ML20206U244

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 229 to License NPF-3

ML20206U244
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	02/09/1999
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20206U241	List: ML20206U238 ML20206U244
References
NUDOCS 9902120260
Download: ML20206U244 (8)

Text

)5%p ur 4

UNITED STATES.

[,

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. enmaa annt SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 229 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-3 ElR"TENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY GWvfS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT NO. 1 i

DOCKET NO. 50-346

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On October 27, 1998, the Toledo Edison Company, Centerior Service Company, and The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (the licensees at the time of the submittal), submitted a request for changes to the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1, Technical Specifications (TSs). On January 1, 1999, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) became the licensed operator of j

Davis-Besse.

The proposed amendment would revise TS 3/4.8.2.3, " Electrical Power Systems -

DC Distribution - Operating," and the associated bases.

The surveillance i

requirements for battery testing would be changed.

1 The DC electrical power systems at Davis-Besse are described in Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) Section 8.3.2, "DC Power Systems." As stated in the USAR, this equipment consists of two 250/125V DC motor control centers, four batteries, six battery chargers, four essential distribution panels, four 480V AC/125V DC rectifiers, and four nonessential distribution panels. These systems provide reliable power for control, instrumentation and DC loads required for normal operation and shutdown of the station.

This amendment was submittod to the NRC as committed to in the licensee's letter to the NRC dated October 16, 1997. The proposed changes are based on the guidance contained in the " Improved Standard Techr.ical Specifications (ISTS) for Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) Plants," NUREG-1430, Revision 1, and the recommended practices of' Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) Standard 450-1995, "IEEE Recommended Practice for Maintenance, Testing, and Replacement of Vented Lead-Acid Batteries for Stationary Applications."

9902120260 990209 DR ADOCK 05000346 PDR I,

. O' 4

2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Proposed Chanae to TS Section 4.8.2.3.2.d The licensee proposed to change TS Section 4.8.2.3.2.d which currently reads as follows

At least once each REFUELING INTERVAL, 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 subject to a battery service test.

The proposed amended TS section would read as follows:

i At least once each REFUELING INTERVAL, during shutdown, by verifying 1

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 subject to a battery service test. Dara Der 60 months. a modified oerformance discharae test may be oerformed in lieu of the battery service test.

The licensee stated that TS SR 4.8.2.3.2.d currently requires performance of a battery service test at least once each refueling interval during shutdown to verify that the battery capacity is adequate to supply all of the actual emergency. loads for the design duty cycle. However, this test is not required to be. performed every 60 months when a performance discharge test is performed as per the current surveillance requirement. The proposed change will allow the option of performing a modified performance discharge test rather than the current option of performing a performance discharge test in place of the battery service test once per 60 months.

The modified performance discharge test,'as defined in IEEE Std. 450-1995, is a test, in the as-found condition, of. a battery's ability to provide a high-rate, short-duration load (usually the highest rate of the duty cycle) that will confirm the battery's ability to meet the critical period of the load duty cycle, in addition.to determining its percentage of rated capacity. As such, the modified performance discharge test is a worst-case load profile of the traditional battery service test and a performance discharge test combined.

On the basis of its review, the staff finds that this change is an improvement over the existing surveillance requirement and hence acceptable.

2.2 Proposed Chanae to TS Section 4.8.2.3.2.e The licensee proposed to change the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, TS Section 4.8.2.3.2.e, which currently reads as follows:

O j

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.

The proposed TS 4.8.2.3.2.e would read as follows:

Verify that battery caoacity is >80% of the manufacturer's ratina when sub.iected to a performance discharae test or a modified performance discharae test:

L At least once oer 60 months. durina shutdown. when the battery shows no sian of dearadation. and has not i

reached 85% of service life.

j L

At least once oer 12 months. durina shutdown. when the battery shows sians of dearadation. or has reached 85% of service life with <100% of the manufacturer's rated capacity.

L At least once oer 24 months. durina shutdown. when the batterv has reached 85% of service life with >100% of the manufacturer's rated caoacity.

The licensee stated that TS SR 4.8.2.3.2.e currently requires completion of a performance discharge test at least once per 60 months, during shutdown, to verify that the battery capacity is at least 80% of the manufacturer's rating.

The proposed change will revise the current method of monitoring station battery capacity to allow the option of conducting either a performance discharge test or a modified performance discharge test. Additionally, the requirements of current TS SR 4.8.2.3.2.f are modified and combined with TS SR 4.8.2.3.2.e.

The proposed TS SR 4.8.2.3.2.e increases the frequency of performing a performance discharge test or modified performance discharge test to an annual or biennial frequency under certain specified battery conditions.

Additionally, in accordance with the recommended practices of IEEE Std. 450-1995, measurement of battery capacity degradation is proposed to be based on j

the last discharge test instead of on an average of the previous discharge tests, as is current practice.

IEEE Std. 450-1995 states that annual performance tests of battery capacity should be made on any battery that shows signs of degradation or that has reached 85% of the service life expected for the application.

Degradation is indicated when the battery capacity drops more than 10% from its capacity on the previous performance test, or is below 90% of the manufacturer's rating.

If the battery has reached 85% of its service life with a capacity of 100% or L

more of the manufacturer's rated capacity, and has no sign of degradation, 4

performance testing at 2-year intervals is acceptable.

~

l

A The licensee stated that this proposed change to TS SR 4.8.2.3.2.e is a line item improvement that adopts the increased battery test frequency of the B&W ISTS and IEEE Std. 450-1995. The proposed surveillance requirement change increases the frequency of battery testing to provide increased monitoring of battery capacity once degradation due to age and use is noted, thereby increasing reliability of the battery to perform its safety function.

On the basis of its review, the staff finds that this change is an improvement over the existing surveillance requirement and, hence, is acceptable.

2.3 Proposed Chanae to TS Section 4.8.2.3.2.f The licensee proposed to change TS Section 4.8.2.3.2.f, which currently reads as follows:

Every REFUELING INTERVAL, during shutdown, performance discharge tests of battery capacity shall be given 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.

The licensee proposes to delete this surveillance requirement since its provisions have been modified to incorporate the guidance provided by the B&W ISTS and IEEE Std. 450-1995, and have been included in the proposed modified SR 4.8.2.3.2.e.

On the basis of its review, the staff agrees with the licensee that the preceding requirements have been modified and included in the proposed modified SR 4.8.2.3.2.e and, hence, this surveillance requirement deletion is acceptable.

2.4 Proposed Chance to TS Table 4.8-1 The licensee proposes to change TS Table 4.8-1.

The current table is shown on the next page, and the proposed table is shown on the following page.

The licensee stated that TS Table 4.8-1 currently requires battery electrolyte specific gravity measurement correction for temperature and level.

Temp'erature and level correction is performed to permit trending of specific gravity to ensure adequately charged battery cells with adequate capacity.

The cell's specific gravity is based on a temperature of 77 degrees F and a specified electrolyte level. The proposed change to TS Table 4.8-1 footnote t

(a) will not require level correction of the electrolyte specific gravity measurement provided that the electrolyte level is within the specified band and the temperature corrected specific gravity is within the specified range.

This proposed change adopts the guidance of IEEE Std. 450-1995.

I

e.-

6 ICURRENT1 TABLE 4.8-1 BATTERY SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS CATEGORY A(1)

CATEGORY B(2)

Limits for each Limits for each A110wable(3) designated' pilot connected cell value for each cell connected cell Electrolyte

> Minimum level

> Minimum level Above top of Level indication mark, indication mark, plates, and not and sk" above and s k" above overflowing maximum level maximum level indication mark indication mark Float 22.13 volts 22.13 volts (b)

>2.07 volts Voltage Not more than Specific 21.200(c) 21.195

.020 below the Gravity (a) average of all connected cells Average of all Average of all connected cells connected cells

>1.205 21.195(c)

(a)

Correctecl for electrolyte temperature and level.

(b)

Corrected for average electrolyte temperature.

(c)

Or battery charging current, following a service or performance discharge test, is less than two amps, when on a float charge.

(1)

For any Category A parameter (s) outside the limit (s) shown, the battery may be considered OPERABLE provided that within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> all the Category B measurements are taken and found to be within their allowable values, and provided all parameter (s) are restored to within limits within the next 6 days.

(2)

For any Category B parameter (s) outside the limit (s) shown, the battery may be considered OPERABLE provided that they are within their allowable values and provided the parameter (s) are restored to within limits within 7 days.

(3)

Any Category B parameter not within its allowable value indicates an inoperable battery.

~

l*. 1 IPROPOSE01 TABLE 4.8-1 BATTERY SURVEILLANCE RE0VIREMENTS CATEGORY A(1)

CATEGORY B(2) i Parameter l

Limits for each Limits for each A11owable(3) designated pilot' connected cell value for each cell connected cell Electrolyte

> Minimum level

> Minimum level Above top of Level indication mark, indication mark, plates, and not E

and s 4" above and s k" above overflowing maximum level maximum level l

indication markid).

indication mark.(.d).

Float 22.13 volts 22.13 volts (b)

>2.07 volts Voltage Not more than Specific 21.200(c) 21.195

.020 below the Gravity (a) average of all connected cells Average of all Average of all j

connected cells connected cells

>1.205 21.195(c)

)

(a)

Corrected for electrolyte temperature and level.

If the

. level is between the hiah and low marks and the temoerature corrected specific cravity is within the manufacturer's nominal soecific aravity rance. it is not necessary to correct for level.

(b)-

Corrected for average electrolyte temperature.-

l (c)

Or battery charging current, following a service performance discharge, or modified oerformance discharae test, is less than two amps, when on a float charge.

l

.(.d).

It is acce) table for the electrolyte level to temocrarily increase a )ove the soecified maximum durina eaualizina charaes orovided it is not overflowina.

I (1)

For any Category A parameter (s) outside the limit (s) shown, the battery may be considered OPERABLE provided that within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> all the Category B measurements are taken and found to be within their allowable values, and provided all parameter (s) are restored to within limits within the next 6 days.

l (2)

For any Category B parameter (s) outside the limit (s) shown, the battery may be considered OPERABLE provided that they

{

are within their allowable values and provided the parameter (s);are restored to within limits within 7 days.

(3)

Any Category B parameter not within its allowable value indicates an inoperable battery.

j

(

<~

.. Footnote (c) will be modified in accordance with the proposed modifications to TS SR 4.8.2.3.2.e, which provides for modified performance discharge testing.

The proposed addition to TS Table 4.8-1 of the new footnote (d) will allow the electrolyte level to temporarily increase above the specified maximum during equalizing charges provided that it is not overflowing. The electrolyte level limits ensure that the plates suffer no physical damage, that adequate electron transfer capability is maintained, and that electrolyte does not overflow causing damage to the battery, battery connections, cell covers, or battery racks.

This proposed change adopts the guidance of the B&W ISTS and IEEE Std. 450-1995.

On the basis of its review, the staff finds that this change is consistent with B&W ISTS and IEEE Std. 450-1995 and, hence, is acceptable.

2.5 Proposed Chanae to TS Bases 3/4.8 The licensee proposed modifications to the existing TS Bases 3/4.8 to provide j

a basis for each surveillance requirement. The surveillance requirements for demonstrating the OPERABILITY of the station batteries are based on the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.129, " Maintenance, Testing and Replacement of Large Lead Storage Batteries for Nuclear Power Plants" (February 1978), and IEEE Std. 450-1995, "IEEE Recommended Practice for Maintenance, Testing, and Replacement of Vented Lead-Acid Batteries for Stationary Applications," except that certain tests will be performed at least l

once each REFUELING INTERVAL.

Battery degradation is indicated when the battery capacity drops more than 10% from its capacity on the previous performance discharge or modified performance discharge test, or is below 90%

of the manufacturer's rated capacity. The bases will also be modified to incorporate the commitment to IEEE Std. 450-1995 for battery cell electrolyte level, float voltage and specific gravity and to reflect new provisions for j

modified performance discharge testing.

On the basis of its review, the staff finds that the licensee has revised the bases to reflect the proposed changes to TS SR 4.8.2.3.2.d, 4.8.2.3.2.e, and 4.8.2.3.2.f, and TS Table 4.8-1, and finds this change acceptable.

3.0 STATE CONSULTATION

In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Ohio State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no I

comments.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

This amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or changes a surveillance requirement. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluent that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards

.s

. ~

. consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (63 FR 64125). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.

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 proposed manner; (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations; and (3) the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common i

. defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor:

A. Pal Date: February 9, 1999