[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1742-1743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-400]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-395]
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company; Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
Station; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 50, Sections 50.44, and 50.46 and Appendix K, for the
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12, issued to South Carolina
Electric & Gas Company (the licensee), for operation of the Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear Station (VSNS), located in Fairfield County, South
Carolina. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC has performed
an environmental assessment as described in this notice and has made a
finding of no significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would allow operation with up to four lead test
assemblies (LTAs) containing fuel rods with Optimized
ZIRLOTM and several different developmental clad alloys in
the core.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated September 3, 2004, as supplemented by letter dated
November 11, 2004.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed exemption is needed because the NRC regulations
identified above specifically refer to light-water reactors containing
fuel consisting of uranium oxide pellets enclosed in zircaloy or ZIRLO
tubes. A new zirconium-based alloy cladding has been developed, which
is not the same chemical composition as zircaloy or ZIRLO. Therefore,
the licensee needs an exemption to insert up to four assemblies
containing the new fuel cladding material into the VSNS reactor core
for test during operation.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action
and concluded that it will not present an undue risk to the public
health and safety. The safety evaluation performed by Westinghouse,
upon which the licensee is relying, demonstrates that the predicted
chemical, mechanical and material performance of the Advance zirconium-
based cladding is within that approved for Zircaloy-4 or ZIRLO under
all anticipated operational occurrences and postulated accidents.
Furthermore, the LTAs will be placed in nonlimiting core locations. In
the unlikely event that cladding failures were to occur in the LTAs,
environmental impact would be minimal and is bounded by previous
environmental impact statements.
The details of the NRC staff's safety evaluation will be provided
as an enclosure to the letter to the licensee granting the exemption.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability
or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of
effluents that may be released off site. 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 impacts, the proposed
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does
not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant
nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed
action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Environmental Impacts of the 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
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for
the VSNS, NUREG-0719, dated May 1981.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on December 15, 2004, the
staff consulted with the South Carolina State official, Henry Porter of
the South Carolina 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 NRC concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC 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 September 3, 2004, as supplemented by letter
dated November 11, 2004. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a
fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White
Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the
Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in
accessing the documents located in ADAMS should
[[Page 1743]]
contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of January 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Karen R. Cotton,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05-400 Filed 1-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P