[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