[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