[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 580-581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-193]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-155]
Consumers Energy Company (Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant; Exemption
I
Consumers Energy Company (Consumers or the licensee) is the holder
of Facility Operating License No. DPR-6, which authorizes the licensee
to possess the Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant (BRP or facility). The
license states, among other things, that the facility is subject to all
rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission or NRC) now or hereafter in effect. The
facility consists of a boiling water reactor located at the licensee's
site in Charlevoix County, Michigan. The facility is permanently shut
down and defueled and is no longer authorized to operate or place fuel
in the reactor vessel.
II
Section 50.54(q) of 10 CFR part 50 requires a power reactor
licensee to follow and maintain in effect emergency plans that meet the
standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements of Appendix E to 10
CFR part 50. Section 50.47(b) provides, in part, that the offsite
emergency plan must meet the standards specified in subparagraphs (1)
through (16) of 10 CFR 50.47(b). Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.c, of 10
CFR part 50 requires a licensee to exercise its offsite emergency plans
biennially with full participation by each authorized authority having
a role under the plan.
NRC may grant exemptions from the requirements of the regulations
which, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), are (1) authorized by law, will not
present an undue risk to public health and safety, and are consistent
with the common defense and security and (2) present special
circumstances. Special circumstances exist when application of the
regulation in the particular circumstance would not serve the
underlying purpose of the rule (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)). Special
circumstances also exist, in part, when the exemption would provide
only temporary relief from the applicable regulation (10 CFR
50.12(a)(2)(v)). The underlying purpose of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E,
Section IV.F.2.c, is to demonstrate that the emergency plans are
adequate and capable of being implemented and that the state of offsite
emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate
protective measures can and will be undertaken in the event of a
radiological emergency.
III
On July 17, 1997, the licensee requested exemption from the
``annual'' emergency preparedness exercise and then on August 5, 1997,
submitted Revision 1 to their July 17 request to clarify that they are
requesting exemption from the ``biennial'' offsite emergency exercise
requirement of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.c. In a
letter dated July 22, 1997, the licensee described the scope and
objectives for the planned offsite emergency plan exercise, involving
the State of Michigan and each authorized authority having a role under
the plan.
On August 8, 1997, the licensee requested a schedular exemption to
defer the October 21, 1997, offsite exercise to June 1998 to allow
additional time for the BRP staff to revise the exercise scenario to
reflect the permanently shut down and defueled condition of the BRP
facility. Then, on August 22, 1997, Consumers gave notice that the
current offsite exercise scenario (reflecting an operating nuclear
power plant) will be forwarded to the NRC Region III office, as
required. Consumers then rescheduled the offsite exercise to December
16, 1997 (within the biennial time period stipulated by the regulations
and, thus, not requiring an exemption from NRC requirements). On
September 4, 1997, the licensee provided additional clarification of
its reasons to defer the 1997 offsite exercise until June 1998. These
reasons included, in part, a discussion concluding that the exercise
would result in ``significant resource expenditure by the company and
outside agencies'' and a reference to an NRC Initial Decision dated
August 29, 1984, regarding the licensee's amendment request to expand
the spent fuel storage capacity of the BRP spent fuel pool. Therefore,
the licensee requested only temporary relief (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v))
from 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.c.
On September 19, 1997, Consumers submitted a number of documents
reflecting the permanent cessation of power operations and the defueled
condition of BRP, including, in part, the BRP Defueled Technical
Specifications and the Defueled Emergency Plan. This submittal also
contained a request for exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR part
50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.c, because, as Consumers asserted, there
are ``no design basis or other credible events that would result in
doses beyond the site area boundary that would exceed the EPA PAGs
[Environmental Protection Agency Protective Action Guides] following 68
days post shutdown (11/5/97).'' The September 19, 1997, exemption
request is still undergoing NRC staff review.
In a letter to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region V,
dated November 25, 1997, the State of Michigan stated 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 counter-productive 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 new status of the plant.''
The State of Michigan's position was again documented to FEMA Region V
in a letter dated December 5, 1997.
By letter dated December 9, 1997, Consumers informed the Commission
that they have reasonable assurance that the offsite emergency plan is
adequate and that appropriate measures can be taken to protect the
health and safety of the public in the event of a radiological
emergency at BRP to support a postponement in the conduct of the
offsite exercise. The licensee based its determination on the
successful performance of the 1995 full-participation offsite/onsite
emergency exercise, the 1996 onsite emergency exercise, and the conduct
of emergency plan drills.
