ML20196E384
| ML20196E384 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 12/05/1988 |
| From: | Calvo J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196E389 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8812090329 | |
| Download: ML20196E384 (4) | |
Text
E 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWEP. COMPANY, ET AL.
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-499 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CONCERNING EXEMPTION FROM 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(i)
The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) is conside ng issuanceofanexemptionfromtherequirementsof10CFR50.54(w)(5)(1)to Houston Lighting & Power Company, et al., (the licensee) for the South Texas Project, Unit 2, located at the licensee's site in Matagorda County, Texas.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action:
On August 5, 1987, the NRC published iri the FEDERAL REGISTER a final rule amending 10 CFR 50.54(w). The rule increased the amount of on-site property damage insurance required to be carried by NRC's power reactor licensees. The rule also required these licensees to obtain by October 4, 1988 insurance policies that prioritized insurance procee.is for stabilization and decontamination after j
an accident and provided tar paym?nt of proceeds to an independent trustee who would disburse funds fo* decontamination and cleanup W ore any other purpose.
Subsequent to publication of the rule, the NRC has bt.. Informed by insurers who offer nuclear property insurance that, despite a good faith effort to obtain trustees required by the rule, the decertamination priority and trusteeship 8G12090329 881205 PDR ADOCK 05000497 J
! UC
2-provisions will not be able to be incorporated into policies by the time required in the rule.
In response to these coments and related petitions for rulemaking, the Commission has proposed a revision of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(1) extending the implementation schedule for 18 months (53 FR 36338, September 19, 1988). fiowever, since this rulemaking action was not completed by October 4, 1988, the Commission is issuing a temporary exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(1) until completion of the pending rulemaking extending the implementation date specified in 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(i), but not later than April 1, 1989.
Upon completion of such rulemaking, the licensee shall comply with the provisions of such rule.
The Need for The proposed Action:
The exemption is needed becausa insurance complying with requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(f) is unavailable and because the temporary delay in implementation allowed by the exemption and associated rulemaking action will permit the Commission to reconsider on its merits the trusteeship provision of 10CFR50.54(w)(4).
Environmental Impacts of the proposed Action:
With respect to radiological impacts on the environment, the proposed exemntion does not in any way affect the operation of licensed facilities.
Further, as noted by the Comission in the Supplementary Information accompanying the proposed rule, there are several reasons for concluding tnat delaying 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
. period of delay, the licensee will still be required to carry $1.06 billion insurance. This is a substantial amount of coverage that provides a signifi-cant financial cushion to licensees to decontaminate 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-II policies.
Finally, there is only an extremely small prob-ability of a serious accident occurring during the exemption period.
Even if a
~
serious accident giving rise to substantial insurance claims were to occur, NRC would be able to take appropriate enforcement action to assure adequate cleanup to protect public health and safety and the environment.
The proposed exemption does not affect radiological or nonradiological effluents from the site and has no other nonradiological impacts.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
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 of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of any resources beyond the scope of resources used during normal plant operation.
Agencies and persons Consu_1ted:
The staff did not consult other agencies or persons in connection with the proposed exemption.
l l
l
4 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the Connission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Comission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
For information concerning this action, see the proposed rule (53 FR 36338),
and the exemption which is being processed concurrent with this notice. A copy of the exemption will be available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, D.C., and at the Wharton County Junior College, J. M..Hodges Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway, Wharton, Texas 77488 and Austin Public Library, 810 Guadalupe Street, Austin, Texas 78701.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 5th day of December
- 1998, FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION kwc '
- d. bMW lJose A. Calvo, Director Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
.