[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 130 (Friday, July 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35439-35440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-16694]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-280]


Virginia Electric and Power Company, Surry Power Station, 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 Facility Operating License 
No. DPR-32, issued to Virginia Electric and Power Company (the 
licensee), for operation of the Surry Power Station, Unit No. 1 (SPS1) 
located in Surry County, Virginia.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address 
potential environmental issues related to the 

[[Page 35440]]
licensee's application of April 28, 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 18 months from the October 1995 refueling outage to 
the February 1997 refueling outage would be granted.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed to permit the licensee to defer the 
type A test from the October 1995 refueling outage to the February 1997 
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 exemption would not increase 
the probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and 
the proposed one-time exemption 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 
containment leakage paths with the Type A tests confirming the Type B 
and C test results. It is also noted that the licensee, as a condition 
of the proposed exemption, will perform the visual containment 
inspection although it is only required by Appendix J to be conducted 
in conjunction with Type A tests. The NRC staff considers that these 
inspections, though limited in scope, 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 nonradiological 
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 the 
Surry Power Station, Unit No. 1.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on May 16, 1995 the NRC staff 
consulted with the Virginia State official, L. Foldesi of the State 
Health Department, 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 April 28, 1995, 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 Swem Library, College of William and Mary, 
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of June 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
David B. Matthews,
Director, Project Directorate II-1, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-16694 Filed 7-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M