ML20210P176

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 84 to License DPR-6

ML20210P176
Person / Time
Site:	Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	05/06/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20210P163	List: ML20210P158 ML20210P165 ML20210P176
References
NUDOCS 8605130113
Download: ML20210P176 (2)

Text

l I? ~

UNITED STATES 8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l g j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 tg * * * *

• g SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 84 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-6 -

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY BIG ROCK POINT PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-155 1.0 INTRODU'CTION On April 15, 1985, Consumers Power Company (the licensee) submitted a proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) of Facility Operating License No. DPR-6 for the Big Rock Point Plant (BRPP). The proposed change would add a new condition to the Control Rod Drive (CRD) surveillance testing, Section 5.2.2(a), to require all four tests of this section prior to startup following an outage greater than 120 days in length. Amendment No. 73 of the TS, dated May 1, 1985, had changed the CRD surveillance testing periodicity from "at least every six months" to "each refueling outage but not less often than once every 20 months." The proposed TS addition, which was submitted as a supplement to Amendment No. 73 at the request of the staff, would provide consistency with the Standard Technical Specification (STS) for BWR Reactors, NUREG 0123, Revision 3.

2.0 EVALUATION TS Amendment No. 73, concerning the reduction of the withdrawal and scram testing frequency of the CRD from six months to once each refueling outage, was issued by the staff on May 1, 1985. This test frequency change brought the BRPP into the same test frequency as STS and thus would not require a plant shutdown just to test the CRDs. The staff concluded that, through a comparison of BRPP CRD testing practices with other BWR facilities, the change from six month test frequency to every refueling outage was acceptable; but, requested that a maximum of 20 calendar months for CRD testing be included to assure that non-typical power operation (i.e.,

prolonged operation at low ~ power) would not cause an excessively long interval between tests.

In its submittal of April 15, 1985, the licensee requested that a maximum test period of 20 months be included in TS Section 5.2~.2.(a).

They also proposed adding the condition that CRD testing should be completed before startup from an outage longer than 120 days, a condition which is promulgated by STS. The above conditions have also been added to Section 7.6.

l i

g DC PDR P ,

The staff has reviewed the above changes and concludes that the proposed restrictions on CRD testing frequency are conservative and provide .

assurance that the CRDs will be tested at an acceptable frequency.in the event of low power-prolonged operation or following an outage greater than -

120 days; therefore, the changes are acceptable.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

i This amendment involves a change to 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 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, l 2 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 this amendment- i involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility  :

Pursuant -

criteria to 10 CFR for51.22(b categ)orical exclusion impact no environmental set forth in 10 CFR statement 51.22(c)(9). assessment nor environmental need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

4.0 CONCLUSION

The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, i that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the l public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and i (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 nor to the health and safety of the public.  !

Principal Contributor: K. R. Ridgway I

Dated: May 6, 1986.  !

1

r I

i I

.w -

--w - . . . - - - , , ev..-,---, - .-, - - ~ , . . . ,,.e,,,-,, w w-, e---%-c, -, , -- --w-sw. ,. . - - -, ,,