ML20132B968
Text
-
l g[
',\\
UNITED STATES f
2 4) #(f( )
y)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/ $//
4/ c j WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 1
Y..v /
(p APR 04 E84 DocketNo.50-41f 1
i MEMORANDUM FOR: M t
Licensing Branch No. 4 l
Division of Licensing i
N[y. kg night, Assistant Director THRU:
i 1, for Components and Structures Engineering Di, vision of Engineering k
4 FROM:
George Lear, Chief i
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS -
GRAND GULF UNIT 1
References:
(1) Division of Licensing Work Request from L. L. Kintner, PM,DL,datedMarch8,1984,(TAC #54315.PAlill)
(2) Letter from L. F. Dale of Mississippi Power and Light Company to H. R. Denton of NRC, dated Septerrber 9, 1980,
Subject:
Changes to Grand Gulf Technical Specifications Aspertheworkrequest(Reference 1above),changesproposedbytheLicensee (Reference 2) to the Technical Specifications (3/4.7.10 Embankment Stability) have been reviewed by B. Jagannath, geotechnical reviewer, of my branch.
The proposed changes exempt Technical Specification 3/4.7.10. Embankment Stability, from provisions of Specifications 3.0.3 and 3.0.4, and would permit continued operation or startup of the plant even when Technical Specification 3/4.7.10 is violated.
The work request asked us to state the bases for this Technical Specification.
which follows:
3/4.7.10 EMBANKMENT STABILITY The required stability of the down stream slope of the access road embankment and the limit on the maximum pennissible blockage of culvert no. I are intended to ensure that culvert no.1 is always functional, because, in the event the culvert is blocked, flooding of the plant will occur during a Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) event.
A MgH18d13"1 2pg l
AY
s:
Elinor Adensam _
The licensee's proposed changes to the Specification would permit continued operation or startup of the plant even if the culvert is blocked. Since the PMF event can occur within a relatively short time (1 to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> of intense rainfall) and if Culvert No.1 is blocked at the same time, the licensee will not have adequate time to clear the blocked culvert to alleviate the potential for flooding the plant site.
In his request, the applicant has not justified that flooding of the plant site will not affect the safety of the plant.
Therefore, the staff recomends that the proposed changes should not be accepted.
The above staff recomendation was discussed with representatives of the licensee during a meeting on March 28, 1984 at the NRC office in Bethesda.
The staff is cognizant of modifications to site drainage and flood protection i
measures done by the licensee after the license was granted. After our discussions, it was decided that the licensee will resubmit his proposal to revise this technical specification with a detailed justification. The staff d
will then provide its evaluation.
This memo was prepared by Banad Jagannath, Geotechnical Reviewer, of my branch; and he may be contacted at 492-8368.
f w
i George L
, Chief Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch l
Division of Engineering cc:
R. Vollmer J. Knight T. Novak L. Kintner L. Heller B. Jagannath D. Houston D. Hoffman M. Fliegel G. Staley
.