ML20008E612
| ML20008E612 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20008E603 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103090270 | |
| Download: ML20008E612 (2) | |
Text
___
,,e macy,Io UNITED STATES
,e g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
(.
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 9,
a
%+.'.../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 63 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-20 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY PALISADES PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-255
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated July 3,1980, Consumers Power Company (CPC) submitted a license amendment request to delete certain radiological and non-radio-logical restrictions and monitoring requirements from the Palisades Technical Specifications and the "Special Technical Specifications Pursuant to Agreement." The licensce's basis for these deletions is that the requirements to be deleted were the result of a Settlement Agreement between CPC and the Michigan Steelhead and Solmon Fishermen's Association which terminated in October,1977.
This safety evaluation concerns only the non-radiological aspects of the licensee's request. The radiological sections will be considered during the evaluation of the licensee's implementation of the pro-visions of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
2.0 DISCUSSION The licensee's proposal is to replace the water quality restrictions in the various parts of the technical specifications with references to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit which has oeen issued for the Palisades Plant. The NRC has taken the position (based on the ASLB Yellow Creek Decision) that water quality conditions in existing reactor operating licenses should be promptly removed as a matter of law where the licensee holds an effective NPDES permit, and an Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) has been adapted as the standard format for all new plants and as a backfit to existing plants on a case-by-case basis. The EPP is designed to keep the NRC aware of the environmental effects of plant operation, while recognizing that the regulation of non-radiological aspects of aquatic effluents and related monitoring lies with the appropriate NPDES permitting agency.
~8103090ffa,
. In preparing the EPP for the Palisades Plant we have deleted the water quality limiting conditions and monitoring programs from the Appendix l
A Technical Specifications and the "Special Technical Specifications" and have replaced them with reporting requirements for the licensee to provide the NRC with copies of notices of violations or changes to the permit. We have also moved the terrestrial monitoring to the EPP with-out making any modifications to its menitoring programs.
We have contacted the NPDES permitting authority, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and determined that similar requirements on the dis-charge of heat (temperature) and chlorine are contained in the permit and that the licensee has completed requirements under Section 316(a) and (b) of the Clean Water Act.
Furthermore, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources has no objections to the removal of the NRC requirements and our reliance on them for protection of aquatic resources.
We have, therefore, determined that the censee is justified in deleting
- the basis that the Settlement the water quality requirements not only (
Agreement has terminated, but also because the Technical Specification water quality requirements are now contained in an effective NPDES permit.
3.0 ENVIRONEMENTAL CONSIDERATION We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this detemination, we have further concluded that the ameninent involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisci need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the pro-bability or consequences of accident previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be con-ducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendinent will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
January 22, 1981
_ _ _ -