[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