[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 29, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16180-16181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7699]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. STN 50-528]
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit No. 1; 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 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Paragraph III.D.1.(a), Type A Tests, to the
Arizona Public Service Company, et al. (APS or the licensee), for
operation of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 1,
located in Maricopa County, Arizona.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
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 schedular extension would permit rescheduling the third
containment integrated leak rate test (ILRT) in the first 10-year
service period from the fifth refueling outage (1R5) currently
scheduled for May 1995 to the sixth refueling outage (1R6) planned for
September 1996. The requested exemption would also allow the decoupling
of this third test from the endpoint of the first 10-year inservice
inspection (ISI) period.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application for exemption dated December 28, 1994.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The current containment integrated leakage rate test (ILRT)
requirements for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, as set
forth in Appendix J, are that, after the preoperational leak rate test,
a set of three Type A tests must be performed at approximately equal
intervals during each 10-year period. Also, the third test of each set
must be conducted when the plant is shut down for the 10-year plant
inservice inspection. To date, for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Station, Unit 1, the preoperational and the first two periodic ILRTs
have been conducted. The most recent ILRT was conducted in February
1990, approximately 59 months ago. Thus, in accordance with Appendix J,
an ILRT would have to be conducted during the upcoming refueling outage
(1R5, scheduled for May 1995).
The licensee has requested a schedular exemption from Appendix J.
Specifically, the exemption would allow APS to delay the Unit 1 third
Type A test until the September 1996 refueling outage (1R6) and allow
APS to only perform the three tests required by 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix J. As such, the third Type A test would be performed within 10
calendar years from the common start date of the initial ISI interval
and 10 years and 8 months from the date of Unit 1 commercial operation.
With this exemption, the interval between the second and third Type A
test would be approximately 81 months.
The licensee also requested an exemption that would allow the
decoupling of this third test from the endpoint of the first 10-year
inservice inspection period. Specifically, subsequent Type A testing
would be performed in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part
50, Appendix J (three Type A tests every 10 years at approximately
equal intervals), commencing from the completion of the Unit 1 sixth
refueling outage (1R6). A CILRT would not need to be performed during
the 10-year ISI outage planned for the Spring of 1998 (1R7). Therefore,
the need for the licensee's proposed action is to allow a longer
interval between the Palo Verde Unit 1 second and third periodic Type A
ILRTs. This action, along with decoupling the requirement to perform an
ILRT at the end of the 10-year inservice inspection period, will
eliminate the need for an additional test. The licensee concluded that
the extension of the Type A test interval has a negligible impact on
overall risk and results in a cost savings.
Environmental Impacts 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 the Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1. The licensee has provided an
acceptable basis for concluding that the proposed one-time extension of
the Type A test interval would maintain the containment leakage rates
within acceptable limits. Accordingly, the Commission has concluded
that the one-time extension does not result in a significant increase
in the amounts of any effluents that may be released nor does it result
in a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational
radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
exemption only involves Type A testing on the containment. It does not
affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental
impact. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that here are no
significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the
proposed exemption.
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. The
environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action
are similar.
The change will not increase the probability or consequences of
accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that
may be released offsite, and there is not significant increase in the
allowable individual or cumulative occupation radiation exposure.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed
exemption.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of resources not previously
considered in the ``Final Environmental Statement Related to the
Operation of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and
3,'' dated February 1982. [[Page 16181]]
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, the NRC staff consulted with
the Arizona 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 exemption.
For further details with respect to this action, see the licensee's
letter dated December 28, 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 Phoenix Public Library, 12 East McDowell
Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th 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. 95-7699 Filed 3-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
