ML17300A521
| ML17300A521 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 08/29/1986 |
| From: | Licitra E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17300A520 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8609190279 | |
| Download: ML17300A521 (5) | |
Text
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, ET AL.
DOCKET NOS.
STN 50-528 AND STN 50-529 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption from 'the schedular requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(i) to the Arizona Public Service Company, Salt River Project Agricultural Improve-ment and Power District, El Paso Electric Company, Public Service Company of New Mexico, Southern California Edison
- Company, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and Southern California Public Power Authority (the licensees) for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, located at the licensees'ite in Miaricopa County, Arizona.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Pro osed Action:
The proposed action would grant an exemption from the requirement of 10 CFR 50.71(e) to submit an updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for Units 1 and 2 of the Palo Vt.rde Nuclear Generating Station within 24 months of the issuance of the operating licenses.
Operating licenses were-issued for Palo Verde Units 1 and 2 on December 31; 1984 and December 9,
1985 respectively.
By letter dated January 30,
- 1986, supplemented by letter dated March 18, 1986, the licensees requested an I
exemption to 10 CFR 50.71(e) which would defer submittal of the UFSAR for Palo Verde Units 1 and 2 until one year following receipt of a low-power opera-8bpcyi~ 2 ~ 05000~
8 8b0912
'DOCH, pDR ~
P ting license for Palo Verde Unit 3 on the basis that. the present FSAR applies to all three units.
It has been updated on April 28, 1986 and will continue to be updated twice a year until Palo Verde Unit 3 is licensed.
The Need for the Pro osed Action:
10 CFR 50.34 requires that, until Palo Verde Unit 3 receives an operating license, the information contained in the FSAR docketed with the operating licenses application be maintained current.
Hence, if an extension to the submittal date for the UFSAR is not
- granted, the licensees would be required to maintain current both the present FSAR as well as the UFSAR until Palo Verde Unit 3 is licensed.
Maintaining two versions of the same document for the three Palo Verde units would cause, a hardship, could lead to ambiguities or confusion, and would serve no useful purpose if the existing FSAR is maintained up-to-date until Unit 3 is licensed.
Therefore an extension is needed to eliminate the hardship of maintaining two versions of the same document.
Until Unit 3 receives an operating license, the licensees have committed to maintain the present FSAR current for all three units by amending the document twice a year.
Environmental Im act of the Pro osed Action:
The proposed exemption affects only the required date for submitting the UFSAR and does not affect the risk of facility accidents.
Thus, post-accident radiological releases will not differ from those determined previously, and the proposed exemption does not otherwise affect facility radiological effluents, or any significant occupational exposures.
'4'ith regard to potential non-radiological
- impacts, the proposed exemption does not affect plant non-radiological effluents and has no other environmental impact.
Therefore, the Coomission concludes there are no measurable radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
4t
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable environmental impact associated with'he proposed exemption, any alternatives either will have no environmental impact or will have a greater environmental impact.
The principal alternative to the exemption would be to require an earlier date for submittal of the UFSAR.
Such an action would not enhance the protec-tion of.the environment and would result in unnecessary hardship of maintaining two versions of the same document.
Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of resources not considered previously in the Final Environmental Statement for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3.
A encies and Persons Consulted:
The NRC staff reviewed the licensees'equest and did not consult other agencies or persons.
Findin of No Si nificant Im act:
The Cooeission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
Based upon the environmental assessment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environ-ment.
For further details with respect to this proposed action, see the licensee's letters dated January 30, 1986 and March 18, 1986.
These letters are available for public inspection at the Coomission's Public Document
- Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the Phoenix Public Library, Business, Science and Technology Department, 12 East McDowell Road, Phoenix, Arizona'5004.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 29th day of August, 1986.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E. A. Licitra, Acting Director PWR Project Directorate No.
7 Division of PWR Licensing-8
t
~ ~
~