly demonstrate that ANO-2 has been
successful in maintaining a very low exposure to plant personnel and
the public of both gaseous and liquid (see below) effluent doses. The
NRC staff has evaluated the information provided by the licensee and
concludes that the estimated dose values for gaseous radioactive wastes
will be below Appendix I requirements after the EPU.
Liquid Radioactive Waste Impacts
The liquid radwaste system is designed to process and recycle, to
the extent practicable, the liquid waste collected. Annual radiation
doses to individuals are maintained below the guidelines in 10 CFR Part
20 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. As set forth below, the NRC staff
expects that there will be no change in the release policy as a result
of the EPU.
The licensee has stated that EPU conditions will not result in
significant increases in the volume of fluid from sources flowing into
the liquid radwaste system. The reactor will continue to be operated
within its present pressure control band. Valve packing leakage volume
into the liquid radwaste system is not expected to increase. There will
be no changes in reactor cooling pump seal flow or the flow of any
other normal equipment drain path. In addition, there will be no impact
on the dirty radwaste or chemical waste subsystems of the liquid
radwaste system as a result of the EPU, since the operation and the
inputs to these subsystems are independent of the power uprate. No
significant dose increase from the liquid pathway will result from the
EPU. Therefore, the conclusions in the FES are expected to remain valid
under EPU conditions, as demonstrated by the following comparison.
Averaging ANO-2's dose for the three most recent years and adding
the effect of the EPU on the liquid effluents dose rate to the total
body, or any organ, for all pathways results in a calculated dose of
1.04E-2 mrem/yr. Comparing this dose to the liquid effluent doses in
FES Table 5.7 demonstrates that ANO-2 is not only far below the RM-50-2
design objective of 5 mrem/year but that the EPU dose rate is about 30
times lower than the calculated dose of 0.31 mrem/yr listed in the FES.
Solid Radioactive Waste Impacts
The solid radioactive waste system collects, monitors, processes,
packages, and provides temporary storage facilities for radioactive
solid wastes prior to offsite shipment and permanent disposal. Entergy
has implemented procedures to assure that the processing and packaging
of wet and dry solid radioactive waste and irradiated reactor
components at ANO-2 are accomplished in compliance with regulations.
Entergy continually tracks the volume of solid radioactive waste
generated at ANO; however, the total is not isolated by unit (i.e.,
ANO-1 or ANO-2). From 1995 to the present, ANO-1 and ANO-2 generated
78,787 ft\3\ of low-level radioactive waste for an average of about
12,097 ft\3\ per year. In 2000, ANO generated a peak volume of 25,107
ft\3\ of low-level radioactive waste. The majority of the waste was
generated as a result of the ANO-2 outage involving replacement of the
steam generator.
Wet Waste: The largest volume contributors to radioactive solid wet
waste are low-specific-activity spent secondary resins. Historically,
this has accounted for more than 50 percent of the total volume of wet
radioactive waste generated annually. Since the completion of the ANO-2
steam generator replacement outage, no secondary resin has been found
to be radioactive. This should not change appreciably with the EPU. The
remainder of the wet waste is primary resins, filters, and oil and
sludge from various contaminated systems. The EPU will not involve
changes in either reactor water cleanup flow rates or filter
performance. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that implementation of
the proposed EPU will not have a significant impact on the volume or
activity of wet radioactive solid waste at ANO-2.
Dry Waste: Entergy states that it continually tracks the volume of
dry radioactive waste generated and continually looks for new ways to
minimize the volume of waste generated. Dry waste consists primarily of
air filters, contaminated paper products and rags, contaminated
clothing, tools and equipment parts that cannot be effectively
decontaminated, and solid laboratory wastes. The activity of much of
this waste is low enough to permit manual handling. Dry waste is
collected in containers located throughout the plant, packaged, and
removed to a controlled area for temporary storage. Because of its low
activity, dry waste can be stored until enough is accumulated to permit
economical transportation to an offsite processing facility for volume
reduction or a burial ground for final disposal.
The licensee has stated that the majority of waste generated at ANO
is compactible dry active waste. In light of Entergy's continuing
efforts to reduce radioactive wastes at ANO, any projected increase in
solid waste generation under the EPU conditions described above would
not be significant and is not sufficient to reverse the continuing
downward trend in the production and activity of dry wastes. Moreover,
due to the nature of the materials in this waste stream, it is not
expected to change significantly as a result of the EPU.
Irradiated Reactor Components: Irradiated reactor components such
as in-core detectors and fuel assemblies, must be disposed of after the
life of the component. The volume and activity of waste generated from
spent control element assemblies and in-core detectors may increase
slightly under the higher flux conditions associated with EPU
conditions.
