NUREG-0820, Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 125 to License DPR-20
| ML20248A842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248A840 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0820, RTR-NUREG-820 NUDOCS 8906080210 | |
| Download: ML20248A842 (3) | |
Text
_
o,,
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
.g E
W SHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- l SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDNENT NO.I25 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE FO. D C_0NSUMERS POWER COMPANY, PALISADES PLANT DOCKET NO. 50,-255
.1. 0 INTRODUC_ TION I
On May 22, 1981, the NRC staff issued a safety evaluation which discussed a review of the then existing TSs with regard to periodic surveillance of the Class 1E batteries. The review was made to ensure that battery capacjty testing incl.udes (1) an acceptance test for battery capacity performed in accordance with IEEE Std. 450-1975,(2) a performance discharge test as.
listed in Table 2 o~f IEEE Std. 308-1971 performed in accordance.with IEEE Std. 450-1975, Sections 4.2 and 5.4, and (3) a battery service test as described in Section 5.6 of IEEE Std. 450-1975.
The staff found that there were no requirements for,either battery
~
discharge or c.ervice tests and, therefore, ccacluded that the Palisades
~
l Plant did not comply with licensing requirements in effect at that time.
The staff then proposed that the testing of the catteries in accordar,ce with IEEE Std. 450-1975, IEEE Std. 308-1974, BTP EICSB 6, and the Standard Technical Specifications for Combustion Engineering Pressurized Water Reactors, NUREG-0212, be added to the TSs.
The tests as proposed by the staff were:
1.
At least once per 18 months, during shutdown, a batt9ry service test should be performed to verify that battery capacity is adequate to supply and maintain in operable status all of the actual emergency loads for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.
2.
At least once per 60 months, during shutdown, a battery discharge test should be performed to verify that the battery capacity is at least 80% of the manufacturer's' rating.
2.0 EVALUATION Consumers Power Company committed, by letter dated March 31, 1982, to implement station battery service and discharge testing meeting the requirements of IEEE Std. 450-1975.
Consumers Power Company also agreed to propose a license amendment to incorporate the testing requirements into the TSs.
On October 29, 1982, the Commission issued NUREG-0820, " Integrated Plant Safety Assessment." Section 4.25 of that document indicates staff acceptance of Consumers Power Company's testing program of station batteries.
mRannaar i
PD P
l
~2-j l
3 l
On March 14, 1983 Consumers Power Company submitted an application to amend the TSs in accordance with their comitment. The original application was 1
supplemented later by letters dated May 13, 1985 and February 2, 1988.
These supplements made minor revisions to the original application.
l Consumers Power Company has proposed to add Specifications 4.7.2.c and
)
4.7.2.d.
l l
Specification 4.7.2.c would require:
At least once per refueling cycle, during shutdown, each station battery shall be demonstrated operable by verifying that the battery capacity is adequate to supply and maintain in OPERABLE status all of the actual emergency loads for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> when the battery is subjected to a battery service test.
Specification 4.7.2.d would require:
At least once every three refueling cycles, during shutdown, each station battery shall be demonstrated operable by verifying that the battery capacity is at least 80% of the manufacturer's rating when subjected to a performance discharge test. The perfomance discharge test shall be performed in lieu of the battery service test.
~
We have reviewed Consumers Power Company's proposed additions to the TSs for station battery testing, and have compared the proposal.to the testing program the staff had previously evaluated (NUREG-0820) and have found the additions acceptable. We find two deviations.
One deviation is that a maximum three-refueling-cycle interval is specified for battery discharge testing per Section 4.7.2.d vice 60 months. As the nominal refueling cycle is approximately 18 months, the intent remains unchanged; however, the proposed TSs would allow operational flexibility and avoid the possibility of a plant shutdown solely to perform the testing.
The other deviation is that the performance discharge test specified in proposed Section 4.7.2.d each three refueling cycle would obviate the need for performing the battery capacity test that would otherwise also be due.
We consider the battery capacity testing redundant and unnecessary when performance discharge testing is to be done.
Furthermore, repeated testing which discharges a battery many times in a relatively short period of time materially affects the long life typical of stationary batteries.
Based on the above, we find the proposed Eddition of testing requirements for the station batteries acceptable. However, it is to be noted that these proposed changes are being approved on an interim basis only. The Commission will reevaluate the subject technical specification when Consumers Power Company submits the Restructured Technical Specifications (currently planned for the first quarter of 1990). Our specific concern relates to the limiting battery capacity (80%) specified in Specification 4.7.2.d.
While the change proposed by Consumers Power Company meets the intent of the Commission's safety evaluation of May 22, 1981, the staff now believes that battery capacity should not be less than 90% cf the manufacturer's rating, especially
<n e *
' considering that the battery capacity is to be determined only once each three refueling outages (about five years). We also have reviewed a proposed change and addition to the Basis and find the proposed changes acceptable.
The change to the Basis is editorial in nature; the addition establishes the purpose of station battery discharge and capacity testing.
3.0 (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and a change in a surveillance requirement. We have determined that the amendment involves 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 issued a prcposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there -
has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendnient 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 this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
~
We have 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 Comission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
May 31, 1989 Principal Contributor: Albert W. De Agazio
,