Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Notices 11689

Special Emphasis Panel in Research,

Evaluation and Dissemination; Notice

of Meeting

In accordance with the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–

463, as amended), the National Science

Foundation announces the following

meeting:

Name: Special Emphasis Panel in

Research, Evaluation and Dissemination.

Date and Time: March 19, 1995; 4:00 p.m.

to 9:00 p.m., March 20, 1995; 8:00 a.m. to

8:00 p.m.

Place: Room 310, National Science

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, VA 22230.

Type of Meeting: Closed.

Contact Person: Dr. Nora Sabelli, Program

Director, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 855,

Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone (703) 306–

1651.

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and

recommendations concerning proposals

submitted to NSF for financial support.

Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals

submitted to the Applications of Advanced

Technologies Program.

Reason for Closing: Because the proposals

being reviewed include information of a

proprietary or confidential nature, including

technical information; financial data, such as

salaries; and personal information

concerning individuals associated with

proposals, the meetings are closed to the

public. These matters are within exemptions

(4) and (6) of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), Government

in the Sunshine Act.

Dated: February 27, 1995.

M. Rebecca Winkler,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–5161 Filed 3–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

Special Emphasis Panel in Research,

Evaluation and Dissemination; Notice

of Meeting

In accordance with the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–

463, as amended), the National Science

Foundation announces the following

meeting:

Name: Special Emphasis Panel in

Research, Evaluation and Dissemination.

Date and Time: March 20, 1995; 8:30 a.m.

to 5:00 p.m.; March 21, 1995, 8:30 a.m. to

5:00 p.m.; March 22, 1995, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00

p.m.

Place: Rooms 880 and 1150, National

Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, VA 22230.

Type of Meeting: Closed.

Contact Person: Dr. Nora Sabelli, Program

Director, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 855,

Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone (703) 306–

1651.

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and

recommendations concerning proposals

submitted to NSF for financial support.

Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals

and provide advice and recommendations as

part of the selection process for proposals

submitted to the Networking Infrastructure

for Education Program.

Reason for Closing: Because the proposals

being reviewed include information of a

proprietary or confidential nature, including

technical information; financial data, such as

salaries; and personal information

concerning individuals associated with

proposals, the meetings are closed to the

public. These matters are within exemptions

(4) and (6) of 5 U.S.C. 552(c), Government in

the Sunshine Act.

Dated: February 27, 1995.

M. Rebecca Winkler,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–5163 Filed 3–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–410]

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation;

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. NPF–

69, issued to Niagara Mohawk Power

Corporation (the licensee), for operation

of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station,

Unit 2 (NMP–2), located in Oswego

County, New York.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

This Environmental Assessment has

been prepared to address potential

environmental issues related to the

licensee’s application to amend the

NMP–2 operating license dated July 22,

1993, as supplemented January 9, 1995.

The proposed amendment would

increase the licensed core thermal

power from 3323 MWt to 3467 MWt,

which represents an approximate

increase of 4.3% over the current

licensed power level. This request is in

accordance with the generic boiling

water reactor (BWR) power uprate

program established by the General

Electric Company (GE) and approved by

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) staff in a letter from

W. Russell, NRC, to P. Marriotte, GE,

dated September 30, 1991.

Implementation of the proposed power

uprate at NMP–2 will result in an

increase of steam flow to approximately

105% of the current operating limit, but

will require no changes to the basic fuel

design. Core reload design and fuel

parameters will be modified as power

uprate is implemented to support the

current 18-month reload cycle. The

higher power level will be achieved by

expanding the power/flow map and by

increasing, slightly, reactor vessel dome

pressure. The maximum recirculation

flow limit will not be increased over the

preuprate value. Implementation of this

proposed power uprate will require

minor modifications, such as, resetting

of the low set safety relief setpoints, as

well as the calibration of plant

instrumentation to reflect the uprated

power. Plant operating, emergency, and

other procedure changes will be made

where necessary to support uprated

operation.

The proposed action involves NRC

issuance of a license amendment to

uprate the authorized power level by

changing the operating license,

including Appendix A of the license

(Technical Specifications). No change is

needed to Appendix B of the license

(Environmental Protection Plan—

Nonradiological).

