ML20072S768
| ML20072S768 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1991 |
| From: | Cottle W ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.097, RTR-REGGD-1.097 GNRO-91-00067, GNRO-91-67, NUDOCS 9104170063 | |
| Download: ML20072S768 (2) | |
Text
'
.e EM es :::- Entergy
[ntergy Operations. Inc.
Operations W. Y. Cottle April 10, 1991 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Station PI 137 Washington, D.C.
20%5$
Attention:
Document Control Desk SUluECT:
Grand Gulf Nuclonr Station Unit 1 Docket No. 50-416 License No. NpF-29 Quart erly St at us I oport for RG 1.97 Neutton Monitoring System f or the Perievi Ending March 31, 1991 GNRO-91/00067 Gentlemen:
Our last report on this issue for Grat.d Gulf Nuclear Stat ion (GGNS) submitted February 6, 1991 (GNRO-91/00006), and included discussion was t egard ing the BWR Owners' Group (BWROG) August 16, st af f's position on BWROG Topical Report Nr.DO-31558.1990 appeal of t he NRC Thn BWROG toport had provided alternate requirements on neutron monitoring for RG 1.47, and was previously endorsed by Entergy Operations.
In n
{
September 13, 1990 letter to the BWROG Chairman, Dr. Thomas E. Murley of the NRC indicated that his decision on the appeal would be made within two months and also stated that actions until his decision was reached.licenscos rould defer plant-specific As of this date, the NRC has not yet reached a decision on the appeal.
As discussnd in this series of status reports, Entergy Operatlons had worked in good faith to upgrade existing neutron monitoring capabilit y by the end of the fif th refueling outage (RF05).
Ilowever, this commitment schedule could have been met only if Entergy Operations enteted into a purchase agreement with the supplier by approximately March 1, 1991.
This was the latest date necessary to ensure the equipment was ordered, fabricated, and delivered in time for RF05 installation.
The equipment involved is highly customized and we anticipated large penalties for cancellation once a purchase agrooment had been executed.
Therefore, we did not enter into such an agreement without the NRC decision on the BWROG appeal due to the significant financial risk involved.
We helieve this approach to be consistent with Dr. Murley's remark regarding the deferral of plant-specific actions in the September 13, 1990 NkC letter to the BWROG Chairman.
G9104092/SNhlCFhR 9104176063 910410 PDR (deOC F 05000416
[N R
//
___] p
4 on 4
i April 10, 1991 GNR0 91/00067 Page 2 of 3 The above information was discussed in our February 6, 1991 status report (GNRO-ol/00006) and in a Proposed Change to the Operating hicense submitted rebrunry 27, 1991 (pCOI,-91/01, GNRO-91/00031).
This proposed chango would remove the inplementntion schedule from the Operating hiccuse to allow for a rt+olution of the pending itWROG appenl.
Also, the ehange would requir e t he speci fic OGNS (niplementat ion actions and nssociated schedules to be submitted to the NRC Staff for review and approval within 60 days of the resolut ion of the ItWR(r, appen t by t he Director of NRR.
No further nction tegntding this issue, including the submit t al of further status reports,.is pinune<l until after resolutloti of the itWROG appeal and the pending GGNS PCOI.-91/01 by the NRC.
Plonne contact this of fice should you have any quest ions or desire addit ionni Information.
Youis truly, (4) PCs(%-
HEK/bc cc:
Mr. D. C. Hintz Mr. J. Mathis Mr. R. B. McGehee Mr. N, S. Reynolds Mr. H.
I..
Thomas Mr. P. W. Titus Mr. Stnwart D. Ebneter Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 11 101 Marietta St., N.W.. Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgin 30323 Mr. I..
- b. Kintner,-pro,)ect Mannger Office of Nuclear Renctor Regulation U.S. Nucienr Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 11021 Washington. D.C.
20$55 09104092/SNhlCfl.R
-