97-26272. Carolina Power & Light Company; Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact  

  • [Federal Register Volume 62, Number 191 (Thursday, October 2, 1997)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 51705-51706]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 97-26272]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
    
    [Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324]
    
    
    Carolina Power & Light Company; Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 
    Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
    Impact
    
        The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC) is 
    considering issuance of an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 
    part 50, Appendix G, to Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L or 
    licensee) for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 
    (BSEP1&2), located in Brunswick County, North Carolina.
    
    Environmental Assessment
    
    Identification of the Proposed Action
    
        In accordance with 10 CFR 50.60, ``Acceptance criteria for fracture 
    prevention measures for lightwater nuclear power reactors for normal 
    operation,'' BSEP1&2 must meet the fracture toughness requirements for 
    the reactor coolant pressure boundary set forth in Appendix G to 10 CFR 
    part 50. Proposed alternatives to those requirements may be used when 
    an exemption is granted by the Commission.
        10 CFR part 50, Appendix G, ``Fracture Toughness Requirements,'' 
    specifies fracture toughness requirements for ferritic materials of 
    pressure-retaining components of the reactor coolant pressure boundary 
    to provide adequate margins of safety during any condition of normal 
    operation, including anticipated operational occurrences and system 
    hydrostatic tests, to which the pressure boundary may be subjected over 
    its service lifetime. Pressure-temperature (P-T) limits and minimum 
    temperature requirements for reactor pressure
    
    [[Page 51706]]
    
    vessels (RPVs) are set forth in 10 CFR 50, Appendix G, which 
    incorporates, by reference, P-T limits specified in Appendix G of the 
    American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure 
    Vessel Code, Section XI. 10 CFR 50, Appendix G, Section IV.A.2.b, 
    requires that the P-T limits identified in 10 CFR 50, Appendix G, as 
    ``ASME Appendix G limits'' must be at least as conservative as limits 
    obtained by following the methods of analysis and the margins of safety 
    of the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G. 10 CFR 50, Appendix G, 
    Section I, states that ``If no edition or addenda are specified, the 
    ASME Code edition and addenda and any limitations and modifications 
    thereof, which are specified in 10 CFR 50.55a, are applicable.'' With 
    respect to P-T limits, 10 CFR 50, Appendix G, does not specify the 
    edition or addenda of the ASME Code; therefore, the editions and 
    addenda of the ASME Code, Section XI, referred to in 10 CFR 50, 
    Appendix G, are those specified in 10 CFR 50.55a, which include addenda 
    through the 1988 Addenda and editions through the 1989 Edition.
        The proposed exemption would allow CP&L to use the 1992 Edition of 
    the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix A, as an alternative to the 1989 
    Edition of the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G, for determination of 
    BSEP1&2 RPV P-T requirements. The licensee provided information in its 
    application for exemption that demonstrates the equivalency of the 
    proposed alternative method for determining RPV P-T limits to that 
    specified in the 1989 Edition of the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix G.
        The licensee's exemption request and the bases therefore are 
    contained in a CP&L letter dated August 15, 1997. The exemption request 
    is associated with a CP&L application for license amendments for 
    BSEP1&2 dated January 7, 1997, as supplemented on July 25, 1997, and 
    September 15, 1997. That application, which was noticed in the Federal 
    Register on March 12, 1997 (62 FR 11485), will--
        (1) Correct an error involving a transposition of P-T curves 
    between BSEP1&2.
        (2) Replace the current BSEP1&2 RPV hydrostatic test P-T curves for 
    8, 10, and 12 effective full power years (EFPY) with new 14 and 16 EFPY 
    curves.
    
    The Need for the Proposed Action
    
        CP&L has proposed an alternative to the requirements of 10 CFR 50, 
    Appendix G. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.60(b), an exemption must be 
    granted by the Commission before the proposed alternative may be used 
    by the licensee. The alternative, and thus the exemption, is needed 
    because CP&L identified typographical errors in equations contained in 
    both the 1989 and 1992 Editions of the ASME Code, Section XI, Appendix 
    G. The alternative of using the 1992 Edition of the ASME Code, Section 
    XI, Appendix A in the determination of P-T limits avoids the problem 
    presented by the typographical errors and achieves a level of safety 
    commensurate to that provided by use of the 1989 Edition of the ASME 
    Code, Section XI, Appendix G. Furthermore, the alternative provides a 
    more efficient means for the licensee to determine the P-T limits for 
    the BSEP1&2 RPVs.
    
    Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
    
        The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed 
    exemption. The exemption would authorize use of an alternative means 
    for determining RPV P-T limits that is equivalent to that provided by 
    10 CFR 50, Appendix G and provides a commensurate level of safety.
        The proposed action will not increase the probability or 
    consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of 
    any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant 
    increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational 
    radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there 
    are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with 
    the proposed action.
        With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
    action involves features located entirely within the restricted area, 
    as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect nonradiological plant 
    effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the 
    Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological 
    environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
        Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there is no significant 
    environmental impact associated with this action.
    
    Alternatives to the Proposed Action
    
        Since the Commission has concluded there is no significant 
    environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any 
    alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be 
    evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff 
    considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the application 
    would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The 
    environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action 
    are similar.
    
    Alternative Use of Resources
    
        This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
    previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the BSEP 
    dated January 1974.
    
    Agencies and Persons Consulted
    
        In accordance with its stated policy, on September 24, 1997, the 
    staff consulted with the North Carolina State official, Mr. J. James, 
    of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Commerce and Natural 
    Resources, Division of Radiation Protection, regarding the 
    environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no 
    comments.
    
    Finding of No Significant Impact
    
        Based upon this environmental assessment, the Commission concludes 
    that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
    quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has 
    determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the 
    proposed action.
        For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
    licensee's letter dated August 15, 1997, which is available for public 
    inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
    Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public 
    document room located at the University of North Carolina at 
    Wilmington, William Madison Randall Library, 601 College Road, 
    Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-3297.
    
        Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of September, 1997.
    
        For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    James E. Lyons,
    Director, Project Directorate II-1, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
    Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 97-26272 Filed 10-1-97; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
10/02/1997
Department:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Entry Type:
Notice
Document Number:
97-26272
Pages:
51705-51706 (2 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324
PDF File:
97-26272.pdf