[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 18 (Thursday, January 27, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-1694]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 27, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-259 and 50-296]
Tennessee Valley Authority; Environmental Assessment and Finding
of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of its
regulations to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33 and DPR-68 issued
to the Tennessee Valley Authority (the license) for operation of the
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Units 1 and 3, located in Limestone
County, Alabama.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action is in response to the licensee's application
dated September 2, 1993, with additional information provided on
December 17, 1993, for exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR
73.55, ``Requirements for physical protection of licensed activities in
nuclear power reactors against radiological sabotage.'' Under the
proposed exemption, the licensee would be relieved of requirements to
provide positive containment access control by a guard or watchman
during periods of frequent access. BFN Units 1 and 3 have been shut
down since March 1985 for modifications required to put the units in
compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. The proposed
exemption would be in effect until immediately before the licensee
loads fuel in the reactors when the required modifications are
completed.
The Need for the Proposed Action
Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55, paragraph (a), the licensee shall
establish and maintain an outside physical protection system and
security organization. Containment access controls specified by 10 CFR
73.55(d)(8) require that any time frequent access to the containment is
required, positive controls are maintained by a guard or watchman to
assure only authorized personnel or materials are permitted into the
containment.
BFN Units 1 and 3 have been defueled since September 1985 and
February 1987, respectively. These reactors have been shut down since
March 1985 for modifications required to put the units in compliance
with applicable regulatory requirements. A substantial number of the
required modifications require frequent containment access. Therefore,
the licensee has maintained a guard at a controlled access location to
fulfill the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55(d)(8).
The licensee believes that the 10 CFR 73.55(d)(8) requirements are
too restrictive, given the unique status of Browns Ferry Units 1 and 3
and the other controls which are or will be exercised to ensure the
reactors are returned to service in a safe manner. Presently, the
reactors are defueled, which reduces the radiological hazard potential
within the containment such that sabotage could not create a
substantial offsite radiation dose. The licensee will perform extensive
return-to-service testing on all safety-related systems. This testing
ensures that plant components can properly perform their intended
design functions. After modifications are completed, the licensee will
also perform security inspections to detect sabotage or introduction of
foreign material which may have occurred during the recovery effort.
An exemption from 10 CFR 73.55(d)(8) is required to permit the
licensee to relax containment access controls during the recovery of
Browns Ferry Units 1 and 3. The proposed exemption will not reduce
requirements for containment access controls for Browns Ferry Unit 2.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The licensee has indicated that during the period of the exemption,
the reactors will be maintained in a defueled condition. Postulated
radiological sabotage within the containment in this condition cannot
result in significant offsite radiation doses. Therefore, the
environmental impact of this sabotage is negligible. There is no other
change in environmental impact while the reactors are defueled.
The licensee has also indicated that, as the reactors are refueled
and returned to service, it will perform extensive testing and
inspections which will detect latent sabotage which could adversely
impact plant operations. The licensee will test safety-related systems
as they are returned to service to assure they are capable of
fulfilling their design functions. The licensee will also perform
security inspections to determine if unauthorized and potentially
dangerous materials such as explosives have been introduced. These
measures provide confidence that the reactors will operate as intended
by their design. Therefore, the environmental impact of plant
operations after the period of the exemption is unchanged from normally
anticipated conditions.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that granting the proposed
exemption would result in no significant radiological environmental
impact. With regard to potential non-radiological impacts the proposed
exemption does not affect non-radiolgical plant effluents and has no
other environmental impact. Therefore, the Commission concludes that
there are no significant non-radiological impacts associated with the
proposed exemption.
Alternative to the Proposed Action
Because the staff has concluded that there is no significant
environmental impact associated with the proposed exemption, any
alternative to the exemption will have either no significantly
different environmental impact, or greater environmental impact.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested exemption.
Denial of the exemption would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed
exemption and this alternative are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action did not involve the use of any resources not previously
considered in the ``Final Environmental Statement, Browns, Ferry
Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2, and 3,'' dated September 1, 1972.
Agencies and Persons Contacted
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's request dated September
2, 1993, as supplemented on December 17, 1993. The NRC staff did not
consult with other agencies or persons.
Finding of No Significant Impact
The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental
impact statement for the proposed exemption. Based upon the foregoing
environmental assessment, we conclude that the proposed action will not
have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
For details with respect to this action, see the licensee's request
for the exemption dated September 2, 1993, as supplemented on December
17, 1993, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's
Public Document Room, Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington
DC, and at the Athens Public Library, South Street, Athens, Alabama
35611.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 19th day of January 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Frederick J. Hebdon,
Director, Project Directorate II-4, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations.
[FR Doc. 94-1694 Filed 1-26-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
