[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66806-66807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31253]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-395]
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public
Service Authority, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1;
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
NPF-12, issued to South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South
Carolina Public Service Authority (the licensee), for operation of the
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, located in Fairfield
County, South Carolina.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would support the licensee's plan to implement
the revised 10 CFR Part 20, ``Standards for Protection Against
Radiation.'' Also, the licensee proposed several editorial changes to
improve the clarity of the Technical Specifications (TS). The majority
of the licensee's proposal meets the eligibility criteria for
categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). However, one
aspect of the licensee's proposal changes requirements with respect to
use of a facility component located outside the restricted area as
defined in 10 CFR Part 20. Specifically, requirements for use of the
settling ponds will be changed by the proposed amendment.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application for amendment dated February 21, 1995, as revised on August
31, 1995, and December 4, 1995.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to update the license to incorporate
the revised requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 (i.e., the need for the
proposed action was created by a change in the regulatory
requirements).
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that the proposed revision to the radioactive material
quantity in the settling ponds will not change the types
[[Page 66807]]
and will conservatively lower the amount of effluents that can be
released. Therefore, it will not cause an increase in individual or
cumulative occupational radiation exposures. The new settling pond
limit is based on that quantity which would not exceed the effluent
concentrations of 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2, at the
nearest potable water supply if an uncontrolled release of settling
pond inventory should occur. The effluent concentration limits in 10
CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2, are more conservative than the
current limits in the licensee's TS. Thus the change proposed by the
licensee results in a net decrease in the maximum quantity of
radioactive material permitted in the settling ponds.
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 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 measurable
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.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on October 26, 1995 the staff
consulted with the South Carolina State official, Mr. Virgil Autry of
the Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, Department of
Health and Environmental Control, 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 February 21, 1995, as supplemented by letters
dated August 31, 1995, and December 4, 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 Fairfield County Library, 300 Washington
Street, Winnsboro, SC.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of December 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Frederick J. Hebdon,
Director, Project Directorate II-3, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-31253 Filed 12-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
