[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20221-20223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10844]


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

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 (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. 
NPF-2 and NPF-8, issued to Southern Nuclear

[[Page 20222]]

Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), et al. (the licensee), for operation of 
the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Houston 
County, Alabama.

Envrionmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would allow SNC to increase the maximum reactor 
core power level for facility operation from 2652 megawatts-thermal 
(MWt) to 2775 MWt, which is approximately a 4.6 percent increase in 
rated core power.
    The proposed action is in accordance with SNC's application for 
amendments dated February 14, 1997, as supplemented by letters dated 
June 20, August 5, September 22, November 19, December 9, December 17, 
and December 31, 1997, January 23, February 12, February 26, March 3, 
March 6, March 16, April 3, April 13, and two letters on April 17, 
1998.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed to allow SNC to increase the 
electrical output of each Farley unit by approximately 25 megawatts-
electric and, thus, provide additional electrical power to service 
domestic and commercial areas of the licensee's grid.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that no significant change in the environmental impact 
can be expected for the proposed increase in power.
    The original Final Environmental Statement (FES) considered a 
maximum thermal output of 2774 MWt for each Farley unit. The proposed 
power uprate will increase the maximum thermal output to 2775 MWt, 
which represents 0.036 percent increase over the original FES. The 
staff considers this increase over that previously assessed in the FES 
to be of minimal impact.
    As part of the Farley power uprate review, SNC performed and 
completed an environmental impact evaluation in January 1997, as 
required by Section 3.1 of the Farley Nuclear Plant Environmental 
Protection Plan (EPP). Section 3.1 requires that the licensee prepare 
and record an evaluation of activities that may significantly affect 
the environment and determine if an unreviewed environmental question 
exists prior to engaging in additional construction or operational 
activities. SNC compared the proposed power uprate values and the 
values in the FES, June 1972, and the current operating conditions in 
order to assess environmental impact. This evaluation identified 
discrepancies between the current cooling tower operating parameters 
and the original design parameters, upon which the conclusions of the 
FES, June 1972, are based. An administrative noncompliance with Section 
3.1 of the EPP was identified and reported in the 1996 Annual 
Environmental Operating Report. The staff's review of SNC's evaluation 
of environmental impacts is discussed below.

Radiological Environmental Assessment

    SNC evaluated the impact of the proposed power uprate amendments to 
show that the applicable regulatory acceptance criteria relative to 
radiological environmental impacts will continue to be satisfied for 
the uprated power conditions. In conducting this evaluation, SNC 
considered the effect of the higher power level on source terms, onsite 
and offsite doses, and control room habitability during both normal 
operation and accident conditions.
    The solid, liquid, and gaseous radwaste activity is influenced by 
the reactor coolant activity, which is a function of the reactor core 
power. The licensee performed evaluations of the existing design of the 
radwaste systems and concluded that plant operations at the proposed 
uprated power level will not have a significant impact on the radwaste 
systems.
    The licensee performed calculations of the anticipated offsite 
releases at the proposed power uprate of 2775 MWt. The results of these 
calculations were then utilized to evaluate conformance with 10 CFR 
Part 20 and Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50. The licensee concluded that 
there exists sufficient radwaste equipment to maintain releases within 
the limits of 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B and the resulting offsite 
doses to the most exposed individual meet the limits of Appendix I of 
10 CFR Part 50 and docket RM-50-2. Consequently, the licensee concluded 
that the power uprate requires no changes to the radwaste system design 
and/or operation and that no significant changes in actual offsite 
gaseous and liquid releases and doses are expected. The staff reviewed 
the licensee's assessment and concluded that the power uprate would 
have a small impact upon the quantity of offsite releases. The staff 
also concluded, based upon past plant effluent release reports, that 
the existing radwaste equipment should be sufficient to maintain 
offsite releases within the requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 
20 and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
    SNC has concluded that no changes or additions to structures, 
equipment, or procedures are necessary to provide adequate radiation 
protection for the operators and for the public during normal or post-
accident operations to support the uprate. The existing structures, 
systems, and components can safely handle the changes in post-accident 
source terms and releases from the uprate conditions, and resulting 
onsite and offsite doses are less than the guidelines in 10 CFR 100.11 
and are within the Standard Review Plan guidelines.
    The staff has assessed those accidents for which the power uprate 
would have an impact upon the offsite and control room operator doses 
contained in Chapter 15 of the Final Safety Analysis Report. The 
staff's results demonstrate that, for those accidents that are impacted 
by the power uprate, the doses would not exceed the dose guidelines 
presently contained in the Standard Review Plan, 10 CFR Part 100 or 
General Design Criterion 19 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A for either 
offsite locations or control room operators. Therefore, the staff finds 
that there are no significant adverse impacts on the environment.
    The change will not increase the probability or consequences of 
accidents or normal effluents, no changes are being made in the types 
of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no 
significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative 
occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Commission concludes 
that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action.

