ML051590501

Amendment, TS 3.4.5 RCS Ld Instrumentation (Tac No. MC7216, MC7217)

ML051590501
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	06/28/2005
From:	Mozafari B NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD2
To:	Gannon C Carolina Power & Light Co
mozafari B, NRR/DLPM, 415-2020
References
TAC MC6216, TAC MC6217
Download: ML051590501 (17)

Text

June 28, 2005 Mr. C. J. Gannon Vice President Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 10429 Southport, North Carolina 28461

SUBJECT:

BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 - ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT ON TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 3.4.5, REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM LEAKAGE DETECTION INSTRUMENTATION (TAC NOS. MC7216 AND MC7217)

Dear Mr. Gannon:

The Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 237 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-71 and Amendment No. 265 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-62 for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2. These amendments revise the Technical Specifications (TS) in response to your application dated May 17, 2005.

The amendments revise the TS to replace the existing requirement of TS 3.4.5, "RCS Leakage Detection Instrumentation," Required Action D. 1, to enter Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.3 if required leakage detection systems are inoperable with the requirement to be in Mode 3 within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and Mode 4 within 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />.

A copy of the related Safety Evaluation is also enclosed.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Brenda L. Mozafari, Senior Project Manager, Section 2 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324

Enclosures:

1. Amendment No. 237 to License No. DPR-71

2. Amendment No. 265 to License No. DPR-62

3. Safety Evaluation cc w/enclosures: See next page

ML051590501 Package: ML051730286 Enclosure 1: ML051800155 Enclosure 2: ML051800162 *NLO NRR-058 OFFICE PDII-2/PM PDII-2/LA DE/EEIB/SC DSSA/SPLB DIPM/IROB OGC PDII-2/SC NAME BMozafari EDunnington RJenkins SJones TBoyce SBrock* MMarshall DATE 6/8/05 6/8/05 6/10/05 6/4/05 6/10/05 6/20/05 6/28/05

SUBJECT:

BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 - ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT ON TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 3.4.5, REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM LEAKAGE DETECTION INSTRUMENTATION (TAC NOS. MC7216 AND MC7217)

Dated: June 28, 2005 DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC PDII-2 R/F RidsNrrDlpmLpdii RidsNrrDlpmLpdii-2 RidsNrrPMBMozafari RidsNrrLAEDunnington (Hard Copy)

RidsOgcRp RidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter GHill (4 copies)

RJenkins RDennig SJones RidsRgn2MailCenter (PFredrickson)

RidsNrrDlpmDpr

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-325 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT 1 AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 237 License No. DPR-71

1. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:

A. The application for amendment filed by Carolina Power & Light Company (the licensee), dated May 17, 2005, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B. The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C. There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations; D. The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E. The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.

2. Accordingly, the license is amended by changes to the Technical Specifications, as indicated in the attachment to this license amendment; and paragraph 2.C.(2) of Facility Operating License No. DPR-71 is hereby amended to read as follows:

(2) Technical Specifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendices A and B, as revised through Amendment No. 237, are hereby incorporated in the license. Carolina Power & Light Company shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications.

3. This license amendment is effective as of the date of its issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

/RA/

Michael L. Marshall, Jr., Chief, Section 2 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Attachment:

Changes to the Technical Specifications Date of Issuance: June 28, 2005

ATTACHMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 237 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-71 DOCKET NO. 50-325 Replace the following page of the Appendix A Technical Specifications with the attached revised page. The revised page is identified by amendment number and contains marginal lines indicating the areas of change.

Remove Page Insert Page 3.4-10 3.4-10

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-324 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT 2 AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 265 License No. DPR-62

1. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:

A. The application for amendment filed by Carolina Power & Light Company (the licensee), dated May 17, 2005, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; B. The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C. There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations; D. The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E. The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.

2. Accordingly, the license is amended by changes to the Technical Specifications as indicated in the attachment to this license amendment; and paragraph 2.C.(2) of Facility Operating License No. DPR-62 is hereby amended to read as follows:

(2) Technical Specifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendices A and B, as revised through Amendment No. , are hereby incorporated in the license. Carolina Power & Light Company shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications.

3. This license amendment is effective as of the date of its issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

/RA/

Michael L. Marshall, Jr., Chief, Section 2 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Attachment:

Changes to the Technical Specifications Date of Issuance: June 28, 2005

ATTACHMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 265 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-62 DOCKET NO. 50-324 Replace the following page of the Appendix A Technical Specifications with the attached revised page. The revised page is identified by amendment number and contains marginal lines indicating the areas of change.

