Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 12219-12220 [E6-3337]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 2006 / Notices
of proposed projects on institutions,
students, and faculty members.
Requested information includes the
discipline of the proposed project,
collaborating organizations involved in
the project, the academic level on which
the project focuses (e.g., lower-level
undergraduate courses, upper-level
undergraduate courses), characteristics
of the organization submiting the
proposal, special audiences (if any) that
the project would target (e.g., women,
minorities, persons with disabilities),
strategic foci (if any) of the project (e.g.,
research on teaching and learning,
international activities, integration of
research and education), and the
number of students and faculty at
different educational levels who would
benefit from the project.
Respondents: Investigators who
submit proposals to NSF’s Division of
Undergraduate Education.
Estimated Number of Annual
Respondents: 2,500.
Burden on the Public: 20 minutes (per
response) for an annual total of 833
hours.
Dated: March 6, 2006.
Suzanne Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 06–2250 Filed 3–8–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–M
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–348]
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Southern Nuclear Operating Company;
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant,
Unit 1; 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 R, ‘‘Fire
Protection Program for Nuclear Power
Facilities Operating Prior to January 1,
1979,’’ Section III.G.2, for Facility
Operating License No. NPF–2, issued to
Southern Nuclear Operating Company
(SNC or the licensee), for operation of
the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power
Plant (FNP), Unit 1, located in Houston
County, Alabama. 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 allow the
use of fire-rated electrical cable
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:58 Mar 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
produced by Meggitt Safety System, Inc.
(previously known as Whittaker
Electronic Resources Unit of Whittaker
Electronic Systems), for several cables
in Fire Areas 1–013 and 1–042
associated with safe shutdown (SSD)
control circuits. The licensee proposes
the use of these fire-rated electrical
cables in lieu of the alternatives
specified in Section III.G.2 of Appendix
R. In summary, SNC has requested a
permanent exemption from 10 CFR
Appendix R, Section III.G.2 to use 1hour fire-rated cable in lieu of a 1-hour
rated fire barrier as required by 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2 for
protection of safe shutdown control
circuits located in Fire Areas 1–013 and
1–042. Section III.G.2 of 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix R, provides fire protection
requirements for electrical cables
located within the same fire areas whose
failure could cause the maloperation of
redundant trains of systems necessary to
achieve and maintain hot shutdown
conditions. These areas are required to
have protection features such that one of
the redundant trains will be free of fire
damage in the event of a fire. One
method, described in Section III.G.2, for
ensuring compliance with this
requirement is to enclose the cable and
equipment and associated non-safety
circuits of one redundant train in a 1hour rated fire barrier. In addition, an
area-wide automatic fire suppression
and detection system shall be installed
in the fire area.
A postulated fire in Fire Area 1–013
or 1–042 could cause loss of offsite
power since both fire areas contain
cable bus ducts from the startup
transformers to both redundant trains of
the 4 kilovolt (kV) Appendix R SSD
buses. A postulated fire in either of
these fire areas could also potentially
impact the function of the Train B of the
4 kV Emergency Diesel Generator 1B
control circuitry. The majority of the
Train A onsite electrical power system
components required for Appendix R
SSD are not located in Fire Area 1–013
or 1–042. Certain Train A onsite power
system related SSD circuits located in
Fire Areas 1–013 and 1–042 will be
protected by a 1-hour fire-rated
electrical cable along with area-wide
automatic fire suppression and
detection.
Thus, the licensee’s request for an
exemption addresses the situation
wherein a 1-hour rated fire barrier as
described in Section III.G.2 of 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix R is not provided for
certain components. Instead, these
credited Train A components will
utilize fire-rated electrical cables
(Mineral Insulated (MI) cables). This
fire-rated electrical cable has been tested
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12219
in accordance with American Society
for Testing Materials E–119, ‘‘Standard
Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building
Construction Materials.’’ Further details
of the NRC staff’s review of this issue,
with respect to determining that the firerated electrical cables would be capable
of providing an equivalent level of
protection as would be provided by a 1hour rated fire barrier, are provided in
a related safety evaluation.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
January 19, 2005, as supplemented by
letters dated June 9 (two letters) and
November 18, 2005.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The exemption is needed to enable
the licensee to utilize fire-rated
electrical cables (MI cables) for certain
components in lieu of a 1-hour rated fire
barrier, as described in Section III.G.2 of
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, for FNP,
Unit 1 Fire Areas 1–013 and 1–042.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its safety
evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes that the proposed exemption
will not present an undue risk to the
public health and safety. The details of
the NRC staff’s safety evaluation will be
provided in an exemption that will be
issued in a letter to the licensee. The
action relates to revising the bases for
the adequacy of the fire protection
program at FNP, Unit 1.
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 offsite, 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 nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action does not have a potential to affect
any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological 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’’
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
12220
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 2006 / Notices
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.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert E. Martin,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing
Branch II–1, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6–3337 Filed 3–8–06; 8:45 am]
Alternative Use of Resources
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
previously considered in the Final
Environmental Statement related to the
operation of the FNP, Units 1 and 2,
dated December 1974, and the Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (NUREG–1437, Supplement
18), dated March 2005.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on February 14, 2006, the NRC 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.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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 January 19, June 9, and
November 18, 2005. 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, https://
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 by e-mail
to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day
of March 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:58 Mar 08, 2006
Jkt 208001
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–029]
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact for
Proposed Disposal Procedures for the
Yankee Atomic Electric Company in
Accordance With 10 CFR 20.2002,
License DPR–003, Rowe, MA
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact.
AGENCY:
John
Hickman, Division of Waste
Management and Environmental
Protection, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop:
T7E18, Washington, DC 20555–00001.
Telephone: (301) 415–3017; e-mail:
jbh@nrc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering a
request dated June 6, 2005, as
supplemented by a letter dated October
31, 2005, by the Yankee Atomic Electric
Company (YAEC or the Licensee), to
approve disposal procedures pursuant
to Section 20.2002 of Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR
part 20.2002), ‘‘Method of Obtaining
Approval of Proposed Disposal
Procedures.’’ The licensee’s proposed
disposal is to allow the continued use
of concrete blocks containing
radioactive materials as a retaining wall
at an off-site location in Vermont. The
proposed disposal would exempt the
disposal site from Atomic Energy Act
(AEA) and NRC licensing requirements
for possession of the radioactive
materials contained in the retaining
wall.
II. Environmental Assessment
Background
Yankee Nuclear Power Station (YNPS)
is a deactivated pressurized-water
nuclear reactor situated on a small
portion of a 2,200-acre site. The site is
located in northwestern Massachusetts
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
in Franklin County, near the southern
Vermont border. The plant and most of
the 2,200-acre site are owned by the
YAEC. A small portion on the west side
of the site (along the east bank of the
Sherman Reservoir) is owned by USGen
New England, Inc. The YNPS plant was
constructed between 1958 and 1960 and
operated commercially at 185
megawatts electric (after a 1963
upgrade) until 1992. In 1992, YAEC
determined that closing of the plant
would be in the best economic interest
of its customers. In December 1993,
NRC amended the YNPS operating
license to retain a ‘‘possession-only’’
status. YAEC began dismantling and
decommissioning activities at that time.
The waste material intended for
disposal consists of concrete shield
blocks from within the reactor support
structure (RSS) that were removed, sand
blasted, surveyed, and released from
licensee radiological controls in 1999.
At the time of the shield block release,
analyses of the radionuclide content of
concrete within the reactor support
structure indicated values less than the
minimum detectable activity. Based on
these results and surface contamination
surveys, the shield blocks were
determined to be free of detectable
licensed radioactive material. These
analyses were performed to the
specified levels for 10 CFR Part 61 waste
classification requirements.
Forty of the shield blocks from the
steam generator cubicles were removed
from the site under an approved
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MADEP)
Beneficial Use Determination (BUD) and
used to construct a retaining wall at a
private residence in Readsboro,
Vermont. In 2004, as part of preparation
for demolition and plans to retain RSS
concrete on-site, the licensee performed
further volumetric sampling and
analysis of radionuclides. A lower limit
of detection of 10 pCi/g for H–3 was
established for the additional
volumetric sampling, based upon the
concrete derived concentration
guideline limits and the requirements of
the License Termination Plan (LTP).
This analysis identified the presence of
H–3 in essentially all concrete within
the RSS. Levels of H–3 from samples
taken in the proximity of the former
location of the steam generator shield
blocks indicated H–3 levels averaging
approximately 200 pCi/g. Based upon
the results of samples of RSS concrete,
the licensee subsequently had samples
from the released shield blocks in
Vermont analyzed for the suite of
radionuclides listed in the LTP, using
detection limits consistent with the
requirements of the LTP. The results
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12219-12220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-3337]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-348]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Joseph M. Farley Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1; 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 R, ``Fire Protection Program for
Nuclear Power Facilities Operating Prior to January 1, 1979,'' Section
III.G.2, for Facility Operating License No. NPF-2, issued to Southern
Nuclear Operating Company (SNC or the licensee), for operation of the
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant (FNP), Unit 1, located in Houston
County, Alabama. 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 allow the use of fire-rated electrical
cable produced by Meggitt Safety System, Inc. (previously known as
Whittaker Electronic Resources Unit of Whittaker Electronic Systems),
for several cables in Fire Areas 1-013 and 1-042 associated with safe
shutdown (SSD) control circuits. The licensee proposes the use of these
fire-rated electrical cables in lieu of the alternatives specified in
Section III.G.2 of Appendix R. In summary, SNC has requested a
permanent exemption from 10 CFR Appendix R, Section III.G.2 to use 1-
hour fire-rated cable in lieu of a 1-hour rated fire barrier as
required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2 for protection
of safe shutdown control circuits located in Fire Areas 1-013 and 1-
042. Section III.G.2 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, provides fire
protection requirements for electrical cables located within the same
fire areas whose failure could cause the maloperation of redundant
trains of systems necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown
conditions. These areas are required to have protection features such
that one of the redundant trains will be free of fire damage in the
event of a fire. One method, described in Section III.G.2, for ensuring
compliance with this requirement is to enclose the cable and equipment
and associated non-safety circuits of one redundant train in a 1-hour
rated fire barrier. In addition, an area-wide automatic fire
suppression and detection system shall be installed in the fire area.
A postulated fire in Fire Area 1-013 or 1-042 could cause loss of
offsite power since both fire areas contain cable bus ducts from the
startup transformers to both redundant trains of the 4 kilovolt (kV)
Appendix R SSD buses. A postulated fire in either of these fire areas
could also potentially impact the function of the Train B of the 4 kV
Emergency Diesel Generator 1B control circuitry. The majority of the
Train A onsite electrical power system components required for Appendix
R SSD are not located in Fire Area 1-013 or 1-042. Certain Train A
onsite power system related SSD circuits located in Fire Areas 1-013
and 1-042 will be protected by a 1-hour fire-rated electrical cable
along with area-wide automatic fire suppression and detection.
Thus, the licensee's request for an exemption addresses the
situation wherein a 1-hour rated fire barrier as described in Section
III.G.2 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R is not provided for certain
components. Instead, these credited Train A components will utilize
fire-rated electrical cables (Mineral Insulated (MI) cables). This
fire-rated electrical cable has been tested in accordance with American
Society for Testing Materials E-119, ``Standard Test Methods for Fire
Tests of Building Construction Materials.'' Further details of the NRC
staff's review of this issue, with respect to determining that the
fire-rated electrical cables would be capable of providing an
equivalent level of protection as would be provided by a 1-hour rated
fire barrier, are provided in a related safety evaluation.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated January 19, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated
June 9 (two letters) and November 18, 2005.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The exemption is needed to enable the licensee to utilize fire-
rated electrical cables (MI cables) for certain components in lieu of a
1-hour rated fire barrier, as described in Section III.G.2 of 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix R, for FNP, Unit 1 Fire Areas 1-013 and 1-042.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that the proposed exemption will not present an undue
risk to the public health and safety. The details of the NRC staff's
safety evaluation will be provided in an exemption that will be issued
in a letter to the licensee. The action relates to revising the bases
for the adequacy of the fire protection program at FNP, Unit 1.
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 offsite, 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 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''
[[Page 12220]]
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
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement
related to the operation of the FNP, Units 1 and 2, dated December
1974, and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-
1437, Supplement 18), dated March 2005.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on February 14, 2006, the NRC
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
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 January 19, June 9, and November 18, 2005.
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, https://
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 by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of March 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert E. Martin,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-3337 Filed 3-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
