95-6062. Northern States Power Co.; Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact  

  • [Federal Register Volume 60, Number 48 (Monday, March 13, 1995)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 13477-13478]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 95-6062]
    
    
    
    [[Page 13477]]
    
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
    
    [Docket No. 72-10]
    
    
    Northern States Power Co.; Independent Spent Fuel Storage 
    Installation; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
    Impact
    
        The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is 
    considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of its 
    regulations, to Northern States Power Company (NSP), located in 
    Minneapolis, Minnesota. The requested exemption would allow NSP to 
    submit the report of preoperational test acceptance criteria and test 
    results at least three days (instead of 30 days) prior to the receipt 
    of fuel at its independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) at 
    the Prairie Island plant (Docket Nos. 50-282/306) located near Red 
    Wing, Minnesota.
    
    Environmental Assessment
    
        Identification of Proposed Action: The request, proposed by NSP 
    letter dated January 4, 1995, would exempt NSP from the requirements of 
    10 CFR 72.82(e), which states that ``A report of the preoperational 
    test acceptance criteria and test results must be submitted * * * at 
    least 30 days prior to the receipt of spent fuel or high-level 
    radioactive waste.'' NSP proposed to submit this report three days 
    prior to the receipt of spent fuel at its ISFSI. Granting the exemption 
    at this time would enable NSP to proceed with activities to support its 
    scheduled Unit 2 refueling outage.
        The Need for the Proposed Action: NSP request for exemption is to 
    ensure the availability of adequate storage space in the spent fuel 
    pool in order to support NSP's scheduled Unit 2 refueling outage. A 
    fuller discussion of the need for the exemption follows.
        In July 1993, NSP suspended cask fabrication and site construction 
    activities until the Minnesota State Legislature authorized the Prairie 
    Island ISFSI on May 10, 1994. After authorization, the ISFSI 
    construction resumed and the facility was completed in November 1994, 
    and the first cask was received on January 26, 1995.
        NSP plans to receive new fuel, in March 1995, for the refueling 
    outage which is scheduled to begin May 13, 1995. Subsequent to receipt, 
    new fuel is transferred from the new fuel storage racks into the spent 
    fuel pool in preparation for refueling activities. Because the Prairie 
    Island spent fuel pool is nearly full, and because there is limited 
    space in the spent fuel pool area, the multiple activities, associated 
    with storage cask loading and the refueling outage, cannot be conducted 
    at the same time. Therefore, the first storage cask must be loaded and 
    transported to the ISFSI prior to receipt of new fuel.
        NSP estimates that approximately 30 days will be required for the 
    preoperational testing of the first cask and the associated equipment, 
    and about two weeks will be required to load the cask and transport it 
    to the ISFSI. Including the 30-day waiting period required in 10 CFR 
    72.82(e), it will take about two and one-half months from cask receipt 
    until it is placed on the storage pad. Even if cask loading started 
    before the end of the waiting period (which is allowed under 10 CFR 
    72.82(e)-- there would not be enough time to complete the activities 
    prior to receipt of new fuel, assuming the full 30-day waiting period.
        The purpose of the 30-day period, for the licensee to submit a 
    report of the preoperational test acceptance criteria and test results, 
    is to establish a sufficient hold point so as to ensure that the NRC 
    has enough time to inspect a new licensee's preparations and, if 
    necessary, exercise its regulatory authority before fuel is received at 
    an ISFSI. For example, an ISFSI located at an away-from-reactor site 
    may not have a resident inspector; therefore, the full 30-day period 
    might be necessary to provide enough time for the NRC to review the 
    licensee's records and preoperational test results and, if needed, send 
    inspectors to the site. The Prairie Island ISFSI is located on a 
    reactor site that has resident inspectors, and the resident and other 
    NRC inspectors will both be present at the ISFSI to observe portions of 
    the preoperational testing activities while they are being conducted. 
    The NRC inspectors will also have ongoing access to the licensee's test 
    procedures and test results in order to be able to conduct the 
    appropriate review. Thus, in view of the NRC's oversight presence 
    during the preoperational testing phase at Prairie Island, as well as 
    the NRC's immediate access to the licensee's procedures and test 
    results, the Commission concludes that the full 30 days, provided for 
    in the rule, will not be needed in order for NRC to complete its 
    inspection activities and determine whether any further regulatory 
    action is needed before spent fuel is received at the Prairie Island 
    ISFSI. Therefore, the licensee's submission of the required report in 
    less time than the required 30-day period, before fuel receipt at the 
    ISFSI, is acceptable. However, based on the ongoing observations of 
    preoperational tests by inspectors, NRC may determine that more time 
    than the three-day period, requested by the licensee, is needed to 
    review additional licensee records and preoperational test results. 
    Therefore, in granting the requested exemption, NRC reserves the right 
    to require additional time, if necessary, to complete its activities.
        Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: The Commission has 
    evaluated the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The NRC 
    reviewed the Prairie Island Safety Analysis Report (SAR), and in July 
    1933, issued a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) approving the SAR. On 
    July 28, 1992, the NRC issued an Environmental Assessment and Finding 
    of no Significant Impact for the ISFSI (57 FR 34319, dated August 4, 
    1992). On the basis of these reviews NRC concluded that spent fuel 
    could be stored in the ISFSI at Prairie Island without significant 
    environmental impact.
        The proposed exemption will not alter or affect the impacts of 
    operation of the ISFSI previously evaluated by NRC. Rather, it merely 
    allows NSP to submit the report of preoperational test acceptance 
    criteria and test results three days prior to receipt of fuel at the 
    ISFSI instead of the required 30-day period. As previously noted the 
    30-day period is to provide the NRC sufficient opportunity to review 
    the licensee's submittals. With inspectors of site, a shorter period 
    will, in this case, provide the same, sufficient opportunity. In 
    addition, the proposed exemption does not involve any change that 
    increases the probability or consequences of accidents, that changes 
    the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, or that would 
    significantly increase the allowable individual or cumulative 
    occupational radiation exposure. The Commission accordingly concludes 
    that this proposed exemption will have no significant radiological or 
    nonradiological environmental impacts.
        Alternative 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 staff considered the 
    alternative of denying the requested exemption. Denial could result in 
    the delay of the plant refueling outage planned for May 13, 1995, and 
    would not reduce or change the environmental impacts that currently 
    exist.
        Agencies and Persons Consulted: The Commission's staff reviewed 
    NSP's request and did not consult other agencies or persons.
        Finding of No Significant Impact: Based upon the foregoing 
    environmental [[Page 13478]] assessment, the Commission concludes that 
    the proposed action would 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, the request for 
    exemption dated January 4, 1995, and other documents are available for 
    public inspection and for copying (for a fee) at the NRC Public 
    Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555, and at the 
    Local Public Document Room located in the Minneapolis Public Library, 
    300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
    
        Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of March, 1995.
    
        For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    Donald A. Cool,
    Director, Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, Office of 
    Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 95-6062 Filed 3-10-95; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 7590-01-M