ML20002C925
| ML20002C925 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/25/1976 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002C920 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101120445 | |
| Download: ML20002C925 (2) | |
Text
-[
i Sa ne y i
UNITE) STATES p,
{
- *g NUCLEAR RE',1ULATOPY COMMISSION CAsHINGTo% u. c. 20566 g
.p.
o, b
/
ENVIRONFENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE DIVISION OF OPERATINC REACTORS SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 10 TO DPR-6 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY BIG ROCK POINT PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-155 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AoPRAISAL 1.
Description of Pro; sed Action By letter dated Jul, 25, 1975 and supplements thereto dated Augast 22, 1975, September 8, 1975, November 26, 1975, February 4, 1976, Februar, 27, 1976, March 26, 1976, April 30, 1976, May 10, 1976 and-May 11, 1976, the Consumers Power Company submitted proposed changes to the Technical Specifications to License No. DPR-6.
The proposed changes were requested to incorporate limiting conditions for operation associated with fuel assembly specific power (average planar linear heat generation rate) resulting from the application of the Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) in conjunction with refueling using additional 11x11 fuel assemblies. The NRC staff has reviewed this proposed action to determine whether any environmental impact is associated with these proposed changes and the conclusions are set forth below.
The licensee is presently licensed to possess and operate Big Rock Point located in the State of Michigan, County of Charlevoix, at power levels up to 120 megawatts thermal. (MWt) using a core consisting of 9x9 and llxll fuel assemblies (containing U-235), and 11x11 assemblies (containing up to 50 kg of mixed oxide fuel). The pro-posed change to incorporate the ECCS Acceptance Criteria in con-junction with refueling using additional 11x11 fuel does not result in an increase but does result in a decrease in the power level of the unit. The power output would be reduced by about 10% of rated power level for about one-half of the operating cycle. The restric-tions of heat generation rates will require careful control of fuel operating history. However, there should be no significant reduc-tion on total fuel burnup resulting from the revised ECCS evaluation 81021EOY[I
([
(
methods. However, the action will likely reduce the net power generation approximately 5% on a yearly basis.
2.
Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action Potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are those which may be associated with incorporation of the ECCS Acceptance Criteria and utilization of nuclear fuel for this facility.
It is particularly noted that in the absence of any significant increase and with the slight decrease in power levels, there will be no increase in cooling water requirements and consequently no increase in environmental impact from radioactive effluents and thermal efflu ats for normal cperation or post-accident conditions which in turn could not lead to significant increases in radiation doses or thermal stress to the public or to' biota in the environment.
For normal operating conditions, the Commission's calculated releases for radioactive effluents, both gaseous and liquid, are based on expected release rates to the environment ar.d are quantified on the basis of the total quantity of nuclear fuel within the reactor.
The estimates of radionuclides and release rates will not be affected by the proposed action, and since the total quantity of nuclear fuel is unchanged, no increase in the calculated release of radioactive effluents is predicted. Consequently, no increases in radiation doses to man or other biota are predicted.
3.
Conclusion and Basis for Negative Declaration On the basis of the foregoing analysis, it is concluded that there will be no environmental impact attribute.ble to the proposed action.
Having made this conclusion, the Commisoion has further concluded that no environmental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared and that a negative declaration to tnis effect is appropriate.
Date:
11ay 25,1976 N