[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35532-35533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-17144]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-206, 50-361, and 50-362]


San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3; 
Southern California Edison Company, et al; Environmental Assessment And 
Finding Of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering the issuance of an order under 10 CFR 50.80 approving an 
application concerning the corporate restructuring of Enova 
Corporation, parent company of San Diego Gas and Electric Company (the 
co-licensee), co-holder of Possession Only License No. DPR-13, and 
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-10 and NPF-15, along with Southern 
California Edison Company,

[[Page 35533]]

The City of Riverside, California, and The City of Anaheim, California 
(the co-licensees) issued for operation of the San Onofre Nuclear 
Generating Station (SONGS), Units 1, 2, and 3, located in San Diego 
County, California.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would consent to the transfer of control of the 
licenses to the extent effected by the proposed restructuring of Enova 
Corporation (Enova), parent company of San Diego Gas & Electric Company 
(SDG&E), whereby Enova would combine with Pacific Enterprises 
(Pacific), with each becoming a subsidiary of a newly created holding 
company, Mineral Energy Company (New Holding Company). SDG&E would 
continue to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Enova and would continue to 
be a co-licensee of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 
2 and 3. The proposed action is in accordance with the request made by 
SDG&E through its counsel Richard A. Meserve of Covington & Burling in 
a letter dated December 2, 1996.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is required to enable Enova to restructure as 
described above. Enova and Pacific have submitted that restructuring 
will improve their ability to compete in the rapidly evolving energy 
marketplace.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed 
corporate restructuring and concludes that there will be no physical or 
operational changes to SONGS. The corporate restructuring will not 
affect the qualifications or organizational affiliation of the 
personnel who operate the facilities, as SDG&E will continue to be 
responsible for its portion of the operation of SONGS, Units 1, 2 and 
3.
    The Commission has evaluated the environmental impact of the 
proposed action and has determined that the probability or consequences 
of accidents would not be increased by the restructuring, and that 
post-accident radiological releases would not be greater than 
previously determined. Further, the Commission has determined that the 
corporate restructuring would not affect routine radiological plant 
effluents and would not increase occupational radiological 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 restructuring 
would not affect nonradiological plant effluents and would have no 
other environmental impact. Therefore, the Commission concludes that 
there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant 
environmental effects that would result from the proposed action, any 
alternative with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be 
evaluated.
    The principal alternative would be to deny the requested action. 
Denial of the application would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action 
and the alternative action are identical.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statements for the San 
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, dated October 1973, and the 
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, dated April 1981, 
and its Errata dated June 5, 1981.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on May 29, 1997, the staff 
consulted with the California State official, Mr. Steve Hsu of the 
Radiologic Health Branch of the State Department of Health Services, 
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State 
official had no 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 
letter dated December 2, 1996, by Richard A. Meserve of Covington & 
Burling (Counsel for SDG&E), 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 Main Library, University of California, Irvine, 
California.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of June 1997.

    For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mel B. Fields,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor Projects 
III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-17144 Filed 6-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P