Jump to main content.

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

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 [Federal Register: August 19, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 160)]
[Notices]
[Page 53813-53814]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19au02-85]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-339]

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

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an exemption from the requirements of Title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Sections 50.44 and 50.46, and 
Appendix K for Facility Operating License No. NPF-7, issued to Virginia 
Electric and Power Company (the licensee), for operation of the North 
Anna Power Station, Unit 2, located in Louisa County, Virginia. As 
required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this

[[Page 53814]]

environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would enable the licensee to use one lead test 
assembly that contains zirconium-based alloys as cladding material for 
the fuel rods instead of Zircaloy or ZIRLO. This lead test assembly 
will be used at North Anna, Unit 2 during Cycle 16, subject to the 
following constraints:
    (1) The lead test assembly is not to be irradiated for more than 
one full operating cycle, and
    (1) The lead test assembly shall not exceed the lead rod burnup 
limit of 75,000 MWD/MTU.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for exemption dated February 11, 2002, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 16, 2002.

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 50 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. The proposed zirconium-based cladding is not the same chemical 
composition as Zircaloy or ZIRLO, and the licensee wants to test this 
composition in reactor operation. Since 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR Part 
50, 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 a lead test assembly in the reactor core.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The use of the lead test assembly with the zirconium-based cladding 
would not affect the ECCS calculations and would have no significant 
effect on the previous assessment of hydrogen gas generation following 
a loss-of-coolant accident. The lead test assembly meets the same 
design bases as the fuel currently used in the reactors. No safety 
limits would be changed or setpoints altered as a result of the use of 
these assemblies. The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report analyses are 
bounding for the lead test assembly as well as the remainder of the 
core. The advanced zirconium-based cladding alloys have operated at 
North Anna Power Station through three previous cycles of operation and 
have performed satisfactorily under these conditions. In addition, the 
relatively small number of fuel rods involved does not represent a 
significant increase in the inventory of radioactive material that 
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 lead test assembly cladding. Even in the case of gross 
fuel failure, the number of rods involved is less than 1 percent of the 
core, and thus sufficiently small so that the additional environmental 
impact would be negligible and bounded by previous assessments. With 
regard to the potential environmental impacts associated with the 
transportation of the lead test assembly, the zirconium-based claddings 
have no impact on previous assessments determined in accordance with 
the staff assessment entitled, ``NRC Assessment of the Environmental 
Effects of Transportation Resulting from Extended Fuel Enrichment and 
Irradiation,'' published in the Federal Register on August 11, 1988 (53 
FR 30355), as corrected on August 24, 1988 (53 FR 32322). Thus, the 
proposed action would not significantly increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents, no changes would be made in the types or 
amounts of effluents that may be released off-site, and there would be 
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 nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does 
not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other 
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant 
nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
action.
    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 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 resource than 
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement 
related to the operation of North Anna Power Station, Unit 2, issued by 
the Commission in April 1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    On July 29, 2002, the staff consulted with Mr. Les Foldesi of the 
Virginia Department of Radiological Health, regarding the environmental 
impact of the proposed action. Mr. Foldesi 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 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 February 11, 2002, and supplemental letter 
dated May 16, 2002. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, 
at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 
North, 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 Exit Disclaimer. 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 by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of August 2002.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John A. Nakoski,
Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 02-20972 Filed 8-16-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.