ML20154Q549

From kanterella
Revision as of 10:39, 22 October 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Environ Assessment & Finding of No Significant Impact Re Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50.54(w)(5)(i)
ML20154Q549
Person / Time
Site: Millstone  Dominion icon.png
Issue date: 09/27/1988
From: Hernan R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20154Q545 List:
References
NUDOCS 8810030435
Download: ML20154Q549 (4)


Text

. . . -

"., 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY MILLSTONE NUCLEAR PCWER STATION. UNITS 1. 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-245. 50-336, 50 423 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGN!FICANT fMPACT CONCERNING EXEMPTION FROM 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(1)

The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) is considering issuance of an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(il to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (the licensee) 'or the Millstone Nuclear Power Station. Units 1, 2 and 3. located at the licensee's site in New London County, Connecticut.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT l

Identification e' Proposed Action: l On August 5, 1987, the NRC published in the FEDERAL REGISTER a final rule arending 10 CFR 50.54(w). The rule increased the amount of on-site property darrage 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 proceeds for stabilization and decontaminatier after an accident and provided for payment of proceeds to an independent trustee who would disburse funds for decontamiration and cleanup before any other purpose.

Subsequent to publication of the rule, the NRC has been inforined by insurers who offer nuclear property insurance that, despite a sted faith effort to obtain trustees required by the rule, the decontamination priority and trusteeship 8810030435 000927 DR ADOCK 050 5

j . l provisiers will not be able to be incorporated into policies by the time

i required in the rule. In response to these coments and related petitlen; for l

, rulemaking, the Comission 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). However, because it is unlikely that this rulemaking action will be i

effective by October 4,1988, the Comission is issuing a temporary exemption 4

from the recuirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(i) until completion of the pending

rulemaking extending the implementation date specified in 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(1),

but not later than April 1, 1989. Upon completion of such rulemaking. the licensee shall comply with the provisions of such rule.

l The Need for The Proposed Action:  !

The exemption is needed because insurance complying with requirements of '

i 10 CFR 50.54(w)(3)(1) is unavailable and because the temporary delay in [

implementation allowed by the exemption and associated rulemaking action will l

[

l pemit the Comission to reconsider en its merits the trusteeship provision of  !

j 10 CFR 50.54(w)(4).

' f Environnental Impacts of the Proposed Action:

{

With respect to radiological impacts on the environment, the proposed l I

exemption does not in any way affect the operation of licensed facilities.

Further, as noted by the Comission in the Supplementary Infomation

[

accompanying the proposed rule, there are several reasons for concluding that i

! delaying for a reasonable time the implementation of the stabilization and i i

decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions of Section 50.54(w) will not j I

adversely affect protection of public health and safety. First, during the {

i  !

I l  !

I l J l

3 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 Itability 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 occurring during the exemption period. Even if a serious accident giving rise to substantial insurance claims were to occur, NRC would be able to tale 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 Propostt 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 environmer.tal 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 nonr.a1 plant operation.

Agencies and Persons Consulted:

The staff did not consult other agencies or persons in connection with the proposed exemption.

o , 4 ,

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT l

Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the Commission l

concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Comission has detemined I

not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.  !

j For infomation concernirg this action, see the proposed rule (53 FR 36338), l 4

and the exception which is being processed concurrent with this notice. A copy i

of the exemption will be available for public inspection at the Comission's [

Fublic Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, D.C., and at the Waterford Fublic Library, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut. l j  ;

i Dated at Rockville Maryland this 27th day of September . 1988. i i +

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tNISSION c

W { f 3 Ronald W. Hernan, Acting Director [

4 Project Directorate !-4 l Division of Reactor Projects !/!! [

I I

1

) i 1 ,

i t

J l' I i

I 1

t i

i  ;

! l l

i  ;

) i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _