ML20079S089

Application for Amend to Licenses NPF-2 & NPF-8,revising Float Voltage Surveillance Requirement to 2.02 & 2.07 Volts. Addl Info Re Connector Resistance for Svc Water Bldg Batteries & Auxiliary Bldg Dc Distribution Limits Submitted

ML20079S089
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	01/27/1984
From:	Clayton F ALABAMA POWER CO.
To:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20079S092	List: ML20079S089 ML20079S107
References
NUDOCS 8402030196
Download: ML20079S089 (4)

Text

- - - - - _ - _ - - _ .

?

- Aalling Asleimes

[?-v a ;

~

,: / Alibim3 Power Company

- 000 North 18th Street

- Post Office Box 2641 Rirmingham, Alabama 35291

, Telephone 205 783-6081 F. L. Clayton, Jr.

CLL'Ofo*"' AlabamaPower January 27,'1984 Docket Nos. 50-348 M' 50-354

. Diractor : Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. $. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Mr. S. A. Varga LJoseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Units 1 and 2 Proposed Technical Specification Change to D.C. Distribution System Requiremsats~

. Gentlemen:

Alabama Power Company letter dated May 3,1983 proposed changes to the technical specifications regarding the Auxiliary and Service Water Building D.C. . Distribution Systems. Subsequent discussions with the NRC Staff identified the need for submittal of additional information and revision to the-May 3,:1983 proposed changes as contained herein.

Float Voltage Surveillance Requirement Alabama Power Company proposed to revise the existing float voltage surveillance requirement from a single criterion of 2.02 volts to Category B allowable of 2.02. volts and Category A and B limits of 2.07 volts. The NRC Staff indicated that the 2.02 volt value was acceptable based on previous licensing action by the NRC; however, the 2.07 volt limits were unacceptable based on the Standard Technical Specification guidance that 2.13 volt limits

--were required. As discussed with the NRC Staff, Alabama Power Company hereby revises the proposed Category A and B limits to 2.02 volts in

.accordance'with previously approved surveillance requirements for the Farley Nuclear Plant. Attachment 1 provides a revised Table 4.8-2 for each unit.

p b . Q y,. Q f s a M 4 m ; M . y ;;. Q .

_' % 3:.f.id. ' []: QS.Q :S Y M.% ll Q.& &>c Q.j D Qla

.p

_ g.:. M d.'

y

.v q- . . ".

S),

. ..' J.t. ftr. S. A. Varga January 27, 1984

.h& U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 y

. ; . - m. yc NN f.h. . .,N; EA Connector Resistance for Service Water Building Batteries

.- @ Q Y j,h ' Alabama Power Company proposed to verify the Service Water Building 7 y; J ? battery system connector resistance based on a 1500 microhm criterion. The 'Q

i.i$ NRC Staff requested more information regarding selection of this criterion $

..T.' based on the Standard Technical Specification criterion of 150 microhms for  %

resistance testing.  %

'f fc.N _4y Alabama Power Company agrees that the Standard Technical Specification

.y

.r. f 1 criterion (150 microhms) is appropriate for large amperage D.C. distribution +

~

t systems such as the Auxiliary Building D.C. Distribution System (i.e., 920 <j

.h:%

. I O.h 4

amp design load) and has proposed to use the 150 microhm guidance for such 2 large amperage systems. However, the Service Water Building D.C. 4 f:M S .g ' Distribution System is a relatively low amperage system designed for an -

f. 7 accident load of 25 amps for 0.1 second and 1 amp for the next 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. 4 W. There are 18 connectors (i.e., braided cable connectors) in the Service 9

$.j '.' Water Building battery design such that the proposed 1500 microhm resistance criterion would represent less than 0.8 maximum allowable voltage drop due 11

' .? N to connection resistance at the transient load of 25 amps. This voltage T

?. . :.h

(.5% drop is insignificant when compared with the system nominal 125 volts.  % t4

,9 + 4 Also, this maximum allowable voltage drop would be less than the maximum

.k.; .5.Q allowable voltage drop in the Auxiliary Building D.C. Distribution System based on the 150 microhm criterion (i.e.,150 microhms, 59 connectors and 7

1'

, .g 3 V Q.. 920 amps yields greater than an 8.0 volt drop).

a Y[ #]l

?:. The relatively low amperage Service Water Building D.C. Distribution (

. h j System utilizes braided cable battery connectors such that the inherent p l

. u.O resistance is higher than for copper bar type connectors used on the i Auxiliary Building D.C. systems. The 1500 microhm criterion is based on W Q}*.

