ML18096A501: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Created page by program invented by StriderTol
Created page by program invented by StriderTol
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:,. * "'*' Public Service Electric and Gas Company Stanley LaBruna Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-1200 Vice President  
{{#Wiki_filter:,. "'*'
-Nuclear Operations JAN 3 1 1992 NLR-N92014 LCR 87-07 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
* Public Service Electric and Gas Company Stanley LaBruna                       Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-1200 Vice President - Nuclear Operations JAN 3 1 1992 NLR-N92014 LCR 87-07 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR TESTING SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 BY letter dated March 3, 1991, PSE&G proposed changes to the Salem Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) Technical Specifications.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR TESTING SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 BY letter dated March 3, 1991, PSE&G proposed changes to the Salem Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) Technical Specifications.
Based on their review of the proposed changes, NRC staff provided questions to PSE&G in a letter dated October 18, 1991. By letter dated December 19, 1991, PSE&G responded to those questions, with the exception of Question 1, which involved the recent revision of the Salem EDG load calculation.
Based on their review of the proposed changes, NRC staff provided questions to PSE&G in a letter dated October 18, 1991. By letter dated December 19, 1991, PSE&G responded to those questions, with the exception of Question 1, which involved the recent revision of the Salem EDG load calculation. The following is PSE&G's response to Question 1 of the October 18, 1991 letter.
The following is PSE&G's response to Question 1 of the October 18, 1991 letter. Question 1 The current FSAR states that the maximum load would not exceed the 2000 hour rating of 2750 KW for the diesel generator.
Question 1 The current FSAR states that the maximum load would not exceed the 2000 hour rating of 2750 KW for the diesel generator.
However, the current load study referenced in your submittal, identified as Salem Generating Station Diesel Generator Load study, Report No. AEI-PSEG-8811-DR-OOl, indicates credible accident scenarios or "operational cases" where the diesel generator load profile exceeds the 2000 hour rating of 2750 KW. Provide a copy of the 50.59 Safety Evaluation that has been performed showing the diesel generator loading capacity is adequate under the new load profiles.
However, the current load study referenced in your submittal, identified as Salem Generating Station Diesel Generator Load study, Report No. AEI-PSEG-8811-DR-OOl, indicates credible accident scenarios or "operational cases" where the diesel generator load profile exceeds the 2000 hour rating of 2750 KW.
Response Revision o of the study showed a peak load of 2872 KW for 16 minutes, which is below the one half hour rating of 3100 KW. The load dropped below the 2000 hour rating at the 16 minute operating point. Revision O of the load study concluded that diesel loading was acceptable because the manufacturer's 9202100107 920131 PDR ADOCK 05000272 P PDR
Provide a copy of the 50.59 Safety Evaluation that has been performed showing the diesel generator loading capacity is adequate under the new load profiles.
' . -Document Control Desk NLR-N92014 JAN 3 1 1992 specified ratings (i.e., load and duration) were not exceeded.
 
===Response===
Revision o of the study showed a peak load of 2872 KW for 16 minutes, which is below the one half hour rating of 3100 KW.                                                   The load dropped below the 2000 hour rating at the 16 minute operating point. Revision O of the load study concluded that diesel loading was acceptable because the manufacturer's
                                                                                                                                        )
9202100107 920131 PDR ADOCK 05000272 P                               PDR
 
    ' .
- Document Control Desk             NLR-N92014                                                   JAN 3 1 1992 specified ratings (i.e., load and duration) were not exceeded.
The original load study results were discussed in our March 3, 1991 letter, in order to support our proposal to establish surveillance test criteria consistent with the maximum calculated EDG loading conditions.
The original load study results were discussed in our March 3, 1991 letter, in order to support our proposal to establish surveillance test criteria consistent with the maximum calculated EDG loading conditions.
During an internal review of the load study in September 1990, PSE&G identified discrepancies in the horsepower values used for several pumps. A Discrepancy Evaluation Form (DEF) was generated in accordance with our Engineering Discrepancy Control process, requiring an operability assessment.
During an internal review of the load study in September 1990, PSE&G identified discrepancies in the horsepower values used for several pumps. A Discrepancy Evaluation Form (DEF) was generated in accordance with our Engineering Discrepancy Control process, requiring an operability assessment. The assessment concluded that operability was not in question because the specified EOG ratings would not be exceeded. This conclusion remains valid to date.
The assessment concluded that operability was not in question because the specified EOG ratings would not be exceeded.
Longer term resolution of the DEF included revision of the load calculation based on corrected horsepower values and review of input assumptions against the emergency operating procedures. A change to the UFSAR was not initiated until after the revised calculation and 10CFR50.59 evaluation were completed.
This conclusion remains valid to date. Longer term resolution of the DEF included revision of the load calculation based on corrected horsepower values and review of input assumptions against the emergency operating procedures.
During a safety system functional inspection (SSFI) of the RHR system in April 1991, the NRC inspection team noted the EOG load study had not undergone the necessary design verification (Inspection Report 50-272/91-80, 50-311/91-80). The inspection team concluded there was no immediate concern regarding the operational readiness of the EDG's, and issued a Notice of Violation for the lack of design verification.
A change to the UFSAR was not initiated until after the revised calculation and 10CFR50.59 evaluation were completed.
The load study referenced in our submittal of March 3, 1991 has been revised, and is superseded by Salem Diesel Generator Load Calculation ES-9.002-0. The revised calculation has been used as the basis for the attached 10CFR50.59 evaluation, which addresses worst case diesel loading scenarios resulting in loads greater than 2750 KW.
During a safety system functional inspection (SSFI) of the RHR system in April 1991, the NRC inspection team noted the EOG load study had not undergone the necessary design verification (Inspection Report 50-272/91-80, 50-311/91-80).
The worst case (i.e., peak load) scenario has been identified as a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA), coincident with Loss of Offsite Power (LOOP) and failure of the Auxiliary Feedwater system (AFW) runout protection. This loading condition assumes the ECCS and motor driven AFW pumps operate in runout condition.
The inspection team concluded there was no immediate concern regarding the operational readiness of the EDG's, and issued a Notice of Violation for the lack of design verification.
The resulting worst case load is 2853 KW for a maximum of 30 minutes. This load is within the two hour rating of 2860 KW.
The load study referenced in our submittal of March 3, 1991 has been revised, and is superseded by Salem Diesel Generator Load Calculation ES-9.002-0.
Several other LOCA/LOOP cases result in loads approaching the two hour rating. In all cases, the EOG loads stabilize, with long term (> 24 hours) demand falling below the continuous rated load of 2600 KW. The load profiles for the various scenarios are attached to the 50.59 evaluation.
The revised calculation has been used as the basis for the attached 10CFR50.59 evaluation, which addresses worst case diesel loading scenarios resulting in loads greater than 2750 KW. The worst case (i.e., peak load) scenario has been identified as a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA), coincident with Loss of Offsite Power (LOOP) and failure of the Auxiliary Feedwater system (AFW) runout protection.
 
This loading condition assumes the ECCS and motor driven AFW pumps operate in runout condition.
  ' .
The resulting worst case load is 2853 KW for a maximum of 30 minutes. This load is within the two hour rating of 2860 KW. Several other LOCA/LOOP cases result in loads approaching the two hour rating. In all cases, the EOG loads stabilize, with long term (> 24 hours) demand falling below the continuous rated load of 2600 KW. The load profiles for the various scenarios are attached to the 50.59 evaluation.
Document Control Desk
' . Document Control Desk NLR-N92014
* NLR-N92014                                                 JAN 3 1 1992 If there are any questions regarding this transmittal, please feel free to contact us.
* JAN 3 1 1992 If there are any questions regarding this transmittal, please feel free to contact us. Attachment c Mr. J. c. Stone Licensing Project Manager Mr. T. Johnson Senior Resident Inspector Sincerely, Mr. T. Martin, Administrator Region I Mr. Kent Tosch, Chief New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625   
Sincerely, Attachment c     Mr. J. c. Stone Licensing Project Manager Mr. T. Johnson Senior Resident Inspector Mr. T. Martin, Administrator Region I Mr. Kent Tosch, Chief New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625
* ' . NLR-N92014 ATTACHMENT
 
  ' .
* NLR-N92014 ATTACHMENT
 
,,.
,,.
* e I. D. NO. /£4 */OZ REF. NO. c . N. 92* 0 z APPLICABILITY:
* e I. D. NO.   /£4 */OZ .S-APPLICABILITY:
SALEM 1 OR COMMON TO SALEM 1 & 2 SALEM 2 SALEM 3 (GAS TURBINE) HOPE CREEK HOPE* CREEK AND SALEM COMMON B PUBLI:C SBRVXCB BLBCTRZC um GU COJIPAJIY JIUCLBll DBPll'l'JODI'!
REF. NO.     c .N. 92* 0     z
10CJ'RSO.
                                                        ~
59 RB'VJ:BW um SUBTY BnLOA1':IOB COVBR SBBft _E?age No. I 2 J
SALEM 1 OR COMMON TO SALEM 1 & 2 SALEM 2 SALEM 3 (GAS TURBINE)
* 4 5' ' 7 I 'I Rev . No . /) (J 0 /) () D 0 0 () 1 i1J/fl rtfr fJ. Original 0 I Issue Peer Mgmt. Rev. I Revision I Preparer/
HOPE CREEK HOPE* CREEK AND SALEM COMMON                   B PUBLI:C SBRVXCB BLBCTRZC         um   GU COJIPAJIY JIUCLBll DBPll'l'JODI'!
I Review Approval/
10CJ'RSO. 59 RB'VJ:BW um SUBTY BnLOA1':IOB COVBR SBBft
Summary Date /Date Date Page 1 of J_ BC.Ba-AP.ZZ-0059(Q)
_E?age   No. I 2     J *4   5'   '   7 I 'I Rev . No . /) (J   0 /) ()   D 0     0 ()
Rev. o Attacbaent 2
                            #1/1,1'~    j~
SORC Review & Mtg. No.
h~~
t(-z.:} lq'l Station G.M./ Date Paqe 1 of 7
t\(.,~/qz. c.v~
-' e
Original                      rtfr fJ.
* I.D. NO. IEA-/OZS-REF. NO. err 92-0Z 10Cfll50.59 RBVI:BW AJID IUBTY rnLtmTIOB
0   I Issue         1  i1J/fl                                '\"Z..-00~    t(-z.:} lq'l SORC Peer         Mgmt.       Review        Station Rev. I Revision Summary I Date I
Preparer/ Review
                                        /Date Approval/ &
Date       Mtg. No.
G.M./
Date Page 1 of   J_
BC.Ba-AP.ZZ-0059(Q)             Rev. o       Attacbaent 2               Paqe 1 of 7


