ML19341A234

Application for Authority to Replace Steam Generators at Facility.Requests Certificate of Authority Per State of Wi Statutes to Acquire,But Not Install,Replacement Generators. Certificate of Svc & Util Environ Info Encl

ML19341A234
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	12/06/1980
From:	Mcneer C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
To:	WISCONSIN, STATE OF
Shared Package
ML19341A222	List: ML19341A221 ML19341A234
References
NUDOCS 8101220415
Download: ML19341A234 (26)

Text

() -

BEFORE THE

, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN In the Matter 7

of the n

Ap' plication of Wisconsin Electric Power Company AMENDED ,

for Authority to Replace the Steam Generators APPLICATION l at Its Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, in the 6630-CE-20 Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin e

Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Applicant) hereby

~

respectfully states:

1. Applicant is a public service corporation organiz'ed under the laws of Wisconsin and is engaged principally in the business of operating an electric utility in southeastern Wisconsin, including the metropolitan Milwaukee area, the east-central and northern portions of Wisconsin, and a portion of the Upper Peninsula $f Michigan.

2. Applicant owns and operates a nuclear generating facility known as the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, consisting of two identical units located in the town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. Each unit is a two-loop, closed-cycle, Pressurized water reactor plant, providing steam to a tandem-compound turbine consisting of one high-pressure and two low-pressure cylinders. Each loop contains a steam generator which transfers heat from the reactor coolant to water used to generate steam for a conventional steam turbine generator. A steam generator of the 8101220 41lI

• - 5 type installed at Point Beach is illustrated in Exhibit A and includes a primary head and vertical U-tubes through which ~ reactor coolant is circulated. Steam is formed outside the steam generator tube bundle, passes through moisture separation equipment, and thence to the main steam system. Each steam generator contains 3,260 tubes which pass through an approximately 23-inch thick tubesheet. The ends of each tube are rolled into,the tubesheet and are welded to the primary face, leaving a crevice approximately 20 inches long c.nd 7 to 8 thousandths of an inch around each tube.

The tubes are supported within the steam generator by six steel support plates located at various elevations in the tube bundle.

The tube bundle is enclosed in a steel wrapper which directs feedwater and recirculated water down the outside of the steam generator. At the bottom, this water enters the tube bundle and I

passes up through the bundle where heat from the reactor coolant -

1

. generates steam.  !

1

3. Applicant, since April 1971, has experienced varying degrees of tube degradation in both steam generators of the Point Beach Unit 1 reactor plant. Exhibit C, attached hereto, summarizes for each steam generator the plugging of tubes categorized by type of degradation and by time of plugging. Details concerning the causes of degradation and the steps taken t'o arrest or reduce it were presented to the commission in testimony given by the Applicant on November 26 and 27, 1979 and February 20, May 5, and i May 8, 1980 in Docket 6630-UI-2, and May 8, 1980 in Docket 6630-CE-20.

In the above mentioned testimony Applicant advised the Commission that several options were under consideration to

l ,

remedy steam generator tube degradation; the options presented were: .

1. Steam generator replacement

2. Retubing in place

3. Sleeving Relative to sleeving, it was stated in testimony, in part(1)-

"While the sleeving process has been demonstrated in laboratory development work and on a small scale at another pressurized water reactor, the necessary tooling and final qualification of procedures for a full field sleeving program have not been developed."

Since the date of the cited testimony, a full field sleeving program has been initiated at Southern California Edison Company's San Onofre Unit 1 which utilizes Westinghouse-designed steam generators similar to those at Point Beach. Five sleeves have also been installed in one of the two steam generators at .

Rochester Gas & Electric Company's R. E. Ginna Plant as a demon-stration of the s,leeying process.

Applicant is considering the installation of approximately 2,500 sleeves in the tubes of each of the two steam generators in Point Beach Unit 1. A review of tube degradation history and updated non-destructive testing would be utilized to determine which tubes would be. sleeved. Those tubes selected to be sleeved would be cleaned for sleeve insertion. Tubular sleeves of thermally treated Inconel 600 would be inserted in the selected tubes such that the bottom of the sleeve would be approximately l

l l (1) Testimony of David K. Porter, Garry D. Frieling, W. D. Fletcher,  ;

November 26, 1979, Docket 6630-UI-2, pp. 19 and 20 l

l

~4-flush with the primary side of the tubesheet and would extend into the tube for a distance approximately six to twelve inches above the secondary side of the tubesheet. Sleeves would be bonded to the inside diame'Eer of the tubes at both ends by mechanical methods, brazing, seal welding, or by a combination of these methods. Satisfactory installation of the sleeves would be verified by appropriate non-destructive testing.

