[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