ML20095D358
| ML20095D358 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 12/08/1995 |
| From: | Matthews D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20095D361 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9512130038 | |
| Download: ML20095D358 (3) | |
Text
_
i' 4
7590-01 E
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY l
DOCKET N05. 50-325 AND 50-324 1
l ENVIR0 MENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF l
NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT i'
i
[
The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering I
issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of its regulations to i -
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62 issued to the Carolina Power l
[
& Light Company (the licensee) for operation of the Brunswick Steam Electric
}
Plant (BSEP), Units 1 and 2, located in Brunswick County, North Carolina.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Actiofu.
l l
The proposed action is in response to the licensee's application dated j
l I
June 9, 1995, for exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c)(4) i regarding submission of revisions to the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) i i
and design change reports for facility changes made under 10 CFR 50.59 for the l
i 3
BSEP. Under the proposed exemption the licensee would schedule updates to the single, unified FSAR for the two units that comprise BSEP based on the 3
. refueling cycle of BSEP Unit 1.
e The Need for the Proposed Action:
10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) requires licensees to submit updates to their FSAR within 6 months after each refueling outage providing that the interval
~
between successive updates does not exceed 24 months. Since BSEP Units 1 and
[
l t
9512130038 951208 PDR ADOCK 05000324 j
P-PDR
2 2 share a common FSAR, the licensee must update the same document within 6 months after a refueling outage for either unit. Allowing the exemption would maintain the BSEP FSAR current within 24 months of the last revision and would not exceed a 24-month interval for submission of the 10 CFR 50.59 design change report for either unit.
1 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:
No changes are being made in the types or amounts of any radiological effluent that may be released off site. There is no significant increase in i
the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission concludes that granting the proposed exemption would result in no l
significant radiological environmental impact.
j With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
]
exemption does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. The Commission concludes that there are no significant l
non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
Alternative to the Proposed Action:
l Because the staff has concluded that there is no significant environmental impact associated with the proposed exemption, any alternative l
l to the exemption will have either no significantly different environmental impact, or greater environmental impact.
f.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested exemption.
f Denial of the exemption would result in no change in current environmental l
impacts. The environmental-impacts of the proposed exemption and this i
alternative are similar.
o l'
s i
l L
l l
~.
3 Alternative Use of Resources:
This action did not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement related to Brunswick Steam i
Electric Plant, dated January 1974.
Aaencies and Persons Contacted:
j In accordance with its stated policy, on December 5, 1995, the staff consulted with the North Carolina State official, Mr. J. James of the l
Division of Radiation Protection, Nor'. Carolina Department of Environmental, I;
Commerce and Natural Resources, regarding the environmental impact of the i
proposed action.
The State official had no comments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the Commission j
concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 1
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined i
[
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
4 For further details with respect to this action, see the licensee's request for the exemption dated June 9,1995, which is available for public j
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington DC, and at the University of North Carolina at i
Wilmington, William Madison Randall library, 601 S. College Road, Wilmington, l
North Carolina, 28403.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this ath day of December 1995 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
David B.
atthews, Director Project Directorate 11-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 2
1