[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