ML20198F978
| ML20198F978 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/30/1997 |
| From: | Collins S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198F927 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9801120223 | |
| Download: ML20198F978 (7) | |
Text
. . - - - - - - _ . _ . . - ..-.-
h .
N
,e
- I f
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
I IN THE MATTER OF )
)
CONSUMERS ENERGi COMPANY ) DOCKET NO. 50155 i
) i (BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR PLANT) ) !
EXEMPTION <
I l.
Consumers Energy Company (Consumers or the licensee)is the holder of Facility Operating License No. DPR 6, which authorizes the licenses to possess the Big Rock Point j i
Nuclear Plant (BRP or facility). The license states, among other things, that the f acility 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 f acility is ,
permanently shut down and defueled and is no longer authorized to operate or place fuelin the reactor vessel.
II.
Section 50.54(q) of 10 CFR Part 50 equires a power reactor licenses 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 of fsite emergency plans biennially with full participation by each authorized' authority having a role under the plan.
L
$11g pg,, N F ;
p i
._ ; -. - - . _ . . . - . . - . = _ _ . - - . . . - .. . - . . . -
. i 2
NRC may grant exemptions from the raquirements of the regulations which, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), are (1) authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public i
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)(li)). 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 e
measures can and will be undertaken in the event of a radiological ernergency.
Ill.
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 *blennial" 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 omorgency 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, of fsite exercise to June 1998 to allow additional time for the BRP staff to revise the exercise scenerlo to reflect the permanently shut down and defueled condition of the BRP facility. Then, on August 22,1997, Consumers gave notice that the current of fsite exercise scenario (reflecting an operating nuclear power plant) will be forwarded to l
l
I .
3 the NRC Region 111 office, as required. Consumers then rescheduled the offsite exercise to December 16,1997 (within the blennial time period stipulated by the regulations and, thus, not requiring an exemption from NRC toquirements). 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 resourco exponditure 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.
Thorofore, the licensoo requested only temporary rollef (10 CFR 50.12(e)(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 aro "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 stato and counties to conduct an exerciso at this timo, based on assumptions of an operating full power reactor, would be unrealistic and counter productive to all parties involved." The State further assorted that a "more realistic test of local and state capabioues would be to assess
l l
4 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 exerciso. The licensee based its determination on the successful performance of the 1995 full participation offsite/onsite emergency exerciso, the 1996 onsite emergency exercise, and the conduct of omergency plan drills.
By letter dated December 17,1997, FEMA informed the NRC that, based on its evaluatlun, "the offsito radiological omergency response plans and preparedness are adoquate 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 scenario to reflect the permanently shut down and dnfueled condition of the BRP facility.
The most recent NRC Systematic Assessment of Licensco 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. 50155/95010 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,
7~
4
-i
\
i 5 i evaluated the onsite portions of the BRP emergency oreparedness program and concluded that the overall effectiveness of emergency preparedness f acilities, equipment, training, and :
organization was very good and that the licensee had conservatively im'plemented the emergency plan in declaring three separate Unusual Events in 1996. Therefore, there is reasonable assurance that onsite plans, f acilities, and personnel are adequate and in place .
t 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 Environmentalimpact 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)(li)). The licensee has also provided reasonable assurance that the environmentalimpacts associated with the decommissioning of the BRP f acility are bounded by appropriate previously issued environmentalimpact statemer.ts and
. that the above-mentioned accidents and events would not result in offsite doses exceeding EPA PAGs.-
ov, w- , , , - . , , ,..mpm-v + n - ,,-+,,me--,m - ,- ,. y -u.-n , - - - - , , - . . . , a n,,, , ,...v y y,..7- .,,
. '. 4 6
Based upon the aforementioned NRC and FEMA findings regarding onsite and offsite i
i preparodness, respectively, the exemption will not present an undue risk to pub!!c 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 omorgency plcnning (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 offsito emergency tireparedness exerciso in colonder year 1997 and FEMA's letter dated December 17,1997, stating FEMA's determination that the offsito radiological emergency plans and preparedness of the Stato and local offsite emergency preparodness staffs are adequato and that there is reasonable assurance that protective measures ran be implomonted following a radiological omergency at the BRP f acility. Based on this review, the NRC staff finds that the underlying purposes of the regulation will not be adversely affected by delaying the 1997 offsito emergency preparedness exercise for a period not to exceed 90 days commencing on January 1,1998.
Thus, an offsite exerciso in cafondar year 1997 is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule and the requested exemption, as modified herein, will not adversely dflect the overall state of emergency preparedness at the BRP site.
For those 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
[. .
.6 t
o I i
7 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)(li) 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.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION si ctor '
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of Decmber 1997 t
d l