ML20076C722
| ML20076C722 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20076C720 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-90-09, GL-90-9, NUDOCS 9107240106 | |
| Download: ML20076C722 (2) | |
Text
j p nog'o, 2.
.? 4.
i UNITED STATES 3 :.1 > ". t h [i r
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
WASHINoToN. D.C. 20666 g o. f
....+
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 78 TO ~ FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-29 ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC., ET AL.
GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-416
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 10, 1991 Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee) sub-mitted a request for changes to the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1 (GGNS),
Technical Specifications (TS). The requested chat,9es would alter TS 4.7.4
-Surveillance Requirements and associated TS Bases to ' incorporate snubber population size as a factor in determining the time interval between snubber
' visua l inspections. The changes requested are consistent with Generic Letter-90-09,." Alternative Requirements for Snubber Visual Inspection Intervals and Corrective Actions" dated December 11, 1990, with the exception of the proposed Bases changes and the deletion of references to snubbers connected to common-hydraulic fluid reservoirs. The staff recommended, and licensee agreed to
-editorial changes in the proposed surveillance requirement for clarification and correction of grammatical errors.
.By letter' dated June 17, 1991, the licensee revised its application by with-drawing the-requested Bases changes. This action did not significantly alter the action previously noticed or affect the description of the action published in the Federal Register on May if, 1991 (56 FR 22468).
2.0 EVALUATION The snubber visual inspection intervals in the existing TS Table 4.7.4-1 are -
based on the number of inoperable snubbers found during the visual inspections L
irrespective of the total population of snubbers. As a result, plants such as GGNS with a'large snubber population have visual inspection intervals which are i
unnecessarily short. The purpose of the alternative visual inspection intervals recommended in Generic Letter 90-09 is to allow the licensee to perform visual inspections and corrective actions during plant outages without reduction of the confidence level provided by the existing visual inspection schedule. The basic. inspection interval is the normal fuel cycle up to E4 months. This interval may be extended to as long as twice the fuel cycle or reduced to as small as two-thirds of the fuel cycle depending on the number of unacceptable snubbers found during the visual inspection. The inspection interval may vary
{-
by 25 percent to coincide with the actual outage.
I In the event one or more snubbers are found inoperable during a visual inspec-tion, the Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO) in the present TS require the licensee to restore or replace the inoperable snubber (s) to operable status 9107240106 910708 j.
PDR ADOCK 050 6
t
. within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> or declare the attached system inoperable and follow the appro-priate action statement for that system. This LC0 will remain in the TS, how-ever the visual inspection interval resulting from the number of inoperable snubbers will now be determined in accordance with the new visual inspection schedule recomended in Generic Letter 90-09. Certain corrective actions may have to be performed depeading on the number of inoperable snubbers found.
All requirements for corrective actions and evaluations associated with the use of the visual inspection intervals recommended-in Generic Letter 90-09 are included in footnotes 1 thru 6 of the proposed TS Table 4.7.4-1.
The licensee has proposed changes to Specification 4.7.4 that are consistent with the guida me provided in Generic letter 90-09 for the replacement of the snubber visual inspection schedule with the exception of the deletion of all references to common hydraulic reservoirs.
This exception is acceptable because the licensee has stated thera are no snubbers utilizing a common reservoir in GGNS. Accordingly, the proposed TS changes are acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance wiH the Commission's regulations, the Mississippi State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has detennined that the amendment involves no signifi-cant 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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public coninent on such finding (56 FR 22468).
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFP 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assess-ment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or io the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
J. Rajan, EMEB/DET R. Twigg, NRR/PD4-1 Date: July 8, 1991
.