[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
