[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57156-57158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27684]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-255]
Consumers Energy Company, Palisades Plant; Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering the issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License
No. DPR-20 issued to the Consumers Energy Company (the licensee) for
operation of the Palisades Plant, located in Van Buren County,
Michigan.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed amendment would replace the current Technical
Specifications (CTS) in their entirety with improved TSs (ITS) based on
the guidance provided in NUREG-1432, Revision 1, ``Standard Technical
Specifications, Combustion Engineering Plants,'' dated April 1995. The
proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for
amendment dated January 26, 1998, as supplemented by letters dated
April 30, September 14, October 12, and November 9, 1998, and March 1,
March 22, March 30, April 7, May 3, June 4, June 11, June 17, July 19,
July 30, September 17, and September 30, 1999.
The Need for the Proposed Action
It has been recognized that nuclear safety in all plants would
benefit from improvement and standardization of technical
specifications (TSs). The
[[Page 57157]]
``NRC Interim Policy Statement on Technical Specification Improvements
for Nuclear Power Plants'' (52 FR 3788) contained proposed criteria for
defining the scope of TS. Later, the Commission's ``Final Policy
Statement on Technical Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power
Reactors'' (58 FR 39132) incorporated lessons learned since publication
of the interim policy statement and formed the basis for revisions to
10 CFR 50.36, ``Technical Specifications.'' The ``Final Rule'' (60 FR
36953) codified criteria for determining the content of TSs. Each power
reactor vendor owners' group and the NRC staff developed standard TSs
(STS). The NRC Committee to Review Generic Requirements reviewed the
STS, made note of their safety merits, and indicated its support of
conversion by operating plants to the STS. For Palisades, the STS are
NUREG-1432, Revision 1, ``Standard Technical Specifications, Combustion
Engineering Plants,'' dated April 1995. This document forms the basis
for the Palisades ITS conversion.
Description of the Proposed Change
The proposed changes to the CTS are based on NUREG-1432 and on
guidance provided by the Commission in its Final Policy Statement. The
objective of the changes is to completely rewrite, reformat, and
streamline the CTS. Emphasis is placed on human factors principles to
improve clarity and understanding of the TSs. The Bases section of the
ITS has been significantly expanded to clarify and better explain the
purpose and foundation of each specification. In addition to NUREG-
1432, portions of the CTS were also used as the basis for the
development of the Palisades ITS. Plant-specific issues (e.g., unique
design features, requirements, and operating practices) were discussed
with the licensee.
The proposed changes from the CTS can be grouped into four general
categories. These groupings are characterized as administrative
changes, technical changes--relocations, technical changes--more
restrictive, and technical changes--less restrictive. These categories
are described as follows:
1. Administrative changes are those that involve restructuring,
renumbering, rewording, interpretation, and rearranging of requirements
and other changes not affecting technical content or substantially
revising an operational requirement. The reformatting, renumbering, and
rewording processes reflect the attributes of NUREG-1432 and do not
involve technical changes to the CTS. The proposed changes include (a)
providing the appropriate numbers, etc., for NUREG-1432 bracketed
information (information that must be supplied on a plant-specific
basis, and which may change from plant to plant), (b) identifying
plant-specific wording for system names, etc., and (c) changing NUREG-
1432 section wording to conform to existing licensee practices. Such
changes are administrative in nature and do not affect initiators of
analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events.
2. Technical changes--relocations are those changes involving
relocation of requirements and surveillances from the CTS to licensee-
controlled documents. The relocated requirements do not satisfy or fall
within any of the four criteria specified in the Commission's Final
Policy Statement and 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)(A)-(D), and may be
relocated to appropriate licensee-controlled documents.
The licensee's application of the screening criteria is described
in Volume 1 of its January 26, 1998, application, ``Palisades Plant
Request for Conversion to Improved Technical Specifications.'' The
affected structures, systems, components, or variables are not assumed
to be initiators of events analyzed in the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) and are not assumed to mitigate accident or
transient events analyzed in the UFSAR. The requirements and
surveillances for these affected structures, systems, components, or
variables will be relocated from the CTS to administratively controlled
documents such as the UFSAR, the Bases, or other licensee-controlled
documents. Changes made to these documents will be made pursuant to 10
CFR 50.59 or other appropriate control mechanisms.
3. Technical Changes--more restrictive are those changes that
involve more stringent requirements for operation of the facility or
eliminate existing flexibility. These more stringent requirements do
not result in operation that will alter assumptions relative to
mitigation of an accident or transient event. In general, these more
restrictive technical changes have been made to achieve consistency,
correct discrepancies, and remove ambiguities from the specifications.
4. Technical changes--less restrictive are changes where current
requirements are relaxed or eliminated, or new flexibility is provided.
The more significant ``less restrictive'' requirements are justified on
a case-by-case basis. When requirements have been shown to provide
little or no safety benefit, their removal from the ITS may be
appropriate. In most cases, relaxations granted to individual plants on
a plant-specific basis were the result of (a) generic NRC actions, (b)
new NRC staff positions that have evolved from technological
advancements and operating experience, or (c) resolution of comments
from the owners groups on the ITS. Generic relaxations contained in
NUREG-1432 were reviewed by the NRC staff and found to be acceptable
because they are consistent with current licensing practices and NRC
regulations. Each less restrictive change in the Palisades conversion
was justified by the licensee in a Discussion of Change and reviewed by
the NRC staff.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed
conversion of the CTS to the ITS for Palisades. Changes which are
administrative in nature have been found to have no effect on the
technical content of the TS and are acceptable. The increased clarity
and understanding these changes bring to the TS are expected to improve
the operators' control of the plant in normal and accident conditions.
Relocation of requirements to other licensee-controlled documents does
not change the requirements themselves nor does 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)
mandate that the TSs include these requirements. Further changes to
these requirements may be made by the licensee under 10 CFR 50.59 or
other NRC-approved control mechanisms that ensure continued maintenance
of adequate requirements. All such relocations have been found to be in
conformance with the guidelines of NUREG-1432 and the Final Policy
Statement, and are, therefore, acceptable.
Changes involving more restrictive requirements have been found to
enhance plant safety and to be acceptable.
Changes involving less restrictive requirements have been reviewed
individually. When requirements have been shown to provide little or no
safety benefit or to place unnecessary burden on the licensee, their
removal from the TSs was justified. In most cases, relaxations
previously granted to individual plants on a plant-specific basis were
the result of a generic action, or of agreements reached during
discussions with the Owners Groups and found to be acceptable for
Palisades. Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1432 have also been
reviewed by the NRC staff and have been found to be acceptable.
In summary, the proposed revisions to the CTS have been found to
provide control of plant operations such that
[[Page 57158]]
reasonable assurance will be provided that the health and safety of the
public will be adequately protected.
These TS changes 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
occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no
significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the
proposed TS amendment.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
amendment involves features located entirely within the restricted area
as defined in 10 CFR part 20 and does not involve any historical 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 TS
amendment.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
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 October 4, 1999, the
Commission consulted with the State official, Ms. Maryanne Elzerman of
the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 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 application dated January 26, 1998, as supplemented by
letters dated April 30, September 14, October 12, and November 9, 1998,
and March 1, March 22, March 30, April 7, May 3, June 4, June 11, June
17, July 19, July 30, September 17, and September 30, 1999, 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 49423-3698.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of October 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert G. Schaaf,
Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate III, Division of
Licensing Project Management. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-27684 Filed 10-21-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P