ML20080J157
| ML20080J157 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080J153 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9502270139 | |
| Download: ML20080J157 (3) | |
Text
4 s @ *fG%
ye
'4 UNITED STATES x
j j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055M001 A...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION D
RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.115 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-29 ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.. ET AL.
GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET N0. 50-416
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 21, 1993, the licensee (Entergy Operations, Inc.),
j submitted a request for changes to the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (GGNS) Technical Specifications (TSs). The requested amendment revises Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.1.3.1.2 for control rod testing to increase the " notch testing" surveillance interval for partially withdrawn control rods from once per 7 days to once per 31 days.
The change is consistent with the format and content of the Improved Standard Technical Specifications (NUREG-1434, Revision 0).
j 2.0 EVALUATION SR 4.1.3.1.2 requires the following:
1 When above the low power setpoint of the Rod Pattern Control Systeht (RPCS), all withdrawn control rods not required to have their directional control valves disarmed electrically or hydraulically shall be demonstrated OPERABLE by moving eaci, control rod at least one notch:
a.
At least once per 7 days, and The proposed change replaces SR 4.1.3.1.2.a with the following:
At least once per 7 days # for and at least once per 31 days"each fully withdrawn control rod, a.
for each partially withdrawn control rod, and I
A footnote, shown below, applicable to SR 4.1.3.1.2 is added to clarify the applicability of this requirement:
Not required to be performed until 7 days (for fully withdrawn) or 31 days (for partially withdrawn) after the control rod is J
withdrawn and the THERMAL POWER ls greater than the low power setpoint.
9502270139 950216 PDR ADOCK 05000416 P
.. i control rod insertion capability is demonstrated by inserting each partially or fully withdrawn control rod at least one notch and observing that the j
control rod moves. The control rod may then be returned to its original t
position. This ensures the control rod is not stuck and is free to insert on a scram signal. These surveillances are not required when THERMAL POWER is less than or equal to the actual low power catpoint (LPSP) of the rod pattern j
controller (RPC) since the actch insertions may not be compatible with the requirements of the banked position-withdrawal sequence (BPWS) (limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.1.6) and the RPC (LC0 3.3.2.1).
The 7-day frequency of SR 3.1.3.2 is based on operating experience related to the r
changes in control rod drive (CRD) performance and the ease of parforming notch testing for fully withdrawn control rods.
Partially withdrawn control i
rods are tested at a 31-day frequency, based on the potential power reduction required to allow the control rod movement, and considering the large testing sample of SR 3.1.3.2.
Furthermore, the 31-day frequency takes into account operating experience related to changes in CRD performance. At any time, if a control rod is immovable, a determination of that control rod's trippability (OPERABILITY) must be made and appropriate action taken.
The above less restrictive requirements have been reviewed by the staff and have been found to be acceptable. The changes do not present a significant safety question in the operation of the plant because (1) At full power a large part of control rods (typically 80 - 90%) are fully withdrawn and will continue to be exercised each week. This is a significant sample size when looking for an unexpected random event, (2) The TSs will continue to require that a representative sample of all 0PERABLE control rods be scram time tested whether inserted, or partially withdrawn (CTS 4.1.3.2.c, ITS 3.1.4.2), and (3) Operating experience has shown stuck control rods to be an extremely rare event while operating.
The TS requirements that remain are consistent with current licensing practices, operating experience and plant accident and transient analyses, and provide reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will be protected.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Comm ksion's regulations, the Mississippi State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State i
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 and changes surveillance requirements. The NRC 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 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 comment on such finding
(58 FR 28055). Accordingly, the 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 the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
i 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 i
activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, I
and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
Paul W. O'Connor Date: February 16, 1995 I
l w
n
.,.