ML20078M854
| ML20078M854 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1994 |
| From: | Peterson S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078M858 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9412050170 | |
| Download: ML20078M854 (4) | |
Text
.. -
-~
.~ -
~
i UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPNISSION NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-282 AND 50-306 PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2
?
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption from Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60, issued to Northern States Power Company, (the licensee), for operation of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Goodhue County, Minnesota.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action:
By letter dated May 2, 1994, the licensee requested an exemption from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R,Section III.G.1, to the extent that it requires i
that one train of systems needed for hot shutdown be free of fire damage.
Specifically, the licensee requested an exemption from the Section III.G.I requirement for performing proposed hot shutdown repairs which will allow the lit.ensee to remove fuses from the power operated relief valves (PORV) control circuit as a means of ensuring the reactor coolant system (RCS) inventory in the event of a control room fire.
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The licensee has stated that satisfying Appendix R criteria in this l
circumstance would require plant hardware modifications; for example, installation of switches outside of the control room to de-energize the circuit in this scenario. The licensee states that the current operator l
9412050170 941125 PDR ADOCK 050002B2 p
L
~
v l
- r!
~
i actions provide an adequate substitute response, and that expending the 1
resources to perform the hardware changes are not justified. Therefore, the licensee requests an exemption from the Appendix R criteria in order to allow removal of the fuses in the power operated relief valve (PORV) control circuit as a means of ensuring that proper reactor coolant system inventory is maintained.
Environmental Imoact of the Proposed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and determined that the granting of this exemption will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety. The licensee's proposal to isolate the PORVs by removing the subject control circuit fuses provides reasonable assurance that safe shutdown can be achieved in the event of a control room fire.
Furthermore, the modifications required to meet 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, i
Section III.G.1 would not enhance fire protection safety levels above that currently provided by the licensee. Therefore, post-accident radiological releases are not expected to exceed previously determined values as a result
)
of the proposed action.
Further, the exemption is not expected to have an impact on plant radiological effluent releases.
The change will not increase the probability or consequences of any accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
i
i With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed exemption involves features located entirely within the restricted area as defined in l
10 CFR Part 20.
It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated l
with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Actioa:
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable environmental l
impact associated with the proposed action, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated. The principal alternative to the action would be to deny the request. Such action would not enhance the protection of the environment and would result in unjustified cost to the i
licensee.
Alternative Use of Resources:
i This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant dated May 1973.
Aaencies and Persons Consulted:
The NRC staff consulted with the Minnesota State official regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT l
Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the l
l l
l
, 4 human environment. Accordingly, the Commission 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 May 2,1994, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at the Minneapolis Public Library, Technology and Science Department, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of November 1994.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
Dkm h. \\ '.d..Mw Sheri R. Peterson, Project Manager Project Directorate 111-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation P
(
l i
l i