Wisconsin Electric Power Company; Point Beach Nuclear Plant; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

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