ML20211N680
| ML20211N680 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/20/1987 |
| From: | Rajender Auluck Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211N660 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8703020183 | |
| Download: ML20211N680 (4) | |
Text
,
7590-01 IINITED STATES NHCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-155 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFTCANT IMPACT The ll.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ithe Comissioni is considering the issuance of an exemption from the schedular recuirement of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(ii) to the Consumers Power Company (the licensee) for the Rig Rock n
\\
Point Plant located in Charlevoir County, Michigan.
ENVJR0
- ENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action:
The nroposed action would grant an exemption from the reouirements of 10 CFD 50.71(e)(3)(iii to subrnit an updated Final Hazards Summary Report (FHSR) for the Big Peck Point Plant within 24 months of receipt of a letter notifying the licensee that the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) has been completed.
Big Rock Point Plant, as one of the plants chosen to be evaluated in the SEP was, therefore, sub,iect to the provisions of 10 CFR 50.71(el(3)fiii.
The licensee was notified by letter dated August 27, 1984 that the SEP had been completed for the Rig Rock Point Plant. The licensee, by coplication dated August 27, 1986, as supplemented December 3,1986, has reouested an exemp-tion from the schedular reauirements of 10 CFR 50.71(elf 3)(ii) in order to allow time for the licensee to complete a newly agreed upon updated FHSD. The deferral of the submittal of the updated FHSR is the proposed action being considered by the staff.
8703020183 870220 DR ADOCK 05000155 PDR
f a c ;. -
..__._._s
~.
,c _
. ~.
7590-01 2-The Need for the Proposed Action:
The licensee, by letter dated March 13, 1983, requested that the updating of the Big Rock Point FHSP be included in an expanded assessment of outstanding regulatory requirements as part of the SEP. The primary purpose of this reauest was to allow better management of licensee resources which were to be applied to regulatory and nonregulatory tasks.
The licensee proposed that a method of indexing pertinent documents, which could provide a chronology and identification of design chanoes to the Big Rock Point Plant, might serve as a workable substitute to an updated FHSR.
In NUREG-0828, dated May 1984, transmitted to the licensee by NPC letter dated August 27, 1984, the NPC staff concluded that this proposal was acceptable, provided the index of documents identified specific SEP Topic safety evaluation references.
Although the above referenced evaluations were incorporated into the indexino system, subsequent review by the NRC staff has resulted in the identi-fication of additional concerns such that the proposed substitute does not constitute a cornoletely adeauate alternative to an updated FHSR. After telephone discussions with the licensee, an agreement was reached for the licensee to provide an updated FHSR to the NRC by December 31, 1988. Therefore, a schedular exemption is required in order to allow time for the licensee to complete an updated FHSR.
h
.,m m
-y
- .i w
~ :. :-..
~-
^
7590-1 1 Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action:
The proposed exemption involves only the required date for submittal of a document describing the as-built condition of the Big Rock Point Plant and does not increase the risk of facility accidents. Thus, the proposed exemption does not involve any increase in the likelihood of the release of radioactive or nonradioactive effluents from those already determined, nor does the proposed action have other environmental impact. Therefore, the Commission concludes there are no measurable radiological or nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed exemption, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated. The principal alternative to the exemption would be to require an earlier date for the submittal of the updated FHSR.
Such an action would not enhance the protection of the environment and would result in unnecessary diversion of licensee engineering resources from other work of higher safety significance.
Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of resources beyond the scope of resources used during normal plant operation.
i Agencies and Persons Contacted:
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request an.
'id not consult other agencies or persons.
j
7950-01 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact
' statement for the proposed exemption. Based upon the environmental assessment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
For further details with respect to this proposed action, see the licensee's letters dated August E7,1986 as supplemented December 3,1986. These letters are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C., and at North Central Michigan College, 1515 Howard Street, Petoskey, Michigan 49770.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 20th day of February 1987.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Y
I Rajender Auluck, Acting Director BWR Project Directorate #1 Division of BWR Licensing l
l l
1 l