[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