ML20083N100
| ML20083N100 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1995 |
| From: | Mckee P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083N104 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9505220224 | |
| Download: ML20083N100 (4) | |
Text
~ ~~ ] ( 7590-01 9 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORPORATION SEABROOK STATION. UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-443 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) 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 operat. 1 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 4 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 in-service 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 9505220224 950516 i PDR ADOCK 05000443 P PDR
e 2-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 antainment 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 Imoacts 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 tne 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 s.-,m .--e-1-,-a .-,.e-, .,,-,,-..*e--.-*-~---,*+$--r--,---m.- m- .--g-- ,--w- --.----,---,,,f-r i- - -,,
\\ 1 9 in scope, provide an important added level of confidence in the continued .i 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 cnvironmental 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.
.6 N o 4-Aaencies 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 Emergendy 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. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION /./? }3,., (vf/ c f 7p c-_e._ v Phillip f. McKee, Director Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ,}}