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action would authorize

the licensee to increase the potential

electrical output of NMP2 by

approximately 45 megawatts and thus

would provide additional electrical

power to service domestic and

commercial areas of the licensee’s grid.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The ‘‘Final Environmental Statement

(FES) related to operation of Nine Mile

Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2’’ was

issued May 1985 (NUREG–1085). By

letter of July 22, 1993, the licensee

submitted the proposed amendment to

implement power uprate for NMP2,

which is the subject of this

environmental assessment. Section 11.3

of the NMP2 power uprate licensing

topical report (GE report NEDC–31994P,

Revision 1) which was submitted as

Enclosure 3 to NMPC’s July 22, 1993,

submittal, provided an environmental

assessment of the proposed power

uprate. Some environmental effects will

remain the same, while power uprate

may nominally increase others. Actual

effects are at worst proportional to the

approximately 5% increase in turbine

steam flow. Increased core flow has no

discernable effect on the environmental

assessment.

The licensee provided information

regarding the nonradiological and

radiological environmental effects of the

proposed action in the July 22, 1993,

application and in its supplemental

information dated January 9, 1995. The

NRC staff has reviewed the potential

nonradiological and radiological effects

of the proposed action on the

environment as described below.
11690 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Notices

Nonradiological Environmental

Assessment

Power uprate will not change the

method of generating electricity nor the

method of handling any influents from

minor effluents to the environment.

Therefore, no new or different types of

environmental impacts are expected.

The NRC staff reviewed the

nonradiological impact of operation at

uprated power levels on influents from

and effluents to Lake Ontario. NMP–2

utilizes a closed-loop circulating water

system and a natural draft cooling tower

for dissipating heat from the main

turbine condenser. Other equipment is

cooled by the service water system. The

cooling tower and service water system

are operated in accordance with the

requirements of the State Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)

Permit No. NY–000–1015, which was

issued by the New York State

Department of Environmental

Conservation (NYSDEC) on October 26,

1994, and became effective on December

1, 1994. It expires on December 1, 1999.

This new discharge permit was issued

by New York State since the previous

permit had expired.

The withdrawal of cooling water from

Lake Ontario is expected to increase

slightly due to the increased heat loads.

Emergency system flows are expected to

remain generally unchanged. Increased

heat loads are expected for nonsafety

related loads such as the main generator

stator coolers, hydrogen coolers, and

exciter coolers. These systems, as well

as other systems (e.g., RHR heat

exchangers, emergency diesel generator

coolers, and spent fuel pool heat

exchangers) noted in Section 6 of the

July 22, 1993, submittal are expected to

require additional cooling and an

increase in flowrate. The increase in

water intake to the cooling tower is due

to increased evaporation in the cooling

tower. The increase in flowrate is

expected to be small and within a

nominal 5 percent increase.

Conservatively assuming a 5 percent

increase in the withdrawal rate, the

intake approach flowrate velocity is

expected to increase from 0.5 fps to 0.53

fps. Observations by the licensee have

shown fish impingement to be very low

and in most cases nonexistent. The

NYSDEC has evaluated the potential

effects of the current intake flowrate and

has concluded that no special aquatic

studies are required to assess the

biological impact. No aquatic studies

were included in the licensee’s new

SPDES discharge permit which was

effective December 1, 1994. The licensee

has stated that because the current

intake flowrates are low and the aquatic

impacts of withdrawal are minimal, an

increase of 5 percent is not expected to

result in a significant impact, if any

impact at all. The NRC staff agrees with

the licensee’s assessment and does not

expect any significant impact due to the

5 percent increase in withdrawal

flowrate.

The licensee does not expect an

increase in the cooling tower

blowdown. The cooling tower

blowdown rate is controlled by total

copper concentration in the circulating

water system and the economic use of

water treatment chemicals. The current

blowdown rate is approximately 40

percent of the designed rate and is

restricted to ensure compliance with the

total copper concentration limitation

imposed by the SPDES permit and by

economic use of water treatment

chemicals. The licensee has stated that

if the blowdown rate was increased by

5–10 percent in order to evaluate

cooling tower efficiency and to reduce

the cycles of concentration of natural

salts in the circulating water system, the

copper limitation could still be met and

the flowrate impact would be less than

design. In addition, the NYSDEC has

evaluated the service water and cooling

tower blowdown based on the original

design flowrates, as well as the state of

the art technology of the discharge

diffuser. The NYSDEC has concluded

that no thermal measurements or

thermal plume studies are necessary

because of the low flowrates and the

design of the discharge structure.

