ML20029A748
| ML20029A748 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Texas at Austin |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1991 |
| From: | Weiss S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20029A738 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9103040202 | |
| Download: ML20029A748 (3) | |
Text
..
7500 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DOCKET NO. 50-602 4
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND-FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an extension to the latest-construction completion date specified in Construction Permit No CPRR-123 issued to the University of Texas (Vi or the applicant) for the TRIGA Mark 11 Research P.eactor. The facility is located on the applicant's site at the University of Texas Balcones Research Center in
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action:
-The proposad action would extend the latest construction completion date of Construction Permit No. CPRR-123 to June 30, 1991.
The proposed action is in response to the applicant's request dated November 20, 1990, as modified by letter dated December 11, 1990.
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The proposed action is needed to allow time to close open items identified by the Commission's inspection program and to allow time for the applicant to complete submission of the documentation required to support issuance of the Facility Operating License.
Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action:
Since the proposed action involves extending the construction permit, there are no radiological impacts associated with this action. The impacts that are involved are all non-radiological and are associated with continued l
9103040202 910220 PDR ADOCK 05000602 P
2 construction. The impact of construction was evaluated in the Environmental Assessnent preparea as part of the NRC staff's review dated May 13, 1985 of the UT construction permit application.
Based on the foregoing, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed extension of the construction permit would have no significant environmental impact.
Alternatives Consioered:
Since we have concluded that there is no significant environmental impact associated with this construction permit extension, any alternatives will either have no significant impact or greater impact than the proposed action.
A possible alternative to the proposed action would be to deny the request. Under this alternat1ve, the applicant would not be able to complete construction of the f acility. This would result in denial of the benefit of research, education, and training. This option would not eliminate the environmental imp 6 cts of construction alreacy Incurred.
If construction were halted and not completed, site redress activities
.would restore small areas to their original state. This would be a slight environmental benefit, but much outweighed by the eaucational and economic losses from denial use of a facility that is nearly completed. Therefore, this alternative is rejecteo.
Another alternative is to take no action on the request for extension.
The construction permit would not be deemed to have expired until the application has been finally processed (10 CFR 2.109).
In effect the construction permit could be in effect as long as no action was taken on a timely application for an extension. To take no action on the applicant's request would not be responsive; therefore, this alternative is rejected.
, Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of resources other than those evaluated in the Environmental Assessment prepared as part of the NRC steff's review dated May 13, 1985 of the UT construction permit application.
Agencies and Persons Consulted The NRC staff reviewed-the applicant's request and applicable documents referenced therein that support this extension. The NRC did not consult other agencies or persons.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Connission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement f or this action.
Based upon the environmental assessment, we conclude that this action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
For details with respect to this action, see the request for extension dated November 20, 1990, as modified by letter dated December 11, 1990, which are available for public inspection at the Commiss1on's Public Dorument Room, Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12 day of February 1991.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W /
[Seymour H. Weiss, Director Non-Power Reactors, Decommissioning and Environmental Project Directorate Division of Advanced Reactors and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
.. -