ML20086U172
| ML20086U172 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20086U164 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9201070236 | |
| Download: ML20086U172 (3) | |
Text
-
t o ust
/
UNITED $TATES d[\\ 9,,,,
l NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
W A$HING TON, D, C. 20%t, t
a
%,..... /
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCl. EAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 86 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO NPF-29 QTERGYOPERATIONS,INC.,ETAL.
GR_A,ND GULF NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-416
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter of Septenter 11, 1991, Entergy,Inc.(thelicensee),requestedan amentnent to facility Operating License No. NFF-29 for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
The proposed change modifies the requirements for a channel functional test of electrical protective assemblies (EpAs) performing that are currently specified with a 6-nonth surveillance interval.
Guidance on this proposed change was provided to all boiling-water reactor (BWR) licensees by Generic Letter 91-09, of June 27, 1991.
2.
EVALUATION The licensee has proposed to modify the C month surveillance interval for perfornirg channel functional tests of EPAs as specified in T5 4.8.4.4 c.
to state that they are to be performed "when the plant is in COLD SNUTDOWN for
.5 period of more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, unless performed within the previous 6 months."
This change is consistent with the guidance provided in Generic Letter 9109.
The iiiagara Mowhawk Power Corporation provided an analysis in a proposal submitted on Decenter 15, 1988, that calculated the safety risks and benefits of this TS change.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission (NRC) staff review-ed and concurred with the conclusions of this analysis that this TS change will produce a net safety benefit.
Because the EPAs for all BWRs are primarily the same, the staf f i.. ids that thi$ analysis applies generically to all BWRs.
In addition, it is the staff's qualative judgement that the proposed increase in the surveillance interval is not safety significant because of the diverte protection that exists, the number of failures that have to occur to have an adverse impact on safety, and the potential for d>=tecting a degraded condition of the reactor protection sy:; tem through on-line testing. Therefore, the staff finds that the licensee's proposed TS change is acceptable.
l l
9201070236 911210 PDif ADOCK ObOOO416 P
PbR l
2
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Mississippi State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendrent.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The arrendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFP.
Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendnent involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluente that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative oc:upational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideratirn, and there has been no public conrnent on such finding (56 FR 51924). Accordingly, the anendment neets 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 asset.mant need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendraent.
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 compitance with the Commission's regulations, and(3)theissuanceoftheamendmentwillnotbeinimicaltothecommon cefense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
T. Dunning P. O'Connor Date: December 18, 1991 1
I
.. +,
..w.,
,...,-,.,-,.,,,,-,,,,.-,y.y,=
v.,
,,.u
,mc
,-w,.-e 4--
r,-*-w-vev---
v" w -v-
'-1-* - -
ee-*