ML20004F908: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) Created page by program invented by StriderTol |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot change |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:- | {{#Wiki_filter:- | ||
i | i Deholt M]SCn NY!!U *i" June 24, 1981 EF2-53793, Rev. A /IF ' | ||
Deholt M]SCn NY!!U *i" June 24, 1981 | , f). | ||
EF2-53793, Rev. A /IF ' | ^ '/ | ||
\\ | |||
[ | |||
Q 6 | |||
[ | fY f | ||
. \\.3 9 | |||
i V | |||
Mr. L. L. Kintner | f' | ||
\\ | |||
Mr. L. L. Kintner N p/,g - | |||
\\ | |||
6 Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Q | |||
~U. | |||
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. | |||
20555 | |||
==Reference:== | ==Reference:== | ||
| Line 33: | Line 39: | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
PSB Position (8.3.5) | PSB Position (8.3.5) | ||
Reactor Containment Electrical Penetrations | Reactor Containment Electrical Penetrations | ||
==Dear Mr. Kintner:== | ==Dear Mr. Kintner:== | ||
Please find attached Detroit Edison's revised response to the draf t PSB position (PSB-2) on Reactor Containment Elect 1Acal Penetrations. | Please find attached Detroit Edison's revised response to the draf t PSB position (PSB-2) on Reactor Containment Elect 1Acal Penetrations. | ||
Sincerely, 7M f | Sincerely, 7M f b | ||
William F. Colbert Technical Director Enric Fermi Unit #2 RB/w OOl lll | |||
'810 e 2 a o/(s 9' g | |||
8 | 8 l[ | ||
l[ | 4' Juna 22, 1981 EF2-53793 Rev. A | ||
~ | |||
EF2-53793 Rev. A ATTACHMENT | ATTACHMENT. | ||
POSITION ON REACTOR CONTAINMENT PRIMARY ELECTRICAL PENETRATION PROTECTION | POSITION ON REACTOR CONTAINMENT PRIMARY ELECTRICAL PENETRATION PROTECTION | ||
-The. Detroit Edison. Company Fermi 2 Project,.has made a review of the | |||
-Reactor' Containment Primary Electrical. Penetrations. The main objective Lof this' review wassto-determine that the electricalipenetration1 0 | |||
:assembliescare designed to withstand, without the;1oss of mechanical integrity, the ' maximum available. fault current versus time ' conditions | :assembliescare designed to withstand, without the;1oss of mechanical integrity, the ' maximum available. fault current versus time ' conditions that could occur,~given single random failures of circuit overload- | ||
~ | |||
that could occur,~given single random failures of circuit overload- | . devices-as recommended by Regulatory Guide 1.63, Revision 1. | ||
'" Electrical Penetration Assemblies in Containment Structures for | |||
. Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants". | |||
In making the review,'the fol?owing assumption was primary: | In making the review,'the fol?owing assumption was primary: | ||
2 | |||
-The I t characteristics of the penetration conductors as #urnished by Conax Corp. were used as a basis #or determining integrity. It is that the I t' curves as furnished by Conax Corp. | |||
2 realized, however, E | |||
-are conservative in nature and that the I t curve points are not necessarily r | |||
For-low-energy penetrations, maximum fault current does not approach the | 1the points of damage to the mechanical integrity of the penetrations. | ||
On;1ow-voltage oower penetrations where maximum fault current versus time will i | ;However,-in our. review, we followed this conservatism, giving additional assurance that-potential-damage ~to the penetration is thereby reduced to nilJif properly protected. | ||
- -The lfollowing positions. are taken by Detroit Edison, based on the results of this review. These positions are in line with the guidelines set forth 'in Regulatory Guide'l.63.. | |||
[ | For-low-energy penetrations, maximum fault current does not approach the 2I tsof the penetration conductor;'no, backup or redundant protection is provided. | ||
On;1ow-voltage oower penetrations where maximum fault current versus time will i | |||
exceed the I t of the penetration conductor (considering single random failure l-of the primary pcocection) backup protection will be provided by one of the two following methods: | |||
: 1. cIf adequate backup pratection can be obtained from the feeder | |||
[ | |||
. position and the fault can be cleared in sufficient time to 2 | |||
prevent reaching the I t of the penetration conductor - no | |||
[ | [ | ||
L additional ~ redundant protective devices will be provided. | |||
I-l' l-I, | I-l' l-I, l - | ||
l - | |||
l: | l: | ||
1 1 | 1 1 | ||
,-.J._, | |||
1.~ | |||
..-4 | |||
.~.3- | |||
~. | |||
1,... | 1,... | ||
'Juna 22, 1981 EF2-53793 Rev. A 2. | |||
Where the feeder position cannot provide adequate clearing time, an additional protective device, fuse or breaker'as necessary, will be provided. | |||
~ There are only two medium voltage power penetrations. These are used for the Reactor Recirculation Pump Motor MG set output from the generator to | |||
- the pump motors. In ?hese cases the primary protection is provided by tripping the main MG set motor drive incoming circuit breaker. positions. | |||
- Backup protection is provided by tripping che generator field breakers. | |||
-Proper relaying assures operati.on of the field breaker. | |||
Loads 'to the primary containment not necessary for reactor operation, | Loads 'to the primary containment not necessary for reactor operation, i.e., | ||
lighting and welding will be naintained in a deenergized condition. | lighting and welding will be naintained in a deenergized condition. | ||
Although every effort will be made to complete the installation of necessary-redundant devices in time for fuel load, we do commit to completing all such work by. time of the first refueling outage. | |||
9 0 | 9 0 | ||
r 5__ | r 5__ | ||
_a | |||
_}} | _}} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:23, 23 December 2024
| ML20004F908 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1981 |
| From: | Colbert W DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| To: | Kintner L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| EF2-53793, NUDOCS 8106260164 | |
| Download: ML20004F908 (3) | |
Text
-
i Deholt M]SCn NY!!U *i" June 24, 1981 EF2-53793, Rev. A /IF '
, f).
