[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 190 (Monday, October 3, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-24342]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: October 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-443]
North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation, et al.; Seabrook
Station, Unit No. 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering amending Facility Operating License No. NPF-86 issued to
North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (North Atlantic) for the
Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 (Seabrook). The facility is located in
Rockingham County, New Hampshire.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would amend the Seabrook Technical
Specifications (TS) to permit operation of the Seabrook core with an
expanded axial flux difference (AFD) band from that currently
permitted. Operation with the expanded AFD band would be supported by
continuous monitoring of core power distribution using the fixed incore
detector system. Other TS changes would allow for fuel design
enhancements. The changes to the TS include modification to a number of
safety analysis input parameters and assumptions as follows:
Incorporation of Westinghouse WRB-1 departure from
nucleate boiling correlation and revised thermal design procedure.
Increased core power distribution peaking factors.
Allowance for positive moderator temperature coefficient.
Allowance for thimble plug deletion.
Allowance for increased steam generator tube plugging
limit.
Allowance for new fuel design features.
Modification of analytical assumptions related to certain
surveillance parameters.
Expansion of AFD band Limiting Condition for Operation.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed changes will allow operation of Seabrook with improved
fuel cycle management and will permit North Atlantic to implement
certain new fuel design features in the future.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The proposed action will allow for a significant improvement in
fuel utilization. The number of fuel assemblies required for an
equilibrium core reload will decrease from 80 to 72. Thus, the major
environmental effects of the proposed action are:
a. Less nuclear fuel will be required for the reactor core thereby
reducing the environmental impacts associated with mining, converting,
enriching, and transporting uranium,
b. Fewer fuel assemblies will be required for the reactor core
reloads thereby reducing the environmental impacts associated with
fabricating and transporting fuel assemblies,
c. Fewer spent fuel assemblies will be produced reducing the amount
of spent fuel storage space required, and
d. Fewer spent fuel assemblies will need to be managed in long-term
storage or disposed of in licensed repositories.
The Commission has evaluated the environmental impact of the
proposed action and has determined that neither the probability of
accidents nor the post-accident radiological releases would be great
than previously determined. Further, the Commission has determined that
the proposed approval would not affect routine radiological plant
effluents and would not increase occupational radiological 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
approval does involve 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 that the environmental effects
of the proposed action are not significant, any alternatives with equal
or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested approval.
This would not reduce the environmental impact attributable to the
facility.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of resources not previously
considered in the Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of
the Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2, dated December 1974.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The Commission's staff reviewed the licensee's request and
discussed the proposed issuance with the New Hampshire and
Massachusetts State officials. The State officials had no comments. The
Commission did not consult other agencies or persons.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon the foregoing 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 this action, see the request
for approval dated November 23, 1993, as clarified and supplemented by
letter dated August 15, 1994, which are available for public inspection
at the Commission's Public Document Room, Gelman Building, 2120 L
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555, and at the Local Public Document Room
located at the Exeter Public Library, 47 Front Street, Exeter, New
Hampshire 03833.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of September 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John F. Stolz,
Director, Project Directorate I-4, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-24342 Filed 9-30-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
