ML20086T832
| ML20086T832 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1995 |
| From: | Chandu Patel NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20086T835 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9508030171 | |
| Download: ML20086T832 (3) | |
Text
_
7590-01 1
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50-446 I
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF i
NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89, issued to Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric, the licensee), for operation of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2, located in Somervell County, Texas.
I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action:
j i
The proposed amendment would consist of revisions to 10 CFR Part 20 references to recognize the new section numbers, revise definitions to ensure consistency with 10 CFR Part 20, and change administrative controls for i
reporting and recordkeeping to maintain compliance with the new 10 CFR Part 20.
The changes would revise the limitations on concentrations of j
radioattive material released in liquid effluents and the limitations on the dose rate resulting from radioactive material released in gaseous effluents and reflect the relocation of the pricr 10 CFR 20.106 requirements to the new 30 CFR 20.1302. These changes are in response to the licensee's application for amendment dated August 12, 1994, implementing the new 10 CFR Part 20.
i 9500030171 950727 PDR ADOCK 050004 5 9
The Need for the ProDosed Action:
1 The proposed action is needed in order to retain operational flexibility consistent with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 1, concurrent with the implementation of the revised 10 CFR Part 20.
Environmental Impacts of the ProDosed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action, in regard to the actual release rates as referenced in the Technical Specifications as a dose rate to the maximally exposed member of the public, and concludes that 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 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 ProDosed Action:
Since the Commission has concluded there is no 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 staff considered denial of the proposed action.
Denial of tne application would result in no change in current environmental impacts.
The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.
3 h
Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of any resources nat previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the CPSES, Units 1 and 2, dated October 1989.
Aaencies and Persons Consulted:
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 20, 1995, the staff consulted with the Texas State official, Mr. Arthur Tate of the Texas Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.
The State official had no comments.
FINDING OF fiO 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 this action, see the application for amendment dated August 12, 1994, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, P
NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at the University of Texas at Arlington Library, Government Publications / Maps, 702 College, P.O. Box 19497, Arlington, TX 76019.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of July 1995.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
@ld0t b[
Chandu P. Patel, Project Manager Division of Reactor Projects Ill/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1
1 i
i
-