ML20246P385
| ML20246P385 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246P383 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8909110103 | |
| Download: ML20246P385 (4) | |
Text
- - _ _ _ _
pp h(
o UNITED STATES g
e n
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.{
WASHINGTON, o. C. 20555
...../
SAFETY. EVALUATION.BY.THE.0FFICE.0F NUCLEAR. REACTOR. REGULATION l-SUPPORTING. AMENDMENT.WO.63... TO. FACILITY.0PERATING LICENSE.NO..NPF-29 SYSTEN. ENERGY RESQURCES. INC.
GRAND. GULF NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET.NO. 50-416 1.0 INVAODUCTION By letter dated December 2,1988, System Energy Resources, Inc. (SERI or 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 Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.9.6.3, " Fuel Handling Platform,"'by adding surveillance requirements for a second auxiliary hoist and by changing the name of the original " auxiliary hoist" to monorail auxiliary hoist. This new hoist would be used for handling control rods in the spent fuel pool. The FHP monorail auxiliary hoist surveillance requirements in the present TS ensure that the monorail auxiliary hoist has sufficient load capacity and the' appropriate load override switch setpoint for handling fuel assemblies cr control rods..
The proposed surveillance requirements will ensure that the new auxiliary hoist has sufficient. load capacity for handling control rods.
The fuel handling platform (FHP) inside the auxiliary building is used to handle fuel assemblies and control rods in the spent fuel pool. The new auxiliary hoist would facilitate placing control rods (CR) in the control rod rack of the spent fuel pool.
During refueling, the main hoist cast on the FHP is tooled for movement of fuel assemblies only. Because the control rod grapple is not compatible with the main hoist mast, only the monorail auxiliary hoist is available for handling contrni rods. However, the area of the spent fuel pool containing the CR rack is normally inaccessible to the monorail auxiliary hoist. To access the CR rack, the bridge-rail stops must be relocated, the main mast must be stowed, and the bridge-forward limit switch must be jumpered. This is a particular burden on outage schedules, which require repetitive fuel handling followed by CR handling. With the proposed addition cf a new auxiliary hoist on the FHP, the above actions are not needed to move a control rod in this area. This will allow the rail storG, the limit switches and the appropriate refueling tools to remain in place.
The refueling platform (RP) inside containment is used to handle fuel assemblies and control rods over the reactor and upper containment pool.
The RP has an auxiliary hoist, main hoist and monorail auxiliary hoist.
With the addition of the new auxiliary hoist to the FHP, the FHP will have the same lifting capability as the RP.
8909110103 890831 FDR ADOCK 05000416 P
, 2.0 EVALUATION The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's December 2, 1988 submittal.
The FHP was manufactured by the vendor who manufactured the RP and has a structural design similar to that for the RP. The proposed auxiliary hoist for the FHP was manufactured by the same vendor and has the same design as the RP auxiliary hoist. The only significant difference between the RP and FHP is that interlocks on the RP prevent unsafe operation over the reactor pressure vessel during control rod movements.
The FHP is seismic Category 1 and will remain in this Category with the acdition of the auxiliary hoist.
The proposed aux 111ary hoist for the FHP will not be used to lift more than 550 pounds except during a load test. A load monitor disables upward hoist travel on all speeds for loads greater than 550 pounds.
The load monitor is demonstrated operable 7 dan prior to moving control rods or other equipment by means of the FHP. The load monitor has no bypasses.
The FHP operator will be provided with a visual indication of the weight of the load lifted with the proposed auxiliary hoist. The proposed auxiliary hoist on the FHP will not lif t spent or new fuel.
The proposed amendment would make the FHP surveillance requirements in TS 4.9.6.3.1.d applicable to the new auxiliary hoist, as well as the existing monorail auxiliary hoist, with the exception of a load override switch, which is not included on the new hoist because it will not handle loads greater than 550 pounds. The amendment adds the word " monorail" to the name of the existing auxiliary hoist to distinguish it from the new auxiliary hoist.
The proposed amendment also adds the word " monorail" to the name of the auxiliary hoist in TS 4.9.6.3.1.e.
This is necessary since only the monorail auxiliary hoist has a load override switch with a 1000 pound position.
Therefore, only the monorail auxiliary hoist should have the redundant overload cutoffs verified in the 1000 pound position.
The proposed amendment also adds the word " monorail" to TS 4.9.6.3.2 to ensure that the load override switch is verified in the 500 pound position for the monorail auxiliary hoist, except when engaged in new fuel movement.
This addition is necessary because the load override switch shculd be in the lower load override position to provide the maximum load drop accident protection, except when the 1000 pound position is used for new fuel movement.
The licensee has analyzed a load drop accident for the new auxiliary hoist.
The probability for such an accicent is the same as the probability for handling these loads with the auxiliary hoist on the RP, because the design, manufacture and installation of the new auxiliary hoist on the FHP will be the same as the design, manufacture and installation of the existing auxiliary hoist on the RP.
The consequences of a load drop from the new FHP auxiliary hoist are the same as the consequences of a load crop from the RP auxiliary
)
" hoist, because the load l' is the same (550 pounds) and the limiting load height (42 feet) is t. same. Therefore, load drop consequences are bounded by the consequences of the previously analyzed non-fuel load drop from the existing auxiliary hoist.
The new auxiliary hoist would eliminate the need for the removal of the bridge-rail stops and the jumpering of the bridge-forward limit switch to gain access to the control rod rack.
The new hoist would thus reduce the potential for a mishap occurring during handling of control rods in the control rod rack area of the soent fuel pool.
Based on its review of the licensee's submittal, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed TS change is acceptable because the consequences of the load drop accident are bounded by the consequences of the existing auxiliary hoist accident analysis, the new auxiliary hoist design is the same as the existing auxiliary hoist design, and the new hoist would reduce the potential for mishaps in placing control rods in the spent fuel pool CR rack.
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 and changes the surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant incre we in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any efflue i, that may be released off site; and that there is no significant increase 14 indivi-dual or cumulative occupational radiation exposurre. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that' this arrandment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has teen no public comment 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 ov environmental assess-ment need be prepared in connection with the issuance cf this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSI0_N The Commission made a proposed determination that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, which was published in the Federal Register (54 FR 5169) on February 1,1989, and consultea with the State of Elsr,issippi.
No public comments or requests for hearing were receiveo, and the State of Mississippi did not have any comments.
l
.1 !
g
(.
(. = -
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the ublic will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and
~
p(2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and the security, or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contr'ibutor:
H. O. Christensen Dated:
August 31, 1989 I.
hh_
-_---____-.__._-_m-_m_-_-__
_