^ '/
\\
[
Q 6
fY f
. \\.3 9
i V
f'
\\
Mr. L. L. Kintner N p/,g -
\\
6 Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Q
~U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
Reference:
Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit #2 NRC Docket No. 50-341
Subject:
PSB Position (8.3.5)
Reactor Containment Electrical Penetrations
Dear Mr. Kintner:
Please find attached Detroit Edison's revised response to the draf t PSB position (PSB-2) on Reactor Containment Elect 1Acal Penetrations.
Sincerely, 7M f b
William F. Colbert Technical Director Enric Fermi Unit #2 RB/w OOl lll
'810 e 2 a o/(s 9' g
8 l[
4' Juna 22, 1981 EF2-53793 Rev. A
~
ATTACHMENT.
POSITION ON REACTOR CONTAINMENT PRIMARY ELECTRICAL PENETRATION PROTECTION
-The. Detroit Edison. Company Fermi 2 Project,.has made a review of the
-Reactor' Containment Primary Electrical. Penetrations. The main objective Lof this' review wassto-determine that the electricalipenetration1 0
- assembliescare designed to withstand, without the;1oss of mechanical integrity, the ' maximum available. fault current versus time ' conditions that could occur,~given single random failures of circuit overload-
~
. devices-as recommended by Regulatory Guide 1.63, Revision 1.
'" Electrical Penetration Assemblies in Containment Structures for
. Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants".
In making the review,'the fol?owing assumption was primary:
2
-The I t characteristics of the penetration conductors as #urnished by Conax Corp. were used as a basis #or determining integrity. It is that the I t' curves as furnished by Conax Corp.
2 realized, however, E
-are conservative in nature and that the I t curve points are not necessarily r
1the points of damage to the mechanical integrity of the penetrations.
- However,-in our. review, we followed this conservatism, giving additional assurance that-potential-damage ~to the penetration is thereby reduced to nilJif properly protected.
- -The lfollowing positions. are taken by Detroit Edison, based on the results of this review. These positions are in line with the guidelines set forth 'in Regulatory Guide'l.63..
For-low-energy penetrations, maximum fault current does not approach the 2I tsof the penetration conductor;'no, backup or redundant protection is provided.
On;1ow-voltage oower penetrations where maximum fault current versus time will i
exceed the I t of the penetration conductor (considering single random failure l-of the primary pcocection) backup protection will be provided by one of the two following methods:
- 1. cIf adequate backup pratection can be obtained from the feeder
[
. position and the fault can be cleared in sufficient time to 2
prevent reaching the I t of the penetration conductor - no
[
L additional ~ redundant protective devices will be provided.
I-l' l-I, l -
l:
1 1
,-.J._,
1.~
..-4
.~.3-
~.
1,...
'Juna 22, 1981 EF2-53793 Rev. A 2.
Where the feeder position cannot provide adequate clearing time, an additional protective device, fuse or breaker'as necessary, will be provided.
~ There are only two medium voltage power penetrations. These are used for the Reactor Recirculation Pump Motor MG set output from the generator to
- the pump motors. In ?hese cases the primary protection is provided by tripping the main MG set motor drive incoming circuit breaker. positions.
- Backup protection is provided by tripping che generator field breakers.
-Proper relaying assures operati.on of the field breaker.
Loads 'to the primary containment not necessary for reactor operation, i.e.,
lighting and welding will be naintained in a deenergized condition.
Although every effort will be made to complete the installation of necessary-redundant devices in time for fuel load, we do commit to completing all such work by. time of the first refueling outage.
9 0
r 5__
_a
_