ML20197H980

Forwards Power Sys Branch Safety Evaluation of 840309 & 0313 Requests for Tech Spec Mods Re Electrical Equipment Protective devices,motor-operated Valve Thermal Overload Protection & Electrical Power Sys Surveillance.Tacs Closed

ML20197H980
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	08/08/1984
From:	Rubenstein L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-WNP-0768, CON-WNP-768 TAC-54620, TAC-54646, TAC-54647, NUDOCS 8408160351
Download: ML20197H980 (3)

Text

'

Ai 2 .

[ QW 7 .:::,'i m M ? h i h~ir M 5 6 0 - Vi ]

AUG SM MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL FROM: L. S. Rubenstein, Assistant Director for Core and Plant Systems, DSI

SUBJECT:

ECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES

. 54646, 54647, AND 54620)

The Washington Public Power Supply System proposed changes to the Technical Specifications for WNP-2 by letters dated March 9 and March 13, 1984. The licensee provided the technical justification and discussion to support the proposed changes. The Power Systems Branch, DSI, has reviewed the proposed changes in its area of responsibility. The results of PSB's evaluation of these proposed changes to the Technical Specifications are enclosed.

This completes TAC Nos. 54646, 54647, and 54620.

Orig!.n; :w y,

, L. S. R c ,, ,;,9 L. S. Rubenstein, Assistant Director for Core and Plant Systems Division of Systems Integration

Enclosure:

As stated cc: M. Srinivasan A. Schwencer J. E. Knight DISTRIBUTION:

A. !1ngaro N R. Auluck PSB RF S. Rhow L. Rubenstein

Contact:

S. Rhow x28698 9408160351 840eos Xfn; CK 05000397 ,,

omerp PSB PSB PSB3 - l AD/CPSi-  !

S hhw,;b,i,~,,,,,,,y, K,0,1,gh,t, ,M.S ,r,i,q ,i, san, f,kRu,h,0s, e,i,0. . .!, ,

e ur > !, . 8. ./. . . . ./. 84. . . ,. . 8. ,/,,7.

. . 8. ../../.8

.L.i 4

.. .. . /.8. 4. . , . 8/..T /.84

.. ... . . . ... .l.. . . .

l

'"C'

' ""3'""" '""C""* OFFICIN P TCORD COPY c u.s. crc 29ea--aco-24 r

^ -

ENCLinURE WNP-2 SAFETY EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES

1. TAC No. 54646 - Letter (March 9, 1984) 3.8.4.1 (page 3/4 8-20, 8-23 and 8-24)

Electrical Equipment Protective Devices The licensee proposed to add fuses to provide primary and backup protection for electrical penetration assemblies. Some primary protection fuse sizes have been changed to better coordinate with the backup fuses. These changes provide better protection to the penetration assemblies and better coordination to the penetration assembly protective devices and, therefore, are acceptable.

The licensee proposed to change Table 3.8.4.2-1, Primary Containment Penetration Conductor, Overcurrent Protective Devices; these changes update the technical specifications to reflect the above changes as well as the as-built system. Therefore, these changes are also acceptable.

2. TAC No. 54647 - Letter (March 9,1984)

Table 3.8.4.3-1 (page 3/4 8-26 and 8-27)

Motor Operated Valves Thermal Overload Protection The licensee pr; posed to change technical specification Table 3.8.4.3-1 to delete the valves associated with the Steam Condensing Mode deactivation.

NRC staff agree that no credit was taken in the WNP-2 FSAR Chapter 15 Accident Analysis for this mode of operation as discussed in Letter G02-83-834, G. C. Sorensen (SS) to A. Schwencer (NRC), " Deletion of Residual Heat Removal Steam Condensing Mode," dated September 15, 1983. Amendment 33 to the WNP-2 FSAR incorporated the deletion of this mode of operation.

Additionally, valves RRC-V-67A and 67B are deleted from Table 3.8.4.3-1.

i These valves are non-Class lE valves which were listed in error.. Also deleted is RCIC-V-12 as it is a manually operated valve with no motor operation. Based on the above evaluation, we find no safety consequences result from these proposed technical specification changes and they are, therefore, acceptable. ,

i I

l 5

l 1

1.

3. TAC No. 54620 - Letter (March 13, 1984) 4.8.2.1 (page 3/4 8-12,13 and 14)

Surveillance Requirements, Electrical Power Systems The licensee proposed the changes to 4.8.2.1, Surveillance Requirements to demonstrate operability for the + 24-volt,125-volt and 250-volt DC systems. Section 4.8.2.1.b indicates that the batteries and chargers will be demonstrated operable at least once per 92 days and within 7 days after a battery discharge in the current technical specification. The licensee proposed to change the phrase to "once per 92 days or within 7 days after...." since both conditions are not likely to occur simultaneously. This proposed change could in effect eliminate the requirement to do the 92 day surveillance on a periodic basis if the alternative to perform the test only after a battery discharge is chosen. The existing technical specification requires a periodic 92 day surveillance and in addition, if the battery is discharged, surveillance should be performed within 7 days of the discharge to determine that the battery has been recharged to an operable condition. We find the proposed change unacceptable in that it could reduce battery surveillance without an adequate basis and dilute the existing conservatism in the standard technical specification for periodic battery surveillance. The technical specification change should be denied.

The battery capacity dummy load profile is explained in section 4.8.2.1.d.2 for clarification of the battery capacity testing as required. A change to section 4.8.2.1.d.1 corrects the time ,

during which the battery is capable of supplying and maintaining the actual emergency loads in operable status with the minimum i voltage of 105 volts for 125-volt battery, 210 volts for 250-volt battery, and 21 volts for + 24-volt battery. The capacity change from 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> is commensurate with the WNP-2 FSAR Amendment 23 (Feb.1982) and the requirement for the corresponding dummy load in' the LaSalle Unit 2 license (NPF-18). Additionally, a change related to electrolyte level which provides clarification has been proposed. We find no safety consequences result from these proposed changes to the technical specification and are, therefore, acceptable.

i

- _ . - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ - _._ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _