ML20101A456
| ML20101A456 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20101A453 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9204220160 | |
| Download: ML20101A456 (3) | |
Text
_
/ptnon UNITE 0 STATES
['
' ),
NUCLEAT. REGULATORY COMMISSION w
7 f
W A6HINGtDN. D C 20%6
/
'^.. '... "#ME1T1.3 YALW.lftJu_lHLOHlCllf.lWIReLMKul0LRfRLAJJ11ti file 71U0 #NDEULLtt0J071R f.AULITY OPIBAUEllifAS.LlLJihl2 EOUTH CAROLIRalilLLSILLGAlmRfn 10VltLIEcute rust 1L_nnLy Avinoquy YL%1LJ., SUMER G' AR iLAILQ!L,.VIL{T NgJ DOCKET 40.dq:In 1.0 1HIRgau111011 By letter dated June 12, 1991, the South Carolina Electric 1 Gas Company (the licensee) submitted a request for chances to the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Sutton, Unit No.1 (Suuur Station), Technical Specifications (15) regarding surveillance terting of new replacemant Class IE batterie.c.
The requested changes would modify Surveillance Requirement 4.8.2.1 nd the associated Bases section 3/4 8-2 for the new replacement batteries installed to meet the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.155, Station Blackout.
2.0 flaU.MTION The Station Blackout (580) Rule,10 CiR 50.S3, requires that each light water *.coled nuclear power plant be able to withstand and recover from an SB0 for a specified duration.
The licensee initially stated that the Class IE batteries were determined to have sufficient capacity to meet SB0 loads for 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, assuming that loads not needed to cope with the 580 would be strippred.
Subsequently, in a submittal dated A]ril 17, 1989, the licensee stated that load stripping to extend the
- attery l
capacity to meet thn 4-hour SB0 coping duration was not considered prudent.
The licensee informed the staff by letter dated October 2, i
l 1989, that it would replace the existing batteries with higher capacity batteries in order to meet the subject 580 coping duration without the requirement to manually strip loads.
l The licensee recently (Spring 1990) installed two higher capacity Class IE batteries.
The new Ciass IE battnries were sized to meet the more restrictive SB0 load demand under the most limiting battery conditions.
i These conditions vro (1) a minimum electrolyte temrerature of 60'F, (2) a minimum capacity derating factor for aging and temperature of 80%, and (3) SS out of the 60 installed cells connected.
Each battery is rated at 2175 ampere-hours. Section 8.3.2.1.3 of the Summer Station Final Safety Analysis Report states that 860 ampere-hours represents the worst 9204220160 920417 PDR ADOCK M OOO399 p
. caso load demand ir, the event of a design basis accident or ent 580 of 4-hour duration. The licensee proposes the following changes be made to reflect the revised engineering criteria vsed to size the new h t '.e r i e s :
(1) Change TS 4.8.2.1.b.3 to specify an average electrolyte temperature neeater than or equal to 60*F rather than 65'f.
lhe basis for this surveillance requirement is to verify that the average electrolyte tenperature is abcVe the minimum value for which the battery is sized given the manufacturar's reconmendations for acceptable operating temperatures.
Since the licenste states that the minimum electrolyte temperature 'Jsed for sizing the replacement batteries was 60*F, we find the change consistent with the t,riginal iritent of the survelliance requirement.
Therefore, th3 change is acceptable.
(2) Change TS 4.8.2.1.e to spcify that the minimum battery capacity to be verified by test is at least 80% rather than 90% of the manufacturer's rating.
The proposed acceptance criteria is consistent with Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 4bO-1987 and IEEE Standard 485-1983 recommendations.
It is recommended that the battery be replhced if its ".apacity la below 80% of the manufacturer's rating. A capacity factor of 80% is indicative of an increased rate of detertcration even if there is ample capacity to meet the load requirements.
We find that this change does not affect the eriginal intent of the survelliance requirement and is, therefore, acceptable.
(3) Change the Bases B 3/4 (page 8-2) industry reference citation from 1EEE Standard 450 1980 to IEEE Standard 450-1987. This change is editrMal in nature and does not affect the original intent of the Bases.eference.
The change is, therefore, acceptable.
3.0 EUmtABI We have reviewed the licensee's submittal and have concluded that tne changes reflect the revise'l design basis f or the replacement Class IE batteries.
The licensee stated that the new batteries are sized larger than required with the subject calculations considering all correction factors for aging, design margin and operating temperatures as recomraendea in IEEE Standard 485. We find that the subject changes me?t the original intent for the existing Technical Specification requirements and are, therefore, acceptable.
l
4.0 11A1E ccN wLlall M in accordance with the Conmission's regulations, the South Carolina State official was notified of the proposed issuance of '.he amendment.
The State official had no comments.
5.0 LElE21EAL.Gn1ELRA110 The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in
? CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may ue released offsite, and that there it no significant increart in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hi;zards consideration, and there has been no ouolic comment on such finding (56 FR 37590). Accordingly, the amendmen* meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set fortl..a 10 CFR St.22(c)(9).
Pursuut to 10 CFR $1.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
6.0 M E LVS10N The Ccmission has concluded, based on the consideraticas discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endt.ngered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted o compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) t"e issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributnr:
R. Jenkins Date:
April 17, 1992 o
4 0
i
____--m_
-___--__m
____m..______.___-__________.________.__________m____-._..________.____.__m__._
__m._.m_m__.____m