[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27569-27570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12665]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-443]


North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation Seabrook 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 exemption from Facility Operating License 
No. NPF-86, issued to North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (the 
licensee or North Atlantic), for operation of the Seabrook Station, 
Unit No. 1 (Seabrook) located in Rockingham County, New Hampshire.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address 
potential environmental issues related to North Atlantic's application 
of February 17, 1995. The proposed action would exempt North Atlantic 
from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Paragraph 
III.D.1.(a), to the extent that a one-time interval extension would be 
granted for Type A testing. The interval between the first and second 
Type A tests in the first 10-year containment inservice inspection 
period would be extended by approximately 22 months from the November 
1995 refueling outage to the September 1997 refueling outage.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would permit North Atlantic to defer the Type A 
test from the November 1995 refueling outage, thereby saving the cost 
of performing the test and eliminating the test period from the 
critical path time of the outage. North Atlantic has stated that the 
exemption request meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12, paragraphs 
(a)(1) and (a)(2)(ii). The historical Type A tests have demonstrated 
that Seabrook has a low leakage containment. All three Type A tests 
have been performed without a single failure with as-found leak rates 
being significantly lower than the acceptance and design limits. The 
Type B and C testing programs, i.e., the local leak rate tests, are not 
being modified and will continue effectively to detect containment 
leakage caused by the degradation of active containment isolation 
components as well as containment penetrations. It has been the 
experience at Seabrook that any significant containment leakage paths 
are detected by the Type B and C tests and that the Type A test results 
have only been confirmatory of the results of the Type B and C test 
results.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the proposed one-time exemption would not increase 
the probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and 
the proposed one-time exemption would not affect facility radiation 
levels or facility radiological effluents. North Atlantic has analyzed 
the results of previous Type A tests performed at Seabrook to show good 
containment performance and they will conduct the Type B and C local 
leak rate tests which historically have been shown to be the principal 
means of detecting containment leakage paths with the Type A tests 
confirming the Type B and C test results. It is also noted that North 
Atlantic will perform the visual containment inspection although it is 
only required by Appendix J to be conducted in conjunction with Type A 
tests. The NRC staff considers that these inspections, though limited 
in scope, provide an important added level of confidence in the 
continued integrity of the containment boundary. 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.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action involves features located entirely within the restricted area as 
defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not 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 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 NRC 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 
Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on April 11, 1995 the NRC 
staff consulted with the New Hampshire state official, Mr. George 
Iverson of the New Hampshire Emergency Management Agency regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action. On April 12, 1995 the NRC 
staff consulted with the Massachusetts state official, Mr. James 
Muckerheid of the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency. The state 
officials 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 North 
Atlantic's letter dated February 17, 1995, 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 the Exeter Public Library, Fonders Park, 
Exeter, NH 03833.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of May 1995.

    [[Page 27570]] For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Phillip F. McKee,
Director, Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-12665 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M