Therefore, the licensee concluded that

because the withdrawal rate is currently

low and the cooling tower blowdown

rate is currently below original design,

the 5 percent increase in water

withdrawal or an increase in blowdown

is not expected to result in any

additional environmental impact since

any increase in flowrate is expected to

be no more than the original system

design. The NRC staff has reviewed the

licensee’s assessment and concludes the

increased flowrates will not result in a

significant increase in environmental

impact.

The licensee has conservatively

estimated that the power uprate will

result in an annual increase in dissolved

solids from water passing through the

soil in the area of the Energy Center of

approximately 0.012 ppm. Since even

the most sensitive species are not

affected by soil salinization of less than

1,280 ppm, it is highly unlikely that

even salt-sensitive species would be

measurably affected by this additional

deposition rate during operation of the

NMP–2 cooling tower at power uprate

conditions. Therefore, the NRC staff has

concluded that the increase in cooling

tower drift due to the proposed power

uprate will have no significant increase

in environment impact and would still

be well below the levels of concern to

local soil and vegetation.

Nonradiological effluent discharges

from other systems were also

considered. Nonradiological effluent

limits for such systems as floor and

equipment drains are established in the

SPDES permit. Discharges from these

systems are not expected to change

significantly, if at all, because operation

at uprated power levels are governed by

the limits in the SPDES permit. Thus,

the impact on the environment from

these systems as a result of operation at

uprated power levels is not significant.

With the exception of the cooling

tower, all other significant noise

producing equipment associated with

the service water and circulating water

systems are located inside buildings

and/or well below grade where the

noise level would have little, if any,

environmental impact. There is no

expected increase in cooling tower noise

levels associated with the proposed

power uprate since there are no plans to

increase its flow rate as part of the

proposed power uprate. The main

turbine and generator will operate at the

same speed and thus will not contribute

to increased offsite noise. Although the

main station transformers will operate at

a slightly (approximately 4.3 percent)

increased kilovolt-ampere level, the

slight increase will cause an

insignificant increase in the overall

noise level. Therefore, the NRC staff has

concluded that the outside noise level

increase will be insignificant.

The licensee has stated that the

proposed power uprate will not require

any changes to the SPDES discharge

permit nor to the NMP–2 Environmental

Protection Plan. The NRC staff agrees

with this assessment and, therefore, we

have concluded that the proposed

power uprate will have an insignificant

impact on the nonradiological elements

of concern.

Radiological Environmental Assessment

The licensee evaluated the impact of

the proposed power uprate amendment

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, the licensee considered the

effect of the higher power level on

liquid radioactive wastes, gaseous

radioactive wastes, and radiation levels

both in the plant and offsite during both

normal operation and post-accident.

The floor drain collector subsystem

waste collector subsystem both receive
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Notices 11691

inputs from a variety of sources (e.g.,

leakage from component cooling water

system, reactor coolant system,

condensate and feedwater system,

turbine plant cooling water system, and

auxiliary steam system). However,

leakages from these systems are not

expected to increase significantly since

the operating pressures of these systems

are either being maintained constant or

are being increased only slightly due to

the proposed power uprate.

The largest single source of liquid

radioactive waste is from the ultrasonic

cleaning of the condensate

demineralizers. These demineralizers

remove activated corrosion products

which are expected to increase

proportionally to the proposed power

uprate. However, the total volume of

processed waste is not expected to

increase significantly, since the only

appreciable increase in processed waste

will be due to the slightly more frequent

cleaning of these demineralizers. Based

on a review of plant effluent reports and

the slight increase expected due to the

proposed power uprate, the NRC staff

has concluded that the slight increase in

the processing of liquid radioactive

wastes will not have a significant

increase in environment impact and that

requirements of 10 CFR part 20 and 10

CFR part 50, appendix I, will continue

to be met.

Gaseous radioactive effluents are

produced during both normal operation

and abnormal operation occurrences.

