[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 83 (Wednesday, April 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23504-23505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-11119]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339]


Virginia Electric and Power Company; North Anna Power Station, 
Units 1 and 2, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR 
50.44, 10 CFR 50.46, and Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50 to Virginia 
Electric and Power Company (the licensee) for North Anna Power Station, 
Units 1 and 2 (NPS1&2), located in Louisa County, Virginia.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    The proposed action would enable the licensee to use demonstration 
fuel assemblies that contain some fuel rods whose zirconium-based 
cladding composition is somewhat different from the zirconium-based 
compound named zircaloy or ZIRLO. These demonstration assemblies would 
be loaded into NPS-1 for three cycles, with the initial irradiation 
planned for North Anna 1 Cycle 13. Irradiation of these four fuel 
assemblies may occur in either North Anna Unit 1 or North Anna Unit 2, 
or a combination of the two units, subject to the following 
constraints:
    (1) The assemblies are not to be irradiated for more than three 
full operating cycles, and
    (2) The maximum rod average burnup of any fuel rod in these 
assemblies shall not exceed the North Anna Units 1 and

[[Page 23505]]

2 lead rod burnup restriction of 60,000 megawatt days per metric ton 
uranium (MWD/MTU).
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for exemption of September 4, 1996 as supplemented February 
3, 1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed exemption to 10 CFR 50.44, 10 CFR 50.46, and Appendix 
K to 10 CFR Part 5O is needed because these regulations specifically 
refer to light-water reactors containing fuel consisting of uranium 
oxide pellets enclosed in zircaloy or ZIRLO tubes. Zircaloy and ZIRLO 
are zirconium-based alloys currently in use as cladding for fuel 
pellets. A new zirconium-based cladding has been developed which is not 
the same chemical composition as zircaloy or ZIRLO, and which the 
licensee wants to test in reactor operation. Since 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 
CFR Part 5O, Appendix K, limit Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) 
calculations to zircaloy and 10 CFR 50.44 relates to the generation of 
hydrogen gas from a metal-water reaction with zircaloy or ZIRLO, an 
exemption is required in order to place four demonstration assemblies 
in the reactor core(s).

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action will allow the use of the new cladding with 
chemical composition not significantly different from zircaloy or 
ZIRLO. Use of the demonstration assemblies with the new zirconium-based 
cladding does not affect the Emergency Core Cooling Systems 
calculations and has no significant effect on the previous assessment 
of hydrogen gas generation following a loss-of-coolant accident. 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 radiological accidents and does not affect radiological 
plant effluents. The demonstration assemblies meet the same design 
bases as the fuel which is currently in the reactors. No safety limits 
have been changed or setpoints altered as a result of the use of these 
assemblies. The Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) analyses are 
bounding for the demonstration assemblies as well as the remainder of 
the core. The advanced zirconium-based alloys have been shown through 
testing to perform satisfactorily under conditions representative of a 
reactor environment. In addition, the relatively small number of fuel 
rods involved does not represent a prohibitively large inventory of 
radioactive material which could be released into the reactor coolant 
in the event of cladding failure. The only credible consequence of this 
change would be a failure of the demonstration claddings. Even in the 
case of gross fuel failure, the number of rods involved is less than 3% 
of the core and, thus, sufficiently small that environmental impact 
would be negligible and is bounded by previous assessments. The small 
number of fuel rods involved in conjunction with the chemical 
similarity of the demonstration cladding to zircaloy cladding ensures 
that hydrogen production would not be significantly different from 
previous assessments. As a result, the proposed exemption does not 
affect the consequences of radiological accidents. No changes are being 
made in the types or amounts of any radiological effluent that may be 
released offsite. There is no significant increase in the allowable 
individual or cumulative occupational exposure. Consequently, the 
Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological impacts 
associated with the proposed exemption.
    With regard to the potential environmental impacts associated with 
the transportation of the demonstration assemblies, the advanced 
claddings have no impact on previous assessments determined in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.52.
    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.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Because the Commission's staff has concluded that there is no 
significant environmental impact associated with the proposed 
exemption, any alternative to the proposed exemption will have either 
no significantly different environmental impact or greater 
environmental impact. The principal alternative would be to deny the 
requested exemption. This would not reduce environmental impacts as a 
result of plant operations.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of resources not previously 
considered in connection with the Final Environmental Statement related 
to the operation of North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, issued by 
the Commission in April 1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, the NRC staff consulted with 
Mr. Foldesi of the Virginia Department of Health on April 24, 1997, 
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. Mr. Foldesi 
had no comments on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an 
environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
    Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the Commission 
concludes 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 exemption dated September 4, 1996, as supplemented February 3, 
1997, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's 
Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at 
the local public document room located at the Alderman Library, Special 
Collections Department, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, 
Virginia 22903-2498.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 24th day of April, 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ngoc B. Le,
Acting Director, Project Directorate II-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-11119 Filed 4-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P