ML18093A824

Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-70 & DPR-75,revising Tech Spec Surveillance Requirement 4.8.2.5.2.e to Remove Requirement for Performance of Two Separate Tests of 28-volt Batteries During Certain Plant Shutdowns

ML18093A824
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	05/03/1988
From:	Miltenberger S Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
Shared Package
ML18093A825	List: ML18093A824 ML18093A826
References
NLR-N88065, NUDOCS 8805110171
Download: ML18093A824 (5)

Text

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Steven E. Miltenberger Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609 339-4199 Vice President -

Nuclear Operations May 3, 1988 NLR-N88065 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 In accordance with the requirements of 10CFR50.90, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) hereby transmits a request for amendment of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 for Salem Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. In accordance with the requirements of 10CFR170.21, a check in the amount of

$150.00 is enclosed. In accordance with the requirements of 10CFR50.9l(b)(l), a copy of this request has been sent to the State of New Jersey as indicated below.

This amendment revises Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 4.8.2.5.2.e for both Salem Unit 1 and Salem Unit 2 as indicated in the attached pages. This change removes the requirement to perform two separate tests of the 28-volt batteries during certain plant shutdowns. The change will allow the satisfactory performance of the more stringent of the two tests to satisfy the surveillance requirements for both the 18-month and 60-month tests on those occasions when the 60-month test is performed. Further discussion and justification for the proposed revision is presented in the attachment to this letter.

It should be noted that an identical license change was proposed and an amendment granted for Salem Unit 1 (Amendment No. 70) and Salem Unit 2 (Amendment No. 45) on January 26, 1986 for the 125-volt DC distribution system (Technical Specification 3/4.8.2.3). In addition, the existing Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications (STS) indicate a surveillance requirement commensurate with that of the proposed license change. Based on these considerations and on the 10CFR50.92 Significant Hazards Consideration evaluation presented in th~

attachment, PSE&G feels that this license change request should nO\or A

be classified as a Category 2 amendment proposal, i.e., one which ' \clt ,Cl)

(-~~~o~~d- -~~-t require a deta iled technical review by NRC. vJ /ch~J. "W p-

, ..... 880'J11-01 7 L :380503. ..

1 u d()

. PDR ... ADOCK 05000272 __...b: J-~ l>

• • P nc:n ~

Document Control Desk 2 05-03-88 Since the Surveillance Requirements referred to in the proposed license change are scheduled to be performed during the upcoming Salem Unit 2 refueling outage scheduled for September 1987, we request review and approval of this submittal to support this schedule.

This submittal-includes one (1) signed original, including affidavit and thirty-seven (37) copies pursuant to 10CFR50.4(b)(2)(ii). Should you have any questions with regard to this transmittal, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely, Attachment C Mr. D. C. Fischer USNRC Licensing Project Manager Mr. R. w. Borchardt USNRC Senior Resident Inspector Mr. W. T. Russell, Administrator USNRC Region I Mr. D. M. Scott, Chief Bureau of Nuclear Engineering Department of Environmental Protection 380 Scotch Road Trenton, NJ 08628

Ref: LCR 88-04 STATE OF NEW JERSEY SS.

COUNTY OF SALEM Steven E. Miltenberger, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says:

I am Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set forth in our letter dated May 3, 1988 , concerning Facility Operating Licenses DPR-70 and DPR-75 for Salem Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Subscribed and Sworn to before me

• th~s. Jae? '. . day of 1l1o:J , 1988

.G>>~li/ OcM EILEEN M. OCMS Notary Public of New Jersey NOTARY PUBLIC OF MEW JERSEY My Commtsslon Expires July 16, 1992 My Comml:ssion expires on - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PROPOSED CHANGE TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS . LCR 88-04 SALEM UNIT NOS. 1 & 2 Page 1 of 2 Description of Change Revise Surveillance Requirement 4.8.2.5.2.e for both Salem Unit 1 and Salem Unit 2 as indicated in the attached pages. This change will remove the requirement for performing two separate tests of the 28-volt batteries during certain plant shutdowns and allow the satisfactory performance of the more stringent of the two tests to satisfy the surveillance requirements for both the 18 month and the 60 month tests on those occasions when the 60 month test is performed.

Reason for Change Performance of the Battery Service Test during those outages in which the 60 month Battery Capacity Discharge Test is also performed adds up to an extra week to the outage schedule. On an 18 month cycle, the battery service tests are completed on each of the batteries. At approximately every third outage, however, the Service Test is accomplished, the battery is recharged, and the battery is subjected to the full capacity Discharge Test, which is far more demanding on the battery than the Service Test.

Significant Hazards Consideration The proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration because operation of Salem Generating Station Units 1 and 2 would not:

(1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed change in testing will not significantly impact the operability of the batteries. The performance of the battery discharge test will adequately determine whether the battery operates within acceptable limits relative to its original design capacity as well as tha original requirements for the battery design. As such, a separate service test is not necessary at the interval when the discharge test is performed.

(2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The change in testing in no way affects the operability of the batteries or their ability to function in an accident situation. There is no significant increase.in the amounts, and no significant change in the types of effluents that may .be released offsite as a result of the proposed change. Also, the proposed change involves no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation ex_posure.

LCR 88-04 Page 2 of 2 (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The purpose of the battery service.test is to demonstrate the ability of the battery to satisfy the design requirement (battery duty cycle) of the DC system, that is, the ability to support the equipment important to safety for a specific time period. The battery is sized during the plant design stages to have the capacity to perform this function. The purpose of the capacity discharge test is to show that the battery remains within an acceptable percentage of its original design capacity, which was initially demonstrated in the battery acceptance test.

Since the battery capacity discharge test demonstrates that the battery is still within acceptable limits relative to its original design, this test also demonstrates, unless a significant change to the DC system has been made during subsequent plant operation (such a change would have been evaluated pursuant to 10CFR50.59), that the battery can also satisfy the original design duty cycle. Thus, the capacity discharge test satisfies the intent of the service test and renders performance of the service test unnecessary when performance of the discharge test is required.

The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists by providing certain examples (48FR14870) of amendments that are not likely to involve a significant hazard.

Since the proposed change is consistent with existing Standard Technical Specification provisions, it is representative of a minor change to facility operation, clearly in keeping with NRC regulatory recommendations.

Also, it should be noted that an identical license change was proposed and an amendment granted by the Commission for Salem Unit 1 (Amendment No. 70) and Salem Unit 2 (Amendment No. 45) on January 26, 1986 for the 125-volt DC distribution system (Technical Specification 3/4.8.2.3).

Based on these considerations, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) has determined that this change does not involve a significant hazards consideration. PSE&G feels that this

• license change request should be categorized as a Category 2 amendment proposal, i.e. one which should not require a detailed technical review since evidence of the NRC acceptance of the proposed wording is provided,in the existing Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications.