[Federal Register: July 11, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 133)]
[Notices]
[Page 41407-41408]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11jy03-95]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, STN 50-530]
Arizona Public Service Company, et al.: Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3; Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an amendment to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR) part 50, for Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51,
NPF-74, issued to Arizona Public Service Company (the licensee), for
operation of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS), Units
1, 2, and 3, located in Maricopa County, Arizona. Therefore, as
required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental
assessment and finding of no significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would extend the expiration date of the
operating license from December 31, 2024, to June 1, 2025, for Unit 1;
from December 9, 2025, to April 24, 2026, for Unit 2; and from March
25, 2027, to November 25, 2027, for Unit 3.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated August 28, 2002.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action would allow the licensee to operate PVNGS,
Units 1, 2, and 3, until June 1, 2025, April 24, 2026, and November 25,
2027, respectively. This would allow the licensee to recapture
approximately six months of additional plant operation for each unit.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes that there are no significant environmental considerations
involved with the proposed action. The extension of the operating
licenses does not affect the design or operation of the plants, does
not involve any modifications to the plants or any increase in the
licensed power for the plants, and will not create any new or
unreviewed environmental impacts that were not considered in the Final
Environmental Statement (FES) related to the operation of PVNGS, Units
1, 2, and 3, NUREG-0841, dated February 1982. The evaluations presented
in the FES were the environmental impacts of generating power at PVNGS
and the basis for granting a 40-year operating license for PVNGS. The
environmental impacts of the proposed action are based on the
evaluations in the FES. The FES also considered the environmental
impacts of operating Units 1, 2, and 3.
The FES which in general, assesses various impacts associated with
operation of the facility in terms of annual impacts and balances these
against the anticipated annual energy production benefits.
The offsite exposure from releases during postulated accidents has
been previously evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) for PVNGS. The results are acceptable when compared with the
criteria defined in 10 CFR part 100, as documented in the Commission's
Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-0857, dated November 1981, and its 12
supplements.
This conservative design-basis evaluation is a function of four
parameters: (1) The type of accident postulated, (2) the radioactivity
calculated to be released during the accident, (3) the assumed
meteorological conditions at the site, and (4) the population
distribution versus distance from the plant. An environmental
assessment of accidents is also provided in section 5.9.2 of the FES.
The type of accidents and the calculated radioactivity released do not
change with the proposed action. The site meteorology as defined in
Chapter 2 of the UFSAR is essentially constant. The NRC staff has
concluded that the population size and distribution will not change
significantly.
The NRC staff has concluded that the impacts associated with the
addition of approximately six to eight months to each unit are not
significantly different from operating license duration assessed in the
PVNGS FES. Therefore, the staff concluded that the FES sufficiently
addresses the environmental impacts associated with a full 40-year
operating period for each unit.
The annual occupational exposure of workers at the plant, station
employees and contractors, is reported in the Annual Operating Report
submitted by the licensee. The lowest exposure value is for a year
without a refueling outage and the highest value is for a year with a
refueling outage. In section 5.9.1.1.1 of the FES, the average
occupational exposure for a pressurized water reactor was reported as
440 person-rems. Therefore, the expected annual occupational exposure
for the proposed extended period of operation does not
[[Page 41408]]
change previous conclusions presented in the FES on occupational
exposure.
The offsite exposure from releases during routine operations has
been previously evaluated in section 5.9.1 of the FES. During the low-
power license, the plant was restricted to no more than 5 percent of
rated power and the generation of radioactivity at the plants was
significantly smaller than would have occurred if the plants were at
full-power operation. Therefore, the addition of approximately six to
eight months of operation per plant that the licensee has requested
does not change previous conclusions presented in the FES on annual
public doses.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability
or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of
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 any historic sites. It 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 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.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resource than
those previously considered in the FES [or more recently, the
Environmental Impact Statement] for the PVNGS, Units 1, 2, and 3.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
On July 3, 2003, the staff consulted with the Arizona State
official, Mr. William Wright, of the Arizona Radiation Regulatory
Agency, 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 August 28, 2002. Documents may be examined,
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available
records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on
the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://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 by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of July 2003.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stephen Dembek,
Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 03-17579 Filed 7-10-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P