ML19347A500
| ML19347A500 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347A498 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904260039 | |
| Download: ML19347A500 (17) | |
Text
id M $ty UNITE D STATES
[g fg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON g
WASHINGTON. D. C 20555 g!
j, 47 (k>h,hrf
~Jil i
s,.....f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTillG AMENDMENT N0. 26 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-6 CONSUMERS POWER COMPAtlY BIG ROCK POINT PLANT D_0CKET NO. 50-155
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Big Rock Point (BRP) ECCS system is composed of two core spray the ring spray system (RSS) and the redundant nozzle spray systems:
system (NSS).
In the Commission Memorandum and Order dated May 26, 1976 (Reference 1), Consumers Power Company (CPCo) (the licensee) was granted an exemption until the refueling outage scheduled for spring 1977 from the single failure criterion in 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K as applied to a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) followed by a failure in the This exemption was necessary since test data indicated that the NSS RSS.
may not perform adequately in a steam environment.
As a condition of the Order, the Commission required CPCo to provide test data showing that the existing NSS provided adequate spray dis-tribution during LOCA conditions, or to modify the system to provide the required spray flow.
This action was to be completed prior to the Cycle 15 startup (around mid-summer 1977).
CPCo conducted a test program to measure the NSS bundle spray dis-Due to spray inadequacies, CPCo tribution in a steam environment.
developed, tested and installed a new NSS which was composed of 12 The staff reviewed the test and design information small nozzles.
of the new NSS, and found the system acceptable (Amendment 15, Refer-ence 2).
However, an inherent assumption in the Commission's granting CPCo the one-cycle exemption (for Cycle 14) was the adequate performance of the The staff received information in 1977 (References 3 and 4) which RSS.
indicated that ring spargers may also undergo performance degradation Therefore, we requested BRP to substantiate the due to steam effects.
This performance adequacy of their RSS prior to the Cycle 15 startup.
could not be done since the licensee had no data that aefined their MO 9 ~ACo COM
t.
1,
RSS spray pattern in either an air or steam environment, and there was insufficient time to conduct tests to determine the sprcy pattern.
CPCo requested a one-cycle exemption from the single failure criterion of 10 CFR 50.46 with respect to any LOCA followed by a failure of the redundant NSS. The exemption and supporting calculations were presented to the staff in the licensee's September 15, 1977 submittal (Reference 5).
The staff's evaluation of the requested one-cycle exemption (for Cycle 15) is contained in Amendment 15 (Reference 2).
We granted CPCo the exemption based on several f actors, and required the following:
Prior to Cycle 16 startup, CPCo must provide an evaluation of the 1.
RSS demonstrating acceptable performance at the anticipated LOCA environments, or modify the RSS such that acceptaDie performance is achieved; and 2.
If a new core spray sparger design is developed, the hydraulic characteristics of the ECCS must be evaluated to ensure adequate performance of both spray systems considering the most limiting single failure.
Our evaluation of the licensee's efforts in developing an acceptaDie RSS follows.
2.0 EVALUATION CPCo elected to design, fabricate and test a new ring sparger rather than try to substantiate the adequacy of the existing sparger.* Carly in the design ef fort, CPCo developed a set of minimum acceptaDie Dundle sprayflows (MABS). These MABS (Figure 1) were used by the licensee's contractors, GE and NUS, in the development of a sparger. The sparger was to deliver sprayflow to every bundle at er above the MABS at all The test program and the test results in which LOCA usage conditions.
a new sparger and nozzle aiming pattern were developed is described and evaluated in Section 2.1.
~
- Tne f actors which led to this decision are oiscussed in Reference 6.
h i
N
~ -.,.-
~
L;WO B
L A
9 c.
0 W
F Y )M l
a f
O A
L P
R L
G P
+
A S(
o O
9 M
S 1
2 2
n E
U B
L M
A D
0 I
M o.
o.
o.
4 N
N U
2 7
F 5
1 I
B M
5 s
0 3
7'.
i 0
R i
1 F
6 0
0 s
4 4
s.
9 M
U 0
M 1
i 1
I 0
0 0
o 0
XA 4
4 4
+
0 M
S l
i 1
l l
B AM D
NA R
F 1
E G
R N
U I
G W
O I
F H
S E
R
_/
O C
P R
B E
% x' R
O 3mh C
y
- w s
T iwh g1 $.m N
I O
P K
CO R
G I
B T QM CM
>r 3
l
,1i!
lI
- I!
