ML20195E278
| ML20195E278 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195E276 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8806230344 | |
| Download: ML20195E278 (2) | |
Text
,
g
4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 e
SUPPLEllENTAL SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 104 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-72 FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, ET AL, CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT N0. 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET N0. 50-302 INTRODUCTION By letter dated February 19, 1988 (Ref. 1), the NRC staff transmitted to Florida Power Corporation (FPC or the licensee) a Safety Evaluation (SE) related to the emergency diesel generator (EDG) loading and to License Amenument No. 104 for the Crystal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant CR-3).
In the SE, we accepted the proposed interim Technical Specification TS) changes, as well as interim operation of CR-3 for one refueling cycle utilizing load management of the EDG as described in the SE, subject to review and approval of additional information to be submitted by the licensee.
By letter dated February 29, 1988, the licenses submitted final EDG test results.
Additional information war provided in Licensee Event Report (LER)87-019, Revision 1 dated February 29, 1988 and during a meeting with the NRC staff on March 30, 1988.
The purpose of this supplement is to update our SE by evaluating this additional information with respect to the items identified in the SE as subject to further review. The numbers below refer to sections from the SE issued with Amendment No. 104.
EVALUATION 1.
Diesel Loading and 3. TS Amendment The SE noted that acceptance of interim operation and of the proposed interim T! cheges was based on calculated loads and preliminary test results, and subject. b review and approval of the final test results. Worst-case load was calcul6ted to be 3228 kw, and the higher testing level in the TS was 3248 kw.
The major electrical pump loads on train "A" were tested at or as near as practicable to each pum coolant-accident (LOCA)p's conditions during a postulated large-break lou sf-The tests showed that the worst-case totcl load on EDG "A" is 3113 kw, below the calculated load and the TS test level, and within the 30-minute rating of the EDG. We find these test results acceptable, m
P
. In addition, the SE noted that flows, end therefore kw loads, on some pumps have been reduced by throttling and that support for these reduced flows would be reviewed. The final test report and LER of February 29; 1988 provided additional information.
The revised flow rates were reviewed by the staff and found acceptable.
The staff has reviewed anc' approved the final test report and other supporting documentation and concludes that the matters in these areas previously considered as requiring further review have been fully resolved and are acceptable as described above.
2.
Rela;ed EDG Issus The SE requested confirmation by testing of voltage dips at the 4160 volt and lower voltage levels resulting from block loading cf the EDGs.
The information submitted by the licensee in its February 29, 1988 letter is too brief and inadequate to permit the staff to draw definite conclusions regarding the adequacy of voltages to support functioning of all ESF equipment. We will pursue this matter with the licensee separately from issues of E06 loading and testing.
In the SE, we discussed the problem of excessive EDG inlet air temperature (above 105'F) when outside ambient air temperature exceeds 95*.
In its letter of February 1,1988, the licensee described a modification whi-h would introduce outside ambient air at the EDG air intake and would maintain maximum inlet temperatures of 105'F at the diesel air intake.
Based on our review, we conclude that the modification described by the licensee is acceptable.
It is noted, however, that in its February 1,1988 letter, the licensee clso discussed the alternative of slightly derating the EDG for increased ambient temperature, and did not commit to implementing the modification.
During the meeting of March 30, 1988, such commitment was made verbally and was confirmed in the licensee's letter to the Consnission dated May 19, 1988, and the modification is in fact being installed.
We therefore consider the matter of EDG air inlet temperature resolved.
However, the design of the modification and the operational history of the ventilation fans providing ambient at: for both co:,bustion and EDG room cooling raise questions about the adequacy of EDG room cooling.
The licensee has agreed to submit responses to our concerns, and we will pursue this matter separately with the licensee.
CONCLUSION Since the related issues discussed above will be hcndled separately, we find that matters affecting both interim operation of the EDG until the next scheduled refueling and tha interim TS change covering EDG testing have been satisfactorily resolved, and the qualifications in the SE regarding acceptability of interim operation and of the interim TS changes may be deleted.
Principal Contributors:
S. Saba H. Silve-'
Dated: June 15, 1988
- -