These effluents are collected, controlled,

processed, stored, and disposed of by

the gaseous radioactive waste

management systems which include the

various building ventilation systems,

the offgas system, and the standby gas

treatment system (SGTS). The

concentration of radioactive gaseous

effluents released through the building

ventilation systems during normal

operation is not expected to increase

significantly due to the proposed power

uprate since the amount of fission

products released into the reactor

coolant (and subsequently into the

building atmosphere) depends on the

number and nature of fuel rod defects

and is not dependent on reactor power

level. The concentration of activation

products contained in the reactor

coolant is expected to remain

unchanged, since the linear increase in

the production of these activation

products will be offset by the linear

increase in steaming rate. Therefore,

based on its review of the various

building ventilation systems, the NRC

staff has concluded that there will not

be a significant adverse effect on

airborne radioactive effluents as a result

of the proposed power uprate.

Radiolysis of the reactor coolant

causes the formation of hydrogen and

oxygen, the quantities of which increase

linearly with core power. These

additional quantities of hydrogen and

oxygen would increase the flow to the

recombiners by 4.3 percent during

uprated power conditions. The offgas

system was originally designed for 105

percent of warranted steam flow which

would not be exceeded during operation

at the proposed uprated power level.

Therefore, no changes will be required

in the offgas system and since the offgas

system will be operated within the

originally evaluated design conditions,

there will be no environmental impact

that was not previously evaluated.

The SGTS is designed to minimize

offsite radiation dose rates during

venting and purging of both the primary

and secondary containment atmosphere

under accident or abnormal conditions.

This is accomplished by maintaining

the secondary containment at a slightly

negative pressure (more negative than or

equal to ¥0.25 inch water gauge) with

respect to the outside atmosphere and

discharging the secondary containment

atmosphere through high-efficiency

particulate air (HEPA) filters and

charcoal absorbers. As noted in the

Updated Safety Analysis Report

(USAR), the SGTS charcoal absorbers

are designed for a charcoal loading

capacity of 10 mgI/gC and get the design

requirements for 30-day and 100-day

loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA)

scenarios. The proposed power uprate

would increase the post-LOCA iodine

loading by 4.3 percent but the charcoal

loading would still remain within the 10

mgI/gC loading and therefore, there

would be no significant increase in

environmental impact.

The licensee has evaluated the effects

of the power uprate on in-plant

radiation levels in the NMP–2 facility

during both normal operation and postaccident. The licensee has concluded

that radiation levels during both normal

operation and post-accident may

increase slightly (at most, proportional

to the increase in power level). The

slight increases in in-plant radiation

levels expected due to the proposed

power uprate are not expected to affect

radiation zoning or shielding

requirements. Individual worker

occupational exposures will be

maintained with acceptable limits by

the existing as low as is reasonably

achievable (ALARA) program which the

licensee uses to control access to

radiation areas. Therefore, the NRC staff

has concluded that the slightly

increased in-plant radiation levels will

not have a significant environmental

impact.

The offsite doses associated with

normal operation are not significantly

affected by operation at the proposed

uprated power level and are expected to

remain well within the limits of 10 CFR

part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix

I. These limits are imposed by Technical

Specifications 3/4.11.1, 3/4.11.2, 3/

4.11.3, and 3/4.11.4, which will not be

changed by the proposed power uprate.

Therefore, the NRC staff has concluded

that the offsite doses due to normal

operation at the proposed power uprate

conditions will not result in a

significant environmental impact.

The dose evaluations for design basis

accidents were performed for issuance

of the current operating license based on

105 percent of the current rated power

level. The proposed power uprate

would be within the assumptions used

during original licensing of the plant

and, therefore, there will be no increase

in environmental impacts over those

evaluated in the NRC staff’s Final

Environmental Statement related to the

operation of Nine Mile Point Nuclear

Station, Unit No. 2 (NUREG–1085), May

1985.

The NRC staff has concluded that the

NRC’s FES (NUREG–1085) is valid for

operation at the proposed uprated

power conditions. The NRC staff also

concluded that the plant operating

parameters impacted by the proposed

uprate would remain within the

bounding conditions on which the

conclusions of the FES are based.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

licensee’s reevaluation of the potential

radiological and nonradiological

environmental impacts for the proposed

action. On the basis of this review, the

NRC staff finds that the radiological and

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed small

increase in power are essentially

immeasurable and do not change the

conclusion in the FES that the operation

of NMP–2 would cause no significant

adverse impact upon the quality of the

human environment.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that this proposed action

would result in no significant

radiological or nonradiological

environmental impact.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

action, any alternative with equal or

greater impact need not be evaluated.

The principal alternative would be to

deny the requested amendment. Denial

would not significantly reduce the

environmental impact of plant

operations, but would restrict operation
11692 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Notices

of NMP–2 to the currently licensed

power level. Denial of the amendment

would prevent the facility from

generating the approximately additional

45 MWe that is obtainable from the

existing plant.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the ‘‘Final Environmental

Statement related to the operation of

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit

No. 2,’’ dated May 1985.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

The Commission’s staff reviewed the

licensee’s request and consulted with

the New York State official regarding

the environmental impact of the

proposed action. The State official had

no comment regarding the NRC’s

proposed action.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the foregoing

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 license amendment.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated July 22, 1993, as

supplemented January 9, 1995. These

documents are available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, The Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC

20555 and at the Reference and

Documents Department, Penfield

Library, State University of New York,

Oswego, New York 13126.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ledyard B. Marsh,

Director, Project Directorate I–1, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–5137 Filed 3–01–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

FOIA User Conference

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of public conference.

SUMMARY: The NRC will hold a Freedom

of Information Act (FOIA) Users

Conference as a part of its renewed

commitment to improving openness and

responsiveness to the public. The

purpose of the conference will be to

open communications between NRC

and its FOIA user community, to

explain alternatives for access to NRC

information, and to obtain FOIA users’

views for improving the process.

DATES: The meeting will be held on

Thursday, March 23, 1995, from 9:30

a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Conference Room T–6 A1 of

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Two White Flint North,

11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Gigi Rammling, Office of

Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington DC 20055–

0001. Telephone (301) 415–7090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

general public is invited to participate,

particularly those who contemplate the

need to obtain information from the

NRC in the future. Invitations have been

sent directly to some frequent and more

recent NRC FOIA requesters. However,

because of limited seating, advance

reservations will be required.

Reservations may be made by

contacting Ms. Gigi Rammling at 301/

415–7090. Those requiring special

accommodations should contact Ms.

Rammling no later than Monday, March

13, 1995.

Agenda

The agenda for the meeting will

include the following:

(1) Overview of FOIA requirements;

(2) NRC’s openness policy and current

practices;

(3) Overview of NRC processing

procedures;

(4) Question/Answer Session.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 27th day

of February 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Carlton C. Kammerer,

Director, Division of Freedom of Information

and Publications Services Office of

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–5136 Filed 3–1–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–261]

Carolina Power & Light Company;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. DPR–

23 issued to Carolina Power & Light

Company (the licensee) for operation of

the H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant,

Unit No. 2, located in Darlington

County, South Carolina.

The proposed amendment would

increase the degraded grid voltage relay

(DGVR) setpoint to comply with revised

voltage criteria established by Carolina

Power & Light Company’s alternating

current auxiliary electrical distribution

system voltage/load flow/fault current

study. The DGVR setpoint will be

changed from 415 plus or minus 4 volts

to 430 plus or minus 4 volts. The

revised criteria would provide a voltage

setting such that continuous duty,

safety-related motors will not be

allowed to operate at terminal voltages

below the voltage required for proper

operation for periods of time greater

than the time delay setting of the DGVR.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, 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. The proposed amendment does not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

The increase in the DGVR setpoint will

prevent motor operation at terminal voltages

below which motor overheating and possible

life reduction could occur, due to sustained

offsite power degradation under the design

basis plant operating scenario. The new

setting ensures that the emergency buses are

transferred to their respective diesel

generators at offsite power voltage levels

higher than allowed by the existing setting.

Analysis has determined that the new DGVR

setting will not result in unnecessary offsite

power separations, due to motor starting

transients, during normal power operation or

postulated accident conditions.

The function of the DGVR remains

unchanged. The design configuration of the

DGVR circuit remains unchanged. The

proposed amendment will increase the

minimum voltage available at the safety