[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 240 (Friday, December 14, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71165-71166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-24290]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-280 And 50-281]
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Surry Power Station, Unit
Nos. 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an amendment to revise the licensing basis for Facility
Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37, issued to Virginia Electric
and Power Company (the licensee), for operation of the Surry Power
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Surry 1 and 2), located in Surry county,
Virginia. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing
this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would authorize the licensee to revise the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to permit an increase in
the irradiation of the Surry 1 and 2 fuel assemblies beginning with
Surry 1 and 2 improved fuel (SIF) assemblies with ZIRLO cladding from a
lead rod average burnup of 60,000 to 62,000 megawatt days (MWd)/metric
tons of uranium (MTU). Since the burnup restriction is not explicitly
stated in the Surry 1 and 2 license conditions or Technical
Specifications, the licensee incorporated it into Section 3.5.2.6.1 of
the Surry 1 and 2 UFSAR to ensure that the burnup limit is not exceeded
when reload design evaluations are performed. The licensee will
continue to apply the current burnup limit of 60,000 MWd/MTU for old
fuel assemblies, if used, in the spent fuel pool with Zircaloy-4
cladding. In addition, the licensee will maintain the peak rod average
burnup limits in the Surry 1 and 2 UFSAR.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated March 6, 2007.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action will allow the licensee to design reloads to a
lead rod average burnup limit of 62,000 MWd/MTU, which has an
appreciable economic benefit. The licensee states that ``Recent reload
patterns have been degraded at an economic penalty to maintain the
burnup below the existing limit [60,000 MWd/MTU].''
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that SIF mechanical design, LOCA analysis, non-LOCA
transient analyses, and the proposed UFSAR changes are acceptable to a
peak rod average of 62,000 MWd/MTU. The NRC staff previously completed
an environmental assessment of the effects of extending fuel burnup
above 60,000 MWd/MTU through NUREG/CR-6703 (Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML010310298), and
determined that there are no significant adverse environmental impacts
associated with extending peak-rod fuel burnup to 62,000 MWd/MTU. The
environmental effects of extending Surry 1 and 2 lead rod average
burnup limit to 62,000 MWd/MTU are also bounded by NUREG/CR-6703.
The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in
the license amendment that will be issued as part of the letter to the
licensee approving the license amendment to the regulation.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability
or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of
effluents that may be released off site. There is no significant
increase in the amount of any effluent released off site. There is no
significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure.
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
action does not have a potential to affect any historic site. The
proposed action does not result in any significant changes to land use
or water use, or result in any significant changes to the quality or
quantity of effluents. It does not affect non-radiological plant
effluents and no changes to the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permit are needed. No effects on the aquatic or
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity of the plant, or to endangered or
threatened species, or to the habitats of endangered or threatened
species are expected, and has no other environmental impact, therefore,
there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action.
The proposed action will not change the method of generating
electricity or the method of handling any effluents from the
environment or non-radiological effluents to the environment.
Therefore, no changes or different types of non-radiological
environmental impacts are expected as a result of the proposed
amendments.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the application would result in no significant change in
current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the
proposed action and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for
Surry 1 and 2, May and June 1972, respectively, and the supplemental
environmental impact assessment for license renewal issued on November
30, 2002.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on November 27, 2007, the
staff consulted with Mr. Les Foldesi, Director of the Bureau of
Radiological Health, Commonwealth of Virginia, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no
comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the
[[Page 71166]]
human environment. Accordingly, the NRC 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 6, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML070720620). Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North,
Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically
from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by
telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to
[email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of December 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Siva P. Lingam,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7-24290 Filed 12-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P