Jump to main content.

Consumers Energy Company; Palisades Nuclear Plant; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 [Federal Register: March 30, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 16971-16972]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30mr00-122]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-255]


Consumers Energy Company; Palisades Nuclear Plant; Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of
Section III.O of Appendix R, 10 CFR Part 50 to Consumers Energy Company
(the licensee), holder of Facility Operating License No. DPR-20, for
operation of the Palisades Nuclear Plant, located in the town of
Covert, Michigan, on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirement
of Section III.O of Appendix R, 10 CFR Part 50, regarding the design
capacity of the lubricating oil collection systems for three of the
four primary coolant pump (PCP) motors. Specifically, the exemption
would apply to the requirement that a vented container for the
collection of leakage ``can hold the entire lube oil system
inventory.'' The proposed action does not apply to the collection
system for PCP P-50D, which, as a result of modifications during the
1999 refueling outage, has been brought into compliance with Section
III.O. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application for an exemption dated August 13, 1999, as revised and
supplemented by letters dated November 3, 1999, and March 15, 2000.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    Each of the four Palisades PCP motors has its own oil collection
tank that receives the leakage from both the upper and lower bearing
lubrication systems for that PCP motor. The usable volumes of the
collection tanks for PCPs P-50A, P-50B, and P-50C, cannot hold the
entire inventories of their respective lubricating oil systems as
required by Section III.O of Appendix R, 10 CFR Part 50. By removing
the need to modify or replace the oil collection tanks to meet the
literal requirement of 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, Section III.O, the
proposed action would avoid unnecessarily exposing workers to
radiation. It would also spare resources.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    Each oil collection tank for PCPs P-50A, P-50B, and P-50C has a
nominal capacity of 79 gallons. Each pump motor nominally has 87
gallons of lubricating oil in the upper-bearing lubricating oil system
and 18 gallons in the lower-bearing lubricating oil system, for a total
of 105 gallons. The upper and lower lubricating oil systems are
independent of each other.
    In the unlikely event that operators allowed leakage in a PCP upper
oil system to drain the entire system without taking action to stop the
pump, approximately 8 gallons of oil could overflow the oil collection
tank onto the floor in containment. Approximately 26 gallons could
overflow onto the floor in the less likely event that both the upper
and lower oil systems developed gross leakage and operators took no
action.

[[Page 16972]]

    Any lubricating oil that overflowed an oil collection tank would
remain inside the containment building and would not be released to the
environment. A portion of the spilled oil could flow down to lower
floor elevations and eventually into the containment sump. The motor
oil has a flash point of over 400 deg.F and the containment atmosphere
is nominally 80 to 100 deg.F when the PCPs are in operation. The oil
would not come in contact with hot pipes, hot equipment surfaces, or
electrical ignition sources in the tank areas or on the flow paths to
the sump. The oil would not become a fire hazard, since it would drain
to a safe location.
    Cleanup of any oil spill would generate minor amounts of waste
materials requiring disposal and expose plant workers to a small amount
of radioactive material. However, the waste materials and radiation
exposure from cleanup would be essentially the same as from routine
lubricating oil system activities associated with normal plant
operation and maintenance. Routine activities which generate waste oil
and cleanup materials include periodic PCP oil changes, pumpdown of oil
collection tanks, PCP oil system piping and equipment repairs, and
cleaning of equipment and floors.
    The proposed action will not significantly 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 action.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action does not involve any historic 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 action. Accordingly, the
Commission concludes that there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

1. Limiting the Amount of Oil in the PCP Lubrication Systems
    Limiting the amount of oil in the PCP lubrication systems according
to the capacity of the collection systems would violate the equipment
operating requirements, which could lead to early equipment failure.
2. Modifying the Oil Collection Tank Capacity
    Modifying the oil collection tank capacity would require
significant resources and result in potential occupational exposure
without a commensurate benefit to the environment.
3. Denying the Proposed Action
    As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered
denying the proposed action (i.e., the ``no action'' alternative).
Denying the application would not change the 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 related to
the operation of Palisades Nuclear Generating Plant, dated June 1972,
and the associated final addendum (NUREG-0343) dated February 1978.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on March 23, 2000, the staff
consulted with the Michigan State official, Mr. Michael McCardy,
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 letters dated August 13 and November 3, 1999, and March 15,
2000, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's
Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C., and electronically from the ADAMS Public Library
component on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Electronic
Reading Room).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of March 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carl F. Lyon,
Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate III, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-7831 Filed 3-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.