ML17258B124

Forwards Safety Evaluation Supporting SEP Topic VIII-3.A. Recommends Mods to Tech Specs

ML17258B124
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	06/12/1981
From:	Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Maier J ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
References
TASK-08-03.A, TASK-8-3.A, TASK-RR LSO5-81-06-038, LSO5-81-6-38, NUDOCS 8106180332
Download: ML17258B124 (10)

Text

g June 12, 1981 Docket No. 50-244 LS05-81-o6-o38 fir. John E. Mailer Vice President Electric 8 Steam Production Rochester Gas 8 Electric Corporation 89,'East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649

Dear Mr. Maier:

gpss/pg

~@lw -6 004//EIEE~~ryg

SUBJECT:

SAFETY EVALUATION FOR SEP TOPIC VIII-3.A, STAI'ION BATTERY CAPACITY TEST RE(UIREMENTS (GINNA)

The enclosed staff safety evaluation is based on a contractor's document that has been made available to you previously.

This document supports the findings of the staff safety evaluation on Topic VIII-3.Aand recommends modifications to the Technical Specifications.

The need to actually implement these changes will be determined during the integrated plant safety assessment.

This topic assessment may be revised in the -future ifyour facility design is changed or if NRC criteria relating to this topic are modified before the integrated assess-ment is completed.

Sincerely,

Enclosure:

As stated Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 85 Division of Licensing cc w/enclosure:

See next page 8 106 18033~

• See previous yellow for additional conc es.

OFFICE)

SURNAME/

0ATEf>

.SPPB:DL RScholl:dk*

6/3/81

. SEPB:DL RHermann~

6/3/81 SEPB:DL WRussell~

6/5/81 9

DL:PM R0'nas'de'r'"""'6i bsI---"'/

/81

C A

A:DL 6'

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \\ I

~

~

~ ~ ~

~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

as 0 ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6/) I/81

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~

~ ~ ~

~

NRC FORM 3I8 IIO/80INRCM 0240 OFFICIAL.RECORD COPY 0 USGPO: 1980-329.824

I 4

l I

~

I I

4 4

V 1

1

~

I I

~ 11<<

~: <<

I 1

~ <<1 7

4 11 ~

~ VV'7 g

~

1 *

'I e

I I

1 pe,,',3 41

~ '

~

'17'*

~

4 1 4.7 4

7 4

~

4 K

1 g

Vl 1'

&VI

• 7 7

~ KI.

~ 7 ~,

114

/

1

~-

1 7'."VK/VKVg 1 ~

~-

1 4

~ (4 4

• /"

~

7

~ 4 jj ~

/

I 1 p

1 1 v

7 77

.1.JI vlf a

~

~ 'I /

'7 114

• 4 Docket No. 50-244 LS05 Nr. John E. Maier Vice President Electric 8 Steam Production Rochester Gas 8 Electric Corporation 89 East Aveoue Rochester, New York 14649

SUBJECT:

SEP TOPIC VIII-3.A, SAFETY EVALUATION FOR GINNA The enclosed staff safety evaluation is based on a contractor's document that has been made available to you previously.

This document supports the findings of the staff safety evaluation on Topic VIII-3.Aand recomends modifications to the Technical Specifications.

The need to actually implement these changes will be determined during the integrated plant safety assessment.

This topic assessment may be revised in the future ifyour facility design is changed or if NRC criteria relating to this topic are modified before the integrated assessment is completed.

Sincerely,

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/enclosure:

See next page Dennis H. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch ¹5 Division of Licensing OFFICE[

SURNAME/

DATEP SEPB:

L RS dn 6'/81

~

~

0

~ ~ ~

~ \\ ~ 0 0 S

S B:DL ann

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

6/3/81 C/

EP

'D Y

W se 1

sg ('ys)

ORB¹5:DL RSnaider 6i

/81 C/ORB¹5:DL DCrutchfiel d 6/

/81

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I AD-SA:DL GCLainas 6/

/81 NRC FORM 318 I18/80)NRCM 8248 OFFlCIAL RECORD COPY

• USGFO: 1980-029.824

r;>>

0 R

~p8 AE0II

~o i qI

)p",:

+a*++

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMVilSSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 June 12, 1981 Docket No. 50-244 LS05-81-06-038 Mr. John E. Maier Vice President Electric 8

Steam Production Rochester Gas 5 Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649

SUBJECT:

SAFETY EVALUATION FOR SEP TOPIC VIII-3.A, STATION BATTERY CAPACITY TEST REQUIREMENTS (GINNA)

The enclosed staff safety evaluation is based on a contractor's document that has been made available to you previously.

