[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29039-29041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14098]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-325 and 50-324]


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

Introduction

    The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. 
DPR-71 and DPR-62 issued to the Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L or 
the licensee) for operation of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 
Units No. 1 and 2 (BSEP 1 & 2), respectively, located at the licensee's 
site in Brunswick County, North Carolina.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address 
potential environmental issues related to the licensee's application 
dated November 1, 1996, as supplemented by letters dated October 13, 
1997, February 26, 1998, March 13, 1998, April 24, 1998, and May 22, 
1998. The proposed amendments will replace the current BSEP 1 & 2 
Technical Specifications (CTS) in their entirety with Improved 
Technical Specifications (ITS) based on Revison 1 to NUREG-1433, 
``Standard Technical Specifications General Electric Plants BWR/4'' 
dated April 1995, and the CTS for BSEP 1 & 2.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    It has been recognized that nuclear safety in all plants would 
benefit from improvement and standardization of TS. The Commission's 
``NRC Interim Policy Statement on Technical Specification Improvements 
for Nuclear Power Reactors,'' (52 Fed. Reg. 3788, February 6, 1987), 
and later the Commission's ``Final Policy Statement on Technical 
Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors,'' 58 FR 39132 
(July 22, 1993), formalized this need. To facilitate

[[Page 29040]]

the development of individual improved TS, each reactor vendor owners 
group (OG) and the NRC staff developed standard TS (STS). For General 
Electric plants, the STS are published as NUREG-1433, and this document 
was the basis for the new BSEP 1 & 2 TS. The NRC Committee to Review 
Generic Requirements (CRGR) reviewed the STS and made note of the 
safety merits of the STS and indicated its support of conversion to the 
STS by operating plants.

