Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Notices 20221

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 May 26, 1998, 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 Learning

Resources Center, Three Rivers

Community-Technical College, 574 New

London Turnpike, Norwich,

Connecticut, and at the Waterford

Library, ATTN: Vince Juliano, 49 Rope

Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut. 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

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

Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Nuclear

Counsel, Northeast Utilities Service

Company, P.O. Box 270, Hartford,

Connecticut, 06141–0270, 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

amendment dated April 7, 1998, 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

Learning Resources Center, Three Rivers

Community-Technical College, 574 New

London Turnpike, Norwich,

Connecticut, and at the Waterford

Library, ATTN: Vince Juliano, 49 Rope

Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day

of April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Daniel G. McDonald Jr.,

Senior Project Manager, Special Projects

Office—Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–10843 Filed 4–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

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
20222 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 78 /Thursday, April 23, 1998 / Notices

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 postaccident 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°F over the current

operating condition. This increase in

discharge temperature from 96.4°F to

96.6°F will produce an increase in river

temperature of approximately 0.56°F

above ambient river temperature during

extreme temperature and flow

conditions. The FES concluded that the

approximately 0.5°F increase in river

temperature associated with operation

of Farley at extreme temperature and

flow conditions did not result in

significant adverse environmental
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