Search Options | ||||
Index | Site Map | FAQ | Facility Info | Reading Rm | New | Help | Glossary | Contact Us |
INFORMATION SECY-03-0048 March 28, 2003
To inform the Commission of the issuance of renewed facility operating licenses for North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, and Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2. By letter dated May 29, 2001 (Reference 1), Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) submitted its applications to renew the operating licenses for North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, and Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2. The staff reviewed the license renewal applications in accordance with 10 CFR Parts 51 and 54. As described in a memorandum from Luis A. Reyes, Regional Administrator, NRC Region II, dated November 12, 2002 (Reference 2), Region II performed three inspections and verified that the applicant implemented the scoping and screening methodology and established aging management programs in conformance with the descriptions in the applications for license renewal. The staff documented the results of its safety review in its "Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, and Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2," which it published as NUREG-1766 in December 2002 (Reference 3). In addition, on December 18, 2002, the ACRS issued its "Report on the Safety Aspects of the License Renewal Application for the North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, and Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2," which is included in Chapter 5 of NUREG-1766, and recommended that the applications be approved. With respect to environmental matters, the staff documented the results of its reviews in site-specific supplements to the "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants," NUREG-1437, May 1996. These supplemental environmental impact statements (SEISs) were published as the "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 6, Regarding Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2," NUREG-1437, Supplement 6, November 30, 2002 (Reference 4), and the "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 7, Regarding North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2," NUREG-1437, Supplement 7, November 30, 2002 (Reference 5). On the basis of the staff's safety evaluation, as set forth in NUREG-1766, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) reached the following conclusions, in accordance with 10 CFR 54.29:
On the basis of the staff's environmental evaluations, as set forth in NUREG-1437, Supplement 6 and Supplement 7, the Director, NRR determined that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, and North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decision-makers would be unreasonable. In view of the above, and pursuant to the staff requirements memorandum on SECY-02-0088, dated June 5, 2002, the Director of NRR issued Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7 for North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, and Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37 for Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, on March 20, 2003. The staff notes that it has included a license condition in the renewed licenses governing the supplements to the final safety analysis reports (FSAR) for each site included in the applications pursuant to 10 CFR 54.21(d). The license condition requires that the FSAR supplement be included in the next scheduled FSAR update required by 10 CFR 50.71(e), and until that update is complete, any changes to programs described in the FSAR supplements be made in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. This assures the NRC that these programs, maintenance activities, and inspection procedures will be adequately controlled. The condition also requires that the licensees complete future actions identified in the FSAR supplements before the period of extended operation, and that the licensee notify the NRC upon completing these actions. The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection to its content. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) has also reviewed this paper. Since there are no resource implications, OCFO concurrence is not required.
|
Privacy Policy |
Site Disclaimer |