This document supports the findings of the staff safety evaluation on Topic VIII-3.Aand recommends modifications to the Technical Specifications.

The need to actually implement these changes will be determined during the integrated plant safety assessment.

This topic assessment may be revised in the future if your facility design is changed or if NRC criteria relating to this topic are modified before the integrated assess-ment is, completed.

Sincerely, Enclosure; As stated cc w/enclosure:

See next page Denny rutchfiel d, Chic Operating Reactors Branch 85 Division of Licensing

Hr. John E. Maier CC Harry H. Voigt, Esquire

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and tlacRae 1333 New Hampshire

Avenue, N.

W.

Suite 1100 Washington, D. C.

20036 Hr. Hichael Slade 12 Trailwood Circle Rochester, New York 14618 Ezra Bialik Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau New York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 Jeffrey Cohen New York State Energy Office Swan Street Building Core 1, Second Floor Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223 Director, Technical Development Programs State of New York Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza

Albany, New York 12223 Rochester Public Library 115 South Avenue Rochester, New York 14604 Supervisor of the Town of Ontario 107 Ridge Road West

Ontario, New York 14519 Resident Inspector R. E. Ginna Plant c/o U. S.

NRC 1503 hake Road

Ontario, New York 14519 Director, Criteri a and Standards Division Office of Radiation Programs (ANR-460)

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D. C.

20460 U., S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II Office ATTN:

EIS COORDINATOR 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 Herbert Grossman, Esq.,

Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Dr. Richard F, Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Dr.

Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Nr. Thomas B. Cochran Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

1725 I Street, N.

W.

Suite 600 Washington, D. C.

20006 Ezra I. Bialik Assistant Attorney General Envi ronmenta 1

P rotect i on Bureau New York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10047

~

e l

e

~

~

~

TOPIC:

VIII-3.A STATION BATTERY CAPACITY TEST RcquIREWEHTS I.

INTRODUCTION To assure that the onsite Class lE battery capacity is adequate to supply dc power to all safety related loads required by the accident analyses and is; verified on a periodic basis, we reviewed the Tech-nical Specifications, including the test program, with regard to the requirement for periodic surveillance testing of onsite Class 1E bat-teries and the extent to which the test meets Section 5.3.6 of IEEE St. 308-1971, to determine battery capacity.

This effort is needed to ensure that the test to determine battery capacity includes (1) an acceptance test of battery capacity perform-ed in accordance with Section 4.1 of IEEE Std. 450-1975, (2) a per-formance discharge test listed in Table 2 of IEEE Std. 308-1971,

. performed according to Sections 4.2 and 5.4 of IEEE Std. 450-1975; and (3) a battery service'test described in Section 5.6 of IEEE Std. 450-1972, to be performed during each refueling operation.

REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria are presented in EG&G Report 1315 F

"Battery Capacity Tests."

RELATED SAFETY TOPICS AND INTERFACES Hone IV.

REVIEW GUIDELINES See Introduction V.

EVALUATION The R E; Ginna Nuclear Station battery surveillance requirements are in-included in Section 4.6.2 of the station Technical Specifications.

There is no periodic battery service test required.

Therefore, the Ginna Nuclear Station does not comply with the current 'licensing requirements for station battery capacity tests.

VI. CONCLUSIONS The staff proposes that the testing of the batteries be in accordance with IEEE Standard 450-1975, IEEE Standard 308-1974, BTP EICSB 6, and the "Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors" (NUREG-0452).

The proposed tests are as follows.

1.

At least once per 18 months, during shutdown, a batter service test should be performed to verify that the battery capacity )s adequate to supply and maintain in operable status all of the actual emergency loads for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

2.

At least once per 60 months, during shutdown, a batter dischar etest, should be performed to verify that the battery capacity is at east 805 of the manufacturer's rating.

~

~

L 0