ML20205E972

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 80 to License DPR-6

ML20205E972
Person / Time
Site:	Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	10/29/1985
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20205E966	List: ML20205E972
References
NUDOCS 8511040061
Download: ML20205E972 (4)

Text

_ _ .

O pn Mlv

+ o, . UNITED STATES

['

O 1

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k...../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF Nt! CLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 80 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-6 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY BIG ROCK POINT PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-155

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In November 1980, the staff issued NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements," which included all TMI Action Plan items approved by the Commission for implementation at nuclear power reactors. NUREG-0737 also identifies those items for which Technical Specifications (TS) are required. The staff provided guidance on 'the scope of the recomended TS for all of the items that were scheduled for implementation after December 31, 1981 in Generic Letter (GL) 83-36. GL 83-36 was issued to all Boiling Water Reactor licensees on November 1,1983. In GL 83-36, the staff reouested licensees to review their facility's TS to determine if they are consistent with the guidance provided in GL 83-36 and to sub-mit an application for license amendment for those items which were identified as; (1) absent from the TS or, (2) containing deviations from the provided guidance.

On March 10; 1982, Consumers Power Company (CPC, the licensee) responded to GL 83-36 by submitting an application fer appropriate changes to the Big Rock Point (facility) TS. On July 19, 1985 CPC submitted an applicat4n superseding the March 10, 1982 submittal, requesting simi.ar TS changes and a revision of the surveillance requirements for the new TS.

A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Detemination and Opportunity for Hearing related to the recuested action was published in the Federal Register on September 11, 1985 (50 FR 37077). No public coments or requests for hearing were received.

P.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Containment Pressure Monitor Section II.F.1, Attachment 4 of NUREG-0737, dated November 1980, established the requirement for a containment pressure monitor system and associated capabilities for control roon indication. GL 83-36 established the guid-l ance for the containment pressure monitor TS. Specifically, " Containment i pressure should be continuously indicated in the control room of each i'

8511040061 DR 851029 p ADOCK 05000155 PDR

operating reactor durino Pcwer Operation and Startup Modes. Two channels should be operable at all times when the reactor is operating in any of theses modes. Technical Specifications for these monitors should be included with other accident monitoring instrunentation in the present Technical Specifications. Limiting conditions for operation (LCO) for the containment pressure monitor should be similar to other accident monitoring instrurentation included in the present Technical Specifications." Enclosure 3 of GL P3-36 provides typical acceptable LC0 and surveillance requirements for accident nonitoring instrumentation.

The licensee has installed two containment pressure monitors with readouts in the nain control room. The licensee has proposed: (1) a revision to TS Section 6.4, adding the containment pressure monitoring system to the plant nonitoring systems definition, (2) a new Section 6.4.4 providing the appropriate LC0 for the new instrumentation, and (3) a revision of the table found in Section 7.6 providing the instrumentation surveillance requirements.

The staff has reviewed these proposed TS and has found them consistent with the guidelines contained in GL 83-36. Therefore, the staff concludes that the p-oposed TS for containment pressure are acceptable.

P.2 Containment Water Level Monitor Section II.F.1, Attachment 5 of NUREG-0737, November 1980, established the reouirerent for a containment water level monitor systen and associated capabilities for control room indication. GL 83-36 established the guidance for typical BWR containment water level monitor TS. Specifically, "A continuous indication of suppression pool water level should be provided in the control room of each reactor during Power Operation and Startup Modes. Two channels should be operable at all times when the reactor is operating in any of the above mentioned modes. Technical Specifications .

for suppression pool water level monitors should be included with other accident monitoring instrumentaiton in the present Technical Specifications.

Limiting conditions for operation (LCO) for these monitors should be similar to other accident monitoring instrumentation included in the present Technical Specifications."

"The BVRs with dry containment should have at least two channels for wide range instruments and one channel of narrow range instrument operable at all times during above mentioned modes. LCOs for wide range monitors shculd be similar to that discussed above. LCOs for narrow range monitor should include the requirement that the inoperable channel will be restored to operable status within 30 days or the reactor will be brought to hot shutdown condition as required by other accident monitoring instrumentation."

Enclosure 3 cf GL P3-36 provides typical acceptable LC0 and surveillance requirenents for accident monitoring instrumentation.

s The licensee has installed two containment water level monitors with read-outs in the main control room. The licensee has proposed: (1) a revision to TS Section 6.4, adding the containment water level monitoring system to the plant monitoring systems definition, (2) a new Section 6.4.4 providing the appropriate LC0 for the new instrumentation, and (3) a revision of the table found in Section 7.6 providing the instrumentation surveillance requirements.

On April 16, 1984 the staff ~ transmitted to CPC a letter addressing CPC's responses to NUREG-0737 Items II.F.1.4 and 5. The letter contained Safety Evaluations supporting the finding that the system installations for con-tainment pressure and water level monitoring were acceptable. Section 4.4, Licensee Compliance with NUREG-0737 Containment Water Level Monitoring System (CWLMS), of the Safety Evaluation identifies that the facility is a GE BWR I design with Lake Michigan as a water supply. This design type does not have a torus as found in present BWR designs. Consequently, the criteria prescribed in NUREG-0737 CWLMS Position and Clarification are not a;:plicable to the Big Rock Point facility. Therefore, this portion of the evaluation was conducted using engineering understanding and judgement.

The staff finds that the containment pressure monitoring system (CPMS) meets all the requirements of NUREG-0737. The CPMS for the facility is similar to that of other BWR designs. Consequently, the CPMS TS provided in GL 83-36 are applicable. The CWLMS design is adequate to serve its intended purpose; however, the accepted CWLMS for the facility is different from that of other BWR designs. Consequently, the CWLMS TS provided in GL 83-36 are not entirely applicable. Those portions of the guidance provided in GL 83-36 which are applicable were used by the licensee in establishing proposed CWLMS TS. The staff has reviewed these TS and has found them to be acceptable.

3.0 ENVIRONMENThL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installatior. or use of facility componentslocated within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requirements. 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 radi-ation exposure. The Conunission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards' consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant tn 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environ-mental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

4.0 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance witl the Com-mission'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.

5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This evaluation was prepared by Thomas S. Rotella.

Dated: October 29, 1985 W

, _ . . . . _ . . _ . - - , . , . , . . _ . . -