ML20236N742

Environ Assessment & Finding of No Significant Impact Supporting Licensee 850701,1108 & 860506 Requests for Exemption from Requirements of Footnote d-2(c) of 10CFR20, App a Re Use of Sorbents Against Radioactive Gases or Vapor

ML20236N742
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	11/19/1986
From:	Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20236N720	List: ML20236N716 ML20236N742
References
TAC-59366, NUDOCS 8711160309
Download: ML20236N742 (3)

Text

__ -

n, e -

j g JTy4f

..p ,

7590-01 0

.s , .

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMISSION

.i KANSAS GAS-AfiD ELECTRIC COMPANY .i KANSAS-CITY POWER a LIGHT COMPANY

KANSAS ELECTRIC'F0WER COOPERATIVE, INC.-

-DOCKET NO. 50-482-ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND

-FINDING 0F NO SIGNIFICANT' IMPACT 1

-The U. S. Suclear Regulatory Commission (the. Cemmission) is -considering-issuance of an exemption from the requirer.1ents of footnote d-2(c) o,f Appendix A .

to 10 CFR Part 20, to the Kansas.Cas enc' Electric Company, Kansas City Power &

. Light Company, and Kansas Electric Power.. Cooperative, Inc. , (the licensee) for.  !

the: Wolf Creek Generating Station located at the licensee'.s site in Coffey County, Kansas.

3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed' Action: The exemption would relax the requirement' -

i in Footnote.d-2(c) of Appendix A to 10 CFR 20 which states, "Noa'llowance is 1 to be made for the use of sorbents agairst radioactive gases or vapor." The ]

exemption would allow the use of a radiciodine protection factor of 50 for cer-tain respiratory prote'ction canisters used by workers at the licensee's Wolf Creek facility. The staff's technical evaluaticn of this request will be

. published in~a report entitled " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Use of y Radiciodine Protection Factor for Sorbent Canisters at Polf Creek."

[ The exemption is responsive to the licensee's application for exemption dated July 1, 1985, as supplemented by letters dated November 8, 1905 end i May 6,1986.

~ 8711160309 861120 2 PDR .ADOCK 0500 P .

l 1

i

t -l

. -.,p

.. j r.. i 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 the Polf Creek ^

facility. "

Environmental impacts of the Proposed Action: The proposed exemption will most likely reduce the work effort and occupational exocsure for seme tasks at the Wolf Creek facility. As stated in the staff's Safety Evaluation Report: >

The utilization of air purifying respirators in lieu of air-supplicd or self-contained apparatuses, where possible, can result in perser-rm reductions . estimated overall at 30% for tasks requiring radiciodite .

protection, in a range of from 25% to 50% for several major tasks. The light weicht, less cumbersome air ourifying respirators (i.e., sort.ent canisters)canprovideincreasedcomfortandmobilityinmostcases, and result in increased worker efficiency and decreased time on-the-jch.

The licensee has provided a task analysis which shows that-the use of sorbent canisters at Wolf Creek can result in significant dose savings and should be an effective ALARA measure.

With regard to potential radiological impacts to the general public, the pro-posed exemption involves features located entirely vithin the restricted area

as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect the potential for or con-sequences of radiological accident and does not affect radiological plant effluents. The exemption has no effect on non-radiological impacts of facility operation. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.

Alternative to the Proposed Action: Since we have concluded that the envircr-mental effects of thc prcresed action are negligible, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts reed ret be evaluated.

The principal alternative vculd be to deny the requested exemption. This would not reduce environmental impacts of plant coeration and would result in reduced operaticral flexibility.

I

r ..

, , 1 l ' . . , ,. - j

. l L

l 1

Alternative Use of Resources: This action involves no use of rescurces not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statements (construction per-mit and operating license) for the Velf Creek Generating Station. l l

Agencies and Persons Consulted: The NRC Staff reviewed the licenscc's recuest and censulted with an NRC contractor at Los Alamos flational Laboratory.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT j The Comission has determined not to prepare an environmental iroact l

statement for the proposed exemption.

Based upon the environmental assessment, we conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant effect en the quality of the human ,

environment.

For details v4th respect to this action, see the request for exemption dated July 1,1985, as supplemented November 8,1985, and Fay 6,19C6, which is cvailable for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Rocm, 1717 11 Street, N. W. , Washington, D. C. , and at the William Allen Yhite Librery, Erporia State University, Emporia, Kansas, and at the Washburn University School of Law Library, Topeka, Kansas.

Dated at Bethesda, itarylend, this 19by of November 1986.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCI'J'ISSION l l

b. '

/

Cf g D.J Y( ngble d, Director PW Pr Ject Directorate #4 Division of PWR Licensirt-A l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _