ML20237C174
| ML20237C174 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237C165 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712210097 | |
| Download: ML20237C174 (7) | |
Text
"
/
p ua uq[9, UNITED STATES
[
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7,
j W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20$b6
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
39 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 October 9, 1987, System Energy Resources, Inc.,
requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-29 for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
The proposed amendment would change the Technical Specifications (TS) to reflect two new fuel types being added to the core and one fuel type being removed from the core during the fuel reload for Cycle 3.
In addition, the average planar fuel exposure limit would be increased from 25,000 megawatt days per short ton (MWD /ST) to 28,500 MWD /ST. Administrative changes would be made to reflect the fuel reload and to correct an error in TS Figure 3.2.1-1.
In support of the proposed amendment, the licensee enclosed a summary reload report (Reference 1) and two technical reports by Advanced Nuclear Fuels (ANF)
(References 2 and 3). The NRC staff has reviewed these documents and 4
prepared the following evaluation.
The reload fuel assemblies are supplied by the Advanced Nuclear Fuels
)
(ANF) Corporation, previously known as the Exxon Nuclear Compan (ENC).
The fuel cycle 3 core would consist of 248 General Electric (GE Company j
fuel assemblies from the initial core loading, 264 ANF fuel assemblies from the first refueling and 288 ANF fuel assemblies from this refueling.
Of the 288 new fuel assemblies added in this reload, 204 assemblies would contain 6 Gadolinium oxide nuclear poison rods and 84 assemblies would contain 8 poison rods.
l 2.0 EVALUATION l
l For Cycle 3, the licensee plans to continue the process, that was begun for Cycle 2, of substituting ANF designed fuel assemblies for the GE I
designed fuel. The ANF fuel to be used for Cycle 3 is mechanically identical to that used for Cycle 2 and is similar to the renmining GE fuel. Compatibility of the fuels was addressed in the Cycle 2 reload j
analysis and the conclusion of that analysis is still valid.
ohik 97 gptgaCt een J
P I
l The fuel mechanical design analysis, core thermal hydraulic analysis and nuclear design analysis were performed by methods previously used and approved (especially for Cycle 2). The results of these analyses show that no change in the TS is required except that maximum average planar linear heat generation rate (MAPLHGR) curves must be provided for the two fuel assembly types introduced in Cycle 3.
The POWERPLEX core monitoring system, which was approved for use in Cycle 2, will continue to be used in Cycle 3.
The limiting core-wide anticipated operational occurrences of Cycle 2 were reanalyzed to confinn that the plant operating minimum critical power ratio (MCPR) values of Cycle 2 were bounding. The control rod withdrawal error transient was examined to confirm that the results of the approved generic analysis were acceptable.
I Reduced flow and power operations were examined to confirm that the Cycle 2 flow and power dependent multipliers for MCPR and MAPLHGR are still applicable for Cycle 3.
For single loop operation, analysis supports the use of a maximum average planar exposure of 28,500 MWD /ST. The loss-of-coolant and rod ejection events were examined to confirm that applicable fuel limits are not exceeded. MAPLHGR values for the two new fuel types were obtained from the loss-of-coolant accident analysis. These evaluations were performed by previously approved methods and are acceptable.
In Figure 3.6.1-3, the limiting MAPLHGR factor for power greater than 70%
is incorrectly drawn at 0.84 instead of 0.86.
Redrawing the limiting line at 0.86 is, therefore, acceptable.
The staff has reviewed the proposed changes to the TS that are proposed for operation of Cycle 3 and concludes that they are consistent with the analyses and are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment changes 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 significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released off site; and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation j
exposure. The Coninission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public coninent on such finding. Accordingly, this 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 this amendment.
l
\\
,,. ' N
, l
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission made a proposed determination that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, which was published in the Federal l
Register (52 FR 42365) on November 4, 1987, and consulted with the State of Mississippi.
No public coments or requests for hearing were received, and the State of Mississippi 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 l
public will not be endangered by the operation in the proposed manner, and i
(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, or to the health and safety of the public.
1
References:
1.
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Cycle 3 Reload Sumary Report, August 1987.
2.
Report ANF-87-67, Rev. 1. Grand Gulf Unit 1 Cycle 3 Reload Analysis, August 1987.
3.
Report ANF-87-66, Rev.1, Grand Gulf Unit 1 Cycle 3 Plant Transient Analysis, August 1987.
1 Principal Contributor:
'W. Brooks Dated: December 15, 1987
- <-g.
s.. -
AMENDMENT NO. 39 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF GRAND GULF, UNIT 1 DISTRIBUTION:
. ED6chetMZ60416Nr l.
NRC PDR'. ~' """
l Local PDR-PD21 r/f S..Varga; G. Lainas P.~ Anderson s
L. Kintner OGC-B D. Hagan E. Jordan J. Partlow T.Barnhart(4)
-Wanda Jones E. Butcher W. Brooks-l ACRS (10)
GPA/PA ARM /LFMB l.
i i
_ - _ = = _ _ _ _ - - - _ _--