ML20154Q567
| ML20154Q567 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 09/27/1988 |
| From: | Wessman R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154Q513 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8810030444 | |
| Download: ML20154Q567 (4) | |
Text
.
[
r l
7590-01 UNITED STATES hUCLEAR PEGULAT01Y COMMISSION YANr.EE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY
, YANKEE NUCLEAR POWED STATION DOCKET NO.50-029
[
ENVIRONMENTAL A!SES! PENT AND FINDING OF l
t'0 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CONCFPNING EXr.MPTION FROM i
i 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(1)
I The "
Wuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) is considerino l
l l
issuance ce
' tion from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(1) to i
the Yankee Atomic ttectric Cow.pany (the licensee) for the. Yankee Nuclear Pcwer Station located at the licensee's site in Franklin County, Massachusetts.
ENVIRONPFNTAL ASSESSPENT l
l Identification of proposed Actinn:
i On August 5,1987, the NRC published in the FEDERAL REGISTEP a final rule l
arending 10 CFR 50.5afw). The rule increased the amount of on-site property damage insurance required to be carried by hRC's power reactor licensees. The rule also required these licensees to obtain by October 4. 1988 insurance policies j
that prioritized insurance proceeds for stabilization and decontamination after
)
an accident and provided for paytnent of proceeds to an independent trustee who l
would disburse funds for decontaminatien and cleanup before any other purpose.
Subsecuent to publication of the rule, the NRC has been informed by insurers who offer nuclear property insurance that, despite a good faith effort to obtain trustees required by the rule, the decontamination priority and trusteeship UA 288U 8??%
PNU
\\
. o i
.?.
2 orovisions will not be able to be incorporated into policies by the time required in the rule.
In response to these comments and related petitions for rulenakino, the Conmission has proposed a revision of 10 CFR 50.54(wl(5)(il extendico the inDiementation schedule for 18 months (53 FR 36338, September 10, 19881 However, because it is unlikely that this rulemaking action will be i
effective by October 4, 1988, the Commission is issuing a temporary exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(wl(5)(1) until completion of the pending rulemaking extending the implementation date specified in 10 CFR 50.54(wi(5)(il.
i but not later than April 1,1989. Upon completion of such rulemaking, the licensee shall comply with the provisions of such rule, i
The Need for The Proposed Action:
The evemption is needed because insurance complying with requirements of I
10 CFR 50.54(wl(51(il is unt.vailable and because the temporary delay in
]
frplementation allowed by the exemption and associated rulemaking action will j
permit the Commission to reconsider on its merits the trusteeship provision of 10 CFR F0.54(w)(4).
1.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:
With respect to radiological impacts on the environment, the proposed exemption does not in any way affect the operation of licensed facilities.
Further, as noted by the Commission in the Supplementary Information accompanying the proposed rule, there are several reasons for concluding that delayino for a reasonable time the implementation of the stabilization and decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions of Section 50.54(w) will not adversely affect protection of public health and safety.
First, during the l
l d
I
3 period of delay, the licensee will still be required to carry $1.06 billion insurance. This is a substantial ameunt of coverage that provides a signifi-cant financial cushicn to licensees to decortaminate and clean up after an accident even without the prioritization and trusteeship provisions. Second, nearly 75% of the required coverage already is prioritized under the decontam-ination liability and excess property insurance language of the Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited-!! policies.
Finally, there is only an extremely small prob-ability of a serious accident occurrino during the exemption period.
Even if a sericus accident giving rise to substantial insurance claims were to occur. NRC j
would be able to take appropriate enforcement action to assure adeouate cleanup j
to orotect public health and safety and the environment.
1 The proposed exemption does not affect radiological or nonradiological effluents from the site and has no other nonradiological impacts.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action; 4
It has been concluded that there is no measurable impact associated with the proposed exemption; any alternatives to the exemption will have either no environmental impact or greater environmental impact.
Alternative Use o' Resources:
l This actio7 does not involve the use of any resources beyond the scope of resources used during nonnal plant operation.
Agencies and Persons Consulted:
The staff did not consult other acencies or persons in connection with l
the proposed exemption, j
?
4 L
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the foregoing envircnmental assessment, the Comission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human enviror. rent. Accordingly, the Comission has detemined I
not to prepare an environrrental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
For information concerning this action, see the proposed rule (53 FR 36338),
j and the exemption which is being processed concurrent with this notice. A copy i
4 of the exemption will be available for public inspection at the Comission's
)
i j
Public Cocument Reom. 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, D.C., and at the r
I Greenfield Comunit,v College, One College Drivp~, Greenfield Massachusetts 01301.
a C.
(-
M 1988.
l Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1 i > day of,ir4 Q, M 1
i FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM41SSION 3
t i
}
a n._ _-
r Richard H. Wessman, Director J
Project Directorate I-3 j
Division of Reactor Projects, I/II
[
l
)
I I
t I
I i
\\
\\
l l
l a
1
._.-.+n-.,.
..,..n,--__
-