[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 232 (Monday, December 5, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-29775]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: December 5, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306]
Northern States Power Company; Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
Plant, Units 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-42 and DPR-60, issued to Northern States Power Company (the
licensee), for operation of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Goodhue County, Minnesota.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
By letter dated May 2, 1994, the licensee requested an exemption
from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.1, to the extent that it
requires that one train of systems needed for hot shutdown be free of
fire damage. Specifically, the licensee requested an exemption from the
Section III.G.1 requirement for performing proposed hot shutdown
repairs which will allow the licensee to remove fuses from the power
operated relief valves (PORV) control circuit as a means of ensuring
the reactor coolant system (RCS) inventory in the event of a control
room fire.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The licensee has stated that satisfying Appendix R criteria in this
circumstance would require plant hardware modifications; for example,
installation of switches outside of the control room to de-energize the
circuit in this scenario. The licensee states that the current operator
actions provide an adequate substitute response, and that expending the
resources to perform the hardware changes are not justified. Therefore,
the licensee requests an exemption from the Appendix R criteria in
order to allow removal of the fuses in the power operated relief valve
(PORV) control circuit as a means of ensuring that proper reactor
coolant system inventory is maintained.
Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
and determined that the granting of this exemption will not present an
undue risk to the public health and safety. The licensee's proposal to
isolate the PORVs by removing the subject control circuit fuses
provides reasonable assurance that safe shutdown can be achieved in the
event of a control room fire. Furthermore, the modifications required
to meet 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.1 would not enhance
fire protection safety levels above that currently provided by the
licensee. Therefore, post-accident radiological releases are not
expected to exceed previously determined values as a result of the
proposed action. Further, the exemption is not expected to have an
impact on plant radiological effluent releases.
The change will not increase the probability or consequences of any
accidents, no changes are being made in the types 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
exemption involves features located entirely within the restricted area
as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect non-radiological plant
effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the
Commission concludes that there are no significant non-radiological
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. The principal alternative to the action would be to deny the
request. Such action would not enhance the protection of the
environment and would result in unjustified cost to the licensee.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resource not previously
considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Prairie Island
Nuclear Generating Plant dated May 1973.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
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 letter dated May 2, 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 Minneapolis Public Library, Technology and
Science Department, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of November 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Sheri R. Peterson,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-29775 Filed 12-2-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
