[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 156 (Monday, August 15, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19899]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 15, 1994]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-395]

 

South Carolina Electric & Gas Co., 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 (the licensee) 
for operation of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, 
located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    The proposed amendment would include provisions in Technical 
Specifications (TS) \3/4\.9.12, Spent Fuel Assembly Storage; 5.3, 
Reactor Core; and 5.6, Fuel Storage; that would allow for the use and 
subsequent storage of fuel with an initial enrichment to 5.0 weight 
percent (w/o) Uranium-235 (U-235) and with a final burnup of up to 
48,000 megawatt days per metric ton uranium (MWD/MTU). The proposed 
action is in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment 
dated December 13, 1993, as supplemented February 2, 1994, and March 
11, 1994.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed changes are needed so that the licensee can use higher 
fuel enrichment and extended irradiation to allow for longer fuel 
cycles.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed 
revisions to the TS. The proposed revisions would permit use of fuel 
enriched to a nominal 5.0 w/o U-235. The safety considerations 
associated with reactor operation with higher enrichment and extended 
irradiation have been evaluated by the staff. The staff has concluded 
that such changes would not adversely affect plant safety. The proposed 
changes have no adverse effect on the probability of any accident. The 
higher enrichment with fuel burnup to 48000 MWD/MTU may slightly change 
the mix of fission products that might be released in the event of a 
serious accident but such small changes would not significantly affect 
the consequences of serious accidents. No changes are being made in the 
types or amounts of any radiological effluent that may be released off 
site. There is no significant increase in the allowable individual or 
cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts of reactor 
operation with higher enrichment and extended irradiation, the proposed 
changes to the TS involve systems located within the restricted area as 
defined in 10 CFR Part 20. They do not affect non-radiological plant 
effluent and have no other environmental impact.
    The potential environmental impacts of transportation of more 
highly enriched and more highly irradiated fuel were published and 
discussed in the staff assessment entitled ``NRC Assessment of the 
Environmental Effects of Transportation Resulting from Extended Fuel 
Enrichment and Irradiation,'' dated July 7, 1988, and published in the 
Federal Register on August 11, 1988 (53 FR 30355) in connection with 
the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Environmental 
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. As indicated therein, 
the environmental cost contribution of the proposed increase in the 
fuel enrichment and irradiation limits is either unchanged or less than 
that given in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52(c). These findings are 
applicable to this amendment for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 
No. 1. The Commission has concluded, therefore, that there are no 
significant radiological or nonradiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed amendment.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission has concluded that there are no significant 
environmental effects from the proposed action, any other alternative 
would have equal or greater environmental impacts and need not be 
evaluated.
    The principal alternative would be to deny the requested amendment. 
This would not reduce the environmental impact of plant operation and 
would result in reduced operational flexibility.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement related to 
operation of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult 
other agencies or persons.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental 
impact statement for the proposed amendment. Based on the foregoing 
environmental assessment, we conclude that the proposed action will not 
have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
    For further details on this action, see the application for 
amendment dated December 13, 1993, as supplemented February 2, 1994, 
and March 11, 1994, which are available for public inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. and at the Fairfield County Library, Garden & Washington Streets, 
Winnsboro, S.C., 29180.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of August, 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Patrick D. Milano,
Acting Director, Project Directorate II-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations.
[FR Doc. 94-19899 Filed 8-12-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M