ML061110095

and Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 - Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Exemptions to 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4)

ML061110095
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach, Prairie Island
Issue date:	05/11/2006
From:	Lyon C F Plant Licensing Branch III-2
To:	Koehl D L, Palmisano T J Nuclear Management Co
lyon C, NRR/ADRO/DORL, 415-2296
References
TAC MC8654, TAC MC8655, TAC MC8656, TAC MC8657
Download: ML061110095 (9)

Text

May 11, 2006Mr. Dennis L. KoehlSite Vice President Point Beach Nuclear Plant Nuclear Management Company, LLC 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241-9516 andMr. Thomas J. PalmisanoSite Vice President Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Nuclear Management Company, LLC 1717 Wakonade Drive East Welch, MN 55089

SUBJECT:

POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2, AND PRAIRIE ISLANDNUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR EXEMPTIONS TO 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) (TAC NOS. MC8654, MC8655, MC8656, AND MC8657)

Dear Mr. Koehl and Mr. Palmisano:

Enclosed is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impactrelated to your application for exemptions dated October 12, 2005. The proposed exemptionsfrom the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) would allow periodic updates of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 1 and 2, and Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP),

Units 1 and 2, updated final safety analysis reports once per fuel cycle, within 6 monthsfollowing 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.

D. Koehl and T. Palmisano-2-The assessment is being forwarded to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.Sincerely,/RA/Carl F. Lyon, Project ManagerPlant Licensing Branch III-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationDocket Nos. 50-266, 50-301, 50-282, and 50-306

Enclosure:

Environmental Assessmentcc w/encl: See next page D. Koehl and T. Palmisano-2-The assessment is being forwarded to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.Sincerely,/RA/Carl F. Lyon, Project ManagerPlant Licensing Branch III-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationDocket Nos. 50-266, 50-301, 50-282, and 50-306

Enclosure:

Environmental Assessmentcc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION

PUBLICLPL3-1 R/FRidsNrrPMFLyonRidsNrrPMMChawla RidsNrrDorlLpl3-1RidsNrrLADClarkeRidsOgcRpRidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter RidsRgn3MailCanterRidsNrrDrlRebb ADAMS Accession Number: ML061110095OFFICENRR/LPL3-1/PMNRR/LPL3-1/LAREBB/BCOGCNRR/LPL3-1/BCNAMEFlyon:rsa, caDClarkeRFranovichPMouldingLRaghavanDATE5/4/065/4/065/8/065/10/065/11/06OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 7590-01-PUNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONNUCLEAR MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLCDOCKET NOS. 50-266, 50-301, 50-282, AND 50-306POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OFNO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTThe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of exemptionsfrom Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.71(e)(4), for FacilityOperating 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 assessmentand finding of no significant impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTIdentification of the Proposed Action

The proposed actions would exempt the licensee from the requirements of 10 CFR50.71(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 FSARsonce 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 orwithin 6 months after each refueling outage provided that the interval between successiveupdates 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 filingannual 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-unitfacilities 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 forscheduling 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 theyinvolve administrative activities unrelated to plant operation, and therefore there would be nosignificant environmental impacts associated with the proposed actions.The proposed actions will not significantly increase the pr obability or consequences ofaccidents. 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 nosignificant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are nosignificant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed actions.With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed actions do not have apotential 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 impactsassociated 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 theproposed 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 thosepreviously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for PBNP, dated May 1972; inNUREG-1437, Supplement 23, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewalof 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 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 IMPACTOn the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposedactions 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 proposedactions.For further details with respect to the proposed actions, see the licensee's letter datedOctober 12, 2005. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's PublicDocument Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will beaccessible 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 orwho 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 pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of May 2006.FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION/RA/Carl F. Lyon, Project ManagerPlant Licensing Branch III-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 cc:

Jonathan Rogoff, EsquireVice President, Counsel & Secretary Nuclear Management Company, LLC 700 First Street Hudson, WI 54016Mr. F. D. KuesterPresident & Chief Executive Officer WE Generation 231 West Michigan Street Milwaukee, WI 53201Regulatory Affairs ManagerPoint Beach Nuclear Plant Nuclear Management Company, LLC 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241Mr. Ken DuveneckTown Chairman Town of Two Creeks 13017 State Highway 42 Mishicot, WI 54228ChairmanPublic Service Commission of Wisconsin P.O. Box 7854 Madison, WI 53707-7854Regional Administrator, Region IIIU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 210 2443 Warrenville RoadLisle, IL 60532-4351Resident Inspector's OfficeU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6612 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241Mr. Jeffery KitsembelElectric Division Public Service Commission of Wisconsin P.O. Box 7854 Madison, WI 53707-7854Nuclear Asset ManagerWisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Street Milwaukee, WI 53201Michael B. SellmanPresident and Chief Executive Officer Nuclear Management Company, LLC 700 First Street Hudson, MI 54016Douglas E. CooperSenior Vice President - Group Operations Palisades Nuclear Plant Nuclear Management Company, LLC 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, MI 49043Site Director of OperationsNuclear Management Company, LLC 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241 Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 cc:

Jonathan Rogoff, EsquireVice President, Counsel & Secretary Nuclear Management Company, LLC 700 First Street Hudson, WI 54016Manager, Regulatory AffairsPrairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Nuclear Management Company, LLC 1717 Wakonade Drive East Welch, MN 55089Manager - Environmental Protection DivisionMinnesota Attorney General's Office 445 Minnesota St., Suite 900 St. Paul, MN 55101-2127U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionResident Inspector's Office 1719 Wakonade Drive East Welch, MN 55089-9642Regional Administrator, Region IIIU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 210 2443 Warrenville RoadLisle, IL 60532-4351AdministratorGoodhue County Courthouse Box 408 Red Wing, MN 55066-0408CommissionerMinnesota Department of Commerce 85 7th Place East, Suite 500 St. Paul, MN 55101-2198Tribal CouncilPrairie Island Indian Community ATTN: Environmental Department 5636 Sturgeon Lake Road Welch, MN 55089Nuclear Asset ManagerXcel Energy, Inc.

414 Nicollet Mall, R.S. 8 Minneapolis, MN 55401Michael B. SellmanPresident and Chief Executive Officer Nuclear Management Company, LLC 700 First Street Hudson, MI 54016Craig G. AndersonSenior Vice President, Group Operations Nuclear Management Company, LLC 700 First Street Hudson, WI 54016