[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 124 (Friday, June 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34720-34721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-16859]


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

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 certain requirements of 10 
CFR Part 50, Appendix J, for 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 exempt the licensee from certain 
requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Option A, section 
III.D.2.(b)(ii) and III.D.2.(b)(iii), for Type B testing of the 
emergency escape air lock. The proposed action would allow performance 
of alternative testing of the emergency escape air lock door seals 
following air lock leak rate testing.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for exemption dated January 10, 1996, as supplemented 
February 20, 1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is necessary to allow the licensee to use 
different testing requirements for the emergency escape air lock. 
During special testing in 1992, the licensee showed that the annulus 
between the door seals could not be successfully tested without the 
door strongback installed even at pressures as low as 2 psig. This 
testing, along with information from the vendor, confirms that between-
the-seal pressure testing on the emergency escape air lock doors cannot 
be properly measured or evaluated if the door strongbacks are not 
installed. Similarly, the inner door does not fully seal with the 
reverse-direction pressure of a full air lock pressure test unless the 
strongback is installed.
    Since the removal of the inner door strongback after pressure 
testing requires the outer door to be opened, a between-the-seals test 
of the outer door would be required by the regulation. This test would 
require the installation of a strongback on the outer door. Further, 
full pressure testing or the pressure induced by the strongback may 
cause the door seals to take a set. It is therefore necessary to open 
both doors (one at a time) after any pressure testing to ensure full 
seal contact, and there is a potential need to readjust the seals to 
restore seal contact. Option A of Appendix J requires a leak rate test 
after opening an air lock door, with the idea that the door opening is 
a relatively isolated event. In this case, requiring another test 
immediately after a valid test simply because the door was opened again 
to remove test equipment or to perform seal adjustment would require 
performance of another air lock leak rate test to comply with the 
regulation. In this case, compliance with the rule would lead to an 
infinite series of tests.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the proposed exemption would not increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and the 
proposed exemption would not affect facility radiation levels or 
facility radiological effluents. As an alternative to the final 
pressure test required by Appendix J for verification of door seal 
functionality, the licensee has proposed a final door seal contact 
verification. This seal performance verification is completed following 
the full pressure air lock test, after the removal of the inner door 
strongback, and just prior to final closure of the air lock doors. The 
requested exemption would not affect compliance with the present 
requirement to perform a full pressure emergency escape air lock test 
at 6-month intervals. It would also not affect the requirement to 
perform a full pressure emergency escape air lock test within 72 hours 
of opening either door during periods when containment integrity is 
required. The seal contact check replaces the pressure test required by 
Appendix J for the door opening(s) and/or seal adjustments associated 
with test restoration.
    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 off site, 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 
exemption.
    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 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 
Palisades dated June 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on June 23, 1997, the NRC 
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 letters dated January 10, 1996, and February 20, 1997, which 
are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document 
Room,

[[Page 34721]]

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 23rd day of June, 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. 97-16859 Filed 6-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P