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

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