49998 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Notices

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202)

314–6100.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Bea

Hardesty, (202) 314–6065.

Dated: September 19, 1997.

Bea Hardesty,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–25397 Filed 9–19–97; 4:18 pm]

BILLING CODE 7533–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364]

Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

Inc., et al.; Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendments to Facility

Operating Licenses, Proposed No

Significant Hazards Consideration

Determination, and Opportunity for a

Hearing

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 the Southern

Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., et al.

(the licensee) for operation of the Joseph

M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,

located in Houston County, Alabama.

The proposed amendments would

modify Technical Specification 3/4.4.9,

‘‘Specific Activity,’’ and the associated

Bases to reduce the limit associated

with dose equivalent iodine-131. The

steady-state dose equivalent iodine-131

limit will be reduced to 0.15 μCurie/

gram. The transient limit for 80 percent

to 100 percent will be reduced to 9

μCurie/gram with limits as shown on

Technical Specification Figure 3.4–1 for

less than 80 percent power.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendments, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration. Under

the Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR

50.92, this means that operation of the

facility in accordance with the proposed

amendment would not: (1) Involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident from

any accident previously evaluated; or

(3) involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its

analysis of the issue of no significant

hazards consideration, which is

presented below:

1. Operation of Farley Units 1 and 2 in

accordance with the proposed license

amendment does not involve a significant

increase in the probability or consequences

of an accident previously evaluated.

The reduction in the dose equivalent

iodine limits, both steady-state and transient,

will not increase the probability of any

accident evaluated since no physical changes

to the plant are being made. The

consequences of any accident previously

evaluated will not be increased since the

specific activity limit of the primary coolant

is being decreased.

2. The proposed license amendment does

not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

The reduction in the dose equivalent

iodine limits, both steady-state and transient,

will not create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated since no physical

changes to the plant are being made. The

accidents of concern continue to be those

that have previously been analyzed.

3. The proposed license amendment does

not involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety.

The calculated potential radiological

consequences from the main steam line break

accident remain within the regulatory

exposure guidelines and have not changed.

Reduction of the dose equivalent iodine limit

to increase allowable steam line break

primary-to-secondary steam generator

leakage is a compensating offsite dose effect.

Consequently, there is no reduction in any

margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

licensee’s analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

The Commission is seeking public

comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment until the

expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received. Should

the Commission take this action, it will

publish in the Federal Register a notice

of issuance and provide for opportunity

for a hearing after issuance. The

Commission expects that the need to

take this action will occur very

infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Chief, Rules and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

Services, Office of Administration, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and

should cite the publication date and

page number of this Federal Register

notice. Written comments may also be

delivered to Room 6D22, Two White

Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to

4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of

written comments received may be

examined at the NRC Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By October 24, 1997, the licensee may

file a request for a hearing with respect

to issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating license and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available 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 HoustonLove Memorial Library, 212 W.

Burdeshaw Street, Post Office Box 1369,

Dothan, Alabama. If a request for a

hearing or petition for leave to intervene

is filed by the above date, the

Commission or an Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board, designated by the

Commission or by the Chairman of the

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Panel, will rule on the request and/or

petition; and the Secretary or the

designated Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board will issue a notice of hearing or

an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Notices 49999

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) The nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If a hearing is requested, the

Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendment

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, by the above date. A

copy of the petition should also be sent

to the Office of the General Counsel,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to M.

Stanford Blanton, Esq., Balch and

Bingham, Post Office Box 306, 1710

Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham,

Alabama, attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1) (i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendments dated September 17, 1997,

which is 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 19th day

of September 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jacob I. Zimmerman,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II–2,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–25316 Filed 9–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 70–3085]

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

on Proposed Decommissioning of the

Babcock & Wilcox Shallow Land

Disposal Area in Parks Township, PA

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Draft Environmental Impact

Statement—Decommissioning of the

Babcock & Wilcox Shallow Land

Disposal Area in Parks Township,

Pennsylvania; withdrawal of notice of

availability.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission is withdrawing a Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

(NUREG–1613) regarding the proposed

decommissioning of the Babcock &

Wilcox (B&W) Shallow Land Disposal

Area (SLDA) in Parks Township,

Pennsylvania. A notice of availability

for the DEIS was published on

September 4, 1997 (62 FR 46780). The

NRC is taking this withdrawal action in

order to develop additional information

regarding the alternatives described in

the DEIS.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 24, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Phyllis Sobel, Low-Level Waste and

Decommissioning Projects Branch, Mail

Stop T7F–27, Division of Waste

Management, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C. 20555–0001. Telephone 301–415–

6714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

September 4, 1997 (62 FR 46780), the

NRC published a notice of availability

for a Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (DEIS) for the proposed

decommissioning of the Babcock &

Wilcox (B&W) Shallow Land Disposal

Area (SLDA) in Parks Township,

Pennsylvania. The DEIS described and

evaluated the potential environmental

impacts of B&W’s proposed approach to

decommission the radiologically

contaminated waste which would

involve the stabilization of waste in

place at the site. The DEIS also

contained information regarding

alternatives to B&W’s proposal,

including an NRC staff recommended

alternative that would involve a

modified stabilization in place option.

The NRC is withdrawing the DEIS in

order to develop additional information

regarding the alternatives presented.

The NRC will provide further

consideration to the merits of the

various alternatives in light of any