ML20133Q425
| ML20133Q425 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/29/1985 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133Q424 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8511010541 | |
| Download: ML20133Q425 (3) | |
Text
7590-01 UN!TED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00FSUPERS POWER COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-155 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commissior) ir considering the issuance of an exenption from the requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 to Consumers Power Company (CPCo) (the licensee) for the Big Rock Point Plant, loc,ated at the licensee's site in Charlevoix County, Michigan.
ENVIP0fEENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action: The exemption would exempt the licensee from the Appendix J requirement of testing the reactor containment building airleck door seals within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of each opening. The proposed exenption is in accordance with the licensee's request dated Septerber 15, 1975, as supplemented on October 10, 1980 and as supported by additional conritrents made on February 2, 1984.
The Need for the Proposed Action:
10 CFR 50.54(o) requires that all O
licensees meet the requirements of Appendix J - Primary Reactor Con,taforrnt leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors.Section III.D.2(b)(iii) af Appendix J requires that airlocks opened during periods when containment integrity is required shall be tested for leakage withir ? days after each operirg, or shall be tested every 3 days during periods of frequent openings.Section III.D.2(b)(1) of Appendix J requires that. full pressure airlock leak tests be done every 6 months.
In lieu of these requirements, the ifcensee has proposed to (1) perform full pressure leckage testk of airlock every 6 rerths, and (2) replace airlock door seals periodically in accordance with manufacturer's recommendatiert.
8511010541 851029 PDR ADOCK 05000155 p
PM i
7590-01
. Environnental Impacts of the Proposed Action: The proposed exempticr pertains to the frequency of testing the containment airlocks. The FPC steH evaluated containment airlock leak testing during the Integrated Assessment portion cf the Systematic Evaluation Program. The steff cerclusion, documented in Section 4.20 of NUREG-0828, was that the lict:nsee's propcsed leakage testing program including more frequent full pressure testing, and periodic replacement of airlock door seals in accorc'erce with the manufacturer's reconnendations would provide an acceptable alternative t,o strict compliance with the applicable Appendix 0 recuirements. This conclusion is further supported by the past good performance of the airlock door seals at the Big Rock Point facility. The elternative actions proposed by the licensee would provide reasorable assurance that airlock leakage will not exceed acceptable levels. Thus, the exemption does not affect the risk of facility accidents. Post-accident radiological releases will not be greater than previously determined nor does the proposed exemption otherwise affect radiologica'l plant effluents, or any significant occupationel exposures.
The exemption does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no otter environmental impact. Therefore, the CoPrlission Concludes that there, ere no significant radiological or nonradiological environmental irpacts associated with the proposed exemption. Since we have concluded that there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed exemption, any alternative such as literel cer:pliance with Section III.D.2(b)(iii) will either have no environmental impact or greater environmental impact. The principal alternative to the exemption would be to require literal compliance wit'Section III.D.2(b)(iii) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50. This would h
l l
require Big Rock Point to leak-test the centcinment airlocks every 3 days. Such testing would not enhance the protection of the envirorment.
7590-01
. Alternative Use of Pesources: The proposed exemption frvolves no use of resources not previously considered.
Agencies ar.d Persons Consulted: The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's request as discussed above.
The ?;RC staff did not consult any other agercies or persons.
FlhDIhG OF NO SIGNIFICANT IPT/.CT The Commission has determired rot to prepare an environmental impact staterTrt for the proposed exemption.
Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, we conclude that the proposed actier trill not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environnent.
For further details with respect to this action, see the request for exemption dated September 15, 1975 and supplemental submittals dated October 10, 1980 and February 2,1984, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at North Central Michigan College,1515 Harvard Street, Petoskey, Michigan 48770.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 29th day of October 1985.
FCR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI0tl dwps th.
clL?/Y Dennis M. Crutch eld,7ssiltant Directcr for Safety AssessmeitT l
Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
_ _ _..