[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43169-43170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20586]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364; NRC-2009-0375]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Joseph M. Farley
Nuclear Plant; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an Exemption, pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) Section 73.5, ``Specific exemptions,'' from 10 CFR
Part 73, ``Physical protection of plants and materials,'' for Facility
Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8, issued to Southern Nuclear
Operating Company, Inc. (SNC, the licensee), for operation of the
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (FNP), located in Houston
County, Alabama. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC prepared an
environmental assessment documenting its finding. The NRC concluded
that the proposed actions will have no significant environmental
impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt the FNP from the required
implementation date of March 31, 2010, for several new requirements of
10 CFR part 73. Specifically, FNP would be granted an exemption from
being in full compliance with certain new requirements contained in 10
CFR 73.55 by the March 31, 2010, deadline. Instead, SNC has proposed an
alternate full compliance implementation date of December 15, 2010,
approximately eight and a half months beyond the date required by 10
CFR part 73. The proposed action, an extension of the schedule for
completion of certain actions required by the revised 10 CFR part 73,
does not involve any physical changes to the reactor, fuel, plant
structures, support structures, water, or land at the FNP site.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated
[[Page 43170]]
June 9, 2009, as supplemented by letter dated July 31, 2009.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to provide the licensee with
additional time to perform the required upgrades to the FNP security
system due to resource and logistical impacts of the spring 2010 Unit 2
and fall 2010 Unit 1 refueling outages and other factors.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its environmental assessment of the proposed
exemption. The staff has concluded that the proposed action to extend
the implementation deadline would not significantly affect plant safety
and would not have a significant adverse effect on the probability of
an accident occurring. The proposed action would not result in an
increased radiological hazard beyond those previously analyzed. There
will be no change to radioactive effluents that effect radiation
exposures to plant workers and members of the public. The proposed
action does not involve a change to plant buildings or land areas on
the FNP site. Therefore, no changes or different types of radiological
impacts are expected as a result of the proposed exemption.
The proposed action does not result in changes to land use or water
use, or result in changes to the quality or quantity of non-
radiological effluents. No changes to the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permit are needed. No effects on the aquatic or
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity or the plant, or to threatened,
endangered, or protected species under the Endangered Species Act, or
impacts to essential fish habitat covered by the Magnuson-Stevens Act
are expected. There are no impacts to the air or ambient air quality.
There are no impacts to historical and cultural resources. There would
be no impact to socioeconomic resources. Therefore, no changes to or
different types of non-radiological environmental impacts are expected
as a result of the proposed exemption. Accordingly, the NRC concludes
that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the
proposed action.
With its request to extend the implementation deadline, the
licensee has proposed compensatory measures to be taken in lieu of full
compliance with the new requirements specified in 10 CFR part 73. The
licensee currently maintains a security system acceptable to the NRC
and the proposed compensatory measures will continue to provide
acceptable physical protection of the FNP in lieu of the new
requirements in 10 CFR part 73. Therefore, the extension of the
implementation date of the new requirements of 10 CFR part 73 to
December 15, 2010, would not have any significant environmental
impacts.
The NRC staff's safety evaluation will be provided in the exemption
that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the
exemption to the regulation.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed actions, the NRC staff considered
denial of the proposed actions (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the exemption request would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed
exemption and technical specification change and the ``no action''
alternative are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the FNP, as
supplemented through the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant,
Units 1 and 2--Final Report (NUREG--1437, Supplement 18).''
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on August 13, 2009, the NRC
staff consulted with the Alabama State official, Mr. Kirk Whatley of
the 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 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 letters dated June 9 and July 31, 2009. The June 9, 2009,
letter and certain parts of the July 31, 2009, submittal contain
proprietary and safeguards information and, accordingly, are not
available to the public. Other parts of these 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,
Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Document 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.
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 send
an e-mail to [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of August 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert E. Martin,
Sr. Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-20586 Filed 8-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P