ML20127K287

Documents 670127 Telcon W/Listed NSP Personnel to Discuss Questions Re Single Emergency Diesel Proposed for Plant in Relation to Network Load Shift Characteristics

ML20127K287
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	02/01/1967
From:	James Shea US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 9211200358
Download: ML20127K287 (3)

Text

. _ _ . . . _ . _ - . _ . __ _ . . . _ . - _ _ _ . _ __. .__ .

l.

4 *"

e 7llTd77,,,,'* ,

ou u =. -

y UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT Memorandum 10 5 .: THE FILES DATE: -February 1, 1967 JI THRU: Roger S. Boyd, Chief f

Research & Power Reactor Safety Branch, DRL y FROM  : J. J. Shea, Research & Power Reactor Safety retne% h Division of Reactor Licensing sunjEcT: NSP - }ONTICELID NUCLEAR UNIT. NO.1 - SINGLE EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERA'IOR IN RELATION 'IO THE NETWORK IDAD SHIFT CHARACTERISTICS - DOCKET 10 50-263 Bale 16 h Jensen of Northern States Power Company in Minnesota, telephoned on January 26, 1967, to set up a conference call at 10 a.m. January 27, 1967 to review and possibly react to my comments on the NSP responses to questions 2 3 and 4 5 in NSP Amendment 4 (January 12,1967). Question 2 3 dealt with the single emergency diesel proposed for Monticello site and Question 4 5 dealth with the NSP power netwcrk performance charac-teristics.

The prearran6ed telephone conference with the following participants l took place as scheduled.

Al' Ward NSP GeorEe Eanado NSP Larry Sbadine NSP Rale 16h Jensen NSP Lester Weber NSP

. Don Peterson NSP James J. Shea DRL The NSP group represented a cross section of planning, systems analysis, and electrical groups.

I stated at the beginning that three basic areas needed to be strengthened tto provide sufficient basis for any deterninations to be made by us.

1. Establish the independence of the six power transmission lines -

serving the Monticello site.

2. Describe the. network bebavior vben 500 MWe Eenerator load drops off.

3 Support the claims for high diesel start up and performance reliability.

any v.s. saring nonds Reydarh on the payrott saiings etan 9211200358 670201 PDR ADOCK 05000263 A

-PDR

- : .. . . . - . . . , -. -- w,.. , , z. . .

[

s' TIE FILES February 1, 1957 The Amendment 4 Question k.5 response was sifted for new information not presented in the original application and it was generally evident that the vritten response was incomplete and as evidenced by the oral tele-phone responses much more can be said which could influence us and the ACRS.

To arrive at this conclusion a variety of specifics or details were discussed.

1. The significance of an immediately available 1500 Ka'e power reserve.

2. Frequency dips, voltage variations, preferential load drop off.

3 Energy in rotatinE equipment on the network (i.e. energy stored in rotating equipment).

h. The power misbalance and duration of same considering time in-terval between large demand and the steam-turbine responses.

5 Monticello operating restrictions during short and lengthy emergency diesel outages.

6. An analysis of those diesel failures or the items most likely to affect diesel performance, ability to interrupt repair work and restore the diesel to service manually if required during an emergency in relation to reactor operating' restrictions imposed during such an outage.

7 Diesel specifications, performance warranties, operating per-formance histories of similar type ecergency diesels. (For example diesels that must start and perform work within 5-7 seconds of the initiating signal. )

8. Interactions between the six transmission lines that could result in the loss of all off-site power.

9 Ability to anticipate the need for emergency diesels. (Storms, earthquakes, warnings, communications, etc. )

10. Ability of a diesel already synchronized to the network to shed loads and pick up the emergency loads.

Difficulty in co:mnunications by phone and time consideration limited the usefulness of the conversation but a more useful presentation .in writing is certainly a possiblity.

I

- . . . . _ _ . - . . .. ._ . _ - . - . - . , ~ . _ . .. . . - - . . . . - . - . - . . . - . . . - . . . . . . - . . . -

1 i

I i l THE FILES February 1,1967 1

. t j i 1 ..

j~ One statement made that sheds some new light on this' subject is that NSP' is still negotiating arrangements to get-themselves locked in on a much l

larger network vbere, for example, there vill. be' approximately 125,000

- MWe on the network axperiencing- the loss -of 500 MW. This 125,000 MWe considered rotating generators only. Rotating machinery and motors for g example are not included.

i It is hoped that time vill permit further probes in this area following '

the NSP reactor vessel discussions with us-at 1:00 p.m. on February 2, 1967 in Room 107 in Bethesda.  ;

l 2 J, .

1 5 '

Distribution:.

j DRL Reading-i ' R&PRSB Reading cc: R. L. Ferguson 4

P. A. Morris E. G.-Case

!.- R. S. Boyd B. Grimes D. Sullivan

{ W. Jensen t

I' e

.i l

e ,

l_ .j l

-l L l c

-l il l

I Yl

....--..u.,.._... , ., .a . c. .- _ _. ...u.. __u . . _ . _ . _; u __;- - __ . ._