[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 62 (Thursday, March 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16971-16972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-7831]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-255]


Consumers Energy Company; Palisades Nuclear 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 
Section III.O of Appendix R, 10 CFR Part 50 to Consumers Energy Company 
(the licensee), holder of Facility Operating License No. DPR-20, for 
operation of the Palisades Nuclear Plant, located in the town of 
Covert, Michigan, on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirement 
of Section III.O of Appendix R, 10 CFR Part 50, regarding the design 
capacity of the lubricating oil collection systems for three of the 
four primary coolant pump (PCP) motors. Specifically, the exemption 
would apply to the requirement that a vented container for the 
collection of leakage ``can hold the entire lube oil system 
inventory.'' The proposed action does not apply to the collection 
system for PCP P-50D, which, as a result of modifications during the 
1999 refueling outage, has been brought into compliance with Section 
III.O. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for an exemption dated August 13, 1999, as revised and 
supplemented by letters dated November 3, 1999, and March 15, 2000.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    Each of the four Palisades PCP motors has its own oil collection 
tank that receives the leakage from both the upper and lower bearing 
lubrication systems for that PCP motor. The usable volumes of the 
collection tanks for PCPs P-50A, P-50B, and P-50C, cannot hold the 
entire inventories of their respective lubricating oil systems as 
required by Section III.O of Appendix R, 10 CFR Part 50. By removing 
the need to modify or replace the oil collection tanks to meet the 
literal requirement of 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, Section III.O, the 
proposed action would avoid unnecessarily exposing workers to 
radiation. It would also spare resources.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    Each oil collection tank for PCPs P-50A, P-50B, and P-50C has a 
nominal capacity of 79 gallons. Each pump motor nominally has 87 
gallons of lubricating oil in the upper-bearing lubricating oil system 
and 18 gallons in the lower-bearing lubricating oil system, for a total 
of 105 gallons. The upper and lower lubricating oil systems are 
independent of each other.
    In the unlikely event that operators allowed leakage in a PCP upper 
oil system to drain the entire system without taking action to stop the 
pump, approximately 8 gallons of oil could overflow the oil collection 
tank onto the floor in containment. Approximately 26 gallons could 
overflow onto the floor in the less likely event that both the upper 
and lower oil systems developed gross leakage and operators took no 
action.

[[Page 16972]]

    Any lubricating oil that overflowed an oil collection tank would 
remain inside the containment building and would not be released to the 
environment. A portion of the spilled oil could flow down to lower 
floor elevations and eventually into the containment sump. The motor 
oil has a flash point of over 400 deg.F and the containment atmosphere 
is nominally 80 to 100 deg.F when the PCPs are in operation. The oil 
would not come in contact with hot pipes, hot equipment surfaces, or 
electrical ignition sources in the tank areas or on the flow paths to 
the sump. The oil would not become a fire hazard, since it would drain 
to a safe location.
    Cleanup of any oil spill would generate minor amounts of waste 
materials requiring disposal and expose plant workers to a small amount 
of radioactive material. However, the waste materials and radiation 
exposure from cleanup would be essentially the same as from routine 
lubricating oil system activities associated with normal plant 
operation and maintenance. Routine activities which generate waste oil 
and cleanup materials include periodic PCP oil changes, pumpdown of oil 
collection tanks, PCP oil system piping and equipment repairs, and 
cleaning of equipment and floors.
    The proposed action will not significantly 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 occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there 
are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed action.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not involve any historic sites. It does not affect 
nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. 
Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental 
impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the 
Commission concludes that there are no significant environmental 
impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

1. Limiting the Amount of Oil in the PCP Lubrication Systems
    Limiting the amount of oil in the PCP lubrication systems according 
to the capacity of the collection systems would violate the equipment 
operating requirements, which could lead to early equipment failure.
2. Modifying the Oil Collection Tank Capacity
    Modifying the oil collection tank capacity would require 
significant resources and result in potential occupational exposure 
without a commensurate benefit to the environment.
3. Denying the Proposed Action
    As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered 
denying the proposed action (i.e., the ``no action'' alternative). 
Denying the application would not change the 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 related to 
the operation of Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant, dated June 1972, 
and the associated final addendum (NUREG-0343) dated February 1978.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on March 23, 2000, the staff 
consulted with the Michigan State official, Mr. Michael McCardy, 
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State 
official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of 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 August 13 and November 3, 1999, and March 15, 
2000, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's 
Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C., and electronically from the ADAMS Public Library 
component on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Electronic 
Reading Room).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of March 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carl F. Lyon,
Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate III, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-7831 Filed 3-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P