ML20141B915
| ML20141B915 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1997 |
| From: | NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141B912 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9705160058 | |
| Download: ML20141B915 (11) | |
Text
.-. _ _ _
t Docket No. 50-423 B16462 i
\\.
Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 3 Proposed Revision to Technical Specification
- )
D. C. Sources (PTSCR 3-19-97)
Marked Up Paae May 1997 9705160058 970514 ADOCK0500g4 DR l
1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B16462\\ Attachment 2\\Page 1
' MARKUP OF PROPOSED REVISIO_N_
Refer to the attached markup of the proposed revision to the Technical Specifications.
The attached markup reflects the currently issued version of the Technical Specifications listed below. Pending Technical Specification revisions or Technical Specification revisions issued subsequent to this submittal are not reflected in the enclosed markup.
The following Technical Specification change is included in the attached markup:
Modify the surveillance by increasing the required test voltage i
4.8.2.1.c.4 I
1 1
1 3-M7 E(ECTRICALPOWER.. SYSTEMS January 3,1995
$URVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS (Continued) b.
At least once per 92 days and within 7 days after a battery discharge with battery teminal voltage below 110 volts, or battery overcharge with battery terminal voltage above 150 volts, by verify-ing that:
i 1)
The parameters in Table 4.8-2a meet the Category B limits,
)
2)
There is no visible corrosion at either terminals or connec-tors, or the connection resistance of these items is less than 4
150 x 10 ohm, and 3)
The average electrolyte temperature of six connected cells is above 60*F.
c.
At least once per 18 months by verifying that:
l 1)
The cells, cell plates, and battery racks show no visual indication of physical damage or abnormal deterioration, 2)
The cell-to-cell and terminal connections are clean, tight, and coated with anticorrosion material, 3)
The resistance of each cell-to-cell and terminal connection is less than or equal to 150 x 10* ohm, and 4)
Each battery charger will supply at least the amperage indi-cated in Table 4.8-2b at-434-yol_ts_for at_ least 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
t {,GAfM N THAM OR favAL To172]
d.
At least once per 18 months, during shut ~down,~ Dy verifying Tnat the I
battery capacity is adequate to supply and maintain in OPERABLE status all of the actual or simulated emergency loads for the design duty cycle when the battery is subjected to a battery service test; e.
At least once per 60 months, during shutdown, by verifying that the l
battery capacity is at least 80% of the manufacturer's rating when subjected to a perfomance. discharge test. Once per 60-month interval this perfomance discharge test may be perforined in lieu of the battery service test required by Specification 4.8.2.1d.; and f.
At least once per 18 months, during shutdown, by giving performance i
discharge tests of battery capacity to any battery that shows signs of degradation or has reached 85% of the service life expected for the application. Degradation is indicated when the battery capacity drops more than 10% of rated capacity from its average on previous performance tests, or is below 90% of the manufacturer's rating.
MILLSTONE - UNIT 3 3/4 8-12 Amendment No. H, 77,1M anu
Docket No. 50-423 B16462 l
1 e
i I
i -
Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 3 Proposed Revision to Technical Specification D. C. Sources
-(PTSCR 3-19-97)
Retvoed Paae May 1997
l l
' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B16462\\ Attachment 3\\Page 1 RETYPE OF PROPOSED REVISION 1-Refer to the attached retype of the proposed revision to the Technical Specifications.
l The attached retype reflects the currently issued version of the Technical l-Specifications. Pending Technical Specification revisions or Technical Specification l
revisions issued subsequent to this submittal are not reflected in the enclosed retype, f
The enclosed retype should be checked for continuity with Technical Specifications prior to issuance.
- - - - ~ -
4 ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS SURNEILLANCEREQUIRENENTS(Continued) b.
At least once per 92 days and within 7 days after a battery discharge with battery terminal voltage below 110 volts, or battery overcharge with battery terminal voltage above 150 volts, by verify-ing that:
1)
The parameters in Table 4.8-2a meet the Category B limits, 2)
There is no visible corrosion at either terminals or connec-J tors, or the connection resistance of these items is less than 150 x 10 ohm, and 3)
The average electrolyte temperature of six connected cells is above 60*F.
c.
