Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Notices 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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–289]

GPU Nuclear Corporation (Three Mile

Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit

1); Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

50, issued to GPU Nuclear Corporation

(GPU, the licensee), for operation of the

Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating

Station, Unit 1 (TMI–1), located in

Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would revise the

Facility Operating License No. DPR–50
20224 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Notices

and the Technical Specifications (TS)

appended to Facility Operating License

No. DPR–50 for the TMI–1 plant.

Specifically, the proposed action would

amend the license to reflect the change

in the legal name of the operator from

GPU Nuclear Corporation to GPU

Nuclear, Inc. and to reflect the

registered trade name of GPU Energy

under which the owners of TMI–1 are

now conducting business. In addition,

the TMI–1 TSs would be revised to

reflect the new legal name of the

operator of TMI–1.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

amendment dated December 16, 1996,

as supplemented September 11, 1997

and March 25, 1998.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed actions are necessary

because on or about August 1, 1996, the

owners of TMI–1 registered to do

business under the trade name of GPU

Energy. Also on or about August 1,

1996, the legal name of the operator of

TMI–1 was changed from GPU Nuclear

Corporation to GPU Nuclear, Inc.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action. As

stated by the licensee,

The corporate existence of all three Owners

and the operator of TMI–1 continues

uninterrupted, and all legal characteristics

remain the same. The name changes do not

alter the state of incorporation, registered

agent, registered office, directors, officers,

rights or liabilities of the Owners of TMI–1

or the operator of TMI–1. Similarly, the name

changes do not alter the function of either the

Owners or the operator of TMI–1, or the way

they do business. The Owner’s financial

responsibility for TMI–1 and their sources of

funds to support the facility remain the same.

These name changes do not impact the

existing ownership of TMI–1 and do not alter

any of the existing licensing conditions

applicable to TMI–1. There is no change to

GPU Nuclear, Inc.’s ability to comply with

these licensing conditions or with any other

obligation or responsibility under the license.

Specifically, the Owners of TMI–1 remain

regulated electric utilities. The funds accrued

by the Owners continue to be available to

fulfill all obligations related to TMI–1 as they

were before the name changes.

There will be no impact on the safe

operation of TMI–1 as a result of the name

changes. Access to funds necessary to safely

operate TMI–1 to the end of the license is

unaffected. Access to decommissioning trust

funds to ensure that TMI–1 can be

decommissioned in accordance with NRC

regulations remains as it was prior to the

name changes.

In light of the foregoing, the

Commission concludes that the change

will not increase the probability or

consequences of accidents, no changes

are being made in the types of any

effluents that may be released offsite,

and there will be 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.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action is administrative in nature and

does not involve any physical features

of the plant. Thus, 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. The environmental impacts of

the proposed action and the alternative

action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for the TMI–1 plant.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on March 16, 1998, the staff consulted

with the Pennsylvania State official, Mr.

Stan J. Maingi, of the Bureau of

Radiation Protection, Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental

Resources, 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

submittals dated December 16, 1996,

September 11, 1997 and March 25,

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 LAW/Government

Publications Section, State Library of

Pennsylvania, (Regional Dispository)

Walnut Street and Commonwealth

Avenue, P.O. Box 1601, Harrisburg, PA

17105.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day

of April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Cecil O. Thomas,

Director, Project Directorate I–3, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–10845 Filed 4–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Consolidated Guidance About

Materials Licenses: Program-Specific

Guidance, Irradiator Licenses;

Availability of Draft NUREG

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability and

request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission is announcing the

availability of and requesting comment

on draft NUREG–1556, Volume 6,

‘‘Consolidated Guidance about Materials

Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance

about 10 CFR Part 36 Irradiator

Licenses,’’ dated March 1998.

NRC is using Business Process

Redesign (BPR) techniques to redesign

its materials licensing process, as

described in NUREG–1539,

‘‘Methodology and Findings of the

NRC’s Materials Licensing Process

Redesign.’’ A critical element of the new

process is consolidating and updating

numerous guidance documents into a

NUREG-series of reports. This draft

NUREG report is the sixth programspecific guidance developed to support

an improved materials licensing

process.

It is intended for use by applicants,

licensees, NRC license reviewers, and

other NRC personnel. It combines and

updates the guidance for applicants and

licensees previously found in Draft

Regulatory Guide DG–0003, ‘‘Guide for

the Preparation of Applications for

Licenses for Non-Self-Contained

Irradiators,’’ dated January 1994, and

the guidance for licensing staff

previously found in NMSS Policy and

Guidance Directive, FC 84–23,

‘‘Standard Review Plan for Licenses for