ML20237D621
| ML20237D621 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1987 |
| From: | Calvo J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237D613 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712240084 | |
| Download: ML20237D621 (3) | |
Text
_ _ - _
4 l '
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION HOUSTON POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, ET AL.
DOCKET NO. 50-498
~ NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING 0F NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering.
issuance of an exemption from the schedular requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(i) to the Houston Lighting & Power Company, City Public Service Board of San Antonio, Central Power and Light Company and City of Austin, Texas (the licensees) for the South Texas Project, Unit 1, located at the licensee's site in Matagorda County, Texas.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action:
The proposed action would grant an exemption from the requirement of 10 CFR 50.71(e) to submit an updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for Unit 1 of the South Texas Project within 24 months of the issuance of the operating license.
The operating license was issued for South Texas Project. Unit 1 on August 21, 1987.
By letter da+ed October 5,1987, the licensees requested an exemption to 10 CFR 50.71(e) which would defer submittal of the UFSAR for South Texas Unit I until one year following receipt of a low power operating license for South Texas Unit 2 on the basis that the present FSAR applies to both units.
It has been amended and will be continued to be amended until South Texas Project, Unit 2 is
- licensed.
The Need for the Proposed Action:
10 CFR 50.34 requires that, until South Texas Unit 2 receives an operating license, the information contained in the FSAR docketed with the operating license application be maintained 8712240084 871216 PDR ADOCK 0500 8
P
R 4
e current.
Hence, if an extension to the submittal date for the UFSAR is not 1
L granted, the licensees would be required to maintain current both the present 1
FSAR as well as the UFSAR until South Texas Unit 2 is licensed.
Maintaining two versions of the same document for the two South Texas units would cause a i
l' hardship, could lead to ambiguities or confusion, and would serve no useful purpose if the existing FSAR is maintained up-to-date until Unit 2 is licensed.
Therefore, an extension is needed to eliminate the hardship,of maintaining two versions of the same document.
Until Unit 2 receives an operating license, the licensees have committed to maintain the present FSAR current for both units by periodically amending the document, j
Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action:
The proposed exemption affects only the required date for submitting the UFSAR 5,d does not affect the risk of f acility accidents.
Thus, post-accident ra:'ological releases will not dif fer from those determined previ6usly, and the proposed exemption does not otherwise affect facility radiological effluents, or any significant occupational exposures.
With regard to potential non-ra:iological impacts, the proposed exemption does not affect plant non-radiolc;ical effluents and has no other environmental impact.
Therefore, the Comm'ision concludes there are no measurable radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed exemption, any alternatives either will have no environmental impact or will have a greater environmental impact.
The principal alternative to the exemption would be to require an earlier date for submittal of the UFSAR.
Such an action would not enhar.:e the protection of the environment and would result in unnecessary hardship of maintaining two versions of the same document.
l
h.- Alternative Use'of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of resources not considered previously in the Final Environmental Statement for l
South Texas. Project, Units 1 and 2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted:
The NRC staff reviewed the licensees' request and did not consult other agencies or persons.
Finding of No Significant Impact:
The Commission has determined not to'-
prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
-Based upon the environmental assessment, the NRC staff concludes that the propcsed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of_the human environment.
For further details with respect to this proposed action, see the 14:ensees' letter. dated October 5, 1987.
The letter is available for public irspection at the Local Public Document Rooms in the Wharton County Junior College, J. M.-Hodges Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway, Wharton, Texas 77488 and in the Austin Public Ligrary, 810 Guadalupe street, Austin, Texas 78701.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 10th day of Decerber, 1987 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(
lc-t-L'
(
/,
,. c Jose A. Calvo, Director i
Project Directorate - IV l
Division of Reactor Projects - III, I
IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j
j
-_