ML18039A826

Environ Assessment & Finding of No Significant Impact Re Temporary Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.65 (Maintenance Rule)

ML18039A826
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	07/29/1999
From:	Long W NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML18039A827	List: ML18039A826
References
NUDOCS 9908050128
Download: ML18039A826 (4)

Text

7590-01-P UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION TENNESSEE VALLEYAUTHORITY DOCKET NO. 50-259 BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANTIMPACT INTRODUCTION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, or the Commission) is considering issuance of arI exemption to Facility Operating License No. DPR-33, issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)for operation of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Unit 1, located in Limestone County, Alabama.

ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT Identification of the Pro osed Action:

The proposed action is in response to TVA's application dated February 4, 1999, for a temporary exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.65 (Maintenance Rule).

Specifically, this action would exempt TVAfrom the explicit scoping requirements of 10 CFR 50.65(b), and instead it would allow TVAto consider the defueled and long-term layup status of BFN Unit 1 when establishing the scope of TVA's Maintenance Rule Program.

Structures, systems, and components (SSCs) that perform a required function for Unit 1 in its present defueled status or that directly support the operation of Unit 2 or Unit 3 would be included in the scope of the BFN Maintenance Rule Program, but Unit 1 systems and components not required to be operational would not be required to be included in the Maintenance Rule Program.

The Need for the Pro osed Action:

10 CFR 50.65(a)(1) requires, in part, that, power reactor licensees shall monitor the 99080501.28 990729 POR ADQCK 0500025'P p

PDR performance or condition of SSCs against licensee-established goals to provide reasonable assurance that the SSCs, defined in 10 CFR 50.65(b), are capable of fulfillingtheir intended functions.

TVArequested the exemption to resolve a 10 CFR 50.65 compliance issue that was identified during an NRC inspection at the facility (cf., NRC combined Inspection Reports 50-259/97-04; 50-260/97-04; and 50-296/97-04, (IR 97-04) dated May 21,1997). The issue relates to the acceptability of TVA's approach to addressing the SSCs required to be within the scope of the regulation as specified in 10 CFR 50.65(b). As a result of the inspection finding, the NRC informed TVAby letter dated July 30, 1997, that the scope of the BFN maintenance rule program for Unit 1 was not consistent with the requirements 10 CFR 50.65, and identified three options available to TVAto resolve the issue.

One of the options identified was for TVAto request an exemption from the requirements of the rule that are not currently being met.

Environmental lm acts of the Pro osed Action:

No changes are being made in the types or amounts of any radiological effluent that may be released offsite. There is no significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

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

Alternative to the Pro osed Action:

As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (no alternative action).

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 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 1, 2 and 3.

A encies and Persons Consulted:

ln accordance with its stated policy, on June 23, 1999, the NRC staff consulted with the Alabama State official, Mr. David Walter of the State Office of Radiation Control, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.

Mr. Walter had no comments.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANTIMPACT Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action willnot 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 application for exemption dated February 4, 1999, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC and at the focal public document room located at the Athens Public Library, 405 E. South Street, Athens, Alabama.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this29thday of July 1999.

FOR THE NUCLEAR RE ULATORYCOMMISSION William0; Long, Senior Project Manager, Section 2 Project Directorate II Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

~j

'I

~

~ '

I