Luminant Generation Company, LLC; Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2; Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related To the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level, 35419-35421 [E8-14147]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mmaher on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Notices
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
that a person is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. The NRC published a Federal
Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period on this information collection on
April 1, 2008.
1. Type of submission, new, revision,
or extension: Extension.
2. The title of the information
collection: NRC Form 536, ‘‘Operator
Licensing Examination Data.’’
3. Current OMB approval number:
3150–0131.
4. The form number if applicable:
NRC Form 536.
5. How often the collection is
required: Annually.
6. Who will be required or asked to
report: All holders of and applicants for
operating licenses for commercial
nuclear power reactors.
7. An estimate of the number of
annual responses: 80.
8. The estimated number of annual
respondents: 80.
9. An estimate of the total number of
hours needed annually to complete the
requirement or request: 80.
10. Abstract: NRC is requesting
renewal of its clearance to annually
request all commercial power reactor
licensees and applicants for an
operating license to voluntarily send to
the NRC: (1) Their projected number of
candidates for initial operator licensing
examinations; (2) the estimated dates of
the examinations; (3) if the
examinations will be facility developed
or NRC developed, and (4) the estimated
number of individuals that will
participate in the Generic Fundamentals
Examination (GFE) for that calendar
year. Except for the GFE, this
information is used to plan budgets and
resources in regard to operator
examination scheduling in order to meet
the needs of the nuclear power industry.
A copy of the final supporting
statement may be viewed free of charge
at the NRC Public Document Room, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Room O–1 F21, Rockville, MD
20852. OMB clearance requests are
available at the NRC worldwide Web
site: https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/
doc-comment/omb/. The
document will be available on the NRC
home page site for 60 days after the
signature date of this notice.
Comments and questions should be
directed to the OMB reviewer listed
below by July 23, 2008. Comments
received after this date will be
considered if it is practical to do so, but
assurance of consideration cannot be
given to comments received after this
date.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
01:51 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
Nathan J. Frey, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs (3150–0131),
NEOB–10202, Office of Management
and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Comments can also be e-mailed to
Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov or
submitted by telephone at (202) 395–
7345.
The NRC Clearance Officer is
Margaret A. Janney, (301) 415–7245.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day
of June, 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Gregory Trussell,
Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of
Information Services.
[FR Doc. E8–14144 Filed 6–20–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–445 AND 50–446]
Luminant Generation Company, LLC;
Comanche Peak Steam Electric
Station, Units 1 and 2; Final
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
Related To the Proposed License
Amendment To Increase the Maximum
Reactor Power Level
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
SUMMARY: As required by Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations 10 CFR part
51, the NRC has prepared a final
Environmental Assessment (EA)
associated with its evaluation of a
request by the TXU Generation
Company, LP (subsequently renamed
Luminant Generation Company, LLC,
the licensee), for a license amendment
to increase the maximum thermal power
at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric
Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2, from
3458 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3612
MWt at each unit. The NRC staff did not
identify any significant impact from the
information provided in the licensee’s
stretch power uprate (SPU) application
for CPSES, Units 1 and 2 or from the
NRC staff’s independent review. The
final EA and Finding of No Significant
Impact are being published in the
Federal Register.
The NRC published a draft EA and
finding of no significant impact on the
proposed action for public comment in
the Federal Register on April 30, 2008
(73 FR 23503). No comments were
received.
AGENCY:
Environmental Assessment
The NRC is considering issuance of an
amendment to Facility Operating
License Nos. NPF–87 and NPF–89,
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35419
issued to Luminant Generation
Company, LLC, for operation of the
CPSES, Units 1 and 2, located in
Somervell County, Texas. Therefore,
consistent with Section 51.21 of Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), the NRC is issuing this final EA
and finding of no significant impact.
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would revise the
CPSES, Units 1 and 2 operating licenses
and technical specifications (TSs) to
increase the licensed rated power by 4.5
percent from 3458 MWt to 3612 MWt.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
August 28, 2007, as supplemented by
letters dated October 24, November 7,
and December 3, 2007, January 10, 29,
and 31, February 21, 26, and 28, March
6, April 17, and May 14, 2008. The
letters dated April 17, and May 14,
2008, were received after issuance of the
Draft EA, provided supplemental
clarifying information, but did not have
any impact on the Draft EA.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action permits an
increase in the licensed core thermal
power from 3458 MWt to 3612 MWt for
the CPSES, Units 1 and 2, providing the
flexibility to obtain a higher electrical
output from the CPSES, Units 1 and 2.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The licensee has submitted an
environmental evaluation supporting
the proposed SPU and provided a
summary of its conclusions concerning
the radiological and non-radiological
environmental impacts of the proposed
action.
Radiological Impacts
The licensee evaluated the impacts of
the proposed SPU on radioactive liquid
waste production, processing, discharge
into the environment, resultant dose to
members of the public, and impact to
Squaw Creek Reservoir (SCR). There
will be an increase (approximately 6.5
percent for long-lived activity) in the
equilibrium radioactivity in the reactor
coolant, which in turn will result in a
maximum increase of 6.5 percent in the
radioactivity content of the liquid
releases. Tritium levels are also
expected to increase by 6.5 percent in
the discharged liquid. This will result in
increased aqueous tritium
concentrations in the SCR.
The evaluation shows that even with
the small increase in the radioactivity
being discharged into the environment,
the projected dose to the maximally
exposed member of the public, while
E:\FR\FM\23JNN1.SGM
23JNN1
mmaher on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
35420
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Notices
slightly increased, will remain well
below the As Low As Reasonably
Achievable (ALARA) criteria in
Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. Also, the
tritium concentration levels in SCR will
remain well below the reporting limits
in the CPSES Offsite Dose Calculation
Manual (ODCM), which is based on
NRC reporting criteria.
The licensee evaluated the impacts of
the proposed SPU on gaseous
radioactive wastes. Gaseous radioactive
wastes are activation gases and fission
product radioactive noble gases, which
come from radioactive system leakage,
process operations including volume
control tank (VCT) venting, gases used
for tank cover gas, and gases generated
in the radiochemistry laboratory. The
evaluation shows that the proposed SPU
will not significantly increase the
inventory of gases normally processed
in the gaseous waste management
system. This is based on no change to
plant system functions and no change to
the gas volume inputs.
The activity of radioactive gaseous
nuclides present in the waste gas system
will increase as a result of the SPU. This
is due to the increased levels of gases in
the reactor coolant system and the
actions performed in the VCT. However,
the operation of the waste gas system
will not change and will continue to
allow for decay of the short-lived
radionuclides. Tritium will remain the
largest component of the gaseous
effluents, the largest contributor being
from evaporation from the Spent Fuel
Pools. The proposed SPU will result in
an increase (approximately 9.5 percent
for noble gases, 6.6 percent (reactor
coolant) and 12.6 percent (secondary
coolant) for I–131, and 6.5 percent for
long-lived activity) in the equilibrium
radioactivity in the reactor coolant,
which in turn increases the activity in
the gaseous waste disposal systems and
the activity released into the atmosphere
(estimated to increase by 9.5 percent for
noble gases, 6.5 percent for particulates
including Tritium, and 12.6 percent
limiting increase for iodines).
The evaluation shows that even with
the small increase in the gaseous
radioactivity being discharged into the
environment, the projected dose to the
maximally exposed member of the
public, while slightly increased, will
remain well below the ALARA criteria
in Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50.
While the SPU will slightly increase
the activity level of radioactive isotopes
in the reactor coolant system and the
volume of radioactive liquid generated
from leakage and planned drainage,
there will only be a minimal effect on
the generation of radioactively
contaminated sludge and resin solids
VerDate Aug<31>2005
01:51 Jun 21, 2008
Jkt 214001
processed as radwaste. The currently
installed radwaste system and its total
volume capacity for handling solid
radwaste will not be affected.
For the long-term operation of the
plant with the SPU, the dose to an
offsite member of the public from the
onsite storage of solid radwaste was
estimated to increase by approximately
7.2 percent. This is based on several
assumptions: (1) The current radwaste
decays and its dose contribution
decreases; (2) the stored radwaste is
routinely moved offsite for disposal; (3)
the radwaste generated post SPU enters
into storage; and (4) the plant capacity
factor approaches the target of 1.0. The
radiation dose from direct shine is
cumulative based on the waste
generated and stored onsite from all
units over the plant’s lifetime. CPSES
ODCM contains the requirements to
ensure compliance with the radiation
dose limits in 10 CFR part 20 and the
Environmental Protection Agency’s 40
CFR part 190. Therefore, while a small
increase in offsite radiation dose is
expected, it will remain within
regulatory limits.
The radiation exposure to plant
workers from the SPU is expected to be
kept to a minimum based on the design
features at CPSES, Units 1 and 2, and
the Radiation Protection Program. The
design features include: (1) Shielding,
which is provided to reduce levels of
radiation; (2) ventilation, which is
arranged to control the flow of
potentially contaminated air; (3) an
installed radiation monitoring system,
which is used to measure levels of
radiation in potentially occupied areas
and measure airborne radioactivity
throughout the plant; and (4) respiratory
protective equipment, which is used as
prescribed by the Radiation Protection
Program. The Radiation Protection
Program contains procedures for all
radiological work performed at CPSES,
Units 1 and 2 to ensure doses are
maintained ALARA and are in
compliance with regulatory limits in 10
CFR part 20.
Non-Radiological Impacts
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts of the proposed
SPU, the proposed action does not
result in any significant changes to land
use or water use. The proposed SPU
would increase the temperature of water
discharged from the plant at the
discharge point, Outfall 001, into the
SCR by 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and
would increase lake evaporation by
approximately 6 acre-feet per year. The
expected thermal increase would raise
the average daily temperature at Outfall
001 from 95.6 °F to 97.1 °F, which
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
remains well below the daily average
temperature of 113 °F and daily
maximum temperature of 116 °F
specified in CPSES Texas Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (TPDES)
permit. Because this increase remains
well below the facility’s TPDES permit
limits, the NRC staff determined that
this increase is not significant, and is
bounded by previous analysis of
thermal discharge as documented in the
Final Environmental Statement related
to the operation of CPSES, Units 1 and
2 (September 1981). No effects on the
aquatic or terrestrial habitat in the
vicinity of the plant, or to endangered
or threatened species, or to the habitats
of endangered or threatened species are
expected as a result of the increase in
thermal discharge or change in annual
lake evaporation. The proposed action
does not have a potential to affect any
historical or archaeological sites.
The plant will be modified by
replacing the high-pressure turbines at
both units. All proposed plant changes
will occur within the existing buildings,
and no proposed equipment upgrades
require any additional equipment that
will be visible from outside the existing
power station. The proposed action will
not change the method of generating
electricity or the method of handling
any influents from the environment or
non-radiological effluents to the
environment. Therefore, no changes or
different types of non-radiological
environmental impacts are expected as
a result of the proposed amendment.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that
there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed
action. The details of the staff’s safety
evaluation will be provided in the
amendment that will be issued as part
of the letter to the licensee approving
the amendment to the facility operating
licenses and technical specifications.
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.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
previously considered in the Final
Environmental Statement related to the
operation of CPSES, Units 1 and 2,
dated September 1981.
E:\FR\FM\23JNN1.SGM
23JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 121 / Monday, June 23, 2008 / Notices
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on June 11, 2008, the staff consulted
with the Texas State official, Alice
Rogers of the Texas Department of
Health, 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
application dated August 28, 2007, as
supplemented by letters dated October
24, November 7, and December 3, 2007,
January 10, 29, and 31, February 21, 26,
and 28, March 6, April 17, and May 14,
2008. Publicly available records are
accessible electronically via the
Agencywide Document Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet
at the NRC Web site: https://
www.nrc.gov.reading-rm/adams.html.
Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in
accessing the documents located in
ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR
Reference staff by telephone at 1–800–
397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or send and
e-mail to pdr_Resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day
of June, 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Balwant K. Singal,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8–14147 Filed 6–20–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request for the Review of a
Revised Information Collection: Form
DPRS–2809
Office of Personnel
Management.