4. Recognizing the developmental status and the lack of extensive experience with sleeving as a remedy for steam generator tube degradation, Applicant believes it prudent to have an alternative course of action should sleeving not be proven effective. Therefore, Applicant proposes to purchase two new steam generator lower sections and primary moisture separators for future replacement of the existing steam generators, should that course of action become necessary. Since the delivery of the new steam generator lower assemblies is expected no sooner than approximately 30 months from the date of release for fabrication, significant time and cost savings can be realized if steam generator replacement is required in the future.

On-site storage facilities for the steam generator equipment will also be provided.

5. The gross cost of the project including sleeving is estimated to be $18,000,000 as detailed in Exhibit B. The cost of the project will be met from internal sources and from the issuance and sale of securities.

6. The proposed project is necessary for Applicant to discharge its service obligation as a public utility. The

proposed project will not impair the efficiency of Applicant's service nor provide facilities in excess of present and probable  ;

future requirements. Completion of the proposed project will result

.~ l in increased annual costs which will not be disproportionate to l l

the service value of the project. l 1

7. Entities affected by the project are the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, certain state governmental agencies, the town of Two Creeks, and Manitowoc County. All $ntities will be notified of the proposed project.

WHEREFORE, Applicant, Wisconsin Electric Power Company, respectfully requests that a Certificate of Authority be issued herein pursuant to Section 196.49 of the Wisconsin Statutes and Section PSC ll2.05(b) of the Wisconsin Administrative code authorizing Applicant to acquire, but not install, replacement -

steam generators as described herein.

Dated this, day of December, 1980.

WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, Applicant

., Z C. S. McNeer,' President Robert H. Gorske, Vice President & General Counsel Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 West Michigan Street Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 Gerald Charnoff, l Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge l 1800 M Street, N.W. .

)

Washington, D. C. 20036 i

Attorneys for Applicant )

STATE OF WISCONSIN )

) SS.

MILWAUKEE COUNTY )

i l

i 1

C. S. McNeer, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes '

and says that he is President of Wisconsin Electric Power Company, l

the Applicant named herein, and makes this verification for and on behalf of said company being duly authorized so to do; that l Le has read the foregoing Application and knows 'the content thereof; that the statements therein contained are true to the l best of his knowledge and belief.

As C.

k sw S. McNeer Subscribed'aEli"' sworn to before me this 6,A. day.of December 1980.

.,~..

'. , #l. - : -_= x NotaryPublic e State.of Wisconsin My commission. expires /I /3 I9ggggggS*

i I

l l

I

, EXHIBIT A

• O .

e

• O

• e a

U SlDNDART MANWAT

. . S"'t i,. M. %g n.

WO: Sit lRE sPatcR

]a ':q8 ' 7::P,t t i

%,, s. I- . ,( c:curxs L',l ]s y /

WPER SIN

!J M[,3 w ..!,...y s

N

• ft. i i;'. .b:-s SW1RL YAN! PMMARY

• y.c:sTURE s9mi:R

, -; . ..-;: ,

• h M NNU r* ' %=o=)l M t" N ' A '.s C ' 'JN -

~

m cWAt a a rr

- 4g g N 7j V M ****

s h nm m. ms ik s

?$ .

Q -YN m. . .~MYd I g# ~ YA!' 00WNC: net RCW 865EFi L w-- e y' ass:sim:: Fin!

"I$~A .

- 1 M SHE1 / @

1. .' . M  :-

.) N N, i9.

m.g 27 g%

\

.. . wgApr!R t".N.9

C x.: , o-Y N' b y[i5 - ,

,2, .. StWICOWN UN!

SBl0NEARY HANUNCt!

,/

/. ms sxm M.__Q-

• i g=j=:s s . i p_- I q

- ** /y

• h2;fdW.

• g--.A P.

1 j5L'.ARY MAhTAT j .

romani c= TANT cuts

.y; ,

A.. m: MART c:.'nr arr

, @ STEAM GENERATOR M

EXHIBIT B GROSS PROJECT COST OF STEAM GENERATORS SLEEVING AND PROCUREMENT OF SPARE STEAM GENERATOR LOWER SECTIONS PROJECT COST New Installation Equipment Total

$ S S 1

Sleeve Installation 5,500,000 III 5,500,000 Steam Generators and On-Site 12,500,000(2) 12,500,000 Storage Facilities TOTAL 5,500,000 12,500,000 18,000,000 M

(1) Includes anticipated cost sharing by Westinghouse based upon 5 preliminary estimates. y (2) Includes escalation for 1983 delivery of steam generators, y m

Int!T 1 STEAM WNEnATOR

• l TUDE PLUGGING HISTOHY .

Tubes Pluqqed

• Tntoning er Crevaco cumulative Date of Dentinq_ Cracking corrosion Other- Total Forcent

, Outage flapsed Time a a a a a a a a a a trearsi a s_

- - - - - - Ill) - 1 - 40.1 0 12/21/78 0 ,

- 14 4(2) 102 95 3.1 2.9 1.0 - - 87 91 -

9/30/72 - - - 103 96 3.2 2.9 3.3 - - 1 1 -

4/6/74 . .

- - - 162 194 5.0 6.0 4.2 - - 59 98 -

2/26/75 - - - 168 198 5.2 6.1 4 -

4.9 - - 6 11/16/75 5.2 6.1

• - = = - =

• 168 198 10/1/16 5.8 - - -

l

• 1 - - - - 168 193 5.2 4.1 6/24/77 6.5 - - -

- 1 2 - - 179 201 5.5 6.2 10/4/77 6.9 30 - = .

- - - II3I - 180 201 5.5 6.2 2/1/78 7.1 - - -

- - - - - 131 201 5.5 6.2 7.4 - - 1 5/26/78 205' 5.7 6.3

6 4 - - 188 9/20/18 7.7 1 =

I O 1 - - 196 206 6.0 6.3 .

3/1/79 8.2 - = =

- 52 '45 - - 248 251 7.6 7.7 8/5/79 8.6 - - -

- 2 - 2III - 252 251 7.7 7.7 8/29/79 8.7 - = ,-

2 3(6) 68 61 7 4(5) 329 319 10.1 9.8 10/5/79 8.8 - -

12/11/79 9.0 - - - - - 19 15 IIII - 349 334 10.7 10.2 IIS) 24 26 - 9III 373 370 11.4 11.3 2/28/80 9.2 - - -

9.6 - - - - 28 22 3(10) - 404 392 12.4 12.0 7/28/80 N2tess (1) Plugged during manufacture.

(2) Fourteen tubes in A were plugged due to gouging during machining for olad repair. Three tubes in B'were removed for analysis and one was plugged by Joistake.

Y (3) Plugged tuba was in periphery.

An audit of tubcoheet photographs indicated two tubes which were plugged but previously not included in Q (4) inspection reporto. y (5) Seven tubes in A included three with defects less than the plugging limit, two tubes which had no indications pq g but which were pulled for analysis, and two tubes plugged by mistake. Four tubes in B included three tubes *

• E with indications less than the plugging limit and one tube plugged by mistake. .

y (6) Two tubes in A and three tubes in a were plugged due to defects identified at or above the tubesheet using y O multi-frequency oddy current techniques. These defects are attributed to thinning or cracking in prier years. based upon comparison with single frequency eddy current results from previous inspections.

>-3 (7) One tube plugged by mistake. O (8) One tube in n was plugged due to a defect above the tubcoheet which was identified using multi-frequency b eh techniques. This defect is attributed to thinning or cracking in prior years, based upon comparison with resulta from previous inspections.

7M (9) Four tuben in D were plugged duo to the posulbility of being damaged during tube pulling operations and flus leaking tubca were plugged without identifying the defect location. .

g (10) Thruu tubcu plugged by miutako.

7

-m l ,

. P!lBL!C 9 qu . g .g I

r) r ~u ,, .,

wisconsin Electnc eom cower 231 W. MICHIGAN, P.O. BOX 2046, MILWAUKEE. WI 53201 December 19, 1980 l

..~

l d'*

Mr. Jerry E. Mendl, Division Administrator Systems Planning, Environmental Rev.ew, g,*og)b l and Consumer Analysis  !

l PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISC:JNSIN

• Hill Farms State Office Building {

4802 Sheboygan Avenue  ;

Madison, Wisconsin 53702 l l

Dear Mr. Mendl 1 STEAM GENERATOR INVESTIGA'IION l POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 1  :

1 PSCW DOCKET 6630-CE-20 This is in response to your letter of November 21, 1980 requesting information in regard to an environmental ccreening of Wisconsin Electric Power Company's revised application for the sleeving or replacement of steam generators Ct Point Beach Nuclear Plant. The alternative actions which you would propose to review in the environmental screening are -

cs follows:

1. Sleeve the steam generators.

2. Replace the steam generators.

3. Continue present operations at a reduced power level.

4. Decommission Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 1 immediately.

Our responses to your specific requests for information are as follows:

a. The expected Point Beach 1 performance profile (capacity, capacity factor, forced outage rates, scheduled maintenance and any anticipated unusual performance patterns) year by year for alternative l

actions (1), (2) and (3).

