ML20036B791
| ML20036B791 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1993 |
| From: | COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20036B790 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306020343 | |
| Download: ML20036B791 (10) | |
Text
.. _. _
e q
i
'l
-t
- ATTACHMENT H PR.OPOSED CHANGES ANNOTATED AND TYPED PAGES FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST NO. 93-04 i
RELOCATION OF THE QUARTERLY 125 VDC BATTERY EQUALIZATION IiEQUIREMENT
-t PAGES MODIFIED j
i 261 274a i
7 3
i r
I i
-i d
i k:20002627.wpf/-
l 9306020343 930526 PDR' ADOCK 05000295 I
P PDR
s-LI:4ITIriG CONDITION FOR OPERATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIRENENT l
3.15.1.D 4.15.1.D.
E.
The unit 125-volt batteries (111 and E.
Station 125-volt batteries (111, 112 for Unit 1 - 211 and 212 for 112 and 011 for Unit 1 - 211, Unit 2) and the common battery (011) 212 and 011 for Unit 2) are charged and in service and.their respective battery chargers and 125-volt DC control buses are energized.
1 Every week the specific gravity and voltage of the pilot cell and temperature of adjacent cells and over-all battery voltage shall be measured and recorded.
Overall battery voltage chall be verified to be at least 125 volts.
2.
Every quarter the measure-ments shall be made of voltage of each cell to the nearest 1.01 volt, specific gravity 0
of each cell, and ' temperature of every fifth cell.
The electrolyte height will be checked and adjusted as required.
All data shall be recorded including the amount of water _added to any cel].
.he battery cPall th;n tEwc '
giver 1 20 h ur ;qualizing
)
- Lui 6.
l 3.
Tests 4.15.1.E.1 and 4.15.1.E.2 are acceptable if comparison g l
26)
.j Sasta:
4.15 Ba t.ttr_lel -
Station batterles can be expected to deteriorate with time but precipitous failure is extremely unilkely.
The type of weekly and quarterly surveillance t,ecified has demonstrated over the p ars the ab1))ty to detect Indicationt._of a cell becooln3 trreoular or ur 2tviceable long before it falls./:'? 5:7SE;pT;E5' d QL.vv.w;;; ;;;;;; tM* tC -- : ; t..
- p;r ey e7 it3$=T* r="~' ' ' -
_j Each refueling outage.the batterles are visually inspected and subjected to a discharge performance test or service test as recommended by IEEE Std. 450-1980, "IEEE Recommended Practice for Maintenance, Testing, and Replacement of large Lead Storage Batteries for Generating Stations and Substations," to ensure that the
-battery has maintained its required capacity. Following this discharge test the battery is restored to the-fully charged condition.
In addition. a performance test'Is conducted on the battery charger to verify its ability to supply sufficient asperage to recharge a battery and also supply normal loads.
(2)
The tests described hbove are proven power plant practice and will ensure the continued availability of the battery as well.as its continued capability to carry design load.
-(2) FSAR Section 8.4.1.4 Y
(Amendment Nos.137 and'126}
I 274a'
4 LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENT 3.15.1.0 4.15.1.0 E.
The unit 125-volt batteries (111 and E.
Station 125-volt batteries (111, 112 for Unit 1 - 211 and 212 for Unit 2) 112 and 011 for Unit 1 - 211, 212 and-the common battery (011) are charged and 011 for Unit 2) and in service and their respective battery chargers and 125-volt DC control buses are 1.
Every week the specific gravity energized.
and voltage of the pliot cell and temperature of adjacent cells and overall battery voltage shall be measured and recorded. Overall battery voltage shall be verified to be at least 125 volts.
2.
Every quarter the measurements shall be made of voltage of each cell to the nearest 0.01 volt, specific gravity of each cell, and temperature of every fifth cell.
The electrolyte height will be checked and adjusted as required.
All data shall be recorded including the amount of water added to any cell.
l 3.
Tests 4.15.1.E.1 and 4.15.1.E.2 are acceptable if comparison 4
e
\\
261 ZOSR-332
Bases:
4.15 Batteries 4
. Station batteries can be en'-
_d to deteriorate with time but precipitous failure is extremely unlikely.
The type of weekly and c
- y surveillance specified has demonstrated over the years the ability to detect indications of a cell t.
'g irregular or unservicable long before it falls.
Each refueling outage the batteries are visually inspected and subjected to a discharge performance test.or-service test as. recommended by IEEE Std. 450-1980, "IEEE Recommended Practice for Maintenance, Testing, and Replacement-of Large Lead Storage Batteries for Generating Stations and Substations," to ensure that the battery has maintained its required' capacity.
Following this discharge test the battery is restored to the-fully charged condition.
