ML17258A503
| ML17258A503 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1982 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Maier J ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17258A504 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-08-01.A, TASK-8-1.A, TASK-RR LSO5-82-01-072, LSO5-82-1-72, NUDOCS 8202040262 | |
| Download: ML17258A503 (8) | |
Text
January 29, 1982 Docket No.60-244 LSOG-82-01-072 Mr. John E. Miier, Vice President Electric and Steam Production Rochester Gas 5 Electric Corporat4on 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649
Dear Mr. Maier:
SUBJECT:
SEP TOPIC VIII-l.A,POTEIITIAL E(UIPMENT FAILURES ASSOCIATED WITH DEGRADED GRID VOLTAGE SEP Topic VIII-1.Ais composed of two tasks.
The first task was to evaluate the adequacy of protection against degraded grid voltages.
This task has been completed and the staff Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and Technical Specification Changes were issued as Amendment 38 to your Operating License.
The second task was to evaluate the adequacy of the onsite power system voltages.
The staff SER for this task is enclosed.
Because the staff has found that an adequate design exists, and has been verified by test, and because of'Amendment 38, we conclude that Topic VIII-l.Ahas been completed satisfactorily.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
As stated Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No.
5 Division of Licensing cc w/enclosure:
See next page l
8202040282 820129 PDR ADOCK 05000244 PDR OFFICE/
SURNAME$
DATE$
DL SEPB: D SEP
~ DL RHermann 11 i/2gg p
/~8g.......
.PM
~ JL ons
. 1/AkL8k..
A :SA:DL D
utchfi ld G
nas
..3722'.Uz'.........l./3.. I.82.
NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO1 1981~8 980
C
~ 0
Mr. John E.'Maier
,j CC Harry 'H. Voigt, Esquire LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby and MacRae
'1333 Hew Hampshire Avenue, N.
W.
Suite 1100 Washington, D. C; 20036
~ Mr. Michael Slade 12 Trailwood Circle Rochester, New York 14618 Ezra Bialik Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau NHew York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 Resident Inspector R. E. Ginna Plant c/o U. S.
HRC 1503 Lake Road
'ntario, New, York 14519
'i'rector',
Bureau of Huclear Operations State of Hew York Energy Office Agency Building 2
. Empire State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12223 Rochester Public Library 115 South Avenue Rochester, New York 14604 Supervisor of the Town of'ntario 107 Ridge Road West
- Ontario, Hew York 145T9-U. S. Environmental Protection A'gency
'Region II Office ATTN:
Regional Radiation Representative 26 Federal Plaza New'York, New York 10007 Herbert Grossman, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory.Commission
~Washington, D. C.
20555 James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator Nuclear Regulatory. Commission, Region II Office of Inspection and Enforcement 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia
.30303 Dr.
Emmeth A; Luebke Atomic.Safety-and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Washington, D. C'. 20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
1" 0
'ENCf.OSURE 1
SAFETY EVALUATION DOCKET NO. 50-244 ADEQUACY OF STATION 'ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM VOLTAGES INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
Rochester Gas and Electric Corp.
(RGSE) was requested by NRC letter dated August 8, 1979 to review the electric. power system at R.
E. Ginna Nuclear Power Station Unit 1.
The review was to consist of:
a)
'etermining 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 rati'ngs in the event of 1) an anticipated transient, or 2) an accident (such as LOCA) without manual shedding. of any ele'ctric 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.
RG&E responded by letters dated. December 6,
1'979, September 3, 1980; December 4,
1980 and September 30, 1981.
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 for the R.
E. Ginna Nuclear Power Station Unit 1," dated November 5, 1981 (attached).
He have reviewed this report and concur in the conclusions that the offsite power system and the onsite distribution system 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
- 60Property "ANSI code" (as page type) with input value "ANSI C84.1-1977</br></br>- 60" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process. 8z"
("Voltage Ratings for Electric Power Systems and Equipment - 60 8z )',
and the staff positions and guidelines in NRC letter'o RG&E dated August 8, 1979.
ANALYSIS AND TEST FEATURES Various analyses were performed using the station auxiliary transformer 812, over the normal expected operating voltage range of the two independent feeders to the transformer;
- The worst.case analysis for minimum voltage indicated that the voltage at the equipment would
~l be slightly below the equipment rated steady state voltage (88% versus 90K).
Based on this, RG&E proposed changing their operating procedures
r 4
w 3 to maintain., the voltage at the feeders to transformer 812 at a higher
't value.
Subsequently, the results of the verification testing indicated that the analysis was conservative and the equipment voltages would be maintained essentially at their rated values (section 4.3 and 5.(4) of the enclosed LLL TER).
Based on this, and the fact that in either case the second level undervoltage relays will protect the loads, we conclude that the 'proposed change to the operating procedures is not required.
H CONCLUSIONS We have reviewed the LLL Technical Evaluation and concur in the findings
. -that:
(1)
Under worst case conditions, the Class 1E equipment will automatically start and continue to operate within their voltage'design ratings.
(2)
The voltage at the Class 1E equipment will not exceed the upper design I
voltage rating under maximum offsite voltage and minimum plant loading conditions.
(3)
The analysis submitted was verified by test.
The test data indicates that the analytical results are lower -than actual.measured values; thus the model is conservative with acceptable percentage error differences.
(4)
Spurious trips will not occur for the voltages and plant operating conditions analyzed.
Review of the plants offsite power system for compliance with GDC 17 h'as already been performed under the systematic evaluation program (SEP).