[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55314-55315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26493]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Alabama Power Company,
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment
and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos.
NPF-2 and NPF-8, issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc,
(SNC), for operation of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and
2, located in Houston County, Alabama.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would fully convert SNC's current technical
specifications (CTS) to Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) based
on NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse
Plants,'' Revision 1, of April 1995. The proposed action is in
accordance with SNC's application of March 12, 1998, supplemented by
SNC's letters of April 24, 1998, August 20, 1998, November 20, 1998,
February 3, 1999, February 20, 1999, April 30, 1999 (two letters), June
30, 1999, July 27, 1999, August 19, 1999, August 30, 1999, and
September 15, 1999.
The Need for the Proposed Action
Implementing ITS at Farley would benefit nuclear safety. 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. Each reactor vendor owners group
(OG) and the NRC staff developed standard TS (STS) to aid in producing
individual plant ITS. NRC NUREG-1432 contains the STS for Westinghouse-
designed reactor plants. The NRC Committee to Review Generic
Requirements reviewed NUREG-1432, noted the safety merits of the STS,
and indicated that it supported operating plants converting to the STS.
SNC used NUREG-1432 as the basis for developing the Farley, Units 1 and
2, ITS.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that the proposed TS conversion does not increase the
probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and does
not affect facility radiation levels or facility radiological
effluents.
Changes that are administrative in nature have no effect on the
technical content of the ITS and are acceptable. The increased clarity
and understanding these changes bring to the ITS are expected to
improve the operator's control of the plant in normal and accident
conditions.
Relocating CTS requirements to SNC-controlled documents does not
change the requirements. SNC may make future changes to these
requirements, but SNC must make the changes under 10 CFR 50.59 or other
NRC-approved control methods. This assures that SNC will maintain
adequate requirements. All such CTS relocations conform to NUREG-1432
guidelines and the Final Policy Statement, and are therefore
acceptable.
Changes involving more restrictive requirements are likely to
enhance the safety of plant operations and are acceptable.
The NRC has reviewed all changes involving less restrictive
requirements. Removing CTS requirements that provide little or no
safety benefit or place unnecessary burdens on SNC is justified. In
most cases, TS relaxations previously granted on a plant-specific basis
resulted from generic NRC action or from agreements reached during
discussions with the OG and are acceptable for Farley, Units 1 and 2.
The NRC reviewed the generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1432 and
SNC's deviations from NUREG-1432 and determined they are acceptable for
Farley, Units 1 & 2.
In summary, the NRC determined that the Farley, Units 1 and 2, ITS
provide control of plant operations such that there is reasonable
assurance that the health and safety of the public will be adequately
protected.
The proposed action will not increase the probability or
consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of
any effluents that may be released off site, and 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 non-radiological impacts, the proposed
action does not involve any historic sites. It does not affect non-
radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact.
Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental
impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered
denying 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
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for Farley,
Units 1 and 2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on September 24, 1999, the
staff consulted with the Alabama State
[[Page 55315]]
official, Mr. Kirk Whatley of the Office of Radiation Control, Alabama
Department of Public Health, regarding the environmental impact of the
proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of 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 action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see SNC's
letter of March 12, 1998, supplemented by SNC's letters of April 24,
1998, August 20, 1998, November 20, 1998, February 3, 1999, February
20, 1999, April 30, 1999 (two letters), June 30, 1999, July 27, 1999,
August 19, 1999, August 30, 1999, and September 15, 1999, 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 Houston-Love Memorial
Library, 212 W. Burdeshaw Street, Post Office Box 1369, Dothan, Alabama
36302.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of October, 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Mark Padovan,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-26493 Filed 10-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P