ML20198E364
| ML20198E364 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198E348 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212070057 | |
| Download: ML20198E364 (4) | |
Text
__,___..__..___._...__.____..-s.__.
,a nsa I
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
E WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555 S
i O
/
3
....+
j SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.136 AND140 TO
)
FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-24 AND DPR-27 l
l WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY i
POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNIT N05. 1 AND 2 i
DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301
]
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCo), the licensee for Point Beach Nuclear l
Plant Units 1 and 2, submitted an application for changes to the Technical Specifications by letter dated September 7, 1990.
This initial amendment i
I application was intended to define and establish periodic service and j
performance testing requirements for safety-related station batteries, in this change request, WEPCo noted their intent to install a fifth Class IE I
battery by the end of 1992.
The new battery was designated battery D205.
By letter dated May 10, 1991, the licensee greatly revised the earlier amendment j
request as a result of discussions with the NRR staff. Substantive changes were made to the battery testing requirements.
In addition, WEPCo included specific identification of batteries and associated components.
By letter dated September 11, 1992 WEPCo made a few minor changes to the license amendment request. The September 1992 letter changed the designation a
of the new battery to D305 but did not propose any substantive change to the 4
wording or requirements of the technical specifications.
The September 1992 letter does present additional justification for allowing one out of four 4
connected safety-related batteries to be inoperable for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
Since the September 1992 letter does not propose any substantive change to the earlier amendment request, it does not affect the proposed determination of no 2
l significant hazards.
i In the three submittals, WEPCo provided the basis and evaluation for each proposed change to the Technical Specifications.
The staff evaluation is i
based on the three WEPCo letters and on discussions between WEPCo and the staff in meetings held on July 9,1991, in Rockville, Maryland, and on May 19, 3
1992, at the Point Beach Nuclear Plant site.
2.0 EVALUATION L
The 125 volt DC system at Point Beach consists of four main DC distribution buses, four battery chargers and station batteries DOS, D06, D105 and D106, respectively.
The licensee is installing a fifth safety-related station battery (0305) and i
associated distribution equipment to be in service by the end of 1992.
This battery will be used as a swing battery-in a manner that the battery may be 1
I 9212070057 921126 PDR ADOCK 05000266 P
.PDR
._a.-u..-._,_
. ~.
._.___._.._._____.____.___.,r..__
. manually aligned to perform the function of any one of the existing four station batteries.
In addition, installation of battery D305 will allow the removal of any one of the existing station batteries from service for testing or maintenance without entering into a limiting condition for operation.
Changes proposed to Technical Specification 15.3.7 " Auxiliary Electrical Systems" to incorporate the fifth safety-related battery are as fol' us:
a.
15.3.7.A.1.f and 15.3.7.A.E.g are revised to recognize the addition of the fifth safety-related battery. The current requirement is that under the specified conditions all four batteries and their associated DC systems be operable. As proposed, four of the five safety-related station batteries and all four of the main DC distribution systems would be required to be operable. This change allows one of the five batteries to be out of service indefinitely, and putting the plant into a configuration of four available batteries.
J b.
15.3.7.B.I.f is revised to permit one of the four safety related batteries to be inoperable for up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> with the provision that four battery chargers are operable and supplying the loads to their respective main DC distribution buses.
The existing specifications allow either DOS or D06 battery to be out of service for up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or either D105 or D106 battery to be inoperable up to 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />. The proposed TS change is to limit any of these batteries to be out of service for up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
This change increases the margin of safety by reducing the out-of-service time of DIOS and 0106 batteries from 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
The licensee has confirmed that no new accident potential is created as a result of this change, nor have the consequences of any accident previously evaluated changed, because in the accident analysis, the potential of limited unavailability of station batteries was assumed.
c.
15.3.7.A.l.g and 15.3.7.A.2.h are revised for editorial clarity by adding designations for the main DC distribution buses.
Technical Specification 15.3.7.A.2 is revised to delete the following words
" including Black Plant start-up" from the first sentence which currently reads:
"Under abnormal condition, including Black Plant startup, one reactor may be made critical...." The term, " Black Plant," is undefined and its deletion by the licensee eliminates ambiguity, and is acceptable.
The proposed changes to the corresponding bases section of the technical specifications are updated to explain the use of the new safety-related battery. These changes are acceptable.
The remainder of the proposed changes relate to surveillance and testing of the five safety-related batteries.
Revised battery testing cycles will start after the installation of the swing safety-related battery which is scheduled i
t 1
o 0 to be completed by the end of 1992.
The testing of all five safety-related batteries will be carried out during the two refueling outages subsequent to the installation of the swing battery.
These other proposed changes to the technical specifications are as follows:
d.
Technical Specification Section 15.4.6.B is retitled to read " Safety-Related Station Batteries" instead of the generic title " Station Batteries".
A paragraph is added to clarify that this TS change is applicable to all four safety-related station batteries and the swing battery D305 to be installed by the end of 1992.
j e.
Technical Specification Section 15.4.6.84 is revised to have a more restrictive, more definitive and more conservative testing program.
It covers the following:
1.
The service test (18 months) 2.
The Performance Test (60 months) 3.
Annual performance discharge tests of battery capacity for any battery showing signs of degradation.
j With the addition of the fifth battery, the tests will be performed with the battery being tested off line.
The swing safety-related battery will replace the battery that is taken out of service for testing purposes.
At present the batteries are tested on-line (during power operation).
Under the proposed TS amendment, battery testing in the future will be done off-line.
Testing the batteries off-line has less impact on potential plant operations and therefore has no effect on previously evaluated accidents.
The provisions of off-line testing and the more stringent service and performance testing will provide greater assurance that the batteries are capable of performing their functions.
It does not create the potential for new accidents not previously analyzed and there is no significant reduction in the margin of safety.
WEPCo is also installing a new nonsafety-related station battery capable of supplying nonsafety-related loads (turbine bearing emergency lube oil pumps, etc.). This battery is designated D205.
The operability, surveillance, and testing requirements will not apply to this battery. However, the new battery will be beneficial in carrying loads which are now connected to the existing safety-related batteries. When this modification is complete, the total loads on the safety batteries will be reduced.
By comparing the duty cycle profiles for the performance test and the service test, the performance test profile bounds the battery loads applied during the service test.
Technical Specification Section 15.4.6.4.c is changed to state that "When performance tests are required, they may be performed in lieu of the battery service test."
The September 11, 1992 letter revised the bases section changes to clarify that the performance " entirely" bounds the service test.
Since the performance test bounds the service test, these changes are acceptable.
e L
. The corresponding bases section of the technical specifications is revised to add explanations of the service and performance tests. These changes are acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSVLTATION In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Wisconsin State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments. involve changes in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or change an inspection or surveillance requirement.
The staff has determined that the amendments involve 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 these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (56 FR 29283). Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 551.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(o), no environmental im)act statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection wit 1 the issuance of these amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has 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 >roposed manner, 2 such activities-will be conducted in compliance with tie Commission's re(gu)lations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
S. N. Saba Date: November-23. 1992
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _