[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 147 (Monday, August 2, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46187-46188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-17476]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-263]


Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Monticello Nuclear Generating 
Plant; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an exemption from title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR), part 50, appendix R, section III.G.2.b. for 
Facility Operating License No. DPR-22, issued to Nuclear Management 
Company, LLC (NMC), for operation of the Monticello Nuclear Generating 
Plant (Monticello), located in Wright County, Minnesota. Therefore, as 
required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental 
assessment and finding of no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would authorize an exemption from the automatic 
fire suppression system requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix R, 
section III.G.2.b. as it applies to Fire Area IV/Fire Zone 1F. Fire 
Area IV/Fire Zone 1F corresponds to the Monticello torus compartment, 
located at elevation 896 feet, 3 inches of the reactor building. The 
proposed action is in accordance with NMC's exemption request of 
September 15, 2003, as supplemented February 24, 2004.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    NMC requested this exemption as a result of internal assessments of 
the Monticello's Fire Protection Program. NMC determined that the 
existing exemption from 10 CFR part 50 appendix R, section III.G.2.b 
(granted in 1983) for the torus compartment did not bound the existing 
plant configuration and the current Monticello Appendix R safe shutdown 
analysis. Accordingly, the NMC resubmitted its request for a permanent 
exemption for this area.

[[Page 46188]]

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC staff reviewed NMC's exemption request and will issue a 
safety evaluation documenting its review. The review found that the 
Division 1 and Division 2 components of the core spray, residual heat 
removal (RHR) cooling, suppression pool level transmitter, and 
suppression pool temperature monitoring systems (SPOTMOS) are separated 
in Fire Area IV/Fire Zone 1F by at least 75 feet. The NRC staff 
concluded that the area wide automatic fire suppression is not 
necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of appendix R, section 
III.G.2.b, for the suppression pool torus area at Monticello 
considering the following:
     The minimal amount of fixed and transient combustibles 
present;
     The separation between redundant trains of core spray 
valves, RHR cooling valves, and suppression pool level transmitters;
     Smoke and temperature detector provisions;
     The ability of SPOTMOS to continue to operate with at 
least one RTD on one train in the operable-but-degraded mode for any 
fire in fire zone 1F that involved both conduit trains.
    The details of the NRC staff's safety evaluation will be provided 
as part of the letter to NMC transmitting the NRC staff's decision on 
the exemption request.
    The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability 
or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of 
effluents that may be released off site, and there is no significant 
increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there 
are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed action.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does 
not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other 
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-
radiological 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 resource than 
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for 
Monticello dated November 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    On July 22, 2004, the NRC staff consulted with the Minnesota State 
official, Nancy Campbell of the Department of Commerce, 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 NMC's 
exemption request of September 15, 2003, as supplemented February 24, 
2004. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's 
Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public 
File Area O1 F21, 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.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 22nd day of July 2004.

    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. 04-17476 Filed 7-30-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P