ML20054M239
| ML20054M239 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1982 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Vandewalle D CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054M240 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-08-01.A, TASK-8-1.A, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8207120153 | |
| Download: ML20054M239 (7) | |
Text
%
[
k w
Distitbution Docket File July 8, 1982 Local PDR NRC PDR ORB Reading Docket No. 50-155 NSIC D. Crutchfield H. Smith Mr. David VandeWalle R. Emch OELD Nuclear Licensing Administrator OI&E Consumers Power Company 1945 W. Rurnall Eoad ACRS (10)
Jackson, Michigan 49201 SEPB
Dear Mr. VandeWalle:
SUBJECT:
SIC ROCK POINT - ADEQUACY OF STATION ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM VOLTAGES AND DEGRADED GRID PROTECTION FOR CLASS lE POWER SYSTDiS AND SEP TOPIC VIII-1. A We have completed our review of your system grid voltage analysis which you submitted on May 18, 1982. We determined that the infor-mation in,that analysis related to two issues: Multiplant Issue B-48, "Ad,equacy of Station Electrical Distribution Systen Voltages" and Multiplant Issue B-23 " Degraded Grid Protection for Class lE Power Sy' stems." Both of these issues have already been addressed by the NRC in Safety Evaluation Reports. B-48 was addressed in our letter to CPC dated November 30, 1981, and B-23 was addressed in our letter issuing Amendment No. 51 r-you dated March 8, 1982.
The results of the staff evaluation of your May 18, 1982 submittal are enclosed and conclude that the Big Rock Point design is accep-table with respect to the adequacy of station electric distribution systems voltages.
The previous staff conclusions reached reistive
-item B-23 remain unchanged. Since the review criteria for SEP Topic VIII-1.A are identical to those used in our analysis of Multiplant actions B-23 and B-48, we have concluded that Topic VIII-1.A has been completed satisfactorily.
Sincerely, Original Signed By Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #5 Division of Licensing hd[
Enclosure:
Revised Safety Evaluation Report
[ N W I I M (/NT 8207120153 820708 PDR ADOCK 05000155 J
P P_D_R omca>
.DL : 0RB,#5,,,,
D.
f
..Limc!!Nd' pcr.W. 2n. eld
.. - --- -- l sunmue>
... - -.... ~...
..Zlu82..
..')WLU.....
oare >
anc ronu ais oom sacu om OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam mi-m9a ;
I Mr. David J. VandeWalle July 8, 1982 CC
~
M. I. Miller, Esquire Mr. James A. Laurenson, Chairman Isham, Lincoln & Beale Atomic Sa'ety and Licensing Board Suite 4200 Panel One First National Plaza U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chicago, Illinois 60670 Washington, D. C.
20555 Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary Dr. George C. Anderson
. Consumers Power Company.
Department of Oceanography 212 West Michigan Avenue University of Washington Jackson, Michigan 49201 Seattle, Washington 98195 Judd L. Bacon, Esquire Dr. M. Stanley Livingston Consumers Power Company 1005 Calle Largo 212 West Michigan Avenue Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 Jackson, Michigan 49201 Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq. Chairman CHERRY $ FLYNN Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Suite 3700 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Three First National Plaza Washington, D. C.
20555 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Christa-Maria Route 2, Box 44 Route 2, Box 108C Map,le City, Michigan 49664 Charlevoix, Michigan 49720-.'
Herbert Srossman, Esq., Chairmao,_
n.
+-
Joseph Gallo, Esquire Atomic safety and Licensing Boar r Isham, Lincoln & Beale U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1120 Connecticut Avenue Washington, D. C.
20(55 Room 325
" Washington, D. C.
20036 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Peter W. Steketee, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
(
505 Peoples Building Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 William J. Scanlon, Esquire Mr. Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 2034 Pauline Boulevard Q.
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Washington, D. C.
20555 Ms. Mary P. Sinclair l
., Great Lakes Energy Alliance Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant
.. 5711 Sumnerset Drive ATTN: Mr. C. J. Hartman Midland, Michigan 48640 Plant Superintendent Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Resident Inspector Big Rock Point Plant Mr. Jim E. Mills c/o U.S. NRC Route 2, Box 108C l
RR #3, Box 600 Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 Charlevoix, Michigan 49720 9
i REVISED NRC STAFF SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT BIG ROCK POINT PLANT ADEQUACY OF STATION R
b!S i ION SYSTEM VOLTAGES INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
7 Consumers Power Company (CPCo) was requested by NRC letter dated August 8, 1979 to review the electric power system at Big Rock Point Plant. The review was to consist of:
i l
4 a)
Detemining analytically the capacity of the offsite power system and the onsite distribution systam to start automatically and to operate all required loads within their required voltage rating in l
the event.of 1) an anticipated transient, or 2) an accident (such as LOCA)without manual shedding of any electric loads.
