ML20085J205
| ML20085J205 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1995 |
| From: | Hebdon F NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20085J207 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9506220046 | |
| Download: ML20085J205 (5) | |
Text
..
s UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1QVTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICC AUTHORITY DOCKET NO. 50-395 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 cone,tdering 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, located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action:
The proposed action would allow the licensee to discontinue the seismic monitoring program (which includes a network of seismometers near the Monticello Reservoir) that was put in place to monitor the seismic activity associated with the impoundment of the Monticello Reservoir. The monitoring program is currently funded by the licensee and operated and maintained by the University. of South Carolina.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated March 6, 1995, as supplemented May 5, 1995.
s a
9506220046 950605 ";
PDR ADOCK 05000395:
P PDR g-c
l..-
4
- 2: -
[
The Nad_f_qt ths Prooosed Action:
l The proposed action was requested because the licensee believes that the-I burden and costs of the seismic monitoring program for reservoir' induced
),
seismicity are no longer justified.
p Environmental Imoacts of the Proposed Action:
I The licensee's. proposal will allow the seismic monitoring equipment' to be j-permanently removed from current locations. This equipment is portable and is j
located around the Monticello Reservoir. The equipment is used solely for.
i-
[
monitoring seismic activity around the reservoir and is not used for the j
i operation of the. plant. Based on the licensee's submittals and the discussions with other agencies and persons, the staff found that the removal 1
]
of this equipment will have no significant impact on the environment.
The change will not increase the probability or consequences of-1 j
accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be l
released offsite, and there is no significant increase.in the allowable b
individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, the i
Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological envi.onmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
r With regard to potential nonradiological itnpacts, the proposed action j
does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no'significant k
nonradiological environmental: impacts associated with the proposed action.
[
Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable environmental f.
impact associated with the proposed action, any alternatives with equal or j.
greater environr<ntal impact need not be evaluated. As an alternative to the k
9-1 4
. ~~.
j-jc 3-j proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental i=;4 cts..
The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternatiits r. tion are similar since the proposed amendment will allow the licensee te remove the seismic monitoring equipment and the licensee's present. license evidition does l
not prohibit the licensee from removing and relocating the seismic monitoring l
equipment-from current locations. Thus, the current license condition already j
' allows the licensee to permanently abandon the current monitoring sites (as i
long as alternate sites are selected).
j Alternative Use of Resources:
j This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously j
considered in the Final Environmental Statement for. the Virgil C. Summer 1j' Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
Aaencies and Persons Consulted:
i j
On April 14, 1995, the staff consulted with Mr. John Sims,' Deputy of i
External Research, U.S. Geological Survey regarding the type of equipment used 9
l for seismic monitoring networks. Mr. Sims commented that the equipment was "i
generally compact; therefore, he judged that there were no significant i
environmental impacts associated with the removal of the equipment and
[
abandonment of the sites.
i_
On April 24, 1995, the staff consulted with Dr. Pradeep Talwani, of the University of South Carolina (USC) regarding the planned disposition of the network monitoring sites if the licensee stops funding the program.
Dr. Talwani maintains the seismic monitoring system for the licensee.
'Dr. Talwani stated that if the licensee stops funding the network, all but one of the monitoring sites will be abandoned (i.e., the equipment will be 1
1 l
1 i
j'
) removed). Dr. Talwani also stated that the monitors were solar powered with
(
battery backups. Therefore, he judged that there were no significant environmental impacts associated with the removal of the equipment and i
j abandonment of the sites.
i In accordance,with its stated policy,'on April 24, 1995, 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.
L 4
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT I
Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that i
j the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the i
human environment. Accordingly, the Coonission has determined not to prepare i
j an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
j For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
)
licensee's letters dated March 6,1995, and May 5,1995, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman 4
i Building, 2120 L-Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document
[
room located at the Fairfield County Library, 300 Washington Street, i
j Winnsboro, SC.
1 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of June 1995.
4 i
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9qcm Frederick J. He n, Director Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II j_.
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4
i l
. - ~ -.
t J
Mr. Gary J. Taylor VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION Sooth Carolina Electric & Gas Company cC' Mr. R. J. White Nuclear Coordinator 4
S.C. M11c Service Authority c/o Virail C. Sumer Nuclear Station Post Office Box 88, Mail Code 802 Jenkinsville, South Carolina 29065 J. B. Knotts, Jr., Esquire Winston & Strawn Law Firm
{
1 1400 L Street, N.W.
{
Washington, D.C.
20005-3502 Resident Inspector / Summer NPS c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Route 1, Box 64 j
Jenkinsville, South Carolina 29065 i
Regional Administrator, Region II i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1
4 101 Marietta St., N.W., Ste. 2900
)
l Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Chairman, Fairfield County Council Orawer 60 Winnsboro, South Carolina 29180 i
Mr. Virgil R. Autry Director of Radioactive Waste Management Bureau of Solid & Hazardous Waste Management i
Department of Health & Environmental Control i
2600 Bull Street I
J Columbia, South Carolina 29201 i
Mr. R. M. Fowlkes, Manager Nuclear Licensing & Operating Experience l
+
i i
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Virgil C. Sumer Nuclear Station Post Office Box 88 Jenkinsville,. South Carolina 29065 Mr. Heinz Muller Environmental Protection Agency l
Environmental Review Coordinator 345 Courtland Street, NE
]
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
.