==1.0 DESCRIPTION==
-'
e
* I.D. NO.
REF. NO.
IEA-/OZS-err  92-0Z 10Cfll50.59 RBVI:BW AJID    IUBTY rnLtmTIOB


-Describe the Proposed Facility/Procedure Change or Test or Experiment (use continuation sheet if required)
==1.0  DESCRIPTION==
[If it involves a change to the Fire Protection Program or Radioactive Waste Treatment Systems, ensure that Sections 1.2 or 1.3 of Exhibit 1, as applicable, are revieweg]:
- Describe the Proposed Facility/Procedure Change or Test or Experiment (use continuation sheet if required) [If it involves a change to the Fire Protection Program or Radioactive Waste Treatment Systems, ensure that Sections 1.2 or 1.3 of Exhibit 1, as applicable, are revieweg]:
This change updates documents impacted by the revised Salem Diesel Generator Load Calculation (ES-9.002-0) and confirms the adequacy of the diesels. Documents impacted include, one lines, the Diesel CBD, the UFSAR, the Technical Specifications, and various vendor documents.
This change updates documents impacted by the revised Salem Diesel Generator Load Calculation (ES-9.002-0) and confirms the adequacy of the diesels. Documents impacted include, one lines, the Diesel CBD, the UFSAR, the Technical Specifications, and various vendor documents.
2.0 lOCFRS0.59 REVIEW -Does lOCFRS0.59 apply to the proposal?
2.0 lOCFRS0.59 REVIEW - Does lOCFRS0.59 apply to the proposal?
: a. Does the proposal change the facility as described in the SAR? YES t/ NO ---b. Does the proposal change procedures as described in the SAR? YES NO ---c. Does the proposal involve a test or experiment not described in the SAR? YES *NO Discuss the bases for the determinations and identify the pertinent SAR sections that were reviewed to make the determinations (use continuation sheets if required) . SEE PAGE 7 FOR DISCUSSION If ALL answers in Section 2.0 are "NO", lOCFRS0.59 does NOT apply, and completion of Section J of this form is NOT required {Section 4 and 5 must still be completed) . BC.Ba-AP.ll-0059(Q)
: a. Does the proposal change the facility as described in the SAR?
Page 2 of L Rev . .....Q_ Rev. o Attaclment 2 Paq* 2 of 7 9,
YES   t/     NO
* I. D. NO. lt!A* /Olf' REF. NO. c.AJ. oz lOCFRS0.59 REVIEW AlfD SAFETY BVALOATIOH (COMTIHUBD) 3.0 USO DETERMINATION  
                              ---
-Is an Unreviewed Safety Question (USQ)involved?
: b. Does the proposal change procedures as described in the SAR?
3.1 May the proposal:
YES           NO - - -
: a. Increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated in the SAR? YES NO b. Increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the SAR? YES NO c. Increase the probability of occurrence of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the SAR? YES NO d. Increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the SAR? YES NO v' Discuss the bases for d.etermination and identify the pertinent SAR sections that were reviewed to make the determination (use continuation.sheets if required):
: c. Does the proposal involve a test or experiment not described in the SAR?
RC.BA-AP.ZZ-0059(Q)
YES         *NO Discuss the bases for the determinations and identify the pertinent SAR sections that were reviewed to make the determinations (use continuation sheets if required) .
SEE PAGE 7 FOR DISCUSSION Page 3 of _l_ Rev. Rev. O Attachaent 2 Paqe 3 of 7
SEE PAGE 7 FOR DISCUSSION If ALL answers in Section 2.0 are "NO", lOCFRS0.59 does NOT apply, and completion of Section J of this form is NOT required {Section 4 and 5 must still be completed) .
_, r.o. No. 1*A-/0Zf REF. NO. lOCFRS0.59 R.BVIBW ABD SAFETY !YALO'l\TIOH (CO!l'I'INUED)
Page 2 of Rev . .....Q_
L BC.Ba-AP.ll-0059(Q)     Rev. o       Attaclment 2           Paq* 2 of 7
 
9,
* I. D. NO.
REF. NO.
lt!A* /Olf' c.AJ. ~Z* oz lOCFRS0.59 REVIEW AlfD SAFETY BVALOATIOH (COMTIHUBD) 3.0 USO DETERMINATION - Is an Unreviewed Safety Question (USQ)involved?
3.1 May the proposal:
: a. Increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated in the SAR?
YES           NO
: b. Increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the SAR?
YES           NO
: c. Increase the probability of occurrence of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the SAR?
YES           NO
: d. Increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the SAR?
YES           NO     v' Discuss the bases for d.etermination and identify the pertinent SAR sections that were reviewed to make the determination (use continuation.sheets if required):
SEE PAGE 7 FOR DISCUSSION Page 3 of _l_
Rev. ~
RC.BA-AP.ZZ-0059(Q)   Rev. O     Attachaent 2         Paqe 3 of 7
 
r.o. No. 1A-/0Zf
_,                                              REF. NO.
lOCFRS0.59 R.BVIBW ABD SAFETY !YALO'l\TIOH (CO!l'I'INUED)
J.2 May the Proposal:
J.2 May the Proposal:
: a. a. Create the possibility of an accident of a different than any previously evaluated in the SAR? YES ---NO b. Create the possibility of a malfunction of a 'different type than any previously evaluated in the SAR? YES NO Discuss the bases for the determinations and identi:y the pertinent SAR sections that were reviewed to the determinations (use continuation sheets if required):
: a. Create the possibility of an accident of a different
Al though not directly addressed in the SAR, the calculation considered a loss of oftsite power coincident with a large pipe break and failure of an auxiliary feedwater pump controller.
              ~ than any previously evaluated in the SAR?
This scenario puts the motor driven pump and all ECCS pumps in a runout condition to determine maximum diesel generator loading. This was confirmed through iteration to result in maximum loading. The results verify that the diesel generators will operate within the 2 hour rating thereby assuring that the diesel generators are capable of supplying loads during the worst case scenario.
YES - - -     NO
The conservative assumption used to identify the* limiting EOG load demands do not create the possibility of a new accident but, demonstrate that the worst case scenario does not result in unacceptable EDG demands. Sections 8.3 and 15 were reviewed in making this determination.
: b. Create the possibility of a malfunction of a
: b. The diesel generators and all associated equipment is unaffected by this design change, other than the increase of the maximum kilowatt load on the diesel generator.
            'different type than any previously evaluated in the SAR?
The increased load is within the EDGs' allowable operating design parameters.
YES           NO Discuss the bases for the determinations and identi:y the pertinent SAR sections that were reviewed to ~ake the determinations (use continuation sheets if required):
Therefore, this change will not cause a malfunction not previously evaluated in the SAR. Sections 8.3 and 15 were reviewed in making this determination.
: a. Al though   not   directly     addressed   in   the SAR,   the - i calculation considered       a     loss   of   oftsite   power   !
End of Section 3.2 Page 4 of .1_ Rev. _Q_ Rev. o Attachaent 2 Paqe 4 of 7 -i !
coincident with a large pipe break and failure of an auxiliary feedwater pump controller. This scenario puts the motor driven A~W pump and all ECCS pumps in a runout condition to determine maximum diesel generator loading.
: r. D. NO. /*A -/Ol..£ REF *. NO. c. A/. 92* ()l. lOCl'RSO.
This was   confirmed     through     iteration   to result   in maximum loading.       The results verify that the diesel generators will operate within the 2 hour rating thereby assuring that the diesel generators are capable of supplying loads during the worst case scenario.               The conservative assumption used to identify the* limiting EOG load demands do not create the possibility of a new accident but, demonstrate that the worst case scenario does not result in unacceptable EDG demands.             Sections 8.3 and 15 were reviewed in making this determination.
59 RBVID A.HD SAl'BTY mLUATIOlf
: b. The diesel generators and all associated equipment is unaffected by     this   design     change,   other   than   the increase of the maximum kilowatt load on the diesel generator. The increased load is within the EDGs' allowable operating design parameters.           Therefore, this change will not cause a malfunction not previously evaluated in the SAR.       Sections 8.3 and 15 were reviewed in making this determination.
{COH'l'IlllJBD)
End of Section 3.2 Page 4 of   .1_
J.J 9oes the reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
Rev. _Q_
YES NO Discuss the bases of the determination and identify the pertinent Technical Specification sections that were reviewed to make the determination (use continuation.
HC.~-AP.ZZ-0059(Q)        Rev. o     Attachaent 2               Paqe 4 of 7
 
r--~~*,~~~~~~-1---~~~~-
: r. D. NO.   /A - /Ol..£ REF *. NO. c. A/. 92* ()l.
lOCl'RSO. 59 RBVID A.HD SAl'BTY mLUATIOlf {COH'l'IlllJBD)
J.J   9oes the p~oposal reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?
YES           NO Discuss the bases of the determination and identify the pertinent Technical Specification sections that were reviewed to make the determination (use continuation.
sheets if required):
sheets if required):
The Diesel Generator Loading Calculation verifies that the loading demand would remain w{thin the manufacturers ratings, which establish the margin of safety for EDG capability.
The Diesel Generator Loading Calculation verifies that the ~axirnurn loading demand would remain w{thin the manufacturers ratings, which establish the margin of safety for EDG capability.               Testina perfor:ned per Unit 2 Technical Spe**:.fication, 4.8.1.1.2.c.7, (24 hour endurance test) presently den- _ns tra tes the ability of the diesels to operate at > 2860 kW for two hours.                   Although not required by Technical Specifications, Unit 1 testing performed in June, 1991, demonstrated the diesels ability to operate at their approximate maximum calculated load demand for one hour.                   The following chart compares Unit 1 test figures to the calcul~tion's (ES-9.002) worst case one hour load transient.
Testina perfor:ned per Unit 2 Technical Spe**:.fication, 4.8.1.1.2.c.7, (24 hour endurance test) presently den-_ns tra tes the ability of the diesels to operate at > 2860 kW for two hours. Although not required by Technical Specifications, Unit 1 testing performed in June, 1991, demonstrated the diesels ability to operate at their approximate maximum calculated load demand for one hour. The following chart compares Unit 1 test figures to the (ES-9.002) worst case one hour load transient.
EDG lA       EDG lB       EDG lC June '91       2850 kW     2800 kW     2600 kW ES-9.002       2824 kW     2798 kW     2673 kW As is apparent the le EDG calculated load is greater than the test figure, however, *due to the uniformity of all six diesels for both uni ts and the testing of EDG' s lA and lB to values greater t:han the calculated lC load of 2673 kW the unit                   (lC)   is deemed acceptable. The ability of the EDG's to support their design load requirements will be demonstrated by periodic testing.             Therefore, there is no reduction in the margin of safety associated with this change.
EDG lA EDG lB EDG lC June '91 2850 kW 2800 kW 2600 kW ES-9.002 2824 kW 2798 kW 2673 kW As is apparent the le EDG calculated load is greater than the test figure, however, *due to the uniformity of all six diesels for both uni ts and the testing of EDG' s lA and lB to values greater t:han the calculated lC load of 2673 kW the unit (lC) is deemed acceptable.
If ALL answers in Section J are "NQ", the proposal does NOT involve a USQ.
The ability of the EDG's to support their design load requirements will be demonstrated by periodic testing. Therefore, there is no reduction in the margin of safety associated with this change. If ALL answers in Section J are "NQ", the proposal does NOT involve a USQ. If ANY answer in Section 3 is "ll.§", the proposal involves a USQ. Page 5 of _j_ Rev . .Q._ HC.Im-AP.Z2-00S9(Q)
If ANY answer in Section 3 is "ll.§", the proposal involves a USQ.
Rev. o Attachaent 2 Page s of 7 I.O. NO. /t5A-/OlS REF. NO. 10C7llS0.59 RBVJP AJ1D SAJT!'T mLUATIO* CCOll'l'IlluBDl 4.0 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVISION DETERMINATION -Does the proposal involve a Technical Specification change? YES NO Identify the pertinent Technical Specification sections that were reviewed to make the determination:
Page 5 of   _j_
Section 4.8.1.1.2, Surveillance Requirements, was reviewed and found to require revisions to address the following issues: For both units the Load Rejection Surveillance must be changed to address the loss of the largest load, the Service Water Pump, at 1030 HP, 809 kW. Unit 1 Technical Specifications presently require a surveillance test to verify load rejection without tripping using a load of 785 +/- 40 kW to simulate the loss of the largest load, a 1000 HP Service Water Pump. The Unit 2 Technical Specifications stipulate a load 785 kW. The Service Water Pumps are now rated at 1030 HP and the load rejection test must be increased to > 809 kW. However, load rejection tests accounting for .the revised service water pump motor rating may be performed with the Specifications as written. For Unit l, the high end of the tolerance is 825 kW, which exceeds the 809 kW rating of the pump motor. Unit 2 Technical Specifications do not specify a maximum load for the test (ie. > 785 kW). continued on Page 9
Rev . .Q._
HC.Im-AP.Z2-00S9(Q)       Rev. o       Attachaent 2               Page s of 7


==5.0 CONCLUSION==
I.O. NO.    /t5A-/OlS REF. NO.
10C7llS0.59 RBVJP AJ1D SAJT!'T mLUATIO* CCOll'l'IlluBDl 4.0 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVISION DETERMINATION -Does the proposal involve a Technical Specification change?
YES          NO Identify the pertinent Technical Specification sections that were reviewed to make the determination:
Section 4.8.1.1.2, Surveillance Requirements, was reviewed          and found to require revisions to address the following issues:
For both units the Load Rejection Surveillance must be changed to address the loss of the largest load, the Service Water Pump, at 1030 HP,    809 kW. Unit 1 Technical Specifications presently require a surveillance test to verify load rejection without tripping using a load of 785 +/- 40 kW to simulate the loss of the largest load, a 1000 HP Service Water Pump.      The Unit 2 Technical Specifications stipulate a load ~ 785 kW. The Service Water Pumps are now rated at 1030 HP and the load rejection test must be increased to > 809 kW.
However, load rejection tests accounting for .the revised service water pump motor rating may be performed with the Technic~l Specifications as written.      For Unit l, the high end of the tolerance is 825 kW, which exceeds the 809 kW rating of the pump motor. Unit 2 Technical Specifications do not specify a maximum load for the test (ie. > 785 kW).
continued on Page 9


Does lOCFRS0.59 apply? (Section 2) Is a USQ involved? (Section 3) (Check N/A if lOCFRS0.59 does not apply) . Is a Technical Specification change* required? (Section 4) YES NO @ D D If a USQ is involved and/or a Technical Specification change is required, obtain assistance from Licensing f9r additional processing.
==5.0  CONCLUSION==
LCR Number: __ e=--7_-_0_7
 
___ _ Page ' of L Rev. L N/A D *C.BA-A.P.ZZ-OOS9(Q)
YES      NO      N/A Does lOCFRS0.59 apply? (Section   2)
Rev. o Attachaent 2 Paqe & 7 I. D. ?fQ .* REF. NO. lOm.50.59 UVUW AJID mL&nOJf* CONTINUATION SHEET 2.0 10CFR50.59 REVIEW (Continued from page 2) a. Section 8.3, Onsite Power, and associated tables will change to incorporate the results of the diesel genera tor load study. Results of the study indicate that for a Blackout all diesels operate below their continuous rating, 2600 kW. For some Blackout coincident with LOCA scenarios there will be a maximum load of 2853 kW for a maximum of 30 minutes, which is within the 2 hour rating of 2860 kW. Finally, the study concludes that all diesel loadings will stabilize and the Diesel Generators will be operated below their continuous rating for all accident conditions.
                                                @        D Is a USQ involved? (Section 3)
(Check N/A if lOCFRS0.59 does not       D                D apply) .
Is a Technical Specification change* required? (Section 4)
If a USQ is involved and/or a Technical Specification change is required, obtain assistance from Licensing f9r additional processing.
LCR Number: _ _e=--7_-_0_7____
Page Rev. L
                                    ' of L
*C.BA-A.P.ZZ-OOS9(Q)     Rev. o   Attachaent 2             Paqe & o~  7
 
I. D. ?fQ .*
REF. NO.
lOm.50.59 UVUW AJID     ~        mL&nOJf*
CONTINUATION SHEET 2.0   10CFR50.59 REVIEW (Continued from page 2)
: a. Section 8.3, Onsite Power, and associated tables will change to   incorporate     the   results       of   the   diesel genera tor load study.       Results of the study indicate that for a Blackout all diesels operate below their continuous rating,     2600   kW.         For   some   Blackout coincident with LOCA scenarios there will be a maximum load of 2853 kW for a maximum of 30 minutes, which is within the 2 hour rating of 2860 kW.           Finally, the study concludes that all diesel loadings will stabilize and the Diesel Generators will be operated below their continuous rating for all accident conditions.
: b. Al though this eval ua ti on does not directly involve any procedure changes, it may be used to support EDG test procedure revisions consistent with the results of the Load Calculation.
: b. Al though this eval ua ti on does not directly involve any procedure changes, it may be used to support EDG test procedure revisions consistent with the results of the Load Calculation.
: c. Section 8. 3 .1. 5, Standby Power Supplies, was reviewed and the results of the diesel generator load calculation proposes no tests or experiments not described in the SAR. Tests required to demonstrate acceptable EDG operation are not precluded by the Technical Specifications as written. 3.1 USQ DETERMINATION
: c. Section 8. 3 .1. 5, Standby Power Supplies, was reviewed and the results of the diesel generator load calculation proposes no tests or experiments not described in the SAR. Tests  required    to    demonstrate      acceptable  EDG operation are      not    precluded          by    the    Technical Specifications as written.
{Continued from page 3) 3.1 a. This evaluation addresses increased Emergency Diesel Genera tor loading as presented by the Diesel Genera tor Loading Calculation (ES-9. 002). Increased loading has -no impact on the initiation of any previously evaluated accident.
3.1  USQ DETERMINATION {Continued from page 3) 3.1  a. This evaluation addresses increased Emergency Diesel Genera tor loading as presented by the Diesel Genera tor Loading Calculation (ES-9. 002).          Increased loading has -
Therefore, there is no increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated in the SAR. Continued on page 8 Page 7 of 1._ Rev. JL_ BC.JIA-AP
no impact on the initiation of any previously evaluated accident. Therefore,    there    is    no    increase  in  the probability of an accident previously evaluated in the SAR.
Continued on page 8 Page  7  of  1._
Rev. JL_
BC.JIA-AP.ZZ-OOS9(Q)    Rev. o    Attacbaent 2                  Paqe 7 of 7
 
