[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32356-32357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-15138]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281]
Virginia Electric & Power Co.; Surry 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 amendments to 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, Units 1 and 2,
located in Surry County, Virginia.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would increase the rates core power level at
each Surry [[Page 32357]] unit from 2441 Megawatts thermal (MWt)
to 2546 MWt which is an increase in the rated core power of
approximately 4.3 percent.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application for amendment dated August 30, 1994, as supplemented by
letters dated February 6, 1995, February 13, 1995, February 27, 1995,
March 23, 1995, March 28, 1995, April 13, 1995 April 20, 1995, April
28, 1995, and May 5, 1995.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action would increase the electrical output for each
unit by 34 Megawatts-electrical (MWe) and thus provide additional
electrical power to the grid which services the commercial and domestic
areas in the State of Virginia.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that a slight change in the environmental impact can be
expected for the proposed increase in power. The proposed core uprating
is projected to increase the rejected heat by 6 percent. However, the
Environmental Report and the NRC-approved Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS), as amended, have already addressed plant operation up
to a stretch core power of 2546 MWt. Thus, the 6 percent increase
in rejected heat has already been evaluated and determined to not
significantly impact on the quality of the human environment. Also, the
proposed increase in core power involved no significant change in types
or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be
released offsite which has not already been evaluated and approved in
the FEIS, as amended, for a stretch core power level of 2546 MWt.
Similarly, as enveloped by the FEIS, as amended, there would be no
significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation
exposure. The waste heat will not exceed the 12.0x109 BTUs per
hour permitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
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. Except for heat load, which is
bounded by previous analysis, as described above, the amendment 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. The
environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action
are similar.
Alterntive Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any resources not previously
considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Surry Power
Station, Units 1 and 2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on May 16, 1995, the 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 August 30, 1994, as supplemented by letters
dated February 6, 1995, February 13, 1995, February 27, 1995, March 23,
1995, March 28, 1995, April 13, 1995, April 20, 1995, April 28, 1995,
and May 5, 1995, 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 14th day of June 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David B. Matthews,
Director, Project Directorate II-I, Division of Reactor Projects I/II,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-15138 Filed 6-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-1-M
