Virginia Electric and Power Company; Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Surry 1 and 2); Correction to Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 13318 [2010-6054]

Download as PDF 13318 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 53 / Friday, March 19, 2010 / Notices Day Event/Activity 25 .................................. If NRC staff finds no ‘‘need’’ or no likelihood of standing, the deadline for requestor/petitioner to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s denial of access; NRC staff files copy of access determination with the presiding officer (or Chief Administrative Judge or other designated officer, as appropriate). If NRC staff finds ‘‘need’’ for SUNSI, the deadline for any party to the proceeding whose interest independent of the proceeding would be harmed by the release of the information to file a motion seeking a ruling to reverse the NRC staff’s grant of access. Deadline for NRC staff reply to motions to reverse NRC staff determination(s). (Receipt +30) If NRC staff finds standing and need for SUNSI, deadline for NRC staff to complete information processing and file motion for Protective Order and draft Non-Disclosure Affidavit. Deadline for applicant/licensee to file Non-Disclosure Agreement for SUNSI. If access granted: Issuance of presiding officer or other designated officer decision on motion for protective order for access to sensitive information (including schedule for providing access and submission of contentions) or decision reversing a final adverse determination by the NRC staff. Deadline for filing executed Non-Disclosure Affidavits. Access provided to SUNSI consistent with decision issuing the protective order. Deadline for submission of contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner’s receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline. (Contention receipt +25) Answers to contentions whose development depends upon access to SUNSI. (Answer receipt +7) Petitioner/Intervenor reply to answers. Decision on contention admission. 30 .................................. 40 .................................. A .................................... A + 3 ............................. A + 28 ........................... A + 53 ........................... A + 60 ........................... >A + 60 ......................... 1 and 2, respectively, approximately 5 months for Unit 1 and 17 months for Unit 2 beyond the date required by 10 CFR part 73.’’ [FR Doc. 2010–6071 Filed 3–18–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281; NRC– 2010–0079] Virginia Electric and Power Company; Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Surry 1 and 2); Correction to Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Correction notice. 14:14 Mar 18, 2010 [FR Doc. 2010–6054 Filed 3–18–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SUMMARY: This document corrects a notice appearing in the Federal Register on March 3, 2010 (75 FR 9618), that cited the implementation date for compliance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), part 73 as ‘‘August 31, 2010,’’ rather than ‘‘August 31, 2010, and August 31, 2011, for Surry 1 and 2, respectively.’’ This action is necessary to add an implementation date for Surry Unit 2. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Cotton, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 0001; telephone, (301) 415–1438; e-mail, Karen.Cotton@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On page 9619, in the first column, second line, it reads ‘‘implementation dated of August 31, 2010, approximately 5 months beyond the date required by 10 CFR Part 73,’’ and it is corrected to read ‘‘* * * implementation date of August 31, 2010 and August 31, 2011, for Surry VerDate Nov<24>2008 Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of March 2010. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Karen Cotton, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II– 1, Division of Operating Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Jkt 220001 [Docket No. 50–331; NRC–2010–0107] Nextera Energy Duane Arnold, LLC; Duane Arnold Energy Center; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an exemption, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Option B and associated changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for main steamline isolation valve local leakage rate testing for Facility Operating License No. DPR–49, issued to NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC (the licensee), for operation of the Duane Arnold Energy Center, located in Palo, Iowa. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC prepared an environmental assessment documenting its finding. The NRC concluded that the proposed actions will have no significant environmental impact. PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would exempt the licensee from certain portions of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J, Option B. Specifically, the licensee requests to be exempted from the measured leakage rate for the main steamline isolation valves (MSIV), and associated inboard drainline, from inclusion in both the overall measured leakage rate for Type A integrated tests and from the sum of the local leakage rates for Type B and Type C tests as required by Appendix J, Option B, Paragraphs III.A and Ill.B, respectively. In conjunction with the exemption request, the licensee also requests approval, pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.90, of associated changes to the Duane Arnold Energy Center TS, Section 5.5.12 (Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program) that reflects the exemption to Appendix J requested above. Also, there is an additional proposed TS change to TS Section 3.6.1.3 (Primary Containment Isolation Valves) associated with MSIV leakage testing requirements, which does not require a corresponding exemption from 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J. The change to TS Section 3.6.1.3, is included in the amendment request to remove the repair criterion for MSIVs that fail their as-found leakage rate acceptance criterion found in the licensee’s Surveillance Requirement 3.6.1.3.9. The Need for the Proposed Action The proposed action is needed to reconcile the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J, Option B and their E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM 19MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 53 (Friday, March 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 13318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6054]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281; NRC-2010-0079]


Virginia Electric and Power Company; Surry Power Station, Unit 
Nos. 1 and 2 (Surry 1 and 2); Correction to Environmental Assessment 
and Finding of No Significant Impact

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Correction notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects a notice appearing in the Federal 
Register on March 3, 2010 (75 FR 9618), that cited the implementation 
date for compliance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR), part 73 as ``August 31, 2010,'' rather than ``August 31, 
2010, and August 31, 2011, for Surry 1 and 2, respectively.'' This 
action is necessary to add an implementation date for Surry Unit 2.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Cotton, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone, (301) 415-1438; e-mail, Karen.Cotton@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On page 9619, in the first column, second 
line, it reads ``implementation dated of August 31, 2010, approximately 
5 months beyond the date required by 10 CFR Part 73,'' and it is 
corrected to read ``* * * implementation date of August 31, 2010 and 
August 31, 2011, for Surry 1 and 2, respectively, approximately 5 
months for Unit 1 and 17 months for Unit 2 beyond the date required by 
10 CFR part 73.''

    Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of March 2010.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Karen Cotton,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of Operating 
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-6054 Filed 3-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.