[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