ML072270530
| ML072270530 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/15/2007 |
| From: | Trapp J M Plant Support Branch 1 |
| To: | Thompson R Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| References | |
| Download: ML072270530 (5) | |
Text
August 15, 2007Ms. Rebecca ThompsonRegional Assistance Committee Chair Branch Chief, Technological Hazards Division FEMA Region II 26 Federal Plaza, 13 th FloorNew York, New York 10278-0002
SUBJECT:
NRC EVALUATION OF THE NEW ALERT AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM(ANS) DEGRADED BATTERY VOLTAGE TESTING AT INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3
REFERENCES:
1.NRC letter to Entergy regarding Confirmatory Order EA-05-190for the Indian Point Emergency Notification System, (dated January 31, 2006)2.Entergy letter (NL-06-076) to NRC regarding the Test Plan forIndian Point Emergency Notification System, (dated July 5, 2006)3.Acoustic Technology Incorporated (ATI) bench test results,"Relative Sound Level vs. Output Power into the Speaker Array for the HPSS30 Siren," (dated June 4, 2007)4.Entergy Letter to New York State Emergency Management Officeregarding Indian Point Energy Center Alert Notification System Design Supplemental Information, (dated June 29, 2007)
Dear Ms. Thompson:
On August 8, 2007, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspectionand evaluation of the new ANS Degraded Battery Voltage Testing at Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 & 3 (Indian Point/Entergy). The testing was done in accordance with the NRC approved siren test plan submitted to the NRC on July 5, 2006 (NL-06-076) (Reference 2) in accordance with NRC Confirmatory Order (the Order) EA-05-190 (Reference 1). The Degraded Battery Voltage Testing complied with the NRC approved test plan. Activities associated with our review are provided in the Enclosure. The results of the testing demonstrated that the backup power supplies meet the design requirements of the Order. The testing was performed from March 13, 2007, to July 29, 2007, and was done todemonstrate that the integrated ANS, including control stations, repeaters, and the sirens, would be able to operate in the event of a loss of normal alternating current (ac) power with the battery in its end-of-life condition. The battery testing was performed in four basic steps. First, the batteries were discharged to their simulated end-of-life condition taking into account worst case ambient conditions. The batteries were then left in a standby condition for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> under Ms. Rebecca Thompson2normal operating loads without normal ac power. After the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period, a simulated fullactivation for a duration of fifteen minutes was conducted on a sample of four sirens using a resistor load bank in place of the actual sirens. The final step was to recharge the batteries to at least 80% capacity within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> indicating a satisfactory test. The results from the tests are described in a letter from Entergy to the New York State Emergency Management Office (Reference 4).It should be noted that after the initial battery test which began on March 13, 2007, there werere-tests done on one of the sirens and one of the control stations. These tests were performed on July 5, 2007 and July 11, 2007, respectively. In addition, an evaluation was conducted by the licencee's contractor Acoustic Technology Incorporated (ATI) that demonstrated an actual siren could sound for approximately 26 minutes before the batteries were completely depleted (Reference 3). The batteries used in this test were drained to their end-of-life condition in the same manner as the batteries used in the Degraded Battery Voltage Test. The re-tests and evaluations are described in the enclosed "Inspection Activities" table. If you have any specific questions regarding the degraded battery testing inspection activities,please contact Ron Cureton of my staff at (610) 337-5134 or by e-mail at REC3@nrc.gov.Sincerely,/RA/James M. Trapp, ChiefPlant Support Branch 1 Division of Reactor SafetyDocket Nos:50-247, 50-286License Nos:DPR-26, DPR-64
Enclosure:
Inspection Activities Table Ms. Rebecca Thompson2normal operating loads without normal ac power. After the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period, a simulated fullactivation for a duration of fifteen minutes was conducted on a sample of four sirens using a resistor load bank in place of the actual sirens. The final step was to recharge the batteries to at least 80% capacity within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> indicating a satisfactory test. The results from the tests are described in a letter from Entergy to the New York State Emergency Management Office (Reference 4).It should be noted that after the initial battery test which began on March 13, 2007, there werere-tests done on one of the sirens and one of the control stations. These tests were performed on July 5, 2007 and July 11, 2007, respectively. In addition, an evaluation was conducted by the licencee's contractor Acoustic Technology Incorporated (ATI) that demonstrated an actual siren could sound for approximately 26 minutes before the batteries were completely depleted (Reference 3). The batteries used in this test were drained to their end-of-life condition in the same manner as the batteries used in the Degraded Battery Voltage Test. The re-tests and evaluations are described in the enclosed "Inspection Activities" table. If you have any specific questions regarding the degraded battery testing inspection activities,please contact Ron Cureton of my staff at (610) 337-5134 or by e-mail at REC3@nrc.gov.Sincerely,/RA/James M. Trapp, ChiefPlant Support Branch 1 Division of Reactor SafetyDocket Nos:50-247, 50-286License Nos:DPR-26, DPR-64
Enclosure:
Inspection Activities TableDISTRIBUTION w/encl
- (Via E-Mail)SCollins, RAMDapas, DRA MGamberoni, DRS DLew, DRP NMamish, NSIR RKahler, NSIR JTrapp, DRS ECobey, DRP TO'Hara, DRS NMcNamara, ORA MMcLaughlin, ORA Region I Docket Room DRS FileSUNSI Review Complete: JMT (Reviewer's Initials)ML072270530DOCUMENT NAME: C:\FileNet\ML072270530.wpdAfter declaring this document "An Official Agency Record" it will be released to the Public.To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box:
" C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure
" E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure " N" = No copyOFFICERI/DRSRI/DRSNSIR/DPRRI/DRSNAMERCureton *JTrapp *RKahler *MGamberoni/MKGDATE08/13/0708/13/0708/13/0708/14/07OFFICIAL RECORD COPY* See Previous Concurrence Page Enclosure ENCLOSUREInspection Activities TableMarch 13 - July 29, 2007DateTesting/Evaluation ActivityNRC Inspection ActivityTest ResultsCommentsMarch 13 -March 16, 2007Initial Degraded Battery Voltage TestingThis was an integrated test of the batteries at asample of locations including 5 control stations, all 4 repeaters, and 4 sirens. The test was done in accordance with the NRC approved test plan submitted July 5, 2006 (NL-06-076). The inspectors reviewed the testdocumentation to ensure the test was in accordance with the NRC approved test plan (NL-06-076). The inspectors also reviewed theacceptance criteria documentation/calculations to understand the acceptance criteria's engineering basis.Inspectors observed the testingconducted from March 13 - March 16, 2007 and a subsequent review of test documentation was also completed.Satisfactory (based onfurther testing and evaluation)It was noted that the output from the batteries atthe siren locations decreases during the activation. The licensee's vendor (ATI) did a bench test evaluation to show that the siren's amplifier is designed to compensate for a degrading battery and the acoustical output would not be compromised (June 4, 2007evaluation). The test at Siren 101 was not satisfactory dueto problems with the resistor load bank. This siren was retested to ensure that its battery was acceptable (see June 5 - 6, 2007 test). After the March 13 - 16, 2007 test, the licenseediscovered that the test at the Orange County control station was not valid because the complete set of batteries for the control station were not tested due to four (4) of the twelve (12) batteries being in a different location than the other eight (8). This control station was retested to ensure all 12 batteries were used in the test (see July 11 - 13, 2007 test)
.June 4, 2007ATI performed a bench test with an actual sirento demonstrate that the acoustical output of the siren would not be affected by the decreasing power output of the battery.The inspector performed an inoffice review of ATI's test documentation.SatisfactoryThe raw data from the bench test showed thatas the voltage of the battery and the power output from the siren amplifier decreased, the effect on the acoustical output of the siren was minimal.June 5 - June 6, 2007Siren 101 was retested due to a loosecomponents on the resistor load bank. This test used a different load bank that qualified as being satisfactory for the test.The inspector observed the retestof siren 101 and a review of the test documentation was also completed.SatisfactoryThe test results were consistent with the resultsfrom the other sirens in the March 13 - March 16, 2007 tests.
2EnclosureDateTesting/Evaluation ActivityNRC Inspection ActivityTest ResultsCommentsJuly 11 - July13, 2007The Orange County control station was retesteddue to this control station having 12 batteries instead of 8, like the other control stations.The inspector performed an inoffice review of the test documentation.SatisfactoryThe control station unit itself has 8 batteries butthere are 4 more batteries on the roof of the building supplying power to the radio, also located on the roof. This detail was overlooked during the March 13 - 16, 2007 test so the re-test was done to ensure that all batteries associated with the Orange County control station were involved in the test. The other control stations' components are allco-located. July 27 - July29, 2007Retest of the sirens due to a raise in amplifiervolume setting.This test was done to demonstrate that thesirens would be able to pass the Degraded Battery Voltage Test when the amplifier volume setting is raised from 130 to its maximum of
145.The inspector performed in officeand on site reviews of the test documentation.Satisfactory (based onfurther evaluation) The results from the test showed that only onesiren (siren 101) passed the re-test of the Degraded Battery Voltage Test on the sirens. This test was subsequently considered asuccess because it was later understood by the licensee that the gel cell batteries need to be cycled 15 times in order to reach nominal capacity ratings. The batteries used at the sirens that failed had not been cycled and were installed for a short amount of time. Siren 101 had a battery that was installed before the June 5 - 6, 2007 test and was cycled during the June 5 - 6, 2007 test.This test was considered satisfactory due to theuse of new batteries that had not been cycled giving the bad results. However, siren 101 passed the test with a battery that had been charged for a length of time and had gone through a complete cycle, showing that this battery was closer to its nominal capacity than the other three.It will be a part of the licensee's preventativemaintenance program to ensure that any new battery will be cycled in order to reach its nominal capacity.