ML20132B995
Text
g.. -.
. - ~.
..... - ~.
.. ~.. ~..
I 45 scg
/
'o UNITED STATES
, :;.'\\iggv ',)y
[y
(
l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s., a j APR 12 BM i-4 IEliORANDUM FOR:
Elinor G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch # 4 Division of Licensing i
FROM:
Robert J. Bosnak, Chief-Mechanical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering i
i L.
SUBJECT:
. EVALUATION OF PROPOSED SNUBBER TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION-
'j i
CHANGES FOR GRAND GULF, L' NIT 1 (TAC FOS 52523 AND j
E4603)
[
References:
- 1. Letter form Dale to Denton, AECM-83/0641, dated October 7, 1983
- 2. Letter from McGaughy to Denton, AECM-84/0179, dated March-29, 1984 The Mechanical Engineering Branch has reviewed the information in Reference 1 and Part 1 of Reference 2 relative to proposed snubber Technical Specification changes for Grand Gulf, Unit 1, Our evaluation, which finds these requests to be acceptable, is attached. This completes the l'EB action for TAC Nos. 52523 and 54603.
[g,.
h Robert J. Bosnak, Chief j
Mechanical Engineering Branch l
Division of Engineering
?
i i
Attachment:
As stated j
f*
cc:
R. Vollmer, DE l
J. Knight, DE l
D. Houston, DL
[D.Brinkman,DL Kintner, DL H. Brammer, DE H. Shaw, DE CONTACT:
H. Shaw, MEB, DE X 24420 A
74M 2S(6% d 3PP n
w u :..:. -........
-... -._.- u.:
..-......, ~.
. i a-
'l'ECHAt:ICAL ENGINEERIllG BRANCH EVALUATION OF PROPOSED SNUEBER TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES, GRAND GULF, UNIT 1 (TAC N05. 52523 and 54603 The staff has reviewed information submitted by the Mississippi Power and Light Company in letters AECH-83/0641, dated October.7,1983 and AECM-84/0179 (Part 1) dated March 29, 1984. Both submittals are proposed amendments to the Operating License No. NPF-13 for the Grand
- Gulf Nuclear Station Unit l' relative to revisions of Table 3.7.4-2,
" Listing of Safety - Related Mechanical Snubbers" in the Technical 7;
Specifications for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1.
{.::v "
The reason for the requested revisions and the affected number of e
sr.ubbers in Table.3.7.4-2 are sumari ed as follows::
.wecm
- 1. Addition of snubbers that were inadvertently left off the table.
Seventeen snubbers were edded to the table for this reason.
In addi-
- j tion, elevation locations were added to seven snubbers presently in
- {
the table.
t
]
- 2. Deletion of three snubbers that were redundantly listed in the table, w
i
- 3. Redesignation of one snubber.
One snubber was superseded by the addition of two of the snubbers which were added to the table in 1 above.
A
- 4. Deletion of snubbers that were non-existent in,the plant.
]
Two snubbers were deleted as they were never installed.
.j
- 5. Typographical errors.
- 1 Eight changes were made to correct typographical errors. They do not reflect the addition or deletion of snubbers.
f;.
11-
- 6. Addition of Section 2, "Non-Q Mechanical Snubbers" to the table, y
q Proper modifications are made to accommodate the addition of a ji -
Section 2 to the table. This section contains snubbers on o'
non-safety-related piping which were included in the stress analysis a
calculations of adjacent safety-related piping.
3
- i 7.. Elimination of redundant listing of snubbers from the table.
This is done by listing only one number and using parenthesis to 4
indicate the number of snubbers for the same listing.
q
- 8. Addition of one snubber as a result of design change.
~j f
S
=
f*'r'M W M91 Ee'@ehp4 &$
reg M em J @ p g f-w h n4 4 6m, m-w.6
(,
44 4
e-
- ~ *
.'6%,m.ggw
.. _. ~ -
. -.....:: :aa........,
a...-. =
9 2-I l
One snubber was added to the table as a result of a design change which installs a bypass line around the reactor core isolation i
cooling turbine steam shutoff valve to limit flow during automatic starts and thus prevent turbine overspeed trips. The new snubber was added to the new bypass line to provide the support necessary to meet system design requirements.
':{
With the exception of Item 8 abcVe, the staff has determined that the proposed revisions are administrative in nature and will be helpful to l
implement the surveillance requirements on snubbers. The proposed revisions, including Item 8 do not reduce safety margins in the plant design and will not increaseithe probability or censequences of either a u-new or a previously analyzed accident. Therefore, the proposed revisions are acceptable.
1, w
4 l
S i
4 l
t
{~
. _ __.