ML20141K879
| ML20141K879 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 05/22/1997 |
| From: | Robert Schaaf NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141K881 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9705300231 | |
| Download: ML20141K879 (4) | |
Text
. - -. _.
i l
l l'
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
~ CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY I
DOCKET NO. 50-255 PALISADES PLANT l
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF l
NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DRP-20, issued to Consumers Power Company, (CPCo, the licensee), for operation of the Palisades Plant, located in Van Buren County, Michigan.
l ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action:
l The proposed action would revise the Facility Operating License No.
l DRP-20 and the Technical Specifications (TS) appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-20 for the Palisades Plant. Specifically, the proposed action would amend the license to reflect the change in the licensee's name from Consumers Power Company to Consumers Energy Company.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's appilcation for l
l amendment dated March 27, 1997.
l The Need for the Proposed Action:
The proposed action is to revise the company name in the license to reflect the corporate name change that occurred on March 11, 1997.
l Environmental Imoacts of the Pronosed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed changes to l
the license and TS. According to the licensee, the name change will not 9705300231 970522 PDR ADOCK 05000255 P
= g impact the existing ownership of the Palisades Plant or the existing j
entitlement to power and will not alter the existing antitrust license conditions applicable to CPCo or CPCo's ability to comply with these conditions or with any of its other obligations or responsibilities. As l
l stated by the licensee, "The corporate existence continues uninterrupted, and all legal characteristics remain the same. Thus, there is no change in the ownership, State of incorporation, registered agent, registered office, directors, officers, rights or liabilities of the Company, nor is there a change in the function of the Company or the way in which it does business.
l The Company's financial responsibility for the Palisades Plant and its sources l
of funds to support the facility will remain the same.
Further, this name 1
change does not impact the Company's ability to comply with any of its l
obligations or responsibilities under the license." Therefore, 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 offsite, and there will be 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 action.
l With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action is administrative in nature and does not involve any physical features of the plant. Thus, it does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no l
other environmental impact. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
I
._ =_
t Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
Since the Comission 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 staff considered denial of the proposed action. Denial 1
l of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts.
l The envir'onmental 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.
Aaencies and Persons Consulted:
l In accordance with its stated policy, on May 15, 1997, the 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 coments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the environmental assessment, the Comission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Comission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the l
licensee's letter dated March 27, 1997, which is available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 t
O
. 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 22nd day of May 1997.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9
(
Robert G. Schaaf, Project Manager Project Directorate III-I l
Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV j
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
l l
l-l l
l l
I i
j
.