ML080780174

Request for Additional Information on Battery and DC Sources Upgrades and Cross-Tie License Amendment Request

ML080780174
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	04/09/2008
From:	Kalyanam N NRC/NRR/ADRO/DORL/LPLIV
To:	Rosenblum R Southern California Edison Co
Kalyanam N, NRR/DORL/LP4, 415-1480
References
TAC MD8213, TAC MD8214
Download: ML080780174 (5)

Text

April 9, 2008 Mr. Richard M. Rosenblum Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Southern California Edison Company San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station P.O. Box 128 San Clemente, CA 92674-0128

SUBJECT:

SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 -

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON BATTERY AND DC SOURCES UPGRADES AND CROSS-TIE LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST (TAC NOS. MD8213 AND MD8214)

Dear Mr. Rosenblum:

By letter dated November 30, 2007 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML073380042), Southern California Edison (the licensee) requested an amendment to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications (TS). The proposed changes revise TS 3.8.1, AC [Alternating Current] Sources - Operating, TS 3.8.4, DC [Direct Current]

Sources - Operating, TS 3.8.5, DC Sources - Shutdown, TS 3.8.6, Battery Cell Parameters, TS 3.8.7, Inverters - Operating, TS 3.8.9, Distribution Systems - Operating, and TS 3.8.10, Distribution Systems - Shutdown. This change will also add new TS 5.5.2.17, ABattery Monitoring and Maintenance Program.@

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed your submittal and determined that the additional information is needed to complete the review. We discussed the need for the enclosed request for additional information with your staff by telephone and they agreed to provide a response within 45 days from the receipt of this letter.

The NRC staff considers that timely responses to requests for additional information help ensure sufficient time is available for staff review and contribute toward the NRCs goal of efficient and effective use of staff resources. If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1480.

Sincerely,

/RA/

N. Kalyanam, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch IV Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-361 and 50-362

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl: See next page

ML080780174 (*) No major change from Staff provided RAI OFFICE NRR/LPL4/PM NRR/LPL4/PM NRR/DE/EEEB NRR/LPL4/PM NAME NKalyanam JBurkhardt GWilson (*) THiltz DATE 4/8/08 3/19/08 3/13/08 4/9/08 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (December 2007)

Units 2 and 3 cc:

Douglas K. Porter, Esquire Mayor Southern California Edison Company City of San Clemente 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue 100 Avenida Presidio Rosemead, CA 91770 San Clemente, CA 92672 Dr. David Spath, Chief Mr. James T. Reilly Division of Drinking Water and Southern California Edison Company Environmental Management San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station California Dept. of Health Services P.O. Box 128 850 Marina Parkway, Bldg P, 2nd Floor San Clemente, CA 92674-0128 Richmond, CA 94804 Mr. James D. Boyd Chairman, Board of Supervisors California State Liaison Officer County of San Diego Vice Chair and Commissioner 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335 California Energy Commission San Diego, CA 92101 1516 Ninth Street, MS 31 Sacramento, CA 95814 Mark L. Parsons Deputy City Attorney Mr. Gary Butner City of Riverside Acting Branch Chief 3900 Main Street Department of Public Health Services Riverside, CA 92522 Radiologic Health Branch MS 7610, P.O. Box 997414 Mr. Gary L. Nolff Sacramento, CA 95899-7414 Assistant General Manager - Resources Riverside Public Utilities Mr. Ross T. Ridenoure City of Riverside, California Vice President and Site Manager 3901 Orange Street Southern California Edison Company Riverside, CA 92501 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station P.O. Box 128 Regional Administrator, Region IV San Clemente, CA 92674-0128 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Mr. A. Edward Scherer Arlington, TX 76011-8064 Director, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs Southern California Edison Company Mr. Michael L. De Marco San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station San Diego Gas & Electric Company P.O. Box 128 8315 Century Park Ct. CP21G San Clemente, CA 92674-0128 San Diego, CA 92123-1548 Resident Inspector San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 4329 San Clemente, CA 92674

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-361 AND 50-362 TAC NOS. MD8213 AND MD8214 By letter dated November 30, 2007 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML073380042), Southern California Edison (the licensee) requested an amendment to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications (TS). The proposed changes revise TS 3.8.1, AC [Alternating Current] Sources - Operating, TS 3.8.4, DC [Direct Current]

Sources - Operating, TS 3.8.5, DC Sources - Shutdown, TS 3.8.6, Battery Cell Parameters, TS 3.8.7, Inverters - Operating, TS 3.8.9, Distribution Systems - Operating, and TS 3.8.10, Distribution Systems - Shutdown. This change will also add new TS 5.5.2.17, ABattery Monitoring and Maintenance Program.@

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has reviewed your submittal and determined that the following additional information is needed to complete the review:

1. On page 20 of the license amendment request (LAR), the licensee stated that the spare battery charger is to be connected to a diesel-backed source in less than or equal to 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> if non-1E power is lost. Please describe the basis for the 4-hour Completion Time and how this time constraint will be reflected in SONGS licensing basis.

2. The licensee has requested replacing the specific value for existing Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.4.6 with the word Arated.@ Please provide the basis for the proposed change.

3. On page 28 of the LAR, the licensee stated that they do not intend to use separate service and performance tests for the new 1800 amp-hour rated batteries. However, the service and performance tests are still identified in the proposed revised TS for SR 3.8.4.4 and SR 3.8.6.7. Explain the apparent discrepancy.

4. On page 32 of the LAR, the licensee stated that the accuracy and reliability of the float current reading will generally hold true over the expected life of the batteries (i.e., 20 years). Please explain if the TS float current value will remain valid for the life of the plant.

5. Please describe the pilot cell selection process utilized at SONGS.

6. Please describe how electrical isolation will be maintained in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.75, APhysical Independence of Electric Systems,@ between non-Class 1E and Class 1E circuits when an alternate means (i.e.,

non-Class 1E spare battery charger) is maintaining the charge on the Class 1E battery. If double isolation (e.g., two breakers in series, a breaker and a fuse, or a breaker supplied with a loss-of-offsite power signal) is not used, please provide a detailed discussion on how a fault on the non-Class 1E electrical circuit will not propagate to the Class 1E electrical circuit.

7. Please describe the load profile that will be used to test the batteries (i.e.,

independent subsystem or cross-connected subsystems).

8. The licensee proposed revising the time period that the battery chargers are capable of recharging the batteries from 12 to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. Please describe the basis for the original 12-hour duration and any impact the increased time duration may have on the ability of the chargers to perform their design function.

9. On page 6 of the PRA attachment I, it was stated the CCF probabilities for batteries are modified upward for corrective maintenance. However, no information/justification was provided about the selection of the magnitude of this increase. Please provide the necessary justification.

10. The new installed batteries have higher capacity compared to the old ones. Is there any expected increase in the hydrogen production in the battery room during the effective lifetime of the new batteries? If yes, are there any planned changes in SONGS fire PRA or the ventilation system in the battery room?