Environmental statements; availability, etc.: Consumers Energy Co.,

[Federal Register: September 23, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 184)]

[Notices]

[Page 50930-50931]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr23se98-108]

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 certain requirements of its regulations to Facility Operating License No. DPR-6, a license held by the Consumers Energy Company (Consumers or the 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 County, Michigan.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed 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 activities and to reduce the scope of onsite emergency planning.

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 fuel into 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 Action

Before issuing the proposed exemption, the Commission will have concluded that the granting of the exemption from certain portions of 10 CFR 50.54(q) is acceptable, as described in the safety evaluation accompanying 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 environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

[[Page 50931]]

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the 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 environmental impacts. The environmental impacts 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

In accordance with its stated policy, on December 18, 1997, the NRC staff consulted with Mr. David W. Minnaar of the State of Michigan, Radiation Protection Section, Drinking Water and Radiological Protection Division, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The State official had no comment regarding environmental impacts 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 significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.

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.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of September 1998. Seymour H. Weiss, Director, Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate, Division of Reactor Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98-25409Filed9-22-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P