Tennessee Valley Authority; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 33777-33778 [E6-9058]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 112 / Monday, June 12, 2006 / Notices
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.
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
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 watercooled 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:52 Jun 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 designbasis 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33777
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 ‘‘noaction’’ 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
E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM
12JNN1
33778
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 112 / Monday, June 12, 2006 / Notices
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, https://
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 pdr@nrc.gov.
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
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY
CORPORATION
Submission of Information Collection
for OMB Review; Comment Request;
Qualified Domestic Relations Orders
Submitted to the PBGC
Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation.
ACTION: Notice of request for extension
of OMB approval.
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation (‘‘PBGC’’) is requesting that
the Office of Management and Budget
(‘‘OMB’’) approve a revision of a
collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. The
information collection relates to
qualified domestic relations orders
submitted to the PBGC. This notice
informs the public of the PBGC’s request
and solicits public comment on the
collection of information.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:52 Jun 09, 2006
Jkt 208001
Comments should be submitted
by July 12, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of the Office of Management and
Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation,
Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the
request for extension (including the
collection of information) may be
obtained without charge by writing to
the Disclosure Division of the Office of
the General Counsel of PBGC at 1200 K
Street, NW., 11th Floor, Washington, DC
20005–4026, or by visiting or calling
(202–326–4040) the Disclosure Division
during normal business hours. (TTY and
TDD users may call the Federal relay
service toll-free at 1–800–877–8339 and
ask to be connected to 202–326–4040.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo
Amato Burns, Attorney, Legislative and
Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20005–4026, 202–
326–4024. (TTY and TDD users may call
the Federal relay service toll-free at 1–
800–877–8339 and ask to be connected
to 202–326–4024.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PBGC
is requesting that OMB extend its
approval (with modifications) of the
guidance and model language and forms
contained in the PBGC booklet, Divorce
Orders & PBGC.
A defined benefit pension plan that
does not have enough money to pay
benefits may be terminated if the
employer responsible for the plan faces
severe financial difficulty, such as
bankruptcy, and is unable to maintain
the plan. In such an event, the PBGC
becomes trustee of the plan and pays
benefits, subject to legal limits, to plan
participants and beneficiaries.
The benefits of a pension plan
participant generally may not be
assigned or alienated. However, Title I
of ERISA provides an exception for
domestic relations orders that relate to
child support, alimony payments, or the
marital property rights of an alternate
payee (a spouse, former spouse, child,
or other dependent of a plan
participant). The exception applies only
if the domestic relations order meets
specific legal requirements that make it
qualified, i.e., a qualified domestic
relations order, or ‘‘QDRO.’’ ERISA
provides that pension plans are required
to comply with only those domestic
relations orders which are QDROs, and
that the decision as to whether a
domestic relations order is a QDRO is
made by the plan administrator. Thus,
as statutory trustee of terminated plans,
PBGC must first determine whether any
domestic relations order submitted to
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
PBGC is qualified—i.e., is a QDRO—
before any obligation to comply is
triggered.
When PBGC is trustee of a plan, it
reviews submitted domestic relations
orders to determine whether the order is
qualified before paying benefits to an
alternate payee. The requirements for
submitting a QDRO are established by
statute. The models and guidance
provided in the PBGC booklet, Divorce
Orders & PBGC (the booklet’s title will
be changed to Qualified Domestic
Relations Orders & PBGC, to better
reflect its scope), assists parties by
making it easier to comply with ERISA’s
QDRO requirements when drafting
orders for plans trusteed by PBGC. The
booklet does not create any additional
requirements.
The PBGC is revising the QDRO
booklet by: Defining a participant’s
‘‘earliest PBGC retirement date,’’ which
affects when a participant and alternate
payee may start receiving benefit
payments; describing new annuity
benefit forms that are available to
alternate payees; providing information
on how to make a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request to
obtain information necessary for the
preparation of a domestic relations
order; and providing additional model
forms and language to address a greater
variety of situations. The revised
booklet will be available on the PBGC’s
Web site at https://www.pbgc.gov.
The collection of information has
been approved through December 31,
2006, by OMB under control number
1212–0054. The PBGC is requesting that
OMB approve the revised collection of
information for three years. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
PBGC estimates that it will receive an
average of 875 domestic relations orders
annually, and estimates 855 of these
will be prepared by attorneys or other
professionals. The average hour burden
for the alternate payee or participant is
.75 hours if the order is prepared by a
professional. In the case where the
alternate payee or participant prepares
the order, the average hour burden is
estimated to be 10 hours. The total
annual hour burden for alternate payees
and participants is thus 841.25 hours
((855 × .75 hour = 641.25) + (20 × 10 =
200) = 841.25 hours). If the alternate
payee or participant hires an attorney,
PBGC estimates costs of $450 to $880 in
professional fees for each order. PBGC
estimates the total annual burden will
be 841.25 hours of the alternate payee’s
E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM
12JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 112 (Monday, June 12, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33777-33778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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,
https://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
pdr@nrc.gov.
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
