[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31852-31853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15274]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306]


Northern States Power Company; Prairie Island Nuclear Generating 
Plant, 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 amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Nos. 
DPR-42 and DPR-60, issued to Northern States Power Company (NSP, the 
licensee), for operation of Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, 
Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in Goodhue County, Minnesota.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed amendments would revise the technical specifications 
(TS) to take credit for soluble boron in the spent fuel pool in 
maintaining an acceptable margin of subcriticality. However, even if 
the spent fuel pool were to be completely filled with unborated water, 
the licensee's dilution event calculations show that the spent fuel 
pool would remain subcritical.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    Currently, compliance with the TS requirement to maintain 
criticality (keff) in the spent fuel pool to less than 0.95 
with unborated water is accomplished through the use of Boraflex, a 
neutron absorber. However, recent tests have indicated that the 
Boraflex is showing degradation induced by gamma radiation. Maintaining 
a boron concentration of 1800 parts per million in the spent fuel pool 
is more than sufficient to ensure that the keff is 
maintained below 0.95.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the licensee's proposal to take credit for soluble 
boron in the spent fuel pool water to maintain keff less 
than or equal to 0.95 is acceptable.

[[Page 31853]]

    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 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 involves features located entirely within the restricted area as 
defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect 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 
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, the NRC staff consulted with 
the Minnesota State official, Mr. Michael McCarthy of the Department of 
Public Services, on May 5, 1997, regarding the proposed actions. Mr. 
McCarthy 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 July 28, 1995, as revised February 21, 1997, 
which are 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 4th day of June 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Beth A. Wetzel,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-15274 Filed 6-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P