L b)
Detemining if there' are an events or conditfbns which could result '
~
~
t in the simultaneous or consequential loss of both required circuits frcm the offsite network to the ensite electric distribution system thus violating the requirements of GDC 17.
l The August 8,1979 letter included staff guidelines for performing the j
required voltage analysis. The-licensee was further required to perform a test in order to verify the validity of the analytical results.
CPCo's responses consisted of voltage analyses and responses to staff questions dated February 19, 1980; August 29,1980; March 23,1981; May 4,1981; and I
1 l
August 26, 1981. Other CPCo correspondence dated June 14, 1978; August 21,
.1980; and December 12, 1980 were also reviewed for this report.
Proposed
\\
I f
, Technical 3pecifications were received with a letter dated October 27, 1981.
A detailed review and technical evaluation of the submittals were perfonned by EG&G under contract to the NRC and with general supervision by the NRC staff. This work is reported by EG&G in the attached Technical Evaluation Report dated September 1981 and entitled:
" Adequacy of Station Electric' Distribution System Voltages, Big Rock Point Plant." We have reviewed this report and concur in the conclusions that the onsite distribution system in conjunction with the offsite power source are capable of providing acceptable voltages to the Class 1E equipment under worst case station electric loads and expected grid voltage limits.
The licensee in a submittal dated May 18, 1982, provided the results of a new analysis on the ade'quacyc f station electric (Jstribution system o
t voltages. The analysis shows that different conditions than those previously analyzed would provide the worst case Class lE equipment voltages. As a result of this latest analysis EG&G has prepared a revised techni~ cal evaluation report dated June, 1982 (attached). We have reviewed i
this revised TER and concur in the conclusions that the onsite distribution system in conjunction with the offsite power source are capable of providing acceptable voltages tr, the Class lE equipment under worst case station loads l
and expected grid limits.
EVALUATION CRITERIA The criteria used by EG&G 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 CB4.1-1977
(" Voltage Ratings for Electric Power Systems and Equipment - 60Hz"); and the staff positions and guidelines in NRC letter to CPCo dated August 8,1979.
CPCo has analyzed each offsite source to the onsite distribution system under extremes of load r.d offsita voltaga conditions to determine the terminal voltages to lE equi The worst case Class lE equipment terminal voltages occur under the'following conditions:
2 1.
The minimum expected continuous load terminal voltage for a Class lE N
load occurs when the 138 kv grid is at its minimum value ccncurrent.
l,;
with a LOCA.
2.
The minimum expected trans11ent load terminal voltage for a Class lE load occurs when the 138 kv grid is at its minimum level concurrent l
4 l
with a LOCA and starting of the 100 HP fire pupp.
N 3.
The maximum expected continuous load terminal voltage for a,. Class lE load occurs when the 138 kv grid is at its maximum voltage, the voltage regulator is off-line, and the unit is in cold shutd'own.
'\\
s i
y 1
t
7
. ~
As a result of this analysis CPCo has completed the following design changes :
l.
Main transformer No.1 tap was changed from 145/13.5 kv tap tc the 140/13,5 kv tap.
2.
Transformers No.11 and No. 22 taps were changed from 2400/480 V
'~
tap to 2340/480 V tap.
The computer analysis used by CPCo was verified by taking actual voltage measurements with an oscillograph and ccmparing these measurements with the corresponding calculated values.
For both prestart and start-up conditions, the.er_ror was not greater than 1.M which is within the accuracy of the measuring instruments. The staff finds this acceptable.
C0t'CLUSIONS
'n'e have reviewed the EGaG Technical Evaluation Report and concur in their findings that:
1.
Voltages within the operating limits of the Class 1E equipnent are supplied for all projected combinations of plant load and normal offsite power grid conditions.
2.
CPCo's test has verified the accuracy of their analysis.
5-3.
CPCo had determined that there is no potential for either a simultaneous or a consequential loss of both offsite power sources.
However, there are portions of the Big Rock Point distribution system where a single component failure can disable both sources.
This condition exists because Big Rock Point was licensed prior to the promulgation of 10 CFR 50. Appendix A. " General Design Criteria for Naclear Pawar Plants," specifically GDC 17. The portfons of the offsite power system in non-compliance with GDC 17 will be examined as part of Topic VII-3 of the Systematic Evaluation Program.
We therefore find the Big Rock Point Plant design to be acceptable with respect to the adequacy of station electric' distribution system voltages. t
~
,~
A
\\
9 9
e e
0
-,