ML20039B119
| ML20039B119 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039B112 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112220309 | |
| Download: ML20039B119 (2) | |
Text
.
pa rto uq'o UN6TED STATES y, _
g y'
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
\\ *'
/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 43 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-71 AND AMENDMENT N0. 66 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-62 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND 50-324 INTRODUCTION By letter dated November 25, 1981, as supplemented by letter dated October 30, 1981, the Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) requested a change to the Appendix B Technical Specifications of Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-71 and DPR-62 for' the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2.
This change provides clarification to the action required whenever the average release rate of noble gases or the average release rate of iodine-131 and radioactive materials in particulate form with half-lives greater than eight days during any period of 12 consecutive months exceeds the design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
In addition, the proposed change is the result of the NRC request by letter of November 12, 1981 to use dose factors for determining the dose impact rather than the average gamma and beta energy per disintegration for noble gas effluents and to include surveillance requirements for calculating the dose impact.
DISCUSSIO_N The proposed change to the Brunswick Appendix B Technical Specification 2.5.2.b clarifies that the licensee report within 30 days to the Commission whenever the average release rate of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents during 12 consecutive months exceeds the annual design objective levels of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. The present technical specifications did not specify the action required for this environmental protection condition. This is an edit change which the staff finds acceptable.
The proposed cha1ge to the Brunswick Appendix B Technical Specifications 2.5.2.a(1), 2.5.2.b(1), 2.5.2.c(1) and 2.5.2.f revise the equations for these environmental protection conditions in terms of dose imoact rather than release quantity in order to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and provide reasonable assurance that radioactive materials in gaseous effluents are ALARA. The methodology uses dose factors (Table 3.5-5) rather than the average gama and beta energy per disintegration for noble gas effluents. -
This is an administrative change recomended by the staff and found acceptable by the licensee.
1 P
2 In addition, Surveillance Requirements 3.5.2.f and g were included to determine compliance with the environmental protection conditions 2.5.2.b and 2.5.2.c.
This requirement is presently being performed and is acceptable to the licensee and the staff.
EVALUATION We reviewed the proposed change to the Brunswick Unit Nos.1 and 2 Appendix B Technical Specifications and the methodology used for calculating doses.
We find tnat the proposed changes adequately address the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and satisfies the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.109, "Calcula-tion of Annual Average Doses to Man fron Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluation Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I" (Rev.1), October 1977 and, therefore, we find the revised technical specifications acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION We have sietermined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendments involve an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact sta+ement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on 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 reasonable 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 conducted 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.
Date: December 9, 1981
.