ML20210L666
| ML20210L666 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/04/1999 |
| From: | Gramm R NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210L672 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9908090198 | |
| Download: ML20210L666 (5) | |
Text
,
7590-01-P UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGut.ATORY COMMISSION TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NOS,50-445 AND 50-446 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of license amendments to Facility Operating License (FOL) Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89, issued to Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric or the licensee), for operation of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2, located in Somervell County, Texas.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action:
i The proposed license amendments would allow the licensee to increase the licensed thermal power level of CPSES, Unit 2, from 3411 to 3445 megawatts thermal (MWt), which represents a 1 percent increase in allowable thermal power. This facility was authorized for power production at 3411 MWt with issuance of the FOL on April 6,1993.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for license i
amendment dated December 21,1998, as supplemented by letters dated April 23 and May 14, 1999.Section V, of Attachment 2, to the licensee's May 14,1999, supplement, contains the licensee's detailed environmental evaluation of the proposed licensing action.
4 9908090198 990004 PDR ADOCK 05000445 P
. The Need for the Prooosed Action:
The proposed action will allow an increase in power generation at CPSES, Unit 2, to provide additional electrical power for distribution to the grid. Power uprate has been widely recognized by the industry as a safe and cost-effective method to increase generating capacity.
EnvironmentalImpacts of the Prooosed Ac,ti.qD:
The Commission has previously evaluated the environmentalimpact of operation of CPSES, Units 1 and 2, as described in the " Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2," NUREG-0775, September 1981. With regard to consequences of postulated accidents, the licensee has reanalyzed the design-basis accident doses for the exclusion area boundary, low population zone, and the control room dose to the operators and determined that there will be a small increase in these doses; however, the analysis presented in NUREG-0775 postulates these doses resulting from releases at 104.5 percent of the currently licensed power level. Thus, the increase in postulated doses due to design-basis accidents is bounded by the previous 1
evaluation presented in NUREG-0775. No increase in the probability of these accidents is expected to occur.
With regard to normal releases, calculations have been performed that show the potential impact on the radiological effluents from the proposed 1 percent increase in power level of CPSES Unit 2. For the 1 percent uprating calculations, the offsite doses from normal effluent releases remain significantly below the bounding limits of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Reaulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Appendix 1. Normal annual average gaseous release remains limited to a small fraction of 10 CFR Part 20 limits for identified mixtures. Solid and liquid waste i
I
. processing systems are expected to operate within their design requirements. More frequent operation of the:s systems may lead to a slight increase in solid and liquid production.
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the proposed action will not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released off site, and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Tlperefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not involve any historic sites. With regard to thermal discharges to the Squaw Creek Reservoir, a small increase in the circulating water discharge temperature is expect due to the proposed 1 percent power uprate. The increase is expected to be approximately.01 degree Fahrerheit, and therefore, insignificant. Existing administrative controls ensure the conduct of adequate monitoring such that appropriate actions can be taken to preclude exceeding National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted limits. No additional monitoring requirements or other changes relative to the NPDES permit are required as a result of the power uprate.
Therefore, as described in the preceding discussions, the 1 percent uprette of Unit 2 does not have a significant environmental impact on the Squaw Creek Reservoir.
No other nonradiological impacts are associated with the proposed iction.
Based upon the above, the Commission concludes that the proposed action does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmentalimpact. Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
j Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
I
e 4
Attematives to the Proposed Action:
As an attemative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the 'no-action" altemative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmentalimpacts. The environmentalimpacts of the proposed action and the altemative action are similar.
Altemative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the CPSES.
Aaencies and Persons Consulted:
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 19,1999, the staff consulted with the Texas State official, Mr. Authur Tate of the Texas Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control, regarding the environmentalimpact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT On the basis of 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 application for license amendment December 21,1998, as supplemented by letters dated April 23 and May 14, 1999, 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 i
document room located at the University of Texas at Arlington Library, Govemment Publications / Maps,702 College, P.O. Box 19497, Arlington, Texas.
)
1 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of August,1999.
I FOR T.iE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Lk f W
\\
Robert A. Gramm, Chief, Section 1 i
Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4
L I