ML20024E514
| ML20024E514 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/11/1983 |
| From: | Emch R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024E511 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8308150202 | |
| Download: ML20024E514 (2) | |
Text
_ _.
p 4,.
j>gnoro wSc UNITED STATES
[ g"y. c ],
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\.x, /
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR RECULATION
~
SUPPORTING. AMENDMENT NO. -60 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-6'.
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY BIG ROCK POINT PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-155
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated May 27, 1983, Consumers Power Company (CPC) (the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-6 for the Big Rock Point Plant. The changes would institute a procedure for use during start-up in the event that the neutron source strength is too low to provide the minimum specified count rate.
2.0 EVALUATION Ti e procedure proposed by CPC is the same procedure which was approved by the NRC staff for Cycle 16 in License Amendment No. 29 dated October 18, 1979. The NRC staff's reasons for grantino the amendment as presented in the Safety Evaluation (SE) supporting that snendment are still valid. The SE reflects that the procedure was limited to Cycle 16 only because NRC staff review of the GR0K computer code was not complete.
Since that time the NRC staff has completed that review. Thus, by letter dated September 9, 1982, the NRC staff issued an evaluation supporting its approval of the Big Rock Point core physics calculational methodology including the GROK code.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed change is accept,able.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
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 from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
2 8308150202 830811 PDR ADOCK 05000155 1
P PDR i
sq.
2-j 4
4.0 CONCLUSION
.We have concluded; base'd od 'the ~ considerations discussed..above,. that:..
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and-(2) 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 the health and safety of the public.
5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This evaluation was prepared by R. Emch.
Date: August 11, 1983 il v
.~,
n l
I i
L
..a 09 jj.
. ~ -
s-i
,