ML20138B907

1996 Annual Environ Operating Rept (Nonradiological)

ML20138B907
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	12/31/1996
From:	Dennis Morey SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
ENV-97-052, ENV-97-52, NUDOCS 9704290303
Download: ML20138B907 (5)

Text

-- . . . ._ _. --

Dave Mrrey Southern Nucir:r Vice President Op;r: ting Compay

• e Farley Project P0. Box 1295 Birmingham. Alabama 35201 Tel 205.992.5131 April 25, 1997 SOUTHERN COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-348 Energy to Serve hur%rld' 50-364 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATrN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant  ;

1996 Annual Emironmental Operatina Reoort (Nonradiolonicalj l l

Gentlemen:

Enclosed in accordance with subsection 5.4.1 of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Environmental Protection Plan (Units 1 & 2), Appendix B to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8, is the report summarizing implementation of the Emironmental Protection Plan during the calendar year 1996.

l If you have any questions, please advise.

Respectfully submitted, 0

Dave Morey i

K W B/ahl ENV-97-052 Enclosure f

cc: Southern Nuclear Operatina Companv R. D. Hill, Plant Manager Q@li }

1 i

U. S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission. Washincton. D.C. l J. I. Zimmerman, Licensing Project Manager  !

4 I

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Region II L. A. Reyes, Regional Administrator

]

n

! T.M.8- Senior Resiaent inspector r 30099-9704290303 9' C l

PDR R

ADOCK OOOC,_348 PDR ll-ll

..s ll'lllll l! l ll

)

l

ENCLOSURE TO ENV-97-052 i 1

i i

l I

l l

1 i

l 4

l l

I i

l l

I l

l I

l 1

i 1

A A E,.mw4m_d.- 4, a .,___A 34 a._m.s._4.4dgu d _4_.*A_-4-,. __.e_.c .A A6- _-.a.rw. , - g a . , _ _ _.

Aa__ ~ aaA.A- m4auAa.uI_a ._ 4 m,.4 _.4e a. .-_. A.

4

1. 1 SOUTIIERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY JOSEPII M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT- UNITS 1 AND 2 NRC DOCKET NOS. 50-348 AND 50-364 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. NPF-2 AND NPF-8 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT FOR 1996 (NONRADIOLOGICAL) i l

l

_ . . - - . . - ~ _ = . . - - _ . . _- .- .- - ._ -.

1

i JOSEPil M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT- UNITS 1 AND 2 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT FOR 1996 (NONRADIOLOGICAL)

INTRODUCTION In accordance with Subsection 5.4.1 of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Environmental Protection Plan (Units 1 and 2), Appendix B to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8, this report is submitted summarizing implementation of the Environmental Protection Plan for calendar year 1996.

REPORTING REOUIREMENTS The following is submitted in accordance with Subsection 5.4.1 of the Emironmental Protection Plan.

A. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN (EPP) NONCOMPLIANCES AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS.

Farley Nuclear Plant is currently licensed to operate at a nuclear steam supply system power level of 2660 MWt per unit. A power uprate to 2785 MWt for each unit is proposed. In the course of conducting an emironmental impact evaluation for the power uprate proposal, as required by Section 3.1 of the EPP, it was determined in November 1996 that discrepancies existed in cooling tower operating parameters. Specifically, current values for certain operating parameters differed significantly from the design-based values documented in the Environmental Report - Operating License Stage, and the subsequent Final Environmental Statement (FES)(NUREG 0727). It was subsequently determined that an environmental impact evaluation, required by Section 3,1 of the EPP, had not been performed.

Based on this discovery, an administrative noncompliance with Section 3.1 of the EPP was identified. 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. An evaluation of the environmental impact associated with the changes in cooling tower operating conditions was conducted to determine if the changes between the current operating parameters and the design information documented in the Environmental Report and the FES constitute an unreviewed emironmental question or a matter requiring a change to the EPP.

The evaluation was completed in January 1997 and confirmed that the environmental impact associated with the changes was consistent with the FES conclusions and did not result in significant adverse environmental impact. Further, it was determined that this matter did not constitute an unreviewed environmental question or a matter which requires a change to the EPP per Section 3.1. Since the evaluation was completed in 1997, it will be summarized in the 1997 Annual Emironmental Operating Report. liowever, because the administrative noncompliance was identified in November 1996, it is documented in this 1996 report.

I

_ _ . . _. . . . m _ ... _ ._.- _. . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . __ _ _ . _ . . . . . . _ - _ _ . . _ . . . . . . _ . .. -

• 4 B. CHANGES IN STATION DESIGN OR OPERATION, TESTS, AND EXPERIMENTS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH EPP SUBSECTION 3.1 WillCH INVOLVED A POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNREVIEWED ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE. l There were no changes in station design or operation, tests, or experiments during 1996 which involved a potentially significant unreviewed environmental issue.

C. NONROUTINE REPORTS SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EPP SUBSECTION 5.4.2.

There were no nonroutine reports submitted during 1996.

i l

i l

i l

l i

i i

I