ML20085N521
| ML20085N521 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1995 |
| From: | Matthews D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20085N524 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9506300230 | |
| Download: ML20085N521 (4) | |
Text
.,
K 1
h F
7 7590-01 P
3 L
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPWISSION l
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-280 SURRY POWER STATION. UNIT NO. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF i
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 f
Power Station, Unit No. 1-(SPSI) located in Surry County, Virginia.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT l
Identification of the Proposed Action:
This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address potential environmental issues related to the licensee's application of April 28, 1995.
The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirements of 10 CFR-1 Part 50, Appendix J, Paragraph III.D.I.(a), to the extent that a one-time interval extension for the Type A test (containment integrated leak rate test) l by approximately 18 months from the October 1995 refueling outage to the February 1997 refueling outage would be granted.
The Need for the Pronosed 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.
~
9506300230 950619 PDR ADOCK 05000280' P
x 2
Environmental Imoacts of the Proposed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation af 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 l
h 1
3 no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the Comission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Pro 90 sed Action:
Since the Comission 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:
l 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.
Acencies 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 coments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the environmental assessment, the Comission concludes that i
the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment'. Accordingly, the Comission 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 i
f.
4 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 COMISSION g
David 8. Matthews, Director Project Directorate 11-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation r