ML18037A736

EA & Finding of No Significant Impact Re Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR73.55, Requirements for Physical Protection of Licensed Activities in Nuclear Power Reactors Against Radiological Sabotage

ML18037A736
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	01/19/1994
From:	Hebdon F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML18037A737	List: ML18037A736
References
NUDOCS 9401310056
Download: ML18037A736 (9)

Text

7590-01 U

D ST S

NUCLEAR REGU ATORY COMMISSION TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY DOCKET NOS. 50-259 AND 50-296 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of its regulations to Facility Operating License Nos.

DPR-33 and DPR-68 issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee) for operation of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Units 1 and 3, located in Limestone County, Alabama.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Pro osed Action:

The proposed action is in response to the licensee's application dated September 2,

1993, with additional information provided on December 17,

1993, for exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 73.55, "Requirements for physical protection of licensed activities in nuclear power reactors against radiological sabotage."

Under the proposed exemption, the licensee would be relieved of.-,requirements to provide positive containment access control by a guard or watchman during periods of frequent access.

BFN Units 1

and 3 have been shut down since March 1985 for modifications required to put the units in r

compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

The proposed exemption would be in effect until immediately before the licensee loads fuel in the reactors when the required modifications are completed.

940131005b 940119 PDR ADQCK '05000259 "PDR

IO

The Ne d the P o osed Act'on:

Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.55, paragraph (a), the licensee shall establish and maintain an onsite physical protection system and security organization.

Containment access controls specified by 10 CFR 73.55(d)(8) require that any time frequent access to the containment is required, positive controls are maintained by a guard or watchman to assure only authorized personnel or materials are permitted into the containment.

BFN Units 1 and 3 have been defueled since September 1985 and February 1987, respectively.

These reactors have been shut down since March 1985 for modifications required to put the units in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

A substantial number of the required modifications.".

require frequent containment access.

Therefore, the licensee has maintained..a guard at a controll.ed access location to fulfillthe requirements of 10 CFR 73.55(d)(8).

The licensee believes that the 10 CFR 73.55(d)(8) requirements are too restrictive, given the unique status of Browns Ferry Units 1 and 3 and the other controls which are or will be exercised to ensure the reactors are returned to service in a safe manner.

Presently, the reactors are defueled, which reduces the radiological hazard potential within the containment such that sabotage.

could not create a substantial'ffsite radiation dose.

The licensee will:-perform extensive return-to-service testing on all safety-related systems.

.This testing ensures that pl.ant components can properly perform their intended design functions.

After modifications are completed, the licensee will also perform security inspections to detect sabotage or introduction of foreign material which may have occurred during the recovery effort.

lt

,Y

,3 An exemption.from 10 CFR 73.55(d)(8), is required to permit, the licensee to rel'ax containment access controls during the recovery of Browns Ferry Units 1 and 3.

The proposed exemption will not reduce requirements for containment access controls for Browns Ferry Unit 2..

Fnvironmental Im acts of the Pro osed Action:

The licensee has indicated that during the period,.of the exemption, the reactors wi.ll be. maintained in a defueled condition.

Postulated radiological sabotage within the containment

.in this condition cannot result in significant offsite 'radiation doses.

Therefore, the environmental impact of this sabotage is negligible.

There is no other change in environmental impact while the reactors are defueled.

The licensee has also indicated that, as the reactors are refueled and-'eturned'o service,.it will perform extensive testing and inspections which will detect latent sabotage which,could adversely impact plant operations.

The licensee will test safety-related systems as.they. are returned to service to assure they are capable of fulfillingtheir, design functions.

The licensee will also perform security inspections to determine if, unauthorized and potentially dangerous materials such as explosives have been: introduced.

These measures.

provide confidence that.'the, reactors will operate as intended 4

by their: de@go':;,'>;Therefore,

.the environmental impact of plant operations after. the. period-;of'.the cexemption is unchanged from normally anticipated conditiotn8~=": a-'.

Accordingly, 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.

Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed exemption.

Alternative to the Pro osed Action:

Because the staff has conclude that there is no significant environmental impact associated with the proposed exemption, any alternative to the exemption will have either no significantly different environmental impact, or greater environmental impact.

The principal alternative would be to deny the requested exemption.

.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 o

Resp rces:

This action did not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the "Final Environmental Statement, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2, and 3," dated September 1,

1972.

A encies and Persons Contacted:

The NRC staff has reviewed the 1-icensee's request dated September 2,

1993, as supplemented on December 17, 1993.

The NRC staff did not consult with other agencies or persons.

FINDING OF NO SIGN IF ICA T IMPACT The Coaeission has. determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the. proposed exemption.

Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, we conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

For details with respect to this action, see the licensee's request for the exemption dated September 2,

1993, as supplemented on December 17,

1993,

]I'k E

5 which i's available for public inspection, at the Commission',s Public Document

Room, Gelman, Building,, 2120 L Street, N.M., Washington'DC, and. at the Athens Public Library, South.Street,

Athens, Alabama 35611'.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this, 19th day of Januaey 1994.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Frederick J.

He on, Director Project Directorate II-4 Division of Reactor:Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation-

0 i;

k r.