,'Ijl1 j!.
jI ; i,.
l:
3 The new sparger was developed using tests in a full scale mockup of the BRP reactor vessel. Due to dif ferences between the construction of the mockup and the actual BRP vessel, the new sparger being in-stalled at BRP is not the sparger that was tested in the BRP mockup.
The differences between the spargers (test sparger, existing sparger and new sparger) are described and evaluated in Section 2.2.
Also described are the licensee's techniques to ensure the new sparger's aiming pattern accurately duplicates that determined by the test sparger.
The sprayflows to each bundle generally exceeded the MABS. However, some bundles received flows slightly below the MABS during certain test runs. CPCo reviewed the test data for the redundant spray system (Nozzle Spray System - NSS)* and noted that some bundles received CPCo sprayflow below either the MABS or the sprayflow from the RSS.
developed a maxiuum bundle power technical specification for each Dundle such that the performance adequacy of both the RSS and NSS can conserva-tively be justified. Section 2.3 describes and evaluates the proposed technical specification.
~
- The NSS was designed and tested under the requirements of a Commission granted exemption (Reference 1).
The NSS was evaluated by the staf f in Reference 2.
~
, 2.1 Test Program and Results The licensee contracted the General Electric Company and NUS Corporation to develop and conduct an integrated test program which would demonstrate the RSS had acceptable performance characteristics.
The individual nozzles and the sparger itself were tested at a full scale mockup of the BRP vessel.
The: test facility is located in Bartow, Florida adjacent to a large fossil-fuel generating station operated by Florida Power Company.
(The Bartow test facility was also used in 1977 for the testing and development of a new nozzle spray system (NSS) for Big Rock Point.)
A number of tests were conducted to ensure that the final RSS design would provide adequate spray cooling to all fuel bundles at the LOCA usage conditions (steam pressures, temperatures and fuel power level).*
Nine (9) groups of tests were conducted with numerous actual test runs performed in each group. The following is a list of the test groups.
1.
Test Bll-1 Sparger Ring Flow Distribution Tests 2.
Test B11-2 Single Nozzle Bench Flow Tests 3.
Test Bil-3 Single Nozzle Pattern Test in Steam 4.
Test Bil-4 Single Nozzle Pattern Test in Air 5.
Test B11-5 Sparger Ring Development Test 6.
Test B11-6 Sparger Dimensional Check 7.
Test B11-7 Core Cooling Conf'rmation Tests 8.
Test B11-8 Sparger Ring Sensitivity Tests 9.
Test Bll-9 Production Nozzle Tests Detailed descriptions of each of these tests, the test facility and the results are contained in the following documents submitted to the staff by CPCo.
1.
Big Rock Point Core Spray Sparger and Steam Baffle Design Report, General Electric, NEDC-21974 (Reference 6) 2.
The Big Rock Point Sparger Ring Test Program, NUS Corporation, NUS 3234, (Appendix Ill to GE Report NEDC-21974) (Reference 10)
'3 The Big Rock Point Sparger Ring Test Program, Addendum, NUS 3234A, (Appendix IV to GE Report NEDC-21974) (Reference 11)
- The ECCS analysis shows that credit for spray cooling is not taken at any vessel pressure higher than 75 psig, theref9re, the tests were performed at a range of pressure at and Delow 75 psig.
I
-r
4.
The Big Rock Point Sparger Ring Test Program, Addendum, NUS 32348, March, 1979 (Reference 12)
(Appendix V to GE Report hEDC-21974)
In general, tests B11-1 through Bil-5 were ' designed to investigate the performance of the individual nozzles in various environments, and to gain information on how to most efficiently conduct the latter stages of sparger testing. These tests showed that the nozzle spray patterns could be accurately established using optical techniques, and the spray pattern could De accurately determined using the channel collection methods previously used (in the develop-ment of a NSS).
Test Bil-6 was conducted to ensure the dimensional similarity between the test sparger and the existing sparger (already installea in the BRP reactor vessel).* Measurements showed that the test sparger did not conform to the drawing requirements, and the sparger was reworked and subsequently found acceptable.
Test B11-7 involved a significant ef fort in which the optimum nozzle aiming pattern was determined. Once the optimum was established, a series of runs was conducted at various vessel pressures and sprayflow rates.
Since only about a quarter of the mockup fuel bundle locations were instrumented, the sparger was rotated so that the entire core-wide sprayflow was determined. These tests showed that over all the expected LOCA usage conditions, the sprayflow was slightly below the MABS in eight fuel bundles during a limited number tf tests. The licensee's contractor, General Electric, improved the performance of the test
, sparger in later tests (811-9 series).