Remove Page Insert Page 3.4-10 3.4-10

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 237 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-71 AND AMENDMENT NO. 265 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-62 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND 50-324

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By application dated May 17, 2005 [ADAMS Accession No. ML051440310], Carolina Power &

Light Company (the licensee), also doing business as Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.,

submitted a request for changes to the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP), Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TS). The proposed change would replace the existing requirement of Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.5, Required Action D.1, to enter limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.0.3 if required reactor coolant system (RCS) leakage detection systems are inoperable. In lieu of entry into LCO 3.0.3, the unit will be placed in Mode 3 within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and in Mode 4 within 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />.

On May 13, 2005, the licensee submitted a written notice of enforcement discretion (NOED) request to waive compliance with Required Action D.1 of TS 3.4.5 for Unit 1. The need for the NOED arose when emergency bus E1 tripped unexpectedly, ultimately resulting in inoperability of the RCS leakage detection systems. The requested NOED waived compliance with Required Action D.1 of TS 3.4.5. In lieu of the requirements of TS 3.4.5, Required Action D.1, the licensee proposed Unit 1 continue to adhere to the requirements of TS 3.8.7, "Distribution Systems - Operating," which required the unit to be in Mode 3 within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and Mode 4 within 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />. The verbal NOED was granted by the NRC on May 12, 2005, in response to the licensees May 12, 2005, verbal NOED request. On May 12, 2005, Unit 1 restored operability to the RCS leakage detection systems and exited TS 3.4.5. In the May 13, 2005, written NOED request, the licensee committed to submit a follow-up exigent amendment request by May 17, 2005, addressing the existing Required Action D.1 of TS 3.4.5. This exigent amendment request dated May 17, 2005, fulfills the requirement for the request for exigent processing of the proposed amendment as indicated in NRC Inspection Manual Part 9900, "Operations - Notices of Enforcement Discretion."

2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION

The BSEP design was reviewed for construction under the "General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plant Construction" issued for comment by the Atomic Energy Commission in July 1967, and the licensee is committed to meet the intent of the General Design Criteria (GDC),

published in the Federal Register on May 21, 1971, as Appendix A to Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50. Criterion 30, "Quality of reactor coolant pressure boundary," requires that means be provided for detecting and, to the extent practical, identifying the location of the source of reactor coolant leakage.

Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.45, "Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Leakage Detection Systems,"

describes acceptable methods of implementing this requirement with regard to the selection of leakage detection systems for the reactor coolant boundary. The position of RG 1.45 is that at least three different detection methods should be employed. Two of these methods should be:

(1) sump level and flow monitoring, and (2) airborne particulate radioactivity monitoring. The third method may involve either monitoring of condensate flow rate from air coolers or monitoring of gaseous radioactivity. The regulatory guide recommends that the sensitivity and response time of each leakage detection system employed for unidentified leakage should be adequate to detect a leakage rate or its equivalent of 1 gallon per minute (gpm) in less than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />.

Section 5.2.5, "Detection of Leakage Through Reactor Coolant System Boundary," of the BSEP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) provides details associated with the leakage detection systems in use at BSEP. TS 3.4.5 establishes LCOs for three of these systems: (1) the drywell floor drain sump flow monitoring system, (2) the primary containment atmosphere particulate monitoring system, and (3) the primary containment atmosphere gaseous monitoring system. Each of the TS 3.4.5-required leakage detection systems is designed with the capability of detecting leakage less than the leakage rate limits established in TS 3.4.4, "RCS Operational Leakage," and providing appropriate alarm and/or indication of excess leakage in the control room.

As discussed in the UFSAR, drywell pressure, drywell temperature, cooling water temperature to and from the primary containment atmosphere coolers, and reactor water level also provide a means for detecting leaks within the primary containment.

3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

The existing TS 3.4.5, Required Action D.1, places the plant in Mode 2 within 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br />, Mode 3 within 13 hours1.50463e-4 days <br />0.00361 hours <br />2.149471e-5 weeks <br />4.9465e-6 months <br />, and Mode 4 within 37 hours4.282407e-4 days <br />0.0103 hours <br />6.117725e-5 weeks <br />1.40785e-5 months <br /> (i.e., the LCO 3.0.3 shutdown completion times) if all required leakage detection systems are inoperable. The proposed change would place the plant in Mode 3 within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and Mode 4 within 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> under the same conditions. This is essentially the same completion times as currently exist, with the exception of eliminating the 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> to Mode 2 requirement. The net effect would be to allow a unit to operate for five additional hours in Mode 1 (i.e., 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> to be in Mode 3 versus 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> to be in Mode 2) with no operable TS-required leakage detection systems. Additionally, the Modes of Applicability for TS 3.4.5 are Modes 1, 2, and 3. The proposed change results in exiting the Modes of Applicability for RCS leakage detection instrumentation 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> earlier (i.e., 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> to be in Mode 4 versus 37 hours4.282407e-4 days <br />0.0103 hours <br />6.117725e-5 weeks <br />1.40785e-5 months <br /> per the existing TS 3.4.5, Required Action D.1).

