[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 11, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43762-43763]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20685]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446]


Texas Utilities Electric Company; 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

    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 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.

The Need for the Proposed 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.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has previously evaluated the environmental impact 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 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 Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Appendix I. Normal 
annual average gaseous release remains limited to a small fraction of 
10 CFR Part 20 limits for identified mixtures. Solid and liquid waste 
processing systems are expected

[[Page 43763]]

to operate within their design requirements. More frequent operation of 
these 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. 
Therefore, 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 Fahrenheit, 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 
uprate of Unit 2 does not have a significant environmental impact on 
the Squaw Creek Reservoir.
    No other nonradiological impacts are associated with the proposed 
action.
    Based upon the above, the Commission concludes that the proposed 
action does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other 
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant 
nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
action.
    Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the 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.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the 
CPSES.

Agencies 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 
environmental impact 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 document room located at the University of Texas at 
Arlington Library, Government Publications/Maps, 702 College, P.O. Box 
19497, Arlington, Texas.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of August, 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert A. Gramm,
Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-20685 Filed 8-10-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P