- The sparger used at the Bartow test facility (called the test sparger) could not be installed into the BRP vessel af ter testing due to construction differ-ences between the mockup and actual BRP vessel. Therefore, another sparger (called the production sparger) was built which would exactly duplicate the dimensions of the existing sparger (presently installed in the BRP vessel)
The tests con-and the nozzle aiming pattern determined on the test sparger.
ducted to ensure the production sparger's dimensions and aiming pattern exactly conformed to the test sparger are described in Section 2.2.4.
t e,
Test series B11-8 was conducted to show that minor variations between the nozzle aiming patterns of the production and test spargers would These tests also showed not appreciably affect the core spray pattern.
that slight deviations during the installation of the proouction sparger would result in no significant ef fects on the spray pattern (e.g., if the sparger were not perfectly parallel to or centered above the core, the spray pattern would still De acceptable).
Test series B11-9 and B11-9A were conducted to investigate two aspects of the production sparger design:
Since the production sparger was to use untested nozzles 1.
(exactly the same design as the tested nozzles), what is the effect on core spray pattern of using the untested (production) nozzles?*
2.
Each nozzle (production and test) was designed to use an interior spinner. Since the spinner could jam or become locked, and thereby affect the spray pattern, CPCo elected to tack weld the spinners in a set position, and reem out the nozzle hole. The nozzles could be at various angular orientations, so the effect of production nozzle angular position on core spr0y pattern needed to be investigated.
The A significant amount of testing was necessary in this series.
production and test nozzles produced dif ferent core spray patterns, and the spray pattern was sensitive to nozzle rotational orientation.
Therefore, a series of nozzle swaps and nozzle rotation tests were conducted to optimize the core spray pattern. When the optimum pattern was found, each nozzle's location and angular position was recorded, then the nozzles were removed and shipped to the sparger manufacturer where they were installed for aiming pattern verifica-tion (see Section 2.2.4).
The bundle sprayflows from the RSS at 75 psig vessel pressure, and the MABS for each bundle is shown in Figure 26 of Reference 12.
There are two bundles whose sprayflow is slightly below the MABS, and these are considered in developing a maximum bundle power tech-nical specification.
- The test sparger used brass nozzles, without quality assurance certification, which could not De installed into the BRP vessel.
,n - -
,. g
.e---
Based on the test data provided, our observation of the Bartow test f acility and the method of testing, we conclude that CPCo has devel-oped an optimized nozzle aiming pattern.
2.2 Sparger Design, Fabrication and Installation CPCo elected to f abricate a new RSS sparger (production sparger) whose
-nozzle aiming pattern would be determined by tests at the Bartow full scale mockup (test sparger). The production and existing spargers are slightly different in design, and these aspects are described and evaluated in Section 2.2.1 below.
Also, CPCo determined that a new steam baffle had to be fabricated and installed along with the new sparger. The new steam baffle is exactly the same design as the existing steam baffle, but is con-structed of a different material. Section 2.2.2 below discusses and evaluates the new steam baffle and Section 2.2.3 describes the new sparger and steam baffle structural design and analysis.
The licensee's methods to ensure that the production sparger dupli-cates the test sparger are described and evaluated in Section 2.2.4.
2.2.1 Ring Sparger The existing ring sparger consists of short sections of two-inch schedule-40 pipe arranged into an octagonal ring. The sparger has 36 nozzles aimed at the core. Approximately one-half of the sparger
~
is canted downward at a 19' angle with the horizontal to conform to the allowable space (made by the steam baffle).
The new sparger differs from the existing sparger in the following respects:
The new sparger is constructed of Type 316 stainless steel, a.
whereas the original is Type 304 stainless steel.
'. The new sparger utilizes new nozzles. The new design permits b
precision nozzle aiminc during f abrication and allows an optical aiming device to De used to verify each nozzle's orientation.
l
...s The sparger's water inlet pipe has been recesigned to facili-c.
tate remote, underwater installation. The existing and new water inlet pipe designs are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2 of References 6.
The "J bolts" which hold the sparger to the steam baffle have c.
Deen redesigned to facilitate remote assembly.
Evaluation The new water inlet pipe design results in a slightly higher leak rate (into the vessel during sparger operation) than the existing design. However, the licensee's testing and design specifications (MABS) takes this flow into account.
