[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13079-13080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-6781]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281]


Virginia Electric and Power Company; Surry Power Station, 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Nos. 
DPR-32 and DPR-37, issued to Virginia Electric and Power Company, (the 
licensee), for operation of the Surry Power Station (SPS) located in 
Surry County, Virginia.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    By letter dated November 5, 1997, as supplemented by letter dated 
January 28, 1998, the licensee proposed to change the technical 
specifications (TS) to allow an increase in fuel enrichment (Uranium 
235, U-235) to 4.3 weight percent. Surry TS currently limit fuel in the 
spent fuel pool and reactor to a maximum enrichment of 4.1 weight 
percent of U-235.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The licensee intends, in the future, to use the more highly 
enriched fuel to support longer fuel cycles. Currently, TS 5.3.A.3 and 
5.4.B limit the enrichment of reload fuel for the reactor core and the 
spent fuel storage racks to 4.1 weight percent U-235. The amendment is 
needed to give the licensee the flexibility to use more highly enriched 
fuel to support longer fuel cycles.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed 
revision to

[[Page 13080]]

the TS and concludes that storage and use of fuel enriched with U-235 
up to 4.3 weight is acceptable. The safety considerations associated 
with higher enrichments were evaluated by the NRC staff and the staff 
concluded that such changes would not adversely affect plant safety. 
The proposed changes will not increase the probability of any accident. 
The higher enrichment and increased fuel burnup may slightly change the 
mix of fission products that might be released in the event of a 
serious accident, but such small changes would not significantly affect 
the consequences of accidents.
    No changes are being made in the types or quantity of any effluents 
that may be released offsite, no changes are being made to the 
authorized power level, and there is no significant increase in the 
allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The 
environmental impacts of transportation resulting from the use of 
higher enrichment and extended irradiation are discussed in the staff 
assessment entitled ``NRC Assessment of the Environmental Effects of 
Transportation Resulting from Extended Fuel Enrichment and 
Irradiation,'' dated July 7, 1988. This assessment was published in the 
Federal Register on August 11, 1988 (53 FR 30355) as corrected on 
August 24, 1988 (53 FR 32322) in connection with an Environmental 
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact related to the Shearon 
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1. As indicated therein, the 
environmental cost contribution of an increase in fuel enrichment of up 
to 5 weight percent U-235 and irradiation limits of up to 60 gigawatt 
days per metric ton (GWD/MT) are either unchanged, or may in fact be 
reduced from those summarized in Table S-4 as set forth in 10 CFR 
51.52(c). These findings are applicable to these proposed amendments 
for Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, given that the proposal 
involves less than 5% enrichment and burnup of less than 60 GWD/MT. 
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that this proposed action would 
result in no significant radiological environmental impact.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action involves 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 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 proposed action. Denial of the application 
would result in no change in current environmental impacts of plant 
operation and would result in reduced operational flexibility.

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.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on February 4, 1998, the 
staff consulted with the Virginia State official, Mr. L. Foldese of the 
Virginia Department of Health, 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 November 5, 1997, as supplemented by letter 
dated January 28, 1998, which are 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 day of 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Gordon E. Edison, Sr.,
Project Manager, Project Directorate II-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-6781 Filed 3-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P