ACTION: Notice.
mmaher on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104–13, May 22, 1995), this notice
announces that the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) has submitted to
SUMMARY:
01:51 Jun 21, 2008
U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Howard Weizmann,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. E8–14142 Filed 6–20–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325–38–P
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
VerDate Aug<31>2005
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) a request for review of a revised
information collection. DPRS 2809,
Request to Change Federal Employees
Health Benefits (FEHB) Enrollment, is
used by former spouses and Temporary
Continuation of Coverage recipients
who are eligible to elect, cancel, or
change health benefits enrollment
during open season.
Approximately 27,000 DPRS–2809
forms are completed annually. We
estimate it takes approximately 45
minutes to complete the forms. The
annual burden is 20,250 hours.
For copies of this proposal, contact
Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606–
8358, FAX (202) 418–3251 or via E-mail
to MaryBeth.Smith-Toomey@opm.gov.
Please include a mailing address with
your request.
DATES: Comments on this proposal
should be received within 30 calendar
days from the date of this publication.
ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments
to—
Ronald E. Ostrich, Chief,Program
Planning & Evaluation
Group,Insurances Services
Program,Center for Retirement and
Insurance Services,U.S. Office of
Personnel Management,1900 E Street,
NW., Room 3425,Washington, DC
20415–3650; and
Brenda Aguilar,OPM Desk Officer,Office
of Information & Regulatory
Affairs,Office of Management and
Budget,New Executive Office
Building, NW.,Room
10235,Washington, DC 20503.
For Information Regarding
Administrative Coordination—Contact:
Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader,
Publications Team, RIS Support
Services/Support Group, (202) 606–
0623.
Jkt 214001
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
[OMB No. 3206–0005]
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request for Proposed Clearance of
Revised Information Collection
Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions,
Standard Form 85 (SF 85); Questionnaire for
Public Trust Positions, Standard Form 85P
(SF 85P); Supplemental Questionnaire for
Selected Positions, Standard Form 85PS (SF
85PS); Questionnaire for National Security
Positions, Standard Form 86 (SF 86);
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35421
Continuation Sheet for Questionnaires Sf 85,
Sf 85p, and SF 86, Standard Form 86A (SF
86A); and Certification Statement for SF 86
(SF 86C)
U.S. Office of Personnel
Management.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104–13), this notice announces that
the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) intends to submit to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) a request for clearance of these
information collections:
• Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive
Positions, SF 85;
• Questionnaire for Public Trust
Positions, SF 85P;
• Supplemental Questionnaire for
Selected Positions, SF 85PS;
• Questionnaire for National Security
Positions, SF 86;
• Continuation Sheet for
Questionnaires SF 85, SF 85P, and SF
85PS, SF 86A;
• Certification Statement for SF 86,
SF 86C; and
• Parallel, electronic versions of the
SF 85, SF 85P, SF 85PS, and SF 86,
including accompanying releases,
housed in a system named e-QIP
(Electronic Questionnaires for
Investigative Processing).
These information collections are
completed by applicants for, or
incumbents of, Government positions,
or positions for the Government under
contract, or by military personnel. The
collections are used as the basis of
information for background
investigations to establish that such
persons are:
• Suitable for employment or
retention in Federal employment;
• Fit based on character and conduct
for employment or retention as a
contractor;
• Suitable for a public trust position;
• Suitable for or retention in national
security positions as defined in 5 CFR
732;
• Eligible for or retention in positions
requiring access to classified
information under Executive Order
12968;
• Eligible for employment or
retention as a Federal employee, Federal
contractor or military personnel.
When use is necessary, the SF 86A is
used in lieu of blank paper as a
continuation of the form with which its
use is associated and not for any unique
purpose exclusive from the associated
form.
Comments are particularly invited on:
• Whether this collection of
information is necessary for the proper
E:\FR\FM\23JNN1.SGM
23JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 121 (Monday, June 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35419-35421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-14147]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-445 AND 50-446]
Luminant Generation Company, LLC; Comanche Peak Steam Electric
Station, Units 1 and 2; Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of
No Significant Impact Related To the Proposed License Amendment To
Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
SUMMARY: As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 10
CFR part 51, the NRC has prepared a final Environmental Assessment (EA)
associated with its evaluation of a request by the TXU Generation
Company, LP (subsequently renamed Luminant Generation Company, LLC, the
licensee), for a license amendment to increase the maximum thermal
power at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and
2, from 3458 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3612 MWt at each unit. The NRC
staff did not identify any significant impact from the information
provided in the licensee's stretch power uprate (SPU) application for
CPSES, Units 1 and 2 or from the NRC staff's independent review. The
final EA and Finding of No Significant Impact are being published in
the Federal Register.
