[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 72 (Friday, April 12, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16272-16273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9144]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-395]


South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and 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 (VCSNS), located in 
Fairfield County, South Carolina.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would allow the licensee to increase allowed 
core power level from 2775 Megawatts thermal (MWt) to 2900 MWt which is 
a 4.5% increase in rated core power.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for amendment dated August 18, 1995, as supplemented on 
November 1, 1995, February 14, March 14 (there are two supplemental 
letters dated March 14), and March 25, 1996.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed to allow the licensee to increase the 
electrical output of VCSNS by approximately 64 MW and thus provide 
additional electrical power to the grid which serves commercial and 
domestic areas in the State of South Carolina.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that a slight change in the environmental impact can be 
expected for the proposed increase in power. The proposed core uprate 
is projected to increase the heat rejected to the environment by 
approximately 3 percent to a maximum of 6.4 (109) British thermal 
units per hour (Btu/hr).
    In the Final Environmental Statement (FES) related to the operation 
of Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 (NUREG-0719), the staff 
evaluated a heat rejection rate of 6.7 (109) Btu/hr. Thus, the 
additional thermal rejection resulting from the power uprate is bounded 
by the heat rejection rate evaluated and found acceptable in the FES.
    Additionally, the licensee stated they will not exceed the 
113 deg.F maximum circulating water discharge temperature as specified 
in their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
permit. The licensee has administrative procedures in place to reduce 
power as necessary to ensure the temperature limit is not exceeded. 
Also, to limit the heat load rejected to the Monticello Reservoir, the 
licensee will be installing a closed cycle cooling water system that 
will reject heat to the atmosphere via a mechanical draft cooling 
tower. The total circulating water system flow rate is predicted to 
decrease slightly (from approximately 538,000 gallons per minute (gpm) 
to approximately 530,000 gpm) due to the addition of the cooling tower. 
Therefore, water velocity at the intake structure will continue to 
remain below the velocity of 0.5 feet per second

[[Page 16273]]

that was assumed in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Section 
316(b), entrainment and impingement study performed by the licensee for 
initial plant licensing.
    The licensee also concluded that the increased heat load rejected 
to the Monticello Reservoir will not cause the thermal component of the 
effluent to exceed the NPDES condition for maximum surface temperature 
or maximum plume temperature rise.
    The heatload rejected by the cooling tower was calculated by the 
licensee to be 60.66 MBtu/hr at 100% capacity. The cooling tower 
effluents, including salt drift and chemical discharges, have been 
determined by the licensee to have a negligible effect on all VCSNS 
structures and systems. The dispersant and anti-fouling chemicals added 
to the cooling tower raw water will be sufficiently diluted to preclude 
any significant environmental impact. Limits on the release of these 
chemicals will be determined by the South Carolina Department of Health 
and Environmental Control, and will be included in the licensee's NPDES 
permit. Since circulating water flow is critical for adequate dilution, 
the licensee will establish procedures to control the release of these 
chemicals. The required controls are listed in the licensee's March 25, 
1996 letter. The cooling tower will be constructed outside the 
protected area fence in an empty field at the northwest corner of the 
site. Any environmental effects of the cooling tower construction will 
be confined to onsite areas previously disturbed during initial plant 
construction.
    The staff previously evaluated the radiological impact of operating 
at 2900 MWt in a November 18, 1994 safety evaluation (SE) supporting 
issuance of License Amendment No. 119. This amendment was requested to 
support the licensee's steam generator (SG) replacement project. The 
majority of the licensee's SG replacement analyses were written for the 
planned uprate power of 2900 MWt. The staff discussed the radiological 
considerations of operation at the uprated power in Section 2.5 of the 
SE. The staff concluded that ``* * * the doses would not exceed the 
dose guidelines presently contained in the Standard Review Plans, 10 
CFR Part 100 or GDC 19 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A for either offsite 
locations or control room operators.'' Therefore, the radiological 
consequences of the proposed uprate have been previously evaluated by 
the staff.
    The uprate conditions will also result in storage of spent fuel 
with a higher irradiation. By letter dated, December 13, 1993, as 
supplemented February 2, and March 11, 1994, the licensee requested a 
license amendment to allow the use and subsequent storage of fuel with 
an initial enrichment to 5.0 weight percent Uranium-235. This request 
was made, in part, to support the core power uprate to 2900 MWt. On 
August 15, 1994, (59 FR 41799) the staff published its ``Environmental 
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact,'' which concluded the 
proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of 
the human environment. Therefore, the environmental impacts of this 
aspect of the licensee's power uprate proposal has been previously 
evaluated by the Commission.
    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.
    Except for heat load, which is bounded by previous analysis as 
discussed above, the amendment does not significantly 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 significant 
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 1.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on February 26, 1996, 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 August 18, 1995, as supplemented on November 
1, 1995 February 14, March 14 (the licensee submitted two supplemental 
letters dated March 14, 1996) and March 25, 1996, 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 8th day of April, 1996.

    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. 96-9144 Filed 4-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P