[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47868-47870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-18434]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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


Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Prairie Island Nuclear 
Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding 
of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and 
DPR-60, issued to Nuclear Management Company, LLC (the licensee) for

[[Page 47869]]

operation of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 
2, located in Goodhue County, Minnesota. Pursuant to title 10 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) sections 51.21 and 51.32, the NRC 
is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant 
impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would be a full conversion from the current 
technical specifications (CTS) to a set of improved technical 
specifications (ITS) based on NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications, Westinghouse Plants,'' Revision 1, dated April 1995. 
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application 
dated December 11, 2000, as supplemented by letters dated March 6, July 
3, August 13, November 12, and December 12, 2001, and January 25, 
January 31, February 14, February 15, February 16, March 6, April 11, 
May 10, May 30, June 7, June 25, and June 28, 2002.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The Commission's ``Proposed Policy Statement on Technical 
Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors'' (52 FR 3788), 
dated February 6, 1987, contained an Interim Policy Statement that set 
forth objective criteria for determining which regulatory requirements 
and operating restrictions should be included in the technical 
specifications (TS). When it issued the Interim Policy Statement, the 
Commission also requested comments on it. Subsequently, to implement 
the Interim Policy Statement, each reactor vendor owners group and the 
NRC staff began developing standard TS (STS) for reactors supplied by 
each vendor. The Commission then published its ``Final Policy Statement 
on Technical Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors'' 
(58 FR 39132), dated July 22, 1993, in which it addressed comments 
received on the Interim Policy Statement, and incorporated experience 
in developing the STS. The Final Policy Statement formed the basis for 
a revision to 10 CFR 50.36 (60 FR 36953), dated July 19, 1995, that 
codified the criteria for determining the content of TS. The NRC 
Committee to Review Generic Requirements reviewed the STS, made note of 
their safety merits, and indicated its support of conversion by 
operating plants to the STS. For the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating 
Plant, Units 1 and 2, the STS are NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications, Westinghouse Plants,'' Revision 1, dated April 1995. 
This document formed the basis for the Prairie Island Nuclear 
Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, conversion.
    The proposed changes to the CTS are based on NUREG-1431 and 
guidance provided in the Final Policy Statement. The objective of this 
action is to completely rewrite, reformat, and streamline the CTS 
(i.e., to convert the CTS to ITS). Emphasis was placed on human factors 
principles to improve clarity and understanding. The Bases section has 
been significantly expanded to clarify and better explain the purpose 
and foundation of each specification. In addition to NUREG-1431, 
portions of the CTS were also used as the basis for the development of 
the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 ITS. Plant-
specific issues (i.e., unique design features, requirements, and 
operating practices) were discussed at length with the licensee.
    The proposed changes from the CTS can be categorized into five 
general groupings. These groupings are characterized as administrative 
changes, more restrictive changes, less restrictive changes, less 
restrictive relocated details, and relocated specifications. 
Administrative changes include those changes that are editorial in 
nature or involve the reorganization or reformatting of CTS 
requirements without affecting technical content or operational 
restrictions.
    More restrictive changes include those changes that result in added 
restrictions or reduced flexibility. The licensee, in electing to 
implement the specifications of the STS, proposed a number of 
requirements more restrictive than those in the CTS. The ITS 
requirements in this category include requirements that are either new, 
more conservative than corresponding requirements in the CTS, or have 
additional restrictions that are not in the CTS but are in the STS.
    Less restrictive changes include deletions and relaxations to 
portions of the CTS in order to conform to the guidance of NUREG-1431, 
which would result in reduced restrictions or added flexibility. When 
requirements have been shown to provide little or no safety benefit, 
their relaxation or removal from the TSs may be appropriate. In most 
cases, relaxations previously granted to individual plants on a plant-
specific basis were the result of (1) generic NRC actions, (2) new 
staff positions that have evolved from technological advancements and 
operating experience, or (3) resolution of the Owner's Groups' comments 
on STS.
    Less restrictive relocated details include those changes to the CTS 
that eliminate details and relocate the details to licensee-controlled 
documents. Typically, this involves details of system designs, system 
descriptions including design limits, descriptions of system or plant 
operation, procedural details for meeting TS requirements and relocated 
reporting requirements, and redundant requirement references.
    Relocated specifications include those changes to the CTS that 
relocate certain requirements which do not meet the 10 CFR 50.36 
selection criteria. These requirements may be relocated to the Bases, 
updated safety analysis report, core operating limits report (COLR), 
operational quality assurance plan, plant procedures, or other 
licensee-controlled documents. Relocating requirements to licensee-
controlled documents does not eliminate them, but rather, places them 
under more appropriate regulatory controls (i.e., 10 CFR 50.54(a)(3), 
and 10 CFR 50.59) to manage their implementation and future changes.
    In addition to the proposed changes solely involving the 
conversion, there are also changes proposed that are (1) different from 
the requirements in both the CTS and the STS and, (2) in addition to 
those changes that are needed to meet the overall purpose of the 
conversion. These changes are referred to as beyond-scope changes and 
include:
    1. Extension of the certain surveillance interval from 18 months to 
24 months to support the proposed refueling cycle of 24 months;
    2. Extension of the allowed outage time for the emergency core 
cooling system accumulators from 1 to 24 hours;
    3. Missed surveillance consolidated line item improvement to extend 
the delay period for a missed surveillance requirement from the current 
limit of 24 hours to ``* * * up to 24 hours or up to the limit of the 
specified Frequency, whichever is greater;''
    4. Revision to the ventilation filter testing program to 
incorporate the guidance provided in NRC Generic Letter 99-02, 
``Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal,'' dated June 
3, 1999;
    5. A new methodology (to be incorporated by reference into ITS 
Section 5.0) that describes the method by which the shutdown margin 
limit during physics testing is established for inclusion within the 
COLR;
    6. A new methodology (to be incorporated by reference to ITS 
Section 5.0) that describes the method by which a factor, 
FQA, (in support of ITS 3.2.1, Heat Flux Channel 
Factor) is to be determined; and
    7. Plant-specific instrument setpoint methodology in support of new

[[Page 47870]]

instrument allowable values and trip setpoints in the ITS.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC staff has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the proposed TS conversion would not increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and would 
not affect facility radiation levels or facility radiological 
effluents.Specifically, the proposed TS changes will not increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in 
the types or amounts of any effluent that may be released offsite, and 
there is no significant increase in the allowable individual or 
cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no 
significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed action.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites because 
no previously undisturbed area will be affected by the proposed TS 
changes. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no 
other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant 
nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
action.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). 
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

    The action does not involve the use of any different resources than 
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for 
the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, dated May 
1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    On July 8, 2002, the staff consulted with Ms. Linda Bruemmer of 
Minnesota State Division of Environmental Health regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no 
comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC 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 December 11, 2000, as supplemented by letters 
dated March 6, July 3, August 13, November 12, and December 12, 2001, 
and January 25, January 31, February 14, February 15, February 16, 
March 6, April 11, May 10, May 30, June 7, June 25, and June 28, 2002. 
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records 
will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access 
and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams[bs]''adams.html''. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents 
located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by 
telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to 
[email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of July 2002.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Raghavan,
Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing 
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 02-18434 Filed 7-19-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P