ML20134L352
| ML20134L352 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1996 |
| From: | Thomas K NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134L356 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9611200287 | |
| Download: ML20134L352 (4) | |
Text
..
=- -
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CALLAWAY PLANT. UNIT 1 UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY QQfg T NO. 50-483 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT f
l The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) is considering l
approval under 10 CFR 50.80(a) of the application concerning the corporate merger agreement between Union Electric Company (the licensee), holder of Facility Operating License No. NPF-30, issued for operation of the Callaway Plant, Unit 1, located in Callaway County, Missouri, and CIPSCO Incorporated.
s ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action i
The proposed action would approve the application concerning the merger 0
agreement between Union Electric Company (UEC) and CIPSCO Incorporated (CIPSCO), which would provide for UEC to become a wholly-owned operating company of Ameren Corporation (Ameren), which is now owned equally by UEC and CIPSCO. Ameren would hold all comon stock in UEC upon completion of the merger. UEC would continue to remain the owner / operator of Callaway Plant, Unit 1.
The proposed action is in accordance with UEC's application dated i
i February 23, 1996, as supplemented by letter dated April 24, 1996.
I I
The Need for the Procosed Actica The proposed action is required to enable UEC to consumate the merger agreement with CIPSCO as described above. UEC has submitted that the merger j
will enable UEC and CIPSCO to reduce the combined operating costs for UEC and i
9611200287 961118 PDR ADOCK 05000403 i
P PDR i
i
=.
4 l
1 4 CIPSCO, that both companies have been aggressively pursuing cost reductions to 1
remain competitive, and have reached the practical limits of that strategy, and that by combining utility operations, both companies have an opportunity j
to achieve more cost efficiency than either company could achieve independently.
Environmental Imoacts of the Pronosed Action l
The Comission has completed its evaluation of the proposed corporate l
merger and concludes that there will be no physical or operational changes to l
the Callaway Plant. The corporate merger will not affect the qualifications
~ or organization affiliation of the personnel who operate the facility, as UEC will continue to be responsible for the operation of the Callaway Plant, Unit 1.
l The Comission has evaluated the environmental impact of the proposed action and has determined that the probability or consequences of accidents l
would not be increased by the merger, and that post-accident radiological l
releases would not be greater than previously determined.
Further, the I
Comission has determined that the corporate merger would not affect routine i
radiological plant effluents and would not increase occupational radiological exposure. Accordingly, the Comission concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the merger would not affect nonradiological plant effluents and would have no other environmental impact. Therefore, the Comission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
i
~
i
)
i 8 Alternative to the Pronosed Action
{
Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant i
environmental effects that sould result from the proposed action, any alternative with equal or greater environmental. impacts need not be evaluated.
4 The principal alternative would be to deny the requested action. Denial i
of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts.
i' The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are identical.
Alternative Use of Resources j
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously i-considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Callaway Plant, dated March 1975.
Aaencies and Persons Contacted j
In accordance with its stated policy, on October 30, 1996, the staff j
consulted with the Missouri State official, Tom Lange for the Department of Natural Resources, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.
The State official had no comments.
Findina of No Sianificant Imoact Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission 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 February 23, 1996, as supplemented by letter 4
dated April 24, 1996, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,
i e
' 1 Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at the Callaway County Public Library, 710 Court Street, Fulton, Missouri 65251.
4 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of November 1996.
4 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
l 5
1 Kristine M. Thomas, Project Manager i
Project Directorate IV-2 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4
i j
i
,