ML20126F534
| ML20126F534 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 12/23/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126F532 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212300374 | |
| Download: ML20126F534 (3) | |
Text
- -. _
f* 00 CVy UNITED STATES
! hdD) i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- k
.Q !
WASHINoTON, D.C. 20666
- p..
f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 104 TO FA(JLITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-29 ENTERGY OPERATICNS. INC.. ET AL.
GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT I DOCKET NO. 50-416 t
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letters dated August 8,1988, July 14,1989, and April 23, 1990, the licensee (Entergy Operations, Inc.) submitted its response to Generic Letter (GL) 88-01, "NRC Position on Intergranular Stress-Corrosion Cracking (IGSCC) in BWR Austenitic Stainless Steel Pising." The NRC staff provided its Safety Evaluation (SE) of the licensee's su)mittals by letter dated October 1,1990.
In its SE, the staff found the licensee's responses acceptable except for the responses related to the following Technical Specifications (TS) changes requested in GL 88-01:
(1) inclusion of a statement in the TS that commits to the NRC staff positions regarding GL 88-01; (2) Modification to TS 3.4.3.2.e to specify that reactor coolant system leakage shall be limited to a 2-gpm increase in unidentified leakage in any 24-hour period; and (3) Modification to the surveillance requirements in TS 4.4.3.2.1 to specify that primary containment sump flow rate shall be monitored at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
By letter dated December 7,1990, the licensee declined to submit these TS changes.
Following the issuance of Supplement I to GL 88-01, dated February 4, 1992, and discussions with the NRC staff, the licensei. :ubmitted the requested TS changes by letter dated August 19, 1992, as supplemented December 3, 1992. The December 3, 1992, letter provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards determination.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee has proposed to add the following statement as TS 4.0.5.f:
f.
The inservice inspection program for piping identified.in NRC Generic Letter 88-01 shall be performed in accordance with the NRC staff positions on schedule, methods, personnel, and sample expansion included in Generic Letter 88-01-or-in accordance with alternate measures approved by the NRC staff.
9212300374 921223~
PDR ADOCK 05000416 P
d i ;
a
}
},
. i i
The wordi.1g of this proposed statement corresponds to that specified in the j
NRC staff's Safety Evaluation (SE) of the licensee's submittals, and is j
therefore acceptable.
The licensee has proposed to modify TS 3.4.3.2 as follows:
j Limitina Condition for Operation 3.4.3.2.e l
Reactor coolant system leakage shall be limited to 2 gpm increase in j
UNIDENTIFIED LEAKAGE within any 24-hour period or less (applicable 1
in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 1 only).
i l
Action 3.4.3.2.e 1
l With any reactor coolant system UNIDENTIFIED LEAKAGE increase i
greater than 2 gpm within any 24-hour period or less, identify the source of leakage increase as not service sensitive Type 304 or 316
{
austenitic stainless steel within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> or be in at least HOT SHUTDOWN within the next 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and in COLD SHUTDOWN within the following 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
The parenthetical note in Limiting Condition for Operation 3.4.3.2.e was added i
by letter dated December 4, 1992. The proposed limit is more stringent than i
the existing TS limit.
The staff has reviewed the proposed modification and finds it to be consistent with the guidance provided in GL 88-01.
It is therefore acceptable.
J l
The licensee has proposed to change the surveillance requirement in TS 1
4.4.3.2.1.a. b, and c to specify that leakage measurements shall be monitored at least once per twelve (12) hours. The proposed wording for these TS is:
}
Surveillance Reauirement 4.4.3.2.1 The reactor coolant system leakage shall be demonstrated to be i
within each of the above limits by:
a.
Monitoring the drywell atmospheric ) articulate and gaseous-radioactivity at least once per 12
- 1ours, i
b.
Monitoring the drywell floor and equipment drain sump level and i
flow rate at least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, i
c.
Monitoring the drywell air coolers condensate flow rate at -
j least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, and...
This proposed change is consistent with Supplement I to GL 88-01 and is therefore acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
i in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Mississippi State offici'.1 was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State 1
offic',a1 had no comments.
(_
... ~., _.
...a...._,
,_______._.______..._,1
. :_.-,_ _ _ n,
o s
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 2r 2nd changes in 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 1:, 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 i.
consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding
=
{-'
' 40212). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for 5 1 exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR t) environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need
~-
in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5,0 t'
15103
't v dssion has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, one there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the nubh c 1..1 c,ot be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activitie: will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of tLa amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
H. Rathbun Date: Dee mber 23. 1992 l
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _