[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26858-26859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11536]



[[Page 26858]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-440]


FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, 
Unit 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-58, 
issued to FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), for operation 
of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (Perry), located in Lake 
County, Ohio.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would allow FENOC to increase the maximum 
reactor core power level for facility operation from 3579 megawatts-
thermal (MWt) to 3758 MWt, which is a five percent increase in rated 
core power.
    The proposed action is in accordance with FENOC's application for 
amendment dated September 9, 1999, as supplemented by letters dated 
March 1 and March 13, 2000.

Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed to allow FENOC to increase the 
electrical output of the Perry facility and, thus, provide additional 
electrical power to service domestic and commercial areas of the 
licensee's grid.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    FENOC has submitted an environmental evaluation supporting the 
proposed power uprate and provided a summary of its conclusions 
concerning both the radiological and non-radiological environmental 
impacts of the proposed action. Based on the NRC's independent analyses 
and the evaluation performed by the licensee, the staff concludes that 
the proposed increase in power is not expected to result in a 
significant environmental impact.

Radiological Environmental Assessment

Radwaste Systems
    The reactor coolant contains activated corrosion products, which 
are the result of metallic materials entering the water and being 
activated in the reactor region. Under power uprate conditions, the 
feedwater flow increases with power and the activation rate in the 
reactor region increases with power. The net result may be an increase 
in the activated corrosion product production. However, the total 
volume of processed waste is not expected to increase appreciably.
    Non-condensible radioactive gas from the main condenser, along with 
air inleakage, normally contains activation gases (principally N-16, O-
19 and N-13) and fission product radioactive noble gases. This is the 
major source of radioactive gas (greater than all other sources 
combined). These non-condensible gases, along with non-radioactive air, 
are continuously removed from the main condensers which discharge into 
the offgas system. The gaseous effluents will remain within the 
original limits following implementation of power uprate.
    FENOC has concluded that the operation of the radwaste systems at 
Perry will not be impacted by operation at uprated power conditions and 
the slight increase in effluents discharged would continue to meet the 
requirements of 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I. 
Therefore, power uprate will not appreciably affect the ability to 
process liquid or gaseous radioactive effluents and there are no 
significant environmental effects from radiological releases.
Dose Consideration
    FENOC evaluated the effects of power uprate on the radiation 
sources within the plant and the radiation levels during normal and 
post-accident conditions. Post-operation radiation levels in most areas 
of the plant are expected to increase by no more than the percentage 
increase in power level. In a few areas near the reactor water piping 
and liquid radwaste equipment, the increase could be slightly higher. 
In this regard, procedural controls are expected to compensate for 
increased radiation levels. Occupational doses for normal operations 
will be maintained within acceptable limits by the site ALARA (as-low-
as-reasonably-achievable) program.
    Power uprate does not involve significant increases in the offsite 
doses to the public from noble gases, airborne particulates, iodine, 
tritium, or liquid effluents. A review of the normal radiological 
effluent doses shows that at the current power level, doses are less 
than 1 percent of the doses allowed by Technical Specifications. 
Present offsite radiation levels are a negligible portion of background 
radiation. Therefore, the normal offsite doses are not significantly 
affected by operation at the uprated power level and remain below the 
limits of 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I.
    The change in core inventory resulting from power uprate is 
expected to increase post-accident radiation levels by no more than the 
percentage increase in power level. The licensee reanalyzed the control 
rod drop accident, the loss-of-coolant accident, the fuel handling 
accident, the instrument line break accident, and the main steam line 
break accident for power uprate conditions. The slight increase in the 
post-accident radiation levels has no significant effect on the plant 
nor on the habitability of the control room envelope, the Emergency 
Operations Facility, or the Technical Support Center. Thus, the 
licensee has determined that access to areas requiring post-accident 
occupancy will not be significantly affected by power uprate. The 
licensee evaluated the whole body and thyroid doses at the exclusion 
area boundary that might result from the postulated design basis loss-
of-coolant accident and determined that doses remain below established 
regulatory limits. Therefore, the results of the radiological analyses 
remain below the 10 CFR part 100 guidelines and all radiological safety 
margins are maintained.
Summary
    The proposed power uprate will not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents, will not involve any new 
radiological release pathways, will not result in a significant 
increase in occupational or public radiation exposure, and will not 
result in significant additional fuel cycle environmental impacts. 
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Non-Radiological Environmental Assessment

    The licensee reviewed the non-radiological environmental impacts of 
power uprate based on information submitted in the Environmental 
Report, Operating License Stage (ER/OL), the NRC Final Environmental 
Statement (FES), and the requirements of the Environmental Protection 
Plan (EPP). Based on this review, the licensee concluded that the 
proposed uprate has no significant effect on the non-radiological 
elements of concern and the plant will be operated in an 
environmentally acceptable manner as established by the FES. In 
addition, the licensee states that existing Federal, State, and local 
regulatory permits presently in effect accommodate power uprate without 
modification.
    The service water system at Perry was originally designed to 
support the operation of two units. Therefore, the design discharge 
temperature into Lake

[[Page 26859]]

Erie is based on two unit operation. As a result of power uprate to 105 
percent of current licensed core power, there will be a slight increase 
in the normal heat loads rejected to the plant service water system. 
For normal operation, the maximum service water heat loads occur during 
peak summer months. The licensee calculates that the maximum summer 
discharge temperature for the service water system will be increased by 
0.34 deg.F, or from 90.1 deg.F to 90.44 deg.F. This increase in service 
water temperature will not exceed the original design discharge 
temperature.
    The effect on cooling tower evaporation, makeup, and blowdown was 
evaluated and found to be acceptable. An increase in steam and 
condensate flow will result in a corresponding increase in the net heat 
rejection to the cooling tower. The cooling tower evaporation is 
calculated to increase from 14,554 gallons per minute (gpm) to 15,587 
gpm, whereas the cooling tower drift and blowdown temperature are 
predicted to remain unchanged. In NUREG-0884 (Final Environmental 
Statement Related to the Operation of Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 
1 and 2), the staff concluded that cooling tower induced icing and 
fogging with two cooling towers in operation would not adversely affect 
driving conditions, airports, shipping ports, or waterways in the 
vicinity of the plant. Considering that only one unit was completed at 
the Perry site, any increase in icing and fogging from the additional 
cooling tower evaporation would be bounded by the original two-unit 
analyses. There are no state regulated limits for cooling tower 
parameters.
    FENOC determined that the effects of power uprate on air and land 
resources are negligible. The aesthetics of the physical plant and 
plant site, as well as actual land use, are not changed or increased by 
power uprate. An increase in operational consumption of natural 
resources is negligible and below the levels previously evaluated for 
two unit operation. Finally, air quality and noise levels remain the 
same as before the power uprate.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not change the method of operation at Perry or the methods 
of handling effluents. No changes to land use would result and the 
proposed action does not involve any historic sites. Therefore, no new 
or different types of non-radiological environmental impacts are 
expected. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no 
significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). 
Denial of the application would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts but would reduce the operational flexibility that 
would be afforded by the proposed change. The environmental impacts of 
the proposed action and the alternative action are not significantly 
different.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for Perry.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on May 1, 2000, the staff 
consulted with the Ohio State official, Ms. Carol O'Claire, of the Ohio 
Emergency Management Agency, 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 September 9, 1999, as supplemented on March 1 
and March 13, 2000, which are available for public inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, 
NW., Washington, DC, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS 
Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site     (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 3rd day of May 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anthony J. Mendiola,
Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing 
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-11536 Filed 5-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P