ML20034C651
| ML20034C651 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034C650 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9005040282 | |
| Download: ML20034C651 (4) | |
Text
,
-.(
a' o
UMTED STATES -
1 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION m
f.'
5
,[
W ASHINGToN, D. C. 20665 SAFETY EVALUATION B7 THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 1
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 67
.TO FACILITY ~0PERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-29 L
. SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 D_0CKET NO. 50-416
1.0 INTRODUCTION
i By letter dated June 30, 1988, as supplemented by letter dated February 19,'1990,- 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 (GGNS-1).
The proposed amendment would change the Technical-Specifications'(TS) by increa' sing.the surveillance test l
intervals (STIs) and allowable out-of-service times (A0Ts) for the reactor protection system (RPS).
These changes are based upon the BWR Owners Group (BWROG) Topical Report NEDC-30851P, '_' Technical Specification Improvement Analysis for BWR Reactor Protection System," dated May 31, 1985, which_ provided a safety analysis for increased surveillance test intervals for RPS instrumentation on'a generic basis.
The NRC staff reviewed'NEDC-30851P and issued a Safety Evaluation (SE) on July 15, 1987.
approving the report and providing model TS: changes.
The staff's SE was incorporated.into the approved version of the topical report, NEDC-30851P-A, issued April 4, 1988.
The staff's generic SE stated that plant specific application ~ of the generic results would require comparison of the plant; specific design-with the generic design to show that NEDC-30851P-A_is applicable.
The licensee's submittal, dated June 30, 1988, included the General Electric Company (GE) Report MDE-80-0485, dated April 1985, which compared GGNS-1 RPS design with that used iii NE00-30851-P.
The submittal also provided SERI's response to the plant specific conditions required to'be met by the staff's generic SE.
The supplemental information submitted by the licensee's letter dated-February 19, 1990, provided supplemental data regarding the drift of RPS instrumentation.
The proposed TS were not changed.
This suomittaltdid not alter the action previously noticed or affect the: initial determination published in the Federal Register-on August l',1988 (53 FR 28927).
90050%Ifb N.I PDR P
s
....?
2-4
- 2. 0 EVALUATION The NRC staff.has reviewed the licensee's June 30, 1988 and February 19, 1990 submittals.
The proposed TS changes reflect-those standard TS i
revisions contained in NE00-30851P-A which, based'upon probabilistic analyses, justify the identified time extensions by reducing the potential-i for:
(1) unnecessary plant scrams; (2) excessive equipment test cycles; and (3) diversion of personnel 'and resources to conduct unnecessary testing.
The licensee has extended the generic analysis' completed by the BWR Owners Group to GGNS-1 by having General Electric Company complete the required plant specific analysis.
As stated in the NRC's SE for Licensing Topical Report NEDC-30851P-A, three conditions must'be addressed:to justify.the applicability cf the generic analysi_s to individual plants when specific.
t facility TS ar, considered for revision.
1 l
1.
Confirm the' applicability of the ' generic analysis to the specific facility.
Licensing Topical Report NEOC-30851P-A,-Appendix L, identifies the:
licensee as a participating utility in the development of the RPS~
TS improvement analysis.
Section 7.4 specii'ies that although "the
.i evaluation found various differences between-the RPS configuration of various plants and the generic plant....the generic results can be -
applied to plants is the BWROG Technical Specifications Improvement i
i Program." Therefcre, the generic analysis contained within the-I referenced report is applicable to GGNS ',
1 2.
Demonstrate that the drift characteristics for RPS' channel instrumentation are bounded by the assumptions used.in NEDC-30851P-A when the functional test interval is extended.from monthly to quarterly.
4 The additional time interval between tests-resulting from the changes described in NEDC-30851P-A, and requested in this-submittal, is' already factored into the instrument setpoint calculations for the affected-instruments.
As stated in the Bases to GGNS-1 TS 2.2.1, the difference between each RPS instrument trip setpoint and the allowable value'is equal to or. greater than the drift allowance: assumed.for each trip in the plant safety analyses.
The setpoint calculations conservatively assume an eighteen month calibration interval,and the drift based upon vendor supplied values asscciated with that interval with no 1
credit taken for the currently specified 31 day functional test.
This assumption in the setpoint calculations, therefore, bounds any.
drift which could be expected over the 92 day functional test interval proposed.
By letter dated February 19, 1990, the licensee provided 7
data from surveillance tests at GGNS-1 for a representative sample i
of RPS instrumentation and demonstrated that instrumentation drift' characteristics are bounded for the proposed surveillance test interval. Accordingly, revised instrument'setpoints or allowable values are not required to accommodate the longer test intervals requested.
- j i
,,,f...
' p.
3.
Confirm that the differences'between the parts of the RPS that.
~
perform the trip functions in the plant and those of the base case plant were included in the specific analysis done using.the.
procedures of Appendix K to NEDC-30851P-A.-
In the GE report NEDC-30851P-AL " Technical Specification Improvement Analysis for the Reactor Protection System for GGNS-1," dated April 1985, the generic study completed in Licensing Topical Report -
NEDC-30851P-A for modifying:the RPS was extended.to GGNS-1.
The GE report utilizes the' procedures of Licensing Topical Report..
l NEDC-30851P-A,' Appendix K, to identify and evaluate'the differences between the parts of-RPS that perform the trip functions at GGNS and those of the base case plant.
The results indicate.that while I
the RPS configuration for!GGNS-1 has 'several differences compared to the configuration in the base case, the differences and their impact do not significantly affect ~the applicability of the TS changes developed by the generic efforts of Licensing Topical Report l
SERI has reviewed the plant specific report for GGNS'(NEDC-30851P-.A) l and has verified that the differences between the GGNS-1 RPS'at:the-time the analysis was made'and-the generic.RPS'were included in the 1
plant specific analysis.
Since the plant specific analysis was done
+
(April 1985), the only RPS changes which have, occurred make GGNS-1.
kkS closer to the generic plant.
Therefore, the conclusions reached in NEDC-30851P-A apply to GGNS-1 and the plant-specific changes contained in this request are bounded by both the generic analysis-and the NRC's generic safety evaluation.
Based on the staff's evaluation of the-licensee's submittal, the staff finds that GGNS-1 has met the plant specific conditions needed to apply the results of GE's Topical Report NEDC-30851P-A to the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, 51.32, and 51.35, an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact has been prepared and published in the Federal Reaister on March 16, 1989 (54 FR 11092).
Accordingly, based-
~,
upon the environmental assessment,-the Commission has determined that the issuance of this amendment will not have a significant effect~on the quality of the human environment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that.this amendment involves.
no significant hazards consideration, which was published in the Federal Register on August 1, 1988 (53 FR 28927), and consulted with the State of Mississippi.
No public comments or request for hearing with the were received, and the State of Mississippi had no comments.
.. -,,.... - - -... - - ~ -
- ~ * " ' '
7
- 4. 4 -
s g..e
.l 4
i The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:.(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the i
public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (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 i
common defense.and security, or.to' the health and safety of the public.
l Principal Contributor:
L. L.-Kintner L
l Dated: April 24, 1990-J t
r
$ +
4
?
i e
l l
4
,I i
l^
L 4
4 s
B f
i
-c.9
--.,.v--
-,