Text

Application for Amend to License NPF-29,changing Tech Spec 4.8.4.3a, Electrical Power Sys,Reactor Protection Sys Electrical Power Monitoring,Surveillance Requirements
	ML20082T466
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	09/11/1991
From:	Cottle W; ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
To:	; NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20082T468	List: ML20082T466; ML20082T470;
References
	GNRO-91-00154, GNRO-91-154, NUDOCS 9109180268
	Download: ML20082T466 (8)
	v • d • e

_ ______ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I$$t[hh b w , fu

[3N- [q%.s iI t

^ '

N$4'd Enl:tp Operati:ns,Inc.

c CJh .M)?ENTERGY/ fy - ra m N !G4! u hG 33150 i A J.3 2 --

y gyp gg .

.. .; -~ -

N 3

1--js : W. T. C otuc 1 -

,9 ne mvkx

$hh n

~heWOC

Septeinber - 11, 1991- G- w o e *n Y

'r

U.S.INuclearRegulatoryCommission Mail; Station P1-137

+

. Panhington, D.G. l 205;.1 n

- tAttentiont Document Control Desk

[-

Subject:

Grand Gulf Nuclear Stat ion -

^ Unit-1: .

Docket No.-50-416 _

+

License No. NPP-29 Impicmentation of Generic Lettst 91-09, "Hodification of i Surveillance interval for the Electrical Prctoctive 7 '

LAssemblies Jn Pownt Supplies for the Reactor Proteciisu E Sys t em , ,

Propoend Amendment to thn Operating 1.icense (PCOL-91/21)

'p ,

j- GNRO-M/001!4"

, TGent19menf w

j Erterg; Opeistims. fine.Jin submitting by thf 4 Intter a proposed

amendmentito the Grand Guli Nuclear Station. Operating Liconse.

~

Theliitoposed amendment;;requesta changns to Techulca1 Spec 1 ficat ton g

4 l4 l 8.4 )3a ; } Elect r ica Power Systems,* Reactor Protection "ystemt Elect rical

.Pewor Monitcringe S .vhillanco Requiromants."

,' . Theichangn ?rnquhsted t isiin accordacen with thn NRC guidance and f

rec 6mmendations providnd in-Generic Latter 91-09 '- The S ta f f i n t h is -

%. > Generic Lettoriconcludedi thstL this changn providmi adnquatn: assurance of g-s,

" - ; tun _propor operation of_these=assemblien'andiberinfitted snTety by reducing the possibility for inadvertent scrams'and result'ng challenges M"'1 S

to safetyJsystems., Entergy Operat. ions concurs with the NRC-Stafi evaluation; providad :in this Gnunric I.etter.

gt In(accordance kith, the provisions of 10CFR50.4,. thn signed origina1 of Mk/

J.thn requested amendment isz enclosed. ' Attachment; 2 providos the L discussion ' and ; justification (1.o . sup'p-irt t he > requested ' amondment . - This Jamendment: regunst. hat been . reviewed; and accepted by tho Plant Safety

@ Review Committee anet the Safety Review Committon.

1 N. .I 4

s

' G9108202/SNLICPLR.. - .1. $

1 19109100268 910911 l Mx (o f' PDR ADOCK 05000416'

?P -.PDA

v -,

' September- 11, 1991 GNRO-91/f,0154 Page 2 of 3 Based on the guidelines given in 10CFR50.92, Entergy Operations has concluded that this proposed amendment involves no significant hazards considerations.

Yours truly, MP%%

WTC/BSF/ams attachments: 1. Affirmation per 10CFR50.30

2. GGNS PCOL-91/21 cc: Mr. D. C. Illntz (w/a)

Mr. J. L. Mathis (w/a)

Mr, R. B. McGehne (w/a)

Mr. N. S. Reynolds (w/a)

Mr.11. I.. Thomas (w/o) nr. Stewart D. Ebneter (w/a )

Regiorril Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co amission Region 11 101 Marietta St., N.W., Snite 2900 Atlanta, Georgi' 30323 Mr. P. W. O'Connor, Projnct Manager (w/a)

Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail - Stop 13113 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Alton B. Cobb (w/a)

State Ilealth Officer State Board of Ilealth

.P.O. Box 1700 Jackson, Mississippi 39205 G91087.02/SNhlCFLR - 2

.- .=. . . - - -.

