ML20202C576
| ML20202C576 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1999 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202C580 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9902010111 | |
| Download: ML20202C576 (4) | |
Text
_. _
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY PERRY NUCLEAR POWER Pl. ANT. UNIT NO.1 i
DOCKET NO. 50-440 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of 1-an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion (GDC) 19 to FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee), for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No.1 (PNPP) located in Lake County, Ohio.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action By application dated December 3,1998, the licensee requested an exemption from the control room dose acceptance criterion of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion (GDC) 19, ' Control Room." The proposed action would permit use of a 5 rem total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) control room dose acceptance criterion in lieu of "5 rem whole body, or its equivalent to any part of the body" as currently stated in GDC 19.
The Need for the Proposed Action The NRC has established control room dose acceptance criteria in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, GDC 19 for all light-water power reactors. GDC 19 requires, in part, that,
" Adequate radiation protection shall be provided to permit access and occupancy of the control room under accident conditions without personnel receiving radiation exposures in excess of 5 rem whole body, or its equivalent to any part of the body, for the duration of the accident."
9902010111 990126 PDR ADOCK 05000440 p
-~
l As described in SECY-96-242, "Use of the NUREG-1465 Source Term at Operating Reactors," the staff informed the Commission of its approach to allow the use of the revised l
accident source term described in NUREG-1465, " Accident Source Terms for Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants," at operating plants. In the SECY paper, the staff described its plans to review plant applications implementing this source term and that the TEDE methodology would be incorporated in these reviews. The Commission approved these plans and directed the staff i
to commence rulemaking and requested the use of a TEDE dose methodology in the implementation of the revised accident source term. The TEDE dose guidelines, which are l
l needed to support revised accident source term applications, are not currently provided in l
regulations governing operating reactors.
l l
By letter dated December 3,1998, the licensee submitted an exemption request to the l
l control room dose acceptance criteria of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion l
(GDC) 19. The exemption request would ' permit use of a 5 rem total effective dose equivalent l
(TEDE) dose acceptance criterion in place of the *5 rem whole body, or its equivalent to any part l
j of the body" dose acceptance criterion that is currently specified in GDC 19.
Environmentalimoacts of the Prooosed Action:
The staff has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that it is I
acceptable because the staff has concluded that the TEDE methodology provides an attemate means of meeting the current regulatory requirement. The proposed action will not increase the l
probability or consequences of accidents, no significant changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the allowable occupational or public radiation exposure. The staff has concluded that there is no significant radiological environmental impact associated with the proposed action.
g. i The proposed action does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Ac' ordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant c
environmentalimpacts associated with the proposed action.
Attematives to the Proposed Action:
r Since the staff has concluded that there is no significant environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any attematives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated. As an attemative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the action (no-action attemative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmentalimpacts. The environmentalimpacts of the proposed action and the attemative action are similar.
I Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement which was issued August 1982.
Aaencies and Persons Consulted:
In accordance with its stated policy, the Ohio State official was contacted'regarding the environmentalimpact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the environmental assessment, the staff concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the staff J
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 December 3,1998, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Pubiltr
... =.. -
l t
Document room, The Gelman Building,2120 L Street, NW, Washington, D.C., and at the local public document room located at the Perry Public Library,3753 Main Street, Perry, OH 44081.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26thday of January,1999.
l FOR THE NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION m
V P
l Douglas V. Pickett, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate 111-2 Division of Reactor Projects lil/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
l l
I l
l I