L-91-190, Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-31 & DPR-41,revising Surveillance Requirement on Battery Chargers
| ML17348A975 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1991 |
| From: | Goldberg J FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17348A976 | List: |
| References | |
| L-91-190, NUDOCS 9107100218 | |
| Download: ML17348A975 (16) | |
Text
ACCELERATED D TRIBUTION DEMONS TION SYSTEM I
\\
REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR:9107100218 DOC.DATE: 91/07/02 NOTARIZED: YES DOCKET FACIL:50-250 Turkey Point Plant, Unit 3, Florida Power and Light C 05000250 50-251 Turkey Point Plant, Unit 4, Florida Power and Light-C 05000251 AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION GOLDBERG,J.H.
Florida Power 6 Light Co.
RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)
SUBJECT:
Application for amends to licenses DPR-31
& DPR-41,revising surveillance requirement on battery chargers.
DISTRIBUTION CODE: A001D COPIES RECEIVED LTR J ENCL J SIZE:
TITLE: OR Submittal:
General Distribution NOTES:
R D
S RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD2-2 LA AULUCK,R INTERNAL NRR/DET/ECMB 7D NRR/DOEA/OTS B1 1 NRR/DST/SELB 7E NRR/DST/SRXB 8E OC G FXLE 01 EXTERNAL: NRC PDR COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 2
2 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
0 1
1 1
1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD2-2 PD NRR/DET/ESGB NRR/DST 8E2 NRR/DST/SICB8H7 NUDOCS-ABSTRACT OGC/HDS3 RES/DSIR/EIB NSIC
'OPIES LTTR ENCL 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
0 1
1 1
1 D
D S
D NOTE TO ALL"RIDS" RECIPIENTS:
D D
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE! CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK, ROOM P 1-37 (EXT. 20079) TO ELIMINATEYOUR NAME FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS FOR DOCUMENTS YOU DON'T NEED!
TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 18 ENCL 16
P.O. Box14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 JULY 2
19S1 L-91-190 10 CFR 50.90 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn:
Document Control Desk Nashington, D.
C.
20555 Gentlemen:
Re:
Turkey Point Units 3 and 4
Docket Nos.
50-250 and 50-251 Pro osed License Amendment:
D.C. Sources Batter Char ers In accordance with 10 CFR 50.90, Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) requests that Appendix A of Facility Operating Licenses DPR-31 and DPR-41 be amended to modify Turkey Point Units 3 and 4
Technical Specification Section 3/4.8.2, D.C. Sources.
The purpose of this amendment is to revise the surveillance requirement on the battery chargers.
FPL has determined that the proposed license amendment does not involve a significant hazard pursuant to 10 CFR 50.92.
A description of the amendment request is provided in Attachment 1.
The no significant hazards determination in support of the proposed Technical Specification change is provided in Attachment 2.
Attachment 3 provides the proposed revised Technical Specification change.
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 (b)(1),
a copy of this Proposed License Amendment is being forwa'rded to the State Designee for the State of Florida.
The proposed amendment has been reviewed by the Turkey Point Plant Nuclear Safety Committee and the FPL Company Nuclear Review Board.
As a part of the Emergency Power Syst: em Enhancement
- Project, FPL procured eight new battery chargers.
During the pre-operational testing phase performed in late June
- 1991, FPL determined that under low load conditions the battery chargers will not consistently share load within the Technical Specifications surveillance limit.
An evaluation has concluded that the proposed revision of the surveillance method for battery chargers ensures FPL's ability to verify battery charger operability.
Please note that battery charger operability is required prior to Turkey Point Unit 3 s entry into Mode 4, which is presently scheduled for September 3,
1991.
91071002i8 910702 I
PDR AOOCK 05000250 p
~ A n ~ 4 8 an FPL Group company Vugg oo
j 5
L-91-190 Page 2
Should there be any questions on this request, please contact us.
Very truly yours, J.H. Goldberg President Nuclear Division JHG/RJT/rjt Attachments cc:
Stewart D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator, Region II, USNRC Senior Resident Inspector, USNRC, Turkey Point Plant Mr. Jacob Daniel Nash, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
STATE OF FLORIDA
)
)
ss.
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
)
J.
H. Goldber being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That he is President Nuclear Division, of Florida Power and Light
- Company, the Licensee herein; That he has executed the foregoing document; that the statements made in this document are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, and that he is authorized to execute the document on behalf of said Licensee.
J.
H. Goldbe Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of the County of orida gotary politic, State of Florida N
Commission Expires fune, as ne 1, 1993 y
- ane, aon dad rissu rsoy fain-Insusa NOTARY P BLIC, in and Pa'lm Beach, State of F My commission expires
h 'I 4(
l(
f%
P
)
ATTACHMENT DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT REQUEST
L-91-190 Attachment 1
Page 1 of 2 DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT RE UEST The proposed amendment revises the Turkey Point Technical Specifications to reflect results from the pre-operational testing of the new battery chargers which were installed as part of the Emergency Power System (EPS)
Enhancement Project.
During the pre-operational testing
- phase, FPL determined that under low load conditions the battery chargers will not consistently load share within 104 of their rating.
The Turkey Point D.C.
bus system consists of four (4) D.C. buses shared between two units.
With one unit in Modes 5 or 6,
one or more of the D.C'.
buses may have reduced load and the associated battery chargers may not be sharing the load within 10~.
The proposed amendment revises the surveillance requirement for the battery chargers.
Technical Specification 4.8.2.1.a.2 will be modified as follows:
Present Technical 8 ecification -,
2)
The total battery terminal voltage is greater than or equal to 129 volts on float charge and the battery charger(s) output voltage is 129 volts, and if two battery chargers are connected to the battery bank, the battery charger currents do not differ from each other by more than 10< of the battery charger rating.
Pro osed Technical 8 ecification-2)
The total battery terminal voltage is greater than or equal to 129 volts on float charge and the battery charger(s) output voltage is
> 129 volts, and 3)
If two battery chargers are connected to the battery bank, verify each battery charger is supplying a minimum of 10 amperes, or demonstrate that the battery charger supplying less than 10 amperes will accept and supply the D.C.
bus load independent of its associated battery charger.
Turkey Point Technical Specification 3.8.2.1 requires a minimum of one battery charger per bus supplied from a separate 480 volt Motor Control Center (MCC), but permits two battery chargers on each D.C.
bus.
Normal alignment, consists of two battery chargers per D.C.
bus.
Standard Technical Specifications require only that the D.C.
voltage be verified to be greater than 129 volts and does not address enhanced configurations of more than one battery charger per D.C.
bus.
Since Turkey Point operates with two battery
'I J<
L-91-190 Attachment 1
Page 2 of 2 chargers per D.C. bus, an additional surveillance requirement was added in Amendments 138 and 133 to verify that both battery chargers are operable.
The method selected was verification that the battery chargers were sharing load within 104.
- However, even though the load sharing may exceed the 104 load variation, each charger is still capable of providing the required design output current.
Battery charger load sharing is not required for the safety related function of the chargers for Turkey Point and therefore, verification of charger current and voltage is a more appropriate determination of battery charger operability.
The 10 ampere requirement represents the minimum current which can be readily observed to establish operability.
Under normal operating conditions, each battery charger is expected to supply loads in excess of 10 amperes.
Consequently, verification of a battery charger's ability to supply a minimum of 10 amperes is expected to be the normal method of verifying battery charger operability.
Testing which ensures the ability of one battery charger to supply the normal operating D.C. bus load upon loss of the associated battery charger has been performed.
Deleting the requirement for battery charger load sharing within 104 does not alter the capability to detect any battery charger failures which would prevent the performance of its safety related function.
ATTACHMENT 2 DETERMINATZON OF NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION
L-91-190 Attachment 2
Page 1 of 2 DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION The commission has provided standards for determining whether a
significant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.92(c))
. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facility involves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
FPL has determined that operation in accordance with the proposed amendment would not:
(1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not revise or alter the minimum equipment requirements nor any plant operating parameters.
The revised surveillance requirement relating to the battery chargers during two chargers per D,C.
bus operation, will ensure the ability to verify battery charger operability.
Battery charger load sharing is not required for the safety related function of the chargers for Turkey Point and verification of charger current and voltage is a
more appropriate determination of battery charger operability.
Deleting the requirement for battery charger load sharing within 10% does not alter the capability to detect any battery charger failures which would prevent the performance of its safety related function.
This change does not affect assumptions contained in plant safety analyses or the physical design of the plant, nor do they affect Technical Specifications that preserve safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not affect the probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed.
(2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve the addition of any new type of equipment or create any new modes or changes in operation.
Battery charger load sharing is not required for the safety related function of the chargers for Turkey Point and verification of charger current and voltage is a more appropriate determination of battery charger operability.
Deleting the requirement for battery charger load sharing within 10% does not alter the capability to detect any battery charger failures which would prevent the performance of its safety related function.
The proposed change ensures the ability of the battery chargers to provide the appropriate charging capability and ensures that
WC!I ~'t
L-91-190 Attachment 2
Page 2 of 2 the operability requirements of TS 3.8.2.1 are met.
This change does not affect any safety analysis assumptions, or physical modifications to the facility.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed change presents a
revised method to verify or demonstrate as appropriate, that the battery chargers are operating correctly.
This method ensures the operability requirements of TS 3.8.2.1 are
- met, without compromising the safety margin defined in, and maintained by, the Technical Specifications.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Based on the
- above, FPL has determined that the proposed amendment request does not (l) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, (2) create the probability of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a
significant reduction in a
margin of safety; and therefore does not involve a significant hazards consideration.