ML20049H808
| ML20049H808 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 02/19/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049H807 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203040063 | |
| Download: ML20049H808 (3) | |
Text
i is eaat,,Io UNITED STATES g
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION d.} g
- y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 f+.%.*,/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 45 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-71 AND AMENDMENT NO. 68 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-62 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT-COMPANY BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND 50-324 Author:
W. P. Gammill
^
INTRODUCTION By letter dated January 15, 1982 Carolina Power and Light Company (license'e) requested a change to the Appendix B Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS) in licenses DPR-7.1 and 62 for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2.
Specification 2.5.2.b(1) defines the " calculational method for determining the average release rate of noble gases from the site during any 12 consecutive months." Specification 2.5.2.b(2) contains similar language and pertains to I-131 and radioactive materials in particulate form.
In the event an annual limit is exceeded during any 12 consecutive months, the licensee must identify the causes of the release rates, define and initiate a program of action to reduce the release rates to design objective levels and report these actions to the Conmisdon within 30 days from the end of the calendar quarter during which the releases occurred.
The proposed change is to replace the "any 12 consecutive months" with "any calendar year."
DISCUSSION The model Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS) for boiling water reactors (BWR), NUREG-0473, contain several action statements which require the licensee, 'in the event a quarterly effluent limit is exceeded, to take action "to reduce the releases...during the remainder of the calendar quarter and during the subsequent three calendar quarters so that the cumulative dose" does not exceed the annual limit. We met with a number of representatives of nuclear utilities under the auspices of the Atomic industrial Forum, Inc., on November 10, 1981 to discuss the implementation of the RETS at operating reactors.
Comments were made by several representa-1 tives to the effect that the above wording created an unnecessarily cumbersome recordkeeping and reporting requirement and suggested that a calendar year _
approach would be a more valid interpretation of the annual objectives in 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
Wa 8203040063 820219 PDR ADOCK 05000324 P
a c
2 After considering these coments, we concluded that the present wording provided little or no increased protection of the public and that the suggested change should be accepted.
Consequently, on November 20, 1981 we provided such guidance to our contractors who are responsible for resolving differences between the technical specifications for operating reactors and the model RETS.
By memorandum'from W. P. Gammill dated January 25, 1982, similar guidance was provided to the Effluent Treatment Systems Branch for its use in implementing the RETS for plants undergoing operating license review.
EVALUATION Although the wording in the Brunswick. technical sp'ecifications differs from that in the model RETS, the "12 consecutive month" requirement poses the same record keeping problem as did the model RETS.
In light of the earlier decision on the model RETS, we consider the proposed technical specification change to be ' reasonable and consistent with present policy. Thus, we conclude that replacing the phrase "12 consecutive months" with the phrase " calendar year" in Brunswick Specification 2.5.2.b is acceptable.
It should be noted that Brunswick Unit No. 2 is continuing to encounter ' problems with
~~
higher than normal gcseous effluent releases.. These problems were suamarized
'in the Safety Evalua. tion which accompanied License Amendment os. 37 & 58 dated N
June 3,1981.
These amendments addressed the licensee's schedule for in-stalling new augmented off-gas systems for Brunswick, Unit Nos.1 and 2.
Fission product leakage from the fuel has now increased to the point that the radioactive noble gas release rate is approaching twice the annual limit.
The proposed change will provide the licensee some short-term relief since the transition will occur early in the calendar year. However, there will be no long-tern relief since the. annual release rate limits 'are unchanged. Re-fueling, now scheduled for May* 1982, is expected to reduce releases to normal level s.
However, depending upon fuel perfomance during the remainder of this cycle and following refueling, additional action may be required this calendar year.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION We have detemined that the amendments do not authorize a char $ge in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will Having made this no.t result in any significant environmental impact.
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 s51.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
~
l b
m
3 i
CONCLUSION j
We have concluded, based on the considerations ~ discussed above, that-
~
j (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 j
assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by i
operation in the proposed manr.er, and (3) such activities will be conducted l
in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the comr.on defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
February 19, 1982 O
e 9
f I
l D
O G
_