Jump to main content.

Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 [Federal Register: July 23, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 141)]
[Notices]
[Page 38329-38331]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23jy01-122]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301]
 
Nuclear Management Company, LLC; 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 to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and 
DPR-27, issued to Nuclear Management Company, LLC, (NMC, or the 
licensee, formerly Wisconsin Electric Power Company), for operation of 
the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (PBNP), respectively, 
located in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would be a full conversion from the current 
technical specifications (CTS) to a set of improved technical 
specifications (ITS) based on NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications for Westinghouse Plants,'' Revision 1, dated April 1995. 
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application 
dated November 15, 1999, as supplemented by letters dated March 15, 
June 15, June 19, July 28, August 17, September 14, October 19 and 
December 21, 2000, February 6, February 23, March 19, May 11 and June 
13, 2001.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The NRC staff has recognized that nuclear safety in all plants 
would benefit from improvement and standardization of technical 
specifications (TSs). The ``NRC Interim Policy Statement on Technical 
Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors'' (52 FR 3788) 
contained proposed criteria for defining the scope of TSs. Later, the 
``NRC Final Policy Statement on TS Improvement for Nuclear Power 
Reactors'' (58 FR 39132) incorporated lessons learned since publication 
of the interim policy statement and formed the basis for a revision to 
10 CFR 50.36. The ``Final Rule'' (60 FR 36953) codified criteria for 
determining the content of TSs. To facilitate the development of 
standard TSs, each reactor vendor owners group and the NRC staff 
developed standard TSs (STS). The NRC Committee to Review Generic 
Requirements reviewed the STS, made note of their safety merits, and 
indicated its support of conversion by operating plants to the STS. For 
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, the STS are NUREG-1431, 
Revision 1, ``Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse,'' dated 
April 1995. This document formed the basis for the Point Beach Nuclear 
Plant, Units 1 and 2, conversion.

Description of the Proposed Change

    The proposed changes to the CTS are based on NUREG-1431, and 
guidance provided in the Final Policy Statement. The objective of this 
action is to completely rewrite, reformat, and streamline the CTS 
(i.e., to convert the CTS to ITS). Emphasis is placed on human factors 
principles to improve clarity and understanding. The Bases section has 
been significantly expanded to clarify and better explain the purpose 
and foundation of each specification. In addition to NUREG-1431, 
portions of the CTS were also used as the basis for the development of 
the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 ITS. Plant-specific issues 
(unique design features, requirements, and operating practices) were 
discussed at length with the licensee.
    The proposed changes from the CTS can be grouped into four general 
categories. These groupings are characterized as administrative 
changes, technical changes--relocations, technical changes--more 
restrictive, and technical changes--less restrictive. They are 
described as follows:
    Administrative changes are those that involve restructuring, 
renumbering, rewording, interpretation, and complex rearranging of 
requirements and other changes not affecting technical content or 
substantially revising an operating requirement. The reformatting, 
renumbering and rewording process reflects the attributes of NUREG-1431 
and does not involve technical changes to the existing TS. The proposed 
changes include: (a) Identifying plant-specific wording for system 
names, etc., (b) changing the wording of specification titles in the 
CTS to conform to STS, (c) splitting up requirements that are currently 
grouped, or combining requirements that are currently in separate 
specifications, (d) deleting specifications whose applicability has 
expired, and (e) wording changes that are consistent with the CTS but 
that more clearly or explicitly state existing requirements. Such 
changes are administrative in nature and do not impact initiators of 
analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events.
    Relocation changes are those involving relocation of requirements 
and surveillances for structures, systems, components, or variables 
that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in TS. Relocated changes 
are those CTS requirements that do not satisfy or fall within any of 
the four criteria specified in the Commission's regulation, 10 CFR 
50.36 and may be relocated to appropriate licensee-controlled 
documents.
    The licensee's application of the screening criteria to PBNP is 
described in Attachment 6 to the November 15, 1999, submittal. The 
affected structures, systems, components, or variables are not assumed 
to be initiators of analyzed events and are not assumed to mitigate 
accident or transient events. The requirements and surveillances for 
these affected structures, systems, components, or variables, will be 
relocated from the TSs to administratively controlled documents such as 
the Final Safety Analysis Report, the ITS Bases, or other licensee-
controlled documents. Once these items have been relocated to other 
licensee-controlled documents, the licensee may revise them under the 
provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 or other NRC-approved control mechanisms, 
which provide appropriate procedural means to control changes by the 
licensee.
    More restrictive changes are those involving more stringent 
requirements compared to the CTS for operation of the facility. These 
more stringent requirements do not result in operation that will alter 
assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient 
event. The more restrictive requirements will not alter the operation 
of process variables, structures, systems, and components described in 
the safety analyses.
    Less restrictive changes are those where CTS requirements are 
relaxed, relocated or eliminated, or new plant

[[Page 38330]]

operational flexibility is provided. The more significant ``less 
restrictive'' requirements are justified on a case-by-case basis. When 
requirements have been shown to provide little or no safety benefit, 
their removal from the TSs may be appropriate. In most cases, 
relaxations previously granted to individual plants on a plant-specific 
basis were the result of (a) generic NRC actions, (b) new NRC staff 
positions that have evolved from technological advancements and 
operating experience, or (c) resolution of the Owners Groups' comments 
on the Improved Standard Technical Specifications. Generic relaxations 
contained in NUREG-1431 were reviewed by the staff and found to be 
acceptable because they are consistent with current licensing practices 
and NRC regulations. Each less restrictive change in the Point Beach 
conversion was justified by the licensee in a Discussion of Change and 
reviewed by the NRC staff.
    In addition, there are eighteen changes that are different from the 
requirements in both the CTS and NUREG-1431, or that are beyond the 
changes that are needed to meet the overall purpose of the conversion. 
These changes are as follows:
    1. Adopts more restrictive action requirements for the emergency 
safety feature actuation system (ESFAS). The more restrictive action 
requirements pertain to instrumentation channels for the following 
functions: steam line isolation on manual, high steam flow, and high 
high steam flow (ITS 3.3.2).
    2. Adds an exception to Mode 3 applicability of the ESFAS 
instrument function. The ITS is modified to allow reactor coolant 
system hydrostatic testing in Mode 3 without the steam line pressure--
low safety injection function instrumentation being operable (ITS 
3.3.2).
    3. Adds a requirement for the condensate isolation functions to be 
operable in Modes 1, 2, and 3, except when all main feedwater 
regulating valves and associated bypass valves are closed and 
deactivated (ITS 3.3.2).
    4. Adopts STS requirements to perform a trip actuating device 
operational test on containment isolation valve position indication 
post-accident monitoring instrumentation function (ITS 3.3.3).
    5. Increases action requirements for loss of power diesel generator 
start and load sequence instrumentation functions. This item also 
imposes additional restrictions by adopting the STS-required actions 
for two inoperable channels of 480 volt buses (ITS 3.3.5).
    6. Relocates reactor coolant system pressure temperature limits to 
the pressure temperature limits report (PTLR) and adopts STS required 
actions to ensure operation within the pressure and temperature limits 
(ITS 3.4.3 and ITS 5.6.5). This item is beyond-scope because the 
licensee's proposed ITS differed from some of the STS requirements.
    7. Increases operability and surveillance requirements for reactor 
coolant system (RCS) loops. For Mode 3, the CTS currently requires one 
reactor coolant pump to be in operation and one steam generator to be 
operable. ITS adds the requirement that two RCS loops be operable, 
which also means that two steam generators are required in Mode 3. ITS 
also adopts a surveillance to verify one RCS loop is in operation 
consistent with the current limiting condition for operation (ITS 
3.4.1).
    8. Adds explicit operability, action, and surveillance requirements 
for the containment sump monitor (ITS 3.4.15).
    9. Revises applicability and frequency for surveillance of the auto 
actuation of emergency core cooling system (ECCS) valves and auto start 
of ECCS pumps in Mode 4. ITS specifies an 18-month frequency as opposed 
to the once each refueling frequency in CTS. ITS also requires the 
surveillance requirements to be met during all Mode 4 conditions (ITS 
3.5.3).
    10. Imposes more restrictive changes to main steam isolation valve 
and non-return check valve action requirements. The Point Beach plant 
has a different arrangement for main steam isolation valves and 
therefore, could not adopt the STS requirements for these TSs (ITS 
3.7.2).
    11. Adds operability, action, and surveillance TS requirements for 
main feedwater isolation valves (ITS 3.7.3).
    12. Imposes more restrictive changes to the atmospheric dump valve 
flow path action and surveillance requirements (ITS 3.7.4).
    13. Revises the frequency of surveillance requirements for the 
auxiliary feedwater (AFW) system. This change also revises some of the 
nomenclature to the AFW system (ITS 3.7.5).
    14. Incorporates changes to the component cooling water system 
operability and action requirements. Also, adds a note to clarify 
action requirements when a residual heat removal loop is made 
inoperable by component cooling system components (ITS 3.7.7).
    15. Adds surveillance requirements to verify the manual start and 
alignment capabilities of the control room emergency ventilation system 
(ITS 3.7.9).
    16. Adds a limiting condition for operation and an action 
pertaining to a containment air temperature limit. In addition, a Bases 
section is added to provide background for the new TS limit (ITS 
3.6.5).
    17. Adds a surveillance requirement to verify that one residual 
heat removal loop is in operation during Mode 6 conditions (ITS 3.9.5).
    18. Relocates cycle-specific parameters to a core operating limits 
report (COLR) and establishes administrative control requirements for 
the COLR in ITS 5.6.4 (ITS 5.6.4).
    An additional action being implemented with the ITS is the creation 
of a Pressure Temperature Limits Report (PTLR). This action relocates 
pressure temperature (P/T) limits and low overtemperature pressure 
protection limits to a licensee controlled PTLR. The licensee submitted 
its methodology for calculating P/T and low-temperature overpressure 
protection limits in a separate letter dated March 10, 2000, as 
supplemented July 28, November 20, 2000, and April 10, 2001. The 
licensee requested to implement PTLR coincident with ITS, so this 
amendment is being issued with ITS.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed revision to 
the CTS. Changes which are administrative in nature have been found to 
have no effect on the technical content of the TSs and are acceptable. 
The increased clarity and understanding these changes bring to the TSs 
are expected to improve the operators' control of the plant in normal 
and accident conditions. Relocation of requirements to other licensee-
controlled documents does not change the requirements themselves nor 
does 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) mandate that the TSs include these 
requirements. Further changes to these requirments may be made by the 
licensee under 10 CFR 50.59 or other NRC-approved control mechanisms 
that ensure continued maintenance of adequate requirements. All such 
relocations have been found to be in conformance with the guidelines of 
NUREG-1431 and the Final Policy Statement, and are, therefore, 
acceptable.
    Changes involving more restrictive requirements have been found to 
enhance plant safety and to be acceptable.
    Changes involving less restrictive requirements have been reviewed 
individually. When requirements have

