[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47521-47522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23984]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-395]


South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (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 exemption from certain requirements of its 
regulations for Facility Operating License No. NPF-12, issued to South 
Carolina Electric and 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 action would exempt the licensee from the requirements 
of 10 CFR 70.24, which requires a monitoring system that will energize 
clear audible alarms if accidental criticality occurs in each area in 
which special nuclear material (SNM) is handled, used, or stored. The 
proposed action would also exempt the licensee from the requirements to 
maintain emergency procedures for each area in which this licensed SNM 
is handled, used, or stored to ensure that all personnel withdraw to an 
area of safety upon the sounding of the alarm, to familiarize personnel 
with the evacuation plan, and to designate responsible individuals for 
determining the cause of the alarm, and to place radiation survey 
instruments in accessible locations for use in such an emergency.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for exemption dated July 17, 1997, as supplemented August 
6, 1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The purpose of 10 CFR 70.24 is to ensure that if a criticality were 
to occur during the handling of SNM, personnel would be alerted to that 
fact and would take appropriate action. At a commercial nuclear power 
plant, the

[[Page 47522]]

inadvertent criticality with which 10 CFR 70.24 is concerned could 
occur during fuel handling operations. The SNM that could be assembled 
into a critical mass at a commercial nuclear power plant is in the form 
of nuclear fuel; the quantity of other forms of SNM that is stored on 
site in any given location is small enough to preclude achieving a 
critical mass. Because the fuel is not enriched beyond 5.0 weight 
percent Uranium-235 and because commercial nuclear plant licensees have 
procedures and features designed to prevent inadvertent criticality, 
the staff has determined that it is extremely unlikely that an 
inadvertent criticality could occur due to the handling of SNM at a 
commercial power reactor. The requirements of 10 CFR 70.24, therefore, 
are not necessary to ensure the safety of personnel during the handling 
of SNM at commercial power reactors.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that there is no significant environmental impact if the 
exemption is granted. Inadvertent or accidental criticality will likely 
be precluded through compliance with the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 
Station, Unit 1, Technical Specifications (TS), the design of the fuel 
storage racks providing geometric spacing of fuel assemblies in their 
storage locations, and administrative controls imposed on fuel handling 
procedures. TS requirements specify reactivity limits for the fuel 
storage racks and minimum spacing between the fuel assemblies in the 
storage racks.
    Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 50, ``General Design Criteria for Nuclear 
Power Plants,'' Criterion 62, requires that criticality in the fuel 
storage and handling system shall be prevented by physical systems or 
processes, preferably by use of geometrically safe configurations. This 
is met at Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, as identified in 
the TS. The Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, TS Section 
5.6.1.2 states that the new fuel storage racks are designed for dry 
storage of fuel assemblies having a U-235 enrichment less than or equal 
to 5.0 weight percent, while maintaining a k-effective of less than or 
equal to 0.95 if flooded with unborated water and less than or equal to 
0.98 for low density optimum moderation conditions. FSAR Section 
9.1.1.1, New Fuel Storage, specifies that the fuel racks are designed 
to provide sufficient spacing between fuel assemblies to maintain a 
subcritical array assuming the most reactive condition, and under all 
design loadings including the safe shutdown earthquake. FSAR Section 
9.1.1.3 also specifies that the new fuel racks are designed to preclude 
the insertion of a new fuel assembly between cavities.
    The proposed exemption would not result in any significant 
radiological impacts. The proposed exemption would not affect 
radiological plant effluent nor cause any significant occupational 
exposures since the TS design controls (including geometric spacing of 
fuel assembly storage spaces) and administrative controls designed to 
preclude inadvertent criticality. The amount of radioactive waste would 
not be changed by the proposed exemption.
    The proposed exemption does not result in any significant 
nonradiological environmental impacts. The proposed exemption involves 
features located entirely within the restricted area as defined in 10 
CFR Part 20. It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and 
has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the Commission 
concludes that there are no significant non-radiological environmental 
impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission has concluded that 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 exemption, the staff 
considered denial of the requested exemption. Denial of the request 
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 Related to 
the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1,'' dated January 1973, 
and ``Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of the 
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1,'' dated May 1981.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on August 26, 1997, 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 July 17, 1997, and supplemental letter dated 
August 6, 1997, 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 26th day of August 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Vernon L. Rooney,
Acting Director, Project Directorate II-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-23984 Filed 9-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P