Virginia Electric and Power Company: North Anna Power Station, Unit No. 1 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 39285 [2010-16630]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 130 / Thursday, July 8, 2010 / Notices
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–338; NRC–2010–0246]
Virginia Electric and Power Company:
North Anna Power Station, Unit No. 1
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an Exemption from Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), Part 50, Appendix R, Section
III.O, ‘‘Oil collection system for reactor
coolant pump,’’ for Facility Operating
License No. NPF–4, issued to Virginia
Electric and Power Company (the
licensee), for operation of the North
Anna Power Station, Unit 1 (NAPS Unit
1), located in Louisa County, Virginia.
Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21,
the NRC prepared an environmental
assessment. Based on the results of the
environmental assessment, the NRC is
issuing a finding of no significant
impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt
NAPS Unit 1 from the requirement that
the reactor coolant pumps (RCPs) be
equipped with an oil collection system
(OCS) if the containment is not inerted
during normal operation and such
collection systems shall be capable of
collecting lube oil from all potential
pressurized and unpressurized leakage
sites in the RCP lube oil systems.
Specifically, NAPS Unit 1 would be
granted an exemption from the
collection of minor oil misting by the
OCS.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
April 23, 2010, as supplemented by
letter dated May 13, 2010.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to
address expected minor uncollected oil
misting from RCP motors and not allow
oil pooling to occur outside the OCS.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation
of the proposed action and concluded
that the proposed action (i.e. to exempt
NAPS Unit 1 from expected minor
uncollected oil misting from RCP
motors and to not allow oil pooling to
occur outside the OCS) would not
significantly affect plant safety and
would not have a significant adverse
effect on the probability of an accident
occurring.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:09 Jul 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
The proposed action will not
significantly increase the probability or
consequence of accidents. No changes
are being made in the types of effluents
that may be released offsite. There is no
significant increase in the amount of
any effluent released offsite. There is no
significant increase in occupational or
public radiation exposure. Therefore,
there are no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with
this proposed action.
Based on the nature of the exemption,
the proposed action does not result in
changes to land use or water use, or
result in changes to the quality or
quantity of non-radiological effluents.
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 threatened, endangered, or
protected species under the Endangered
Species Act, or impacts to essential fish
habitat covered by the MagnusonStevens Act are expected. There are no
impacts to the air or ambient air quality.
There are no impacts to historic and
cultural resources. There would be no
noticeable effect on socioeconomic
conditions in the region. Therefore, no
changes or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are
expected as a result of 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 NRC staff considered denial
of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the
application would result in no change
in current environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed
action and the ‘‘no action’’ alternative
are similar.
39285
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on June 7, 2010, the NRC staff consulted
with the Virginia State official, Mr. Les
Foldesi, Director, Division of
Radiological Health of the Virginia
Department of Health, 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
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 April 23, 2010, as supplemented
by letter dated May 13, 2010.
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 O–
1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available
records will be accessible electronically
from the Agencywide Document 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 pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day
of June 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
V. Sreenivas,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II–
1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–16630 Filed 7–7–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
previously considered in the ‘‘Final
Environmental Statement Related to the
Continuation of Construction and the
Operation of NAPS Units 1 and 2, and
the Construction of Units 3 and 4,’’
issued in 1973, as supplemented
through the ‘‘Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License Renewal
of Nuclear Plants: Supplement 7
Regarding NAPS Units 1 and 2—Final
Report (NUREG–1437, Supplement 7),’’
dated November 2002.
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–391; NRC–2008–0369]
Tennessee Valley Authority; Notice of
Receipt of Updated Antitrust
Information and Opportunity for Public
Comment
By letter dated May 13, 2010, the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
submitted antitrust information in
conjunction with its updated
application for an operating license (OL)
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 130 (Thursday, July 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 39285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16630]
[[Page 39285]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-338; NRC-2010-0246]
Virginia Electric and Power Company: North Anna Power Station,
Unit No. 1 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an Exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.O, ``Oil
collection system for reactor coolant pump,'' for Facility Operating
License No. NPF-4, issued to Virginia Electric and Power Company (the
licensee), for operation of the North Anna Power Station, Unit 1 (NAPS
Unit 1), located in Louisa County, Virginia. Therefore, as required by
10 CFR 51.21, the NRC prepared an environmental assessment. Based on
the results of the environmental assessment, the NRC is issuing a
finding of no significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt NAPS Unit 1 from the requirement
that the reactor coolant pumps (RCPs) be equipped with an oil
collection system (OCS) if the containment is not inerted during normal
operation and such collection systems shall be capable of collecting
lube oil from all potential pressurized and unpressurized leakage sites
in the RCP lube oil systems. Specifically, NAPS Unit 1 would be granted
an exemption from the collection of minor oil misting by the OCS.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated April 23, 2010, as supplemented by letter dated May
13, 2010.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to address expected minor uncollected
oil misting from RCP motors and not allow oil pooling to occur outside
the OCS.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and
concluded that the proposed action (i.e. to exempt NAPS Unit 1 from
expected minor uncollected oil misting from RCP motors and to not allow
oil pooling to occur outside the OCS) would not significantly affect
plant safety and would not have a significant adverse effect on the
probability of an accident occurring.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability
or consequence of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of
effluents that may be released offsite. There is no significant
increase in the amount of any effluent released offsite. There is no
significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure.
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts
associated with this proposed action.
Based on the nature of the exemption, the proposed action does not
result in changes to land use or water use, or result in changes to the
quality or quantity of non-radiological effluents. 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 threatened, endangered, or protected species under the
Endangered Species Act, or impacts to essential fish habitat covered by
the Magnuson-Stevens Act are expected. There are no impacts to the air
or ambient air quality. There are no impacts to historic and cultural
resources. There would be no noticeable effect on socioeconomic
conditions in the region. Therefore, no changes or different types of
non-radiological environmental impacts are expected as a result of 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 NRC 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 ``no action'' alternative 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
Related to the Continuation of Construction and the Operation of NAPS
Units 1 and 2, and the Construction of Units 3 and 4,'' issued in 1973,
as supplemented through the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Supplement 7 Regarding NAPS
Units 1 and 2--Final Report (NUREG-1437, Supplement 7),'' dated
November 2002.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on June 7, 2010, the NRC
staff consulted with the Virginia State official, Mr. Les Foldesi,
Director, Division of Radiological Health of the Virginia Department of
Health, 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 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 April 23, 2010, as supplemented by letter dated
May 13, 2010. 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 O-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically
from the Agencywide Document 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 pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of June 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
V. Sreenivas,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-16630 Filed 7-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
