[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 11, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-577]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: January 11, 1994]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324]

 

Carolina Power & Light Company, Brunswick Steam Electric 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 an one-time exemption from the requirements of 
section III.A.5(b)(2) of appendix J to 10 CFR part 50 issued to the 
Carolina Power & Light Company (the licensee), for the Brunswick Steam 
Electric Plant (BSEP), Unit 1 and 2, located in Brunswick County, North 
Carolina.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    The proposed action would grant a one-time partial exemption from 
the schedular requirement in section III.A.5(b)(2) of appendix J to 10 
CFR part 50, which requires a Type A test to be performed at each plant 
shutdown for refueling until two consecutive Type A tests meet the 
acceptance criteria in section III.A.5(b). This exemption would allow 
the licensee to return the BSEP to a normal testing frequency. 
Presently, both BSEP units are in the accelerated testing condition of 
section III.A.5(b)(2) due to the as-found testing failures which were 
within La leakage limits but exceeded the 0.75 La limit. For 
Type A (containment integrate leak rate) tests conducted at peak 
pressure, the measured leakage rate, Lam, must be less than 75 
percent of the maximum allowable leakage rate, La, measured at the 
calculated peak containment internal pressure, Pa. These terms are 
defined in section II of appendix J. In accordance with section 
III.A.6(b) of appendix J, if subsequently two consecutive Type A tests 
for a unit should fail to meet the acceptance criterion, the 
accelerated test frequency will be resumed. The next Unit 1 Type A test 
will be conducted during the Reload 9 outage, scheduled for March 1995, 
and the next Unit 2 Type A test will be conducted during the Reload 12 
outage, scheduled for March 1997.
    The proposed action is in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, Specific 
Exemptions, and is based upon the information provided to the 
Commission in the licensee's request for exemption dated October 19, 
1993.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed exemption is needed to avoid outage extensions and the 
increased outage costs while the tests for the accelerated Type A 
containment leakage rate are being conducted. Granting of the exemption 
would return both BSEP units to a normal test frequency. The exemption 
would also minimize subjecting the drywell to additional structural 
stresses during the Type A tests.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission's staff has determined that (a) the granting of the 
proposed exemption would not significantly increase the probability or 
amount of expected containment leakage and (b) the integrity of the 
containment would be maintained. Consequently, the probability of 
accidents would not be increased, nor would the post-accident 
radiological releases be greater than previously determined. The 
proposed exemption would not otherwise affect radiological plant 
effluents. Therefore, the Commission's staff concludes that there are 
no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed exemption.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
exemption involves a change to surveillance testing schedular 
requirements. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and 
has no other environmental impact. Therefore, the Commission concludes 
that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed exemption.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action, any 
alternatives would have either no or greater environmental impact.
    The principal alternative would be to deny the requested exemption. 
This would not reduce the environmental impacts attributed to this 
facility but could result in an increased frequency for Type A tests. 
This would result in the expenditure of resources without any 
compensating benefit.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the 
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, dated January 1974.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    The Commission's staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not 
consult other agencies or persons.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental 
impact statement for the proposed exemption.
    Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, we conclude that 
the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality 
of the human environment.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the request 
for one-time partial exemption dated October 19, 1993, which is 
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document 
Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555 and 
at the Local Public Document Room located at the University of North 
Carolina at Wilmington, William Madison Randall Library, 601 S. College 
Road, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-3297.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of January 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
S. Singh Bajwa,
Acting Director, Project Directorate II-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-577 Filed 1-10-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M