ML20079G484
| ML20079G484 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20079G479 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8401200134 | |
| Download: ML20079G484 (3) | |
Text
40 Cf Ctj e
g y),-c,\\
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
'. E WASHING TON. D. C. 20555 3.%,
j o
R..,.. p SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 90 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. DPR-62 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT 2-DOCKET N0. 50-324
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 7, 1983 as supplemented by letter dated December 16, and December 20, 1983 the Carolina Power & Light Company (the licensee) requested a change to the surveillance requirements for Brunswick 2 as set forth in the Technical Specifications of Facility Operating License No.
The requested change would revise the Technical Specifications of
+he operating license regarding a surveillance test requirement for the station electrical power systems for Brunswick Unit 2.
The present Technical Specifications in Section 4.8.2.3.2.d require a test of the station electrical batteries at least once per 18 months to demonstrate their ability to supply adequate electrical current for an actual service test or for a specified dummy load test while maintaining a battery terminal voltage of at least 105 volts. The licensee requested that the current required by the dummy load test be reduced on the basis of a reexamination of the current necessary to adequately supply power to safety-related equipment under emergency operating conditions. An actual service test is deemed to be impracticable and the safety considerations involved in doing that test have not been analyzed by the licensee or reviewed by the NRC.
2.0 EVALUATION The present Technical Specification Section 4.8.2.3.2.d states:
"d.
At least once per 18 months, during shutdown, by verifying that either:
1.
The battery capacity is adequate to supply and maintain in OPERABLE status all of the actual emergency loads for 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> when the battery is subjected to a battery service test, or 2.
The battery capacity is adequate to supply a dummy load of the following profile while maintaining the battery terminal voltage 2 105 volts.
8401200134 831231 PDR ADOCK 05000329 P
e
. a)
During the intial 60 seconds at the test:
1)
Battery 2A-1 1056.42 anperes, 2)
Battery 2A-2 ~ 1211.90 amperes, 3)
Battery 2B 1089.06 amperes, and 4)
Battery 2B-2 _ 1042.67 amperes."
The licensee has requested that Item d.2.(a)(2) be changed from 1211.90 amperes to 1074.9 amperes.
The proposed change is based on a small refinement in the calculation of battery amperage requirements. The licensee reexamined the loads placed on the battery during emergency operating conditions and found several cases where loads could not be applied simultaneously to the battery but were conservatively added to the load test requirement to result in a total amperage requirement of 1211.90 amperes.
By accounting for these loads that could not be applied simultaneously, the total amperage requirement could be recuced by 137 amperes resulting in a more realistic test requirement of 1074.9 amperes.
We reviewed the load study performed by the licensee and found that the battery testing amperage requirement may be reduced as proposed. We also found that based on the conservative methed used to determine the total amperage requirement, adequate margin exists between tne test amperage and the actual anperage that would be reouired during emergency conditions.
Furthermore, the proposed periodic testing requirement is clearly within all acceptable criteria specified in the NRC Standard Review Plan including the guidelines of IEE Standard 338-1977 as augmented by Regulatory Guide 1.118 and the test reauirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix A General Design Criteria 17 and 18, 3.0
SUMMARY
Based on our review we have concluded that the proposed change would not result in a significant reduction in the margin between the battery test amperage and the actual amperage that would be required during emergency conditions.
Furthermore, the proposed test requirement meets current NRC acceptance criteria. The proposed change is therefore acceptable to the staff.
~
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this deter-mination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 951.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environmental impadt appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there. is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
J. Knox and S. MacKay Dated:
December 31, 1983
.