[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 102 (Friday, May 27, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30819-30820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-2688]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Appendix R, Section IlI.G.1.a for
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27, issued to Nuclear
Management Company, LLC (NMC), the licensee, for operation of the Point
Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 1 and 2, located in 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 exempt 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R,
Section III.G.1.a as it applies to the PBNP, Unit 1 auxiliary and
turbine buildings; and the PBNP, Unit 2 auxiliary and turbine
buildings, and the control building. The exemption requested is from
the requirement that, ``one train of systems necessary to achieve and
maintain hot shutdown from either the control room or emergency control
station(s) is free of fire damage,'' as it applies to the PBNP, Unit 1
auxiliary and turbine buildings; the PBNP, Unit 2 auxiliary and turbine
buildings, and the control building. Specifically, NMC has asked for a
repair consisting of powering a dedicated air compressor from one of
two pre-planned 480 volt power sources using pre-staged power cords and
connecting the air compressor to nitrogen bottle manifolds on one or
both reactor units using pre-staged pneumatic hose with quick connect
fittings. The repair would be required no earlier than 8 hours into an
event in which instrument air is disabled.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated March 5, 2004, as supplemented by letter dated
November 8, 2004.
The Need for the Proposed Action
Appendix R, Section Ill.G.1.a of 10 CFR Part 50 requires that,
``one train of systems necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown
conditions from either the control room or emergency control station(s)
is free of fire damage.'' Appendix R, Section Ill.L.1 of 10 CFR Part 50
requires that an alternative or dedicated shutdown capability shall be
able to, among other things, ``(c) achieve and maintain hot standby
conditions for a pressurized water reactor (PWR)''; and ``(d) achieve
cold shutdown conditions within 72 hours.'' NRC Inspection Report 50-
266/2003-007; 50-301/2003-007, dated February 4, 2004, documents a Non-
Cited Violation of Appendix R, Section III.L.1.c, in that NMC, ``failed
to ensure, without the need for 'hot standby repairs,' adequate control
air to the speed controllers for the charging pumps during a postulated
fire requiring an alternative shutdown method.'' The installed backup
nitrogen gas bottle bank (for the charging pump speed controllers)
meets the requirements of the regulation, with the exception that it is
of limited capacity. This means that the hot shutdown conditions could
not be maintained indefinitely while relying only on the installed
bottle bank. However, the 8 to 14 hour capacity of the bottle banks is
[[Page 30820]]
ample time to extinguish the fire, achieve stable plant conditions in
hot shutdown, augment staff with personnel from the emergency response
organization, and connect dedicated power cabling and hoses to the
dedicated compressor using the furnished plugs and quick connect
fittings (i.e., no tools required).
Because the bottle banks, hoses, cables, and compressor are all
located in areas that would not be affected by the fires of concern,
none would be damaged. Thus, the proposed exemption is fully consistent
with the intent of the applicable sections of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix
R, and literal compliance is not necessary to achieve the underlying
purpose of the rules.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the level of
fire safety provided is equivalent to the technical requirements of 10
CFR Part 50 Appendix R, Section IlI.G.1.a. As such, the requested
exemption does not pose an undue risk to the health and safety of the
public.
The details of the NRC staff's safety evaluation will be provided
in the exemption that will be issued as part of the letter to the
licensee approving the exemption to the regulation.
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 off site. There is no significant
increase in the amount of any effluent released off site. There is no
significant increase in occupational or public 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 NRC staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., 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
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for
the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on April 4, 2005, the NRC
staff consulted with the Wisconsin State official, Jeffery 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 letter dated March 5, 2004, as supplemented by letter dated
November 8, 2004. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee,
at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), 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 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 [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of May, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Harold K. Chernoff,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-2688 Filed 5-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P