ML20138R219

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 108 to License DPR-65

ML20138R219
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	12/24/1985
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20138R218	List: ML20138R217 ML20138R219
References
TAC-58013, NUDOCS 8512310059
Download: ML20138R219 (2)

Text

.. f anog y,.

k UNITED STATES

.y g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r.

l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\\...../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.108 TO DPR-65 NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL.

MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT N0. 2 00CKET N0. 50-336

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By [[letter::A04590, Responds to NRC 850111 Request for Addl Info Re NUREG-0737, TMI Item II.D.1 Concerning Performance Testing of Relief & Safety Valves,Selection of Transients & Valve Inlet Conditions,Valve Operability & thermal-hydraulic Analysis|letter dated June 11, 1985]], Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (the licensee) proposed an amendment to the Technical Specifications appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-65 for Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2.

The proposed revision to the Technical Specifications would change the second sentence of the existing item No. 4.8.2.3.2.e, which states:

"Thi performance discharge test shall be performed subsequent to the satisfactory completion of the required battery service test." The revision reads: "This performance discharge test may be performed in lieu of the battery service test."

2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The present Hillstone Unit 2 Technical Specification requires a performance discharge test to be performed subsequent to satisfactory completion of the required 18-month battery service test. The proposed change would allow the more stringent performance discharge test to be used in lieu of the 18-month battery service test, thus eliminating unnecessary testing that would result in reduced battery life expectancy.

The battery tests which the licensee must periodically perform to show battery capability and reliability are as follows:

1) Service Test, to verify that the battery capacity is adequate to supply and maintain in an operable status all of the actual or simulated emergency loads for the design; and 2) Performance Discharge Test to verify that the battery capacity is at least 80% of manufacturer's rating. Both tests incorporate the applicable recommendations found in the Industrial Code IEEE-Std-450. Both tests use a constant rate discharge technique. The battery manufacturer, CAD Batteries, states in the battery instruction manual No. 12-1980, 1976 that:

" Normal qualification tests as discussed in IEEE-Std-450 are not harmful to the life of the battery, but repeated testing which discharges a battery many times in a relatively short period of time materially affects the long life typical of the original design of stationary batteries."

G512310059 851224 PDR ADOCK 05000336 P

PDR

8 The proposed change is consistent with the Westinghouse PWR Standard Technical Specification (NUREG-0452, Revision 4 Section 4.8.2.1.e) which states: [ demonstrated operable] "At least once per 60 months, during shutdown, by verifying that the battery capacity is at least 80% of the manufacturer's rating when subjected to a performance discharge test. Once per 60-month interval, this performance discharge test may be performed in lieu of the battery service test." Elimination of the 18-month battery service test is an Administrative function in that redundant testing during the interval when the 60-month performance discharge test is perfonned, becomes unnecessary. The 18-month battery service, test would be done during outages that do not involve performing the 60-month performance discharge test.

Based on the above, the staff concludes that the proposed cFange:

1) is consistent with the Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse PWR plants, NUREG-0452; 2) adheres to industrial and manufacturer recommendations; and 3) is conservative in performing the performance discharge test in lieu of the service test. The staff, therefore, finds the licensee's proposed change to be acceptable.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.

The 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 be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously published a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 651.22(c)(9).

Pursuant to 10 CFR 551.22(b), no environmental inpact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.

4.0 CONCLUSION

We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Date:

December 24, 1985 Principal Contributors:

P. Phelam R. Paolino s