ML20235Y402
| ML20235Y402 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Texas at Austin |
| Issue date: | 02/15/1989 |
| From: | Chris Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235Y357 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8903140105 | |
| Download: ML20235Y402 (3) | |
Text
. .. __
e l 7590-01 3
LHITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS l L _ DOCKET NO. 50-602 !
NOTICE OF 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 (UT or the applicant) for the TRIGA Mark II research reactor. The facility is located on the applicant's site at the University of Texas Balcones Research Center in Austin, Texas.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action:
The proposed action would extend the latest construction completion date of Construction Permit No. CPRR-123 to December 31, 1989. The proposed action is in response to the applicant's request dated October 17, 1988, as modified by letter dated November 23, 1988.
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The proposed action is needed because the construction of the f.scility is not yet fully completed.
Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action:
Since the pruposed action involves extending the construction permit, radiological impacts are not affected by this action. There are no radiological impacts associated with this action. The impacts that are involved are all ,
non-radiological and are associated with continued construction.
8903140105 890224
~
s ..
l y
Based on the foregoing, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed extension of the construction permit would have'no significant environmental impact.
Alternatives Considered:
A possible alternative to the proposed action would be to deny the request.
Under this alternative, the applicant would not be able to complete construction of the facility. This would result in denial of the benefit of research, education, and training. This option would not eliminate the environmental impacts of construction already incurred.
If construction were halted and not completed, site redress activities would restora small areas to their original state. This would be a slight f
environmental benefit, but much outweighed by the economic losses from denial of use of a facility that is nearly completed. Therefore, this alternative is rejected.
Another alternative is to take no action on the request for extension.
The construction permit would not be deemed to have expired until the l
i 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 staff's review of the construction permit application dated May 13, 1985.
l L...___________
1
. l
~~
l l
. l l
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 Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact state-ment for 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 October D,1988, as modified by letter dated November 23, 1988, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 15th day of February 1989.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C Aca$ar $ Wid l w Charles L. Miller, Director Standardization and Non-Power l Reactor Project Directorate !
Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
l s
_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -