ML20059D369
| ML20059D369 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 01/05/1994 |
| From: | Bajwa S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059D372 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9401070191 | |
| Download: ML20059D369 (4) | |
Text
.-
7590-01' UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET N05. 50-325 AND 50-324 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
^
The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an one-time exemption from the requirements of Section III.A.5(b)(2) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 issued to the Carolina Power &
Light Company (the licensee), for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP),
Unit 1 and 2, located in Brunswick County, North Carolina.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action:
The proposed action would grant a one-time partial exemption from the schedular requirement in Section III.A.5(b)(2) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50, which requires a Type A test to be performed at each plant shutdown for refueling until two consecutive Type A tests meet the acceptance criteria in Section III.A.5(b). This exemption would allow the licensee to return the BSEP to a normal testing frequency. Presently, both BSEP units are in the accelerated testing condition of Section III.A.5(b)(2) due to the as-found ter. ting failures which were within L, le;kage limits but exceeded the 0.75 L, limit. For Type A (containment integrate leak rate) tests conducted at pea'k I
i pressure, the measured leakage rate, L, must be less than 75 percent of the maximum allowable leakage rate, L,, measured at the calculated peak NO 00$ NOobb24-C PDR
9 containment internal pressure, P,.
These terms are defined in Section-'II of Appendix J.
In accordance with Section III.A.6(b) of Appendix J, if subsequently two consecutive Type A tests.for a unit should fail to meet the acceptance criterion, the accelerated test frequency will be resumed. The next Unit 1 Type A test will be conducted during the Reload 9 outage, scheduled for March 1995, and the next Unit 2 Type A test will be conducted during the Reload 12 outage, scheduled for March 1997.
The proposed action is in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12,' Specific Exemptions, and is based upon the information provided to the Commission in the licensee s request for exemption dated October 19, 1993.
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The proposed exemption is needed to avoid nutage extensions and the increased outage costs while the tests for the accelerated Type A containment j
leakage rate are being conducted. Granting of the exemption would return both BSEP units to a normal test frequency.
The exemption would also minimize subjecting the drywell to additional structural stresses during the Type A tests.
Environmental Imoacts of the Proposed Action:
The Commission's staff has determined that (a) the granting of the proposed exemption would not significantly increase the probability or amount of expected containment leakage and (b) the integrity of the containment would be maintained. Consequently, the probability of accidents would not be increased, nor would the post-accident radiological releases.be greater than previously determined. The proposed exeinption would not otherwise affect radiological plant effluents. Therefore, the Commission's staff concludes 1
1
.4
,. : that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed exemption involves a change to surveillance testing schedular requirements.
It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action, any alternatives would have either no or greater environmental impact.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested exemption.
This would not reduce the environmental impacts attributed to this facility but could result in an increased frequency for Type A tests. This would result in the expenditure of resources without any compensating benefit.
Alternative Use of Resources:
i This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Brunswick Steam i
Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, dated January 1974.
Acencies and Persons Consulted:
u The Commission's staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult other agencies or persons.
4 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
I
y, 3*..
- i s
,.y -
Based upon the foregoing. environmental assessment, we conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the-' quality of the human l
environment.
s For further details with respect to this action, see the reques't'for~
one-time partial exemption dated October 19, 1993,.which is available for_-
_public inspection at t e Comm ssion's Public Document Room,'.the Gelman l
h i
Building, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555 and at the Local Public
- I Document Room located at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington,-
)
William Madison Randall Library, 601 S. College Road, Wilmington, North I
Carolina 28403-3297.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5
day of January,1994.
J FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM ISSION I
l S. Singh Bajwa, Acting Director.
Project Directorate.11-1 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/II i
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation q
l i
q l
i