580 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 1998 / Notices

6725C—Aircraft Accident Report:

Uncontained Engine Failure, Delta Air

Lines Flight 1288, McDonnell Douglas

MD–88, N927DA, Pensacola, Florida,

July 6, 1996.

6958—Safety Recommendation Letter:

Aerial advertising/banner towing.

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202)

314–6100.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray

Smith (202) 314–6065.

Dated: January 2, 1998.

Ray Smith,

Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–374 Filed 1–2–98; 2:56 pm]

BILLING CODE 7533–01–P

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 fullparticipation 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 1998 / Notices 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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

The National Partnership Council;

Meeting

Time and Date: 1:00 p.m., January 14,

1998.

Place: OPM Conference Center, Room

1350, Theodore Roosevelt Building,

1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC

20415–0001. The conference center is

located on the first floor.

Status: This meeting will be open to

the public. Seating will be available on

a first-come, first-served basis.

Individuals with special access needs

wishing to attend should contact OPM

at the number shown below to obtain

appropriate accommodations.

Matters To Be Considered: The

National Partnership Council will

complete its discussion of and adopt the

1997 Report to the President on the

Progress of Labor-Management

Partnerships. Professor Marick F.

Masters of the Joseph M. Katz Graduate

School of Business, University of

Pittsburgh, and Professor Robert R.

Albright of the U.S. Coast Guard

Academy will present the findings of

the Council’s 1997 Federal Sector Labor

Relations Climate Survey. The Council

will be briefed on Reinvention Impact

Centers (RICs), an initiative of the

National Performance Review.

Contact Person for More Information:

Rose M. Gwin, Director, Center for

Partnership and Labor-Management

Relations, Office of Personnel

Management, Theodore Roosevelt

Building, 1900 E Street, NW., Room

7H28, Washington, DC 20415–0001,

(202) 606–2930.

Supplementary Information: We

invite interested persons and

organizations to submit written

comments. Mail or deliver your

comments to Rose M. Gwin at the

address shown above.