[[Page 38331]]

been shown to provide little or no safety benefit or to place 
unnecessary burden on the licensee, their removal from the TSs was 
justified. In most cases, relaxations previously granted to individual 
plants on a plant-specific basis were the result of a generic action, 
or of agreements reached during discussions with the Owners Groups, and 
have been found to be acceptable for PBNP. Generic relaxations 
contained in NUREG-1431 have also been reviewed by the NRC staff and 
have been found to be acceptable.
    In summary, the proposed revisions to the CTS were found to provide 
control of plant operations such that reasonable assurance will be 
provided that the health and safety of the public will be adequately 
protected.
    These TS changes 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, and there is no significant 
increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there 
are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed TS amendment.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
amendment involves features located entirely within the restricted area 
as defined in 10 CFR part 20 and does not have a potential to affect 
any historical sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant 
effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are 
no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed TS amendment.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (ie., the ``no-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

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the 
PBNP, dated May, 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on June 26, 2001 the staff 
consulted with the state of Wisconsin State official, Mr. Jeff 
Kitsembel of the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no 
comments.

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 application dated November 15, 1999, as supplemented by 
letters dated March 15, June 15, June 19, July 28, August 17, September 
14, October 19 and December 21, 2000, February 6, February 23, March 
19, May 11 and June 13, 2001. Documents may be examined, and/or copied 
for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White 
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC web site, http://
www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or 
if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to pdr@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of July 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Beth Wetzel,
Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate III; Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-18329 Filed 7-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.