ML20092G620
| ML20092G620 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1995 |
| From: | Polich T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20092G624 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9509190397 | |
| Download: ML20092G620 (4) | |
Text
- _ - - - _
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY l
DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50-446 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (tne Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of its regulations to Facility Operating License No. NPF-87 and NPF-89, issued to the Texas Utilities Electric Company (TV Electric, the licensee), for operation of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2, located in i
Somervell County, Texas.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Prooosed Action:
The proposed action is in response to the licensee's application dated September 19, 1994, for exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) regarding submission of revisions to the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and design change reports for facility changes made under 10 CFR 50.59 for t'e n
CPSES. Under the proposed exemption the licensee would schedule updates to the single, unified FSAR for the two units that comprise CPSES once per fuel cycle (based on the unit with the shortest interval between scheduled refueling outages). With the current fuel cycles, FSAR updates would be submitted every 18 months.
9509190397 950912 PDR ADOCK 05000445 P
.= -. - - -- - -
l 2
t The Need for the Proposed Action:
10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) requires licensees to submit updates to their UFSAR i
within 6 months after each refueling outage providing that the interval l
l between successive updates does not exceed 24 months.
Since CPSES, Units 1 and 2 share a common FSAR, the licensee must update the same document within p
6 months after a refueling outage for either unit. CPSES units have alternating refueling outages, thus linking the submittal of the update to the completion of one unit's refueling outage when the other unit is scheduled for a refueling outage within six to twelve months is an administrative burden which does not enhance achieving the purpose of the rule. Allowing the exemption would maintain the CPSES FSAR current within 24 months of the last revision and would not exceed the 24-month interval for submission of the 10 CFR 50.59 design change report for either unit.
Environmental Imoacts of,the Proposed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 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 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 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 the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts.
The environmental impacts 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 Comanche Peak Steam ElectricStation,datedpctober1989.
Aaencies and Persons Consulted:
In accordance with its stated policy, on August 10, 1995, the staff consulted with the Texas State official, Mr. Authur Tate of the Texas i
Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control, regarding the environmental
. impact of the proposed action.
The State official had no comments.
I 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 re:nect to the proposed action, see the l
l l
l l
licensee's letter dated September 19, 1994, which are 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 University of Texas at Arlington Library, 702 College, P.O. Box 19497, Arlington, TX 76019.
]
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of September 1995.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Timothy J. Polich, Project Manager Project Directorate IV-1 D' vision of Reactor Projects III/IV i
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation d
4
/
i i
1 i
if