[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 156 (Monday, August 15, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19903]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 15, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446]
TU Electric Co., 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 amendments to Facility Operating License Nos.
NPF-87 and NPF-89, issued to Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al.,
(the licensee) for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES),
Units 1 and 2 located in Somervell County, Texas.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action:
By letter dated April 22, 1994, the licensee proposed to change the
technical specifications (TS) to allow an increase in fuel enrichment
(Uranium-235) to 5.0 weight percent. The present TS permit a maximum
enrichment of 4.3 weight percent.
The Need for Proposed Action:
The licensee intends, in the future, to use the more highly
enriched fuel to operate with 18-month fuel cycles. Currently, TS 5.3.1
limits the storage and use of fuel to an enrichment of 4.3 weight
percent. Thus, the change to the TS was requested.
Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed
revision to TS and concludes that storage and use of fuel enriched with
U-235 up to 5.0 weight percent at the CPSES, Units 1 and 2, is
acceptable. The safety considerations associated with higher
enrichments have been evaluated by the NRC staff and the staff has
concluded that such changes would not adversely affect plant safety.
The proposed changes have no adverse effect on the probability of any
accident. There will be no change to authorized power level. There is
no change to the allowable fuel burnup (60,000 MWD/MTU) already
approved for CPSES, Units 1 and 2. As a result, there is no significant
increase in individual or cumulative radiation exposure.
The environmental impacts of transportation resulting from the use
of higher enrichment and extended irradiation are discussed in the
staff assessment entitled, ``NRC Assessment of the Environmental
Effects of Transportation Resulting from Extended Fuel Enrichment and
Irradiation.'' This assessment was published in the Federal Register on
August 11, 1988, (53 FR 30355) as corrected on August 24, 1988, (53 FR
32322) in connection with the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit
1: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. As
indicated therein, the environmental cost contribution of an increase
in fuel enrichment of up to 5.0 weight percent U-235 and irradiation
limits of up to 60,000 MWD/MTU are either unchanged, or may in fact be
reduced from those summarized in Table S-4 as set forth in 10 CFR
51.52(c). These findings are applicable to the proposed amendments for
CPSES, Units 1 and 2. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that this
proposed action would result in no significant radiological
environmental impact.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
changes involve systems located within the restricted area as defined
in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents
and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, the Commission
concludes that there are no significant non-radiological environmental
impacts associated with the proposed amendments.
Alternative to the Proposed Action:
Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant
environmental effects that would result from the proposed action, any
alternative with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be
evaluated.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested
amendments. The staff considered denial of the proposed action;
however, this would not reduce environmental impact of plant operation
and would result in reduced operational flexibility. 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 September 1981 (NUREG 0775) and Supplement
dated October 1989.
Agencies and Persons Consulted:
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request. The staff consulted
with the State of Texas regarding the environmental impact of the
proposed action.
Finding of No Significant Impact:
The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental
impact statement for the proposed license amendments.
Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, we conclude that
the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality
of the human environment.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for license amendments dated April 22, 1994. Copies are
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document
Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555,
and at the Local Public Document Room located at the University of
Texas at the Arlington Library, Government Publications/Maps, 701 South
Cooper, P.O. Box 19497, Arlington, Texas 76019.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of August 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William D. Beckner,
Director, Project Directorate IV-l, Division of Reactor Projects
III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-19903 Filed 8-12-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-1-M