[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46491-46493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-23458]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-260 AND 50-296]


Tennessee Valley Authority Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 2 
and 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of no Significant Impact

Introduction

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, or the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. 
DPR-52 and DPR-68 issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA or the 
licensee) for operation of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Units 2 
and 3, located in Limestone County, Alabama.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would allow the licensee to increase allowed 
core power level by 5 percent, from 3293 megawatt thermal (MWt) to the 
uprated power level of 3458 MWt.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for amendment dated October 1, 1997, as supplemented 
October 14, 1997; and March 16 and 20, April 1 and 28, May 1, 20 and 
22, June 12, 17 and 26, and July 17, 24, and 31, 1998.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed to allow the licensee to increase the 
licensed core thermal power and the potential electrical output of each 
BFN Units 2 and 3 by approximately 55 MWt and thus, providing 
additional electric power to service TVA's grid. The proposed thermal 
power uprate project is in accordance with the generic boiling water 
reactor (BWR) power uprate program established by the General Electric 
Company and approved by the NRC in a letter dated September 30, 1991. 
Power uprate has been widely recognized by the industry as a safe and 
cost-effective method to increase generating capacity. The proposed 
power uprate will provide the licensee with additional operational 
flexibility.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that no significant change in the environmental impact 
can be expected for the proposed increase in power. On September 1, 
1972, TVA issued a Final Environmental Statement (FES) which is based 
on a total electrical

[[Page 46492]]

generation name plate rating of 3456 MWt.

Nonradiological Effects

    Under normal operation, BFN uses a once-through circulating water 
system to dissipate heat from the main turbine condensers. Water is 
drawn from the Tennessee River by the plant intake system and is 
discharged back to the river. In addition, BFN currently has four 
mechanical draft cooling towers which can be operated to assist in heat 
dissipation (helper mode) primarily during summer hot weather periods.
    BFN has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
permit issued by the State of Alabama that contains specific 
requirements applicable to the nonradiological effluents released from 
BFN. The licensee has evaluated the impact of power uprate on NPDES 
limitations relating to effluent temperatures, cooling tower usages and 
effects on biological species. The licensee has evaluated and 
determined that post-accident effluent temperature from emergency 
equipment cooling water systems and normal operating condition effluent 
discharges from other plant systems such as yard drainage, station 
sumps, and sewage treatment will not change as a result of the power 
uprate. The licensee indicates that the proposed uprated power level 
may result in approximately a 1 percent temperature increase of the 
circulating water leaving the main condenser, a 5 percent increase in 
the heat rejection to the Tennessee River, and may require additional 
cooling tower usage during summer periods. The licensee states that as 
a result of power uprate, cooling tower use would increase 
approximately 12 percent. However, the impacts of the increase would 
continue to be bounded by the FES. Based on its evaluation, the 
licensee has concluded that the changes in discharges to the river as a 
result of the power uprate will remain within the bounding conditions 
established in the NPDES permit and no changes to the permit 
requirements are needed as a result of the power uprate.
    As part of its NPDES permit application in April 1994, the licensee 
documented its biological monitoring program and the effect of thermal 
discharge limitations on selected biological species. In that report, 
the licensee concluded that operation of BFN has not had a significant 
impact on the reproductive success of yellow perch and sauger, or the 
overall indigenous community in Wheeler Reservoir. This conclusion is 
not affected by the power uprate.
    The proposed action would not change the method of generating 
electricity at BFN Units 2 and 3 nor the methods of handling influents 
from the environment or effluents to the environment. The licensee 
indicates that power uprate does not require any plant modifications. 
Therefore, no changes to land use or impacts to historical areas would 
result from lay down areas. Therefore, no new or different types of 
nonradiological environmental impacts are expected. The staff considers 
that continued compliance with applicable Federal, State, and Local 
agency requirements relating to environmental protection will preclude 
any significant increase in nonradiological impacts over those 
evaluated in the FES.

Radiological Effects

    Gaseous and liquid effluents are produced during both normal 
operation and abnormal operational events. The licensee has evaluated 
the radiological effects of the proposed power uprate during both 
normal operation and postulated accident conditions for gaseous and 
liquid effluent releases.
    The licensee evaluated the offsite radiation exposure to the 
maximally exposed individual member of the general public for the 
proposed uprate. Section 2.4, Table 2.4.3, of the FES dated September 
1, 1972, projected doses due to radioactive materials released to the 
environment during routine operations of the BFN units. The estimated 
radiation exposure of the maximally exposed individual from radioactive 
material in both liquid and gaseous effluents was 2.2 mrem/year total. 
The estimated dose based on actual liquid and gaseous effluent releases 
for the period 1994-1996 was 0.054 mrem/year. Although a 5 percent 
increase in reactor power does not necessarily result in any increase 
in effluents, the licensee projected the total body dose would increase 
to 0.056 mrem/year. This projected dose is about 2 percent of the 
applicable NRC limits in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Therefore, the 
staff concludes that the actual releases at the BFN units will still 
remain within the FES estimates and are not significantly above current 
levels.
    With respect to onsite radiation exposure, the licensee stated that 
in-plant radiation levels will generally increase by no more than the 
percentage increase in power level. The licensee stated that individual 
worker exposures will be maintained within the acceptable limits by the 
site as-low-as-reasonably-achievable program, by procedural controls 
that compensate for increased radiation levels. The 5-year (1991-1996) 
average collective dose at Browns Ferry was 202 person-rem per year per 
reactor and 0.5 person-rem per MWe-year. (See NUREG-0713 Volume 18, 
Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors 
and Other Facilities, 1996). This compares favorably with the average 
collective dose for all BWRs of 306 person-rem per year per reactor and 
0.5 person-rem per MWe-year. Considering a potential increase of 5 
percent, onsite radiation exposure will not be significantly higher 
than the current operation and will remain within the acceptable limits 
of 10 CFR 20. Therefore, the staff concludes that operation at the 
uprated power level will not significantly impact occupational 
exposures.
    Regarding radioactive waste production, the licensee stated that 
the total volume of processed waste is not expected to increase 
appreciably since the only significant increase in processed waste is 
due to the slightly more frequent backwashes of the condensate 
demineralizers. Based on this, the licensee concluded that the power 
uprate would not have an adverse effect on the processing of liquid 
radwaste. With regard to gaseous waste production, the licensee stated 
that gaseous effluent releases through building vents are not expected 
to increase significantly with power uprate, since the releases are 
maintained within administratively controlled values that are not a 
function of core power. The noncondensable radioactive gases exhausted 
from the main condenser and discharged via the off gas system are the 
major source of radioactive gases. The licensee stated that the 
operation of the off gas equipment will continue to be within the 
design parameters for the equipment. The staff concludes that operation 
at the uprated power will not significantly affect the licensee's 
ability to process radioactive wastes. Therefore, the staff concludes 
that operation at the uprated power level will not significantly 
increase the allowable occupational exposures.
    Technical Specification (TS) 4.3 establishes spent fuel storage 
design features to ensure that the fuel array in fully loaded fuel 
racks remains subcritical and to prevent inadvertent draining of the 
spent fuel pool. No changes to TS 4.3 were necessary for the uprate 
condition. The design basis for the SFP system remains unchanged during 
power uprate conditions. Therefore, the proposed action will not 
significantly increase the probability or consequences of spent fuel 
storage criticality accidents.

[[Page 46493]]

    As discussed above, the projected dose due to power uprate is about 
2 percent of the applicable NRC limits in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I 
for offsite exposures, and will remain within the acceptable limits of 
10 CFR 20 for occupational exposures. The actual releases at the BFN 
units will also remain within the FES estimates. Thus, the amendment 
does not significantly effect the amount or type of radiological plant 
effluents, and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, the staff 
concludes that continued compliance with applicable Federal, State, and 
Local agency requirements relating to environmental protection will 
preclude any significant radiological environmental impacts associated 
with the proposed uprate. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that 
there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated 
with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission has concluded there is no significant 
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 NRC staff 
considered denial of the proposed action (no action alternative). 
Denial of the application would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts and would reduce operational flexibility.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the FES dated September 1, 1972 for BFN Units 
2 and 3.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on August 26, 1998, the NRC 
staff consulted with the Alabama State official, Mr. Kirk Whatley of 
the State Office of Radiation Control, 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 this action, see the 
application for amendment dated October 1, 1997, as supplemented 
October 14, 1997; and March 16 and 20, April 1 and 28, May 1, 20 and 
22, June 12, 17 and 26, and July 17, 24, and 31, 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 Athens Public Library, 405 E. 
South Street, Athens, Alabama.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of August 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Frederick J. Hebdon,
Director, Project Directorate II-3, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-23458 Filed 8-31-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P