ML20030D823
| ML20030D823 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 09/01/1981 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Cavanaugh W ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109170008 | |
| Download: ML20030D823 (4) | |
Text
-
n f
/,"
't LEPTEMBER 0 1 1981 DISTRlBQ N:
TERA DELD
- 70cked1 1 NSIC AE0D 1RC PUR ORB #4 Rdg IE-3 L PDR GVissing ACRS-10 RIngram Gray File Docket flo. 50-313 JStolz MSrinivasan H0rnstein RPrevatte on 1 i @.,f'.
EBlackwood
\\
t GD Q
b fir. Iltllian Cavanaugh, III y
Senior Vice President,
,gg
_ (b 9
Energy Supply l
Arkansas Power & Light Company
,D
.-1j l
P. O. Cox 551 9,\\
V C/
c3 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 4
Dear ifr. Cavanaugh:
19 Ile have reviewed your letter dated July 7,1981, concerning our request for information dated June 9,1981 on the adequacy of the Station Elec-trical Distribution Voltage issued for Arkansas fluclear One, Unit No.1.
We find that we need additional inforration in order to conplete our review. The enclosure identifies the infaraation which is needed.
It is requested that a response to Itens 1 and 2 of the enclosure be pro-vided within 45 days from receipt of this letter. We request a cornit-ment to verify the voltage analysis by test, Item 3 of the enclosure, within 30 days fron receipt of this letter. Provide a description of the test nethod and a schedule for subnitting the test results within 90 days fron receipt of this letter.
Sincerely, scuc1 1 L.u 2D M JOEi F. STOL4' John F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Informtion cc w/ enclosure:
See next page 8109170000 810901 PDR ADOCK 05000313 P
.4:DL
,,,,c, suwan )
..$.y Mcb JSto-om). 8/f//.S.],,,,
/. _./3.,
unc ronu ais no a Nncu cuo OFFICIAL RECORD COPY cuo e-nm
1 Arkansas Power & Light Company g
l ccw/ enclosure (s):
)
Mr. David C. Trimble i
[
Manager, Licensing Arkansas Power & Light Company P. O. Box 551 Director, Bureau of Environmental Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Health Services 4815 West Markhar Street Mr. James P. O'Hanlon Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 General Manager Arkansas Nuclear One P. O. Box 608 Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Mr. William Johnson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 2090 Russellville, Arkansas 72801 l
Mr. Robert B. Borsum Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Power Generation Division Suite 420, 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Mr. Nicholas S. Reynolds Debevoise & Liberman l
120017th Street, NW l
Washington, DC 20036 Arkansas Tech University Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Honorable Ermil Grant Acting County Judge of Pope County Pope County Courthouse Russellville, Arkansas 72801 Regional Radiation Representative l
EPA Region VI 1201 Elm Street Dallas, Ter s 75270 I
l
\\
e
/
,/
/
g -
/'
Enclosure REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORilATI0'1_
CONCERNING ADEQUACY OF STATION ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION
~
SYSTEM FOR ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-313 REFEhENCES: (1) NkC letter (W. Ga= mill) to all power reactor licensees, dated Aupuet E, 1979.
(2) AP&L letter (D. C. Trichle) to NRC (R. W. Reid),
dated :.sy 21, 1979.
(3) AP&L letter (D. C. Trimble) to NRC (R. W. Reid),
dated July 12, 1979.
(4) AP&L letter (D. C. Trimble) to NRC (R. W. Reid),
dated Septe=ber 10, 1979.
(5) AP&L letter (D. C. Trimble) to NRC (J. F. Stolz),
dated July 7, 1981.
(6) NRC letter (J. F. Stolz) to AP&L, dated June 9,1981.
1.
Ref 5 is in response to a request for additional information (Ref. 6) on the Adequacy of Electric Distribution System Voltages. The requested items were discussed in a telecon on June 30, 1981. It was agreed that Question 1 of Raf. 6 could be deleted in that sufficient analysis information had been docu-mented. However, in order to complete a quantitative review on the adequacy of voltages at all distribution levels, submit the worst case low voltage (less than 480 volts) Class lE equipment terminal voltages (Ref. 1, Guideline 7) for the following worst cases:
(a)
Ref. 2, Table 4, provides the transient and steady state voltages for a full house transfer of Unit.1 station loads to SUT #1 followed by an ES signal with all th'ree 500KV lines out of service.
(b)
Ref. 3, Attachment 1, provides the Class lE load voltages for maximum gri.d and minimum plant loading conditions.
(c)
Starting of the largest non-Class lE load following a full house transfer with an ES signal.
Discussion: The above low voltage values are required to verify that the low valtage Class lE equipment will be operating within the design voltage ratings (without blowing fuses, overheating, etc.) and that the voltage dip caused by the starting of a large non-Class lE load will not cause Class lE contactors to drop out.
e
Page 2 4
)
l 2
Identify the control transformers which were increased in size. Provide the voltage ratings and range of operation of the new installations.
3.
Ref.1, page 2, required that the voltage analyses be verified by test and that a description of the test method and the test results be submitted.
Since no plans have been submitted on how the testing is to be performed.
3AC requires that the verification test be parformed on all sources of cffsite power by:
(a) loading the station distribution buses, including all Class lE buses down to the 120/208 volt level, to at least 30*;
(b) recording the existing grid and Class lE bus voltages and bus loading down to the 120/208 volt level at steady state conditions and during the starting of both a large Class lE and non-Class lE motor (not concurrently);
Note: To minimize the number of instrumented locations, (recorders) during the motor starting transient tests, the bus voltages 7;
and loading need only be recorded on that string of buses which previously showed the lowest analyzed voltages from the analysis.
(c) using the analytical techniques and assumptions of the previous voltage ana. lyses, and the measured existing grid voltage and bus loading conditions recorded during conduct of the test, calculate a new set of voltages for all the Class lE buces down to the 120/
208 volt level; (d) compare the analyticall'y derived voltage values against the test results.
With good correlation between the analytical results and the test results, the test verification requirement will be met.
That is, the validity of the mathe-matical model used in performance of the analyses of item 3 will have been estab-lished; therefore, the validity of the results of the analyses is also estsblished.
In general the test results should not be more than 3 lower than the analytical results; however, the difference between the two when subtracted from the voltage levels determined in the original analyses should never be less than the Class 1E cquipment rated voltages.
_,