26858 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Notices

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 noncondensible gases, along with nonradioactive 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 (aslow-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 nonradiological 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 nonradiological 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Notices 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°F, or from 90.1°F to 90.44°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 nonradiological 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

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

Agency Information Collection Under

Review by the Office of Management

and Budget

AGENCY: Office of Management and

Budget, Executive Office of the

President.

ACTION: Notice of submission for OMB

review; comment request.

SUMMARY: The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has submitted the

information collection listed as

Appendix C at the end of this notice to

the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs (OIRA), OMB, for review under

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13). This new

form will be required by OMB Circular

A–21, ‘‘Cost Principles for Educational

Institutions,’’ for the submission of

facilities and administrative rate

proposals by educational institutions.

On September 10, 1997, (62 FR 47721)

OMB proposed the use of a standard

format for submitting of facilities and

administrative rate proposals by

educational institutions. OMB received

35 comments from Federal agencies,

universities and professional

organizations, all of whom favored the

development of such a form. Based

upon this information, OMB issued a

Federal Register notice on August 12,

1999, (64 FR 44062) which proposed to

revise Circular A–21 to incorporate a

new form. OMB received 40 comments

from Federal agencies, universities and

professional organizations. Most

commenters agreed with the concept of

a standard format that would streamline

the rate proposal submission process. In

addition, many commenters had

questions and requested clarifications

regarding data to be included in the

form or the format of the form. Changes

were made to the form as appropriate.

The comments and OMB responses are

summarized in the Comments and

Responses section.

Once this new form receives clearance

under the Paperwork Reduction Act,

OMB will issue a final revision to

incorporate the form in Circular A–21.

DATES: Submit comments on or before

June 8, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Address comments to Ed

Springer, Desk Officer, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs

(OIRA), OMB, 725 17th Street NW,

Room 10236, New Executive Office

Building, Washington, DC 20503. E-mail

comments may be submitted to

edward.springer@omb.eop.gov. Please

include the full body of the comments

in the text of the message and not as an