At least once per 18 months by verifying that:
1)
The cells, cell plates, and battery racks show no visual i
indication of physical damage or abnormal deterioration, 2)
The cell-to-cell and terminal connections are clean, tight, and coated with anticorrosion material, 3)
The resistance of each cell-to-cell and terminal connection is less than or equal to 150 x 10' ohm, and 4)
Each battery charger will supply at least the amperage indi-catedinTable4.8-2batgreaterthanorequalto132voltsforl at least 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
d.
At least once per 18 months, during shutdown, by verifying 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 when the battery is subjected to a battery service test; e.
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 required by Specification 4.8.2.1d.; and f.
At least once per 18 months, during shutdown, by giving performance discharge tests of battery capacity to any battery that shows signs of degradation or has reached 85% of the service life expected for the application.
Degradation is indicated when the battery capacity drops more than 10% of rated capacity from its average on previous performance tests, or is below 90% of the manufacturer's rating.
MILLSTONE - UNIT 3 3/4 8-12 Amendment No. JJ, 77, 199, osmo
l l
t l
Docket No. 50-423 B16462 1
l I
I f
i t
i s
Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 3 Proposed Revision to Technical Specification D. C. Sources (PTSCR 3-19-97)
Safety Assessment i
i 1
l.
3 i
i i
May 1997 i
i
1 i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B1S462\\ Attachment 4\\Page 1 1
Safety Assessment Technical Specification Surveillance 4.8.2.1.c.4 currently requires that each battery charger be tested to verify that it can supply a specified current at 125 volts. This proposed change will modify this surveillance by replacing the current requirement to test at 125 voltc with a requirement to test at greater than or equal to 132 volts. This surveillance change will provide assurance that the battery charger is capable of supplying the largest combined demands of the various steady state loads, plus the l
current required to recharge its battery, which has undergone a duty cycle discharge, to its fully charged condition in less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. The revised surveillance acceptance criteria is consistent with the design capabilities of the Millstone Unit No. 3 battery
- chargers, t
i Docket No. 50-423 816462 r
i
)
i Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 3 Proposed Revision to Technical Specification D. C. Sources (PTSCR 3-19-97)
Sianificant Hazards Consideration and Environmental Considerations -
1 l
May 1997
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B1.6462\\ Attachment 5\\Page 1 Sianificant Hazards Consideration NNECO has reviewed the proposed revision in accordance with 10CFR50.92 and has concluded that the revision does not involve a significant hazards consideration (SHC).
The basis for this conclusion is that the three criteria of 10CFR50.92(c) are not satisfied. The proposed revision does not involve a SHC because the revision would not:
1.
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident i
previously evaluated.
The proposed changes to Technical Specification Surveillance 4.8.2.1.c.4 to increase the required test voltage for the battery chargers from 125 volts to greater than or equal to 132 volts is consistent with the design criteria of the chargers and performing battery charger surveillance testHg does not significantly increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes to increase the required test voltage for the battery chargers provides the necessary assurance that the battery chargers will i
function as required in previous evaluations and does not significantly increase the consequence of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed revision does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated.
l 2.
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes to Technical Specification Sumeillance 4.8.2.1.c.4 to increase the required test voltage for the battery chargers from 125 volts to greater than or equal to 132 volts does not change the operation of the battery chargers during normal or accident evaluations.
Therefore, the proposed revision does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3.
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed change to Technical Specification Surveillance 4.8.2.1.c.4 to i
increase the required test voltage for the battery chargers from 125 volts to greater than or equal to 132 volts provides assurance that the battery chargers i
are capable of supplying the largest combined demands of the various steady state loads, plus the current required to recharge its battery, which has undergone a duty cycle discharge, to its fully charged condition in less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
i-l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C mmission B16462\\ Attachment 5\\Page 2 Therefore, the proposed revision does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
In conclusion, based on the information provided, it is determined that the proposed revision does not involve an SHC.
l Environmental Considerations NNECO has reviewed the proposed license amendment against the criteria of l
10CFR51.22 for environmental considerations. The proposed revision does not involve -
l a SHC, does not significantly increase the type and amounts of effluents that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational l
radiation exposures. Based on the foregoing, NNECO concludes that the proposed revision meets the criteria delineated in 10CFR51.22(c)(9) for categorical exclusion from.the requirements of an environmental considerations.
1 i
l l
,+~