The proposed shutdown requirements and completion times for inoperability of the TS 3.4.5-required leakage detection systems will remain as conservative as those currently imposed by TS 3.4.4 for actual RCS operational leakage in excess of TS requirements. TS 3.4.4, Required Action A.1, allows 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> to reduce RCS leakage to within limits if actual leakage occurs in excess of the established TS limits. If this is not accomplished or if pressure boundary leakage exists, the plant must be brought to Mode 3 within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and Mode 4 within 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> in accordance with TS 3.4.4, Required Actions B.1 and B.2. The Bases for Required Actions B.1 and B.2 state that allowed completion times are reasonable, based on operating experience, to reach the required plant conditions from full-power conditions in an orderly manner and without challenging plant safety systems.

The Basis for TS 3.4.5, Required Action D.1, states that with all required RCS leakage detection monitors inoperable, no required automatic means of monitoring leakage are available, and immediate plant shutdown in accordance with LCO 3.0.3 is required. However, loss of all TS-required RCS leakage monitoring capability is clearly a less degraded condition than experiencing actual RCS leakage in excess of TS-established limits. In addition, although not required by TS, drywell pressure, drywell temperature, cooling water temperature to and from the primary containment atmosphere coolers, and reactor water level also provide a means for detecting leaks within the primary containment. In the unlikely event of increased RCS leakage, abnormal operating procedure 0AOP-014, "Abnormal Primary Containment Conditions,"

provides direction to control room operators regarding response to symptoms such as increased drywell temperature and pressure. In addition, emergency core cooling system (ECCS), reactor protection system (RPS) and primary and secondary containment isolation automatic actuations all occur based on high drywell pressure and/or low vessel water level.

These systems continue to be available to mitigate the consequences of a loss-of-coolant event.

In summary, the proposed change eliminates the unnecessarily restrictive shutdown requirements of entering LCO 3.0.3 when all TS-required leakage detection systems are inoperable while maintaining the existing level of safety by imposing shutdown requirements that are as conservative as those currently imposed by TS 3.4.4 for actual RCS operational leakage in excess of TS requirements. The net effect of this change is to allow a unit to operate for 5 additional hours in Mode 1 while exiting the Modes of Applicability for RCS leakage detection instrumentation 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> earlier (i.e., 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> to be in Mode 4 versus 37 hours4.282407e-4 days <br />0.0103 hours <br />6.117725e-5 weeks <br />1.40785e-5 months <br /> per the existing TS 3.4.5, Required Action D.1). Elimination of the intermediate 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> to Mode 2 requirement, imposed by LCO 3.0.3, allows the unit to reach the Mode 3 from full-power conditions in an orderly manner and without challenging plant safety systems.

Based on the low probability of an event occurring during the defined completion time associated with this condition, the proposed change maintains the necessary safety features and is, therefore, acceptable to the NRC staff.

The licensee stated that associated changes to the Bases Section for TS 3.4.5 will be made in accordance with the Bases Control Program defined by TS 5.5.11. The NRC staff agrees that the TS Bases Control Program is the appropriate process for updating the affected TS Bases pages.

4.0 STATEMENT OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES In order to fulfill the NRCs requirement for the request for exigent processing of the proposed amendment as indicated in NRC Inspection Manual Part 9900, "Operations - Notices of Enforcement Discretion," following NRCs granting of a verbal NOED on May 12, 2005, (documented in a letter to the NRC on May 13, 2005), the licensee requested exigent processing of the license amendment request in its application dated May 17, 2005. The application constituted a timely submittal for the amendments according to the NRCs NOED process. However, to meet the licensee's requested date in accordance with the NRCs NOED policy, a 14-day public comment period was provided in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6): where the Commission finds that exigent circumstances exist, in that a licensee and the Commission must act quickly and that time does not permit the Commission to publish a Federal Register notice (FRN) allowing 30 days for prior public comment, and it also determines that the amendment involves no significant hazards considerations, it may issue an FRN providing notice of an opportunity for hearing and allowing at least 2 weeks from the date of the notice for prior public comment. The NRC staff issued an exigent proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, which was published in the Federal Register on June 13, 2005 (70 FR 34161).

