ML20117Q053
Text
.
f i'"_.-
I990 SEP 27 AW w,-
MEMORANDUM FOR:-
Robert A. Capra, Project Director-Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects I/II FROM:
Gary M. Holahan, Deputy Director Division of Systems Technology
SUBJECT:
SAFETY EVALUATION OF THE CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, RESPONSE TO THE STATION BLACK 0UT RULE Plant Name:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2 Utility:
Wisconsin Electric Power Company Docket Nos.:
50-317/318 TAC Nos.:
68525/68526 Licensing Status:
0L Resp. Directorate:
PD I-1/DRP Project Manager:
S. McNeil Review Branch:
SELB/ DST Review Status:
Complete The licensee's initial response was provided by letter from George C. Creel, Baltimore Gas And Electric, to the Document Control Desk, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, stated April 14, 1929. Subsequently, the licensee pro-vided a response to the NUMARC 87-00 Supplemental Questions / Answers by a letter from George C. Creel to Docuinent Control Desk, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory l
Commission, dated March 30, 1990. A third response pertaining to the AAC source was provided by letter dated Septamber 24, 1990.
The licensee's responses were reviewed by Science Applications International (SAIC) under contract to the NRC. The results of the review are documented by SAICTechnicalEvaluationReport(TER),SAIC-90/1072, titled " Technical Evalua-tion Report, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant,(Unit Nos. I and 2, Station l
Blackout Evaluation, dated September 24, 1990, Attachment No. 1).
Presently, there are three emergency diesel generators (EDGs) for the two units at Calvert Cliffs, Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP), with one EDG shared between two units. The licensee plans to ado two additional EDGs, thus providing two dedicated EDGs for each unit plus one spare EDG. The spare EDG would be used
Contact:
A. Toalston, SELB/ DST X20776 l
(,
h p
M 9l[A '
e l
R. A. Capra as an AAC source and also as a substitute EDG for any of the dedicated EDGs when one is out of service for an extended perion, such as for maintenance and repair.
We find the licensee's responses and proposed methods of dealing with an S80 to be acceptable. However, the staff's evaluation of the required coping duration is 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> instead of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> as determinea by the licensee.
It appears that CCNPP station should be able to cope with an 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> coping duration since an alternate AC (AAC) power source is proposed for coping with an SBO. The licensee l
should address the recommendations and provide confirmations as described in the i
attached SER and maintain these in the documentation supporting the SB0 submittal l
for future NRC examination. Also, the following areas may require follow-up inspection by the NRC to verify that the implementation of any modifications and the su,7 porting docunentation which the licensee may propose as a result of this evaluation are adequate to meet the Station Blackout Rule.
Inspection guidance l
for this is being developed.
a.
Hardware end procedural modifications, b.
SB0 procedures in accordance with RG 1.155, Position 3.4, l
and huMARC 87-00, Section 4, c.
Operator staffing and training to follow the identified actions in the SB0 procedures, d.
EDG reliability program meets, as a minimum, the guidelines of RG 1.155, Equipment and components required to cope with an SB0 e.
are incorporated in a QA program that meets the guidance of RG 1.155, Appendix A, f.
Station batteries are adequate to power the needed equipment required to cope with an SB0 for the required 8-hour coping duration and recovery therefrom, and 9
Actions taken pertaining to the specific recomendations noted in this SER.
i l
The guidance provided on Technical Specifications (TS) for an SB0 states that i
the TS should be consistent with the Interim Commission Policy Statement on Tech-nical Specifications. The staff has taken the position that TS are required for SB0 response equipment. However, the question of how specifications for the SB0 equipment will be applied is currently being considered generically by the NRC 4
in the context of the Technical Specification Improvement Program and remains an open item at this time.
In the interim, the staff expects plant procedures to 4
reflect the appropriate testing and surveillance requirenents to ensure the operability of the necessary SB0 equipment.
If the staff later determines that
R. A. Capra september 27, 1990 TS regarding the SB0 equipment is warranted, the licensee will be notified of the implementation requirements. is the SALP input for this review.
5 Gary M. Holahan, Deputy Director Division of Systems Technology
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
A. Thadani G. Holahan S. Varga B. Boger S. McNeil A. Gody (SALP only)
J. Raval Distribution:
Docket File Nos. 50 317/318 j
SELB Rdg.
A.Toalston(PF)(2)
P. Gill J. E. Knight F. Rosa C. McCracken l
R. C. Jones G. M. Holahan Calvert Cliffs S/F FC :5ELB/
- 5ELB
- 5C/5ELB/D5T :BC/5ELB/ DST :
/ DST :B D5T :DD T
.....:_.g)_]DL7....:..../D5T j
.. :..__... _ _ U._ _ _ _ _g.p. :
- JEKnight N FRosa v '\\
cCracken :R s
- MH ahet AME :AToalston:cn:PGill
.... :i/ l 7 /90
_.......____:.._.........:...........:....___.....:f/M /90 p/pp/90 g /90 l
4
- $/////90 g//f/90
- 8/A6 90 ATE.
/
t
/
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l
Document Name: CCSB0
)