The NRC published a draft EA and finding of no significant impact
on the proposed action for public comment in the Federal Register on
April 30, 2008 (73 FR 23503). No comments were received.
Environmental Assessment
The NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility
Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89, issued to Luminant Generation
Company, LLC, for operation of the CPSES, Units 1 and 2, located in
Somervell County, Texas. Therefore, consistent with Section 51.21 of
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), the NRC is
issuing this final EA and finding of no significant impact.
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would revise the CPSES, Units 1 and 2 operating
licenses and technical specifications (TSs) to increase the licensed
rated power by 4.5 percent from 3458 MWt to 3612 MWt. The proposed
action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated August
28, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated October 24, November 7, and
December 3, 2007, January 10, 29, and 31, February 21, 26, and 28,
March 6, April 17, and May 14, 2008. The letters dated April 17, and
May 14, 2008, were received after issuance of the Draft EA, provided
supplemental clarifying information, but did not have any impact on the
Draft EA.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action permits an increase in the licensed core
thermal power from 3458 MWt to 3612 MWt for the CPSES, Units 1 and 2,
providing the flexibility to obtain a higher electrical output from the
CPSES, Units 1 and 2.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The licensee has submitted an environmental evaluation supporting
the proposed SPU and provided a summary of its conclusions concerning
the radiological and non-radiological environmental impacts of the
proposed action.
Radiological Impacts
The licensee evaluated the impacts of the proposed SPU on
radioactive liquid waste production, processing, discharge into the
environment, resultant dose to members of the public, and impact to
Squaw Creek Reservoir (SCR). There will be an increase (approximately
6.5 percent for long-lived activity) in the equilibrium radioactivity
in the reactor coolant, which in turn will result in a maximum increase
of 6.5 percent in the radioactivity content of the liquid releases.
Tritium levels are also expected to increase by 6.5 percent in the
discharged liquid. This will result in increased aqueous tritium
concentrations in the SCR.
The evaluation shows that even with the small increase in the
radioactivity being discharged into the environment, the projected dose
to the maximally exposed member of the public, while
[[Page 35420]]
slightly increased, will remain well below the As Low As Reasonably
Achievable (ALARA) criteria in Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. Also, the
tritium concentration levels in SCR will remain well below the
reporting limits in the CPSES Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM),
which is based on NRC reporting criteria.
The licensee evaluated the impacts of the proposed SPU on gaseous
radioactive wastes. Gaseous radioactive wastes are activation gases and
fission product radioactive noble gases, which come from radioactive
system leakage, process operations including volume control tank (VCT)
venting, gases used for tank cover gas, and gases generated in the
radiochemistry laboratory. The evaluation shows that the proposed SPU
will not significantly increase the inventory of gases normally
processed in the gaseous waste management system. This is based on no
change to plant system functions and no change to the gas volume
inputs.
The activity of radioactive gaseous nuclides present in the waste
gas system will increase as a result of the SPU. This is due to the
increased levels of gases in the reactor coolant system and the actions
performed in the VCT. However, the operation of the waste gas system
will not change and will continue to allow for decay of the short-lived
radionuclides. Tritium will remain the largest component of the gaseous
effluents, the largest contributor being from evaporation from the
Spent Fuel Pools. The proposed SPU will result in an increase
(approximately 9.5 percent for noble gases, 6.6 percent (reactor
coolant) and 12.6 percent (secondary coolant) for I-131, and 6.5
percent for long-lived activity) in the equilibrium radioactivity in
the reactor coolant, which in turn increases the activity in the
gaseous waste disposal systems and the activity released into the
atmosphere (estimated to increase by 9.5 percent for noble gases, 6.5
percent for particulates including Tritium, and 12.6 percent limiting
increase for iodines).
The evaluation shows that even with the small increase in the
gaseous radioactivity being discharged into the environment, the
projected dose to the maximally exposed member of the public, while
slightly increased, will remain well below the ALARA criteria in
Appendix I to 10 CFR part 50.
