[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