[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28889-28890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7572]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-266, 50-301, 50-282, and 50-306]


Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 
1 and 2; 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 exemptions from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR), section 50.71(e)(4), for Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-
24, DPR-27, DPR-42, and DPR-60, issued to Nuclear Management Company, 
LLC (NMC, the licensee), for operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant 
(PBNP), Units 1 and 2, located in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, and the 
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 2, located 
in Goodhue 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 actions would exempt the licensee from the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) regarding submission of revisions to 
the updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The updated FSAR at 
PINGP is called the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR). Under the 
proposed exemptions, the licensee would submit updates to the updated 
FSARs once per fuel cycle, within 6 months following completion of each 
PBNP, Unit 1, refueling outage and within 6 months of each PINGP, Unit 
2, refueling outage, respectively, not to exceed 24 months from the 
last submittal for either site. PBNP and PINGP are two-unit sites, each 
site sharing a common updated FSAR.
    The proposed actions are in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated October 12, 2005.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    Section 50.71(e)(4) requires licensees to submit updates to their 
FSARs annually or within 6 months after each refueling outage provided 
that the interval between successive updates does not exceed 24 months. 
Since the units for each site share a common FSAR, the licensee must 
update the same document annually or within 6 months after a refueling 
outage for each unit. The underlying purpose of the rule was to relieve 
licensees of the burden of filing annual FSAR revisions while ensuring 
that such revisions are made at least every 24 months. The NRC reduced 
the burden, in part, by permitting a licensee to submit its FSAR 
revisions 6 months after refueling outages for its facility, but it did 
not provide in the rule for multiple-unit facilities sharing a common 
FSAR. Rather, the NRC stated, ``[w]ith respect to the concern about 
multiple facilities sharing a common FSAR, licensees will have maximum 
flexibility for scheduling updates on a case-by-case basis'' (57 FR 
39355). Allowing the exemptions would keep the updated FSARs current 
within 24 months of the last revision, while reducing the burden on the 
licensee.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed actions and 
concludes that they involve administrative activities unrelated to 
plant operation, and therefore there would be no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed actions.
    The proposed actions 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.
    There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent 
released off site. There is no significant increase in occupational or 
public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant 
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
actions.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
actions do not have a potential to affect any historic sites. They do 
not affect non-radiological plant effluents and have no other 
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
actions.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed actions.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed actions, the NRC staff considered 
denial of the proposed actions (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 
actions and the alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    The proposed actions do not involve the use of any different 
resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental 
Statement for PBNP, dated May 1972; in NUREG-1437, Supplement 23, 
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 
Plants [regarding PBNP],'' dated August 2005; and in the Final 
Environmental Statement for PINGP, dated May 1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, the staff consulted with the 
Wisconsin State official, Mr. J. Kitsembel of the Public Service 
Commission, on April

[[Page 28890]]

24, 2006, and with the Minnesota State official, Ms. D. Pile of the 
Commerce Department, on April 26, 2006, regarding the environmental 
impact of the proposed actions. The State officials had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes 
that the proposed actions 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 
actions.
    For further details with respect to the proposed actions, see the 
licensee's letter dated October 12, 2005. 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 send an e-mail to [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of May 2006.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carl F. Lyon,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-1, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E6-7572 Filed 5-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P