ML20205R773
| ML20205R773 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205R753 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-63558, NUDOCS 8704060439 | |
| Download: ML20205R773 (2) | |
Text
__
[pa maag'o UNITED STATES
?g
[
s.c.
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
-p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 32 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-29 MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES. INC.
SOUTH MISSISSIPPI ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-416
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated November 11, 1986 as revised January 20, 1987, Mississippi Power 8 Light Company, (the licensee)* requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-29 for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (GGNS-1). The proposed amendment would change the Technical Specifications (TSs) and associated Bases for the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) pressure and temperature limits to be consistent with the limits provided by the vendor for the nuclear steam supply system. (NSSS), General Electric Company.
2.0 EVALUATION The present RPV pressure and temperature limits in the Technical Specifi-cations (Figure 3.4.6.1-1 " Minimum Reactor Pressure Vessel Metal Tempera-ture vs. Reactor Yessel Pressure") were included in the full power operating changes to the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)g a recent review of license for GGNS-1 issued November 1, 1984. Durin
, the licensee found that the RPV limit curves in the updated FSAR (which are identical to TS Figure 3.4.6.1-1) did not correspond to the correct RPV limit curves provided by the NSSS vendor, the General Electric Company (GE). The limit curves affected are the curves below 312 psig for non-nuclear heating (Curve B) and nuclear heating with the core critical (Curve C). The system hydrotest limit (Curve A) is not affected by the error.
The present erroneous curves are non-conservative with respect to the correct GE supplied curves. The Itcensee stated that a GE analysis has cracluded that while operation with the present curves does not signifi-c atly impact plant safety, the limit curves in the TSs should be corrected.
l
- 0n December 20, 1986, the Comission issued License Amendment No. 27 which authorized the transfer of control and perfonnance of licensed activities from Mississippi Power & Light Company to System Enercy Resources, Inc.
(SERI). "The licensee" refers to Mississippi Power & Light Company before December 20, 1986 and to SERI on or after December 20, 1986.
8704060439 870331 PDR ADOCK 05000416 P
1 I
e The basis for this conclusion is that for a normal heatup and pressuriza-tion, the GGNS-1 operating procedures result in plant conditions which avoid the restricted area on the proposed correct curves. A review of plant records by the licensee confirmed that the plant has not operated in the proposed new restricted areas of the limit curves. Furthennore, the licensee has stated that operating procedures for GGNS-1 were changed to use the GE supplied curves until TSs are changed to incorporate them.
The staff has reviewed the submittals for this amendment and concludes that the GE supplied limit curves are the correct curves and therefore, the proposed changes to the TSs are acceptable.
i In addition to the changes to Curves B and C on TS Figure 3.4.6.1-1, the reference to NED0-21778-A in Figure 3.4.6.1-1 and in Bases 3/4.4.6 would be deleted because Appendix G to 10 CFR 50 supersedes NE00-21778-A as a basis for Curve C.
Another change to the Bases is to delete the statement "as well as adjustments for possible errors in the pressure and temperature sensing instruments" because errors in RPV pressure and temperature measure-ments were not included in the calculation of limit curves A', B', and C'.
The staff agrees with the deletion of NED0-21778-A and reference to measure-ment errors for the reasons stated above.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no signiff-cant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative i
occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards con-sideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the elicibility criteria for categorical exclusion setforthin10CFR51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environ-mental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in 1
connection with the issuance of this amendment.
I
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Reoister(52FR5863)onFebruary 26, 1987, and consulted with the state of Mississippi. No public consents were received, and the state of Mississippi did not have any comments.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1)thereisreasonableassurancethatthehealthandsafetyofthe public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's reculations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the coEmon defense and the security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Felix Litton, Engineering Branch, DBL Dated: March 31, 1987 J
e
-. - -, - - -