ML20031E123
| ML20031E123 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20031E117 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110150112 | |
| Download: ML20031E123 (2) | |
Text
-
)
g**"8cg Q
je, UNITED STATES Y D s- (j/.. j
)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
%g re.
,e gv f*
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION j
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 40 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-71 AND i
AMENDMENT NO. 63 TO FACILITY ~ LICENSE NO. DPR-62 i
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY BRUNSWICrs STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT'N05. 1 AND 2 DOCKET N05. 50-325 AND 50-324 I
I.
Inte: duction By l etter W..ed May 13, 1981, the C'arolina Power & Light Company (the licensee) submitted, roposed changes to the Technical Specifications appended to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62 for the Brunswick Steam Electric Pla'nt (BSEP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
The proposed changes, which delete Sample Station-No. 36 from the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program, were requested because milk can no longer be obtained from that location.
II.
Evaluati on i
The BSEP Technical Specifications state that any location from which milk can no longer be obtained may be dropped from tre surveillance program by the licensee and that the NRC shall be provided with an appropriate explanation within 30 days.
The farmer at Sample Station No'. 36 is no longer in the dairy business and his milk cows are no longer available for sampling.
Therefore, deletion of. Sample Station No. 36 from the Technical Specifications is warranted.
i To determine if a replacement site was available, we reviewed the 1980 Environ-mental Radiological Monitoring Report and the Brunswick Milk Animal Survey Results dated April 30, 1981.
Based on this review and on subsequent discussions with the licensee, we conclude that there are presently no milk animals within a five mile radius cf BSEP that could be used in the program other than the single cow presently in the program at Sample Station No. 35.
We find, in summary, that deletion of Sample Station No. 36 is warranted.
III.
Environmental Ccnsideration We have determined that the amencmants de not authorize a change in efficent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. - Having made this ceterminati n, we have further concluded that the amendments involve an action which is insignifict from the standpoint of environmental impac and pursuant to 10 CFR :.cl.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement, negative declaration, or environmental im;act appraisai need not be prepired in connection witn the issuance of the amencments.
8110150112 810928 PDR ADOCK 05000324 p
4 i
BSEP 1 & 2 IV.
Conclusion We have concluded, based en the considerations discussed above, that:
~
(1) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reason-able assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be
' endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3).such activities will be c nducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and
- the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: September 28, 1981 l
l l
l
,,