[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36852-36853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-17990]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 amendments to Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-24 and DPR-27, issued to Wisconsin Electric Power Company, (the
licensee), for operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and
2, located in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would revise Technical Specification (TS)
15.3.3, ``Emergency Core Cooling System, Auxiliary Cooling Systems, Air
Recirculation Fan Coolers, and Containment Spray,'' to change allowed
outage times and increase the number of pumps required to be operable
for the service water and component cooling water systems; TS 15.3.7,
``Auxiliary Electrical Systems,'' to reflect service water system
operability requirements; TS 15.3.12, ``Control Room Emergency
Filtration,'' to increase charcoal filtration efficiencies and include
a specific testing standard; and TS 15.5.2, ``Containment,'' to change
the design heat removal capability of the containment fan coolers.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application for amendments dated September 30, 1996 (TSCR-192), as
supplemented on November 26 and December 12, 1996, February 13, March
5, April 2, April 16, May 9, June 3, June 13 (two letters), and June
25, 1997.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action would allow the licensee to maintain the
original design basis requirement to maintain service water as a
single-phase fluid in the water-filled cooler portion of the
containment air recirculation fan coolers and to modify the design and
operation of plant systems to accurately reflect system and component
capabilities of Units 1 and 2. The proposed action would change the TS
to reflect revised design and operating requirements for the emergency
core cooling system, auxiliary cooling systems, air recirculation fan
coolers, containment spray system, auxiliary electrical systems, and
control room emergency filtration system. The revised design and
operating requirements include decreasing service water flow to the air
recirculation fan coolers to ensure adequate backpressure is maintained
in the air recirculation fan coolers to prevent two-phase flow in the
coolers; decreasing the containment heat removal capability of the air
recirculation fan coolers because of the decrease in service water
flow; limiting the source of water supplied for the containment spray
pumps to the available volume of water in the refueling water storage
tank, recalculating available volume of water in the refueling water
storage tank to address instrument inaccuracies; reducing the volume of
water assumed in the containment sump at the start of recirculation
initiation; increasing the required number of operable service water
pumps to six, increasing the required number of operable component
cooling water pumps to two per unit; eliminating the one-unit and two-
unit conditions for the component cooling water system; modifying the
designation of service water loops to define three headers (north,
south, and west); revising the limiting conditions for operation of
components in the service water system; changing the required actions
in case of electrical bus availability to require shutdown of both
units; increasing the charcoal filter efficiency based on standardized
testing to a minimum of 99 percent methyl iodide removal efficiency,
revising the standard for thyroid dose conversion factors; revising the
activity limits for the primary and secondary systems; changing the
modes of operation of the control room ventilation system; reevaluating
components in containment required to be environmentally qualified to
revised pressure and temperature limits resulting from a large-break
loss-of-coolant accident; and modifying the post-accident sampling
system design. Changes resulting from replacing the steam generators
for Unit 2 and revising the accident analyses for Units 1 and 2 to
incorporate new steam generator setpoints, operating pressures, and
instrument inaccuracies were also included in the evaluations to
support these amendment applications.
The changes proposed by the proposed amendments provide the
appropriate limiting conditions for operation, action statements,
allowable outage times, and design specifications for service water,
containment cooling, component cooling water, control room ventilation
system, and normal and emergency power supplies. This ensures that the
safety systems that protect the reactor and containment will operate as
required. The design of the reactor and containment are not affected by
these proposed changes. The proposed changes resulted in a revised
design basis for both units. The revised design basis was appropriately
evaluated to ensure that there was not a significant reduction in the
margin of safety. The safety systems and limiting conditions for
operation for these safety systems that provide support functions will
continue to meet the requirements for accident mitigation for Point
Beach Nuclear Plant. The revised accident analyses required
reevaluation of the radiological consequences. The limiting design-
basis accident for dose assessment is the large-break loss-of-coolant
accident.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, part 100, specifies
guidelines for radiation exposure at the exclusion area boundary and
the low population zone. The Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,
were licensed based on not exceeding a total radiation dose to the
whole body in excess of 25 rem and a total radiation dose in excess of
300 rem to the thyroid from iodine exposure for an individual located
at any point on the exclusion area boundary (EAB) for 2 hours
immediately following onset of the postulated fission product release
and not exceeding a total radiation dose to the whole body in excess of
25 rem
[[Page 36853]]
or a total radiation dose in excess of 300 rem to the thyroid from
iodine exposure for an individual located at any point on outer
boundary of the low population zone (LPZ) who is exposed to the
radioactive cloud resulting from the postulated fission product release
(during its entire passage which is conservatively assumed to occur
over a 30-day period following the radioactive release). The values
given in the original safety evaluation report issued in 1970 listed
staff determined values of 4 rem whole body and 240 rem thyroid for an
individual located at the EAB for a 2-hour period following an accident
and less than 1 rem whole body and 45 rem thyroid for an individual
located at any point on the outer boundary of the LPZ. The licensee's
evaluation of the dose received to the whole body at both the EAB and
LPZ was not significantly changed from the original licensing safety
evaluation. The licensee's evaluation of the thyroid dose received by
an individual at the EAB based on the proposed changes indicate no
increase in dose as compared to the dose presented in the original
licensing safety evaluation. The licensee's evaluation of the thyroid
dose received by an individual in the LPZ indicates an approximately 5
percent increase in thyroid dose as compared to the dose presented in
the original licensing safety evaluation. However, the dose still
represents only 20 percent of the reference values specified in 10 CFR
Part 100 and the change is not considered a significant increase based
on the exceedingly low probability of occurrence of a large-break loss-
of-coolant accident and low risk of public exposure to radiation. The
licensee concluded that the occupational exposure of the control room
operators is within the 30 rem thyroid dose guidelines of 10 CFR Part
50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 19, based on the use of
potassium iodide tablets. The reliance on potassium iodide tablets was
previously approved in the safety evaluation for closure of NUREG-0737,
Item III.D.3.4, ``Control Room Habitability.'' The calculated thyroid
dose was previously 23.7 rem and the revised dose is 29.3 rem. The
revised dose is still within GDC 19 dose limits. Thus the thyroid dose
to control room operators is not considered significant. The licensee
has provided commitments to upgrade the design, operation, and analyses
to achieve a control room operator thyroid dose based on specific
occupancy factors without reliance on potassium iodide. The licensee's
changes in dose values are primarily the result of changes in
assumptions, methodology, and calculational techniques.
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that the proposed amendments 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 the
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 2, 1997, the staff
consulted with the Wisconsin State official, Jeff Kitzenbuel, of the
Wisconsin Public Service Commission 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 letter dated September 30, 1996, as supplemented on November
26 and December 12, 1996, February 13, March 5, April 2, April 16, May
9, June 3, June 13 (two), and June 25, 1997, 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 Lester Public Library, 1001 Adams Street,
Two Rivers, WI 54241.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of July 1997.
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. 97-17990 Filed 7-3-97; 4:20 pm]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