. - _ _ ~_ .-_ . _ . -

Mr. Jerry E. Mendl, PSCW December 19, 1980 For Alternative 1, assuming insertion of demonstration sleeves in Unit 1 in the spring of 1981 and a full sleeving of the steam generators in the fall of 1981, the capacity factor for 1981 would be approximately 55 percent. Capacity would be limited to approximately 77 percent until $he full sleeving. Following the sleeving of steam generators, 100 percent capacity and a capacity factor of 75 percent, or greater, would be expected.

For Alternative 2, it is assumed that Unit 1 continues to operate at reduced power until fall 1983, at which time the unit would be shut down for replacement of steam generators. For the years 1981, 1982, and 1983, the capacity would be 77 percent with a capacity factor of 60 percent. Following the replacement outage, 100 percent capacity and a capacity factor of 75 percent, or greater, would be expected.

For Alternative 3, it is assumed that the unit continues to operate at 77 percent capacity and a capacity factor ,

of 60 percent until 30 percent of the steam generator tubes have been plugged. At this point, the unit would be shut down for sleeving or replacement of the steam generators if the unit had not reached the end of its economic operating life. Prediction of future tube plugging based on past experience is difficult, at best. If it is assumed that tube plugging with reduced ,,

temperature operation continues at the rate prior to the July 1980 shut-down, it is estimated that 30 percent of the tubes would be plugged in about ten years. Thus, for 1981 through 1991, the capacity would be 77 percent, with a capacity factor of 60 percent. Following sleeving or replacement, the capacity would be 100 percent, with l a capacity factor of 75 percent, or, greater. The steam

- 1 generator tube inspection during the November outage l 1

detected fewer defects than would have been predicted by the experience prior to July. If this trend continues, the unit could continue to operate at 77 percent capacity and a capacity factor of 60 percent until at least the year 2007.

A forced outage rate of 4 percent would be expected for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Annual outages of 5 to 6 weeks' duration for scheduled maintenance and refueling also would be expected for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3.

For Alternatives 1 and 2, refueling and maintenance would be done concurrently with the sleeving or replacement of steam generators. There are no anticipated unusual performance patterns for Alternatives 1, 2, or 3.

Mr. Jerry E. Mendl, PSCW December 19, 1980

b. THE duration of the outage required to accomplish Alternatives (1) and (2).

Alternative 1, sleeving of the steam generators, is expected to require an outage of approximately three months. AlterngEive 2, replacement, is expected to require an outage of approximately six months.

c. Will capacity continue to decrease with option 3; what is your best estimate?

The reduced capacity of Unit 1 is due to'a reduction in the hot leg temperature from the normal 598'F to 557*F.

The reduction in hot leg temperature results in lower steam temperature and pressure, which in turn result in lower capacity. This reduction was made as part of a number of actions to reduce the rate of steam generator tube corrosion. These actions appear to have been successful, based upon tube inspections since the time of their initiation. It is expected that the unit can continue to operate at approximately 77 percent capacity-with small increases in hot leg temperature to compensate for additional plugging of tubes, should additional plugging be necessary.

d. The relationship of each alternative to present long-range generation planning. ..

Alternatives 1 and 2 do not affect long-range generation plans. Alternative 3, assuming operation at reduced capacity until sleeving or replacement of steam generators in 1991, would require 100 MW firm capacity purchases from 1988 until completion of the outage in 1991 and purchase of 330 MW replacement power during the outage.

Alternative 4, in which Unic 1 would be shut down and decommissioned, would have a substantial effect on long-range planning. Pleasant Prairie Unit 2 would have to -

be rescheduled for completion by the summer peak in l

1983. This would maintain sufficient capacity until l

1987. {

Two 400 MN units scheduled for 1989 and 1990 in  ;

the WUMS Advance Plan would be increased to 650 MW units. In addition, this alternative would require firm capacity purchases of 315, 430, and 213 MN in 1987, 1988, and 1989, respectively.

d.1. What is the expected operating life of Point Beach 1 for Alternatives (1) , (2) and (3) ?