Entergy plans to load 80 fresh fuel bundles in the initial
refueling of ANO-2 to commence operation under the proposed EPU. This
is 12 fresh bundles more than required for the current refueling cycle.
The number of irradiated fuel assemblies discharged from the reactor
should not increase during subsequent reloads for
[[Page 20182]]
comparable energy requirements. Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes
that implementation of the EPU will not have a significant impact on
the volume or activity of the irradiated reactor components at ANO.
Given the information above, NRC staff concludes that the
environmental impact due to generation of solid reactor system waste
from the proposed EPU is not significant.
Dose Impacts
The NRC staff evaluated in-plant and offsite radiation levels as
part of the environmental impacts of the proposed EPU.
In-plant Radiation
Increasing the rated power at ANO-2 may increase the radiation
levels in the reactor coolant system (RCS). However, ongoing physical
plant improvements and administrative controls, such as shielding, RCS
chemistry, and the plant radiation protection program, compensate for
these potential increases. Over the past 7 years, Entergy has continued
to decrease the occupational dose to workers at ANO-2. In years with
refueling outages, the total dose decreased by 55 percent from 175 rem
in 1995 to 79 rem in 1999. As a result of the length and scope of the
steam generator replacement outage in 2000, doses were higher than in a
typical year. Non-outage year doses at ANO-2 illustrate a downward
trend from 49 rem in 1996 to 35 rem in 1998 to 9 rem in 2001. The
licensee stated that it expects to continue this trend while operating
under the EPU conditions.
The plant radiation protection program will maintain individual
doses consistent with as-low-as reasonably achievable (ALARA)
requirements and well below the established limits of 10 CFR Part 20.
Routine plant radiation surveys required by the radiation protection
program will identify increased radiation levels in accessible areas of
the plant and radiation zone postings, and job planning will be
adjusted, if necessary. Time within radiation areas is monitored and
controlled under the radiation protection program. Administrative
limits are provided for occupational dose at levels well below the 10
CFR Part 20 limits.
These administrative limits provide a significant margin to
regulatory dose limits under normal operating and outage conditions.
Administrative dose limits at ANO-2 have not been routinely exceeded
under present power conditions.
Offsite Doses
The slight increase in normal operational gaseous activity levels
under the EPU will not significantly affect the large margin below the
offsite dose limits established by 10 CFR Part 20. In addition, doses
from liquid effluents, currently low, will remain low under EPU
conditions.
The ANO-2 Technical Specifications implement the guidelines of 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix I, which are within the 10 CFR Part 20 limits.
Adjusting current values for projected EPU increases, the offsite dose
at EPU conditions is estimated to be 6.92E-04 millirads for noble gas
gamma air, 2.15E-03 millirads for noble gas beta air, and 1.56E-02
millirem to the thyroid for particulates and iodine. Appendix I limits
are 10 millirads, 20 millirads, and 15 millirem to the thyroid,
respectively. The licensee stated that the offsite dose will continue
to be within the technical specification dose limits.
The EPU will not involve significant increases in an offsite dose
from noble gases, airborne particulates, iodine, or tritium.
Radioactive liquid effluents are not routinely discharged from ANO-2.
In addition, as stated by the Radiological Environmental Monitoring
Program for ANO-2, radiation exposure from shine dose is not now a
significant exposure pathway, and it will not be significantly affected
by the EPU.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the estimated doses from
both the liquid and gaseous release pathways resulting from EPU
conditions are within the design objectives specified by 10 CFR Part
50, Appendix I, and the limits of 10 CFR Part 20.
Accident Analysis Impacts
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's analyses and performed
confirmatory calculations to verfy the acceptability of the licensee's
calculated doses under accident conditions. Based on these
calculations, the staff concludes that the proposed EPU would not
significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents and
would not result in a significant increase in the radiological
environmental impact of ANO-2 under accident conditions. If the license
amendment request is approved, the result of the staff's analyses will
be presented in the safety evaluation issued with the license
amendment.
Severe Accidents: The environmental effects of severe accidents
outside the design basis of protection and engineered safety systems
were not evaluated in the ANO-2 ER. The NRC staff finds that the EPU
will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of
accidents and will not result in a significant increase in the
radiological environmental impact of ANO-2 under accident conditions.
Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts
The EPU will involve an increase in the average enrichment of the
fuel bundle. The environmental impacts of the fuel cycle and of
transportation of fuel and wastes are described in 10 CFR Part 51,
Tables S-3 and S-4, specifically at 10 CFR 51.51 and 10 CFR 51.52,
respectively. ANO-2 FES Section 5.5.3 discusses the uranium fuel cycle
and transportation impact of the fuel at original issuance of the
operating license. An NRC assessment (53 FR 30355, dated August 11,
1988, as corrected by 53 FR 32322, dated August 24, 1988) evaluated the
applicability of Tables S-3 and S-4 to higher burnup cycles. The
assessment concluded that there is no significant change in
environmental impacts for fuel cycles with uranium enrichments up to
5.0 weight-percent U-235 and burnups up to 60 gigawatt-days per metric
ton of uranium (GWd/MTU) from the parameters evaluated in Tables S-3
and S-4. In Operating License Amendment 178 dated January 14, 1997, the
NRC granted Entergy's request to increase the fuel enrichment from 4.1
percent to 5.0 percent at ANO-2. The environmental effects of this fuel
enrichment increase were considered at that time. Since the fuel
enrichment for the EPU will not exceed 5.0 weight-percent U-235, and
the rod average discharge exposure will not exceed 60 GWd/MTU, the
environmental impacts of the proposed EPU will remain bounded by these
conclusions and is not expected to be significant.
Summary
The NRC staff concludes that the proposed EPU will not
significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident,
will not introduce any new radiological release pathways, will not
result in a significant increase in occupational or public radiation
exposures, and will not result in significant additional fuel cycle
environmental impacts. Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that no
significant radiological environmental impacts are associated with the
proposed action. Table 2 summarizes the radiological environmental
impacts of the EPU.
[[Page 20183]]
Table 2.--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts of Power Uprate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Water................ No change in radiological impact to
surface water.
Groundwater.................. No change in radiological impact to
ground water.
Radiological Waste Stream No changes in design or operation of
Impacts. waste streams.
Gaseous Radioactive Waste An increase in release rate that is
Impacts. linearly proportional to the power
increase will be expected.
Liquid Radioactive Waste No change in ANO-2 liquid release policy.
Impacts.
Solid Radioactive Waste
Impacts:
Wet Waste................ No appreciable change in radioactive
secondary resins expected due to EPU.
Dry Waste................ No significant changes in dry waste
foreseen.
Irradiated Reactor Components No significant changes in irradiated
components forseen.
Dose Impacts:
In-plant Radiation....... Even though some RCS activity levels are
elevated, in-plant exposures are
controlled to mitigate worker exposures.
Offsite Doses............ Slight increase in gaseous activity
levels possible, but doses will remain
ALARA and within 10 CFR Part 20 limits.
Accident Analysis Impacts.... No increase in the probability of an
accident. Some increase in consequences
of an accident, but still within NRC
acceptance limits.
Fuel Cycle and Transportation Increase in bundle average enrichment;
Impacts. impacts will remain within the
conclusions of Table S-3 and Table S-4
of 10 CFR Part 51.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
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.
The estimated cost of the increase in generating capacity is
approximately half the cost projected for purchasing the power and one-
third the cost of producing the power by constructing a new combined-
cycle, natural-gas-fueled facility with the attendant environmental
impacts of construction and operation. The licensee concluded that
increasing ANO-2 capacity would be an economical and environmentally
sound option for increasing power supply. Furthermore, unlike fossil
fuel plants, ANO-2 does not routinely emit sulfur oxides, nitrogen
oxides, particulate, matter carbon dioxide, or other atmospheric
pollutants that contribute to greenhouse gases or acid rain.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources different
than those previously considered in the FES for ANO-2, dated June 1977
(NUREG-0254).
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on April 15, 2002, the NRC
staff consulted with Division of Radiation Control and Emergency
Management of the Arkansas Department of Health, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no
comment.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
following: The environmental impacts of ANO-2 have been described in
(1) the FES, dated June 1977 (NUREG-0254), (2) the PULR, which is
Enclosure 5 to the EPU application dated December 19, 2000, and (3) the
June 26 and December 10, 2001, and January 15, 2002, RAI responses. On
January 31, 2000, as supplemented by letters dated June 26, July 31,
and September 21, 2000, Entergy submitted its ER supporting the license
renewal of ANO-1. The staff Environmental Impact Statement has been
issued as NUREG-1437, Supplement 3. Supplement 3 addresses many
balance-of-plant site features that are common to ANO-1 and ANO-2.
Supplement 3 was cited in Enclosure 5 of the December 19, 2000, license
application in instances where site characteristics common to both ANO-
1 and ANO-2 are unchanged by the EPU. Documents may be examined and/or
copied for a fee at the NRC's Public Document Room, at One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the
ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov 
(the Electronic Reading Room). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS
or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS
should contact the NRC Public Document Room Reference staff by
telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-2737, or by e-mail at
pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of April 2002.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William D. Reckley,
Acting Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 02-9989 Filed 4-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P