Environmental statements; availability, etc.: STP Nuclear Operating Co.,

Text

---

Federal Register: October 26, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 206)NoticesPage 57144-57145From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

DOCID:fr26oc98-98

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of its regulations to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80 for the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 (STP) issued to the STP Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee).

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action is in response to the licensee's application dated June 17, 1998, for exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) regarding submission of revisions to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Under the proposed exemption the licensee would submit revisions to the UFSAR to the NRC no later than 24 calendar months from the previous revision. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3) and 10 CFR 50.59(b)(2), revisions to the Operations Quality Assurance Plan (OQAP) and the safety evaluation summary reports for facility changes made under 10 CFR 50.59 for STP, respectively, may be submitted on the same schedule as the UFSAR revisions.

The Need for the Proposed Action

10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) requires licensees to submit updates to their UFSAR annually or within 6 months after each refueling outage providing that the interval between successive updates does not exceed 24 months. Since Units 1 and 2 of STP share a common UFSAR, the licensee must update the same document annually or within 6 months after a refueling outage for either unit. The underlying purpose of the rule was to relieve licensees of the burden of filing annual FSAR revisions while assuring that such revisions are made at least every 24 months. The Commission reduced the burden, in part, by

[Page 57145]permitting a licensee to submit its FSAR revisions 6 months after refueling outages for its facility, but did not provide for multiple unit facilities sharing a common FSAR in the rule. Rather, the Commission stated that ``With respect to the concern about multiple facilities sharing a common FSAR, licensees will have maximum flexibility for scheduling updates on a case-by-case basis,'' 57 FR 39355 (1992). Allowing the exemption would maintain the UFSAR current within 24 months of the last revision. Submission of the 10 CFR 50.59 design change report for either unit together with the UFSAR revision, as permitted by 10 CFR 50.59(b)(2), also would not exceed a 24-month interval.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the proposed action is administrative in nature, unrelated to plant operations.

The proposed action will not result in an increase in the probability or consequences of accidents or result in a change in occupational exposure or offsite dose. Therefore, there are no radiological impacts associated with the proposed action.

The proposed action will not result in a change in nonradiological plant effluents and will have no other nonradiological environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no environmental impacts associated with this action.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded that there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed action any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated.

As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the exemption would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed exemption and this alternative are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action did not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the ``Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2,'' dated August 1986, in NUREG-1171.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

In accordance with its stated policy, on September 18, 1998, the staff consulted with the Texas State official regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.

For further details with respect to this action, see the licensee's request for the exemption dated June 17, 1998, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington DC, 20555 and at the local public document room located at the Wharton County Junior College, J.M. Hodges Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway, Wharton, TX 77488.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 15th day of October 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. John N. Hannon, Director, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects III/ IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

FR Doc. 98-28584Filed10-23-98; 8:45 amBILLING CODE 7590-01-P

---