[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 40 (Tuesday, February 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10844-10845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-4758]


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

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) is considering 
issuance of an exemption from 10 CFR Part 50.54(o) and 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix J, for Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-52 and DPR-68, 
issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) 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 exempt TVA from requirements to include 
main steam isolation valve (MSIV) leakage in (a) the overall integrated 
leakage rate test measurement required by Section III.A of Appendix J, 
Option B, and (b) the sum of local leak rate test measurements required 
by Section III.B of Appendix J, Option B.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated September 28, 1999, for exemption from certain 
requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 
50.54(o) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    Section 50.54(o) of 10 CFR Part 50 requires that primary reactor 
containments for water cooled power reactors be subject to the 
requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix J specifies the 
leakage test requirements, schedules, and acceptance criteria for tests 
of the leak tight integrity of the primary reactor containment and 
systems and components which penetrate the containment. Option B, 
Section III.A requires that the overall integrated leak rate must not 
exceed the allowable leakage (La) with margin, as specified in the 
Technical Specifications (TS). The overall integrated leak rate, as 
specified in the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J definitions, includes the 
contribution from MSIV leakage. By letter dated September 28, 1999, the 
licensee has requested an exemption from Option B, Section III.A, 
requirements to permit exclusion of MSIV leakage from the overall 
integrated leak rate test measurement. Option B, Section III.B of 10 
CFR Part 50, Appendix J requires that the sum of the leakage rates of 
Type B and Type C local leak rate tests be less than the performance 
criterion (La) with margin, as specified in the TS. The licensee's 
September 28, 1999 letter also requests an exemption from this 
requirement, to permit exclusion of the MSIV contribution to the sum of 
the Type B and Type C tests.
    The above-cited requirements of Appendix J require that MSIV 
leakage measurements be grouped with the leakage measurements of other 
containment penetrations when containment leakage tests are performed. 
These requirements are inconsistent with the design of the Browns Ferry 
facilities and the analytical models used to calculate the radiological 
consequences of design basis accidents. At Browns Ferry, and similar 
facilities, the leakage from primary containment penetrations, under 
accident conditions, is collected and treated by the secondary 
containment system, or would bypass the secondary containment. However, 
the leakage from MSIVs is collected and treated via an Alternative 
Leakage Treatment (ALT) path having different mitigation 
characteristics. In performing accident analyses, it is appropriate to 
group various leakage effluents according to the treatment they receive 
before being released to the environment, i.e., bypass leakage is 
grouped, leakage into secondary containment is grouped, and ALT leakage 
is grouped, with specific limits for each group defined in the TS. The 
proposed exemption would permit ALT path leakage to be independently 
grouped with its unique leakage limits.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability 
or consequences of accidents. The NRC Staff has completed its 
evaluation of the proposed action and finds that the proposed exemption 
involves a slight increase in the total amount of radioactive effluent 
that may be released off site in the event of a design basis accident. 
However, the calculated doses remain within the acceptance criteria of 
10 CFR Part 100 and Standard Review Plan Section 15 and there is no 
significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. The 
NRC Staff thus concludes that granting the proposed exemption would 
result in no significant radiological environmental impact.
    The proposed action does not affect non-radiological plant 
effluents or historical sites, and has no other environmental impact. 
Therefore there are no significant non-radiological impacts associated 
with the proposed exemption.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no action'' alternative). 
Denial of the exemption would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action 
and the alternative action 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 2 and 3.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on October 21, 1999, the NRC 
staff consulted with the Alabama State official, Mr. Kirk E. Whatley of 
the Alabama Office of Radiation Control, regarding the environmental 
impact of the proposed action. Mr. Walter had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of 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 licensee's 
letter dated September 28, 1999, which is available

[[Page 10845]]

for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC. Publicly available 
records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library 
component on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Electronic 
Reading Room) and from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of February 2000.

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. 00-4758 Filed 2-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P