[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 19, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56359-56360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27353]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-395]


South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.; V.C. Summer Nuclear Station; 
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 Title 
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, Sec. 50.60(a) 
to the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) for 
operation of the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, located in Jenkinsville, 
South Carolina.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt the licensee from certain 
provisions of 10 CFR part 50, Sec. 50.60(a) and 10 CFR part 50, 
appendix G. The NRC has established requirements in 10 CFR part 50 to 
protect the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) 
in nuclear power plants. As part of these requirements, 10 CFR part 50, 
appendix G requires that pressure-temperature (P-T) limits be 
established for reactor pressure vessels (RPVs) during normal operating 
and hydrostatic or leak rate testing conditions. Specifically, 10 CFR 
part 50, appendix G states that ``[t]he appropriate requirements * * * 
on pressure-temperature limits and minimum permissible temperature must 
be met for all conditions.'' Appendix G of 10 CFR part 50 specifies 
that the requirements for these limits are the American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code, Section XI, Appendix G limits.
    Pressurized water reactor licensees have installed cold 
overpressure mitigation systems/low temperature overpressure protection 
(LTOP) systems in order to protect the RCPB from being operated outside 
of the boundaries established by the P-T limit curves and to provide 
pressure relief on the RCPB during low temperature overpressurization 
events. The licensee is required by the V.C. Summer Technical 
Specifications (TS) to update and submit the changes to its LTOP 
setpoints whenever the licensee is requesting approval for amendments 
to the P-T limit curves in the V.C. Summer TS.
    Therefore, in order to address the provisions of amendments to the 
TS P-T limits and LTOP curves, the licensee requested in its submittal 
dated August 19, 1999, that the staff exempt V.C. Summer from 
application of specific requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Sec. 50.60(a) 
and 10 CFR part 50, appendix G, and substitute use of ASME Code Case N-
640 as an alternate reference fracture toughness for reactor vessel 
materials for use in determining the P-T limits.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for exemption contained in a submittal dated August 19, 
1999, and is needed to support the TS amendment that is contained in 
the same submittal and is

[[Page 56360]]

being processed separately. The proposed amendment would revise the P-T 
limits of TS 3.4.4 for V.C. Summer related to the heatup, cooldown, and 
inservice test limitations for the Reactor Coolant System to a maximum 
of 33 Effective Full Power Years (EFPY). It will also revise TS 3/4/
4.9, Low Temperature Overpressure Protection System, to reflect the 
revised P-T limits of the reactor vessel.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    During staff review of this submittal, the staff determined that 
granting of an exemption for ASME Code Case N-640 is needed to revise 
the method used to determine the RCS P-T limits, since continued use of 
the present curves unnecessarily restricts the P-T operating window. 
Application of the Code case will, therefore, relax the LTOP operating 
window and reduce potential challenges to the reactor coolant system 
power-operated relief valves.
    In the associated exemption, the staff has determined that, 
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the underlying purpose of the 
regulation will continue to be served by the implementation of this 
Code case.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the exemption described above would provide an 
adequate margin of safety against brittle failure of the V.C. Summer 
reactor vessel.
    The proposed action will not increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types or 
amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no 
significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. 
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential nonradiological environmental impacts, the 
proposed action does not involve any historic sites. It does not affect 
nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impacts. 
Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological impacts associated 
with the proposed action.
    Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). 
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 V.C. 
Summer Nuclear Station, dated May 1981.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on October 15, 1999, the 
staff consulted with the South Carolina State official, Mr. Virgil 
Autry of the Division of Radioactive Waste Management, Bureau of Land 
and 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

    On the basis of 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 August 19, 1999, which is 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 Fairfield County Library, 300 Washington 
Street, Winnsboro, South Carolina.

    Dated at Rockville, Md., this 15th day of October 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard L. Emch, Jr.,
Section Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing 
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-27353 Filed 10-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P