ML20049J069
| ML20049J069 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049J068 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-42152, NUDOCS 8203110535 | |
| Download: ML20049J069 (5) | |
Text
-
,f(
o UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
g g
<< E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NOS. 54 AND 48 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-42 AND DPR-60 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-282 AND 50-306 1.0 Introduction By letter dated April 24, 1981 the Northern States Power Company (NSP) proposed the deletion of the Appendix B Environmental Technical Specifications from the operating licenses DPR-42 and DPR-60 for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP) Unit Nos. I and 2.
The Environmental Technical Specifications in Appendix B of licenses DPR-42 and 60 consist of five sections covering definitions, protection conditions, monitoring requirements, environmental surveillance and special studies and administrative.
On January 19, 1981 the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,(the permitting agency under the U.S. Environ mental Protection Agency EPA), issued the final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Permit No. MN0004006 covering the Pr'airie Island Nuclear Generating Plant.
2.0 Background and Evaluation Water quality requirements are primarily addressed in two sections titled " Protection Conditions" and " Monitoring Requirements" of the environmental technical specifications '(ETS) in Appendix B of licenses DPR-42 and 60, and also are covered in the NPDES oermit MN0004006
' issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency under EPA.
We concur in the deletion of the water quality requirements and will rely on the NPDES permit system administered by the State of Minnesota We for the regulation and protectiori of the aquatic environment.
have informed the State of Minnesota of our decision and it has no On this basis, sections 2 objections to deleting)these ETS.and 3,(' monitoring reouirements) serve no (protection conditions useful purpose and may be deleted from Appendix B of the license.
See Robinson, ALAB-569,10 NRC 557; Yellow Creek,. ALAB-515,.8 NRC 702.
In addition, the reporting requirement!s presently contained in Appendix B have been shifted to Appendix A, thus guaranteeing notifica-
- t. ion to the NRC of any significant environmental developments.
8203110535 820226 PDR ADOCK 05000282 P
The only other section in Appendix B containing technical requirements is the section dealing with the environmental surveillance and special studies program which has been conducted over a six-year period since two-unit operation began. Our evaluation for terminating the Technical Specifications under the environmental survgillance and special studies program is as follows:
1.
Technical Specification 4.1.1 specifie'd that the licensee is to investigate any changes in the biota and the ecosystem induced by the operation of the plant.
In addition, fish impingement and entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton had to be studied and results reported in the annual Environmental Monitoring and Ecological Studies Program Report.
The licensee has completed these studies and submitted annual environmental reports indicating that no adverse effects on the environ-ment have been detected during the period since the two-unit plant operation began.
We have reviewed the licensee's submittals and agree with the licensee that the studies have shown no deleterious effects on the environment as a result of plant operation.
In addition, the NPDES permit' issued by the State of Minnesota addresses these matters regarding any plant design changes or that t'e Technical Specifications covering changes in the biota, ecosystems and fish impingement need not be part of the licensing requirements and therefore may be deleted from Appendix B.
2.
Technical Specification 4.1.2 is concerned with terrestrial ecological studies designed to identify the flora and fauna-within a 1.5 mile radius of the plant.
Results of the terrestrial ecological studies were reported annually in the Annual Environmental Monitoring and Ecological Studies Program reports.
Based on terrestrial surveillance conducted through 1978 it was concluded that no significant terrestrial environmental degradation occurred as a result of plant effluents, and therefore the terrestrial surveillance was terminated in 1978.
We have reviewed the licensee's annual reports and agree with its conclusions.
There is thus
~
no need for initiating any new studies. -0n this basis, we conclude"that the terrestrial ecological studies need not be part of the licensing requirements and therefore may be deleted from Appendix B.
3.
Technical Specification 4.2.1 requires the monitoring of the dimen-sional configuration of the heated water -plume as it flows from the out-fall down the -discharge canal into the river.
This Tgchnical Specification is part of the water quality requirements that are addressed in the NPDES permit MN0004006 and therefore for re.ssons cited above under water quality may be deleted from Appendix B.
4.
Technical Specification 4.2.2, concerned with dredging, requires that estimates of the macroinvertebrate community and measurements of water l
l quality parameters be performed to determine the effects of maintenance dredging on the aquatic environment.
There has been no maintenance
' dredging in the six years since construction of the river facilities was completed, so there has been no. opportunity to evaluate the effects of such an operation.
We conclude that this r.equirement should be celeted from t'he Appendix B TS because:. (1) experience. indicates there'will be a low frequency of maintenance dredging at this facility; -(2) any i
maintenance dredging)would have to be in complianc'e with U.S. Corps of Engineer permits; (3 the total area affected is likely to be small (as discussed in the Prairie Island Final Environmental Statement,
- p. V-13); and (4) after dredging, the benthic macroinvertebrate community would repopulate the disturbed area.
5.
Technical Specification 4.2.4 is concerned with a study on noise impacts due to the operation of the Prairie Island Generating Plant on the ensite and offsite environment.
By letters dated May 20,1977 and May 31, 1978, NSP submitted the results of.its noise monitoring activities at the subject plant site, as required by Technical Specification 4.2.4 of Appendix B of the license.
We have reviewed the results of NSP's program, and find that there is no evidence of excessive noise levels in the plant vicinity due to normal operation of the facility.
Noise levels during operation do not exceed the EPA identified level for protection of public health and welfare in farm and residential outdoor space.
Potential for activity interference and annoyance in nearby areas as a result of normal plant operation is judged to be low.
We have also contacted the State of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Division of Noise Control, with regard to State noise monitoring /
compliance at the plant site. They report no noise related complaints associated with normal plant operation, but they have received one complaint during a steam blowout event at the plant.