The structural design and analysis of the sparger and nozzles are described and evaluated in Secion 2.2.3.
2.2.2 Steam Baffle The steam baffle is designed to prevent steam slugging in the four steam risers between the vessel and the steam drum. The existing baffle is composed of four movable doors hinged to a circular baffle support ring which is welded to the inside circumferences of the
~
vessel. For core reloading operations, the four doors are opened and latched in the open position. During normal operations, the doors are latched in the shut position with a circular latching mechanism. The redundant nozzle spray system (NSS) extends through a square opening in the baffle to direct spray onto the core.
The new steam baffle design (doors and support ring) will differ The from the existing design only in the construction material.
new baffle, like the new sparger, will De made of Type 316 stainless steel.
Evaluation The new steam baffle is an identical replacement except for the slight l
change of mc.terials and material processes, and consequently, was not reanalyzed for structural loading. Since the design is a duplicate of the existing aesign, we have not re-evaluated the steam baffle design.
Section 2.2.3 discusses the material processes and replacement require-ments of the new steam Daffle.
l l
l
~ _
m
. 2.2.3 Ring Sparger and Steam Baffle Structural Analysis The two inch diameter core spray sparger is clamped to the steam baffle assembly by eight 3/4 inch J-bolts and the steam baffle assembly will be bolted to the existing brackets on' the pressure vessel Dy eight 3/4 inch studs. The connector pipe redesign consists of (1) a ball joint and sleeve connection, and (2) a two piece clamp design replacing the one piece marmon clamp at the inlet thermal sleeve, Doth to f acilitate remote installation.
The design, f abrication, installation procedures and structural anal-ysis of the core spray sparger assembly and steam baffle replacement were reviewed for conformance with the appropriate portions of the Commi ssion's regulations. The licensee specified the core spray sparger and steam baffle assembly will be replaced in accordance with the requirements of ASME Section XI,1971 Edition, Winter 1972 Addenda. For the design of core spray sparger and steam baffle assembly, the licensee relied on guidance from paragraph IWA 7000 of Section XI,1974 Edition, Summer 1976 Addenda which allows re-placements to be designed to any code addendum af ter the construction code addendum. Therefore, the licensee designed and f abricated the replacement core spray sparger in accordance with the requirements of ASA B31.1 - 1955. Tiie steam baffle is an identical replacement except for the materials and material processes and consequently, was not reanalyzed for structural loadings (see Section 2.2.2).
The licensee specified that all welding material will meet the require-ments of NB-2400, ASME Section III,1977 Edition, Summer 1977 Addenda and that all accessible welds would be examined by liquid penetrant in accordance with ASME Section III,1974 Edition, Summer 1975 Addenda, NB-5000.
The licensee performed a structural analysis of the new connector pipe design considering the hydraulic forces due to core spray operation.
Since ASA B31.1 - 1955 does not give allowable stresses for Type 316 stainless steel, the resultant stresses were compared to the allowable stress in ASME Section III,1971 Edition. The results showed the stresses were within the allowables given in Section III.. The licensee performed an analysis of the bolted connections in accordance with the requirements of ASME Section III, Subsection NG.
The results of this analysis showed that the bolt stresses were within the Code allowable stresses.
J Evaluation The analysis, design and installation of the core spray sparger and steam baffle assembly are in accordance with accepted criteria.
The analysis of the structural loads imposed by core spray operation on the redesigned connector pipe is in accordance with the original design criteria as specified Dy the Big Rock Point Final Hazards The resulting stresses are within the ASME Section III Summary Report.
The analysis of the redesigned bolted con-Code allowable stresses.
nections are in accordance with the requirements of ASME Section III, Subsection NG.
Since Type 316 stainless steel material is less susceptible to stress corrosion cracking and has a higher ASME Code allowable stress than the original Type 304 stainless steel, the material change is considered Therefore, a structural reanalysis of an improvement in the design.
the steam baffle and core spray sparger ring and nozzles ic r.ot re-quired since the structural capability of these components is improved over the original design.
We find that the core spray sparger and steam baffle assembly replace-ment consists of an improvement in material over the previous design, meets the applicable portions of tne Commission's regulations ano is therefore acceptable.
N
,e---
,e
-,y-
,s+,
,w y
f 20?.4 Ring Sparger Aiming Pattern Verification To ensure the nozzle aiming pattern determined at the Bartow facility is accurately duplicated on the production sparger, CPCo and its contractors developed a sequence of aiming pattern checks. These are described below:
The individual nozzle aiming points and angular orientation a.
are recorded f rom the test sparger at the Bartow facility, b.
