[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 152 (Monday, August 9, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43228-43229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20399]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Tennessee Valley Authority
[Docket No. 50-259]
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
Introduction
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, or the Commission) is
considering issuance of an exemption to Facility Operating License No.
DPR-33, issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for operation of
the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Unit 1, located in Limestone
County, Alabama.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action is in response to TVA's application dated
February 4, 1999, for a temporary exemption from certain requirements
of 10 CFR 50.65 (Maintenance Rule). Specifically, this action would
exempt TVA from the explicit scoping requirements of 10 CFR 50.65(b),
and instead it would allow TVA to consider the defueled and long-term
layup status of BFN Unit 1 when establishing the scope of TVA's
Maintenance Rule Program. Structures, systems, and components (SSCs)
that perform a required function for Unit 1 in its present defueled
status or that directly support the operation of Unit 2 or Unit 3 would
be included in the scope of the BFN Maintenance Rule Program, but Unit
1 systems and components not required to be operational would not be
required to be included in the Maintenance Rule Program.
The Need for the Proposed Action
10 CFR 50.65(a)(1) requires, in part, that, power reactor licensees
shall monitor the performance or condition of SSCs against licensee-
established goals to provide reasonable assurance that the SSCs,
defined in 10 CFR 50.65(b), are capable of fulfilling their intended
functions.
TVA requested the exemption to resolve a 10 CFR 50.65 compliance
issue that was identified during an NRC inspection at the facility
(cf., NRC combined Inspection Reports 50-259/97-04; 50-260/97-04; and
50-296/97-04, (IR 97-04) dated May 21,1997). The issue relates to the
acceptability of TVA's approach to addressing the SSCs required to be
within the scope of the regulation as specified in 10 CFR 50.65(b). As
a result of the inspection finding, the NRC informed TVA by letter
dated July 30, 1997, that the scope of the BFN maintenance rule program
for Unit 1 was not consistent with the requirements 10 CFR 50.65, and
identified three options available to TVA to resolve the issue. One of
the options identified was for TVA to request an exemption from the
requirements of the rule that are not currently being met.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
No changes are being made in the types or amounts of any
radiological effluent that may be released off site. There is no
significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative
occupational radiation exposure. 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-radiological plant effluents and has no
other environmental impact. The Commission concludes that there are no
significant non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed
exemption.
Alternative to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered
denial of the proposed action (no alternative action). 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 does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement dated
September 1, 1972 for BFN Units 1, 2 and 3.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on June 23, 1999, the NRC
staff consulted with the Alabama State official, Mr. David Walter of
the State Office of Radiation Control, regarding the environmental
impact of the proposed action. Mr. Walter 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
[[Page 43229]]
prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for exemption dated February 4, 1999, 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 Athens Public Library, 405 E. South
Street, Athens, Alabama.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of July 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William O. Long,
Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-20399 Filed 8-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
