96-31813. Wisconsin Electric Power Company; Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact  

  • [Federal Register Volume 61, Number 242 (Monday, December 16, 1996)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 66062-66063]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 96-31813]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
    [Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301]
    
    
    Wisconsin Electric Power Company; Point Beach Nuclear Plant, 
    Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
    
        The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
    considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of its 
    regulations to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27, 
    issued to Wisconsin Electric Power Company, (the licensee), for 
    operation of Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in 
    Manitowoc County, Wisconsin.
    
    Environmental Assessment
    
    Identification of the Proposed Action
    
        The proposed action would allow the licensee to utilize the 
    American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel 
    Code (ASME Code) Case N-514, ``Low Temperature Overpressure 
    Protection,'' to determine its low temperature overpressure protection 
    (LTOP) setpoints and is in accordance with the licensee's application 
    for exemption dated July 1, 1996, as supplemented November 18, 1996. 
    The proposed action requests an exemption from certain requirements of 
    10 CFR 50.60, ``Acceptance Criteria for Fracture Prevention Measures 
    for Lightwater Nuclear Power Reactors for Normal Operation,'' to allow 
    application of an alternate methodology to determine the LTOP setpoints 
    for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The proposed 
    alternate methodology is consistent with guidelines developed by the 
    ASME Working Group to define pressure limits during LTOP events that 
    avoid certain unnecessary operational restrictions, provide adequate 
    margins against failure of the reactor pressure vessel, and reduce the 
    potential for unnecessary activation of pressure-relieving devices used 
    for LTOP. These guidelines have been incorporated into Code Case N-514, 
    ``Low Temperature Overpressure Protection,'' which has been approved by 
    the ASME Code Committee. The content of Code Case N-514 has been 
    incorporated into Appendix G of Section XI of the ASME Code and 
    published in the 1993 Addenda to Section XI. However, 10 CFR 50.55a, 
    ``Codes and Standards,'' and Regulatory Guide 1.147, ``Inservice 
    Inspection Code Case Acceptability'' have not been updated to reflect 
    the acceptability of Code Case N-514.
        The philosophy used to develop Code Case N-514 guidelines is to 
    ensure that the LTOP limits are still below the pressure/temperature 
    (P/T) limits for normal operation but allow the pressure that may occur 
    with activation of pressure-relieving devices to exceed the P/T limits, 
    provided acceptable margins are maintained during these events. This 
    philosophy protects the pressure vessel from LTOP events and still 
    maintains the Technical Specifications P/T limits applicable for normal 
    heatup and cooldown in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, and 
    Sections III and XI of the ASME Code.
    
    The Need for the Proposed Action
    
        Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.60, all lightwater nuclear power reactors 
    must meet the fracture toughness requirements for the reactor coolant 
    pressure boundary as set forth in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, which 
    defines P/T limits during any condition of normal operation including 
    anticipated operational occurrences and system hydrostatic tests, to 
    which the pressure boundary may be subjected over its service lifetime. 
    It is specified in 10 CFR 50.60(b) that alternatives to the described 
    requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, may be used when an 
    exemption is granted by the Commission pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12.
        To prevent transients that would produce excursions exceeding the 
    10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, P/T limits while the reactor is operating 
    at low temperatures, the licensee installed an LTOP system. The LTOP 
    system includes pressure-relieving devices in the form of power-
    operated relief valves (PORVs) that are set at a pressure below the 
    LTOP enabling temperature that would prevent the pressure in the 
    reactor vessel from exceeding the P/T limits of 10 CFR Part 50, 
    Appendix G. To prevent these valves from lifting as a result of normal 
    operating pressure surges (e.g., reactor coolant pump starting or 
    stopping) with the reactor coolant system in a water solid condition, 
    the operating pressure must be maintained below the PORV setpoint. The 
    licensee's current LTOP analysis indicates that using this 10 CFR Part 
    50, Appendix G, safety margin to determine the PORV setpoint requires 
    operation of the plant in a narrow range of pressure that could result 
    in the lifting of the PORVs during normal heatup and cooldown 
    operation. Using Code Case N-514 would allow the licensee to operate 
    without a restriction on the number of operating reactor coolant pumps 
    in the determination of the LTOP setpoint analysis. Therefore, the 
    licensee proposed that in determining the PORV setpoint for LTOP events 
    for Point Beach, the allowable pressure be determined using the safety 
    margins developed in an alternate methodology in lieu of the safety 
    margins required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G. The alternate 
    methodology is consistent with ASME Code Case N-514. The content of 
    Code Case N-514 was incorporated into Appendix G of Section XI of the 
    ASME Code and published in the 1993 Addenda to Section XI.
        An exemption from 10 CFR 50.60 is required to use the alternate 
    methodology for calculating the maximum allowable pressure for LTOP 
    considerations. By application dated July 1, 1996, as supplemented 
    November 18, 1996, the licensee requested an exemption from 10 CFR 
    50.60 to allow it to utilize the alternate methodology of Code Case N-
    514 to compute its LTOP setpoints.
    
    Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
    
        Appendix G of the ASME Code requires that the P/T limits be 
    calculated (a) using a safety factor of 2 on the principal membrane 
    (pressure) stresses, (b) assuming a flaw at the surface with a depth of 
    one-quarter (\1/4\) of the vessel wall thickness and a length of 6 
    times its depth, and (c) using a conservative fracture toughness curve 
    that is based on the lower bound of static, dynamic, and crack arrest 
    fracture toughness tests on material similar to the Point Beach reactor 
    vessel material.
        In determining the PORV setpoint for LTOP events, the licensee 
    proposed the use of safety margins based on an alternate methodology 
    consistent with the proposed ASME Code Case N-514 which allows 
    determination of the setpoint for LTOP events such that the maximum 
    pressure in the vessel will not exceed 110 percent of the P/T limits of 
    the existing ASME Appendix G. This
    
    [[Page 66063]]
    
    results in a safety factor of 1.8 on pressure. All other factors, 
    including assumed flaw size and fracture toughness, remain the same. 
    Although this methodology would reduce the safety factor on pressure, 
    it was demonstrated in the Bases of ASME Code Case N-514 that due to 
    the isothermal nature of LTOP events, the margins with respect to 
    toughness for LTOP transients is within the range provided by ASME, 
    Section XI, Appendix G, for normal heatup and cooldown in the low 
    temperature range. Thus, applying Code Case N-514 will satisfy the 
    underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.60 for fracture toughness requirements. 
    Further, by relieving the operational restrictions, the potential for 
    undesirable lifting of the PORV would be reduced, thereby improving 
    plant safety.
        The change will not increase the probability or consequences of 
    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.
        With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
    action does involve features located entirely within the restricted 
    area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect nonradiological 
    plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the 
    Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological 
    environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
    
    Alternatives to the Proposed Action
    
        Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable 
    environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any 
    alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be 
    evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff 
    considered denial of the proposed action. 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
    
        This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
    previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for Point 
    Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
    
    Agencies and Persons Consulted
    
        In accordance with its stated policy, on November 29, 1996, the 
    staff consulted with the Wisconsin State official, Ms. Sarah Jenkins, 
    of the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, regarding the 
    environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no 
    comments.
    
    Finding 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. 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 letters dated July 1 and November 18, 1996, which are 
    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 Joseph P. Mann Library, 
    1516 Sixteenth Street, Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241.
    
        Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of December 1996.
    
        For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    Linda L. Gundrum,
    Project Manager, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor 
    Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 96-31813 Filed 12-13-96; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
12/16/1996
Department:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Entry Type:
Notice
Document Number:
96-31813
Pages:
66062-66063 (2 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301
PDF File:
96-31813.pdf