ML20216B577
| ML20216B577 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1997 |
| From: | Wetzel B NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216B582 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9709080089 | |
| Download: ML20216B577 (4) | |
Text
._____ - - - --
i 7590-01 P UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION _
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50 263 MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF i
NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering granting i
an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.c, to i
Northem States Power Company, (the licensee), in connection with the operation of the 1
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, located in Wright County, Minnesota, under Facility Operating License No. DPR-22.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action:
By letter dated August 18,1997, the licensee requested an exemption to Title 10, Code of Federal Regulaflons, Part 50, Appendix E,Section IV.F.2.c. The proposed exemption would allow the licensee to exercise only the onsite portion of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant's emergency preparedness plans during the scheduled 1997 biennial exerdse. The licensee requested the exemption because the State and local counties within the emergency planning zone have requested re'4ef from the Federal Emcrgency Management Agency (FEMA) from participation in the offsite portion of the scheduled 1997 exercise due to hardships caused by recent natural disasters.
9709080089 970903 PDR ADOCK 05000263 F
PDR a
2-The Need for the Proposed Action:
The proposed action is deemed necessary since the requirement for the State and local counties to participate in the offsite portion of the exercise is beyond the licensee's control. The licensee requested this one time exemption in support of the State of Minnesota's request for relief from FEMA requirements in 10 CFR Part 44 to biennially exercise offsite emergency plans. The State and local counties requested relief from FEMA requirements (in accordance with Section 350.9.c of 10 CFR Part 44) due to the hardships ca.used by recent natural disasters. In a letter dated August 12,1997, to FEMA Region V, the State of Minnesota provided the soecific justifications for its relief request.
Section 50.54(q) of 10 CFR Part 50 requires a licensee authortzed to operate a nuclear power reactor to follow and maintain in effect emergency plans that meet the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.
Section IV.F.2.c of Appendix E requires that offsite plans for each site shall be exercised biennially with full participation by each offsite authority having a role under the plan.
The NRC may, however, grant exemptions from the requirements of the regulations which.
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), are (1) authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security, and (2) present special circumstances.
EnvironmentalImoacts of the Proposed Action:
The proposed action involves administrative activities unrelated to plant operation.
The proposed action will not increase the types or amounts of effluents that may be released offsite, nor increase occupational or offsite radiation exposure. The proposed action will not increase the probability or consequences of accidents. Therefore, the Commission concludes
)
that there are no radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
3 The proposed action will not result in a change in nonrediological plant effluents and will have no other nonradiological environmental impact. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. The Commission concludes that granting this one time exemption would not result in any i
l significant environmental impact.
Ah,Timite= to the Prc-r-xd Ar*ian:
)
i Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable environmental impact l
essociated with the pmposed action, any attematives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated. As an altamative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the attemative action are similar.
Attemative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant dated i
November 22,1g72.
Aaencies and Persons Consulted:
in accordance with its stated policy, on September 3,1997, the staff consulted with the Minnesota State official, Mr. Michael McCarthy of the Department of Public Services, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no
- comments, fjHQING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
4 i
Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action, i
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated August 18,19g7, 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 3rd day of September 19g7.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Both A. Wetzel, Senior roject Manager Project Directorate ill 1 Division of Reactor Projects - lil/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation t
9 O
+
,+4.
m+
,ewew
- =e
.