[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 32356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-15141]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-445]
Texas Utilities Electric Company; Comanche Peak Steam Electric
Station, Unit 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of its
regulations for Facility Operating License No. NPF-87, issued to Texas
Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric, the licensee), for the
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Unit 1, located in
Somervell County, Texas.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed exemption would extend the first inservice test (IST)
program interval for Unit 1 from 120 months to approximately 156
months.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application for exemption dated March 1, 1994, as supplemented by
letter dated August 12, 1994.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is to extend the CPSES Unit 1 IST program
interval beyond the 120 months specified in 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(ii)
which began on the Unit 1 commercial operation date (August 13, 1990)
to 120 months from the Unit 2 commercial operation date (August 3,
1993). This extension from 120 months to 156 months for the Unit 1 IST
interval is being requested in order to maintain the consistency of the
IST program between CPSES Units 1 and 2.
The licensee intends to perform all future IST program updates for
both units at 120-month intervals based on the Unit 2 commercial
operation date.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that it is advantageous for a facility with two similar
units to implement an IST program which is consistent between units by
testing each unit to the same Code edition and by scheduling 120-month
program updates on each unit to coincide. CPSES Units 1 and 2 are
similar units and the licensee has therefore attempted to capture these
advantages through the use of one IST program which specifies the same
test requirements for both units based on the same ASME Code Edition.
The advantages include a significant reduction in the
administrative effort required in preparing periodic program updates, a
corresponding reduction in the program review effort by the NRC staff
and a reduction in the potential for personnel errors in the
performance of testing requirements. Further, a significant unit
difference is eliminated by applying the same Code requirements to the
testing of both units. In addition, this exemption increases plant
safety through simplification and standardization of plant testing
procedures, does not present an undue risk to the public health and
safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security.
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.
According, 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
CPSES, Units 1 and 2, dated October 1989.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on May 31, 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 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 respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's exemption request letter dated March 1, 1994, as
supplemented by letter dated August 12, 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,
Government Publications/Maps, 702 College, P.O. Box 19497, Arlington,
Texas 76019.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of June 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Timothy J. Polich, Project Manager,
Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-15141 Filed 6-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
