ML17213A496
| ML17213A496 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 09/02/1982 |
| From: | Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Robert E. Uhrig FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17213A497 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8209280482 | |
| Download: ML17213A496 (7) | |
Text
SEP P.
1982 Docket No. 50<<335 Dr. Robert E. Uhrig Vice President Advanced Systems In Technology Florida Power Il Light Company P. 0. Box 529100 Niami, Florida 33152
Dear Dr,
. Uhrig:
DISTRIBUTION:
~ocket File NRC PDR L
PDR NSIC ORB83 Rdg DEisenhut JHeltemes OELD IKE ACRS-10 PMKreutzer-3 RAClark EConner Gray File Qp~ (Y]5-oil Me have completed our review of the adequacy of station electric distribution system voltages for St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. l.
En-closed is our Safety Evaluation and its attachment, the Technical Evaluation Report prepared under contract by Law ence Livermore Laboratory.
Me find the voltage analysis submitted by,".your letters of August 8 and November 9, 1979, September 12, 1980, February 10 and July 23, 1981 and August 5, 1902 to be acceptable.
Sincer ely, Origiriaf signed by Robert A. Clark Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch d3 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page 8209280482 820902 PDR ADOCK 05000335 P
PDR OFFICEI SURNAMEIN DATE Q
.OR 3;
......ORB...'D 9/Q /82 9/Q/82 9/~/82 NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1981~960
r P
~
I
~'.
j~
- Florida Power 8 Light Company cco Harold F. Reis, Esquire Lowenstein,
- Newman, Reis 8 Alexrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Norman A. Coll, Esquire McCarthy, Steel, Hector 5 Davis 14th Floor, First National Bank Building Miami Florida 33131 Indian River Junior College Library 3209 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Administrator Department of Environmental Regulation Power Plant Siting Section State of Florida 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Weldon B. Lewis County Administrator St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue, Room 104 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV Office ATTN:
Regional Radiation Representative 345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Mr. Charles B. Brinkman Manager - Washington Nuclear Operations C-E Power Systems Combustion Erfgineering, Inc.
4853 Cordell Avenue, Suite A-1
- Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II Office of Executive Director for Operations 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Jack Schreve Office of the Public Counsel Room 4, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Resident Inspector c/o U.S.N.R.C.
7900 S. AIA Jensen Beach, Florida 33457 State Planning and Develpment Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Budgeting Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
~gS RE+II P0 n
< ~
C 0
Cy V/
+y*y4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSlON
~
WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 0
SAFETY EVALUATION ST.
LUCIE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-335 ADEQUACY OF STATION ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM VOLTAGES INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
Florida Power and Light Company (FP8L) was requested by NRC letter dated August 8. 1979 to review the electric power system at St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1.
The review was to consist of:
a)
Determining analytically the capacity and capability of the offsite power system and onsite distribution system to automatically start as well as operate all required loads within their required voltage ratings in the event of 1) an anticipated transient, or
- 2) an accident (such as LOCA) without manual shedding of any electric loads.
b)
Determining if there are any events or conditions which could result in the simultaneous or consequential loss of both required circuits from the offsite network to the onsite electric distribution system and thus violating the requirements of GDC 17.
The August 8, 1979 letter included staff guidelines for performing the.
required voltage analysis and the licensee was further required to perform a test in order to verify the validity of,the analytical results.
FPEL responded by letters dated November 9, l979, September 12, 1980, February 10, 1981, July 23, 1981 and August 5, 1982.
A detailed review
and technical evaluation of the submittals was performed by LLL under contract to the NRC, with general supervision by NRC staff.
This work is reported by LLL in Technical Evaluation Report (TER), "Adequacy of Station Electric Distribution System Voltages, St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1,"
dated October 5, 1981 (attached),
We have reviewed this report and concur in the conclusions that the offsite'power system and the onsite distribution are capable of providing acceptable voltages for worst case station electric load and grid voltages.
EVALUATION CRITERIA The criteria used by LLL in this technical evaluation of the analysis includes GDC 5 ("Sharing of Structures,
- Systems, and Components" ),
GDC 13 ("Instrumentation and Control"),
GDC 17 ("Electric Power Systems" )
of Appendix A to 10 CFR 50; IEEE Standard 308-1974 ("Class lE Power Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations" ), ANSI C84.1-1977 ("Voltage Ratings for Electric Power Systems and Equipment - 60 Hz"), and the staff positions and guidelines in NRC letter to FP8L dated August 8, 1979.
ANALYSIS AND TEST FEATURES Florida Power and Light Company analyzed the onsite distribution system using the startup transformers as th'e power source under maximum (244 kV) and minimum (230 kV) expected voltage conditions on the 230 kV gr id (normally operated at 240 kV)., In conjunction with the above conditions, three loading cases wer e analyzed to det'ermine the voltage at the terminals of the Class 1E equipment.
In Case 1, the normal running loads were transferred to the startup transformer following a unit trip from full power
with the grid at minimum anticipated voltage.
In Case 2, the loading conditions were the same as Case I, but with the addition of all loads required for an accident.
In Case 3, the loading conditions were the same as Case I except the grid was at maximum expected voltage.
The analysis provided by FP&L showed that the worst case Class IE equipment voltages would occur under the following conditions:
I.
Maximum voltage occurs with normal running loads supplied from the startup transformer and the grid at its maximum expected value of 244 kv.
2.
Minimum voltage occurs following a unit trip from full load with a transfer of the normal running loads and the starting of all accident loads with the grid at its minimum expected value of 230 kV.
The staff took exception to the loading conditions analyzed by FP&L as the condition which could result in the worst case maximum overvoltage (Item I above).
The staff required the licensee to perform an. analysis with:the grid at the maximum expected voltage and minimum plant loading (example plant shutdown or refueling) to determine what voltages the Class IE equipment would be exposed to under this condition.
In a submittal dated August 5, 1982, the I.iceasee provided the results of an analysis conducted with the grid at the maximum expected voltage, 244 kV, and the plant shutdown with minimum equipment operating.
The results of this analysis shows that no Class IE equipment would be exposed to voltages in excess of their design rating.
The voltage analysis was verified by taking voltage and load measurements at the 4160 volt load centers and the 480 volt load centers and MCCs while the unit was operating at full power.
A comparison showed that the analytical values were within 2X of the actual plant values obtained in verification tests.
This close correlation verifies the accuracy of the analysis submitted.
CONCLUSIONS Me have reviewed the LLL Technical Evaluation Report and concur in the
'inding that:
1.
FPSL has provided verified voltage analyses to demonstrate that Class lE equipment voltages will remain within acceptable operating limits for the worst case analyzed conditions.
2.
The tests used to verify the analysis were valid and showed the analysis to be accurate.
3.
The licensee's'eaffirmation of compliance to GDC 17 requirements is acceptable.
Me therefore find the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 design acceptable with respect to the adequacy of station electric distribution system voltages.
Attachment:
LLL Technical Evaluation