[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 68 (Monday, April 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18153-18154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8706]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323]


Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, 
Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of exemptions from Facility Operating License Nos. 
DPR-80 and DPR-82, issued to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the 
licensee) for operation of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Nuclear Power Plant, 
Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in San Luis Obispo County, California.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would grant relief from the requirement in 
Section III.D.1.(a) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 that the third Type 
A test in a 10-year service period be conducted when the plant is shut 
down for the 10-year plant inservice inspections and allows the 
licensee to perform the three Type A tests at approximately equal 
intervals within each 10-year service period.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for exemption dated February 16, 1994.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed so that the licensee, given the 18-
month fuel cycles at Diablo Canyon, is not required to perform a fourth 
Type A test in order to meet the Appendix J requirement and the Diablo 
Canyon Technical Specification requirement that Type A tests be 
conducted at 40 months plus or [[Page 18154]] minus 10 months during 
each 10-year service period.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The proposed exemption would not adversely affect primary 
containment integrity. The three required Type A tests would still be 
conducted within the 10-year service period while giving the licensee 
flexibility in scheduling consistent with Diablo Canyon's 18-month fuel 
cycles. The combination of the Appendix J requirement and the current 
Diablo Canyon Technical Specification requirement would necessitate 
that the licensee, because of Diablo Canyon's 18-month fuel cycles, 
perform Type A tests at the second and fourth refueling outages but 
then would not permit the third Type A test to be conducted on a 
schedule that meets both requirements. The Commission has completed its 
evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the intent of 
Section III.D.1.(a) of appendix J that containment leak-tight integrity 
be verified periodically throughout service lifetime is met when 
licensees perform three sets of Type A tests at approximately equal 
intervals over the 10-year service period. Therefore, the change will 
not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes 
are being made in the types or amounts of any effluents that may be 
released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the allowable 
individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, 
the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action involves features located entirely within the restricted area as 
defined in 10 CFR part 20. It does not affect nonradiological plant 
effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the 
Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since the commission has concluded 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 application 
would result in no change in current environmental impacts and would 
result in a larger expenditure of licensee resources to perform a 
fourth Type A test within a 10-year service period. The environmental 
impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for Diablo 
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on February 16, 1995, the 
staff consulted with the California State official, Mr. Hank Kocol of 
the Department of Health Services, regarding the environmental impact 
of the proposed action. The State official had not comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    Based upon the 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 action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated February 16, 1994, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public 
document room located at the California Polytechnic State University, 
Robert E. Kennedy Library, Government Documents and Maps Department, 
San Luis Obispo, California 93407.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of March 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Theodore R. Quay,
Director, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor Projects III/
IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-8706 Filed 4-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M