[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