[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 209 (Monday, October 28, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55673-55675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-27558]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 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 amendments to Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-71 and DPR-62 issued to Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L or the
licensee) for operation of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP),
Units 1 & 2, located in Brunswick County, North Carolina.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
This Environmental Assessment addresses potential environmental
issues related to Carolina Power & Light Company's (CP&L) application
to amend the BSEP, Units 1 and 2, Operating Licenses. The proposed
amendments would increase the licensed core thermal power from 2436
megawatts thermal (MWt) to 2558 MWt, which represents an increase of 5
percent over the current licensed power level. This request is in
accordance with the generic boiling water reactor (BWR) power uprate
program (Reference 1) established by the General Electric Company (GE)
and approved by the NRC staff in a letter dated September 30, 1991
(Reference 2).
The proposed action involves NRC issuance of license amendments to
uprate the authorized power level by changing the Operating Licenses,
including Appendix A (Technical Specifications). The proposed action is
in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated April
2, 1996 (Reference 3), as supplemented by an earlier submittal dated
November 20, 1995 (Reference 4), and by subsequent submittals dated
July 1, 1996 (Reference 5), July 30, 1996 (Reference 6), August 7, 1996
(Reference 7), September 13, 1996 (Reference 8), September 20, 1996
(Reference 9), October 1, 1996 (Reference 10), October 22, 1996 (BSEP
96-0392) (Reference 11), and October 22, 1996 (BSEP 96-0403) (Reference
12).
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to authorize CP&L to increase the
potential electrical output of the BSEP by approximately 40.5 megawatts
per unit, thus providing additional electrical power to service CP&L's
grid.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The ``Final Environmental Statement'' (FES) related to operation of
BSEP, Units 1 and 2 (Reference 13) assumed a maximum reactor power
level of 2550 MWt per unit in calculating releases of radioactivity in
effluents. The licensee submitted a nonradiological environmental
assessment (Enclosure 3 to Ref. 4) supporting the proposed power uprate
action and provided a summary of its conclusions concerning the
radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts (Enclosure 3 to
Ref. 3) of the proposed action. As described in a July 1, 1996,
response to NRC staff questions (Enclosure 1 to Ref. 5), evaluations
performed by the licensee show no changes to the conclusions of the FES
(Ref. 13) as a result of power uprate.
A summary of the nonradiological and radiological effects on the
environment that may result from the proposed amendments is provided
below.
Nonradiological Environmental Assessment
As presented in the following evaluation, the proposed power uprate
will not change the method of generating electricity nor the method of
handling any influents from the environment or nonradiological
effluents to the environment. Therefore, no new or different types of
nonradiological environmental impacts are expected. The evaluation is
based upon information provided by the licensee in a September 1995 GE
licensing topical report supporting the BSEP power uprate (Reference
14) and in Enclosure 3 of Reference 4.
The BSEP uses a once-through circulating water system for
dissipating heat from the main turbine condensers. This cooling system
withdraws water from the Cape Fear River through a 3-mile long intake
canal. The heated water is discharged to the Atlantic Ocean after it
travels through a 6-mile long canal. A pumping station at the end of
the canal pumps the water 2000 feet off of the beach through pipes. The
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, issued
on October 1, 1996, by the State of North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development, specifies requirements
applicable to nonradiological effluents released from the BSEP. No
changes or other action relative to the NPDES Permit are required to
implement power uprate at the Brunswick Plant.
The NPDES permit currently allows the withdrawal, from the Cape
Fear River, of 922 cubic feet of water per second (cfs), per unit, from
December through March; 1105 cfs, per unit, from April through
November; and 1230 cfs through one unit only from July through
September. No changes to the flow rate of intake circulating cooling
water will occur as a result of the proposed uprated power levels,
therefore there will be no associated increase in the entrainment of
planktonic organisms or impingement of fish, crabs, or shrimp. Chlorine
is injected into the circulating water system to retard the growth of
biofouling organisms. The NPDES permit limits the rate of chlorine
injection. The chlorine injection rate is determined by the flow rate
through the circulating water system. As stated above, the circulating
water system flow rate will not change as a result of operation at
uprated power levels; therefore, the chlorine injection rate will not
change. As a result of the uprated power, the licensee has
conservatively calculated an increase in the temperature of the
circulating water leaving the main condensers of 1.4 deg.F in the
winter and 1.2 deg.F in the summer (Table 6-3, Enclosure 2 to Ref. 4).
These small increases at the condenser should not significantly impact
the temperature of water discharged to the ocean, after traveling more
than 6 miles through the discharge canal. As an example, on August 1,
1994, the ambient ocean water temperature was 83 deg.F. With both units
operating at 100% power, the water temperature at the point of ocean
discharge was 91 deg.F. At 1500 feet north and south from the point of
discharge, approximately a 50-acre area, the water temperature was
83 deg.F, i.e., ambient temperature. The NPDES permit allows a
temperature increase up to 89.5 deg.F within an area of 1,000 acres
during the summer. Therefore, the ocean discharge mixing zone
temperature limits, defined by the NPDES permit, should not be exceeded
by operation at the uprated power.
Nonradiological effluent discharges from other systems were also
reviewed by the licensee for potential effects from the proposed power
uprate. Effluent limits for systems such as roof drains, yard drains,
low volume waste, metal
[[Page 55674]]
cleaning waste, and the sewage treatment plant are established in the
NPDES permit. Discharges from these systems are not changed by
operation at uprated power; therefore, the impact on the environment
from these systems is not changed. The licensee concluded (Enclosure 3
to Ref. 3) that the nonradiological parameters affected by power uprate
will remain within the bounding conditions cited in the NPDES permit,
and therefore no significant nonradiological environmental impact will
result from the operation of BSEP under uprated power conditions.
Radiological Environmental Assessment
As presented below, the licensee evaluated the radiological effects
of the proposed power uprate operation during both normal and
postulated accident conditions. The licensee considered the effect of
the higher power level on liquid radioactive wastes (Section 8.1 of
Ref. 14), gaseous radioactive wastes (Section 8.2 of Ref. 14), and
radiation levels both in the plant and offsite during both normal
(Sections 8.3, 8.4, 8.5) and accident conditions. Section 9.2 of
Reference 14 presents the results of the calculated whole body and
thyroid doses at the exclusion area boundary and the low population
zone that might result from the postulated design basis radiological
accidents.
Gaseous radioactive effluents are produced during both normal
operation and abnormal operational occurrences. These effluents are
collected, controlled, processed, stored, and disposed of by the
gaseous radioactive waste management systems which include the various
building ventilation systems, the off gas system, and the standby gas
treatment system (SGTS). The concentration of radioactive gaseous
effluents released through the building ventilation systems during
normal operation is not expected to increase significantly due to the
proposed power uprate since the amount of fission products released
into the reactor coolant (and subsequently into the building
atmosphere) depends on the number and nature of fuel rod defects and is
approximately linear with respect to core thermal power. The
concentration of activation products contained in the reactor steam
remains nearly constant, since the linear increase in the production of
these activation products is balanced by the linear increase in
steaming rate. Power uprate does not change the design basis noble gas
release rates from the fuel. Therefore, based on its review of the
various building ventilation systems, the licensee concluded that there
will not be a significant adverse effect on airborne radioactive
effluents as a result of the proposed power uprate.
The SGTS is designed to minimize offsite and control room radiation
dose rates during venting and purging of both the primary and secondary
containment atmospheres under accident or abnormal conditions. This is
accomplished by maintaining the secondary containment at a slightly
negative pressure with respect to the outside atmosphere and
discharging the secondary containment atmosphere through high-
efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters and charcoal absorbers. The
capacity of the SGTS was selected to provide one secondary containment
air volume change per day and thereby maintain the reactor building at
a slight negative pressure. This capability is not impacted by power
uprate. Although the total post-loss of coolant accident (LOCA) iodine
loading of the charcoal filter beds increases slightly at uprated
conditions, the total loading remains well below the original design
capability of the filters.
Radiolysis of the reactor coolant causes the formation of hydrogen
and oxygen, the quantities of which are expected to increase linearly
with core power. These additional quantities of hydrogen and oxygen
would increase the flow to the recombiners by 5 percent during uprated
power conditions. However, the operational increases in hydrogen and
oxygen remain within the design capacity of the offgas system.
The design basis data for the concentration of activated corrosion
products in the reactor water were assessed, and the licensee concluded
that the design basis data contain sufficient conservatism and do not
need to be increased for power operation. The licensee concluded that
the fission product activity level in the reactor coolant will not
exceed design basis data.
The largest source of liquid radioactive waste is from the backwash
of the condensate demineralizers. These demineralizers remove activated
corrosion products which are expected to increase proportionally with
the proposed power uprate. However, the total volume of processed waste
is not expected to increase significantly, since the only appreciable
increase in processed waste will be due to the more frequent cleaning
of these demineralizers. The floor drain collector subsystem and the
waste collector subsystem both receive inputs from a variety of
sources. Leakages from these systems are not expected to increase
significantly due to the proposed power uprate. Based on a review of
previous plant effluent reports and the slight increase in liquid
radioactive waste expected due to the proposed power uprate, the
licensee concluded that the slight increase in the processing of liquid
radioactive wastes will not cause a significant increase in
environmental impact and that requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix I, will continue to be met.
The uprated conditions may result in spent fuel with a higher
burnup (and radiation levels) relative to the current levels. As
indicated in Section 2.1 of Reference 14, any increase in burnup will
be within the NRC currently approved limit for BSEP fuel designs. The
NRC extended the fuel burnup limit for the BSEP units to 60 gigawatt
days per metric ton (GWD/MT) as part of license amendment no. 124 for
Unit 1 and 153 for Unit 2 issued on February 6, 1989, and September 20,
1988, respectively. The environmental assessments associated with each
of these amendments, which were published in the Federal Register for
Unit 1 on January 31, 1989 (54 FR 4924), and Unit 2 on September 6,
1988 (53 FR 34357), considered the environmental impacts of
transportation resulting from the 60 GWD/MT burnup limit with fuel
enrichment up to 5%. The BSEP fuel enrichment does not exceed 5%. Both
environmental assessments concluded that there were no significant
radiological or nonradiological impacts associated with the amendments.
Since the burnup levels for power uprate are bounded by the levels
previously evaluated as acceptable and BSEP fuel enrichment does not
exceed 5%, the Commission continues to conclude that there are no
significant radiological or nonradiological impacts associated with
this aspect of the licensee's power uprate proposal.
The licensee evaluated the effects of the power uprate on in-plant
radiation levels for the Brunswick Plant during both normal operation
and under post-accident conditions. The licensee's conclusions are that
radiation levels during both normal operation, post-operation (plant
outages), and under post-accident conditions may increase slightly
(approximately proportional to the increase in power level). The
increase expected in in-plant and post-operation radiation levels due
to the proposed power uprate should not affect radiation zoning or
shielding in the various areas of the plant, since it is offset by
conservatism in the original design, source terms used, and analytical
techniques. Individual worker occupational exposures will be maintained
within acceptable limits by the existing Health Physics program, which
controls access to radiation areas.
[[Page 55675]]
The increase in radiation levels due to the proposed power uprate under
post-accident conditions has no significant effect on the plant, or on
the habitability of the Technical Support Center or Emergency
Operations Facility.
The licensee re-evaluated the effect of the power uprate on Design
Basis Accident (DBA) radiological consequences and reported these
results (Section 9.2 of Reference 14). The original licensing DBA
source terms for Brunswick were considered. The licensee also re-
evaluated the control room habitability under DBA conditions. The
licensee stated that the radiological consequence analyses were
performed using standard models developed by GE that have been utilized
in other power uprate projects. The dose analyses were based on plant-
specific parameters from the BSEP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
and were calculated at both the current power and at 102% of the
proposed uprate power. The licensee's analyses indicate that the
calculated offsite radiological consequences doses for all DBAs are
within the dose acceptance criteria stated in the NRC's Standard Review
Plan (SRP) and 10 CFR Part 100 and also comply with the dose acceptance
criteria for control room operators given in General Design Criterion
(GDC) 19 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50. The staff performed
confirmatory evaluations of radiological consequences of DBAs for the
proposed power uprate. The staff found that the offsite radiological
consequences and control room operator doses for all DBAs at the
uprated power level of 2558 MWt will continue to meet the acceptance
criteria of the SRP, 10 CFR Part 100, and GDC 19.
The NRC staff finds the licensee's assessment of the radiological
effects of the proposed action acceptable and concludes that the
proposed uprate will not significantly increase radiological impacts on
the environment.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission has concluded there is no significant (within
existing limits) 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 proposed
action would result in no change in current environmental impacts of
plant operation, but would restrict operation of BSEP to the currently
licensed power level. 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.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on October 17, 1996, 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 the 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 application dated April 2, 1996, as
supplemented by an earlier submittal dated November 20, 1995, and by
subsequent submittals dated July 1, 1996, July 30, 1996, August 7,
1996, September 13, 1996, September 20, 1996, October 1, 1996, October
22, 1996 (BSEP 96-0392), and October 22, 1996 (BSEP 96-0403), which are
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.
References
1. GE Nuclear Energy, ``Generic Guidelines For General Electric
Boiling Water Reactor Power Uprate,'' Licensing Topical Report NEDO-
31897, Class I (non-proprietary), February 1992; and NEDC-31897P-A,
Class III (Proprietary), May 1992.
2. W. T. Russell, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, letter to P.W.
Marriott, General Electric Company, ``Staff Position Concerning
General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Power Uprate Program,''
September 30, 1991.
3. W. R. Campbell, Carolina Power & Light Company, letter to U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``105% Thermal Power Uprate,'' April
2, 1996.
4. W. R. Campbell, Carolina Power & Light Company, letter to U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Power Uprate,'' November 20, 1995.
5. W. R. Campbell, Carolina Power & Light Company, letter to U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 1, 1996.
6. W. R. Campbell, Carolina Power & Light Company, letter to U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 30, 1996.
7. W. R. Campbell, Carolina Power & Light Company, letter to U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 7, 1996.
8. W. R. Campbell, Carolina Power & Light Company, letter to U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 13, 1996.
9. W. R. Campbell, Carolina Power & Light Company, letter to U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 20, 1996.
10. W. R. Campbell, Carolina Power & Light Company, letter to U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1, 1996.
11. W. R. Campbell, Carolina Power & Light Company, letter to U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 22, 1996 (BSEP 96-0392).
12. W. R. Campbell, Carolina Power & Light Company, letter to U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 22, 1996 (BSEP 96-0403).
13. ``Final Environmental Statement,'' Brunswick Steam Electric
Plant dated January 1974.
14. GE Nuclear Energy, ``Power Uprate Safety Analysis Report for
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 & 2,'' Licensing Topical
Report NEDC-32466P, Class III (Proprietary), September 1995
(Enclosure 1 to Ref. 4); NEDO-32466, Class I (Non-proprietary)
September 1995 (Enclosure 2 to Ref. 4).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of October, 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bartholomew C. Buckley,
Acting Director, Project Directorate II-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-27558 Filed 10-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
