[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 248 (Monday, December 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67667-67669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33681]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-155]
Consumers Energy Company; Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC) is
considering issuance of an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.c, regarding biennial exercise of
the offsite emergency plan to Consumers Energy Company (Consumers or
the licensee), for the Big Rock Point (BRP) Nuclear Plant located in
Charlevoix County, Michigan.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed exemption would allow a one-time schedular exemption
from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.c,
which states that each licensee at each site
[[Page 67668]]
shall exercise its offsite plans biennially with full participation by
each offsite authority having a role under the plan.
By letter dated July 17, 1997, as supplemented or modified by
letters dated August 5 and 8, September 4, December 9, 1997, the
licensee requested exemption from the above requirement to delay the
1997 offsite biennial exercise (initially scheduled for October 21,
1997, and then rescheduled to December 16, 1997) for the BRP facility
until June 1998, on the basis, in part, that ``additional time would
allow the Big Rock Point staff to revise the October 1997 exercise
scenario to reflect actual plant configuration during
decommissioning.'' Notwithstanding this request, the NRC staff proposes
to grant a one-time schedular exemption for the 1997 biennial offsite
exercise to be performed on or before March 31, 1998.
The State of Michigan also described its position that the offsite
biennial emergency exercise should reflect actual plant conditions. As
noted in a letter from the State of Michigan to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Region IV, dated November 25, 1997, the State
feels that ``requiring the State and counties to conduct an exercise at
this time, based on assumptions of an operating full-power reactor,
would be unrealistic and counterproductive to all parties involved.''
The State further asserted that a ``more realistic test of local and
State capabilities would be to assess response to an accident once all
plans and procedures have been revised to reflect the status of the
plant.'' By letter dated December 5, 1997, the State reiterated its
intent to participate in an exercise of more clearly defined scope, if
the exercise scenario were revised to reflect the permanently shut down
and defueled condition of the BRP facility.
By letter dated December 17, 1997, FEMA informed the Commission
that the current offsite emergency plan and the implementation
capabilities of the associated offsite emergency staff are adequate.
Further, FEMA agreed that the exercise scenario should be revised to be
consistent with the defueled and permanently shut down condition of the
BRP facility (as proposed by the licensee in their letter to the NRC
dated August 8, 1997) and that the biennial exercise be delayed to
allow all parties sufficient time to prepare and conduct the revised
exercise scenario. The licensee provided a similar assessment of the
adequacy of the offsite emergency plan and the capability of the
offsite emergency preparedness response organizations in a letter to
the Commission dated December 9, 1997.
The previous emergency preparedness exercise at BRP involving both
offsite and onsite participation was successfully conducted on August
22-23, 1995. By letter dated December 13, 1995, FEMA informed the NRC
Region III office that the emergency plans at BRP can be implemented
and are adequate to give reasonable assurance that appropriate measures
can be taken offsite to protect the health and safety of the public in
the event of a radiological emergency. No deficiencies were noted
during this exercise. On September 10, 1996, an onsite emergency
preparedness exercise was also successfully conducted.
The schedule for future exercises will not be affected by the
proposed exemption. The staff is still reviewing licensee request for
exemption from certain 10 CFR Part 50 requirements for emergency
planning (Consumers letter to the Commission, dated September 19,
1997). Therefore, except for the proposed schedular change for the
offsite exercise, the licensee is required to comply with all NRC rules
and regulations and Consumers' current emergency plan, as approved or
until revised by subsequent Commission approval.
Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed exemption is needed because additional time is
required for Consumers to revise the December 16, 1997, offsite
exercise scenario to reflect the permanently shutdown and defueled
condition of the BRP facility. Further, because the exercise scenario
will be changed, additional time will be needed for FEMA and the State
of Michigan to prepare appropriate exercise objectives and for the NRC
staff to review the revised exercise scenario.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC evaluation of the proposed exemption from 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.c, indicates that the granting of the
proposed exemption will not involve any measurable environmental
impacts, since the exemption deals with the exercise of the licensee's
emergency preparedness plan. The BRP facility permanently ceased
reactor power operations on August 30, 1997, and permanently
transferred all reactor fuel to the spent fuel pool on September 20,
1997. The licensee maintains and operates the plant in a configuration
necessary to support the safe storage of spent fuel and compliance with
the facility operating licensee and NRC rules and regulations.
No changes are being made in the types or amounts of any
radiological effluents that may be released offsite. There is 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. With regard to potential
nonradiological impacts, the proposed exemption does not affect
nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
radiological or nonradiological environmental impacts associated with
the proposed exemption.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission has concluded that there is no measurable
environmental impact associated with the proposed exemption, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be
evaluated. The principal alternative to the action would be to deny the
request, thereby requiring the licensee to perform the offsite exercise
with a scenario that does not reflect the configuration of the BRP
facility; such an action would not enhance the protection of the
environment. Denial of the application would result in no change in
current environmental impacts. The impacts of the proposed action and
the alternative are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not affect the use of resources, since the
schedule for future exercises will not be affected by this exemption.
Further, this action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in BRP's Environmental Report for
Decommissioning, dated February 27, 1995.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on December 18, 1997, the NRC
staff consulted with the Michigan State Official, David W. Minnaar,
Chief, Radiological Protection Section, Drinking Water and Radiological
Protection Division, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, and
FEMA Official, Ihor W. Husar, Chief, State and Local Regulatory
Evaluation and Assessment Branch, Exercises Division, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action. State and FEMA Officials
support the granting of the proposed exemption and had no comments
regarding environmental impacts.
[[Page 67669]]
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the staff concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission will not
prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
For further details with respect to the proposed exemption, see
licensee letters dated July 17, August 5 and 8, September 4, and
December 9, 1997, which are available at the Commission's Public
Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the
Local Public Document Room, North Central Michigan College, 1515 Howard
Street, Petosky, MI 49770.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of December 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Seymour H. Weiss,
Director, Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate,
Division of Reactor Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-33681 Filed 12-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P