[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