ML20154E053

Environ Assessment & Finding of No Significant Impact Re Exemption from Certain Portions of 10CFR50.47(b) & App E to 10CFR50 to Allow Brpnp to Discontinue Offsite EP Activities & Reduce Scope of Onsite EP

ML20154E053
Person / Time
Site:	Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	09/30/1998
From:	Weiss S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20154E014	List: ML20154E012 ML20154E024 ML20154E037 ML20154E053 ML20154E058
References
NUDOCS 9810080027
Download: ML20154E053 (4)

Text

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

l l

I l

7590-01-P

_QNLTED STATELNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS1QN CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY i DOCKET NO. 50-155 BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR PLANT

< ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF 1

NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT l

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC) is considering i

issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of its regulations to Facility Operating i 1

License No. DPR-6, a license held by the Consumers Energy Company (Consumers or the

)

l licensee). The exemption would apply to the Big Rock Point (BRP) plant, a permanently  !

shutdown and defueled reactor power facility located at the Consumers site in Charlevoix l l

County, Michigan.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Procosed Action:

The proposed exemption would modify emergency response plan requirements due to the permanently shutdown and defueled status of the BRP facility.

The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated September 19,1997, as supplemented or modified by letters of October 29,1997,and March 2, July 30, and August 28,1998. The requested action would grant an exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(q) to discontinue offsite emergency planning l

activities and to reduce the scope of onsite emergency planning.

9810000027 980930 "

Enclosure 3 PDR ADOCK 05000155 F PDR att00bD O97 , _-. ,_

o 2

The Need for the Proposed Action:

On June 26,1997, Consumers certified that it would permanently cease reactor power operations at its BRP facility. On August 30,1997, the reactor was shut down. By letter dated September 23,1997, the licensee certified the permanent removal of all fuel from the reactor vessel. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), upon docketing of the certifications, Facility Operating License DPR-6 no longer authorizes operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of the fuelinto the reactor vessel. In this permanently shutdown and defueled condition, the facility poses a reduced risk to public health and safety. Because of this reduced risk, certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(q) are no longer required. An exemption is required from portions of 10 CFR 50.54(q) to allow the licensee to implement a revised Defueled Emergency Plan (DEP) that is appropriate for the permanently shutdown and defueled reactor facility.

Environmental Impact of the Proposed Act;on:

Before issuing the proposed exemption, the Commission will have concluded that the granting of the exemn' ion from certain portions of 10 CFR 50.54(q) is acceptable, as described in the safety evaluation accompanVing issuance of the exemption. The proposed action will not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmentalimpacts associated with the proposed action.

With regard to potential nonradiologicalimpvts, the proposed action does not affect nonradiological p' ant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the

3 Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action:

Since the Commission has concluded that there is no significant environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any alternative with equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated. The principal alternative to the proposed exemption would be to deny the request (no-action alternative). Denial of the exemption would result in no change in current environmentalimpacts. The environmentalimpacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources:

This action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in BRP's Environmental Report for Decommissioning, dated February 27,1995.

Agencies and Persons Consulted:

j in accordance with its stated policy, on December 18,1997, the NRC staff consulted 1 l

with Mr. David W. Minnaar of the State of Michigan, Radiation Protection Section, Drinking Water and Radiological Protection Division, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 1 regarding the environmentalimpacts of the proposed action. The State official had no comment regarding environmentalimpacts of the proposed action.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based on the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a ognificant effect on the quality of the human environment.

Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmentalimpact statement for the proposed action.

I

• l l

l 1

1 4

For further details with respect to this action, see licensee letters dated September 19, and October 29,1997, and March 2, July 30, and August 28,1998, which are all available for public review at the Commission's Public Document Room, Gelman Building,2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the Local Public Document Room, North Central Michigan College,1515 Howard Street, Petosky, MI 49770.

Dated at Rockville, Marylend, this 17th day of September 1998 l l

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

&L Ot ifli } -

h /4 Seynt ur H. Weiss, Director Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Diroctorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I

1 I

)

1 l

l l

.