ML20086S899
| ML20086S899 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20086S896 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9201060051 | |
| Download: ML20086S899 (3) | |
Text
.
n n os,.
[o
- 'g unite D sT ATES fn NUCLEAR HEGULATORY COMMISSION
[
) E WASWNGT ON, D C. 20M6 r.
s
/
- sse*
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAD REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 84 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPT-29 ENTERGY OPERATION',. INC.. ET AL.
, GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-416, f
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated May 10, 1991 En*ergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee),
submitted a request for changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1 (GGNS). The requested changes were intended to address a license conditi!, on the containment purge system.
The containment purge system nas a high volume purge (HVP) with 20-inch supply and exhaust valves and a low volume purge (Lvp) with 6-inch suppply and exhaust valves. During the Operating License review the staff concluded that, for safety reasons, purging should be minimized during. power operation (NUREG-0831, "SafetyEvaluationReport(SER)RelatedtotheOperationofGrandGulfNuclear Station, Units 1and2"). The licensee had proposed a limit of 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> per year for purge system operation to reduce drywell airborne radioactivity levels for personnel entry and to control drywell pressure. The -staff acknowledged the potential need to purge but conditioned the GGNS operating license to limit the use for the HVP to 1000 hours0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br /> per year until operational experience was ar.d GGNS Operating License Condition 2.C(16)pecifications (TS gainnd and reported to the NRC. The present Technical S 3/4.4.6.1.9) reflect these requirements.
By letter dated 0ctober 3,1986, the licensee provided a report documenting data from the first cycle of operation on the use of the purge system. Since the data gathered during Cycle 1 was inconclusive, the licensee committed to 7
provide follow up reports on a per-cycle basis until sufficient data was obtained and valid conclusions could be drawn regarding the use of the purge system. On December 31, 1987, the licensee provided the results of Cycle 2.
By letter dated December 6, 1988, the licensee submitted proposed criteria for limiting the use of the containment purge system during operation and also submitted proposed changes to the TS.
i 9201060051 % [ ppg 416 PDR ADOCK P
y g @p C Ef t',5fT10N
~
l
'y.
u.
revievw th' Oecember 6,1988, submittal at o provided the results of T.
iew in a f
- valuation enclosed with a letter to the licensee riated 4
26, 1990
'o.his safety evaluation the staff concluded that six of b $y g trols on the purge system usage were acceptable and also j
.ght proposu
.oposau o reduce the limit from 1000 hours0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br /> per year to 400 hours0.00463 days <br />0.111 hours <br />6.613757e-4 weeks <br />1.522e-4 months <br /> per year.
licensee's response to the staff's December 26, 1990, letter was dated s
f 10, 1991.
In thit iciter the licensee revised its proposed conditions for ps eging, restricti.; the conditions to the following:
a, Containment pressure control; b.
" MA and air quality considerations for personnel entry dee to high exp, aive gas concentration, low oxygen concentration, high airborne carticulate activity, high gaseous radioactivity, smoke, or fumes; or Surveillanceorspe:;altt ing on the purge system that requires the c.
isolation valve (s, to be open.
The staff has rnicaed the licensee's proposed restrictions on the use of the purge system end co;.cludes that the specifiea criteria ensure appr:priate controls and thht use of the HVP purge cystem will be minimized and limited to d ety-related reasons. Consea,uently, the stati finds the licensee's proposed changes accetable and finds that the intent of License Condition 2.C.(16) has been setisfied and that this License Cc cion is removed.
3.0 STATE CONSL'LTATIO,N, in acenrdance with the Commission's reg b t~
. the Mississippi Stata official was notified of the proposed Tssuance o' ;*
smendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requiree nt with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 crR part 20, changes in surveillance requirements, and changes the license. The HRC staff has determined that the amendment invoives no significant increase in the amounts, and no signifiant change in t5e types, of any effluents that may be released offs'te, and that there is no significant increare in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Coinmission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (56 FR 57695). Accordin: y, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
l 1
l 5.0 CONCt.USION The Cocinission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Conunission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the ameadment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
J. Kudrick T. Quay Date: December 17, 1991
_