[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 209 (Monday, October 28, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55673-55675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-27558]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 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 or NRC) is 
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. 
DPR-71 and DPR-62 issued to Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L or the 
licensee) for operation of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP), 
Units 1 & 2, located in Brunswick County, North Carolina.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    This Environmental Assessment addresses potential environmental 
issues related to Carolina Power & Light Company's (CP&L) application 
to amend the BSEP, Units 1 and 2, Operating Licenses. The proposed 
amendments would increase the licensed core thermal power from 2436 
megawatts thermal (MWt) to 2558 MWt, which represents an increase of 5 
percent over the current licensed power level. This request is in 
accordance with the generic boiling water reactor (BWR) power uprate 
program (Reference 1) established by the General Electric Company (GE) 
and approved by the NRC staff in a letter dated September 30, 1991 
(Reference 2).
    The proposed action involves NRC issuance of license amendments to 
uprate the authorized power level by changing the Operating Licenses, 
including Appendix A (Technical Specifications). The proposed action is 
in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated April 
2, 1996 (Reference 3), as supplemented by an earlier submittal dated 
November 20, 1995 (Reference 4), and by subsequent submittals dated 
July 1, 1996 (Reference 5), July 30, 1996 (Reference 6), August 7, 1996 
(Reference 7), September 13, 1996 (Reference 8), September 20, 1996 
(Reference 9), October 1, 1996 (Reference 10), October 22, 1996 (BSEP 
96-0392) (Reference 11), and October 22, 1996 (BSEP 96-0403) (Reference 
12).

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed to authorize CP&L to increase the 
potential electrical output of the BSEP by approximately 40.5 megawatts 
per unit, thus providing additional electrical power to service CP&L's 
grid.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The ``Final Environmental Statement'' (FES) related to operation of 
BSEP, Units 1 and 2 (Reference 13) assumed a maximum reactor power 
level of 2550 MWt per unit in calculating releases of radioactivity in 
effluents. The licensee submitted a nonradiological environmental 
assessment (Enclosure 3 to Ref. 4) supporting the proposed power uprate 
action and provided a summary of its conclusions concerning the 
radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts (Enclosure 3 to 
Ref. 3) of the proposed action. As described in a July 1, 1996, 
response to NRC staff questions (Enclosure 1 to Ref. 5), evaluations 
performed by the licensee show no changes to the conclusions of the FES 
(Ref. 13) as a result of power uprate.
    A summary of the nonradiological and radiological effects on the 
environment that may result from the proposed amendments is provided 
below.

Nonradiological Environmental Assessment

    As presented in the following evaluation, the proposed power uprate 
will not change the method of generating electricity nor the method of 
handling any influents from the environment or nonradiological 
effluents to the environment. Therefore, no new or different types of 
nonradiological environmental impacts are expected. The evaluation is 
based upon information provided by the licensee in a September 1995 GE 
licensing topical report supporting the BSEP power uprate (Reference 
14) and in Enclosure 3 of Reference 4.
    The BSEP uses a once-through circulating water system for 
dissipating heat from the main turbine condensers. This cooling system 
withdraws water from the Cape Fear River through a 3-mile long intake 
canal. The heated water is discharged to the Atlantic Ocean after it 
travels through a 6-mile long canal. A pumping station at the end of 
the canal pumps the water 2000 feet off of the beach through pipes. The 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, issued 
on October 1, 1996, by the State of North Carolina Department of 
Natural Resources and Community Development, specifies requirements 
applicable to nonradiological effluents released from the BSEP. No 
changes or other action relative to the NPDES Permit are required to 
implement power uprate at the Brunswick Plant.
    The NPDES permit currently allows the withdrawal, from the Cape 
Fear River, of 922 cubic feet of water per second (cfs), per unit, from 
December through March; 1105 cfs, per unit, from April through 
November; and 1230 cfs through one unit only from July through 
September. No changes to the flow rate of intake circulating cooling 
water will occur as a result of the proposed uprated power levels, 
therefore there will be no associated increase in the entrainment of 
planktonic organisms or impingement of fish, crabs, or shrimp. Chlorine 
is injected into the circulating water system to retard the growth of 
biofouling organisms. The NPDES permit limits the rate of chlorine 
injection. The chlorine injection rate is determined by the flow rate 
through the circulating water system. As stated above, the circulating 
water system flow rate will not change as a result of operation at 
uprated power levels; therefore, the chlorine injection rate will not 
change. As a result of the uprated power, the licensee has 
conservatively calculated an increase in the temperature of the 
circulating water leaving the main condensers of 1.4 deg.F in the 
winter and 1.2 deg.F in the summer (Table 6-3, Enclosure 2 to Ref. 4). 
These small increases at the condenser should not significantly impact 
the temperature of water discharged to the ocean, after traveling more 
than 6 miles through the discharge canal. As an example, on August 1, 
1994, the ambient ocean water temperature was 83 deg.F. With both units 
operating at 100% power, the water temperature at the point of ocean 
discharge was 91 deg.F. At 1500 feet north and south from the point of 
discharge, approximately a 50-acre area, the water temperature was 
83 deg.F, i.e., ambient temperature. The NPDES permit allows a 
temperature increase up to 89.5 deg.F within an area of 1,000 acres 
during the summer. Therefore, the ocean discharge mixing zone 
temperature limits, defined by the NPDES permit, should not be exceeded 
by operation at the uprated power.
    Nonradiological effluent discharges from other systems were also 
reviewed by the licensee for potential effects from the proposed power 
uprate. Effluent limits for systems such as roof drains, yard drains, 
low volume waste, metal

[[Page 55674]]

cleaning waste, and the sewage treatment plant are established in the 
NPDES permit. Discharges from these systems are not changed by 
operation at uprated power; therefore, the impact on the environment 
from these systems is not changed. The licensee concluded (Enclosure 3 
to Ref. 3) that the nonradiological parameters affected by power uprate 
will remain within the bounding conditions cited in the NPDES permit, 
and therefore no significant nonradiological environmental impact will 
result from the operation of BSEP under uprated power conditions.

Radiological Environmental Assessment

    As presented below, the licensee evaluated the radiological effects 
of the proposed power uprate operation during both normal and 
postulated accident conditions. The licensee considered the effect of 
the higher power level on liquid radioactive wastes (Section 8.1 of 
Ref. 14), gaseous radioactive wastes (Section 8.2 of Ref. 14), and 
radiation levels both in the plant and offsite during both normal 
(Sections 8.3, 8.4, 8.5) and accident conditions. Section 9.2 of 
Reference 14 presents the results of the calculated whole body and 
thyroid doses at the exclusion area boundary and the low population 
zone that might result from the postulated design basis radiological 
accidents.
    Gaseous radioactive effluents are produced during both normal 
operation and abnormal operational occurrences. These effluents are 
collected, controlled, processed, stored, and disposed of by the 
gaseous radioactive waste management systems which include the various 
building ventilation systems, the off gas system, and the standby gas 
treatment system (SGTS). The concentration of radioactive gaseous 
effluents released through the building ventilation systems during 
normal operation is not expected to increase significantly due to the 
proposed power uprate since the amount of fission products released 
into the reactor coolant (and subsequently into the building 
atmosphere) depends on the number and nature of fuel rod defects and is 
approximately linear with respect to core thermal power. The 
concentration of activation products contained in the reactor steam 
remains nearly constant, since the linear increase in the production of 
these activation products is balanced by the linear increase in 
steaming rate. Power uprate does not change the design basis noble gas 
release rates from the fuel. Therefore, based on its review of the 
various building ventilation systems, the licensee concluded that there 
will not be a significant adverse effect on airborne radioactive 
effluents as a result of the proposed power uprate.
    The SGTS is designed to minimize offsite and control room radiation 
dose rates during venting and purging of both the primary and secondary 
containment atmospheres under accident or abnormal conditions. This is 
accomplished by maintaining the secondary containment at a slightly 
negative pressure with respect to the outside atmosphere and 
discharging the secondary containment atmosphere through high-
efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters and charcoal absorbers. The 
capacity of the SGTS was selected to provide one secondary containment 
air volume change per day and thereby maintain the reactor building at 
a slight negative pressure. This capability is not impacted by power 
uprate. Although the total post-loss of coolant accident (LOCA) iodine 
loading of the charcoal filter beds increases slightly at uprated 
conditions, the total loading remains well below the original design 
capability of the filters.
    Radiolysis of the reactor coolant causes the formation of hydrogen 
and oxygen, the quantities of which are expected to increase linearly 
with core power. These additional quantities of hydrogen and oxygen 
would increase the flow to the recombiners by 5 percent during uprated 
power conditions. However, the operational increases in hydrogen and 
oxygen remain within the design capacity of the offgas system.
    The design basis data for the concentration of activated corrosion 
products in the reactor water were assessed, and the licensee concluded 
that the design basis data contain sufficient conservatism and do not 
need to be increased for power operation. The licensee concluded that 
the fission product activity level in the reactor coolant will not 
exceed design basis data.
    The largest source of liquid radioactive waste is from the backwash 
of the condensate demineralizers. These demineralizers remove activated 
corrosion products which are expected to increase proportionally with 
the proposed power uprate. However, the total volume of processed waste 
is not expected to increase significantly, since the only appreciable 
increase in processed waste will be due to the more frequent cleaning 
of these demineralizers. The floor drain collector subsystem and the 
waste collector subsystem both receive inputs from a variety of 
sources. Leakages from these systems are not expected to increase 
significantly due to the proposed power uprate. Based on a review of 
previous plant effluent reports and the slight increase in liquid 
radioactive waste expected due to the proposed power uprate, the 
licensee concluded that the slight increase in the processing of liquid 
radioactive wastes will not cause a significant increase in 
environmental impact and that requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR 
Part 50, Appendix I, will continue to be met.
    The uprated conditions may result in spent fuel with a higher 
burnup (and radiation levels) relative to the current levels. As 
indicated in Section 2.1 of Reference 14, any increase in burnup will 
be within the NRC currently approved limit for BSEP fuel designs. The 
NRC extended the fuel burnup limit for the BSEP units to 60 gigawatt 
days per metric ton (GWD/MT) as part of license amendment no. 124 for 
Unit 1 and 153 for Unit 2 issued on February 6, 1989, and September 20, 
1988, respectively. The environmental assessments associated with each 
of these amendments, which were published in the Federal Register for 
Unit 1 on January 31, 1989 (54 FR 4924), and Unit 2 on September 6, 
1988 (53 FR 34357), considered the environmental impacts of 
transportation resulting from the 60 GWD/MT burnup limit with fuel 
enrichment up to 5%. The BSEP fuel enrichment does not exceed 5%. Both 
environmental assessments concluded that there were no significant 
radiological or nonradiological impacts associated with the amendments. 
Since the burnup levels for power uprate are bounded by the levels 
previously evaluated as acceptable and BSEP fuel enrichment does not 
exceed 5%, the Commission continues to conclude that there are no 
significant radiological or nonradiological impacts associated with 
this aspect of the licensee's power uprate proposal.
    The licensee evaluated the effects of the power uprate on in-plant 
radiation levels for the Brunswick Plant during both normal operation 
and under post-accident conditions. The licensee's conclusions are that 
radiation levels during both normal operation, post-operation (plant 
outages), and under post-accident conditions may increase slightly 
(approximately proportional to the increase in power level). The 
increase expected in in-plant and post-operation radiation levels due 
to the proposed power uprate should not affect radiation zoning or 
shielding in the various areas of the plant, since it is offset by 
conservatism in the original design, source terms used, and analytical 
techniques. Individual worker occupational exposures will be maintained 
within acceptable limits by the existing Health Physics program, which 
controls access to radiation areas.

