Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 1995 / Notices 18429

considering issuance of an exemption

from Facility Operating License No.

DPR–60, issued to Northern States

Power Company, (the licensee), for

operation of the Prairie Island Nuclear

Generating Plant, Unit 2, located in

Goodhue County, Minnesota.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

This Environmental Assessment has

been prepared to address potential

environmental issues related to the

licensee’s application of February 23

and March 3, 1995. The proposed action

would exempt the licensee from the

requirements of 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix J, Paragraph III.D.1.(a), to the

extent that a one-time interval extension

for the Type A test (containment

integrated leak rate test) by

approximately 24 months from the May

1995 refueling outage to the May 1997

refueling outage would be granted.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to

permit the licensee to defer the Type A

test from the May 1995 refueling outage

to the May 1997 refueling outage,

thereby saving the cost of performing

the test and eliminating the test period

from the critical path time of the outage.

Environmental Impact of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that the proposed one-time

exemption would not increase the

probability or consequences of accidents

previously analyzed and the proposed

one-time exemption would not affect

facility radiation levels or facility

radiological effluents. The licensee has

analyzed the results of previous Type A

tests performed at Prairie Island Nuclear

Generating Plant, Unit No. 2, to show

good containment performance and will

continue to be required to conduct the

Type B and C local leak rate tests which

historically have been shown to be the

principal means of detecting

containment leakage paths with the

Type A tests confirming the Type B and

C test results. It is also noted that the

licensee, as a condition of the proposed

exemption, would perform the visual

containment inspection although it is

only required by Appendix J to be

conducted in conjunction with Type A

tests. The NRC staff considers that these

inspections, though limited in scope,

provide an important added level of

confidence in the continued integrity of

the containment boundary. The NRC

staff also notes that the Prairie Island

Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit No. 2,

containment penetration and weld

channel pressurization system provides

a means for continuously monitoring

potential containment leakage paths

during power operation. 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 NRC staff

considered denial of the proposed

action. Denial of the application would

result in no change in current

environmental impacts.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for the Prairie Island Nuclear

Generating Plant dated May 1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

the NRC staff consulted with the

Minnesota State official 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 licensee’s

letters dated February 23 and March 3,

1995, which are 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 Minneapolis Public

Library, Technology and Science

Department, 300 Nicollet Mall,

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day

of April 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Cynthia Carpenter,

Acting Director, Project Directorate III–1,

Division of Reactor Projects-III/IV Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–8844 Filed 4–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company,

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 an exemption

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 Power Plant, Unit Nos.

1 and 2, located in San Luis Obispo,

California.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would grant

schedular relief from the Section IV.F.3

of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E

requirement for a biennial, full-scale

emergency preparedness exercise. The

action would allow the licensee to

postpone its 1995 full-scale exercise

until 1996 and subsequently conduct

these exercises in even-numbered years.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

exemption dated October 17, 1994.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is needed to

support the State of California’s request

to reschedule the Diablo Canyon

Nuclear Power Plant (DCPP) offsite

biennial exercise because currently both

nuclear utilities (Pacific Gas and

Electric Company and Southern

California Edison) conduct their

biennial, full-scale exercises in oddnumbered years, which creates a

hardship for the State in terms of

manpower and finances. The change

would allow the State to participate in

one exercise each year instead of two

exercises every other year.
18430 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 1995 / Notices

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The proposed exemption would not

adversely affect the response

capabilities of the licensee and

governmental agencies. The most recent

DCPP offsite exercise was conducted in

1993, and there were no issues

identified which required immediate

corrective actions. The Federal

Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA), by letter dated March 2, 1995,

informed the NRC that such a schedule

change would have no adverse

implications on public health and

safety. The Commission has completed

its evaluation of the proposed action

and concludes that the intent of

Appendix E, Section IV.F.3 to ensure

site emergency preparedness is

maintained is met. 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 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 hardship

to the State of California. 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, Units Nos. 1 and 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on March 27, 1995, the staff consulted

with the California State official, Mr.

Steve Hsu of the 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 licensee’s letter

dated October 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 4th day

of April 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William H. Bateman,

Director, Project Directorate IV–2, Division

of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–8872 Filed 4–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–341]

Detroit Edison Co.; Notice of Partial

Denial of Amendment to Facility

Operating License and Opportunity for

Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

partially denied a request by Detroit

Edison Company, (license) for an

amendment to Facility Operating

License No. NPF–43 issued to the

licensee for operation of Fermi 2,

located in Frenchtown Township,

Monroe County, Michigan. Notice of

Consideration of Issuance of this

amendment was published in the

Federal Register on August 18, 1993 (58

FR 43925).

The purpose of the licensee’s

amendment request was to revise the

Technical Specifications (TS) to allow

use of an updated laboratory testing

standard for surveillance testing of

representative charcoal samples from

the control room emergency filtration

system (CREFS) and the standby gas

treatment system. Additionally, the

CREFS ACTION STATEMENTS were to

be revised to remove restrictions on

CORE ALTERATIONS and handling of

irradiated fuel in the secondary

containment when the CREFS is

inoperable under certain conditions.

The NRC staff has concluded that the

licensee’s request cannot be fully

granted. The licensee was notified of the

Commission’s denial of the proposed

change by a letter dated March 31, 1995.

By May 11, 1995, the licensee may

demand a hearing with respect to the

denial described above. Any person

whose interest may be affected by this

proceeding may file a written petition

for leave to intervene.

A request for hearing or petition for

leave to intervene must be filed with the

Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC by

the above date.

A copy of any petitions should also be

sent to the Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555,

and to John Flynn, Esq., Detroit Edison

Company, 2000 Second Avenue, Detroit,

Michigan 48266, attorney for the

licensee.

For further details with respect to this

action, see (1) the application for

amendment dated July 29, 1993, as

supplemented October 8, 1993, and (2)

the Commission’s letter to the licensee

dated March 31, 1995.

These documents are available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20555 and at the

Monroe County Library System, 3700

South Custer Road, Monroe, Michigan

48161. A copy of item (2) may be

obtained upon written request

addressed to the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, Attention: Document Control

Desk.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day

of March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Timothy G. Colburn, Sr.,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–I,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–8842 Filed 4–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M