ML20198G166

Environ Assessment & Finding of No Significant Impact Re Issuance of Exemption to Allow one-time Exemption from 10CFR50,App E,Section IV.F.2.c Requirements Re Biennal Exercise of Offsite Emergency Plan

ML20198G166
Person / Time
Site:	Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	12/19/1997
From:	Weiss S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20198G152	List: ML20198G148 ML20198G166
References
NUDOCS 9801120262
Download: ML20198G166 (6)

Text

.- . ._ - --. . .. -. - . _ . .. - - - - -. -

_ _ _ . . . _ . ~ . .m_,. .

7590-01 P UN1IID STATES NUCLEAR RECdLQQBY_CQMMlS$1QN CQNSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50155 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 Propsigd 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 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 of fsite biennial exercise (initially scheduled for October 21,1997, and then rescheduled to December 10,1997) for the BRP f acility until June 1998, on the basis, in part, that " additional time would allow the Big Rock Point staff to revise the October 1997 exorcise scenario to reflect actual plant configuration during i

~

9901120262 971219 POR ADOCK 05000155 .

F. PDR

-r Pr M- e

• 2 decommissioning." Notwithstandin'J 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 tMt the offsite biennial emergency l exercise should reflect actual plant conditions. As noted in a letter from the State of ,

Michigen 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 f acility (as proposed by the licensee in their letter to the NRC dated August 8,1997) and P

that the blennial exercise be delayed to allow all parties sufficient time to prepare and conduct the revised exercise scenarioi 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.  !

. , - , - . . .. ..-- - - - ~ .

=.

t 3

The previous emergency preparedness exercise at BRP involving both offs te and onsite participation was successfully conducted on Atgust 22-23,1995. By letter dated i December 13,1995, FEMA informed the NRC Region 111 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 Conhumors' current emergency plan, as approved or until revised by subsequent Commission approval.

Nged for the Procosed Action The proposed exemption is needed becauta 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 fa',ility. Further, because the exercise scenario will be changed, additional time will be needed for FEMA and the State of Michigan to j prepara appropriate exercise objectives and for the NRC staff to review the revised exercise scenario.

4 Environmental imoncts of the Pronosed ActiQD 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 environmentalimpacts, 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 fue.' and compliance with the f acility operating licensee and NRC rules and regulations.

No changes are being modo 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 environmentalimpacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential nonradiologicalimpacts, the proposed exemption does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environ; otalimpact. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological or nonradiological environmentalimpact, associated with the proposed exemption.

Alternativen to the Prongsod Action Since the Commission has concluded that there is no measurable environmental Impact associated with the proposed exemption, any alternatives with equal or greater environmentalimpact 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 f acility; such an action would not

. . , . - - 7 5

enhance the protection of the environment. Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmentalimpacts. The impacts of the proposed action a ;d the alternative are similar.

Afternativtute 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, 'his action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considsled in BRP's Environmental Report for Decommissioning, dated February 27,1995.

AQtacles_and Persons Consujigd in accordance with its stated policy, on December 18,1997, the iv8C staf f consulted with the Michigan Stato Official, David W. Minnaar, Chief, Radiological Protection Section, Drinking Water and Radiological Protection Division, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, and FEMA Of ficist, thor W. Husar, Chief, State and t.ocal Regulatory Evaluation end Assessment Branch, Exercises Division, regarding ttw environmentalimpact of the proposed action. Stato and FEMA Officials support the granting of the proposed exemption and had no comments regarding environmental impacts.

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 environmentalimpact statement for the proposed exemption.

6 For further deteils with respect to the proposed exemption, see licensee letters dated July 17, August 5 end 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, Potosky, MI 49770.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of December 1997.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,' WM , h Seymour H. Weiss, Director Non Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation