[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 104 (Friday, May 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29378-29379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14146]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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. 
DRP-20, issued to Consumers Power Company, (CPCo, 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 revise the Facility Operating License No. 
DRP-20 and the Technical Specifications (TS) appended to Facility 
Operating License No. DPR-20 for the Palisades Plant. Specifically, the 
proposed action would amend the license to reflect the change in the 
licensee's name from Consumers Power Company to Consumers Energy 
Company.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for amendment dated March 27, 1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is to revise the company name in the license to 
reflect the corporate name change that occurred on March 11, 1997.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed changes 
to the license and TS. According to the licensee, the name change will 
not impact the existing ownership of the Palisades Plant or the 
existing entitlement to power and will not alter the existing antitrust 
license conditions applicable to CPCo or CPCo's ability to comply with 
these conditions or with any of its other obligations or 
responsibilities. As stated by the licensee, ``The corporate existence 
continues uninterrupted, and all legal characteristics remain the same. 
Thus, there is no change in the ownership, State of incorporation, 
registered agent, registered office, directors, officers, rights or 
liabilities of the Company, nor is there a change in the function of 
the Company or the way in which it does business. The Company's 
financial responsibility for the Palisades Plant and its sources of 
funds to support the facility will remain the same. Further, this name 
change does not impact the Company's ability to comply with any of its 
obligations or responsibilities under the license.'' Therefore, 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 will be 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

[[Page 29379]]

action is administrative in nature and does not involve any physical 
features of the plant. Thus, 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.

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 May 15, 1997, the staff 
consulted with the Michigan State official, Dennis Hahn, of the 
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Drinking Water and 
Radiological Protection Division, 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 March 27, 1997, 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 49423.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of May 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert G. Schaaf,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-14146 Filed 5-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P