ML20041C019
| ML20041C019 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041C014 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202260033 | |
| Download: ML20041C019 (2) | |
Text
.
e oro
(
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
j WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
%~.....,$
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 50 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-6 W
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY BIG ROCK POINT PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-155
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Consumers Power Company (the licensee) informed us that the Big Rock Point vessel has reached the fluence limit (2.8 x 1019) specified for their pre-sent pressure-temperature limits. The licensee has asked the NRC for an emergenci Technical Specification change approving 1.nterim limits until the next refueling, (scheduled for February 1982).
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION By telefax on January 8,1982, the licensee requested our acceptance of the limits which they proposed in their September 18, 1981 letter as 4
interim measures. The essential propose'd cha'nge in the P-T limits i's that the limits will be shifted to temperatures approximately 50 -degrees higher than those shown in the present Technical Specifications
( Amendment No.14, June 24,1977) for pressures near operating pressure.
We estimate the change in RTNDT per EFPY to be less than 10*F for the Big i
Rock Point vessel at this time. Hence, the proposed 50-degree change is acceptabl e.
In summary, the proposed revisions to t'he pressure-temperature limits are acceptable as an emergency Technical Specification change for the i
time period which ends when the plant shuts down for refueling (currently scheduled for February 1982).
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
2
)
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.
4 8202260033 820204
-PDR ADOCK 05000155 p
,. +
4.0 CONCLUSION
S We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) 17 because the ' amendment dos not involve a significant increase.in the pro-bability 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 l'
by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be con-ducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amenament will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
February 4,1982 l
t b
P O
l 7
I k
--