[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