Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 73135-73136 [2010-29940]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices
declared emergency. The Plan provides
specific entry conditions for the start of
the emergency and specific conditions
that will terminate the emergency. The
licensee states that the impact on
personnel manning for implementation
of the site hurricane staffing and severe
weather preparations is similar to
entering the Emergency Plan. Although
the proposed exemption would allow
the licensee not to meet work hour
controls during storm crew activation,
sufficient numbers of management and
supervision will be available during
storm crew manning and activation to
ensure that public health and safety is
adequately protected.
The details of the 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, if granted.
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 exemption
request would result in no change in
current environmental impacts. If the
proposed action were denied, the
licensee would have to comply with the
fatigue rules in 10 CFR 26.205(c) and
(d). This would cause unnecessary
burden on the licensee, without a
significant benefit in environmental
impacts. The environmental impacts of
the proposed exemption and the ‘‘no
action’’ alternative are similar.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
considered in the Final Environmental
Statement related to the St. Lucie Plant,
Unit 1, dated June 1973; the Final
Environmental Statement related to the
operation of St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2
(NUREG–0842), dated April 1982; and,
the plant-specific Supplement 11 to
NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License Renewal
of Nuclear Power Plants’’ (GEIS).
Supplement 11 of the GEIS, issued on
May 16, 2003, addresses the renewal of
operating licenses DPR–67 and NPF–16
for St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, for an
additional 20 years of operation.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on September 7, 2010, the NRC staff
consulted with the Florida State official,
William A Passetti of the Bureau of
Radiation Control, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed
action. The State official had no
comments.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:57 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
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, 2009 (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Accession No.
ML092990394). 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
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 800–397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or
send an e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19 day
of November 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tracy J. Orf,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II–
2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–29935 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
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
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73135
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, the licensee has proposed an
alternate full compliance
implementation date of July 15, 2011.
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
September 10, 2010, as supplemented
by letter dated October 5, 2010.
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 constraints. Previously, by
letters dated June 9 and July 31, 2009,
SNC submitted a request for an
exemption from the compliance date
identified in 10 CFR 73.55 for three
specific requirements of 10 CFR 73.55.
The NRC staff reviewed the request and
by letter dated August 27, 2009, granted
an exemption to the March 31, 2010,
compliance date for the 3 specific
requirements identified within the SNC
exemption request until December 15,
2010. Subsequently, by letters dated
September 10 and October 5, 2010, SNC
submitted an additional request for an
exemption to the compliance date
identified in 10 CFR 73.55. The licensee
has requested a further exemption from
the March 31, 2010, compliance date
stating that a number of issues,
including unforeseen growth in the
amount of design work required, design
product loss due to computer hardware
failures, and weather-related
construction delays, will present a
significant challenge to timely
completion of the project related to
certain requirements in 10 CFR 73.55.
Specifically, the request is to extend the
compliance date for three specific
requirements from the current March
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
73136
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices
31, 2010 deadline, as extended for this
specific licensee to December 15, 2010,
by the exemption granted on August 27,
2009, until July 15, 2011. Being granted
this exemption for these items will
allow the licensee to complete the
modifications designed to update
equipment and incorporate state-of-theart technology to meet the noted
regulatory requirement.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC staff has completed its
environmental assessment of the
proposed exemption and 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 of the
plant, or to threatened, endangered, or
protected species under the Endangered
Species Act, or impacts to essential fish
habitat covered by the MagnusonSteven’s 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 staff concludes that there are no
significant environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action.
The licensee currently maintains a
security system acceptable to the NRC
and the NRC expects that the licensee
will continue to maintain the
effectiveness of the overall physical
protection program and protective
strategy for the duration of this
exemption. Therefore, the extension of
the implementation date of the new
requirements of 10 CFR Part 73 to July
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:57 Nov 26, 2010
Jkt 223001
15, 2011, 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 ‘‘noaction’’ 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).’’
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: 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 send an
e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day
of November, 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert E. Martin,
Sr. Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch
II–1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–29940 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2010–0002]
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on November 15, 2010, the NRC staff
consulted with the Alabama State
official, Mr. David Walters of the
Alabama Department of Public Health,
regarding the environmental impact of
the proposed action. The State official
had no comments.
Sunshine Act Notice
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental
assessment, the NRC staff concludes
that the proposed action will not have
a significant effect on the quality of the
human environment. Accordingly, the
NRC staff 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 September 10, 2010 and
October 5, 2009. The licensee has
provided a redacted version of the
September 10, 2010 letter that is
publically available and the October 5,
2010 transmittal letter is publically
available. The edition of the September
10, 2010 letter and its enclosure and the
enclosure to the October 5, 2010 letter
that contains proprietary securityrelated information is 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
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Week of November 29, 2010.
Commissioners’ Conference
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
STATUS: Public and closed.
DATES:
PLACE:
Additional Items To Be Considered
Week of November 29, 2010
10 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public
Meeting) (Tentative).
a. Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts
Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2), Southern
Alliance for Clean Energy’s Petition for
Interlocutory Review of LBP–10–12
(Denying SACE’s Waiver Petition) (July
14, 2010) (Tentative).
*
*
*
*
*
* The schedule for Commission
meetings is subject to change on short
notice. To verify the status of meetings,
call (recording)—(301) 415–1292.
Contact person for more information:
Rochelle Bavol, (301) 415–1651.
*
*
*
*
*
The NRC Commission Meeting
Schedule can be found on the Internet
at: https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policymaking/schedule.html.
*
*
*
*
*
The NRC provides reasonable
accommodation to individuals with
disabilities where appropriate. If you
E:\FR\FM\29NON1.SGM
29NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73135-73136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29940]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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, the licensee has
proposed an alternate full compliance implementation date of July 15,
2011. 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 September 10, 2010, as supplemented by letter dated
October 5, 2010.
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 constraints. Previously, by
letters dated June 9 and July 31, 2009, SNC submitted a request for an
exemption from the compliance date identified in 10 CFR 73.55 for three
specific requirements of 10 CFR 73.55. The NRC staff reviewed the
request and by letter dated August 27, 2009, granted an exemption to
the March 31, 2010, compliance date for the 3 specific requirements
identified within the SNC exemption request until December 15, 2010.
Subsequently, by letters dated September 10 and October 5, 2010, SNC
submitted an additional request for an exemption to the compliance date
identified in 10 CFR 73.55. The licensee has requested a further
exemption from the March 31, 2010, compliance date stating that a
number of issues, including unforeseen growth in the amount of design
work required, design product loss due to computer hardware failures,
and weather-related construction delays, will present a significant
challenge to timely completion of the project related to certain
requirements in 10 CFR 73.55. Specifically, the request is to extend
the compliance date for three specific requirements from the current
March
[[Page 73136]]
31, 2010 deadline, as extended for this specific licensee to December
15, 2010, by the exemption granted on August 27, 2009, until July 15,
2011. Being granted this exemption for these items will allow the
licensee to complete the modifications designed to update equipment and
incorporate state-of-the-art technology to meet the noted regulatory
requirement.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC staff has completed its environmental assessment of the
proposed exemption and 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 of the plant, or to threatened,
endangered, or protected species under the Endangered Species Act, or
impacts to essential fish habitat covered by the Magnuson-Steven's 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
staff concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action.
The licensee currently maintains a security system acceptable to
the NRC and the NRC expects that the licensee will continue to maintain
the effectiveness of the overall physical protection program and
protective strategy for the duration of this exemption. Therefore, the
extension of the implementation date of the new requirements of 10 CFR
Part 73 to July 15, 2011, 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 November 15, 2010, the NRC
staff consulted with the Alabama State official, Mr. David Walters 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 staff
concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect
on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC staff 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 September 10, 2010 and October 5, 2009. The
licensee has provided a redacted version of the September 10, 2010
letter that is publically available and the October 5, 2010 transmittal
letter is publically available. The edition of the September 10, 2010
letter and its enclosure and the enclosure to the October 5, 2010
letter that contains proprietary security-related information is 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: 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 send
an e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of November, 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert E. Martin,
Sr. Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-29940 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
