ML20087K130
| ML20087K130 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/17/1995 |
| From: | Hernan R NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20087K132 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9508230026 | |
| Download: ML20087K130 (4) | |
Text
_
g U.
H 7590-01
)
y UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0petISSION-VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION DOCKET No. 50-271 L
}
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION ENVIR0fetENTAL ASSESSNENT AND FINDING 0F NO SIGNIFICANT INPACT 4
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission).is considering.
issuance of an exemption and revocation of an exemption from Facility Operating License No. DPR-28, issued to Vermont Yankee Nuclear. Power 3
Corporation (the licensee), for operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power' Station (the facility) located in Windham County, Vermont.
~
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSNENT Identification of Procosed Actions:
L-The proposed exemption would grant relief in certain outdoor areas of the 1:
protected area of the facility to allow use of security lighting for outdoor access and egress and the performance of one specified task for compliance with Section III.J of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50. The exemption would-include outdoor portions of the protected area for access and egress and for hookup of a portable fuel oil transfer pump.
The proposed exemption is in accordance with.the licensee's' application.
for exemption. dated June 29, 1995.
.The exemption proposed for revocation related to emergency lighting requirements in the Reactor Building. The exemption was issued June 26,'1989, and is no longer needed by the licensee because conforming emergency lighting has' been' installed in the affected area.
9508230026 950817 F
PDR ADOCK 05000271i P
1.a I
The Need for the Proonsed Actions:
The proposed exemption _is needed because the features described in the
' licensee's request regarding existing security lighting at'the facility are the most practical method for satisfying the underlying purpose of Appendix R 1
and literal compliance with the regulation would not further enhance the j
fire protection capability significantly.
Revocation of the 1989 exemption is needed to accurately reflect actual plant conditions, given conforming lighting has been installed in the affected areas.
l Environmental Imoacts of the Prooosed Actions:
l The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed exemption and revocation of exemption and concludes that the proposed exemption and j
i revocation will provide a. degree of fire protection such that there is no increase in the risk of fires at the facility. Consequently, the probability _
of fires has not been increased and the post-fire radiological releases will i
not be greater than previously determined, nor do the proposed exemption and i
revocation otherwise affect radiological plant effluents.
1 The change will not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, 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 i
individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, the j
Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed actions.
i With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed-actions involve features located entirely within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. They do not affect nonradiological plant effluents and have 1
E
x~
, t no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that j
there are no_ significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated witt, i
'the proposed' actions.
Alternatives to the Pronosed Actions:
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable environmental
~
impact associated with the proposed actions, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated. As an alternative to the j
proposed actions, the staff considered denial of the proposed actions. Denial
-l t
of the application would result in no change in current environmental' impacts.
The environmental impacts of the proposed actions and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources:
These actions do not involve use of resources not previously considered l
in the Final Environmental Statement for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.
Acencies and Persons Consulted:
In accordance with its-stated policy, on July 21, 1995, the staff consulted with the Vermont State official, Mr. William K. Sherman of the Vermont Departannt of Public Service, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed actions. The State official had no comments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed actions 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 exemption and revocation of exemption.
. For further details with respect to the proposed actions, see the application dated June 29, 1995, 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 Brooks Memorial Library, 224 Main Street, Brattleboro, VT 05301.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 17th day of August 1995.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION j
- etz Ronald W. Hernan, Acting Director Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
l v
---