ML20236X504
| ML20236X504 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 12/02/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236X499 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712090248 | |
| Download: ML20236X504 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
j UNITED STATES 3"-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
37 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-29 MISSISSIPPI POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
SOUTH MISSISSIPPI ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION i
GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-416
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Regulatory Guide (R.G.) 1.97, " Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant and Environs Conditions During and Following an Accident," recommends that Category 2 standby liquid control system (SLCS) flow monitoring instrumentation and Category.I neutron flux monitoring instrumentation be installed for monitoring post-accident conditions. The present Attachment i for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Operating License specifies that the R.G.1.97 recommendations for SLCS flow monitoring and neutron flux monitoring systems be implemented prior to startup following the second refueling outage.
By "AECM-87-0018, Application for Amend to License NPF-29,changing OL Condition 2.C(36) & Reg Guide 1.97 to Delete [[system" contains a listed "[" character as part of the property label and has therefore been classified as invalid. Sys Flow Monitoring Requirement & Extend Implementation Date for Neutron Flux Monitoring.Fee Paid|letter dated July 1, 1987]], as revised August 4, 1987, System Energy Resources, Inc. (the licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-29 for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
The proposed amendment would change the requirements in License Condition 2.C.(36) (Attachment 1) by deleting the requirement for post-accident flow monitoring instrumentation in the SLCS and extending the implementation date for neutron flux monitoring instrumentation from the second refueling outage to the third refueling outage.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee's request that the requirement to install SCLS flow monitoring instrumentation by startup following the second refueling outage be deleted is based on its conclusion that the R.G. 1.97 recommendations for monitoring of SLCS flow are met by the use of alternative instrumentation.
In the licensee's statements of conformance to R.G. 1.97, transmitted by letter dated February 28, 1985, the licensee stated that the reactor operator can verify SLCS pump operation by use of operating indicrator lights and by a decrease in the SLCS storage 8712090248 871202 PDR ADDCK 05000416 P
ppg
- L tank. level. Other parameters that can be monitored to verify SLCS operation include squib valve position, SLCS tank outlet valve position and neutron flux.
In the staff's safety evaluation of-the licensee's conformance to R.G. 1.97, issued January 12, 1987, the staff concluded that use of alternative instrumentation proposed by' the licensee for SLCS flow monitoring was acceptable to verify SLCS operation following an accident. Accordingly,.the staff concludes that deletion of the license condition requirement for post-accident flow monitoring in the SLCS is acceptable.
The licensee's request for a delay in the implementation of a Category 1 neutron flux monitoring system until startup following the. third-refueling outage is based on its inability to procure and install a qualified system during the second refueling outage. The licensee states that while some industry advances have been realized in the area of neutron flux monitoring system development, overall development has not progressed enough'to allow the evaluation, procurement, and installation of a Category 1 system in the time frame allowed by the license condition. The licensee has committed to follow the industry development of Category 1 neutron flux monitoring instrumentation and to either implement a system that would comply with Category 1 requirements or upgrade the present s The licensee is a participant in the BWR Owners Group (BWROG) ystem.R.G. 1.97 Neutron Flux Monitoring Subcommittee, which is presently evaluating these requirements. A licensing topical report is being prepared to reconnend a post-accident BWR neutron flux monitoring system design. The licensee will use the results of the BWROG effort in the evaluation of a new system for GGNS Unit 1, or for the upgrading of the present system. The licensee states that an anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) is the only accident for which GGNS Emergency procedures require verification of reactor shutdown by a neutron flux monitor. Since an ATWS does not result in harsh environmental conditions in the dry well, the present neutron flux monitoring system is expected to be capable of verifying reactor shutdown for an ATWS.
For accidents in which a scram of control rods occurs, shutdown status is available through the control rod position indication system, which meets R.G. 1.97 requirements.
The staff has been infonned that industry has developed wide range neutron flux monitoring systems that satisfy the criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.97.
However, the staff agrees with the licensee's conclusion that. these newly developed systems cannot be evaluated, processed, and installed during the second refueling outage which started November 6, 1987. Therefore, the staff concludes that the licensee should evaluate these newly developed systems and install neutron flux monitoring instrumentation that fully conforms to the recommendations of R.G. 1.97 by the third refueling outage. The staff also concludes that the existing neutron flux instrumentation installed in GGNS Unit 1 is acceptable for operation during the third fuel cycle because the present neutron flux monitoring system can be used to verify shutdown status for an ATWS and control rod position indication can be used for other accidents. Accordingly, the change in the license condition to delay the implementation of a R.G.1.97 Category, neutron flux monitoring system until startup following the third refueling outage is acceptable.
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 detennined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public coment on such finding.
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusionsetforthin10CFR51.22(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 this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission made a proposed determination that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, which was published in the Federal Register (52 FR32205) on August 26, 1987, and consulted with the State of Mississippi.
No public coments or requests for hearing were received and the State of Mississppi did not have any coments.
The staff 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and the security nor to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
B. Marcus Dated:
December 2,1987 1
l b
J