The nozzle aiming pattern is reproduced on the production sparger f rom drawings made of the test sparger. The aiming pattern of the production sparger is checked at the manufacturing facility by using the optical aiming device and a grid work representing the BRP core (See Figures 1 and 2 of Reference 12).
The production Sparger is then shipped to BRP where CPCo again c.
verifies the aiming pattern. A test tank is used and the li-censee's sparger installation techniques a're also checked.
Once the sparger and nozzles are installed into the BRP vessel, d.
the aiming pattern is spot checked (e.g., not every nozzle's aiming point is checked).
The staf f finds that these procedures should result in an accurate duplication of the test sparger's aiming pattern, and is acceptable.
l m
1 1
I 2.3 Maximum Bundle Power Technical Specification In the BRP ECCS analyses (References 7 and 8), no credit for spray cooling is taken until the " time of rated spray" (tRS) which cor-responds to a certain time interval after the ECCS spray system motor operated valves (MOVs) have received commands to open.*
Once rated spray has been reached, the analyses assumes the spray cooling heat transfer coefficients allowed by Appendix K to 10 CFR 50.
To justify the assumed heat transfer coefficients, CPCo had to ensure that each bundle received sufficient flow.
Prior to Cycle 15, in the review of the performance adequacy of the new redundant spray system (Nozzle Spray System - NSS), CPCo and the staff examined numerous reports concerning the Full Length Emergency Cooling Heat Transfer (FLECHT) experiments and the sprayflows predicted to be in other BWRs of various vintages.
It was determined that a certain " vaporization" or " evaporation" flow could be defined for each fuel bundle such that vaporization of that amount of sprayflow would remove the total amount of heat being produced by the bundle. As long as the bundle sprayflow is above the vaporization flow, then the spray cooling heat transfer coefficients are conservatively justified.
The vaporization flow, Wy, will depend on LOCA break size, since the bundle Wy is computed based on the bundle power at tRS ano tRS varies with break size. Also, the vessel pressure changes with tRS and this affects the computed Wy due to changes in the heat of vaporization, hfg, and the specific volume, vf.
The licensee's minimum acceptable bundle sprayflows (MABS) were based on conservative estimates of the highest bundle radial peaking f actor, and the worst reactor vessel pressure conditions. The MABS were used as lower limits in the development of an acceptaDie core spray pattern.
However, as discussed in Section 2.1, some bundles received flow slightly below the MABS during a limited number of tests.
I
~
a l
l
- The valves receive open signals once the ECCS pump discharge pressure is sufficiently high.
c l
l l
m i
CPCo has proposed maximum bundle power technical specifications to ensure that the bundle power at tas for all break sizes can be removed by the spray flow. The maximum bundle power was computed based on the following:
1.
The minimum bundle sprayflow was determined by comparing the following:
a.
Spray flow from HSS b.
Spray flow from RSS c.
FABS 2.
Convert the minimum bundle sprayflow to bundle power using parameters relevant to the DBA.
decay factor (ANS 5-1) for tRS without adding an un-a.
certainty b.
hfg and vf for tPe vessel pressure at the tRS 3.
Compute the maximum allowable Dundle power (technical speCi-fication) by reducing the power computed above by a factor of 1.2.
The staff reviewed the licensee's technique in developing the maximum allowable bundle power technical specification, and performed ince-pendent calculations to verify the limits the licensee has proposed.
We found the following aspects relevant to the proposed technical specifications:
i 1.
The licensee assumed that for the new sparger, a comparison of bundle sprayflows at 75 psig to the Mt.3S will yield the most conservative value.* Other test data substantiate this assertion.
Data show that the outer bundles receive higher flow at 75 psig than at 25 psig, but the flow remains above the MABS. Therefore, for the outer bundles, the MABS value will be limiting. The inner bundles generally receive the lowest flow at 75 psig, and l
- CPCo did not have core wide buncle sprayflow data at 25 and 50 psig vessel l
pressures from the RSS using the optimizea nozzle spray pattern. For example, l
the B11-9 series yielded 1 quadrant of spray data at 25, 50 ana 75 psig.
t l
l 4
1
- - - ~ -- -
=.,
. ~-
as pressure is reduced, the spray flow increases. Therefore, for the inner bundles, the 75 psig test data from the Bil-9 series will be limiting. Therefore, we agree that the comparison of the 75 psig test data and the MABS will yield a conservatively low sprayflow for maximum power calculations.