While the SPU will slightly increase the activity level of
radioactive isotopes in the reactor coolant system and the volume of
radioactive liquid generated from leakage and planned drainage, there
will only be a minimal effect on the generation of radioactively
contaminated sludge and resin solids processed as radwaste. The
currently installed radwaste system and its total volume capacity for
handling solid radwaste will not be affected.
For the long-term operation of the plant with the SPU, the dose to
an offsite member of the public from the onsite storage of solid
radwaste was estimated to increase by approximately 7.2 percent. This
is based on several assumptions: (1) The current radwaste decays and
its dose contribution decreases; (2) the stored radwaste is routinely
moved offsite for disposal; (3) the radwaste generated post SPU enters
into storage; and (4) the plant capacity factor approaches the target
of 1.0. The radiation dose from direct shine is cumulative based on the
waste generated and stored onsite from all units over the plant's
lifetime. CPSES ODCM contains the requirements to ensure compliance
with the radiation dose limits in 10 CFR part 20 and the Environmental
Protection Agency's 40 CFR part 190. Therefore, while a small increase
in offsite radiation dose is expected, it will remain within regulatory
limits.
The radiation exposure to plant workers from the SPU is expected to
be kept to a minimum based on the design features at CPSES, Units 1 and
2, and the Radiation Protection Program. The design features include:
(1) Shielding, which is provided to reduce levels of radiation; (2)
ventilation, which is arranged to control the flow of potentially
contaminated air; (3) an installed radiation monitoring system, which
is used to measure levels of radiation in potentially occupied areas
and measure airborne radioactivity throughout the plant; and (4)
respiratory protective equipment, which is used as prescribed by the
Radiation Protection Program. The Radiation Protection Program contains
procedures for all radiological work performed at CPSES, Units 1 and 2
to ensure doses are maintained ALARA and are in compliance with
regulatory limits in 10 CFR part 20.
Non-Radiological Impacts
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts of the proposed
SPU, the proposed action does not result in any significant changes to
land use or water use. The proposed SPU would increase the temperature
of water discharged from the plant at the discharge point, Outfall 001,
into the SCR by 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) and would increase lake
evaporation by approximately 6 acre-feet per year. The expected thermal
increase would raise the average daily temperature at Outfall 001 from
95.6 [deg]F to 97.1 [deg]F, which remains well below the daily average
temperature of 113 [deg]F and daily maximum temperature of 116 [deg]F
specified in CPSES Texas Pollution Discharge Elimination System (TPDES)
permit. Because this increase remains well below the facility's TPDES
permit limits, the NRC staff determined that this increase is not
significant, and is bounded by previous analysis of thermal discharge
as documented in the Final Environmental Statement related to the
operation of CPSES, Units 1 and 2 (September 1981). No effects on the
aquatic or terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the plant, or to
endangered or threatened species, or to the habitats of endangered or
threatened species are expected as a result of the increase in thermal
discharge or change in annual lake evaporation. The proposed action
does not have a potential to affect any historical or archaeological
sites.
The plant will be modified by replacing the high-pressure turbines
at both units. All proposed plant changes will occur within the
existing buildings, and no proposed equipment upgrades require any
additional equipment that will be visible from outside the existing
power station. The proposed action will not change the method of
generating electricity or the method of handling any influents from the
environment or non-radiological effluents to the environment.
Therefore, no changes or different types of non-radiological
environmental impacts are expected as a result of the proposed
amendment.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. The details
of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in the amendment that
will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the
amendment to the facility operating licenses and technical
specifications.
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.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement
related to the operation of CPSES, Units 1 and 2, dated September 1981.
[[Page 35421]]
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on June 11, 2008, the staff
consulted with the Texas State official, Alice Rogers of the Texas
Department of Health, 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 application dated August 28, 2007, as supplemented by
letters dated October 24, November 7, and December 3, 2007, January 10,
29, and 31, February 21, 26, and 28, March 6, April 17, and May 14,
2008. Publicly available records are accessible electronically via the
Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site: https://
www.nrc.gov.reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in
ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-
397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send and e-mail to pdr_Resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of June, 2008.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Balwant K. Singal,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8-14147 Filed 6-20-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
