ML20055E448

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 111 & 92 to Licenses DPR-70 & DPR-75,respectively

ML20055E448
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	07/03/1990
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20055E446	List: ML20055E445 ML20055E448
References
NUDOCS 9007110349
Download: ML20055E448 (3)

Text

_ _._

h

' ((p nee g

UNITED STATES I

o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a

s wAssiwotow. o. c. rosss l

....+

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NL' CLEAR REACTOR REGULATION-I SUPPORTING AttENDMENT NOS.111 AND 92 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY I

ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM GENERATING STATION. UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 i

DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Ey letter dated October 17, 1989 and supplemented by letters dated March 26 and May 16, 1990, Public Service Electric & Gas Company requested an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75 for the Salem Generating Station, Unit Nos. I and 2.

Thc proposed amendments would revise the plants' Technical Specifications related to the service test requirements for the 125 and 28 volt batteries. The March 26, 1990 letter provided details of how the inad tests are to be conducted, and the May 16, 1990 letter provided the correct Technical Specifications pages for this amendment request. The supplemental letters did not increase the scope of the original amendment reouest and did not affect the staff's original no significant hazards determination.

2.0 DISCUSSION Currently, Sections 4.8.2.3.2(d) and 4.8.2.5.2(d) of the plant's Technical Specifications require design duty cycle load profile service tests utilizing actual emergency loads for 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />. This is in conflict with l

Section 8.3.2.2 of the plant's UFSAR which defines the battery design duty cycles to be based on a loss of AC power for no longer than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. - The t

licensee's proposed revision to the Technic 6 Specification sections listed above is intended to eliminate this :enflict by requiring battery service tests to utilize actual or simulated emergency loads for the design duty cycles which the licensee will Cocument in the 1990 or 1991 revisions to the plant's VFSAR.

Regulatory Guide 1.129, ' Maintenance Testing, and Replacement of Large Lead Storage Batteries for Nuclear Power Plants," erderses IEEE Std 450-1975, "IEEE Recommended Practice for Maintenance, Testing and Replacement of Large Lead Storage Batteries for Generating Stations and Substations," as an adequate.

9007110349 900703 DR ADOCK 0500 7

C

i r

i

-2~

\\

basis for testing large lead storage batteries. Subsection 4.3 of IEEE-Std 450-1975 states that the battery service test is a test of the bettery's capability to deliver power at or above the required minimum voltage to ensure the functional design requirements of the de system are met.

Further, Subsection 5.6 of IEEE Std 450-1975 states that the service test discharge rate and test length should correspond as close as practical to the actual load of the battery. Also current M rsions of standard technical specifications state that the battery service test should i

i verify that the battery capacity is adequate to supply and maintain in operable status all of the actual or simulated emergency loads for the design duty cycle.

3.0 EVALUATION As can be seen from the above discussion, the licensee's requested changes to the plant's Technical Specifications are consistent with the

+

current staff guidance contained in Regulatory Guide 1.129 and standard technical specifications and are therefore acceptable.

Historically, detailed battery load profiles have been included in technical specifichtions or, most recently, in plant-specific FSAR's.

Since the plant's Technical Specifications and UFSAR do not now contain a.

detailed description of the design duty cycles (load profiles), the revised technical specification, as approved, can only be meaningful if a g

i detailed design load profile to support the actual service test requirement is documented for each battery.

In Attachment 4 to the licensee's October 17, 1989, letter, a brief description of the criteria and methodology utilized to idcntify and calculate battery loads for service test load profiles was provided.

Basically, the licensee developed battery load profiles based on a LOCA with simultaneous loss of AC power (including a loss of power to the battery chargers) for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

In response to the staff's February 9, 1990 request for additional information, the licensee provided clarIficationandadditionaldetaileddescriptionsofthe2hourscenario for the four 28 and six 125 volt batteries in a March 26 1990 letter.

Also in that letter, the licensee connitted to include a, concise description of the battery design duty cycles in the 1990 or 1991 UFSAR revision.

The licensee divided the 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> scenario into two time periods. The first segment is the first minute following the postulated LOCA when many

_ automatic system / equipment actuations occur. The second time interval is from 1 minute to 120 minutes during which some manual restoration of 4

non-vital equipment to offsite power is anticipated. The licensee has included in the load profile for each battery and each time interval appropriatebreakeractuations(tripping,closingandcharging)Iights, relay actuations, instrument bus inverter loads, loa <s for indicator and motor / pump loads based on a set of twelve. rules or guidelines developed from engineering judgement which have been applied to the basic 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> scenario assumption.

I l

r m

m

Iu qdf I

I N

f

'~

-:3 -

,T "g -da We have reviewed the' battery load profiles an'd the guidelines from which they were developed and find them conservative and acceptable as being representative of actual, anticipated battery loading during the 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> e

scenario. We also find the 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> scenario assumption to be consistent with current staff guidance / requirements but note that this issue will be

. revisited during the' staff's plant-specific station-black-out review.

The October 17, 1989 amenoment request corrected the page number of 3/3 8-14 to read as page 3/4-8-14 for Salek Unit 2 Technical Specifications.

h4 May 16,1990~ supplemental letter provided the corrected Technical

! A ffications pages and replaced the corrected pages submitted in the October 17, 1989 subriittal. The supplement provided the correct statements in 4.8.2.5.2(e) to. read as they currently appear in the Unit 2 Technical Specifications.

In addition, the supplemental letter corrected the spelling of the word "at" in the original submittal for Unit 2 Section 4.8.2.5.2(c).3.

In the. Unit 1 Technical Specifications, revised page 3/4 8-9, aaragraph d, the word "the" was inserted between "for" and " design" by tie staff r

with the concurrence'of the licensee. This brought the revised page into

agreement with the " marked up" technical specification page.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL-CONSIDERATION These amendments _ involve a change to a requirement with respect to the ' '

installation _ or use of a facility component' located within-the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requirements.

The staffchas determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts and no significant change in the types, of any effluents thatmaybereleasedoffsiteandthatthereisnosignificantincrease'in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. -The Commission o

has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and.there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eli for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(gibility criteria-9).

Pursuant to

.10 CFR 51.22(b), r.o erivircr, mental impact statement or environmental assess-ment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.

5.0 CONCLUSION

The Comission made a proposed. determination that the amendments involve no.significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal

-Register (54 FR 51263) on December 13, 1989 and consulted with the state

.of New Jersey.

No public coments were received and the State of New Jersey did not have any coments.

The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:

(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.

Dated: July 3, 1990

)

Principal Contributor:

l

.F; Burrows J

iU

g

,