ML20151D964
| ML20151D964 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 03/21/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151D946 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8804140520 | |
| Download: ML20151D964 (2) | |
Text
'
+f o,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 S A F E TY E VA L U,A,TJ,0,N, B,Y,,T,H,E_0f,F J,C,E, 0f,,h,L,C,L,E A R,,R E,A,C,T,0,R,,R,E,G,0,L,A,TJ,0,N.
RELATED TO ANENDPENT NO.122 TO FACIL11Y OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-66 0000ESNE,LJp,H,T, COPPANY OH10E,DJS,0N, COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 COCKET NO._50,,334, INTRODUCTION By letter dated July 1,1987, the licensee (Duquesne Light Company acting as agent for the other utilities listed above) submitted a request for an anendnent to the cperating license. The amendrent would reflect a design change to the station batteries and would revise certain requirements on 1
battery surveillance. By letter dated September 10, 1987, we requested additienal infomation and the licensee tesguced in a letter dated October 26, 1987. Our evaluation is as follows.
DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION S u rv e i 1_1 a n c e,,R e o u i rere n t _,4,,8,. f,. 3,,?,. a, f,,( p a a,e,,3/,4, 8,,8)
The licensee, under its own Design Change Package CCP-673, replaced lead-antimony batteries 1-3 and 1-4 that had 60 cells per battery with lead-calcium batteries that have 59 cells per battery. The design change wat made under 10 CFR 50.59, and upgraded the batteries to IEEE 535-1979, "Qualification of Class IE Lead Storage Batteries for Nuclear Power Generating Stations". The arendment request of July 1,1987, was submitted to account for the reduction of teminal voltage of batteries 1-3 and 1-4 because of the change in the number of cells per battery.
Each battery tertr,inal voltage is detemined by multiplying the nominal cell voltage (2.13 volts) by the number of cells.
The 59 cell batteries (lead-calcium) 1-3 and 1-4 will thus operate with a minimum teminal voltage of 125.67 volts. The other 60-cell batteries (lead-antimony) 1-1 and 1-2 will continue to operate with a rinimum terminal voltage of 1?7.8 volts.
Based on our review of sizing of the new batteries and 1-4 versus their design margin stated in the Final Safety Analysis Report, we find the licenste's proposed change to the Technical Specifications acceptable.
l f
?
j P
e
l 4
. Table 3.8 M age 3/4 8-9a) and Bases (pag,e_R3[4 8-1 & 8-2)
We have stated our position regarding the requested changes in a letter to the licensee dated September 10, 1987.
The licensee respor.ded in a letter dated October 26, 1987.
We have reviewed the response and detennined that the requested changes to these pages still cannot be granted.
The current specific gravity value of 1.20 for each cell is based on the Stan-dard Technical Specifications value of 1.70, which in turn was derived from a censensus of utilities and battery vendors.
This value is considered necessary to assure adequate capacity and has been uniformly applied to all plant batteries for years without incurring much operational problem.
In the absence of technical information regarding specific characteristics of the licensee's new lead-calcium batteries, the value of 1.20 should be retained to assure an adequate reserve capacity for plant equipment.
We understand that an industry group is working on a proposal to lcwer the value from 1.20 to 1.195, We would review that proposal generically, but must deny the licensee's plant-specific request at this time.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION Th4 anendment of Section 4.8.2.3.?.a.? changes surveillance requirements. The sto,f has determined that the amendrrent involves no significant increase in the amcunts, 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 occupatiunal radiation exposure.
The Coninission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards censideration and there has been no public contrent on such finding. Accordingly, this amendrent meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forthin10CFR51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental irrpact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendnent.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that with respect to amendment of Section 4.8.2.3.2.a.2: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed inanner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Consnission's regulations and the issuance of this arrendirent will not be inimical to the contr.on defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Cated: March 21, 1988 principal C_on_tributor:
Peter Kang, reviewer
)
l
)
1