[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 112 (Monday, June 12, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33777-33778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-9058]



[[Page 33777]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-259]


Tennessee Valley Authority; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.54(o) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, 
for Facility Operating License No. DPR-33, issued to the Tennessee 
Valley Authority (TVA, the licensee) for operation of the Browns Ferry 
Nuclear Plant (BFN) Unit 1, located in Limestone County, Alabama. 
Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this 
environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt the licensee 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 July 9, 2004.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would reduce the frequency of MSIV rebuilds 
during outages that are required to achieve the leakage rates specified 
in the current Technical Specifications (TSs). 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 that 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 TSs. 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 July 9, 2004, the 
licensee 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 TSs. The licensee's 
July 9, 2004, letter also requested 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 
facility and the analytical models used to calculate the radiological 
consequences of design-basis accidents. At BFN, 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 TSs).
    The proposed exemption would permit ALT path leakage to be 
independently grouped with its unique leakage limits.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC staff has completed its safety 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 proposed action will 
not significantly increase the probability or consequences of 
accidents. The NRC staff, thus, concludes that granting the proposed 
exemption would result in no significant radiological environmental 
impact.
    The proposed action does not affect nonradiological plant effluents 
or historical sites, and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, 
there are no significant nonradiological impacts associated with the 
proposed exemption.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
    The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in 
the license amendment that will be issued as part of the letter to the 
licensee approving the license amendment.
    The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability 
or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of 
effluents that may be released off site. There is no significant 
increase in the amount of any effluent released off site. There is no 
significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. 
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does 
not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other 
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant 
nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
action.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). 
Denial of the application 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

    The action does not involve the use of any different resources than 
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for 
the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant dated September 1, 1972 for BFN Unit 1.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on May 4, 2006, the NRC staff 
consulted with the Alabama State official, Kirk Whatley of the Office 
of Radiological Control, regarding the environmental

[[Page 33778]]

impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined 
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed 
action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated July 9, 2004. Documents may be examined, and/or 
copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at 
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically 
from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents 
located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference NRC staff by 
telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to 
[email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of May 2006.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Margaret H. Chernoff,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E6-9058 Filed 6-9-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P