ML20141H817
| ML20141H817 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 07/28/1997 |
| From: | Gundrum L NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141H820 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9708010203 | |
| Download: ML20141H817 (4) | |
Text
-
7590-01-P (JNITED STATES NUCLEM REGULATORY COMMISSION WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY DOCKET POS. 50-266 AND 50-301 EQLNT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Comission) is considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating Licenses 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 Prooosed Action:
The proposed action would revise (1) Section 3.A of Facility Operating Licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 from a licensed power level of 1518 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 1518.5 MWt: (2) technical specification (TS) 15.3.1.8 Bases power level from 1518 MWt to 1518.5 MWt: and (3) TS 15.3.1.B Bases reference 2 from revision 2 to revision 3.
These changes make the value.of the licensed power level listed in Section 3.A of the licenses and in the Units 1 and 2 bases of TS 15.3.1.B consistent with the value listed in the balance of the TS end in the final safety analysis report (FSAR). The changes are administrative and do not change plant design or operation.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated August 22, 1996, as supplemented by letter dated July 14, 1997.
bR DO O
O 66 P
' The Need for the Prooosed Action:
The proposed action would revise the power level included in Facility Operating Licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 to restore consistency with the authorized power level defined in the TS and assumed in performing facility safety analyses.
Environmental Imoacts of the Procosed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed changes to the licenses and TS. According to the licensee, the administrative change in the licensed power level restores consistency between the licenses and the TS.
The TS, as originally issued, defined the licensed power level as 1518.5 MWt.
At no time has the power level defined in the TS been changed from 1518.5 MWt.
Accident analyses performed in support of original licensing used as a bases for analyses the value of 1518.5 MWt or an appropriate multiple of 1518.5, as required. Only one current analysis, fluence values affecting 10 CFR Part 50.
Appendix G, specifically referenced a power level of 1518 MWt. The licensee concluded that the results of this analysis are insensitive to the change in power level and sufficient assurance regarding the effect of fluence levels is obtained in analyzing material spec'imens.
This administrative 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 ast,ociated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action is administrative in nature and does not involve any physical features of the plant. Thus. it does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no
. 1 other environmental impact. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
~
Alternatives to the Prooosed 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.
Aaencies and Persons Consulted:
In accordance with its stated policy. on July 17, 1997, the staff consulted with the Wisconsin State official. Sarah Jenkins 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 asse.ssment, 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.
4 For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated August 22, 1996, as supplemented on July 14, 1997, which are available for public inspection it 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 Wisconsin 54241.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of July 1997.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k
dwnv Linda L. Gundram, Project Manager Project Directorate 111-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
_