[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 112 (Monday, June 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30902-30903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14300]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 allow the licensee to discontinue the 
seismic monitoring program (which includes a network of seismometers 
near the Monticello Reservoir) that was put in place to monitor the 
seismic activity associated with the impoundment of the Monticello 
Reservoir. The monitoring program is currently funded by the licensee 
and operated and maintained by the University of South Carolina.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for amendment dated March 6, 1955, as supplemented May 5, 
1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action was requested because the licensee believes 
that the burden and costs of the seismic monitoring program for 
reservoir induced seismicity are no longer justified.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The licensee's proposal will allow the seismic monitoring equipment 
to be permanently removed from current locations. This equipment is 
portable and is located around the Monticello Reservoir. The equipment 
is used solely for monitoring seismic activity around the reservoir and 
is not used for the operation of the plant. Based on the licensee's 
submittals and the discussions with other agencies and persons, the 
staff found that the removal of this equipment will have no significant 
impact on the environment.
    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 since the proposed amendment will allow the licensee to 
remove the seismic monitoring equipment and the licensee's present 
license condition does not prohibit the licensee from removing and 
relocating the seismic monitoring equipment from [[Page 30903]] current 
locations. Thus, the current license condition already allows the 
licensee to permanently abandon the current monitoring sites (as long 
as alternate sites are selected).

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 1.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    On April 14, 1995, the staff consulted with Mr. John Sims, Deputy 
of External Research, U.S. Geological Survey regarding the type of 
equipment used for seismic monitoring networks. Mr. Sims commented that 
the equipment was generally compact; therefore, he judged that there 
were no significant environmental impacts associated with the removal 
of the equipment and abandonment of the sites.
    On April 24, 1995, the staff consulted with Dr. Pradeep Talwani, of 
the University of South Carolina (USC) regarding the planned 
disposition of the network monitoring sites if the licensee stops 
funding the program. Dr. Talwani maintains the seismic monitoring 
system for the licensee. Dr. Talwani stated that if the licensee stops 
funding the network, all but one of the monitoring sites will be 
abandoned (i.e., the equipment will be removed). Dr. Talwani also 
stated that the monitors were solar powered with battery backups. 
Therefore, he judged that there were no significant environmental 
impacts associated with the removal of the equipment and abandonment of 
the sites.
    In accordance with its stated policy, on April 24, 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 letters dated March 6, 1995, and May 5, 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 5th day of June 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. 95-14300 Filed 6-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M