ML20210C339

Safety Evaluation Accepting Licensee 870129 Proposed Solution to Concern Re Control of Activities within Exclusion Areas

ML20210C339
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	04/30/1987
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20210C327	List: ML20210C324 ML20210C339
References
TAC-62754, TAC-62755, NUDOCS 8705060162
Download: ML20210C339 (3)

Text

u_ : n.

== --

== := :=.

!~

ret UNITED STATES 8

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

_g j

wAsmNGTON, D. C. 20555

\\*.**/

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION MISSISSIPPI POWER A LIGHT COMPANY j

SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES. INC.

SOUTH MISSISSIPPI ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION i

GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-416 AND 50-417

1.0 INTRODUCTION

^

On December 20, 1986, the NRC issued amendments to the GGNS Unit 1 operating license and the GGNS Unit 2 construction permit authorizing transfer of control and responsibility for licensed activities from Mississippi Power & Light I

Company (MP&L) to System Energy Resources Inc. (SERI).

In the course of l

processing the applications to amend the licenses, the NRC staff discovered some errors and inconsistencies within the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) l regarding the description of ownership of property and mineral rights within I

the exclusion areas for GGNS Units 1 and 2.

By letter dated December 2,1986, MP&L advised that the licensees, MP&L, SERI and South Mississippi Electric Power Association (SMEPA) owned substantial, but not all of the mineral rights -

l in the exclusion areas. The NRC staff expressed concerns that the licensees may not be able to control activities within the exclusion areas as required in 10 CFR Part 100. The licensees requested an interim exemption to 10 CFR Part 100 and the NRC staff granted the exemption until April 30, 1987, pending receipt and review of the licensees' proposed long term solution.

By letter dated January 29, 1987, SERI submitted a description of the history i

of the site ownership, easements, mineral rights and exclusion area control for GGNS. The submittal also provided the results of the licensee's review i

and conclusions regarding its ability to control activities within the exclusion areas. This evaluation provides the results of the staff's review and i

conclusions regarding this matter.

I 2.0 EVALUATION The staff has reviewed the January 29, 1987, submittal and notes that the licensees have taken a number of steps towards clarifying their ownership i

status and enhancing their ability to control all activities within the

]

exclusion area. Specifically, the staff's review indicates the following:

a.

Surface Ownership The GGNS exclusion area surface is defined as an area whose boundary is i

at a minimum distance of about 2,280 feet from the centerlines of the j

Unit I and Unit 2 containment buildings. Within this area, as of I

8705060162 870430 j

PDR ADOCK 05000416 P

PDR

7_

1_ T ~

~

~ ~~~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~^

i

]

i

l l

t 4-June 21, 1977, MP&L owns the surface rights to the switchyard area (about i

j.

52 acres). Adjoining the switchyard area is a 94 acre tract of land l

referred to as the power block area. This area, as of October 1980, is l

I co-owned by SERI (90%) and SMEPA (10%). The remainder of the exclusion 1

area surface (approximately 338 acres) is owned in its entirety by.SERI.

In a Memorandum of Understanding between MP&L and SERI dated December 1, 1986, SERI was granted an easement in and over the switchyard area. This written agreement was made effective at the time that the Operating License for Unit I and the Construction Permit for Unit 2 were amended i

to substitute SERI for MF&L as the operator and constructor of GGNS.

In conjunction with SMEPA's acquisition of 10% ownership within the powerblock area, it has also acquired 10% ownership in two long, narrow tracts of land (about 7.5 and 5 acres, respectively) on which the plant's j

water supply and discharge piping is located. Also, SMEPA has acquired easement rights on the exclusion area surface owned by SERI, surrounding 4

the powerblock area and in the switchyard area owned by MP&L.

j MP&L also has an easement which is located, in part, within the exclusion area for transmission line purposes.

Claiborne County also maintains an easement or right of way with respect to a public road which traverses the southern portion of the exclusion i

area. As indicated in the GGNS Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR),

j arrangements have been made for control of traffic on the county road, f

b.

Mineral Rights There are some areas within the exclusion boundary with mineral rights ownership, in part, by parties other than the licensees. Approximately 76 acres within the exclusion area fall inte this category.

i As of 1974, SERI has owned 50% of the mineral rights to the Arnold track I

(13 acres) and the Hamilton tract (36 acres), and 25% of the mineral rights to the Nelson tract (Callender portica, 26 acres). As of January 1

15, 1987, SERI acquired additional mineral ownership rights within the exclusion boundary. Specifically, they increased their mineral rights I

ownership from 12.5% to 87.5% with respect to the Glodjo Track (1 acre),).

I and from 6.25% to 81.25% for the Nelson tract (White portion. 0.01 acres SERI also increased its mineral rights ownership from 50% to 100% for the j

Trimble tract (338 acres) as of January 15, 1987.

In sumary, the cumula-tive mineral interests owned or controlled by the licensees are about 42%

with respect to those portions of the exclusion area (about 18.3% of the l

total exclusion area) which are owned in part, by parties other than the licensees. With respect to the exclusion area as a whole, this amounts to about 89% ownership of the mineral rights by the licensees.

Our review of the licensees' compliance with 10 CFR Part 100 is in terms of 1

their ability to control activities within the exclusion area and the potential for creating hazardous conditions with respect to the Grand Gulf facility in the event of mineral exploration and extraction activities.

l

. As indicated above, the licensees have full ownership of the surface rights through ownership, easements, and agreements. Hence, the licensees have sufficient authority to control activities within the exclusion area in tems of controlling the ingress and egress of people, as well as in the removal of people in the event of an emergency.

With respect to mineral rights, the licensees have substantial ownership or control of those portions of the exclusion area which are owned, in part, by others. As indicated by the licensees, Mississippi law prohibits mineral owners and lessees from using physical force or creating a public disturbance to gain access to property for mineral exploration or extraction.

Furthermore, the licensees indicate that Mississippi law requires that a permit be obtained prior to drilling for oil or gas. This permit is granted by the State Oil and Gas Board, following a public hearing. The licensees have also submitted information regarding the potential for mineral exploration in the area. This information, based in part on the existing record of exploration to date, indi-cates that the potential for successful oil or gas extraction in the vicinity of the Grand Gulf site is very low.

In view of the above, we find that there is very little potential for creating conditions wherein the licensees would not have sufficient control of activities within the exclusion area which may stem from mineral rights ownership by other parties, and which could pose a hazard to the safe operation of the Grand Gulf facility.

3.0 CONCLUSION

On the basis of the above evaluation, we find that the licensees have demonstrated that they have sufficient control over the activities within the exclusion area for the Grand Gulf Units 1 and 2.

This finding is based on the licensees' ownership, easements and agreements with respect to the surface rights, as well as the substantial ownership of the mineral rights within the exclusion area. We find that the licensees' surface and mineral rights are such that they have sufficient control over the activities within the exclusion area. We also find that there is reasonable assurance that the likelihood for creating hazardous conditions through mineral exploration, especially ones that are beyond the licensees' control, is negligible. Hence, we find that the licensees meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 100 with respect to their ability to control the activities within the exclusion area.

_