        <'- . 10Cl'R50. 51 CONTIHUATION SHEET 3.1  USQ DETERMINATION (Continued from page 7) 3.1  b.      The Diesel Load Calculation (ES-9~002) has determined that the diesels will operate safely within their 2 hour operating range. The results of the calculation determine the maximum loading to be 2853 kW for a maximum of 30 minutes. Although the 2853 kW loading is greater than the 2750 kW of the 2000 hour rating it is within the 2 hour rating of 2860 kW. Presently the 2 hour rating is not in the SAR, but has been part of the baseline documentation since the plants inception and has been verified through OEM (ALCO) documentation, copy attached. The 2 hour rating is being added as part of this change. The diesel generator ratings for Units 1 &
2 are:
1/2 hour            3100 kW 2 hours            2860 kW 2000 hours          2750 kW continuous          2600 kW Accordingly there is not an increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the SAR.
Sections 8.3, onsite Power Supply, and 7.1 Instrumentation and Control of the SAR were reviewed in making this determination.
3.1 c.        As a result of this Diesel Loading Calculation the maximum load has increased to 2853 kW. Since this maximum load is within the 2 hour rating of the diesel generator there is no increase in the probability of an occurrence of a malfunction of equipment important to safety. Sections 8.3, Onsite Power Supply, and 7.1 Instrumentation and Control of the SAR were reviewed in making this determination.
3.1 d.        The Diesel Loading Calculation analyzed the effects of equipment failures following a OBA/LOOP and found that in all cases the remaining two diesel generators would successfully supply power to the vital buses. The Diesel Generator Loading Calculation identified an increase in the single largest emergency load, service water pump, from 785 kW to 809 kW. Inadvertent rejection of the pump is a less limiting failure than the loss of a diesel. Therefore, there is not an increase in the consequences of a malfunction of
23371
23371
* 21831 :2555 :2542 2542 HlJ801 [255 13q41 771 I : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 9 121Zl1Zl 8641Zl1Zl IZl 5 13 ' 181Zl1Zl 31Zl1Zl1Zl 721Zl1Zl -<24 HRS> <2 HRS> 361Zl1Zl 7221Zl 5 IZJ 4 IZI IZl 7201Zl1Zl Cl HOUR> Cl 4 HRS> (21ZJ HRS> TIME IN SECONDS IWVJI ...}}
* 251ZJIZJ                                  21831                                     :2555 :2542                               2542
            '2400 HlJ801 255           13q41
[ 771       I I
I I
I
:
I I
I I     I       I I     I       I I     I       I
(/)              1             9                                         121Zl1Zl                                                                       8641Zl1Zl Ill :.:-
t:I Ho rt          IZl         5           13 '                                     181Zl1Zl 31Zl1Zl1Zl   721Zl1Zl -                                     <24 HRS>
n n ro          rt
                                                                                                                      <2 HRS>
(/) *    "O rt Ill
::r  z '<
........              n
::r                                                                                      361Zl1Zl         7221Zl       5 IZJ 4 IZI IZl 7201Zl1Zl
""
-t:..
t:<:l l:Jl
      \.0 ):- ~ CD s                                                                                      Cl HOUR>                       Cl 4 HRS> (21ZJ HRS>
0    tv        Ill :;:1 Hllt->1-'rt 00~
~tv().)111 U1 rt 0 z                                                            TIME IN SECONDS
                ......
0      I,\.)
:;:1 IWVJI}}

Revision as of 10:23, 21 October 2019

Suppls Response to NRC 911219 Request for Addl Info Re Emergency Diesel Generator Testing,Per 910303 Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-70 & DPR-75
ML18096A501
Person / Time
Site: Salem  
Issue date: 01/31/1992
From: Labruna S
Public Service Enterprise Group
To:
NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
LCR-87-07, LCR-87-7, NLR-N92014, NUDOCS 9202100107
Download: ML18096A501 (38)


Text

,. "'*'

  • Public Service Electric and Gas Company Stanley LaBruna Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-1200 Vice President - Nuclear Operations JAN 3 1 1992 NLR-N92014 LCR 87-07 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR TESTING SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 BY letter dated March 3, 1991, PSE&G proposed changes to the Salem Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) Technical Specifications.

Based on their review of the proposed changes, NRC staff provided questions to PSE&G in a letter dated October 18, 1991. By letter dated December 19, 1991, PSE&G responded to those questions, with the exception of Question 1, which involved the recent revision of the Salem EDG load calculation. The following is PSE&G's response to Question 1 of the October 18, 1991 letter.

Question 1 The current FSAR states that the maximum load would not exceed the 2000 hour0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> rating of 2750 KW for the diesel generator.

However, the current load study referenced in your submittal, identified as Salem Generating Station Diesel Generator Load study, Report No. AEI-PSEG-8811-DR-OOl, indicates credible accident scenarios or "operational cases" where the diesel generator load profile exceeds the 2000 hour0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> rating of 2750 KW.

Provide a copy of the 50.59 Safety Evaluation that has been performed showing the diesel generator loading capacity is adequate under the new load profiles.

Response

Revision o of the study showed a peak load of 2872 KW for 16 minutes, which is below the one half hour rating of 3100 KW. The load dropped below the 2000 hour0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> rating at the 16 minute operating point. Revision O of the load study concluded that diesel loading was acceptable because the manufacturer's

)

9202100107 920131 PDR ADOCK 05000272 P PDR

' .

- Document Control Desk NLR-N92014 JAN 3 1 1992 specified ratings (i.e., load and duration) were not exceeded.

The original load study results were discussed in our March 3, 1991 letter, in order to support our proposal to establish surveillance test criteria consistent with the maximum calculated EDG loading conditions.

During an internal review of the load study in September 1990, PSE&G identified discrepancies in the horsepower values used for several pumps. A Discrepancy Evaluation Form (DEF) was generated in accordance with our Engineering Discrepancy Control process, requiring an operability assessment. The assessment concluded that operability was not in question because the specified EOG ratings would not be exceeded. This conclusion remains valid to date.

Longer term resolution of the DEF included revision of the load calculation based on corrected horsepower values and review of input assumptions against the emergency operating procedures. A change to the UFSAR was not initiated until after the revised calculation and 10CFR50.59 evaluation were completed.

During a safety system functional inspection (SSFI) of the RHR system in April 1991, the NRC inspection team noted the EOG load study had not undergone the necessary design verification (Inspection Report 50-272/91-80, 50-311/91-80). The inspection team concluded there was no immediate concern regarding the operational readiness of the EDG's, and issued a Notice of Violation for the lack of design verification.

The load study referenced in our submittal of March 3, 1991 has been revised, and is superseded by Salem Diesel Generator Load Calculation ES-9.002-0. The revised calculation has been used as the basis for the attached 10CFR50.59 evaluation, which addresses worst case diesel loading scenarios resulting in loads greater than 2750 KW.

The worst case (i.e., peak load) scenario has been identified as a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA), coincident with Loss of Offsite Power (LOOP) and failure of the Auxiliary Feedwater system (AFW) runout protection. This loading condition assumes the ECCS and motor driven AFW pumps operate in runout condition.

The resulting worst case load is 2853 KW for a maximum of 30 minutes. This load is within the two hour rating of 2860 KW.

Several other LOCA/LOOP cases result in loads approaching the two hour rating. In all cases, the EOG loads stabilize, with long term (> 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) demand falling below the continuous rated load of 2600 KW. The load profiles for the various scenarios are attached to the 50.59 evaluation.

' .

Document Control Desk

  • NLR-N92014 JAN 3 1 1992 If there are any questions regarding this transmittal, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely, Attachment c Mr. J. c. Stone Licensing Project Manager Mr. T. Johnson Senior Resident Inspector Mr. T. Martin, Administrator Region I Mr. Kent Tosch, Chief New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625

' .

  • NLR-N92014 ATTACHMENT

,,.

  • e I. D. NO. /£4 */OZ .S-APPLICABILITY:

REF. NO. c .N. 92* 0 z

~

SALEM 1 OR COMMON TO SALEM 1 & 2 SALEM 2 SALEM 3 (GAS TURBINE)

HOPE CREEK HOPE* CREEK AND SALEM COMMON B PUBLI:C SBRVXCB BLBCTRZC um GU COJIPAJIY JIUCLBll DBPll'l'JODI'!

10CJ'RSO. 59 RB'VJ:BW um SUBTY BnLOA1':IOB COVBR SBBft

_E?age No. I 2 J *4 5' ' 7 I 'I Rev . No . /) (J 0 /) () D 0 0 ()

  1. 1/1,1'~ j~

h~~

t\(.,~/qz. c.v~

Original rtfr fJ.

0 I Issue 1 i1J/fl '\"Z..-00~ t(-z.:} lq'l SORC Peer Mgmt. Review Station Rev. I Revision Summary I Date I

Preparer/ Review

/Date Approval/ &

Date Mtg. No.

G.M./

Date Page 1 of J_

BC.Ba-AP.ZZ-0059(Q) Rev. o Attacbaent 2 Paqe 1 of 7

-'

e

  • I.D. NO.

REF. NO.

IEA-/OZS-err 92-0Z 10Cfll50.59 RBVI:BW AJID IUBTY rnLtmTIOB

1.0 DESCRIPTION

- Describe the Proposed Facility/Procedure Change or Test or Experiment (use continuation sheet if required) [If it involves a change to the Fire Protection Program or Radioactive Waste Treatment Systems, ensure that Sections 1.2 or 1.3 of Exhibit 1, as applicable, are revieweg]:

This change updates documents impacted by the revised Salem Diesel Generator Load Calculation (ES-9.002-0) and confirms the adequacy of the diesels. Documents impacted include, one lines, the Diesel CBD, the UFSAR, the Technical Specifications, and various vendor documents.

2.0 lOCFRS0.59 REVIEW - Does lOCFRS0.59 apply to the proposal?

a. Does the proposal change the facility as described in the SAR?

YES t/ NO

---

b. Does the proposal change procedures as described in the SAR?

YES NO - - -

c. Does the proposal involve a test or experiment not described in the SAR?

YES *NO Discuss the bases for the determinations and identify the pertinent SAR sections that were reviewed to make the determinations (use continuation sheets if required) .

SEE PAGE 7 FOR DISCUSSION If ALL answers in Section 2.0 are "NO", lOCFRS0.59 does NOT apply, and completion of Section J of this form is NOT required {Section 4 and 5 must still be completed) .

Page 2 of Rev . .....Q_

L BC.Ba-AP.ll-0059(Q) Rev. o Attaclment 2 Paq* 2 of 7

9,

  • I. D. NO.

REF. NO.

lt!A* /Olf' c.AJ. ~Z* oz lOCFRS0.59 REVIEW AlfD SAFETY BVALOATIOH (COMTIHUBD) 3.0 USO DETERMINATION - Is an Unreviewed Safety Question (USQ)involved?

3.1 May the proposal:

a. Increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated in the SAR?

YES NO

b. Increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the SAR?

YES NO

c. Increase the probability of occurrence of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the SAR?

YES NO

d. Increase the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the SAR?

YES NO v' Discuss the bases for d.etermination and identify the pertinent SAR sections that were reviewed to make the determination (use continuation.sheets if required):

SEE PAGE 7 FOR DISCUSSION Page 3 of _l_

Rev. ~

RC.BA-AP.ZZ-0059(Q) Rev. O Attachaent 2 Paqe 3 of 7

r.o. No. 1A-/0Zf

_, REF. NO.

lOCFRS0.59 R.BVIBW ABD SAFETY !YALO'l\TIOH (CO!l'I'INUED)

J.2 May the Proposal:

a. Create the possibility of an accident of a different

~ than any previously evaluated in the SAR?

YES - - - NO

b. Create the possibility of a malfunction of a

'different type than any previously evaluated in the SAR?

YES NO Discuss the bases for the determinations and identi:y the pertinent SAR sections that were reviewed to ~ake the determinations (use continuation sheets if required):

a. Al though not directly addressed in the SAR, the - i calculation considered a loss of oftsite power  !

coincident with a large pipe break and failure of an auxiliary feedwater pump controller. This scenario puts the motor driven A~W pump and all ECCS pumps in a runout condition to determine maximum diesel generator loading.

This was confirmed through iteration to result in maximum loading. The results verify that the diesel generators will operate within the 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> rating thereby assuring that the diesel generators are capable of supplying loads during the worst case scenario. The conservative assumption used to identify the* limiting EOG load demands do not create the possibility of a new accident but, demonstrate that the worst case scenario does not result in unacceptable EDG demands. Sections 8.3 and 15 were reviewed in making this determination.

b. The diesel generators and all associated equipment is unaffected by this design change, other than the increase of the maximum kilowatt load on the diesel generator. The increased load is within the EDGs' allowable operating design parameters. Therefore, this change will not cause a malfunction not previously evaluated in the SAR. Sections 8.3 and 15 were reviewed in making this determination.

End of Section 3.2 Page 4 of .1_

Rev. _Q_

HC.~-AP.ZZ-0059(Q) Rev. o Attachaent 2 Paqe 4 of 7

r--~~*,~~~~~~-1---~~~~-

r. D. NO. /A - /Ol..£ REF *. NO. c. A/. 92* ()l.

lOCl'RSO. 59 RBVID A.HD SAl'BTY mLUATIOlf {COH'l'IlllJBD)

J.J 9oes the p~oposal reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification?

YES NO Discuss the bases of the determination and identify the pertinent Technical Specification sections that were reviewed to make the determination (use continuation.

sheets if required):

The Diesel Generator Loading Calculation verifies that the ~axirnurn loading demand would remain w{thin the manufacturers ratings, which establish the margin of safety for EDG capability. Testina perfor:ned per Unit 2 Technical Spe**:.fication, 4.8.1.1.2.c.7, (24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> endurance test) presently den- _ns tra tes the ability of the diesels to operate at > 2860 kW for two hours. Although not required by Technical Specifications, Unit 1 testing performed in June, 1991, demonstrated the diesels ability to operate at their approximate maximum calculated load demand for one hour. The following chart compares Unit 1 test figures to the calcul~tion's (ES-9.002) worst case one hour load transient.

EDG lA EDG lB EDG lC June '91 2850 kW 2800 kW 2600 kW ES-9.002 2824 kW 2798 kW 2673 kW As is apparent the le EDG calculated load is greater than the test figure, however, *due to the uniformity of all six diesels for both uni ts and the testing of EDG' s lA and lB to values greater t:han the calculated lC load of 2673 kW the unit (lC) is deemed acceptable. The ability of the EDG's to support their design load requirements will be demonstrated by periodic testing. Therefore, there is no reduction in the margin of safety associated with this change.

If ALL answers in Section J are "NQ", the proposal does NOT involve a USQ.

If ANY answer in Section 3 is "ll.§", the proposal involves a USQ.

Page 5 of _j_

Rev . .Q._

HC.Im-AP.Z2-00S9(Q) Rev. o Attachaent 2 Page s of 7

I.O. NO. /t5A-/OlS REF. NO.

10C7llS0.59 RBVJP AJ1D SAJT!'T mLUATIO* CCOll'l'IlluBDl 4.0 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVISION DETERMINATION -Does the proposal involve a Technical Specification change?

YES NO Identify the pertinent Technical Specification sections that were reviewed to make the determination:

Section 4.8.1.1.2, Surveillance Requirements, was reviewed and found to require revisions to address the following issues:

For both units the Load Rejection Surveillance must be changed to address the loss of the largest load, the Service Water Pump, at 1030 HP, 809 kW. Unit 1 Technical Specifications presently require a surveillance test to verify load rejection without tripping using a load of 785 +/- 40 kW to simulate the loss of the largest load, a 1000 HP Service Water Pump. The Unit 2 Technical Specifications stipulate a load ~ 785 kW. The Service Water Pumps are now rated at 1030 HP and the load rejection test must be increased to > 809 kW.

However, load rejection tests accounting for .the revised service water pump motor rating may be performed with the Technic~l Specifications as written. For Unit l, the high end of the tolerance is 825 kW, which exceeds the 809 kW rating of the pump motor. Unit 2 Technical Specifications do not specify a maximum load for the test (ie. > 785 kW).

continued on Page 9

5.0 CONCLUSION

YES NO N/A Does lOCFRS0.59 apply? (Section 2)

@ D Is a USQ involved? (Section 3)

(Check N/A if lOCFRS0.59 does not D D apply) .

Is a Technical Specification change* required? (Section 4)

If a USQ is involved and/or a Technical Specification change is required, obtain assistance from Licensing f9r additional processing.

LCR Number: _ _e=--7_-_0_7____

Page Rev. L

' of L

  • C.BA-A.P.ZZ-OOS9(Q) Rev. o Attachaent 2 Paqe & o~ 7

I. D. ?fQ .*

REF. NO.

lOm.50.59 UVUW AJID ~ mL&nOJf*

CONTINUATION SHEET 2.0 10CFR50.59 REVIEW (Continued from page 2)

a. Section 8.3, Onsite Power, and associated tables will change to incorporate the results of the diesel genera tor load study. Results of the study indicate that for a Blackout all diesels operate below their continuous rating, 2600 kW. For some Blackout coincident with LOCA scenarios there will be a maximum load of 2853 kW for a maximum of 30 minutes, which is within the 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> rating of 2860 kW. Finally, the study concludes that all diesel loadings will stabilize and the Diesel Generators will be operated below their continuous rating for all accident conditions.
b. Al though this eval ua ti on does not directly involve any procedure changes, it may be used to support EDG test procedure revisions consistent with the results of the Load Calculation.
c. Section 8. 3 .1. 5, Standby Power Supplies, was reviewed and the results of the diesel generator load calculation proposes no tests or experiments not described in the SAR. Tests required to demonstrate acceptable EDG operation are not precluded by the Technical Specifications as written.

3.1 USQ DETERMINATION {Continued from page 3) 3.1 a. This evaluation addresses increased Emergency Diesel Genera tor loading as presented by the Diesel Genera tor Loading Calculation (ES-9. 002). Increased loading has -

no impact on the initiation of any previously evaluated accident. Therefore, there is no increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated in the SAR.

Continued on page 8 Page 7 of 1._

Rev. JL_

BC.JIA-AP.ZZ-OOS9(Q) Rev. o Attacbaent 2 Paqe 7 of 7

<'- . 10Cl'R50. 51 CONTIHUATION SHEET 3.1 USQ DETERMINATION (Continued from page 7) 3.1 b. The Diesel Load Calculation (ES-9~002) has determined that the diesels will operate safely within their 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> operating range. The results of the calculation determine the maximum loading to be 2853 kW for a maximum of 30 minutes. Although the 2853 kW loading is greater than the 2750 kW of the 2000 hour0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> rating it is within the 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> rating of 2860 kW. Presently the 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> rating is not in the SAR, but has been part of the baseline documentation since the plants inception and has been verified through OEM (ALCO) documentation, copy attached. The 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> rating is being added as part of this change. The diesel generator ratings for Units 1 &

2 are:

1/2 hour 3100 kW 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 2860 kW 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> 2750 kW continuous 2600 kW Accordingly there is not an increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the SAR.

Sections 8.3, onsite Power Supply, and 7.1 Instrumentation and Control of the SAR were reviewed in making this determination.

3.1 c. As a result of this Diesel Loading Calculation the maximum load has increased to 2853 kW. Since this maximum load is within the 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> rating of the diesel generator there is no increase in the probability of an occurrence of a malfunction of equipment important to safety. Sections 8.3, Onsite Power Supply, and 7.1 Instrumentation and Control of the SAR were reviewed in making this determination.

3.1 d. The Diesel Loading Calculation analyzed the effects of equipment failures following a OBA/LOOP and found that in all cases the remaining two diesel generators would successfully supply power to the vital buses. The Diesel Generator Loading Calculation identified an increase in the single largest emergency load, service water pump, from 785 kW to 809 kW. Inadvertent rejection of the pump is a less limiting failure than the loss of a diesel. Therefore, there is not an increase in the consequences of a malfunction of equipment important to safety.

End of Section 3.1 Page 8 ot J_

Rev. 0 BC.BA-AP.ZZ-OOSl(Q) Rev. o Attaclment 2 Paqe 7 of 7

I. D. NO.

REF. NO. c.N. '7 2 -0 Z 10Cl'RSO.S9 REVIEW ABD SAFETY EVALUATION CONTINUATION SHEET 4.0 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVISION DETERMINATION (Continued from page 6)

Salem Unit 1 Item (4.) is a surveillance test to verify generator opera ti on for the first 60 minutes of an event whi 1.::

loaded to at least 2665 kW. In orde!' to comply wi tj Reg. Guide 1.9 Section C this test must be revised to

~ 2860 kW for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

Item ( 5.) is a surveillance test to verity total auto-connected loads do not exceed the 2000 hour0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> rating of 2750 kW. The results of the Diesel Loading Calculation indicate that in some scenarios the auto connected load will exceed 2750 kW and therefore the surveillance must be changed to not exceed the 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> rating of 2860 kW.

Salem Unit #2 Item ( 2.) is a surveillance test to verify load rejection without tripping using a load of > 785 kW tc simulate the loss of the largest load, a 1000 HP Servic~

Water Pump. The Service Water Pumps are now rated at 1030 HP and the load rejection test must be increased t~

> 809 kW.

Although Technical Specification changes are required to more accurately reflect the limiting cases for calculated EDG demand, The Tech Specs as written do not preclude the performance of adequate testing.

The Unit #1 Technical Specs (items 4 & 5) requir2 revisions to bring them into line with the findings of the Diesel Loading Calculation as addressed and into__

conformance with Section c .14 of Regulatory Guide 1. 9 for "Load Capability Qualification." This issue is presently being addressed by LCR 87-07.

End of Section 4.0 Page Rev.

HC.HA-AP.22-0059(Q) Rev. O Attachment 2 Page 7 of 7

.J ALC:O PROOU*" ..'!C. ... LPHA. IHDEl

  • EL

'

.

.. CO. CODE .NO..... 12-1s140 YEN DOR ELECTRIC MACHINERY MFG co,. Minneapolis, Mien (Cont* d) DATE 5... 3.70 PRODUCT AID DESCRIPTION .. . ....... . ALCO ITEM* 110*

S~ONOUS A.C. GENERAtORt open, self*ventilacing*i:: drip -proof OJ_7 t) enclosure, sleeve bearing with pressure ~egulatcn:~d* two (2) copper constantan thermocouples) foot tn0u.nted &11d ~oupled to engine flywheel per Alco Drawing 50 C 79025

  • two.* (Z) non*f~rrous contact surface g~ound terminals on f4ame 1 apace he.ters co operate rem w o terminal block *and ~ *. *Si.~ (6) copper cons tantan thermocouples emb~dded in stator ~d two. (2) thermocouples on bearing to be wired to s*eparate terminal. blocks /

and box. Thia mac.hine is to uieet P .s .E. & G. Sp.ecification 696427, whenever applicable. * * ..*' _. ,_., ....~.: . .

Maitl output terminal box to house three (3) current"'t.ransformera' . ;,

600/5 amp ratio, GE-JCS*O, supplied b.y generator:mam)facturer, wired t~ separate terminal block and box. >-': .. /:.'.:.;.: .<**.: ~* .

. . .........;-'.~ i_~-:***~*. :"'(~*.; :" . *. **.

,.. .... -~-""l'll"T* ..... .,, ...5 .., ...:.. ,,100/tillp()O 98vfJ.~a* 1*1ou~~**:~w lU'M, O.S P.J.,

  • 10°c I.U:;e 9"!e:: so0 c e~?ier:t.. * . *, :**. * .:* *. * * * **

(" . .J ,,,.

->.

CALC NO. ES-9.00a-"0 DIESEL GENERA TOR IA - CASE A LOPA ALL DIESELS OPERATING 3100 310121 C~ HOUR>


.

3000

~ 2900 2860 (2 HOUR>

~ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<:( 2800 2750 <201210 HOUR)

s::

0 2700


~ 2600 260121 <CONTINUOUS>


2500 24121121 1683 Ul 1 9 2121 1200 86400 llJ ;x:..

0 Ho rt

() () <D rt 121 5 30 600 301210 720121 <24 HRS>

Ul * 'ti rt llJ C2 HRS)

. ..... '<O

.::T"Z  ::r 360121 50400 72000

- tiJ tiJ ::I 0 tv w:x>i<:ro llJ ::i Cl HOUR> <14 HRS) <20 HRS>

t-t, I t--> I-' rt ooi::

NtvNllJ Z

~ UlrtO f-J*

TIME IN SECONDS 0  !.\.:*

i

CALC NO. ES-9.002~0 DIESEL GENERA TOR IA - CASE B LOCA & LOPA ALL DIESELS OPERA TING 3100 ( Y2 HOUR>

3100 3000

~ 2q00 2860 <2 HOUR>


~~i-~-----~~Cj13------------------------------------------------------------------

~ 2800 2750 <2000 HOUR)


2S 2700 2630 2615

~ 2600

~~§.~..~....~£Q.~..l!~J}..9.!J§J./. . ._,. .,_. ____...2s....0...s__---4l.,___2s_0_s~~~ui II .

2500 II II

.**

II II ..**

I 2400

.***** .*

.** .**

I I

I I

...

I

.* .* .

I I .

I I I I I I

(/) 1 9 20 26 1200 86400 Ill )"

tJ H\ rt 0 5 13 22 30 3000 7200 50420 C24 HRS) oomrt (2 HRS>

(/)* ttlrtlll

r :z: '< ()

. * ..... ::r 360121 7220 5 fZJ 4 fZJ fZJ 7 2 IZI fZJ IZI

"' l:IJl:IJ::I l.D~<:m Cl HOUR> (14 HRS> <20 HRS>

0 N Ill  ::1 Ho I t-> I-' rt ooi::

~

NNtvlll:Z:

lJl rt 0 f-'*

TIME IN SECONDS 0 l.V

l l ! . = _ , = = = = = ! l -*----****------*--------------- - - - - - - - *-**

.......

CALC NO. ES-'1".002-0 J DIESEL GENERA TOR IA CASE D LOPA & LOCA DIESEL IB INOPERATIVE 3100 C~ HOUR) 31£?.10 3000

~ 2900 2860 (2 HOUR)

--~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.-----------------------------------

~ 2800 2750 <2000 HOUR>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

2S

~~ --------------~!?!?!_111 ~(;.! !l _"f_! l !J_()_l,I~)

2700

~ 2600 ---------------------------------------- ___ ________________ _

2553 2111 2463 2438 2516

~

1 2500 2400'

! 2433 1 2433 212121 N  ::

11

I I II .. I

~ r ii 11 I

! 2151 ~

I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I II I I II I I II I I II I I II I I II I I II

, I I II Cl) 1 9 1200 86400 0 I-to Ill >("t 0 5 13 3000 7200 50420 <24 HRS)

Cl) *

()(')(D("t "ti ("t Ill

<2 HHS)

r !2: '<: 11 50400 72000
  • * ...... ::r 3600 7220 w t>:Jt>:J::f Cl HOUR) Cl 4 HRS) <20 HRS>

l.D !I;- <: CD Ql\) lll::S t-t, I I-' I-' rt Nooi::

~ !2:

l\) l\) Ill Ul ("t I-'*

0 TIME IN SECONDS ON

s

"

CALC NO. ES-g.002-0 DIESEL GENERA TOR IA - CASE E LOPA & LOCA DIESEL IC INOPERATIVE 3100 C~ HOUR>

3100 3000

~ 2900 2860 C2 HOUR)

~ 2800 2750 C2000 HOUR)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

2;

~~~ --------------~!i!i!~ ___(i=-~l l_"f_!l\l!J_()_l,l'.l) 2700

~ 2600 ----------------------------------------

  • 2553 2463

________________ _

2111 2438 6 l~

2500 2400 2433 1 2433 2120 N  :

I

I I I I II I I I I I I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I 2151]

I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

(/) 1 9 1200 86400 0

Ill~

t-t, rt 0 5 13 3000 7200 50420 C24 HRS>

() () CD rt

(/)* 'Urtlll C2 HRS)

TZ '<O
  • * ......  ::T 3600 7220 50400 72000

-t... tIJ trJ s <1 HOUR) Cl 4 HRS> (20 HRS) *

<.O :r.- <: CD 0 1:0 Ill ::i t-t, I t-> I-' rt 00~

z Nrvcvlll

-.t:.. UlrtO f-'*

TIME IN SECONDS ow

i

CALC NO.ES-9.002-0 DIESEL GENERA TOR IB - CASE A LOPA ALL DIESELS OPERA TING 310~ ( ~ HOUR>

3100 3000

~ 2900 2860 (2 HOUR)

~ 2800 2750 <2000 HOUR>

25 2700

~ 2600 261210 <CONTINUOUS>


2509 ~ 2530 2529 2500 l f2013 2400

  • 104 2 3H?J - 1 l51 2327 l

I j l L.L.r--__

I 20.....5.....4..._,___ _-.=.20=-4.:.::0::;...,.____ 1901

, . __ _.........._ _ ~

[ia 6' I I

. l I

!

I

I*

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 9 2121 26 121210 86400 0 5 13 30 60121 300121 7200 <24 HRS)

C2 HRS) 3600 50400 72000 Cl HOUR> <14 HRS> (20 HRS>

TIME IN SECONDS

......

CALC NO. ES-g.002-0 DIESEL GENERA TOR IB - CASE B LOCA & LOPA ALL DIESELS OPERATING 3100 < Yz HOUR) 3100 3000

~ 2900

~ 2800

~ 2700

__ J 2600

~

2 5 00 2400 __ _.,,

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

2365J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

. I I I I I I I I I 1200 86400 3000 7200 50420 (24 HRS>

(2 HRS) 3600 7220 50400 72000 n HOUR> 04 HRS> (20 HRS>

TIME IN SECONDS

........

--.**- --*--------------------------------"----~

CALC NO. ES-g.002~0 DIESEL GENERA TOR 18 - CASE C LOPA & LOCA DIESEL IA INOPERATIVE 3100 < Y2 HOUR>

3100 3000

~ 2900 2860 (2 HOUR>

r 2800 6 2700.

~* 2600 2500 2477 2439 2395 2400 2393 l 2393 I

I

. -. . . . . . . . . . . . . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I 0

0 I

I I

I I

I I

I 21121 I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 9 20 26 60 1200 86400 0 5 18 22 30 3000 7200 50420 (24 HRS)

(2 HRS) 3600 7220 50400 72000

<1 HOUR> <14 HRS> (20 HRS>

TIME IN SECONDS

  • --------------------------------------*-----*-*--~~----- *"W.i

CALC NO. ES-9.002-0 DIESEL GENERA TOR 18 - CASE E LOPA & LOCA DIESEL IC INOPERATIVE 31r210 < Y2 HOUR) 3100 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~----------------------------------~------

3000

~ 2900 2860 (2 HOUR>

~ 2800


2 7 01!1"- -2 sCia-----------------------------------------------------------------------*-----------------.

. 2739 2750 C2000 HOUR> - ------

6 2700

_J 2600 ~lll,4'1.11.1141.l.l.1.1.l.IJ!"""-'-'1;;.j~~-J>~--~~-t-;;,;;,;----------------------~~-~~--!~_C)_~~!-'~-~~~l~)___________________ _

'--~

'::L.

. 2577 2500 2 4 r21r21 2256 . 2339 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 9 1200 86400 0 5 1800 3000 7200 C24 HRS)

<2 HRS>

3600 7220 50400 72000 .

Cl HOUR> (14 HRS> (20 HRS>

TIME IN SECONDS

........


----------~------- ----------------

-

CALC NO. Es-g.002-0 DIESEL GENERA TOR IC - CASE A LOPA ALL DIESELS OPERA TING 3100 ( Y2 HOUR)

. 3100 3000

~ 2900 2860 (2 HOUR)

':;( 2800 2750 (2000 HOUR)


6 2700 2600 (CONTINUOUS)

~ 2600 2500 191 2400 2078 2092 f 1514 L.:-.--~15~5~9......_.._~~~15~4~6~~~~..r~--~17~6~2----~~

[/) 1 9 20 26 1200 86400 Ill :i;..

0 H-1 rt 0 5 18 600 3000 7200 (24 HRS)

()()CD rt Ul * '1.1 rt Ill C2 HRS)

r
  • z
  • I-'

'<l (l

r 3600 50400 72000

'° [_1:] [_1:]

\D!J::-<:CD

i Cl *HOUR) <14 HRS) (20 HRS)

ON Ill ::i H-1 I I-' 1--' rt ooi::

f'JNNiJJZ

..t:.. UlrtO 1--'*

TIME IN SECONDS ON

s

-..

CALC NO. E:S-9.002-*0 DIESEL GENERA TOR IC - CASE B LOCA & LOPA ALL DIESELS OPERA TING 3100 < ~ HOUR) 3100 3000

~ 2g00 2860 (2 HOUR>

2800

~.2700 2581

__ J 2600 2576


2576


~

2500 2400 1 9 1200 86400 0 5 13 30 00 7 2 00 (24 HRS)

(2 HRS>

3600 7220 50400 72000 0 HOUR> 0 4 HRS> <20 HRS>

TIME IN SECONDS 1=====~. -- - - - - - - - ---*-------------------------------*-

CALC NO. ES-9J?J02*-*0

  • DIESEL GENERA TOR IC - CASE C LOPA & LOCA DIESEL IA INOPERATIVE 31 IZllZI

.


~

.. . 3ll'Jl'J ( y,. HOUR) I 3IZllZI IZI

. V> 2912.10 2860 C2 HOUR>

I- . ---~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*-----------------------

~ 2812.10

~ 2712.10

~ 2600 2372 2512.10 2378 2362 221 2 4 IZllZI 2238 2359 2359 1212.10 ---, 86400 3000 7200 5C~420 (24 HRS>

C2 HRS>

3600 72212.1 50412.1~~ 7212.1012.1

<1 HOUR) Cl 4 HR'S> C2IZI HRS>

TIME IN SECONDS

... ,

CALC NO. ES-9.002-0 .

DIESEL GENERATOR IC - CASE D LOPA & LOCA DIESEL 18 INOPERATIVE 3H?.10 < ~ HOUR>

3100-+--~~~~------~~--~-~-~-~--~~*-----t 3000

~ 2900 _ r - - - - - , - - - - - - - - -2860 (2 HOUR>


1 6~ 2800 2750 (2000 HOUR>

2700-r--------~-----2-6_8_7--------------------1

~ 2600 --r---------.~.......-.._._.~~2=5=8=9=----====::;u:;-::;--;.-2_6_0_0_(_C_O_N~T_IN_U_O_U__S_>_ _- - - i

~ 23721 2576 2500 22181 2284 2400 2238 2266 1 9 1200 86400 0 5 13 1800 3000 7200 50420 <24 HRS)

<2 HRS>

3600 7220 50400. 72000

<1 HOUR> Cl 4 HRS> (20 HRS>

TIME IN SECONDS

--* -------

CALC NO. ES-g.002 DIESEL GENERA TOR 2A - CASE A LOPA ALL DIESELS OPERA TING 3100 ( Yz HOUR) 3100 3000

~ 2g00 2860 (2 HOUR)

~ 2800 2750 (2000 HOUR)

<

c) 2700

_J 2600 2600 <CONTINUOUS)

~

2500 2400 1842 1989,2003 1387 1724

:

1

~f---~14_2_8__~~---1~4~14~~~----

I I

I I

I I

I I

I 2'2l 12'2lf2l 86400 30 600 3000 7200 (24 HRS)

(2 HRS) 3600 50400 72000

<1 HOUR) 04 HRS) (20 HRSl TIME IN SECONDS

__.

CAL C NO. E'S-9J?J02-0 DIESEL GENERA TOR 2A - CASE B LOCA & LOPA ALL DIESELS OPERATING 3100 ---

3100 ( Yz HOUR)


3000

~ 2900


----.---------------------------------------------------------------------

2800 S

0 2700 266

_J_ 2600

~

2500 2188~

211 2400 2111i I I

I I

I I I I I I I I

. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 g 1200

(/)

Ill )>' I 86400 t:1 t"t1 rt 0 5 13 3000 7200 50420 (24 HRS) nnro rt

(/)* 'l:lrtlll (2 HRS)

r z '<! n
r
  • *

--

I-'

t:iJ t:iJ :=!

3600 7220 50400 72000

-t..

0

'[\)"° :i:.- <: ro ill ::J 0 HOUR) 04 HRS) (20 HRS) r-t, I I-' f-' ct 0 0 c:

1-J ['.) lV Pl z

...t:. lfl rt 0 I-'*

TIME IN SECONDS 0 ~_;,

i

:.-- ......

--*--

. ----*

.

CALC NO. ES-g.002-0 DIESEL GENERA TOR 2A - CASE D LOPA & LOCA DIESEL 28 INOPERATIVE 3100 ( Y2 HOUR) 3100 3000 286121 (2 HOUR)


2767 2750 (2000 HOUR)

~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------

2600 <CONTINUOUS)

--;2~-f3-~-------------------~~-E;-~-------------~~-~-fi----

2500 24 55 1 2455 2400 2158~

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

(/) 1 9 20 26 1200 86400 Ill tJ H1 rt

i>'

0 5 13 22 30 3000 7200 50420 <24 HRS) o o ro rt

(/)* 'Ortlll (2 HRS)

r :z: ~ () 361210 7220 50400 72000
  • I-"  ::r

-

'-'l t:IJ t:IJ =i 1.£* ;i_, <: CD Cl HOUR) <14 HRS) <20 HRS) 0 [\.) PJ ::i H, I I-" f-' rt 00~

l'-.1 [\.) [\.) Ill :z:

..&;.. lJlrtO I-'*

TIME IN SECONDS 0 [\.)

i AtU

---*----------- . --- *-* -----. -*---------------------- - -- - - - -* .

CALC NO. ES-g.002-0* .

DIESEL GENERA TOR 2A - CASE E LOPA- & LOCA DIESEL 2C INOPERATIVE 3100 ( Y2 HOUR) 3100 3000 2860 (2 HOUR) 2600 (CONTINUOUS)


2476 2451 2529 2446 2446 2148~

(/) 1 9 1200 86400

. Ill )>'

t:J t-t, rt 0 5 13 3000 7200 50420 (24 HRS>

nnmrt

(/)* 'drtlll (2 HRS)

rz ~o 3600 7220 50400 72000
  • f-'  ::r

- t:IJ t:IJ s Cl HOUR) 04 HRS) (20 HRS)

"'1.D:i.-~m 0 lV . Ill ::i rt, I f-' f-' rt ooi::

1 ltv~.)11JZ

~ 1J1rtO I-'*

TIME IN SECONDS 0 t-.:*

i

-~-  :: .: .....:...=.:.:.::..::..:=--=:._

......,

-- ----

CALC NO. ES-9.002-0 DIESEL GENERA TOR 28 - CASE A LOPA ALL -DIESELS OPERATING 3100 ( ~ HOUR>

3100 3000

~ 2900 2860 (2 HOUR>

---~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~------------------~------------------------------------

':; 2800 2750 (2000 HOUR>

~ 2700

,, 2600 <CONTINUOUS>

~ 2600 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2453 2500 l 2452 1936 2400 1 1977 1963 1904

-*

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I 1 9 20 26 1200 86400 0 5 13 30 600 3000 7200 (24 HRS) -

(2 HRS>

3600 50400 72000 n HOUR> (14 HRS> <20 HRS>

TIME IN SECONDS


....

CALC NO. ES-9.002-0 .

DIESEL GENERA TOR 28 - CASE B LOCA & LOPA ALL DIESELS OPERATING 3100 < Yz HOUR>

3100 3000

~ 2900 2860 <2 HOUR)

~ 2800 5:

C:) 2700

__-=:! 2600

L 2500 2400 I

I I

I I

I I

I

  • 2368_j I I I I o I I I I I I I

.

I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I o I I I I I I I o I I I I I O I o I I I

(/) 1 9 20 26 60 1200 86400 Ill~

t:l Hi rt 0 5 18 22 30 3000 7200 50420 (24 HRS)

Ul *

()()(lJ rt

'1:1 rt Ill (2 HRS)

rz i.::n

. . ...... ::r 3600 7220 50400 72000

-  !:tl t'l ;:i IJ.) \.0 ;i.. <! CD U HOUR> 0 4 HRS> (20 HRS>

0 [.\.) Ill ::l Hi I f-' I-' rt ooi::

Z

°'

Nl\.)l\.)llJ UlrtO I-'*

TIME IN SECONDS 0 [.\.)

l

-~-----------------*--------

CALC NO. ES-9.002- 0 DIESEL GENERA TOR 28 - CASE C LOPA & LOCA DIESEL 2A INOPERATIVE 3100 < Y2 HOUR)


3100 .

3000

~ 2900 286121 (2 HOUR)

I-

<:( 2800 6 2700

~ 2600 2492 l 2427 2391 2500 2135 2473 2160 :l  :,__~----2~3=8~9~~~1_;;;2~3~89~

2400 11971 2006 .1:1: I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

~

344  !!!

I I I I

I I

I I

I I I 859  :

I

I I

~

I I

I I

1' I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  :

1 9 1200 86400 0 5 30121121 720121 5121420 <24 HRS)

(2 HRS)

<

3600 7220 50400 7201210 (1 HOUR) <14 HRS) (20 HRS)

TIME IN SECONDS ih=====!I -***-*- - * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------* ------------------------

...._.

--- ..------*---

CALC NO. Es-g.002-.0 DIESEL GENERA TOR 28 - CASE E LOPA & LOCA DIESEL 2C INOPERATIVE 3100 C ~. HOUR>

3100 ------------------------------------~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30 0 0

~ 2900 2860 (2 HOUR>


~ 2800

6. 2700

~ 2600 2595 2600 <CONTINUOUS>

""-'-'-'~"'-'-'-'-!~...-.-.."L:-;.::.--:.:.;---;,:,:;,--------------------------------------------------------------------

2506-~ :2501 250 0 2286 2149~

21731 2260 2343 2 4 00 2019 1 9 1200 86400 0 5 1800 3000 7200 <24 HRS>

(2 HRS) 3600 7220 50400 72000 (1 HOUR) 0 4 HRS> (20 HRS>

TIME IN SECONDS

CALC NO. ES-g.002-~ -

DIESEL GENERA TOR 2C - CASE A LOPA ALL DIESELS OPERA TING 3100 CY2 HOUR>

3100 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3000

~ 2900 2860 (2 HOUR>


~ 2800 2750 C2000 HOUR)

~


2700

~ 2600 2600 <CONTINUOUS)


2500 2121 6 2400 . 192 1837 211212 1524 I

I I

I I

I 1555 1772 2qs102 I I

I I

I I

I

.,I 811 I I I fi I I I I I I I I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I I I I I

(/) 1 9 1200 86400

i:-

jlJ t:J Hi rt 0 5 600 3000 7200 <24 HRS>

() () ID rt

(/)* 'UrtllJ C2 HRS)

r z i..:: n
  • I-"  ::r 3600 50400 72000 N l:IJ l:IJ ::I

-U>:t>'~ID 0 I.\) jlJ  ::i Cl HOUR) (14 HRS) <20 HRS>

Hilf-"1-'rt ooi::

~1.\.)1.\.)jlJ z Ul rt 0

..... TIME IN SECONDS 0 l\.)

i

...

CALC NOo ES-9.002-IZI DIESEL GENERA TOR 2C - CASE B LOCA & LOPA DIESELS OPERA TING 3100 C~ HOUR>

3100 3000

~ 2900 ------------------------------------------------------------~~!?~---~~ __ !js:_l_l)_~! _____________________________________________________________ _

~ 2800 2750 (2000 HOUR> ________________________________________________________________ _

6 2700


~Eil3_f3 2606 2596

  • ~*2600 -------------~-9-~t ___________ ! ___________ 2§_9-l _________ _

I I

238~

I I

2500 . 2226 I

I I

I I

I 2400 2247 I I

I I

1 q 1200 86400 0 5 13 3000 721210 50420 C24 HRS)

C2 HRS>

361210 7220 50400 7200121 Cl HOUR>

  • Cl 4 HRS) (20 HRS>

TIME IN SECONDS

-..t

,,

CALC NO. ES-9.002-0 ,

DIESEL GENERA TOR 2C - CASE C LOPA & LOCA. DIESEL 2A INOPERATIVE 3100 < Y2 HOUR>

3100 3000

~ 2900 2860 <2 HOUR>

~ 2800 . 2750 <2000 HOUR>


~ 2700 2653

_J 2600

~

2344 2500 2328 2400 1080 I I 2325 l 2325 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 9 20 26 1200 86400 0 5 13 22 . 3000 7200 50420 C24 HRS)

C2 HRS>

3600 7220 50400 72000 Cl HOUR> Cl 4 HRS> (20 HRS>

TIME IN SECONDS

!!====------------'------------------------*----*----*-------*---

__.

' ...

  • CALC NO.Es-g.002-0 .

DIESEL GENERA TOR 2C - CASE D LOPA & LOCA DIESEL 28 INOPERATIVE 311Zl1Zl < ~ HOUR>

3100 30 IZJIZJ

~ 291ZJIZJ 2860 C2 HOUR>

~ 281ZJIZJ 2751Zl C21Zl1Zl1Zl HOUR>

~ 271ZJIZJ

~ 261ZJIZI ------------------------------------1'2'7.:1"'-217.1E>,,,0~~~~./"~ ---------------~~,f?-~-----------~~~~---~~~~-"f-~~!J-~-~~~-----------------

23371

  • 251ZJIZJ 21831 :2555 :2542 2542

'2400 HlJ801 255 13q41

[ 771 I I

I I

I

I I

I I I I I I I I I I

(/) 1 9 121Zl1Zl 8641Zl1Zl Ill :.:-

t:I Ho rt IZl 5 13 ' 181Zl1Zl 31Zl1Zl1Zl 721Zl1Zl - <24 HRS>

n n ro rt

<2 HRS>

(/) * "O rt Ill

r z '<

........ n

r 361Zl1Zl 7221Zl 5 IZJ 4 IZI IZl 7201Zl1Zl

""

-t:..

t:<:l l:Jl

\.0 ):- ~ CD s Cl HOUR> Cl 4 HRS> (21ZJ HRS>

0 tv Ill :;:1 Hllt->1-'rt 00~

~tv().)111 U1 rt 0 z TIME IN SECONDS

......

0 I,\.)

1 IWVJI