[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6567-6568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-2573]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-325]


Carolina Power & Light Company; Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 
Unit 1 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.D.1.(a) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 for Facility 
Operating License No. DPR-71 issued to the Carolina Power & Light 
Company (the licensee) for operation of the Brunswick Steam Electric 
Plant, Unit 1 (BSEP-1), located in Brunswick County, North Carolina.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would grant a one-time partial Exemption from 
the schedular requirement in Section III.D.1.(a) of Appendix J to 10 
CFR Part 50, which requires a set of 3 Type A containment integrated 
leak rate tests to be performed at approximately equal intervals during 
each 10-year service period. The third test of the set shall be 
conducted when the plant is shutdown for the 10-year plant inservice 
inspections. The proposed action would extend the second 10-year period 
for the performance of the third Type A test at BSEP-1 until the reload 
10 outage (B110R1) in September 1996.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for Exemption dated November 22, 1994.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    During the first 10-year service period, Type A tests were 
conducted as required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J. Since the first 
10-year service period for BSEP-1 was not aligned with the service 
period for BSEP-2, the licensee moved the end date for the BSEP-1 back 
to coincide with the BEEP-2 end date. 

[[Page 6568]]
Therefore, the second 10-year service period for BEEP-1 began on July 
10, 1986. This caused the first BEEP-1 Type A test for the second 
period to be performed in May 1987, only 11 months into the interval. 
The second Type A test on BEEP-1 was performed within the 40-month plus 
or minus 10-month interval required by the Technical Specifications.
    However, BEEP-1, experienced an extended shutdown between April 
1992 and February 1994. The licensee notified the NRC in a letter dated 
August 5, 1994, that the second 10-year period end date was being 
extended by one year due to this outage. Because of this shutdown, the 
licensee also rescheduled the remaining two BEEP-1 refueling outages 
(reloads 9 and 10) during the second 10-year service period. The reload 
9 outage was rescheduled to begin in April 1995, and the reload 10 
outage was rescheduled to begin in September 1996.
    Unlike Section XI, IWA-2400(c) of the American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code), 
Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 does not contain any provisions for 
adjusting the 10-year service period due to extended outages. The 
licensee has already performed two of the Type A tests at BEEP-1 
required during the second 10-year service period. If a Type A test is 
conducted during the next refueling outage, Appendix J could be 
interpreted to require a fourth test to satisfy the requirement that 
the final test of the set be conducted when the plant is shutdown for 
the 10-year plant inservice inspection. Due to the extension of the 
inservice inspection period, the final refueling outage of the current 
inservice inspection period is scheduled for September 1996.
    Granting of the proposed Exemption would result in an interval of 
approximately 68 months between the second and third Type A tests. The 
proposed Exemption would allow the start of the next Type A test 
interval to be realigned with the start of the third 10-year inservice 
inspection period. The Exemption would also minimize the radiation 
exposure to the personnel conducting the test through the elimination 
of a fourth test.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that granting the proposed Exemption would not 
significantly increase the probability or amount of expected 
containment leakage and that containment integrity would be maintained. 
The licensee has reviewed the potential primary containment degradation 
mechanisms, including both activity-based and time-based causes. This 
review concluded that there has not been any alteration or challenge to 
the primary containment since the last Type A test. The licensee also 
stated that there will not be any future maintenance activity during 
the proposed interval extension that would adversely affect the primary 
containment leakage rate without administrative control requiring the 
performance of local leak rate testing. There are also no scheduled 
modifications that have the potential to adversely affect the integrity 
of the primary containment boundary.
    The 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 does involve features located entirely within the restricted 
area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. 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. The principal alternative to the action would be to deny the 
request. Such action would not enhance the protection of the 
environment and would result in unjustified cost to the licensee and 
additional exposure to plant personnel.

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 Stream Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, dated January 1974.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, the NRC staff consulted with 
the State of North Carolina official 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 November 22, 1994, 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 26th day of January 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William H. Bateman,
Director, Project Directorate II-1, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-2573 Filed 2-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M