It is expected that Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 1 will operate at least until 2007, the full term of the operating license, for Alternatives 1 and 2. As i I

l Mr. Jerry E,. Mendl, PSCW December 19, 1980 l discussed in the response to Item (a) for Alternative 3, assuming the pre-July 1980 rate of progression of crevice corrosion continues, the operating life of Unit 1 with the presently installed steam generators is estimated to be approximately ten years, or until 1991. With sleeving or replacement in 1991, the unit would continue to operate until at least 2007. If the rate of corrosion since July 1980 continues, the unit would be expected to operate until at least 2007.

d.2. Does Alternative (1) or (2) allow resumption of normal (full power) operation of Point Beach l?

Either Alternative 1 or 2 will allow full-power operation of the unit. .

d.3. Will presently plugged tubes be repaired and returned to service if option (1) is chosen?

Tubes in the Unit 1 steam generators have been plugged for various reasons other than crevice corrosion. To the extent that previously plugged tubes can be recovered by sleeving, plugged tubes will be returned to service.

e. A description of the process of resleeving and replacement, including:

e.l. The procedures, with appropriate plans and diagrams. ,,

Alternative 1, sleeving of the steam generator tubes, is shown schematically in Exhibit 1. The sleeving process involves the following major steps in the sequence indicated:

a. Selection of tubes to be sleeved by non-destructive examination and review of past inspection records.

b. Removal of mechanical or explosive plugs.

c. Cleaning internal surfaces of tubes to be sleeved. i

d. Insertion of sleeves.

e. Preparation of leak-tight joints at both sleeve ends.

f. Verification of satisfactory installation by non-destructive examination.

l l

Mr. Jerry E. Mendl, PSCW December 19, 1980 The sleeves are constructed of thermally treated Inconel 600, and would extend approximately six to twelve inches above the secondary side of the steam generator tubesheet. Sleeves would be bonded to the inside of'the tubes at both ends by mechanical methods, brazing, or seal welding, or by a combination of these methods.

Alternative 2, replacement of steam generators, involves the following major steps in the, sequence indicated:

a. Cut all piping connections at the steam generators. Remove instrumentation and insulation,

b. Cut the steam generators at the transition cone above the tube bundle, as shown in Exhibit 2.

c. Remove the upper shell and place on storage stand inside containment for refurbishing of moisture separation equipment.

d. Disconnect steam generator supports.

e. Remove the lower section of the steam generator from containment, as shown on i

i Exhibit 3, and transport to the storage building.

f. Move the replacement lower section from storage into containment and lower onto supports in the reverse sequence shown on Exhibit 3.

g. Weld replacement sections of reactor coolant piping to the replacement steam generator.

h. Replace the upper sections of the steam generator and weld to the lower section.

i 1. Reconnect main steam, feedwater, and auxiliary piping and replace instrumentation and insulation, j.

Perform non-destructive examination of welds and hydrostatically test the installation, i as required.

Mr. Jerry E. Mendl, PSCW December 19, 1980 e.2. The size of the' labor force.

The total labor force required for the full-scale  !

sleeving program, Alternative 1, is estimated at about 280 persons, of which approximately 240 persons would be craft labor from the local labor region, as available. The majority of this work force will be utilized for a short period of time, approximately a ,

- few weeks. The work will be performed on a two- or l three-shift basis, and the average number of workers on site at any one time is expected to be about 100.

Approximately the same number of workers from the same sources would be required for the replacement alternative, except that they would generally be employed for longer periods of time. It is expected that under this alternative, a maximum oT about 140 persons would be on site at any one time on any shift.

e.3. The estimated cost.

The cost for the full-scale sleeving alternative is l estimated to approximate $11 million. It is expected that Westinghouse will share in these costs, and that the cost to Wisconsin Electric will be approximately $5.5 million.

Prior to full-scale sleeving, a sleeving demonstration program is expected to be conducted at an estimated cost of $1 million. It is expected that Westinghouse will share in these costs, and that cost to Wisconsin 1 Electric for this program will be substantially less  !

i than the total cost.

l In addition to the costs of the sleeving and demonstration programs, two spare steam generators and a storage building would be provided at a cost of approximately $12.5 million.

The cost of Alternative 2 for steam generator replacement is estimated to approximate $48.5 million, as presented l in our testimony in Docket 6630-UI-2. If the replacement '

^

is to occer in lieu of sleeving, or in the event that sleeving is unsuccessful, it is expected that Westinghouse l will share in these costs, and that the cost of this

alternative to Wisconsin Electric, on the same basis, ]

)

l would be about $34,000,000.

l

[ e.4. An estimate of the quantities of material committed i

for each action (e.g., steel, concrete).

l Detailed estimates of construction materials have not been made. The major commitments of resources for Alternatives 1 and 2 are the components themselves and any permanent structure.

