[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 20 (Monday, February 1, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4906-4907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2307]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-440]


Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, 
Unit No. 1); Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of 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.''
    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 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 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,

[[Page 4907]]

which are needed to support revised accident source term applications, 
are not currently provided in regulations governing operating reactors.
    By letter dated December 3, 1998, the licensee submitted an 
exemption request to the control room dose acceptance criteria of 10 
CFR part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion (GDC) 19. The 
exemption request would permit use of a 5 rem total effective dose 
equivalent (TEDE) dose acceptance criterion in place of the ``5 rem 
whole body, or its equivalent to any part of the body'' dose acceptance 
criterion that is currently specified in GDC 19.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The staff has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and 
concludes that it is acceptable because the staff has concluded that 
the TEDE methodology provides an alternate means of meeting the current 
regulatory requirement. The proposed action will not increase the 
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.
    The proposed action does not affect nonradiological plant effluents 
and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the Commission 
concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since the staff has concluded that there is no significant 
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any 
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be 
evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff 
considered denial of the action (no-action alternative). Denial of the 
application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. 
The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative 
action are similar.

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.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, the Ohio State official was 
contacted 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 staff concludes that 
the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality 
of the human environment. Accordingly, the staff 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 Public Document room, The Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC, and at the local public 
document room located at the Perry Public Library, 3753 Main Street, 
Perry, OH 44081.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of January 1999.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Douglas V. Pickett,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate III-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-2307 Filed 1-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P