[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15945-15946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7695]



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


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Virginia Electric & Power Co.; North Anna Power Station, Unit No. 
2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an exemption from Facility Operating License 
No. NPF-7, issued to Virginia Electric and Power Company (the 
licensee), for operation of the North Anna Power Station, Unit No. 2 
(NA-2) located in Louisa County, Virginia.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address 
potential environmental issues related to the licensee's application of 
March 2, 1995. The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the 
requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Paragraph III.D.1.(a), to 
the extent that a one-time interval extension for the Type A test 
(containment integrated leak rate test) by approximately 16 months from 
the March 1995 refueling outage to the October 1996 refueling outage 
would be granted. In addition, the proposed action would exempt the 
licensee from a portion of Section IV.A that requires a Type A test to 
be performed following a major modification or replacement of a 
component which is part of the primary reactor containment boundary.
    Specifically, the post-modification exemption is requested from 
performing a Type A test due to the activities associated with the 
upcoming NA-2 steam generator replacement.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed to permit the licensee to defer the 
Type A tests from the NA-2 March 1995 refueling steam generator 
replacement outage to the October 1996 refueling outage, thereby saving 
the cost of performing the test and eliminating the test period from 
the critical path time of the outage.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the proposed one-time exemptions would not increase 
the probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and 
the proposed one-time exemptions would not affect facility radiation 
levels or facility radiological effluents. The licensee will continue 
to be required to conduct the Type B and C local leak rate tests which 
historically have been shown to be the principal means of detecting 
[[Page 15946]] containment leakage paths with the Type A tests 
confirming the Type B and C test results. The planned replacement of 
the NA-2 steam generators affects only the closed piping system inside 
containment which includes the main steam lines, the feedwater lines, 
and the secondary side of the steam generators. The affected area of 
the primary containment boundary is also part of the pressure boundary 
of an ASME Class 2 component/piping system and, as such, the 
replacement of the NA-2 steam generators are subject to the repair and 
replacement requirements of ASME Section XI. The ASME Section XI 
surface, volumetric, and system pressure test requirements are more 
stringent than the Type A testing requirements of Appendix J. The 
acceptance criteria for ASME Section XI system pressure testing of 
welded joints is zero leakage and the test pressure for the system 
pressure test will be in excess of 20 times that of a type A test. In 
addition, the steam generator replacement activities do not affect the 
containment structure or the containment liner. The NRC staff considers 
that these inspections provide an important added level of confidence 
in the continued integrity of the containment boundary. The NRC staff 
also notes that the containment is maintained at a subatmospheric 
pressure which provides a means for continuously monitoring potential 
containment leakage paths during power operation. 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 individual or 
cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Commission 
concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental 
impacts associated with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action does involve features located entirely within the restricted 
area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It 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 Commission has concluded there is no measurable 
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 NRC staff 
considered denial of the proposed action.
    Denial of the application would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for NA-2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, the NRC staff consulted with 
the Virginia State official 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 Commission concludes 
that the proposed action 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 action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated March 2, 1995, which is available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, Swem Library, 
College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185, and The 
Alderman Library, Special Collections Department, University of 
Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-2498.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of March 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David B. Matthews,
Director Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-7695 Filed 3-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M