ML20247F140
| ML20247F140 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1989 |
| From: | Wambach T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247F147 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8904030334 | |
| Download: ML20247F140 (5) | |
Text
mm
-- =.
__._.u...
1
~~
n 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY j
POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
)
The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-24 and DPR-27, issued to the Wisconsin Electric Power Company for operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2, located in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action
\\'
The proposed amendment would revise the provisions it the Technical Specifications (TS) relating to the design and operation of the Point Beach fuel cycle with upgraded core features and at higher core pt,wer f
peaking factors (F and FAH) than are currently permii;ted by the plant q
TS.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated August 26, 1988, as supplemented by letters dated
(
October 28, November 30, and December 23, 1988; and as modified January 17, 1988 (sic).
l The Need for the Proposed Action The proposed change to the TS is required in order to permit the licensee to incorporate higher core power peaking factors which will
] [0$$$$k b6 P
_.7...._.
. allow the use of a low-low leakage loading pattern (L4P) fuel management strategy and will result in decreased neutron fluence to the reactor vessel. This fluence reduction will help address reactor vessel irradiation damage issues such as pressurized tharsal shock, low upper shelf material toughness and pressure-temperature restrictions on heatup and cooldown. The higher core power peaking factors will allow additional fluence reduction measures, such as the use of peripheral power suppression assemblies, to be pursued.
In addition to the increase in core power peaking factors, the proposed changes would permit the use of an upgraded fuel product features package. The upgraded fuel product features include: removable top nozzles, integral fuel burnable absorbers, axial blankets, extended burnup geometry, and inclusion of a debris filter bottom nozzle.
Finally, the reanalysis for this proposed amendment supports the removal of the fuel assembly thimble plugging devices and the elminina-tion of the third segment of the K(z) curve.
l Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed revision to TS and concludes that operation of the Point Beach Nuclear 1
l Plant with the higher core power peaking factors and with the upgraded fuel features is acceptable. The evaluation demonstrates that acceptable l'
thermal limits are not exceeded with the proposed changes. Normal operations as well as the accidents and transients which required reevaluation remain within acceptable bounds. Use of the upgraded fuel features does not involve significant modification to the Point
yy.=.
a
.=.
' /
Beach reactor cores. Neither the nuclear physics nor the thermal-hydraulic parameters are significantly affected by the transition to the upgraded fuel features. Finally, sufficient conservatism has been l
demonstrated to permit the removal of the thimble plugging devices and i
the elimination of the thirt segmet of the K(z) curve without compromising safety.
The environmental impacts of operating the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in the proposed manner are within the bounds of those impacts previously evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement with the exception of the Steam Generator Tube Rupture (SGTP) Accident. The SGTR accident was reevaluated to reflect an update to the safety injection termination requirements used in the current Point Beach SGTR recovery procedures. Although slightly higher because of higher calculated primary-to-secondary leakage during the transient, the doses calculated for the reevaluation of the SGTR accident remain a "small fraction" of the 10 CFR Part 100 exposure guidelines. The amendment does not otherwise affect radiological plant effluents during normal operation and occupational radiation exposure is unaffected.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that this proposed action would result in no significant radiological environmental impact.
l The Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment and Opportunity for Prior Hearing in connection with this action was published in the Federal Register on February 6,1989(54FR5707). No request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene was filed following this notice.
i lL___._--____.----_-__--
4
' With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed change to the TS will in no way affect environs located outside the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact.
Therefore, the Consnission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment.
-Alternative to the Proposed Action Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant environmental effects that would result from the proposed action, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested amendment.
This would not reduce environmental impacts of plant operation and would result in reduced operational flexibility.
Alternative Use of Resources l
l This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously 1
considered in'the Final Environmental Statement for the Point Beach l
Nuclear Plant Unit Nos. I and 2, dated May 1972.
I Agencies and Persons Consulted The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult i
other agencies or persons.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT l
The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed license amendment.
I 1
i T 1 Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, we conclude that the proposed action.will not have.a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
for further details with respect to this action, see the applica-tion for amendment dated August 26, 1988 as supplemented by letters dated October 28, November 30, and December 23, 1988; and as modified January 17,1988 (sic), which are available for public inspection at the Connission's Public Document Room, P120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. and at the Joseph P. Mann Library,1516 Sixteenth Street, Two Rivers, Wisconsin.
' Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of-March
-1989.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Thomas V. Wambach, Acting Director Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation t
- - - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _