ML20236A458
| ML20236A458 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1989 |
| From: | Matthews D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236A462 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-71145, TAC-71146, NUDOCS 8903170245 | |
| Download: ML20236A458 (3) | |
Text
______________ __ _ ___ ____,
l 1
4 7590-01 I
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
~ DOCKET NOS. 50-321 AND 50-366 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF, NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption from the requirement of footnote d-2(c) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 20 to the Georgia Power Company, et al. (the licensee) for the Edwin I Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 located on the licensee's site in Appling County, Georgia.
I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action:
The proposed action would relax the require-I ment in Footnote d-2(c) of Appendix A to 10 CFR 20 which states, "No allowance l
is to be made for the use of sorbents against radioactive gases or vapors."
The exemption would allow the use of a radioiodine protection factor of 50 for certain respiratory protection canisters used by workers at the licensee's facility, Hatch 1 and 2.
The staff's technical evaluation of this request will be published in a report entitled " Safety Evaluation By the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to the Use of Radioiodine. Protection Factor for Sorbent Canisters at Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2."
The evaluation is responsive to the licensee's application for exemption
]
dated October 25, 1988, as supplemented January 12, 1989.
The Need for the Proposed Action: The proposed exemption is needed because the features described in the licensee's request are potential means to re-duce occupational exposure to radiation for some tasks at Hatch 1 and 2.
8903170245 890309 ALOCK0500g1 DR
-2
\\
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:
The proposed exemption will most likely reduce the work effort and occupational exposure for some tasks at l
Hatch 1 and 2.
The utilization of air purifying respirators in lieu of i
air-supplied or self-contained apparatuses, where possible, can result in person-rem j
reductions estimated to be in a range of from 25% to 50% for tasks requiring radiciodine protection. The lightweight, less cumbersome air purifying respirators (i.e., sorbent canisters) can provide increased comfort and mobility in most cases, and result in increased worker efficiency and decreased time on-the-job.
With regard to potential radiological impacts to the general public, the proposed exemption involves features located entirely within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
It does not affect the potential for or consequences of radiological accidents and does not affect radiological plant effluents. Consequently, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed exemption does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
Alternative to the Proposed Action:
Because the staff has concluded that there l
1s no significant environmental impact associated with the proposed exemption, any alternative to this exemption will have either no significantly different environmental impact or greater environmental impact.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested exemption.
This l
would not reduce environmental impacts as a result of plant operations, j
w ___
- i Alternative Use of Resources: This action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in connection with the " Final Environmental Statement for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit I and Unit 2," dated October 1972, i
and the " Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2," dated March 1978.
Agencies and Persons Consulted: The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's l
request that supports the proposed exemption. The NRC staff did not consult other agencies or persons.
FINDING 0F NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, we conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
For further details with respect to this action, see the request for the exemption dated October 25, 1988, and its supplement dated January 12, 1989, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N. W., Washington, D.C., and at the Appling County Public Library, 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia l
l Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of March 1989.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION original Signed By:
i David B. Matthews, Director l
Project Directorate 11-3 i
Division of Reactor Projects I/II l
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES
- PDII-3
- PDII-3
- 0GC
- PDII-3 MRood LCrocker:sw DHatthews 1/11/89 1/11/89 1/31/89 2/21/89