5.0 FINAL NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION

DETERMINATION The Commissions regulations of 10 CFR 50.92 state that the Commission may make a final determination that a license amendment involves no significant hazards considerations, if operation of the facility, in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

These amendments have been evaluated by the licensee against the standards in 10 CFR 50.92(c) as follows:

1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Response: No The proposed change replaces the existing requirement of TS 3.4.5, Required Action D.1 to enter LCO 3.0.3 if required leakage detection systems are inoperable with the requirement to be in Mode 3 within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and Mode 4 within 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />.

This is accomplished by deleting Condition D and including the "all required leakage detection systems inoperable" statement in Condition C.

The proposed change does not involve physical changes to any plant structure, system, or component. As a result, no new failure modes of the RCS leakage detection systems are being introduced. Additionally, the RCS leakage detection systems have no impact on any initiating event frequency. Therefore, the proposed change cannot increase ... the probability [of] a previously evaluated accident.

The consequences of a previously analyzed accident are dependent on the initial conditions assumed for the analysis, the behavior of the fuel during the analyzed accident, the availability and successful functioning of the equipment assumed to operate in response to the analyzed event, and the setpoints at which these actions are initiated. The RCS leakage detection systems do not perform an accident mitigating function. ECCS, RPS, and primary and secondary containment isolation actuations all occur based on high drywell pressure and/or low vessel water level.

The proposed change has no impact on any setpoints or functions related to these actuations. Therefore, the proposed change cannot increase ... the consequences

[of] a previously evaluated accident.

2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Response: No The proposed change eliminates the unnecessarily restrictive shutdown requirements of entering LCO 3.0.3 when all TS required leakage detection systems are inoperable. No installed equipment is being operated in a different manner.

There is no alteration to the parameters within which the plant is normally operated or in the setpoints that initiate protective or mitigative actions. As a result no new failure modes are being introduced. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No The proposed change maintains the existing level of safety by imposing shutdown requirements that are as conservative as those currently imposed by TS 3.4.4 for actual RCS operational leakage in excess of TS requirements. The net effect of this change is to allow a unit to operate for five additional hours in Mode 1 with no operable TS required leakage detection systems, while exiting the Mode of Applicability for RCS leakage detection instrumentation 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> earlier (i.e., 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> to be in Mode 4 versus 37 hours4.282407e-4 days <br />0.0103 hours <br />6.117725e-5 weeks <br />1.40785e-5 months <br /> per the existing TS 3.4.5, Required Action D.1).

Elimination of the intermediate 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> to Mode 2 requirement, imposed by LCO 3.0.3, allows the unit to reach the Mode 3 from full power conditions in an orderly manner and without challenging plant safety systems. Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

Based on the NRC staffs analysis of the licensees review, the NRC staff has determined that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.

6.0 STATE CONSULTATION

In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the State of North Carolina official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (70 FR 34161). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.

8.0 CONCLUSION

The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributors: Brenda Mozafari Date: June 28, 2005

Mr. C. J. Gannon Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Carolina Power & Light Company Units 1 and 2 cc:

David T. Conley Mr. Robert P. Gruber Associate General Counsel II - Executive Director Legal Department Public Staff - NCUC Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 4326 Mail Service Center Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4326 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-1551 Mr. T. P. Cleary Mr. David R. Sandifer, Chairperson Director - Site Operations Brunswick County Board of Commissioners Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Post Office Box 249 Carolina Power & Light Company Bolivia, North Carolina 28422 Post Office Box 10429 Southport, North Carolina 28461-0429 Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Norman R. Holden, Mayor 8470 River Road City of Southport Southport, North Carolina 28461 201 East Moore Street Southport, North Carolina 28461 Mr. John H. ONeill, Jr.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Mr. Warren Lee 2300 N Street NW. Emergency Management Director Washington, DC 20037-1128 New Hanover County Department of Emergency Management Ms. Beverly Hall, Section Chief Post Office Box 1525 Division of Radiation Protection Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1525 N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources Mr. Chris L. Burton, Manager 3825 Barrett Dr. Performance Evaluation and Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-7721 Regulatory Affairs PEB 7 Progress Energy Mr. David H. Hinds Post Office Box 1551 Plant General Manager Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-1551 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Carolina Power & Light Company Mr. Edward T. ONeil Post Office Box 10429 Manager - Support Services Southport, North Carolina 28461-0429 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Carolina Power & Light Company Public Service Commission Post Office Box 10429 State of South Carolina Southport, North Carolina 28461 Post Office Drawer 11649 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Ms. Margaret A. Force Assistant Attorney General State of North Carolina Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

Mr. C. J. Gannon, Vice President Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Carolina Power & Light Company Post Office Box 10429 Southport, North Carolina 28461