In addition, a performanco test is conducted on the battery charger to verify its ability to supply sufficient amperage to rocharge a battery and also supply normal loads.
(2)
The tests described above are proven power plant practice and will ensure the continued availability of the battery as well as its continued capability to carry design' load.
(2) FSAR Section 8.4.1.4 274a ZOSR-332
i I
t i
t i
4 h
.f
.I ATTACHMENT C f
EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST NO. 93-04 RELOCATION OF THE QUARTERLY 125 VDC BATTERY EQUALIZATION REQUIREMENT-t i
f i
f I-;
7
.}',
b i
e i
i
-[
i I
t k:z0002627.wpf/.
l t
l
I i
~
EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION j
LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST 93-04 RELOCATION OF THE QUARTERLY.125 VDC BATTERY l
EQUALIZATION REQUIREMENT
{
i Commonwealth Edison has evaluated this proposed amendment and determined i
that it involves no significant hazards considerations. According to 10CFR50.92(c), a proposed amendment to an operating license involves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not:
L Involve a significant increase in the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident previously evaluated;.
j k
2.
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
{
previously analyzed; or, j
i 3.
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
~
The following evaluation is provided for the three categories of the significant hazards consideration standards:
j l
L Do the changes involve a significant increase in the probability of occurrence or i
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Relocation of the battery equalization requirements to licensee control does not l
alter the Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) requirements to maintain i
operable DC power sources. Continued performance of battery surveillances specified within the Technical Specifications provide assurance that DC power 1
sources are available and operable. Through conformance with the LCO's requirements to maintain operable DC power sources, assumed functions are i
assured. Therefore, the proposed changes do not represent a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated.
2.
Do the changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed?
i Relocation of the battery equalizatin requirements to licensee control does not represent a change in design. Battery equalization requirements will be l
performed in accordance with vendor recommendations, and will be evaluated
{
in accordance with the requirements of 10CFR 50.59. Periodic monitoring of l
battery parameters, retained within the Technical Specifications, provide information necessary to evaluate the need to perform a battery equalization independent of a specified equalization frequency within the Technical Specifications. As such, relacation of the battery equalization requirements to licensee control does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of.
accident from those previously analyzed.
i
?
k:20002627.wpf/
l
~
i i
t EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION l
- LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST 93-04 RELOCATION OF THE QUARTERLY 125 VDC BATTERY j
EQUALIZATION REQUIREMENT j
f r
3.
Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
l The relocation of the battery equalization requirements does not alter the i
operability requirements for the DC power sources required for plant L
operation. The surveillance requirements specified within the Technical
~
Specifications for the DC power sources provide assurance that the DC sources will be capable of performing their intended functions. These surveillances provide for periodic monitoring of hattery parameters that are indicative of the i
need to perform battery equalizations. Battery equalizations will continue to 1
be performed when required in accordance with vendor recommendations, thus assuring required capacity is maintained. Therefore, the proposed changes do l
not create a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
j
.f I
i
.[
i i
f i
?
i i
t i
- j l
1 l
k:::00 02627.wpf /
i
-]
1
k 1
i
?
-f I
ATTACHMENT D ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR i
LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST NO. 93-04 RELOCATION OF THE QUARTERLY 125 VDC BATTERY EQUALIZATION REQUIREMENT 4
i
.I t
(
i
?.r I
i
-i i
'q l
i i
h f
k:z0002627.wpf/
'D ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST NO. 93 !
RELOCATION OF THE QUARTERLY 125 VDC BATTERY EQUALIZATION REQUIREMENT l
i i
l
+
t The changes proposed by this License Amendment Request have been evaluated against the criteria for and identification oflicensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental assessment in accordance with 10CFR51.21. It has been determined that the proposed changes meet the criteria for categorical exclusion as provided for under l
10CFR51.22(c)(9). The following is a discussion of how the proposed changes meet the criteria for categorical exclusion:
l The change involves an amendment to a license for a reactor issued pursuant to 10 1
CFR 50 and involves the relocation (as such, interpreted to be a change) of a
~f surveillance requirement for which:
j (i)
The proposed changes involve no significant hazards consideration as evaluated in Attachment B of this License Amendment Request;
[
(ii)
There is no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite since the proposed changes do not affect the generation of any radioactive effluents nor do they affect any of the permitted release paths; and,.
i (iii)
There is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure associated with these proposed changes.
Accordingly, the proposed amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10CFR51.22(c)(9). Based on the aforementioned and pursuant to i
10CFR51.22(b), no emironmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs -
i to be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment to the Licenses incorporating the proposed changes.
j i
~f i
l l
i t-I i
t k:z0002627.wpf/
-l
-