[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30115-30116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13975]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-255]
Consumers Power Company; Palisades Plant 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. DPR-20, issued to Consumers Power Company, (the licensee), for
operation of the Palisades Plant located in Van Buren County, Michigan.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address
potential environmental issues related to the licensee's application of
March 17, 1995, as supplemented April 26, 1995. The proposed action
would exempt the licensee from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix J, Paragraph III.D.1.(a), to the extent that a one-time
interval extension for the Type A test (containment integrated leak
rate test) by approximately 21 months from the May 1995 refueling
outage to the 1997 refueling outage would be granted.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to permit the licensee to defer the
Type A test from the May 1995 refueling outage to the 1997 refueling
outage, thereby saving the cost of performing the test and eliminating
the test period from the critical path time of the outage.
Environmental Impact 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. The licensee has analyzed
the results of previous Type A tests performed at the Palisades Plant
to show adequate containment performance and will continue to be
required to 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 the licensee, as a condition
of the proposed exemption, would 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 or amounts 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
Palisades Plant dated June 1972 and its addendum dated February 1978.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on May 4, 1995, the NRC staff
consulted with the Michigan State official, Dennis Hahn of the Michigan
Department of Public Health, Nuclear Facilities and Environmental
Monitoring, regarding [[Page 30116]] the environmental impact of the
proposed action. The State official 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
licensee's letters dated March 17 and April 26, 1995, 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 the Van Wylen Library, Hope
College, Holland, Michigan 49423.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of May 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Janet L. Kennedy,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-13975 Filed 6-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
