58298 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 189 / Thursday, September 28, 2000 / Notices

3. Burden on the Public

The amount of time to complete the

questionnaire may vary depending on

an individual’s circumstances; however,

on average it will take approximately 30

minutes to complete the survey. We

estimate that the total annual burden

will be 13,750 hours during the year.

Special Areas for Review: NSF request

special review and comments in the

following areas:

(a) Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Foundation, including whether the

information will have practical utility;

(b) The accuracy of the Foundation’s

estimate of the burden of the proposed

collection of information;

(c) Ways to enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information to

be collected; and

(d) Ways to minimize the burden of

the collection of information on those

who are to respond.

Dated: September 22, 2000.

Suzanne H. Plimpton,

NSF Reports Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–24876 Filed 9–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–458]

Entergy Gulf States, Inc. and Entergy

Operations, Inc.; River Bend Station,

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–47, issued

to Entergy Gulf States, Inc. and Entergy

Operations, Inc. (EOI, or the licensee)

for operation of the River Bend Station,

Unit 1 (RBS), located in Saint

Francisville, Louisiana.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would allow EOI

to increase the maximum reactor core

power level from 2894 megawatts

thermal (MWt) to 3039 MWt, which is

an increase of five percent of rated core

thermal power for the RBS.

The proposed action is in accordance

with EOI’s application for amendment

dated July 30, 1999, as supplemented by

letters dated April 3, May 9, July 18, and

August 24, 2000.

Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action permits an

increase in the licensed core thermal

power from 2894 MWt to 3039 MWt and

provides the flexibility to increase the

potential electrical output of RBS.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

EOI 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.

EOI has concluded that the operation

of the radwaste systems at RBS will not

be impacted by operation at uprated

power conditions and the slight increase

in effluents discharged would continue

to meet the requirements of Part 20 of

Title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (10 CFR) 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

EOI evaluated the effects of power

uprate on the radiation sources within

the plant and 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 spent fuel pool cooling system

piping and the reactor water piping,

where accumulation of corrosion

product crud is expected, as well as

near some 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 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 one percent of the doses allowed

by Technical Specifications (TSs).

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

(LOCA), 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

LOCA 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 189 / Thursday, September 28, 2000 / Notices 58299

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 NRC staff 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, the NRC Final

Environmental Statement (FES), and the

requirements of the Environmental

Protection Plan. 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 safety-related standby service

water (SSW) at RBS is drawn from the

ultimate heatsink (UHS), (e.g., the SSW

cooling towers), where the maximum

calculated temperature due to the uprate

does not exceed the original maximum

UHS temperature. 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 remain below

the current TS limit of 88 °F. EOI

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 RBS 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

NRC 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 FES for RBS.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on August 15, 2000, the staff consulted

with the Louisiana State official,

Prosanta Chowdhury, 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 NRC concludes that the

proposed action will not have a

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

NRC 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 July 30, 1999, as supplemented by

letters dated April 3, May 9, July 18, and

August 24, 2000, which may be

examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the

NRC’s Public Document Room, located

at One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,

Maryland. Publicly available records

will be accessible electronically from

the ADAMS Public Library component

on the NRC Web site, (the Electronic

Reading Room).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day

of September 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John A. Nakoski,

Acting Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate

IV & Decommissioning Division of Licensing

Project Management, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–24939 Filed 9–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY

CORPORATION

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Notice of Intention To

Request Extension of OMB Approval of

Collection; Comment Request—

Termination of Single Employer Plans;

Missing Participants; PBGC Forms

500–501, 600–602

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of intention to request

extension of OMB approval.

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation intends to request that the

Office of Management and Budget

(‘‘OMB’’) extend approval, under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, of a

collection of information in its

regulations on Termination of Single

Employer Plans and Missing

Participants, and implementing forms

and instructions (OMB control number

1212–0036; expires March 31, 2001).

This notice informs the public of the

PBGC’s intent and solicits public

comment on the collection of

information.

DATES: Comments should be submitted

by November 27, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

the Office of the General Counsel, suite

340, Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20005–4026, or

delivered to that address between 9 a.m.

and 4 p.m. on business days. Written

comments will be available for public

inspection at the PBGC’s

Communications and Public Affairs

Department, suite 240 at the same

address, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. on

business days. Copies of the forms and

instructions may be obtained free of

charge from the PBGC’s

Communications and Public Affairs

Department.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Catherine B. Klion, Attorney, Office of

the General Counsel, PBGC, 1200 K

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005–

4026; 202–326–4024. (For TTY/TDD

users, call the Federal relay service tollfree at 1–800–877–8339 and ask to be

connected to 202–326–4024.)