Au*f assuring that the braided cable connectors have not deteriorated, the

-^

s J

% $. '. voltage drop is minimal and the connectors are not subjected to a surveillance criterion that would cause ur.necessary cable replacement or a Qvi .5

.f.h system design change.

cd 5

. .n s

h'.k Auxiliary Building D.C. Distribution Limits During Shutdown

.s

[

.s 4. %

. 1.E  : Alabama Power Company proposed to adopt the wording of the Standard gi Technical Specifications for the Auxiliary Building D.C. Distribution System p[

yg.Q during shutdown except for the requirement to vent the Reactor Coolant q e* System (RCS) within 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> should the D.C. system become inoperable. Based  %

Y.d; N on discussions with the representatives of Westinghouse, the basis for the D

i. M9s Standard Technical Specification requirement to vent the RCS is that the  ?-

M generic design for reactor vessel low temperature overpressure protection j

!. ' T depends on the D.C. distribution system. However, the Farley Nuclear Plant  %'

..7 low temperature overpressure protection system does not rely on the D.C. t u Z.. distribution system since spring-loaded mechanical relief valves are ~ f.

p%.T .:$(} utilized. The NRC approved the Farley Nuclear Plant low temperature overpressure protection system and associated technical specifications per S

i

.. tf.

NUREG-0117, Supplement No. 4, " Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant."

j i Jf.g- f.4

.w.o

$a n, y i ).ft j

'd

..QQ ~ a

.7.I ' .*. p Yv..$

.e w .e .

3

.y n

')

• s

• .J, . &

+_ , '

..' e. n e ., ,

Mr. S. A. Varga January 27, 1984 Page 3

'U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Since the Farley Nuclear Plant reactor vessel low temperature overpressure protection system differs from the design assumed in the

' Standard Technical Specifications in that it does not rely upon the D.C.

distribution system,- the proposed deviation from the Standard Technical Specification guidance is technically justified. The existing technical specification on the low temperature overpressure protection system (i.e.,

. 3/4.4.1.4) provides the .needed assurance of. proper system operation.

Another area of deviation from the Standard Technical Specification regarding the Auxiliary Building D.C. Distribution System during shutdown is that the May 3,1983 submittal combined the ACTION statement for the battery

. bank, D.C. bus and charger into one statement. In accordance with discussions with the NRC Staff, Alabama Power Company hereby revises the proposed submittal to separate the ACTION statement into two statements, one on the battery bank and D.C. bus and the other on the charger. The revised

~

g proposed submittal is, .therefore, in accordance with the Standard Technical Specification guidance. Attachment 2 is a revised Action Statement for J Specification 3.8.2.4 for each unit.

Conclusion The D.C. Distribution System proposed technical specification change, including this supplement, is considered to not involve a Significant Hazards Consideration as defined in 10CFR50.92. These changes are similar to example (ii) of " Examples of Amendments That Are Considered Not Likely to Involve Significant Hazards Considerations" listed in 48FR14870 dated April 6,1983 in that these changes involve restriction and control not presently included in the technical specifications. In addition, the proposed technical specification change conforms in general with the fomat of the

most recent Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications (WSTS). The

. differences between the currently approved WSTS and the proposed technical specification change are detailed in' Attachment 1 of the May 3,1983 letter and this supplement. The class of this proposed change was designated as

. Class III' for Unit 1 and Class I for Unit 2 in accordance with 10CFR170.22 requirements. :A check for $4,400 to cover the total amount of fees required was enclosed with the May 3,1983 letter. As noted by the distribution, a copy of this . supplemental letter is being sent to the Alabama State Designee in'accordance with 10CFR50.91 (b)(1).

Yours very tru , ,

/ s

.QL Cl ayton, Jr. /

FLCJ r/GGY:grs-D1 g Attachments cc: See Page 4

_ )

Mr. S. A. Varga January 27, 1984 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Page 4 cc: Mr. R. A. Thomas Mr. G. F. Trowbridge Mr. J. P. O'P.eilly Mr. E. A. Reeves Mr. W. H. Bradford Dr. I. L. Myers

- _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ .