[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34944-34946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17097]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-259.50-260 and 50-296]


Tennessee Valley Authority; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 
2 and 3 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

Introduction

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. 
DPR-33, 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 1, 2 and 3, located in Limestone County, Alabama.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address 
potential environmental issues related to the licensee's application 
dated September 6, 1996 as supplemented June 6 and December 11, 1996; 
April 11, May 1, August 14, October 15, November 5 and 14, December 3, 
4, 15, 22, 23, 29, and 30, 1997; January 23, March 12 and 13, April 16, 
20, and 28, May 7, 14, 19 and 27, June 5 and 10, 1998. The proposed 
amendments will replace the current BFN Units 1, 2 and 3 Technical 
Specifications (CTS) in their entirety with Improved Technical 
Specifications (ITS) based on Revision 1 to NUREG-1433, ``Standard 
Technical Specifications General Electric Plants BWR/4,'' dated April 
1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    It has been recognized that nuclear safety in all plants would 
benefit from improvement and standardization of TS. The Commission's 
``NRC Interim Policy Statement on Technical Specification Improvements 
for Nuclear Power Reactors,'' (52 FR 3788, February 6, 1987), and later 
the Commission's ``Final Policy Statement on Technical Specification 
Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors,'' (58 FR 39132, July 22, 
1993), formalized this need. To facilitate the development of 
individual improved TS, each reactor vendor owners group (OG) and the 
NRC staff

[[Page 34945]]

developed standard TS (STS). For General Electric plants, the STS are 
published as NUREG-1433, and this document was the basis for the new 
BFN Units 1, 2 and 3 TS. The NRC Committee to Review Generic 
Requirements reviewed the STS and made note of the safety merits of the 
STS and indicated its support of conversion to the STS by operating 
plants.

Description of the Proposed Change

    The proposed revision to the TS is based on NUREG-1433 and on 
guidance provided in the Final Policy Statement. Its objective is to 
completely rewrite, reformat, and streamline the existing TS. Emphasis 
is placed on human factors principles to improve clarity and 
understanding. The Bases section has been significantly expanded to 
clarify and better explain the purpose and foundation of each 
specification. In addition to NUREG-1433, portions of the existing TS 
were also used as the basis for the ITS. Plant-specific issues (unique 
design features, requirements, and operating practices) were discussed 
at length with the licensee, and generic matters with the OG.
    The proposed changes from the existing TS can be grouped into four 
general categories, as follows:
    1. Non-technical (administrative) changes, which were intended to 
make the ITS easier to use for plant operations personnel. They are 
purely editorial in nature or involve the movement or reformatting of 
requirements without affecting technical content. Every section of the 
BFN Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 TS has undergone these types of changes. In 
order to ensure consistency, the NRC staff and the licensee have used 
NUREG-1433 as guidance to reformat and make other administrative 
changes.
    2. Relocation of requirements, which include items that were in the 
existing BFN Units 1, 2 and 3 TS. The TS that are being relocated to 
licensee-controlled documents are not required to be in the TS under 10 
CFR 50.36 and do not meet any of the four criteria in the Commission's 
Final Policy Statement for inclusion in the TS. They are not needed to 
obviate the possibility that an abnormal situation or event will give 
rise to an immediate threat to the public health and safety. The NRC 
staff has concluded that appropriate controls have been established for 
all of the current specifications, information, and requirements that 
are being moved to licensee-controlled documents. In general, the 
proposed relocation of items in the BFN Units 1, 2 and 3 TS to the 
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), appropriate plant-specific 
programs, procedures and ITS Bases follows the guidance of the General 
Electric STS (NUREG-1433). Once these items have been relocated by 
removing them from the TS to licensee-controlled documents, the 
licensee may revise them under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 or other 
NRC staff-approved control mechanisms, which provide appropriate 
procedural means to control changes.
    3. More restrictive requirements, which consist of proposed BFN 
Units 1, 2 and 3 ITS items that are either more conservative than 
corresponding requirements in the existing BFN Units 1, 2 and 3 TS, or 
are additional restrictions that are not in the existing BFN Units 1, 2 
and 3 TS but are contained in NUREG-1433. Examples of more restrictive 
requirements include: placing a Limiting Condition of Operation on 
plant equipment that is not required by the present TS to be operable; 
more restrictive requirements to restore inoperable equipment; and more 
restrictive surveillance requirements.
    4. Less restrictive requirements, which are relaxations of 
corresponding requirements in the existing BFN Units 1, 2 and 3 TS that 
provide little or no safety benefit and place unnecessary burdens on 
the licensee. These relaxations were the result of generic NRC actions 
or other analyses. They have been justified on a case-by-case basis for 
BFN Units 1, 2 and 3 as will be described in the staff's Safety 
Evaluation (SE) to be issued with the license amendment, which will be 
noticed in the Federal Register.
    In addition to the changes described above, the licensee proposed 
certain changes to the existing TS that deviated from the STS in NUREG-
1433. These additional proposed changes are described in the licensee's 
application and in the staff's Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 
Amendment to Facility Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing 
(61 FR 55026, 63 FR 29763, and 63 FR 32252). Where these changes 
represent a change to the current licensing basis for BFN Units 1, 2 
and 3, they have been justified on a case-by-case basis and the 
environmental impacts of these changes will be addressed in the staff's 
SE to be issued with the license amendment.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the proposed TS conversion would not increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and would 
not affect facility radiation levels or facility radiological 
effluents.
    Changes that are administrative in nature have been found to have 
no effect on the technical content of the TS, and are acceptable. The 
increased clarity and understanding these changes bring to the TS are 
expected to improve the operator's control of the plant in normal and 
accident conditions.
    Relocation of requirements to licensee-controlled documents does 
not change the requirements themselves. Future changes to these 
requirements may be made by the licensee under 10 CFR 50.59 or other 
NRC-approved control mechanisms, which ensures continued maintenance of 
adequate requirements. All such relocations have been found to be in 
conformance with the guidelines of NUREG-1433 and the Final Policy 
Statement, and, therefore, are acceptable.
    Changes involving more restrictive requirements have been found to 
be acceptable and are likely to enhance the safety of plant operations.
    Changes involving less restrictive requirements have been reviewed 
individually. When requirements have been shown to provide little or no 
safety benefit or to place unnecessary burdens on the licensee, their 
removal from the TS was justified. In most cases, relaxations 
previously granted to individual plants on a plant-specific basis were 
the result of a generic NRC action, or of agreements reached during 
discussions with the OG and found to be acceptable for BFN Units 1, 2 
and 3. Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1433 as well as proposed 
deviations from NUREG-1433 have also been reviewed by the NRC staff and 
have been found to be acceptable.
    In summary, the proposed revisions to the TS were found to provide 
control of plant operations such that reasonable assurance will be 
provided so that the health and safety of the public will be adequately 
protected.
    These TS changes will not increase the probability or consequences 
of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of effluents that 
may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the 
allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other 
nonradiological environmental impact. Accordingly, the Commission 
concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental 
impacts associated with the proposed action.

[[Page 34946]]

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission has concluded there is no significant 
environmental impact associated with the proposed amendments, any 
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be 
evaluated. The principal alternative to this action would be to deny 
the request for the amendment. Such action would not reduce the 
environmental impacts of plant operations.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action did not involve the use of any resources not previously 
considered in the Final Environmental Statement related to the 
operation of the BFN Units 1, 2 and 3 Electric Generating Plants.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on June 18, 1998, the staff 
consulted with the State official, Mr. David Walter, of the Department 
of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Radiation Protection. 
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 amendment.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendments dated September 6, 1996 as supplemented June 
6, and December 11, 1996; April 11, May 1, August 14, October 15, 
November 5 and 14, December 3, 4, 15, 22, 23, 29, and 30, 1997; January 
23, March 12 and 13, April 16, 20, and 28, May 7, 14, 19 and 27, and 
June 5 and 10, 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 18th day of June 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. 98-17097 Filed 6-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P