ML20247K718
| ML20247K718 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 05/25/1989 |
| From: | Dick G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247K723 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8906010370 | |
| Download: ML20247K718 (4) | |
Text
- _ _ -
1.
7590-01' l.
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ARKANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY y
ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-313 AND 50-368 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT I
~
i The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Commission) is considering issuance of amendments to the Operating Licenses for Arkansas Nuclear One, i
Units I and 2 (ANO-182), located in Russellville, Arkansas.
' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action:
The action is in response to the licensee's applications for amendment dated March 20 and 24, 1985, which requested the deletion of Appendix "B" to f
theTechnicalSpecifications(TSs)forbothANO-I&2. The Appendix B Environ-
)
mental Technical Specifications currently contain no radiological specifica-tions but contain only a section, 3.5 for ANO-1 and 5.9 for ANO-2, entitled, "Special Requirements." These sections discuss vegetation and erosion control
~
of the plant site and transmission line right-of-way corridors constructed for the distribution of energy generated by ANO-112. The information provided in these sections was required by the NRC staff evaluations included in the ANO-1
.l
" Environmental Report" and in NUREG-0254, " Final Environmental Statement l
u Related to Operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2," both of which discussed i
the potential for severe erosion along the propcsed transmission corridors.
89060 k
'b PDR P
v
~2-The Need for The Proposed Action:
The amendments are proposed because the licensee considers Appendix B as currently written to be primarily descriptive in nature, discussing the environmental control of the right of way corridors related to the construc-tion of the plant. The landscaping and planting described in the land use management section were completed during the initial construction of Unit 1.
There are no " action statements" or reporting requirements, and no items in NRC regulations are addressed. Significant surveillance has been performed in the past several years to conclude that there has been no environmental damage to those areas addressed in this section.
In sunrr.ary, these TSs are not needed to ensure protection of the environment.
Environmental Impacts of the Preposed Action:
The preposed amendments would not result in any modification of plant systems, components or procedures. Consequently, the probability of accidents has not been increased and the post-accident radiological releases will not be greater than previously determined, nor do the proposed amendments otherwise affect radiological plant effluents. Therefore, the Cerraission concludes that there are no significant radiological environment impacts associated with the proposed amendments.
With regard to potential ner,-radiological impacts, the proposed amendments would eliminate a listing of requirements which have already been adequately met. NRC surveys have been conducted which have verified that the licensee has constructed, planted and maintained the properties identified in Appendix B
-)
1 l
~ in compliance with previous commitments. The corridors, in particular, have adequate ground cover with only two slightly eroded areas, which pose no threat to either the environment or the transmission tower foundations. These surveys also revealed no indication of herbicide use. The amendments do not affect non-radiological plant effluents and have no other environmental i
impact. Therefore, the Comission concludes that there are no significant l
non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendments.
A.lternative to the Proposed Action:
Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant environmental effects that would result from the proposed action, any alternatives with l
equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated.
l
~
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested amendment. This would not reduce environmental impacts of plant operation and would result in reduced operational flexibility.
Alternative Usc of Resources:
This action involves no use of resources not previously censidered in the FinalEnvironmentalStatements(constructionpermitandoperatinglicense)for ANO-1&2.
Ag6ncies and Persone Consulted:
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult other agencies or persons.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, we conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human envirconent. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed amendment.
. 1-For further details with respect to this action, see the applications for amendments dated March 20 and 25,1985 which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room 2120 L Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C., and at the Tomlinson Library, Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas 72801.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 25th day of May,1989.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION tny a
George @ick, Acting Director Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
i l
l