ML20095K090
| ML20095K090 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1995 |
| From: | Hebdon F NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20095K093 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9512280089 | |
| Download: ML20095K090 (4) | |
Text
_ _
t t
Q 7590-01 i
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION a
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY DOCKET NO. 50-395 VIRGIL C. SUMER NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT NO.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT l
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, located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action:
The proposed action would support the licensee's plan to implement the j
revised 10 CFR Part 20, " Standards for Protection Against Radiation." Also, the licensee proposed several editorial changes to improve the clarity of the Technical Specifications (TS). The majority of the licensee's proposal meets the eligibility'crite.ria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). However, one aspect of the licensee's proposal changes requirements with respect to use of a facility component located outside the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
Specifically, requirements for use of the settling ponds will be changed by the proposed amendment.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated February 21, 1995, as revised on August 31, 1995, and December 4, 1995.
9512280089 951219 PDR ADOCK 05000395 P
PDR a
t e
2 Ihe Need for the Prooosed Action:
The proposed action is needed to update the license to incorporate the revised requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 (i.e., the need for the proposed action was created by a change in the regulatory requirements).
Environmental Imoacts of the Proposed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the proposed revision to the radioactive material quantity in the settling ponds will not change the types and will conservatively lower the amount of effluents that can be released. Therefore, it will not cause an increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposures.
The new settling pond limit is based on that quantity which would not exceed-the effluent concentrations of 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2, at the nearest potable water supply if an uncontrolled release of settling pond inventory should occur. The effluent concentration limits in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2, are more conservative than the current limits in the licensee's TS.
Thus the change proposed by the licensee results in a tiet decrease in the maximum quantity of radioactive material permitted in the settling ponds.
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 3
individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action 4
does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental
8 4
3 impact.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
&]ternatives to the Proposed Action:
Since the Commission has concluded 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 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 No. 1.
Aaencies and Persons Consulted:
In accordance with its stated policy, on October 26, 1995 the staff consulted with the South Carolina State official, Mr. Virgil Autry of the l
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.
i 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.
e.-.L 4
~
s 4
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated February 21, 1995, as supplemented by letters dated August 31, 1995, and December 4,1995, 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 19th day of December 1995.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Frederick J. Hebd%, Director Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II l
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4
e
\\
.