[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 218 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57025-57026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27917]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-155]
Consumers Power Company, Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant;
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Paragraph III.D.2(b)(i), concerning testing of
the escape air lock, to the Consumers Power Company (CPCo or the
licensee), for operation of the Big Rock Point Plant (BRP), located in
Charlevoix County, Michigan.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would allow an exemption from the requirement
of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Paragraph III.D.2(b)(i), to test air
locks at an internal pressure not less than Pa. This requires the
emergency (or escape) air lock at Big Rock Point to be tested at 23
psig, the calculated peak pressure (Pa) for Big Rock Point. The
proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for
exemption dated October 4, 1994, as supplemented by letter dated
September 27, 1995.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The regulation, as set forth in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J,
paragraph III.D.2(b)(i), requires that Big Rock Point's containment
emergency air lock be tested at an internal pressure not less than
Pa, which is 23 psig for Big Rock Point. Currently, the
containment escape air lock at Big Rock Point is tested at a pressure
of 2 psig. Therefore, the explicit requirement of paragraph
III.D.2(b)(i) of Appendix J is not met. The requested exemption is
required because of the emergency air lock manufacturer's restrictions
on internal pressurization and the Big Rock Point design which
necessitates frequent personnel entries. The licensee stated that the
escape air lock internal pressurization is limited by the manufacturer
to 2 psig without a strongback and 5 psig with a strongback in place,
thereby making pressurization to peak pressure impossible for local
leak rate tests. In addition, the licensee stated that the required use
of a strongback for the 5-psig test and its positioning on the inside
of the lock which tends to assist the door in sealing is less
conservative than the 2-psig test for the inner door. Therefore, the 5-
psig test has no significant increase in value. The licensee believes
that the escape air lock's performance is demonstrated with the local
leak rate test at 2 psig.
Environment Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that the proposed exemption will not affect facility
radiation levels or facility radiological effluents. The licensee has
provided an acceptable basis for concluding that the proposed exemption
to test the escape air lock at a pressure of 2 psig would maintain the
containment leak rates within acceptable limits.
The change will not increase the probability or consequences of
accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that
may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the
allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action does involve features located entirely within the restricted
area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect nonradiological
plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the
Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any
alternatives with equal or
[[Page 57026]]
greater environmental impact need not be evaluated. As an alternative
to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed
action. Denial of the application would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action
and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement Related to
the Operation of Big Rock Point Plant.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on October 3, 1995, the staff
consulted with the Michigan State official, Mr. Dennis Hahn of the
Nuclear Facilities and Environmental Monitoring Section, Office of the
Department of Public Health, regarding the environmental impact of the
proposed action. The State official has no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated October 4, 1994, as supplemented by letter
dated September 27, 1995, which are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L
Street, NW., Washington DC, and at the local public document room
located at the North Central Michigan College, 1515 Howard Street,
Petoskey, Michigan 49770.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of November 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John B. Hickman,
Acting Director, Project Directorate III-I, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-27917 Filed 11-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