[[Page 55675]]

The increase in radiation levels due to the proposed power uprate under 
post-accident conditions has no significant effect on the plant, or on 
the habitability of the Technical Support Center or Emergency 
Operations Facility.
    The licensee re-evaluated the effect of the power uprate on Design 
Basis Accident (DBA) radiological consequences and reported these 
results (Section 9.2 of Reference 14). The original licensing DBA 
source terms for Brunswick were considered. The licensee also re-
evaluated the control room habitability under DBA conditions. The 
licensee stated that the radiological consequence analyses were 
performed using standard models developed by GE that have been utilized 
in other power uprate projects. The dose analyses were based on plant-
specific parameters from the BSEP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
and were calculated at both the current power and at 102% of the 
proposed uprate power. The licensee's analyses indicate that the 
calculated offsite radiological consequences doses for all DBAs are 
within the dose acceptance criteria stated in the NRC's Standard Review 
Plan (SRP) and 10 CFR Part 100 and also comply with the dose acceptance 
criteria for control room operators given in General Design Criterion 
(GDC) 19 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50. The staff performed 
confirmatory evaluations of radiological consequences of DBAs for the 
proposed power uprate. The staff found that the offsite radiological 
consequences and control room operator doses for all DBAs at the 
uprated power level of 2558 MWt will continue to meet the acceptance 
criteria of the SRP, 10 CFR Part 100, and GDC 19.
    The NRC staff finds the licensee's assessment of the radiological 
effects of the proposed action acceptable and concludes that the 
proposed uprate will not significantly increase radiological impacts on 
the environment.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission has concluded there is no significant (within 
existing limits) 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 proposed 
action would result in no change in current environmental impacts of 
plant operation, but would restrict operation of BSEP to the currently 
licensed power level. 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 
BSEP.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on October 17, 1996, the 
staff consulted with the North Carolina State official, Mr. J. James, 
of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Commerce and Natural 
Resources, Division of Radiation Protection, 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 application dated April 2, 1996, as 
supplemented by an earlier submittal dated November 20, 1995, and by 
subsequent submittals dated July 1, 1996, July 30, 1996, August 7, 
1996, September 13, 1996, September 20, 1996, October 1, 1996, October 
22, 1996 (BSEP 96-0392), and October 22, 1996 (BSEP 96-0403), which are 
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 University of North 
Carolina at Wilmington, William Madison Randall Library, 601 College 
Road, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-3297.

References

1. GE Nuclear Energy, ``Generic Guidelines For General Electric 
Boiling Water Reactor Power Uprate,'' Licensing Topical Report NEDO-
31897, Class I (non-proprietary), February 1992; and NEDC-31897P-A, 
Class III (Proprietary), May 1992.
2. W. T. Russell, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, letter to P.W. 
Marriott, General Electric Company, ``Staff Position Concerning 
General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Power Uprate Program,'' 
September 30, 1991.
3. W. R. Campbell, Carolina Power & Light Company, letter to U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``105% Thermal Power Uprate,'' April 
2, 1996.
4. W. R. Campbell, Carolina Power & Light Company, letter to U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Power Uprate,'' November 20, 1995.
5. W. R. Campbell, Carolina Power & Light Company, letter to U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 1, 1996.
6. W. R. Campbell, Carolina Power & Light Company, letter to U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 30, 1996.
7. W. R. Campbell, Carolina Power & Light Company, letter to U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 7, 1996.
8. W. R. Campbell, Carolina Power & Light Company, letter to U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 13, 1996.
9. W. R. Campbell, Carolina Power & Light Company, letter to U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 20, 1996.
10. W. R. Campbell, Carolina Power & Light Company, letter to U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1, 1996.
11. W. R. Campbell, Carolina Power & Light Company, letter to U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 22, 1996 (BSEP 96-0392).
12. W. R. Campbell, Carolina Power & Light Company, letter to U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 22, 1996 (BSEP 96-0403).
13. ``Final Environmental Statement,'' Brunswick Steam Electric 
Plant dated January 1974.
14. GE Nuclear Energy, ``Power Uprate Safety Analysis Report for 
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 & 2,'' Licensing Topical 
Report NEDC-32466P, Class III (Proprietary), September 1995 
(Enclosure 1 to Ref. 4); NEDO-32466, Class I (Non-proprietary) 
September 1995 (Enclosure 2 to Ref. 4).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of October, 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bartholomew C. Buckley,
Acting Director, Project Directorate II-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-27558 Filed 10-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P