ML20002C712
| ML20002C712 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/01/1978 |
| From: | Ziemann D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002C704 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101100773 | |
| Download: ML20002C712 (2) | |
Text
(
v'
(
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-155 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Tlie li. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has issued Amendment No. 20 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-6, issued to the Consumers Power Company (the licensee), which revised the Technical Specifications for operation of the Big Rock Point Plant (the facility) located in Charlevoix County, Michigan. The amendment is effective as of its date of issuance.
The amendment consists of changes to the Technical Specifications to increase the interval between control rod withdrawal time tests.
The application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Comission's rules and regulations.
The Comission has made appropriate fir. dings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Prior public notice of this amendirent was not required since the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
pot /o 0773
(
- k. The Comission has determined that the issuance of this amendment will not result in any significant environmental impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR f51.5(d)(4) an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with issuance of this amendment.
For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for amendment dated July 28,1978,(2) Amendment No. 20 to License No. DPR-6, and (3) the Comissio i's related Safety Evalua-tion. These items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. and at the Charlevoix Public Library,107 Clinton Street, Charlevoix, Michigan 49720.
A single copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request t
addressed to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D. C.
20555, Attention: Director, Division of Operating Reactors.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 1st day of September,1978.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' O
{ a w,..
,,A.n w
)
Dennis L. Ziemann,4hief Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Operating Reactors a
We have concluded that the provisions for preventing continuous control rod withdrawal during operation are sufficient to assure that withdrawal rates under all conditions will not result in excessive reactivity insertion. The typical time required to withdraw a control rod one notch is between 4 and 8 seconds and complete withdrawal requires withdrawing 23 notches.
Therefore we have also concluded that a control rod can not be withdrawn in less than 23 seconds in tt.e notch mode.
Based on the above considerations, we have concluded that the require-ments for control rod withdrawal test every six months during power operation may be deleted.
'r'e therefore conclude that the proposed changes to the Tecnnical Specifications are acceptable.
Environmental Considerations Me 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 'n any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment in"olves an action which is ir.significant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environ-inntal impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusions We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability 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 erdangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) su:h 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 public.
Tate:
September ?,1978
[
.