2.
The comparison of minimum RSS bundle flow to the minimum NSS bundle flow is essential so the reactor can be operated within the estab-lished capabilities of either core spray system (NSS or RSS).
3.
The minimum sprayflow for most bundles was the MABS, which is a value shown to be conservative. That is, the test data for the RSS and the NSS show bundle spray flows above the NABS. Figure 2 is a BRP core map showing how the minimum sprayflow was determined.
4.
By using the earliest tRS, the licensee has calculated the highest bundle power which must be removed by sprayflow. The ECCS analysis shows that the tRS for the DBA is about 20.4 sec, and the vessel pressure is about 25 psig. Since most fuel bundles receive the lowest flow at 75 psig, it is conservative to convert flows (based on either the MABS or the 75 psig condition) using the DBA parameters.
5.
By using the power reduction factor of 1.2, the licensee has added a conservatism that accounts for any effects such as steam flow pat-terns different from the test, or any unknown geometry effects.
6.
A significant conservatism results from the licensee's assumption that must be removed by vaporization of all the bundle power at the tR the spray flow since the ECCS knalysis shows the cladding temperature for any spray flow prior N. Also, the LOCA code takes no credit continues to rise after t the " time of rated spray" although there could be considerable spray flou.
7.
The licensee's method of calculating the maximum bundle power is based on the design basis accident (DBA), and is conservative for all other break sizes.
The staff finds that the proposed technical specifications would ensure the facility would be conservatively operated within the capabilities of both the Ring Spray System and the Nozzle Spray System and are therefore l
accepta ble.
l l
s g
f y'
t I
FIGURE 2 BRP MINIMUti SPRAYFLOW i
l e
\\
V4 M F4 74 VMd 0
p =
simisum esseo os Rss gg=misimesoseeemess
3.0
SUMMARY
The tests performed at the Bartwo test facility resulted in an opti-mized sparger aiming pattern which delivered maximum bundle sprayflow at all LOCA usage conditions. Two bundles received flows slightly below the MABS, but the licensee has developed maximum bundle power technical' specifications which conservatively ensure the reactor will be operated within the capability of either the f;SS and RSS and therefore are acceptable.
The licensee's techniques and checks will result in a production sparger whose aiming pattern closely duplicates the test sparger's aiming pattern, and therefore, the production sparger's aiming pattern is acceptable.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant frqm the standpoint. of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environ-mer.tal impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
S We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the procobility or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin. the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the pu bl ic.
Date: April 10,1979
i e
6.0 REFERENCES
1.
Memorandum and Order, by the Commissioners, NRC in the Matter of CPCo, Big Rock Point, dated May 26, 1976.
2.
Letter to David A. Bixel, CPCo from Don K. Davis, NRC, dated October 17, 1977 (
Subject:
Amendment #15 (i.e., Cycle 15 startup))
3.
Effects of Steam Environment on BWR Core Spray Distribution, Amendment #3 to NE00-20566, April 1977.
4.
Big Rock Point Core Spray Test Report. Single Nozzle Test ana Development Program, NUS-3006, NUS Corporation, August 1977 (included as attachment to the letter from W. S. Skibitsky, CPCo to Samuel J. Chilk Secretary to the Commission, NRC, dated August 9, 1977).
5.
Letter from David A. Bixel, CPCo to Director of NRR, NRC, dated September 15, 1977 (
Subject:
Request for exemption).
6.
Big Rock Point Core Spray Sparger and Steam Baffle Design Report, General Electric, NEDC-21974, dated NovemDer,1976.
7.
Big Rock Point Plant Loss-qf-Coolant Accident Analysis for General Electric Fuel in Conformance with 10 CFR bu, Appendix K, (Non-Jet Pump Boiling Water Reactor). July 11,1976 (Submitted as Appendix A to a technical specification change request from Consumers Power Company to the NRC, dated July 25, 1975.
8.
Heatup Analysis for Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc. G Fuel in the Big Rock Point Plant in Conformance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix K, July 26,1975 (Submitted with letter from Thomas W. Craig (ENG) to NRC, dated July 28, 1975).
9.
Letter from David A. Bixel, CPCo to Director of NRR, NRC dated August 17, 1977 (
Subject:
Exxon explanation of BRP break spectrum shape).
- 10. The Big Rock Point Sparger Ring Test Program, NUS Corporation, NUS 3234, (Appendix 111 to GE Report NEDC-21974), dated September, 1978.
.