Consumers Power Company, Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

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