Description of the Proposed Change

    The proposed revision to the TS is based on NUREG-1433 and on 
guidance provided in the Final Policy Statement. Its objective is to 
completely rewrite, reformat, and streamline the existing TS. Emphasis 
is placed on human factors principles to improve clarity and 
understanding. The Bases section has been significantly expanded to 
clarify and better explain the purpose and foundation of each 
specification. In addition to NUREG-1433, portions of the existing TS 
were also used as the basis for the ITS. Plant-specific issues (unique 
design features, requirements, and operating practices) were discussed 
at length with the licensee, and generic matters with the OG.
    The proposed changes from the existing TS can be grouped into four 
general categories, as follows:
    1. Non-technical (administrative) changes, which were intended to 
make the ITS easier to use for plant operations personnel. They are 
purely editorial in nature or involve the movement or reformatting of 
requirements without affecting technical content. Every section of the 
BSEP 1 & 2 TS has undergone these types of changes. In order to ensure 
consistency, the NRC staff and the licensee have used NUREG-1433 as 
guidance to reformat and make other administrative changes.
    2. Relocation of requirements, which includes items that were in 
the existing BSEP 1 & 2 TS. The TS that are being relocated to 
licensee-controlled documents are not required to be in the TS under 10 
CFR 50.36 and do not meet any of the four criteria in the Commission's 
Final Policy Statement for inclusion in the TS. They are not needed to 
obviate the possibility that an abnormal situation or event will give 
rise to an immediate threat to the public health and safety. The NRC 
staff has concluded that appropriate controls have been established for 
all of the current specifications, information, and requirements that 
are being moved to licensee-controlled documents. In general, the 
proposed relocation of items in the BSEP 1 & 2 TS to the Final Safety 
Analysis Report (FSAR), appropriate plant-specific programs, procedures 
and ITS Bases follows the guidance of the General Electric STS (NUREG-
1433). Once these items have been relocated by removing them from the 
TS to licensee-controlled documents, the licensee may revise them under 
the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 or other NRC staff-approved control 
mechanisms, which provide appropriate procedural means to control 
changes.
    3. More restrictive requirements, which consist of proposed BSEP 1 
& 2 ITS items that are either more conservative than corresponding 
requirements in the existing BSEP 1 & 2 TS, or are additional 
restrictions that are not in the existing BSEP 1 & 2 TS but are 
contained in NUREG-1433. Examples of more restrictive requirements 
include: placing a Limiting Condition of Operation (LCO) on plant 
equipment that is not required by the present TS to be operable; more 
restrictive requirements to restore inoperable equipment; and more 
restrictive surveillance requirements.
    4. Less restrictive requirements are relaxations of corresponding 
requirements in the existing BSEP 1 & 2 TS that provide little or no 
safety benefit and place unnecessary burdens on the licensee. These 
relaxations were the result of generic NRC actions or other analyses. 
They have been justified on a case-by-case basis for BSEP 1 & 2, as 
will be described in the staff's Safety Evaluation to be issued with 
the license amendment, which will be noticed in the Federal Register.
    In addition to the changes described above, the licensee proposed 
certain changes to the existing TS that deviated from the STS in NUREG-
1433. These additional proposed changes are described in the licensee's 
application and in the staff's Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 
Amendment to Facility Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing 
(62 FR 3719). Where these changes represent a change to the current 
licensing basis for BSEP 1 & 2, they have been justified on a case-by-
case basis and will be described in the staff's Safety Evaluation to be 
issued with the license amendment.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the proposed TS conversion would not increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and would 
not affect facility radiation levels or facility radiological 
effluents.
    Changes that are adminstrative in nature would have no effect on 
the technical content of the TS, and are acceptable. The increased 
clarity and understanding these changes bring to the TS are expected to 
improve the operator's control of the plant in normal and accident 
conditions.
    Relocation of requirements to licensee-controlled documents would 
not change the requirements themselves. Future changes to these 
requirements may be made by the licensee under 10 CFR 50.59 or other 
NRC-approved control mechanisms, which ensures continued maintenance of 
adequate requirements. All such relocations have been found to be in 
conformance with the guidelines of NUREG-1433 and the Final Policy 
Statement, and, therefore, are acceptable.
    Changes involving more restrictive requirements would be likely to 
enhance the safety of plant operations and are acceptable.
    Changes involving less restrictive requirements have been reviewed 
individually. When requirements have been shown to provide little or no 
safety benefit or to place unnecessary burdens on the licensee, their 
removal from the TS is justified. In most cases, relaxations previously 
granted to individual plants on a plant-specific basis were the result 
of a generic NRC action, or of agreements reached during discussions 
with the OG and are acceptable for BSEP 1 & 2. Generic relaxations 
contained in NUREG-1433 as well as proposed deviations from NUREG-1433 
have also been reviewed by the NRC staff and are acceptable for BSEP 1 
& 2.
    In summary, the proposed revisions to the TS were found to provide 
control of plant operations such that reasonable assurance will be 
provided so that the health and safety of the public will be adequately 
protected.
    These TS changes will not increase the probability or consequences 
of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluent 
that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in 
the allowable public or occupational radiation exposure.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other 
environmental impact.
    Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

[[Page 29041]]

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission has concluded there is no significant 
environmental impact associated with the proposed amendments, any 
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be 
evaluated. The principal alternative to this action would be to deny 
the request for the amendment. Such action would not reduce the 
environmental impacts of plant operations.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action did not involve the use of any resources not previously 
considered in the Final Environmental Statement related to the 
operation of the BSEP 1 & 2 Electric Generating Plants.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on May 22, 1998, the staff 
consulted with the North Carolina State official, Mr. M. Fry, of the 
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 
Division of Radiation Protection. 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 amendment.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the licensee's 
letter dated November 1, 1996, as supplemented on October 13, 1997, 
February 26, 1998, March 13, 1998, April 24, 1998, and May 22, 1998, 
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.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day of May 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Gordon E. Edison,
Acting Director, Project Directorate II-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-14098 Filed 5-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P