Nonradiological Environmental Assessment

    The proposed power uprate will result in an increase in cooling 
tower duty of approximately 381 MMBtu/hr over the current operating 
condition, with a corresponding increase in evaporation, makeup, and 
cooling tower blowdown temperature. The power uprate will result in an 
increase in cooling tower blowdown temperature of approximately 
0.2 deg.F over the current operating condition. This increase in 
discharge temperature from 96.4 deg.F to 96.6 deg.F will produce an 
increase in river temperature of approximately 0.56 deg.F above ambient 
river temperature during extreme temperature and flow conditions. The 
FES concluded that the approximately 0.5 deg.F increase in river 
temperature associated with operation of Farley at extreme temperature 
and flow conditions did not result in significant adverse environmental

[[Page 20223]]

impact. SNC concluded that the additional heat load to the 
Chattahoochee River associated with power uprate does not significantly 
impact the conclusions of the FES relative to thermal impact. Cooling 
tower makeup, which comes from the service water pond, has increased 
from 17,077 gallons per minute (gpm) to 18,093 gpm. This represents an 
approximate 1.6 percent increase over the FES value of 17,800 gpm. This 
corresponds to a increase in river water withdrawal for both units from 
67,504 gpm to 69,536 gpm, which is bounded by the two-unit river water 
withdrawal of 90,000 gpm in the FES. Cooling tower evaporation has 
increased from 12,808 gpm to 13,570 gpm. This represents an approximate 
20 percent increase over the FES value of 11,340 gpm and approximately 
a 6 percent increase over the present operating condition. The FES 
concluded that the potential for fogging associated with cooling tower 
operation was not significant and should merely augment the normal 
fogging situation by a relatively small amount. SNC has stated that 
studies conducted during the first year of operation confirmed this 
conclusion. No fogging problems have been noted to date and no 
significant impact associated with fogging is expected for the uprated 
condition. The staff expects that operation of the plant at uprated 
condition will result in only a minimal increase in the natural fog 
over that discussed in the FES. Cooling tower flowrate (692,000 gpm) 
does not change as a result of power uprate. However, the flowrate is 
approximately 9 percent higher than the FES value (635,000 gpm). This 
increase was a result of pump modifications to improve efficiency. 
Cooling tower drift, which is a function of flowrate, also does not 
change. SNC uses a chemical treatment program for the cooling towers in 
order to minimize microbial and fungal attacks. The bulk water is 
sampled for microbiological activity on a periodic basis to evaluate 
the effectiveness of the program. SNC has stated that no environmental 
problems associated with microorganisms have been noted since the 
beginning of plant operation. In addition, the effects of airborne 
pathogens in the cooling towers has been reviewed and a program is in 
place to ensure protection of workers performing work in the cooling 
towers. The change in heat load to the cooling towers associated with 
power uprate is not expected to have significant impact relative to 
environmental effects from microorganisms or airborne organisms.
    In addition to the FES, SNC evaluated the thermal impact associated 
with power uprate relative to the Farley Nuclear Plant National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the 
Alabama Department of Environmental Management. A renewed permit was 
issued in 1995 based on a 1990 thermal study conducted in support of 
the renewal, and contains no limits for temperature. The slight 
increase in final discharge falls within the acceptance range 
determined in the 1990 study. No additional monitoring requirements or 
other changes relative to the NPDES permit are required as a result of 
power uprate. SNC has also indicated that implementation of the power 
uprate will not require laydown areas that would affect land use, 
erosion control, endangered species, or historic land sites.
    SNC has concluded that, with the exception of the parameters 
mentioned above, the operating parameters evaluated with regard to 
potential for environmental impact associated with power uprate either 
retain the same values as the original values in the FES or are bounded 
by those values and do not result in significant adverse environmental 
impact.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action does involve features located entirely within the restricted 
area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect nonradiological 
plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the 
Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable 
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any 
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be 
evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff 
considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the application 
would result in no change in current environmental impacts and would 
reduce the operational flexibility.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the 
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on February 26, 1998, the 
staff consulted with the Alabama State official, 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

    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 action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated February 14, 1997, as supplemented on June 20, 
August 5, September 22, November 19, December 9, December 17, and 
December 31, 1997, January 23, February 12, February 26, March 3, March 
6, March 16, April 3, April 13, and two letters on April 17, 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 Houston-Love 
Memorial Library, 212 W. Burdeshaw Street, Post Office Box 1369, 
Dothan, Alabama.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of April 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Herbert N. Berkow,
Director, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-10844 Filed 4-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P