[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 140 (Tuesday, July 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39285-39286]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19199]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 modification of an exemption for 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. North
Atlantic is authorized to act as agent for the eleven owners of the
facility.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
This Environmental Assessment addresses the potential environmental
issues related to the proposed extension of the temporary exemption
issued on January 22, 1997, from certain requirements of 10 CFR
50.75(e)(2). Specifically, the proposed extension would allow Great Bay
Power Corporation (Great Bay) until July 22, 2002, subject to certain
conditions to obtain a surety bond or other allowable decommissioning
funding assurance mechanism for non-electric utilities. Great Bay holds
an undivided 12.1324 percent ownership interest in Seabrook.
The Need for the Proposed Action
On May 8, 1996, North Atlantic submitted to the NRC a request on
behalf of Great Bay for Commission consent to the indirect transfer of
control of Great Bay's interest in the Seabrook Operating License
through formation of a holding company. Additional information relating
to this request was submitted on October 18, 1996, and December 9,
1996. The request was approved on January 22, 1997, pursuant to 10 CFR
50.80, and Great Bay subsequently became a wholly owned subsidiary of
BayCorp Holdings, Ltd.
During the review of the corporate restructuring, the staff noted
that Great Bay markets most of its share of electricity from Seabrook
on the spot wholesale market and concluded that Great Bay does not meet
the NRC's definition of electric utility under 10 CFR 50.2.
Notwithstanding the requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(e)(2), Great Bay does
not have a funding or a guarantee mechanism in place to cover the
unfunded balance of its projected share of Seabrook decommissioning
costs.
On January 22, 1997, the staff approved Great Bay's proposed
indirect transfer of control of Great Bay's interest in Seabrook, and
in a related action, the staff issued a temporary exemption from
compliance with the provisions 10 CFR 50.75(e)(2) pertaining to the
additional surety arrangements for decommissioning funding assurance
for non-electric utility licensees for 6 months. The exemption was
intended to afford Great Bay a reasonable opportunity to implement a
suitable decommissioning funding assurance method required of a non-
electric utility.
On February 21, 1997, Great Bay requested reconsideration of the
staff's finding that Great Bay does not meet the NRC definition of
``electric utility,'' and on June 4 and 16, 1997, Great Bay submitted
supplemental information related to Great Bay financial matters to
support their request. Also included in the June 4, 1997, submittal,
was a request that the NRC consider an extension to the temporary
exemption as an alternative to completing reconsideration, at this
time, the issue of whether Great Bay is an electric utility under the
NRC definition.
The proposed action is needed in light of Great Bay's difficulty in
obtaining a surety method to comply
[[Page 39286]]
with 10 CFR 50.75. Upon review of the circumstances surrounding the
issue of Great Bay's electric utility status, its current and projected
financial condition, the underlying purpose of the requirement for
additional decommissioning funding assurance arrangements for non-
electric utilities, and the availability of such arrangements, the
staff is considering conditionally extending the temporary exemption
issued on January 22, 1997, for an additional period of 5 years, until
July 22, 2002.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has evaluated the environmental impact of the
proposed action and has determined that the probability or consequences
of accidents would not be increased by the extension of the temporary
exemption, and that post-accident radiological releases would not be
greater than previously determined. Further, the Commission has
determined that the extension 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 extension of
the temporary exemption would not affect nonradiological plant
effluents and would have no other environmental impact. Therefore, the
Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternative to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant
environmental effects that would result from the proposed action, any
alternative with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be
evaluated.
The principal alternative would be to not extend the expiration
date of the temporary exemption and, thereby, require that Great Bay
provide the required additional assurance for decommissioning funding.
Not extending the exemption would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action
and the alternative action are identical.
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, dated March 1983.
Aqencies and Persons Contacted
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 14, 1997, 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 July 14, 1997, 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 the
letters submitted by Great Bay through its counsel, Shaw, Pittman,
Potts & Trowbridge, dated February 21, 1997, June 4, 1997, and June 16,
1997, which are 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 Exeter
Public Library, Founders Park, Exeter, New Hampshire 03833.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of July 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Albert W. De Agazio,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-3, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-19199 Filed 7-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P