ML20207J955
| ML20207J955 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades, Big Rock Point, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1988 |
| From: | Diianni D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207J929 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8809280191 | |
| Download: ML20207J955 (8) | |
Text
.
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
[0NSUMERSPOWERCOMPANY 0
BIG ROCK P0lhT PLANT DOCKET ha. 50-155 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING 0F t
NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT i
~
CONCERNING EXEMPTION FRCH
_10CFR50.54(w)(5)(1) i The V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) is considering
[
issuance of an exerption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(1) to f
Consumers Power Company (the licensee) for the Big Rock Point Plant, located at I
the licensee's site in Charlevoix County, flichigan, 1
i ENVIR0hMENTAL ASSESSMENT identification of Proposed Action:
On August 5,1987, the Comission published in the FEDERAL REGISTER a final l
ruleamending10CFR50.54(w). The rule increased the amount of on-site property damage insurance required to be carried by the Comission's power reactor licensees. The rule also required these licensees to obtain by October 4,1988, insurance policies that prioritized insurance proceeds for stabilization and decontamination af ter an accident and provided for payment l
of proceeds to an independent trustee who would disburse funds for decontamination and cleanup before any other purpose.
Subsequent to publication of the rule, the Comission has been inforced by insurers who offer nuclear property insurance that, despite a good faith effort to obtain trustees required by the rule, the decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions will not 8809200191 800923 PDR ADOCK 05000155 P
PNV
2 be able to be incorporated into policies by the time required in the rule.
In response to these coments and related petitions for rulemaking, the Comission has proposed a revision of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(i) extending the implementation schedule for 18 months (53 FR 36338, September 19,1988). However, because it is unlikely that this rulemaking action will be effective by October 4,1988, the Comission is issuing a temporary exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(1) until completion of the pending rulemaking extending the implementationdatespecifiedin10CFR50.54(w)(5)(1),butnotlaterthan April 1, 1989. Upon completion of such rulemaking, the licensee shall comply with the provisions of such rule.
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The exemption is needed because insurance complying with requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(1) is unavailable and because the temporary delay in implementation allowed by the exemption and associated rulemaking action will prnit the Comission to reconsider on its merits the trusteeship provision of 10CFR50.54(w)(4).
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:
With respect to radiological impacts on the environment, the proposed exemption does not in any way affect the operation of licensed facilities.
Further, as noted by the Comission in the Supplementary Information accompanying the proposed rule, there are several reasons for concluding that delaying for a reasonable tire the implementation of the stabilization and decontamination priority and trusteeship provisiens of Section 50.54(w) will not adversely affect protection of public health and safety.
First, during the
l 3
l period of delay, the licensee will still be required to carry $1.06 billion j
4 insurance. This is a substantial amount of coverage that provides a signifi-cant financial cushion to licensees to decontaminate and clean up af ter an i
accident even without the prioritization and trusteeship provisions. Second.
[
r.early 75% of the required coverage already is prioritized under the decontam-I i
t ination liability and excess property insurance language of the Nuclear Electric i
]
Insurance Limited-!! policies.
Firally, there is only an extremely small prob-r ability of a serious accident occurring during the exemption period. Even if a
[
]
serious accident giving rise to substantial insurance claims were to occur, i
j the Comissicn would be able to take appropriate enforcement action to assure l
adequate cleanup to protect public health ar.d safety and the enviror. ment.
(
l The proposed exemption does not affect radiological or nonradiological j
effluents fron the site and has no other nonradiological impacts.
l Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
f It has been concluded that there is no measurable impact associated with e
the proposed exemption; any alterr.atives to the exemption will have either no F
environmental impact or greater environmental impact.
Alternative Use of Resources:
j This action does not involve the use of any resources beyer.d the scope of resources used during normal plant operation.
l Agencies und Persons Consulted:
J l
The Comission's staff did not cor.sult other agencies or persons in j
ccnnection with the proposed exemption.
l t
I I
4 FIN 0!NG OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the forvgoing 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 environinental impact statecent for the proposec extenption.
I forinformationconcerningthisaction,seetheproposedrule(53FR36338),
and the exemption which is being processed concurient with this notice. A copy I
of the exempticn will be available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Docuinent Room, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the North Central Michigan College,1515 Howard Street, Petosky, Michigan 49770.
Dated at Rockville, Paryland this 23rd day of September
, 1988.
FOR THE NUCLEAR SEGULATORY COMMISSION jn 0 L
Dominic C. Dilanni, Acting (,irector Project Directorate !!!.1 Division of Reactor Projects, !!!, !Y, Y
& Special Projects
l
?
I 7590 01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY, l
PALISACES PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-255 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF I
h0 SIGNIFICANT IPPACT r
f CONCERNING EXEMPT 10N FRON 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(1)
I l
i i
j The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) is censidering i
f issuanceofanexemptionfromtherequirementsof10CFR50.54(m)(5)(i)to f
I l
Consuners Power Compay (thelicensee)fortheFalisadesPlant,locatedatthe licensce's site in Van Buren County, Michigan.
l 1
ENVIR0hPENTAL ASMSSMEhT
]
Identification of Proposed Action:
]
On August 5,1987, the Comission published in the FEDEFAL REGISTER a final
[
i rule arending 10 CFR 50.5A(w). The rule increased the arount of on site f
i property damage insuraace reqatred to be carried ?y the Comission's power
[
reactor licensees.
The rule also required these licensees to obtain by f
L October 4,1988, insurance policies that prioritized int,urance proceeds for J
t stabilization and decontamiration af ter an accident and provided for payrent of l
proceeds to an independent trustee who would disburse funds for decontamination j
i and cleanup before any other purpose.
Subsecuent to publication of the rule, f
a I
l the Comissicn has been informed by insurers who offer nuclear property l
insurance that, despite a good faith effort to obtain trustees required by the l
rule, the decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions will not be able i
L l
J i'
2 to be incorporated into policies by the time required in the rule.
In response to these consents and related petitions for rulemakir.g the Coenission has proposed a revision of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(i) extending the implementation schedule for 18 renths (53 FR 36338, September 19, ISE8).
However, because it is unlikely that this rulemaking action will 6e effective by October 4, 1988, the Cor.niss: i. is issuing a temporary exerption frori the requirerents of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(i) until ccepletion of the pending rulemaking extending the irplenentation date specified in 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(1), but not later than l
April 1, 1989. Upon completion of such rulemaking, the licensee shall comply l
with the provistoris of such rule.
The heed for the Proposed Action:
The exemption is needed because insurance complying with requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(1) is unavailable and because the temporary delay in implementation allowed by the exerption and associated rulemaking action will permit the Cosnission to reconsider on its scrits the trusteeship provision of 10CFR50.54(w)(4).
[nvironrentalIrpactsofthePreposedAction:
With respect to radiological irpacts on the environment, the proposed exerption does not in any way affect the cperation of licensed facilities.
Further, as noted by the Coenission in the Supplementary Information accompanying the proposed rule, there are several reasons for concluding that celaying for a reasonable time the irpl uentation of the stabilization and decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions of Section 50.54(w) will net adversely affect protection of public health and safety.
First, during the
0 3
period of delay, the licensee wiil still be required to carry $1.06 billion insurance. This is a substantial amount of coverage that provides a signifi-cant financial cushion to licensees to decontaminate and clean up af ter an accident even without the prioritization and trusteeship provisions. Second, nearly 75% of the required coverage already is prioritized under the decontam-ination liability and excess property insurance language of the Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited-!! policies. Finally, there is only an extremely small prob-ability of a serious accident occurring during the exemption period. Even if a j
seri,s accident givirg rise to substantial insurance claims were to occur, 1
the Conrission would be ab'e to take appropriate enforcement action to assure I
adequate cleanup to protect public health and safety and the environment.
The proposed exemption does not affect radiological or nonradiological effluents from the cite and has no other nonradiological impacts.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
It has been concluded that there is no measurable imp 6ct associated :.ith the proposed exemption; any alternatives to the exemption will have either no environmental impact or greater environmental impact, i
Alternative Use of Rescurces:
This action does not involve the use of any resuurces beyond the scope of
)
i resources used during normal plant operation.
Agencies and Persons Consulted:
l Tbc Comission's staff did not consult other agencies or persons in connection with the proposed exemption.
i l
l l
I
i
4
l l
[
FINDING OF NO $1GNIFICAhT iMf'ACT j
1 Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the Comission I
corcludes that the proposed acticn will not have a significant effect on the i
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Comission has determined riot to prepare an environt.er.tal impact statement for the proposed exemption.
Forinformationconcerningthisaction,seetheproposedrule(53FR36338),
and the exemption which is being processed concurrent with this notice. A copy of the exen.ption will be available for public inspection at the Ccasnission's Public Document Room, P120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the Van Zoeren Library, Hope College, Holland, Michigan 49423.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 23rd day of September
, 1988.
FOR THE NOCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION L
/ W (1 0-l l
Cominic C. Dilanni, Acting Director I
Project Directorate !!!=1 Division of Reactor Projects - !!!, IV, V l
and Special Projects l
s l
l Il
!