For the sleeving alternative, the major materials commitment is approximately 12,000 pounds of Inconel 600 alloy used in the sleeves for two steam generators.

l i

\

Mr. Jerry E. Mendl, PSCW December 19, 1980 Since two spare steam generators and a storage

,. building would be constructed as part of this alternative, the building materials commitment

'for steam generator replacement is also applicable for the sleeving alternative.

For the steam generator replacement alternative, the major commitments of material are the replacement steam generators, piping, and the storage building. It is estimated that these will be in the order of 500,000 pounds of steel, 300,000 pounds of Inconel 600 alloy, and 1,600 cubic yards of reinforced concrete.

e.5. A description of necessary construction-modification to existing buildings, new buildings (temporary or pe rmanent) , or a possible barge slip for unloading the steam generators.

Preliminary estimates of site facilities required as ipart of the sleeving alternative include a training and warehouse facility, temporary steam generator torage building, and temporary trailers for office, unchroom facilities, and radiation protection i etivities. It is expected that an existing construction building located adjacent to the plant security fence would be refurbished and used for the training and warehouse facility. The building is "

shown on Exhibit 4. The steam generator storaga -

building would be located in the area indicated in Exhibit 4. Temporary trailers would be located adjacent to the containment structure and the training and warehouse facility. Depending on needs which may be identified during detailed planning, the operations building shown on Exhibit 4 may be required.

If so, this building would remain after the full-scale sleeving program, and would be used for materials receipt and warehouse purposes.

Preliminary estimates of site facilities required for steam generator replacement are shown in Exhibit 4 also. The steam generator storage building would be located north of the present plant fence area and constructed of steel and concrete. This building would be used to store the old steam generators, primary moisture separators, and reactor coolant' piping sections, as required. An operations building, located adjacent to the fence and constructed of steel framing

' and siding, would be used as a training, qualification, materials receipt, and office building during the i

I replacement outage. This building would be left intact following the outage, and could be used for warehouse i

Mr. Jerry E. Mendl, PSCW December 19, 1980

, and materials receipt purposes. A containment access building, located adjacent to the Unit 1 I facade and constructed of steel framing and siding, would be used for personnel change areas, sanitary facilities, lockers, lunch facilities, and radiation protection activ1' ties. This building would be removed following the replacement outage, or if detailed planning suggests, it could be left in place

,._for later plant use. The transportation and off-l loading of the replacement steam generators will be Ldetermined in the future by a detailed transportation study. It is likely that the steam generators will be shipped by barge to an existing harbor in the area of the plant or at the plant site., should a barge slip be necessary at the plant site, it would be constructed in the area of the barge slip used for off-loading steam generators during initial plant construction.

f. A brief description of the existing environment (physical, biological, social).

Point Beach Nuclear Plant is located in the town of Two Creeks in the northeast corner of Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, on the west shore of Lake Michigan, about 30 miles southeast of the city of Green Bay and 90 miles north-northeast of Milwaukee. The site comprises m approximately 1,260 acres, all of which is owned by Wisconsin Electric Power Company.

Land Use Ten-Mile Radius Area 1

There has been very little change in the overall i . pattern of land use in the ten-mile radius area surrounding the Point Beach Nuclear Plant over the past 15 years. One exception is the growth of residential usage in the village of Mishicot, six miles west-southwest of the site. The city of Two Rivers, located approximately eight miles south-southwest of the site, has experienced very little residential growth, but does contain most of the industrial uses in the ten-mile radius area. The Point Beach State Forest is located approximately l three miles south of the site. The Kewaunee Nuclear Plant is located 4.5 miles north of the site.

Agriculture is the predominant land use in the area.

Dairy farming is the principal farming activity in the area. The majority of cropland in the area is utilized to support the dairy operations. These crops include corn for grain and silage, alfalfa

l l

1 .

Mr. Jerry E. Mendl, PSCW December 19, 1980 l* Tuty, hay, and oats, which are generally grown on a yearly rotation basis. Other field and canning

! crops grown in the area include wheat,, barley, )

soybeans, sweet corn, snap beans, lima beans, '

green peas, potatoes, and other vegetables. In addition, beef' cattle, sheep, hogs, and chickens are raised in the area.

Population - Ten-Mile Radius Area  !

l The estimated 1980 population within a, ten-mile I radius of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant is 22,500 j persons. There has been very little change in i the overall population pattern within the past 1 ten years. The village of Mishicot grew by about 500 persons in the 1970's. The town of Two Creeks, in which the plant site is located, lost an I estimated 75 persons during this period. The density of farmstesd and homes in the Two Creeks )

area is low, averaging from five to twelve residences -

per square mile.

Topography .

Overall ground surface at the site of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant is gently rolling to flat,

'with elevations varying from 5 to 60 feet above m the level of Lake Michigan (578 ft. m.s.l.) .

Subdued knob and kettle topography characterizes the site area. The land surface slopes gradually toward the lake from the higher glacial moraine areas west of the site. Higher ground adjacent to the lake, however, diverts the drainage to the north and south.

The site surface drainage features are two small creeks which drain to the north and south. One icreek discharges into the lake about 1,500 feet labove the northern corner of the site, and the other

/near the center of the site. During the spring, ponds of water occupy many shallow depressions.

ySite drainage is poor due to the high clay content j r of the soil combined with the pock-marked surface. '

yLow bluffs face the shore of Lake Michigan. Rip-rap protection has been placed along portions of I the shoreline near the Point Beach Nuclear Plant

'to protect against erosion.

l l

Mr. Jerry E. Mandl, PSCW December 19, 1980 l Land Use of the approximately 1,260 acres comprising the site, about 110 acres have been modified or used for plant purposes. About 15 acres were used as a sanitary landfill for disposal of material excavated for plant foundations; approximately

'22 acres were used for the plant, switchyard, About 15 acres pdd 43 N' access roads, and employe parking.

and 4qiDffg$p}were used for the Energy Information Center, about 6 acres have been utilized as a recreational boat-launching area and fisherman parking lot

,available to the public. About 52 acres of land used for construction purposes have reverted to grass cover. The remaining 1,150 acres not ymodifiedorusedforplantpurposeshaveremained in use as productive agricultural land or woodlands.

Terrestrial Ecosystem In addition to the approximately 1,050 acres of productive agricultural lands on site, there are 18 woodlots ranging in size from less than an acre to 47 acres. The woodlots occupy a total of about M100 acres. The species of trees in the woodlot include maple, yellow beech, hemlock, and some aspen. A 0.5-mile long nature trail has been .

developed in the largest woodlot (47 acres) , which is located southwest of the plant site. The' woodlot attracts various species of wildlife such as occasional deer, moderate numbers of squirrel and ruffjed grouse, large numbers of cotton-tail

'~ rabbits, an occasional fox, a few raccoons, and woodcocks. Waterfowl utilize the intermittent streams that cross the site and the small ponds formed by the kame and kettle topography.

All construction activities and modification of existing buildings will take place within the security-fenced area, or in an area immediately adjacent to it north of the plant. The adjacent area was previously modified during construction i of the plant. A layout drawing of the proposed construction activity area is shown in Exhibit 4.

No significant land use or terrestrial ecosystem I impacts are anticipated from the construction activities.

In reference to Alternative 4, decommissioning, we consider inmediate shut-down of Unit 1 to impose a totally unacceptable

Mr. Jerry E. Mendl, PSCW December 19, 1980 economic penalty, as indicated in our letter to the Commission of October 10, 1980.

We expect to subinit information regarding the sleeving process to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in early 1981, and would expect to submit information regarding steam

~

generator replacement at least six months prior to beginning the steam generator replacement outage. We will, of course, continue to keep the Public Service Commission informed of our activities regarding these alternatives, and will transmit copies of NRC submittals and correspondence to the Commission. .

Very truly yours, n o e Exec tive Vice President Sol Burstein Attachments copies to Attached ._ce List t

t

e - . . . .. .

BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN Application of Wisconsin Electric Power Company )

for Authority to Replace the Steam Generators ) Docket 6630-CE-20 for Its Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 1 )

_.+~

SERVICE LIST Mr. Stanley York, Chairman Mr. Don Vogt PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSTi Manitowoc County Supervisor Hill Farms State Office Building District II Madison, Wisconsin 53702 1710 Viebaker Street Manitowoc, Wisconsin 54220 Mr. Edward M. Parsons, Jr., Commissioner PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN Mr. Paul Kortens Hills Farms State Office Building Route 2 Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Two Rivers, Wisconsin 5424:

Mr. Willie J. Nunnery, Commissioner Ms. Bernice C. Alpert PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN 3739 Koehler Drive Hill Farms State Office Building Sheboygan, Wisconsin 53081 i Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Mr. E. James Wolter, Hearing Examiner Ms. Julia Moldenhauer 1703 North Ninth Street PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN Sheboygan, Wisconsin 53081 Hill Farms State Office Building Madison, Wisconsin 53702 ..

Mrs. Barbara James, Asst. Chief Counsel PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WIICONSIN Hill Farms State Office Building Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Mr. Peter Anderson WISCONSIN ENVIRONMENTAL DECADE, INC.

302 East Washington Avenue, Suite 205 Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Nh. Jame Schaefer i Director of Intervention I 3741 Koehler Drive l Sheboygan, Wisconsin 53081

)

NW. Molle Sager l 3319 Branch River Road '

Branch, Wisconsin 53203 i

l I

I

EXHIBIT 1

. . e S, -. T. -

\ EXISTING 71JBE.

,N SLEEVE  :

l L

THERMAL.LY TM.ATED INCONEL 600 l l

i Nl.EAKT JOINT IGHT u

t 7 *.

j.

TuessasET v I

y

'~

\ \

.. < ^

- .7 u

. l t'

. ;;

I "I

/

i a ,

O. .

L

-LEAKTIGHT JOINT G

SLEEVE CONFIGURATION

e m.

M

, EXHIBIT 2 1

STIAM OLITLET TO TUR8INE GENERATOR DEMISTERS SECONDARY MOISTURE SEPARATOR s:. :;n$.n' q W 5}. , )

SECONDARY MANWAY  :,

~ .wi 9l -

(

% , 5 ..

,,, /; -

Q

. i IPPER SHELL  ; g ' , n. 4 l SWIRL VANE PREARY s%r '

I M0ISTURE SEPARATOR N* , 'I FEE 0 WATER IM'.ET e b- -

n

m. M TRANSITION CONE -

(, -

%  ; / ANTMBRATION BARS 1UBE BUNDLE

% ^ g. i i

[-

t;p"";j[,-

.f 00WNCOMER RDW

[" RESISTANCE PLATE 3E." J f EDWER SHELL / , . . N C~

I I

j aq

,  ;

WRAPPER

. a L, ,

, i dOiU t

,']%1 .

1LBE StPPORT PLATES

)L 4

. BLOW 00WN LINE SECONDARY HANOHOLE TUBE SHEET

\ ' @'" Q ,

c Q . n i

t t/

) PRIMARY MANWAY PRIMARY COOLANT OUTLET

 % PRIMARY COOLANT INLET

@ STEAM GENERATOR

.' EXHIBIT 3

.,r .

, i . a I . l i 1, I4 .

$ .r '

r.- .-

.x a ,-.

l l . i =5 4 l m :7,

• I g.

a r '

' " " ~

A =' .

' l . .

da! I g l . .

_ , 4 - . 6 s 'r, x . . 7, l

i  ! .

s

p. u

- l 1 b. _,,

"'w ~  ; -

I

% d.. l i -

wa i l l.

f +% '

,A-g { .

l l' ,' I 3) -

3 I t -

.sg.,

I

, l C I =3 I -

I -

- r s.

- I L '

-) }

sw vsv- nqs r . v f -. ..

,,f, f

e l'

l l

l P

• '- - # = t . i . i .

P, i . i . i . , ,.,, _

mo A 9Y j J eM o nu Julinio

~

. EXHIBIT 4 E.,7' gel K

-i lh5 535h5!ij0;'

.u -

wrm_( s .s=- e.==n e ri1 r i 3

^ .

r -

o

d. .:!== r;:: s l. g - '

[

4 -

chi

• c -

,9  !  ;

._ - a 'h5-

ff.

\. -

1 h h ee

/

= c= I Q CC -

r b

m!: "

t I  !

i .;

21  :

m- [ [  !! .

g

..u f"

• l C

, m .~ . , ( .%

q , __ ..

%,._.L :

p' W,i a t C .

- PiiS@S%

en 3@2 I I r

f, 1  ;

1 _- i '

4 1 -

i h

w[__jH c1 j N J I

5,_ 0 ) f[],_[l l10 I '

, , , f1iI

(}

I l i! il I

!p!!

y .v ui[i1

'f L>lin L

7

• t

@ ,,,,"" " ",, ig li 'lulo, n [ -

1 {; . c

.M,

~

" )'(l2

. i., . 11 [5' 1 .c : .

t

. . ,g {[ c@ " ~

D 10 9[l X [A\

1 o o l' o M. J]U.\ frb