[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