By letter dated December 17, 1997, FEMA informed the NRC that,
based on its evaluation, ``the offsite radiological emergency response
plans and preparedness are adequate and that there is reasonable
assurance that they can be implemented to protect the health and safety
of the public in the event of an emergency'' at the BRP facility.
Further, FEMA supports the rescheduling of the 1997 offsite exercise to
a date within the first quarter of 1998 and the revision of the offsite
exercise
[[Page 581]]
scenario to reflect the permanently shut down and defueled condition of
the BRP facility.
The most recent NRC Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance
(SALP 13, Report No. 50-155/96001) for BRP, issued on December 6, 1996,
for the period May 1, 1994, through November 25, 1995, indicated that
the performance of the emergency preparedness program was good. NRC
Inspection Report No. 50-155/95010 documented NRC staff inspection of
the onsite portion of the August 1995 exercise and concluded that,
overall, there was acceptable performance with no violations of NRC
requirements identified. Additionally, NRC Inspection Report No. 50-
155/97003, dated May 13, 1997, evaluated the onsite portions of the BRP
emergency preparedness program and concluded that the overall
effectiveness of emergency preparedness facilities, equipment,
training, and organization was very good and that the licensee had
conservatively implemented the emergency plan in declaring three
separate Unusual Events in 1996. Therefore, there is reasonable
assurance that onsite plans, facilities, and personnel are adequate and
in place to respond to a radiological emergency at BRP.
In the permanently shut down and defueled condition, BRP is no
longer susceptible to any of the operating type of reactor accidents
and events, as described in Chapter 15 of the BRP Final Hazards Summary
Report. Further, by letters dated February 27, 1995, and August 5,
September 4 and 19, and November 12 and 20, 1997, the licensee provided
credible analysis of accidents and events that could possibly occur
during BRP decommissioning. These accidents and events included, in
part, those described in NUREG-0586, ``Final Generic Environmental
Impact Statement on decommissioning nuclear facilities,'' and NUREG/CR-
0672, ``Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning Reference
Boiling Water Reactor Power Station.'' Consumers also evaluated (1) a
release of gap radioactive isotopes from all spent fuel, (2) gamma
shine resulting from a complete draindown of the spent fuel pool, and
(3) an airborne release of radioactive isotopes from primary system
chemical decontamination. Further, Consumers stated that they will not
perform any decommissioning activities that result in significant
environmental impacts not previously reviewed (10 CFR 50.82(a)(6)(ii)).
The licensee has also provided reasonable assurance that the
environmental impacts associated with the decommissioning of the BRP
facility are bounded by appropriate previously issued environmental
impact statements and that the above-mentioned accidents and events
would not result in offsite doses exceeding EPA PAGs.
Based upon the aforementioned NRC and FEMA findings regarding
onsite and offsite preparedness, respectively, the exemption will not
present an undue risk to public health and safety. Additionally, the
schedule for future exercises will not be affected by this exemption.
The NRC 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, the
licensee is still required to comply with all NRC rules and regulations
and their current emergency plan, as approved or until revised by
subsequent Commission action.
IV
The NRC staff has completed its review of the licensee's request
for schedular exemption from the requirement to conduct an offsite
emergency preparedness exercise in calender year 1997 and FEMA's letter
dated December 17, 1997, stating FEMA's determination that the offsite
radiological emergency plans and preparedness of the State and local
offsite emergency preparedness staffs are adequate and that there is
reasonable assurance that protective measures can be implemented
following a radiological emergency at the BRP facility. Based on this
review, the NRC staff finds that the underlying purposes of the
regulation will not be adversely affected by delaying the 1997 offsite
emergency preparedness exercise for a period not to exceed 90 days
commencing on January 1, 1998. Thus, an offsite exercise in calendar
year 1997 is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the
rule and the requested exemption, as modified herein, will not
adversely affect the overall state of emergency preparedness at the BRP
site.
For these reasons, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to
10 CFR 50.12, a 90-day schedular exemption commencing on January 1,
1998, as discussed above, is authorized by law, will not present undue
risk to public health and safety, and is consistent with the common
defense and security. Further, special circumstances are present as set
forth in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) and (v).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that
granting this exemption will have no significant impact on the
environment (62 FR 67667).
This Exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of December 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Collins,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-193 Filed 1-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
