[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 205 (Monday, October 25, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62307-62308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23790]



[[Page 62307]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-263]


Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Monticello Nuclear Generating 
Plant, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an exemption from the requirements of title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2.b 
for Facility Operating License No. DPR-22, issued to Nuclear Management 
Company, LLC (NMC), for operation of the Monticello Nuclear Generating 
Plant (MNGP), located in Wright 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 action would authorize a permanent exemption from the 
requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2.b, as it 
applies to Fire Area IX/Fire Zone 23A, the intake structure pump room 
at MNGP. The proposed action is in accordance with NMC's exemption 
request of November 17, 2003, as supplemented July 16, 2004.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    NMC requested this exemption from the requirement to separate 
cables and equipment and associated non-safety circuits of redundant 
trains by a horizontal distance of more than 20 feet with no 
intervening combustibles or fire hazards. NMC indicated that although 
redundant safe shutdown components and cables within this fire zone are 
separated by more than 20 feet, permanent intervening combustibles or 
fire hazards exist within the separating space.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC staff reviewed NMC's exemption request and will issue a 
safety evaluation documenting its review. The NRC staff analyzed the 
following items in the intake structure pump room at MNGP to satisfy 
the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12 for granting the exemption from the 
automatic suppression system requirements of Appendix R, Section 
III.G.2.b:
    <bullet> Safe shutdown equipment.
    <bullet> Fixed and transient combustibles.
    <bullet> Chemical hazards.
    <bullet> Existing fire protection features.
    <bullet> Intervening combustibles.
    <bullet> Impact of Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-03, ``Risk-
Informed Approach for Post-Fire Safe-Shutdown Associated Circuit 
Inspections,'' dated March 2, 2004.
    The following attributes of the intake structure pump room at MNGP 
supported the NRC staff's basis for approval of the requested 
exemption:
    <bullet> Greater than 20 feet of separation exists between 
redundant safe shutdown components and cables.
    <bullet> Early-warning ionization detection, installed above the 
residual heat removal service water (SW) and SW pumps, provides an 
alarm to the control room.
    <bullet> Activation of the pre-action valve via the thermal 
detectors results in a ``system actuated'' signal to the control room.
    <bullet> Transient combustibles and hot work in the area are 
administratively controlled.
    <bullet> The fire load in the zone satisfies the criteria for a low 
fire load designation.
    The NRC staff concluded that the requested exemption for Fire Area 
IX/Fire Zone 23A provided reasonable assurance that one train of 
redundant safe shutdown equipment would remain free of fire damage. 
This is the equivalent of meeting the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, 
Appendix R, Section III.G.2.b, since the underlying purpose of Section 
III.G.2.b is to assure that one train of redundant safe shutdown 
equipment will be maintained free of fire damage.
    The details of the NRC staff's safety evaluation will be provided 
in the exemption that will be issued as part of the letter to NMC 
approving the exemption to the regulation.
    The proposed action 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 effluent being released offsite. There is no 
significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. 
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does 
not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other 
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (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 action 
and the alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    The action does not involve the use of any different resource than 
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for 
Monticello dated November 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    On October 15, 2004, the staff consulted with the Minnesota State 
official, Nancy Campbell of the Department of Commerce, regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no 
comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes 
that the proposed action 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 
action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see NMC's 
exemption request of November 17, 2003, as supplemented July 16, 2004. 
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 by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c5b5a1b785abb7a6eba2aab3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="61110513210f13024f060e17">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of October 2004.


[[Page 62308]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Raghavan,
Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing 
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 04-23790 Filed 10-22-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>