[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