ML20245F839
| ML20245F839 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245F823 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905030016 | |
| Download: ML20245F839 (2) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - -
-s oso
/
f '
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
?
l j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g% /
- ..+
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 95 TO FACILITY OFERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-6 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY BIG ROCK POINT PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-155
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 30, 1986, Consumers Power Company (the licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TSs) appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-6 for the Big Rock Point Plant. The proposed amendment would modify the reference in section 5.2.2(h). The modification would reflect the addition of one valve to each of the vent and drain lines.
2.0 EVALUATION Consumers Power Company (CPC) added a second vent and a second drain valve to the scram dump tank. These valves were added during the 1987 refueling outage. The licensee requested the amendment to reflect the addition of the second valves. This modification is identified in the Big Rock Point IPSAR (NUREG-0828). The two additional valves are air operated valves similar to the two currently utilized and operate in unison with the existing two valves and their control scheme.
The staff has evaluated the change and has determined that the addition of the two valves does not alter the operational or testing requirements for the scram dump tank vent and drain valves. The valves were added to reduce the probability of an anticipated transient without scram due to a scram dump tank discharge volume failure. Therefore, the staff approves the proposed Technical Specification change to appropriately reflect the addition of the two valves.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and a change to the surveillance requirements. We have determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant i
change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that i
there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational l
radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there 1
YR28btgigg; d
l i
4 -
q
' 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 to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
j
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be-i endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will
)
be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance
'j of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to 1
the health and safety of the public.
'j Date:
April 14, 1989 l
Principal Contributor:
Robert M. Pulsifer d
l l
t f
-i t
._____- _ - -__ ___ __-________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _