ML20127P691
| ML20127P691 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1985 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127P695 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8507020489 | |
| Download: ML20127P691 (4) | |
Text
.
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATOPY COMMISSION CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-255 FNVIRCUPENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IFPACT The U. S. Fuclear Regulatory Commission (the Conmission) is considering issuance of an exenption from the technical requirements o# Arnendix P to 10 CFP Part 50 to Cor.sumers Power Company (the licensee), for the Palisades Plant, located in Van Buren Ccunty, Michigan.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Propcsed Action:
The exemption would provide an alternative to the requirement to install fixed suppression systems in the Engineared Safeguards Panel Pocr and the Corr on the 500'-0" elevation of the Peactor Building between the Charging Punp Porm and the 1-0 Futtchgear Room. Alternate shutdown capability in accordance with Appendix R has been provided for each area above.
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The proposed exemption is needed because the features described in the licensee's request regarding the existing level of fire protection and proposed nedifications at the plant are the most practical method of meeting the intent of Appendix R and literal comp 11arce would not significantly enhance the fire protection capability.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:
The proposed exemotion would provide e degree of fire protection equivalent to that required by Appendix P such that there would be rc ircrease in the risk of fires at this facility. Consequently, the probability of fires has not been increased and the post-fire radiological releases would not be 8507020409 8506425 ADOCK050g25 PDR F
. 4 greater than previously deternined.
Neither does the proposed exemption otherwise af'ect radiological plant ef#1uents. Therefore, the Commission crncludes that there are no significant radinlogical environmental frpacts essociated with this proposed exenption.
With regard to potential non-radiolacica' inpacts, the proposed exemption involves features located entirely within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental inoact. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant non-radinicgical environmental impacts associated with the preposed exemption.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
Since we have concluded that the environmental effects of the proposed action are negligible, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested exenptirns.
This would not reduce the environmental impacts associated with fire protection modifications and would result in a much larger expenditure of licensee resources to comply with the Commission's regulations.
/1ternative Use of Resources:
This action involves no use of resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement related to operation of the Palisades Plant.
Acencies and Persons Consulted:
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult Other agencies or persons.
. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Commission has deternired rot to prepare an environnental impact staterent for the proposed exemption.
Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, we conclude that the preposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
For further details with respect to this action, see the application
'or exenption dated July 16, 1988, and in supplements dated July 20, 1984, August 10, 1984, October 1, 1984, Decerber 28,1984. March 19,1985, and June 19, 1985, which are available for public inspection at the Connission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.,
and at the Van Zoeren Library, I! ope College, Holland, Michigan 49423.
Deted at Bethesda, Maryland, this 25th day of June 1985.
FOP TPF NITLEAR RFAULATORY COMMISSION
)hh.
~
/
Denn s
. Crutchf eld, ssistant Director for Safety Assessmen Division of Licensing 9
4
P A f-4 6 L
~.
/
.. greater than previously determined.
Neither does the reposed exerption otherwise affect radiological plant effluents. Themfore, the Cornission concludes that there are no significant radiologi 1 environnental impacts associated with this proposed exemption.
With regard to potential non-radiological inpacts, the proposed entures located entirely within the restricted area as exemption involves r defined in 10 CFP Part 20.
It does not af ect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental inpact. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed xemption.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action-Since we have concluded that.he environmental effects of the proposed action are negligible, any alternatives with eoual or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated.
would be to deny the requejited exe ptions.h The principal alternativ as.saakV y TA pa
,(b This would not reduce the e ironmental impacts of-the-integri of sdfety'
- h JGWw unw h w l LA rs
-&ystete-and would result i _tW iicensee bei@=vichtion-ef the Commission's lugu -ype-clib M""
v regulations.
Alternative Use of Res rces:
This action invo es no use of resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Staterent related to operation of the Palisades Plant.
Agencies and Persons Consulted:
The flRC staff reviewed the licensee's reouest and did not consult other agencies or persons, g