[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 41 (Thursday, March 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10417-10418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-4068]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-321, 50-366, 50-348, 50-364, 50-424, and 50-425]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear
Plant, Units 1 and 2, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2; 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) part 50, appendix E, and from 10 CFR 50.47(b)(3)
for Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57, NPF-5, NPF-2, NPF-8, NPF-
68, and NPF-81, issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (the
licensee), for operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1
and 2 (Hatch), Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Farley),
and Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Vogtle),
respectively. 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 provide an exemption from the
requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix E, and 10 CFR 50.47(b)(3) to
permit the licensee to relocate the near-site emergency operations
facilities (EOFs) for each plant identified above to a common EOF
located at the licensee's corporate headquarters in Birmingham,
Alabama.
The need for the proposed exemption was identified by the NRC staff
during its review of the licensee's request for approval to relocate
the EOFs dated October 16, 2003.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action provides relief from the requirements that (1)
adequate provisions shall be made and described for emergency
facilities and equipment, including a licensee near-site EOF from which
effective direction can be given and effective control can be exercised
during an emergency, and (2) that arrangements to accommodate State and
local staff at the licensee's near-site EOF have been made. The
licensee proposed to locate the EOFs in Birmingham, AL, which is 1\1/2\
to 2\1/2\ times farther than any previous NRC-approved distance. At
this distance, the NRC staff believes that it cannot reasonably
consider the proposed location to be ``near-site.'' Therefore, the NRC
staff determined that an exemption to the regulations that require an
EOF to be near-site is required prior to consolidation of the near-site
EOFs in Birmingham, AL. In order to ensure that NRC actions are timely,
effective, and efficient, the staff is issuing an exemption under 10
CFR 50.12.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes, as set forth below, that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with relocating the Hatch, Farley, and
Vogtle near-site EOFs to a common EOF located in Birmingham, AL.
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 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 have a potential to affect 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 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 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
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the following documents: ``Final Environmental
Statement related to the operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant,
Unit 1,'' dated October 1972; ``Final Environmental Statement related
to the operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2,'' dated
March 1978; ``Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of
the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,'' dated December
1974; and ``Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of
the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2,'' NUREG-1087,
dated December 1985.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on November 17, 2004, 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 for Farley.
In addition, on November 18, 2004, the staff consulted with the Georgia
State official, James Hardeman, of the Department of Natural Resources,
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action for Vogtle
and Hatch. Neither State official had 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 October 16, 2003, as supplemented by letters
dated April 15 and August 16, 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, Public File Area O1 F21, 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, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
(Note: Public access to ADAMS has been temporarily suspended so that
security reviews of publicly available documents may be performed and
potentially sensitive information removed. Please check the NRC Web
[[Page 10418]]
site for updates on the resumption of ADAMS Access.) 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 staff
by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to
[email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of February.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Christopher Gratton,
Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05-4068 Filed 3-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P