[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42145-42146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20545]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301]
Wisconsin Electric Power Company; Point Beach Nuclear Plant,
Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Nos.
DPR-24 and DPR-27, issued to Wisconsin Electric Power Company (the
licensee), for operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and
2, located in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would revise (1) Section 3.A of Facility
Operating Licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 from a licensed power level of
1518 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 1518.5 MWt; (2) technical specification
(TS) 15.3.1.B Bases power level from 1518 MWt to 1518.5 MWt; and (3) TS
15.3.1.B Bases reference 2 from revision 2 to revision 3. These changes
make the value of the licensed power level listed in Section 3.A of the
licenses and in the Units 1 and 2 bases of TS 15.3.1.B consistent with
the value listed in the balance of the TS and in the final safety
analysis report (FSAR). The changes are administrative and do not
change plant design or operation.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application for amendment dated August 22, 1996, as supplemented by
letter dated July 14, 1997.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action would revise the power level included in
Facility Operating Licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 to restore consistency
with the authorized power level defined in the TS and assumed in
performing facility safety analyses.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed changes
to the licenses and TS. According to the licensee, the administrative
change in the licensed power level restores consistency between the
licenses and the TS. The TS, as originally issued, defined the licensed
power level as 1518.5 MWt. At no time has the power level defined in
the TS been changed from 1518.5 MWt. Accident analyses performed in
support of original
[[Page 42146]]
licensing used as a bases for analyses the value of 1518.5 MWt or an
appropriate multiple of 1518.5, as required. Only one current analysis,
fluence values affecting 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G, specifically
referenced a power level of 1518 MWt. The licensee concluded that the
results of this analysis are insensitive to the change in power level
and sufficient assurance regarding the effect of fluence levels is
obtained in analyzing material specimens.
This administrative change will not increase the probability or
consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of
any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant
increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational
radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there
are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action is administrative in nature and does not involve any physical
features of the plant. Thus, it does not affect nonradiological plant
effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the
Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be
evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff
considered denial of the proposed action. 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
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 17, 1997, the staff
consulted with the Wisconsin State official, Sarah Jenkins of the
Wisconsin Public Service Commission, regarding the environmental impact
of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission 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 August 22, 1996, as supplemented on July 14,
1997, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's
Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,
Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at the
Lester Public Library, 1001 Adams Street, Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of July 1997.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Linda L. Gundrum,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-20545 Filed 8-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P