ML101180539: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 04/29/2010
| issue date = 04/29/2010
| title = Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Amendment to Change Licensee Name
| title = Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Amendment to Change Licensee Name
| author name = Poole J C
| author name = Poole J
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLIII-1
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLIII-1
| addressee name =  
| addressee name =  
Line 20: Line 20:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FPL ENERGY POINT BEACH, LLC DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301
{{#Wiki_filter:7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FPL ENERGY POINT BEACH, LLC DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301
  [NRC-2010-0173]
[NRC-2010-0173]
POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment for Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27, issued to FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC (the licensee), for operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action:
The proposed action would change the legal name of the Licensee and Owner from FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC to NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC. The proposed action would also make an administrative change to correct an error in the license by changing FPLE Group Capital to FPL Group Capital.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee=s application dated April 17, 2009, as supplemented by letter dated January 19, 2010.


The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment for Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27, issued to FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC (the licensee), for operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.
The Need for the Proposed Action:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action is necessary to reflect the legal change of name of the Licensee and Owner on April 16, 2009. Also, the proposed action is necessary to correct a typographical error in Appendix C which incorrectly labels the parent company.
: The proposed action would change the legal name of the Licensee and Owner  from "FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC" to "NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC."  The proposed action would also make an administrative change to correct an error in the license by changing "FPLE Group Capital" to FPL Group Capital." The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:
=s application dated  April 17, 2009, as supplemented by letter dated January 19, 2010.  
The NRC has concluded in its safety evaluation of the proposed action that since this action is for a name change and error correction only that (1) there is a reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
The details of the NRC staff=s review of the proposed amendment will be provided in the Safety Evaluation document supporting the license amendment.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released offsite.
There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent released offsite. There is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.


The Need for the Proposed Action
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
: The proposed action is necessary to reflect the legal change of name of the Licensee and Owner on April 16, 2009. Also, the proposed action is necessary to correct a typographical error in Appendix C which incorrectly labels the parent company.
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the Ano-action@ alternative). 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.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
Alternative Use of Resources:
: The NRC has concluded in its safety evaluation of the proposed action that since this action is for a name change and error correction only that (1) there is a reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. The details of the NRC staff
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, dated May 1972 and in NUREG-1437, Supplement 23, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants [regarding Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2], dated August 2005.
=s review of the proposed amendment will be provided in the Safety Evaluation document supporting the license amendment. The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released offsite. There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent released offsite. There is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Agencies and Persons Consulted:
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
In accordance with its stated policy, on October 22, 2009, and April 14, 2010, the staff consulted with the Wisconsin State official, Jeff Kitsembel, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comment.
: As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the Ano-action@ alternative). 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
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
: The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, dated May 1972 and in NUREG-1437, Supplement 23, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants [regarding Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2]," dated August 2005.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee=s letter dated April 17, 2009, as supplemented by letter dated January 19, 2010. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC=s Public Document Room (PDR), located at One
Agencies and Persons Consulted
: In accordance with its stated policy, on October 22, 2009, and April 14, 2010, the staff consulted with the Wisconsin State official, Jeff Kitsembel, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comment. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC 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 April 17, 2009, as supplemented by letter dated January 19, 2010. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC
=s Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29 th day of April 2010.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


/RA/
White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of April 2010.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
                                      /RA/
Peter S. Tam, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch III-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation}}
Peter S. Tam, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch III-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation}}

Latest revision as of 19:18, 13 November 2019

Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Amendment to Change Licensee Name
ML101180539
Person / Time
Site: Point Beach  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 04/29/2010
From: Justin Poole
Plant Licensing Branch III
To:
Poole Justin/DORL/LPL3-1/ 301-415-2048
Shared Package
ML101180540 List:
References
7590-01-P, TAC ME1119, TAC ME1120
Download: ML101180539 (4)
v • d • e


Text

7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FPL ENERGY POINT BEACH, LLC DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301

[NRC-2010-0173]

POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment for Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27, issued to FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC (the licensee), for operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action:

The proposed action would change the legal name of the Licensee and Owner from FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC to NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC. The proposed action would also make an administrative change to correct an error in the license by changing FPLE Group Capital to FPL Group Capital.

The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee=s application dated April 17, 2009, as supplemented by letter dated January 19, 2010.

The Need for the Proposed Action:

The proposed action is necessary to reflect the legal change of name of the Licensee and Owner on April 16, 2009. Also, the proposed action is necessary to correct a typographical error in Appendix C which incorrectly labels the parent company.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:

The NRC has concluded in its safety evaluation of the proposed action that since this action is for a name change and error correction only that (1) there is a reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

The details of the NRC staff=s review of the proposed amendment will be provided in the Safety Evaluation document supporting the license amendment.

The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released offsite.

There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent released offsite. There is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action:

As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the Ano-action@ alternative). 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:

The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, dated May 1972 and in NUREG-1437, Supplement 23, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants [regarding Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2], dated August 2005.

Agencies and Persons Consulted:

In accordance with its stated policy, on October 22, 2009, and April 14, 2010, the staff consulted with the Wisconsin State official, Jeff Kitsembel, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comment.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC 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 April 17, 2009, as supplemented by letter dated January 19, 2010. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC=s Public Document Room (PDR), located at One

White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of April 2010.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

/RA/

Peter S. Tam, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch III-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML101180539&oldid=2133972"