[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49998-49999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25316]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <greek-m>Curie/
gram. The transient limit for 80 percent to 100 percent will be reduced 
to 9 <greek-m>Curie/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 Houston-Love 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

[[Page 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