BEFORE Tile UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION 1.lCENSE NO. NPF-29 t F

l DOCKET NO. 50-416 IN THE MATTER OF ,

MISSISSIPPI POWER & L1 Gilt COMPANY ;

and ,

SYSTEM E!O,RGY RESOURCES, INC.

and :

SOUTH MISSISSIPPI ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION ,

and ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.

l AFFIRMATIQS f

1. W. T. Cottle, being duly sworn, state t. hat I am Vice President, l;. Operations GGNS of Entergy Operations, Inc.; that on behalf of Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., and South Mississippi *

' Electric Power Association I am authori.~.ed by Entergy Operations, Inc. ,

to sign and file with the Nuclear Reguintory Commission, this application [

fo.- amendment of the Operating _ License of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station; ,

that I signed this application as Vice President, Operations GGNS of ;

Ent.ergy Operations, Inc.; atid that the statements made and the matters i set forth therein=nre true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. .

t i

wr Cou.a W. T. Cottle STATE OF MISSISSIPPI COUNTY OF CLAIBORNE j SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN To before me, a Notary Public, in and for the County and-State above named, this \\ day of h cihnh.LL, 1991. ;

\

(SEAL) ;

Whth ( enk n Gen Notary Publ . .

l My commission expires:

Rt Dmirm tgmes My 51993 G9108202/SNLICFLR - 4 l

,=

, CERTIFICATION DOR FOR GNRO-91/00154 Rosponsibin GNRO Section- Organ 17.a t ion

-Cover Letter- NL Attachment 2:

Section A NL Section B' NL Section C NL ,

Section D NL

'G9108202/SNLICFLR - 5

r Attachment 2 to GNRO-91/00154 4

PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE OPER.ATING LICENSE IMPLEMENTATION OF GENERIC LETTER 91-09, " MODIFICATION OF SURVEILLANCE INTERVAL FOR THE ELECTRICAL PROTECTIVE ASSEMBLIES IN POWER SUPPLIES FOR THE REACTOR PROTECTION SYSTEM" (GGNS PCOL-91/21)

(

?

i

[

r l' .

l l

P l.

[

G9108202/SNLICFLR - 6 ;

I

~

'1 -

Attachment 2 to GNRO-91/00154

-. Page 1.of 3-i A. SUBJECT

._ 1 . NL-91/14 Revision of Electrical Power Systems, Reactor Protection-System-Electrical Power Monitoring, Surveillance Requirements.

2. Affected_ Technical Specification:

Surveillance Requirement 4.8.4.3a - Page.3/4 8-54 B. DISCUSSION.

1. This proposed amendment to the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS)

Technical Specifications (TS) regnests changes to 4.8.4.3a,

" Electrical Power Systems, Reactor ProtectionLSystem [RPS]

Electrical Power-Monitoring, Surveillance Requirements."

The proposed amendment modifies the surveillance requirement for performance of a CilANNEL FUNCTIONAL TEST of the RPS Electrical Protection Assemblics at least once per 6 months, The proposed TS would _ require the performance of this surveillance each time the plant is in COLD SIIUTDOWN for more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months , unless the surveillance has been performed-in the previous 6 months. This results in the _ surveillance becoming due 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months af ter the

. plant enters COLD SIIUTDOWN, unless performed in the previous 6' months,-and the surveillnnce being performed prior to the plant exiting COLD SIIUTDOWN.

2.- On June 27, 1991, the NRC issued Generic Letter (GL) 91-09 which encourages licensees to propose changes to the TS. The change dis:ussed was to require the performance of a CilANNEL FUNCTIONAL TESY of the RPS Electrical Protection Assemblies only when the plan' is 'in COLD SilUTDOWN for more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months . The GL guides in the preparation of a license amendment request to incorporate this recommendation into the TS. In- this Gb the NRC Staf f concludes that this change produces a not benefit for safety.

The requested TS change is consistent with the guidance provided in GL 91-09.

~

3. The af fected TS .is attached and' marked-up to reflect the s proposed chang;c as described' above.

C. JUSTIFICATTON -

t The proposed amendment removes the requirement to perform a CilANNEL !

FUNCTIONAL TEST of the RPS Electrical Protection Assemblies during -

power operation. Removal of this requirement reduces the probability 't of subjecting the plant _to unnecessary. transients and resulting !

challenges-to safety systems. These transients can result-irom ;

inadvertent scrams.while in the half scram condition require:I to ,

perform this surveillance.

Entergy Operations agrees with the NRC Staf f evaluation provided in GL 91-09 that the implementatioe of this changn will produce a net

-benefit for safety. This char,ge benefits safety by reducing t.he l 09108202/SNLICFLR - 7 -!

.-. - - . . ,. - - , . . , + . . - . r._, . , . , . . .,. , . - , . . -

--m -.

. . .-- - - . - . . - . ~.= - - - -- .= ~ - , _- -

n f

-Attachment 2 to-GNRO-91/00154 Page 2 of 3--

. w- -

probability __of unnecessary plant transients resulting from performing this surveillance during power operation. Though t he surveillance 4 ' interval proposed prov91os.. ndequat o assurance of the proper. operation ,

of these assemblics,. red 64tng the testing frequency such that testing:

is only performed when the plant' is in C0hD S110TDOWN intrtxiucns n l.. :small additional risk. Tha benefit-to safety by reducing the ,

', probability of inadvertent challenges to safety systems more than offsets the risk to safety resulting from removing the surycillanen ,

. - requirement to test the RPS Elect rical Protection Assemblics during- <

power. operation.

D. NO SIGNIFICANT IIAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS

1. Entergy Operations, Inc. proposes the modificnLion of the .

current Surveillanco Requirement containnd-in TS 4.8.4.3a.- This TS requires the performance of a CilANNEL FUNCTIONAL TEST of the ,

[ _RPS Electrical Protection Assemblies 'nt- icast onco per 6 months,

[ The proposed Surveillance Requirement would require the 't i performance of a CllANNEh FUNCTIONAL TEST each t ime the p'lant is in COLD S11UTDOWN_for.a period of more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months , unless +

{ : performed in the previous 6 months, l'

1

[F 2. The Commission has provided standards for datorminin;; whether 6 no significant hazards' consideration exists as stated in

.IOCFR50,92(c). A proposed amendment to an operating licenso

!- involves _no significant hazards considernt lon .if operation of I' the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significant increann in thu probability or.

I consequences of an accident. previously evaluated; or (2) create i the possibility of a new or dif foront kind- of accident from any 1

accident. previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant 4 rodiiction in a margin of safety.

j_ 3. ;Entergy Operations has evaluated the no significant hazards 4 :considorntions in-ita request for :n - license amendment. In accordance with 10CFR50.91(a), Entergy Operat.fons tw providing the analysis of the proposed amendment ngainst the thren 4

stnadards in 10CFR50.92:

n. No significant_ increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluatnd rosnits f rom this change.

(1) This chango does not affect the design or operation of any plant system.

(2) The proposed' amendment removes the requirement to perform a CilANNEL FUNCTIONAL TEST of the RPS Electrical Protection Assemblins during power operation. Removal of this requirement. reduces the probability of subjecting the plant to unnecessary transients and resulting challenges to sa fety systems.

These transients can result from inadvertent scrams while in the half scram condition required to perform this survelllanco.

C9108202/SNLICFLR - 8

Attachment'2 to GNRO-91/00lS4.

"' - Page 3 of 3 The surveillance interval ~ proposed provides adequate assuranen of the propor operation of these assemblics.

Reducing t he- test ing f requency of those' assemblics -

such that testing is only performed when the plant-is in C0hD StillTDOWN introduces a small additional risk'.

The benefit to safety by reducing the probability of inadvertent challenger to' safety systems more than offsets the risk to safety resulting from removing the requirement to test the RPS F.lectrical Protection Assemblien during powar operation.

(3) ihe probability .or consequences of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased.

The implementation of this changn will result in a not benefit to safety.

b. The change would not create thn possibility of a new or dif ferent kind of accident from any previously analyzed.

(1) The proposed chango does not add, delete or modify any plant hardware nor introduce any new modes of plant operation or testing.

(2)' The proposed change does not. modify the method by which any sa fety-related system performs. its fut.ction.

(3) The proposed change does not modify the method of y verifying component or system operability. ?

(4) Therefore, operating the plant with the proposed [

change will not create the possibility of a new or ;

.different kind of accident from any accident -[

previously evaluat.ed, i

c. This change would not involve a significant reduction in- ;

' the margin of safety. 5 (1) The proposed changa dons not affect.'the methodology used .in the of fsite dose analysis nor the acceptance j criteria associated 'with any accident analysis.

=

(2) The proposed changn does not modify t.ho-act.uation j l set. points or thn operat100 of any plant system. g (3) The re fore , the proposed change will not involve a !

significant reduct.f on in the margin of safety. *

4. Based on the above evaluation, operation in accordance with the proposed amendment inv'olves no significant hazards .;

considerations. ;

i o !

l \

E i

! I G9108202/SNhlCFhR - 9 j

?

.:~i_._, . _ - . . . ~ . - . _ - - - ~ . - . , . . - . . . . - - _ . . . . ..m.-, . , - - . _ , . _ , . - , . . . . . - - - _ . . - _ _ . .

ML20082T466

Text

Subject:

Navigation menu

Search