[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 111 (Friday, June 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30611-30612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14156]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412
Duquesne Light Company; et al.; Beaver Valley Power Station, 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 certain requirements of its
regulations to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73,
issued to Duquesne Light Company et al. (the licensee), for operation
of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in
Beaver County, Pennsylvania.
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated February 4, 1994, for exemption from certain
requirements of paragraph III.D.2(b)(ii) of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J.
The proposed exemption would allow substitution of local leak rate
testing (where the design permits)in lieu of an overall airlock leakage
test which would otherwise be required after performing maintenance on
the air lock. The air lock components for which this exemption would be
applicable would be those where the design of the affected component(s)
would permit local leak testing at a pressure of not less than Pa (the
calculated peak containment internal pressure related to the design
basis accident and specified either in the technical specification or
associated bases). The use of the words ``where the design permits'' is
intended to require that two criteria be satisfied if the proposed
exemption is applied. The first criterion, is that any component which
has had maintenance performed on it have local leak rate test
provisions included into its design. The second criterion is that the
method for measuring the component's local leak rate must be equivalent
to or more conservative than the method which would be used on that
component during performance of an overall air lock leakage test.
The Need for the Proposed Action
Paragraph III.D.2.(b)(ii) of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, requires
licensees to perform an overall air lock leak test at Pa at the end of
periods during which the air lock has been opened when containment
integrity was not required. Performance of an overall air lock leak
test requires 4 to 6 hours and results in additional occupational
radiation exposures. The time required to perform overall tests at the
conclusion of a plant shutdown can result in delaying plant restart.
Application of the proposed exemption would be applicable only to those
air lock components provided with local leak rate testing capabilities
and for which the leak rate does not exceed the leak rate that has been
measured on that component during performance of previous acceptable
overall air lock leakage tests. Therefore, local leak rate tests
provide adequate assurance that the offsite doses following a design
basis accident will be within acceptable limits.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the licensee's
application. The proposed exemption will not increase the probability
or consequences of accidents. The probability of accidents is not
increased because the air locks do not affect the initiation of any
design basis accident. The consequences of an accident are not
increased because the component local leak rates will not be permitted
to exceed the leak rate which would be measured on that component
during performance of the overall air lock leakage test. No changes are
being made in the types of any radioactive effluents that may be
released offsite as a result of the proposed exemption, 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 involve features located entirely within the restricted
area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not effect 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. 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 the
Beaver Valley Power Station Units Nos. 1 and 2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on May 9, 1995, the staff
consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Robert C. Maiers of the
Bureau of Radiation Protection, Department of Environmental Resources,
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State
official had no comments. [[Page 30612]]
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 4, 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 B. F. Jones Memorial Library, 663 Franklin
Avenue, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of June 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John F. Stolz,
Director, Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects--I/II,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-14156 Filed 6-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
