[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