Routine or con-firmatory monitoring has not been instituted by the State as a result of the existing compliant history of the plant.
However, MPCA rules do provide a mechanism for such activities.
In the unlikely event that the plant noise generation characteristics change, increasing offsite noise leiels, either during normal operation or by increases in frequency or duration of blowdown events, adverse community reaction, as measured by complaints to MPCA, would result in monitoring and control action by the State.
Removal of the NRC requirement for continued noise monitoring at Prairie Island would not result in substantial lessening of environ-mental protection at the plant site with respect to noise.
By our letter dated May 29, 1979 we informed the licensee that we find the reports satisfy the requirements of ETS 4.2.4 and are acceptable.
We further conclude that the noise observations have adequately quantified the noise levels cause by operation of the Prairie Island Plant and find that the licensee has satisfied the intent of the Technical Specification requirement in regard to noise levels and that the surveys may be terminated.
No further action is required in regard to Environmental Technical Specification 4.2.4.
Based on the above evaluation we conclude that the Technical Specification
~
on noise impact may be deleted from Appendix B of the license.
1 5
. 6.
Technical Specificittion 4.2.5, Erosion, requires that surveys of orsite property be conducted twice a year to determine where erosion has occurred, and that cerrective action be taken to restore eroded areas and prevent further osion from occurring.
This specification also requires that the dre ged offsite channel bottoms and boundaries be depth sounded for sig ificant contour changes once a year.
Review of the 1975,1976 and 1977 Annual Environmental Reports indicates that several erosion areas onsite have been identified as a result of surveys conducted to satisfy this specification.
The erosion control measures implemented after each of the twice-yearly surveys have been generally effective. Areas identified as being severely eroded in surveys one year have been either completely restored or judged to have only moderate-to-low erosion the next year.
This portica of specification 4.2.5 has been useful in identifying areas onsite where erosion is a problem and documenting their reco.very.
Because the erosion problems have been decreasing in severity with.no areas classified as being severely. eroded in 1977, the staff judges that reduction of erosion survey frequency from twice-yearly to once-year'ly is acceptable.
Results of the yearly offsite soundings surveys indicates that in the six years since construction of the river facilities have been completed, no
. signficiant changes have occurred in dredged channel depth or. location, even though no maintenance dredging has been conducted.
Correction of offsite problems involving the dredged channels, if such problens occur, may only be made after consulting with the applicable Federal, State and local authorities.
For these reasons, the staff believes that deletion of ETS Section 4.2.5 requiring erosion surveys of the onsite property is acceptable.
s' The definition and administrative ' ections of Appendix B are supporting sections for implementing.the technical requirements appearing in the other sections of Appendix B.
Since all of the technical requirements in Appendix B have either been fulfilled and found acceptable or as in the case of water quality requirements are covered under the NPDES permit, the definition and administrative sections of Appendix B, except for certain reporting requirements, serve no useful purpose.
We have reviewed the existing reporting requirements and find that future changes to the plant or procedure that may increase the environmental impact. as evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement shall b5 reported to the. NRCJ These reporting requirements are now addressed in the proposed changes to the envi.ronmental reporting sections in Appendix "A" of the licenses No. DPR-42 and 60 as discussed below.
On this basis we conclude that the definition and administrative sections of Appendix B are. no longer required and may be deleted.
In orderJto assure that environmental matters are adequately considered by the NRC (see Detroit Edison Co. v. NRC, 9/5/81; Declaration of Purpose, Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5 5801), in regard to Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant's perfo'rmance, we proposed to the licensee that certain reporting requirements be included in the environmental report section of Appendix A of licenses Nos.
DPR-42 and 60.. The principal objectives of these reporting requirements are as follows:
l 9
(1) Verify that the station is operated in an environmentally acceptable manner, as established by the Final Environmental Statement (FES)
.and other NRC environmental impact assessments.
(2) Coordinate NRC requirements and maintain consistency with other Federal, State and local requirements for environmental protection.
(3) Keep NRC informed of the environmental effects of facility constric-tion and operation and of actions taken to control those effects.
The licensee has re' viewed these additional reporting requirements and has agreed (except for minor changes which we find acceptable) to make these reporting requirements part of the Technical Specification Appendix A of the licenses.
In addition, the licensee proposes to delete the phrase which is in reference to the annual Radiological Environmental reports meeting the intent of Regulatory Guide 4.1 (1/18/73).
We agree with the licensee that referencing the intent of Regulatory Guide (1/18/73) is not applicable and should be deleted for the following reasons:
1.
Regulatory Guide 4.1' has been revised in April 1975 and no reporting requirements are addressed in the revised version.
2.
Specific reporting requirements covering Radiation Environmental Monitoring Programs exist in Appendix A of the license (TS 4.10).
3.
This phrase in no way contributes to improvements of measuring or reporting radiation level and radioactivity in the site environs.
In conclusion, based on the above evaluations in which the NPDES effluent limitations and monitoring requirements, thermal studies and ecological monitoring requirements and the reporting requirements will provide appropriate protection'for the environment, we find that the deletion of Appendix B from the licenses DPR-42 and 60 is acceptable.
Conclusion and Basis for Negative Declaration
~ 0n the basis of the foregoing analysis, it is concluded that there will be no environmental impact attributable to the proposed actions other than has already been predicted and described in the Commission's FES for Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units Nos.1 and 2.
Having made this conclusion, the Commission has further concluded that no environmental impact statement for the proposed action'need be prepared and that a negative declaration. to this effect is appropriate.
Date:
February 26, 1982 Principal Contributors:
Dom Dilanni Tom Cain T
i W