[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 166 (Monday, August 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45065-45066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-21583]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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


TXU Electric; Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License (FOL) Nos. NPF-87 
and NPF-89, issued to TXU Electric (TXU or the licensee), for operation 
of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2, 
located in Somervell and Hood Counties, Texas.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed license amendments would amend the FOLs, and change 
the Technical Specifications, to increase the maximum, licensed, 
thermal power of both CPSES, Units 1 and 2, to 3458 MWt, which would 
represent an increase of approximately 1.4 percent of the currently 
licensed thermal power for CPSES, Unit 1, and an increase of 
approximately 0.4 percent for CPSES, Unit 2. In addition, TXU requests 
that Texas Municipal Power Agency (TMPA) be removed from both Units 1 
and 2 licenses since transfer of ownership from TMPA to TXU was 
completed.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for license amendment dated April 5, 2001. Section 6.0 of 
Attachment 2 to the licensee's April 5, 2001, application contains the 
licensee's Environmental Evaluation.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would allow an increase in power generation at 
CPSES, Units 1 and 2, to provide additional electrical power for 
distribution to the grid. In certain circumstances, power uprate has 
been recognized as a safe and cost-effective method to increase 
generating capacity. The deletion of TMPA from FOL Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-
89 is needed in order to accurately reflect the ownership status of 
CPSES.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has previously evaluated the environmental impact of 
operation of CPSES, Units 1 and 2, as described in NUREG-0775, ``Final 
Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Comanche Peak Steam 
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2,'' September 1981. With regard to 
consequences of postulated accidents, the licensee has analyzed 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 and are 
within the applicable limits of General Design Criterion 19 of Appendix 
A to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50 and 
the applicable limits of 10 CFR Part 100. 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 increase in power level of CPSES, Units 1 and 2. For the 
proposed increase in power level for CPSES, Units 1 and 2, the 
calculations show that the offsite doses from normal effluent releases 
remain significantly below the bounding limits of 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 to operate within 
their design requirements. More frequent operation of these systems may 
lead to a slight increase in solid and liquid production, but this 
increase is not expected to be significant.
    The NRC 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 have a potential to affect historic sites. With regard 
to thermal discharges to the Squaw Creek Reservoir, a small increase in 
the circulating water discharge temperature is expected due to the 
proposed increase in maximum thermal power for CPSES, Units 1 and 2. 
The increase is expected to be less than .25 degrees 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 proposed increase in maximum thermal power for CPSES, Units 1 
and 2 and there will be no increase in water usage.
    Therefore, as described in the preceding discussion, the proposed 
increase in maximum thermal power for CPSES, Units 1 and 2, would not 
have a significant environmental impact on the Squaw Creek Reservoir.
    With regard to deletion of TMPA from FOL Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89, 
this action is administrative in nature in that the transfer of 
ownership has already occurred in accordance with FOL license 
conditions. Accordingly, the deletion of TMPA from FOL Nos. NPF-87 and 
NPF-89 has neither radiological nor nonradiological impact.
    Based upon the above, the NRC concludes that the proposed action 
does not significantly 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 NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Environmental Impacts of the 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.

[[Page 45066]]

Alternative Use of Resources

    The action does not involve the use of any different resource than 
those previously considered in NUREG-0775.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    On August 1, 2001, the NRC 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 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 
licensee's letter dated April 5, 2001. Documents may be examined, and/
or copied for a fee, a the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publically available records will be accessible 
electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web 
site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Public Electronic Reading Room). If you 
do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) 
Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at 
[email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of August, 2001.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert A. Gramm,
Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-21583 Filed 8-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P