![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
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
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: April 23, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 78)]
[Notices]
[Page 20221-20223]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23ap98-113]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (the Commission) is
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos.
NPF-2 and NPF-8, issued to Southern Nuclear
[[Page 20222]]
Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), et al. (the licensee), for operation of
the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Houston
County, Alabama.
Envrionmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would allow SNC to increase the maximum reactor
core power level for facility operation from 2652 megawatts-thermal
(MWt) to 2775 MWt, which is approximately a 4.6 percent increase in
rated core power.
The proposed action is in accordance with SNC's application for
amendments dated February 14, 1997, as supplemented by letters dated
June 20, August 5, September 22, November 19, December 9, December 17,
and December 31, 1997, January 23, February 12, February 26, March 3,
March 6, March 16, April 3, April 13, and two letters on April 17,
1998.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to allow SNC to increase the
electrical output of each Farley unit by approximately 25 megawatts-
electric and, thus, provide additional electrical power to service
domestic and commercial areas of the licensee's grid.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that no significant change in the environmental impact
can be expected for the proposed increase in power.
The original Final Environmental Statement (FES) considered a
maximum thermal output of 2774 MWt for each Farley unit. The proposed
power uprate will increase the maximum thermal output to 2775 MWt,
which represents 0.036 percent increase over the original FES. The
staff considers this increase over that previously assessed in the FES
to be of minimal impact.
As part of the Farley power uprate review, SNC performed and
completed an environmental impact evaluation in January 1997, as
required by Section 3.1 of the Farley Nuclear Plant Environmental
Protection Plan (EPP). Section 3.1 requires that the licensee prepare
and record an evaluation of activities that may significantly affect
the environment and determine if an unreviewed environmental question
exists prior to engaging in additional construction or operational
activities. SNC compared the proposed power uprate values and the
values in the FES, June 1972, and the current operating conditions in
order to assess environmental impact. This evaluation identified
discrepancies between the current cooling tower operating parameters
and the original design parameters, upon which the conclusions of the
FES, June 1972, are based. An administrative noncompliance with Section
3.1 of the EPP was identified and reported in the 1996 Annual
Environmental Operating Report. The staff's review of SNC's evaluation
of environmental impacts is discussed below.
Radiological Environmental Assessment
SNC evaluated the impact of the proposed power uprate amendments to
show that the applicable regulatory acceptance criteria relative to
radiological environmental impacts will continue to be satisfied for
the uprated power conditions. In conducting this evaluation, SNC
considered the effect of the higher power level on source terms, onsite
and offsite doses, and control room habitability during both normal
operation and accident conditions.
The solid, liquid, and gaseous radwaste activity is influenced by
the reactor coolant activity, which is a function of the reactor core
power. The licensee performed evaluations of the existing design of the
radwaste systems and concluded that plant operations at the proposed
uprated power level will not have a significant impact on the radwaste
systems.
The licensee performed calculations of the anticipated offsite
releases at the proposed power uprate of 2775 MWt. The results of these
calculations were then utilized to evaluate conformance with 10 CFR
Part 20 and Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50. The licensee concluded that
there exists sufficient radwaste equipment to maintain releases within
the limits of 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B and the resulting offsite
doses to the most exposed individual meet the limits of Appendix I of
10 CFR Part 50 and docket RM-50-2. Consequently, the licensee concluded
that the power uprate requires no changes to the radwaste system design
and/or operation and that no significant changes in actual offsite
gaseous and liquid releases and doses are expected. The staff reviewed
the licensee's assessment and concluded that the power uprate would
have a small impact upon the quantity of offsite releases. The staff
also concluded, based upon past plant effluent release reports, that
the existing radwaste equipment should be sufficient to maintain
offsite releases within the requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part
20 and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
SNC has concluded that no changes or additions to structures,
equipment, or procedures are necessary to provide adequate radiation
protection for the operators and for the public during normal or post-
accident operations to support the uprate. The existing structures,
systems, and components can safely handle the changes in post-accident
source terms and releases from the uprate conditions, and resulting
onsite and offsite doses are less than the guidelines in 10 CFR 100.11
and are within the Standard Review Plan guidelines.
The staff has assessed those accidents for which the power uprate
would have an impact upon the offsite and control room operator doses
contained in Chapter 15 of the Final Safety Analysis Report. The
staff's results demonstrate that, for those accidents that are impacted
by the power uprate, the doses would not exceed the dose guidelines
presently contained in the Standard Review Plan, 10 CFR Part 100 or
General Design Criterion 19 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A for either
offsite locations or control room operators. Therefore, the staff finds
that there are no significant adverse impacts on the environment.
The change will not increase the probability or consequences of
accidents or normal effluents, no changes are being made in the types
of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no
significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative
occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Commission concludes
that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action.
Nonradiological Environmental Assessment
The proposed power uprate will result in an increase in cooling
tower duty of approximately 381 MMBtu/hr over the current operating
condition, with a corresponding increase in evaporation, makeup, and
cooling tower blowdown temperature. The power uprate will result in an
increase in cooling tower blowdown temperature of approximately
0.2 deg.F over the current operating condition. This increase in
discharge temperature from 96.4 deg.F to 96.6 deg.F will produce an
increase in river temperature of approximately 0.56 deg.F above ambient
river temperature during extreme temperature and flow conditions. The
FES concluded that the approximately 0.5 deg.F increase in river
temperature associated with operation of Farley at extreme temperature
and flow conditions did not result in significant adverse environmental
[[Page 20223]]
impact. SNC concluded that the additional heat load to the
Chattahoochee River associated with power uprate does not significantly
impact the conclusions of the FES relative to thermal impact. Cooling
tower makeup, which comes from the service water pond, has increased
from 17,077 gallons per minute (gpm) to 18,093 gpm. This represents an
approximate 1.6 percent increase over the FES value of 17,800 gpm. This
corresponds to a increase in river water withdrawal for both units from
67,504 gpm to 69,536 gpm, which is bounded by the two-unit river water
withdrawal of 90,000 gpm in the FES. Cooling tower evaporation has
increased from 12,808 gpm to 13,570 gpm. This represents an approximate
20 percent increase over the FES value of 11,340 gpm and approximately
a 6 percent increase over the present operating condition. The FES
concluded that the potential for fogging associated with cooling tower
operation was not significant and should merely augment the normal
fogging situation by a relatively small amount. SNC has stated that
studies conducted during the first year of operation confirmed this
conclusion. No fogging problems have been noted to date and no
significant impact associated with fogging is expected for the uprated
condition. The staff expects that operation of the plant at uprated
condition will result in only a minimal increase in the natural fog
over that discussed in the FES. Cooling tower flowrate (692,000 gpm)
does not change as a result of power uprate. However, the flowrate is
approximately 9 percent higher than the FES value (635,000 gpm). This
increase was a result of pump modifications to improve efficiency.
Cooling tower drift, which is a function of flowrate, also does not
change. SNC uses a chemical treatment program for the cooling towers in
order to minimize microbial and fungal attacks. The bulk water is
sampled for microbiological activity on a periodic basis to evaluate
the effectiveness of the program. SNC has stated that no environmental
problems associated with microorganisms have been noted since the
beginning of plant operation. In addition, the effects of airborne
pathogens in the cooling towers has been reviewed and a program is in
place to ensure protection of workers performing work in the cooling
towers. The change in heat load to the cooling towers associated with
power uprate is not expected to have significant impact relative to
environmental effects from microorganisms or airborne organisms.
In addition to the FES, SNC evaluated the thermal impact associated
with power uprate relative to the Farley Nuclear Plant National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management. A renewed permit was
issued in 1995 based on a 1990 thermal study conducted in support of
the renewal, and contains no limits for temperature. The slight
increase in final discharge falls within the acceptance range
determined in the 1990 study. No additional monitoring requirements or
other changes relative to the NPDES permit are required as a result of
power uprate. SNC has also indicated that implementation of the power
uprate will not require laydown areas that would affect land use,
erosion control, endangered species, or historic land sites.
SNC has concluded that, with the exception of the parameters
mentioned above, the operating parameters evaluated with regard to
potential for environmental impact associated with power uprate either
retain the same values as the original values in the FES or are bounded
by those values and do not result in significant adverse environmental
impact.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action does involve features located entirely within the restricted
area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect nonradiological
plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the
Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be
evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff
considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the application
would result in no change in current environmental impacts and would
reduce the operational flexibility.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on February 26, 1998, 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. The State
official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon 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 the
licensee's letter dated February 14, 1997, as supplemented on June 20,
August 5, September 22, November 19, December 9, December 17, and
December 31, 1997, January 23, February 12, February 26, March 3, March
6, March 16, April 3, April 13, and two letters on April 17, 1998,
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.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of April 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Herbert N. Berkow,
Director, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-10844 Filed 4-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P