ML20056E166
| ML20056E166 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056E163 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9308200159 | |
| Download: ML20056E166 (2) | |
Text
i
,ef ~%
j
.~ a a
i i E UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- k.u,/
WASWNGTON, D.C. 25MM1 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 110 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 24, 1993, as supplemented July 9,1993, the Consumers Power Company (CPCo, the licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-6 for the Big Rock Point Plant. The proposed amendment clarifies TS 6.1.2 concerning the undervoltage breakers in the Reactor Protection System. The letter dated July 9,1993, further clarified TS 6.1.2 and did not change the initial proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration published June 23, 1993 (58 FR 34073).
2.0 EVALUATION The May 24, 1993, submittal proposes three changes to clarify TS 6.1.2 for the
" Loss of auxiliary power supply" trip.
The first change adds the actual equipment identification "CB-REllA and CB-REllB" and replaces " voltage relay" with "undervoltage release device" to more accurately describe the equipment involved.
The scram setting of "52 20 volts" is being changed to "A 32 Vac".
With l
this change, the lower limit on the scram setting is still 32 volts. The original TS had an upper limit of 72 volts which is not needed for an undervoltage relay. Thus, deletion of the upper limit is appropriate.
The third change adds a note to clarify that tripping of one CB-REll breaker causes only a single channel scram. Both breakers have to trip to initiate containment isolation.
These three changes do not change the scram setpoint, or any other feature, of the trip caused by loss of auxiliary power supply. They merely provide clarification to TS 6.1.2, and therefore, are acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Michigan State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
j 9308200159 930816 I
PDR ADDCK 05000155 a
P PDR b
4
~
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (58 FR 34073). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, i
and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: L. Olshan, PDIII-1 Date: August 16, 1993
.