[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 52 (Friday, March 15, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10811-10812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6210]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 amendment to 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

    The proposed action would modify the Palisades Facility Operating 
License by deleting references to specific amendments and specific 
revisions in the listed titles of the Physical Security Plan, the 
Suitability Training and Qualification Plan, and the Safeguards 
Contingency Plan, and make minor editorial changes to the license.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for amendment dated October 17, 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed to: (1) Eliminate the implication 
that the Facility Operating License must be amended when any Physical 
Security Plan, Suitability Training and Qualification Plan, or 
Safeguards Contingency Plan revision is approved; and (2) eliminate 
redundancies and inconsistencies throughout the license.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the proposed amendment will eliminate the need to 
amend the license whenever a security, training, or safeguards plan is 
revised, and provide for editorial changes which serve to make the 
license easier to read. The Palisades Facility Operating License still 
requires the licensee to implement and maintain in effect all 
provisions (including all approved amendments) of the Commission-
approved Palisades Plant Physical Security Plan, Suitability Training 
and Qualification Plan, and the Plant Safeguards Contingency Plan. 
Examples of minor changes to the license include the use of consistent 
abbreviations for the Commission and the licensee, punctuation of 
series consistent with NUREG-1379, ``NRC Editorial Style Guide,'' and 
removal of paragraph titles for consistency in format.
    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 does involve 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 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.

[[Page 10812]]


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.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on January 31, 1996, the 
staff consulted with the Michigan State official, Dennis Hahn of the 
Michigan Department of Public Health, Nuclear Facilities and 
Environmental Monitoring, regarding 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 letter dated October 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 Van Wylen Library, Hope College, Holland, 
Michigan, 49201.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of March 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 Timothy G. Colburn,
Acting Director Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
[FR Doc. 96-6210 Filed 3-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P