ML17083C618
| ML17083C618 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 01/23/1997 |
| From: | Steven Bloom NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9701280157 | |
| Download: ML17083C618 (82) | |
Text
5' I
?
~ <P~>A500 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 january 23, 1997 LICENSEE:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company FACILITY:
SUBJECT:
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1
and 2
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 30,
- 1996, WITH PG&E AND WESTINGHOUSE TO DISCUSS DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1
AND 2 CURRENT AND FUTURE LICENSING ISSUES AND COMMITMENT TRACKING The NRC staff met with representatives of PG&E on October 30, 1996, at One White Flint North in Rockville, Maryland to discuss (1) current and future licensing issues, and (2) commitment tracking.
Attachment 1 contains the list of attendees at this meeting.
Attachment 2 contains the handouts used by the licensee for their presentations.
The first topic discussed was upcoming licensing submittals.
A particular discussion involved a future submittal on Best Estimate Loss of Coolant (BELOCA).
The staff told PG&E that they would have to make a technical specification (TS) change to the methodology section involving the core operating limits report (COLR).
Also they would have to talk to Westinghouse to determine which type of plant they are and that this would determine what would have to be referenced in the TS.
Next there was a discussion about other current and future TS changes including the conversion to 24 month cycles and also the conversion to the improved Standard Technical Specifications (ISTS).
The next topic was a description by PG&E of how their commitment tracking system will work in the future.
There was a brief conversation on what is expected of licensees with respect to their 50.54(f) submittals.
The staff told them to give as much information as possible.
The last topic involved the re-engineering effort ongoing at PG&E.
This included the divesting of fossil fuel plants and how this will affect PG&E.
There was a discussion of a management transition project that is scheduled to take 3
years.
Docket Nos.
50-275 and 50-323 Attachments:
1.
List of Attendees 2.
Handout Steven D. Bloom, Project Manager Project Directorate IV-2 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I
....9701280157
C I
T L
)
cc w/atts:
NRC Resident Inspector Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0.
Box 369 Avila Beach, California 93424 Dr. Richard Ferguson, Energy Chair Sierra Club California 1100 11th Street, Suite 311 Sacramento, California 95814 Ms. Nancy Culver San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace P. 0.
Box 164 Pismo Beach, California 93448 Chairman San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Room 370 County Government Center San Luis Obispo, California 93408 Mr. Truman Burns Mr. Robert Kinosian California Public Utilities 'Commission 505 Van Ness, Room 4102 San Francisco, California 94102 Mr. Steve Hsu Radiologic Health Branch State Department of Health Services Post Office Box 942732 Sacramento, California 94232 Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee ATTN:
Robert R. Wellington, Esq.
Legal Counsel 857 Cass Street, Suite D
Monterey, California 93940 Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harris Tower
& Pavillion 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, Texas 76011-8064 Chri stopher J. Warner, Esq.
Pacific Gas
& Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Mr. Robert P.
Powers Vice President and Plant Manager Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant P. 0.
Box 56 Avila Beach, California 93424 Telegram-Tribune ATTN:
Managing Editor 1321 Johnson Avenue P.O.
Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Mr. Gregory M. Rueger Pacific Gas and Electric Company NPG Mail Code A10D P.O.
Box 770000 San Francisco, California 94177
Attachment 1
MEETING WITH PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC LICENSING ISSUES AND COMMITMENT TRACKING ATTENDEES October 30 1996 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Mike Angus Terry Grebel Jim Tomkins Ralph Berger NRC Steven Bloom Kris Thomas Frank Orr
C I
I 1
DIABLOCANYONPOWER PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 UPCONIING LICENSING SUBINITTALS Presentation to the NRC October 1996 Pacific Gas 8 Electric Company
4 1
J I
MAJOR EFFORTS UNDERWAY
~ Best Estimate Loss of Coolant Accident
~ 24-Month Cycles
~ Unit i Uprating
l l
I I
I J
I
(
BELOCA
~
upports 24-Month Cycles and Unit 1 Uprate
~ Both Units 1 and 2 at 3411 MWt, 24-Month Cycles
, -gx-g>"
~ Satisfies Commitment to redo DCPP LBLOCA Analyses by 1998
~ Uses methodology of WCAP-12945, "Westinghouse Code Qualification Document for est Estimate LOCA," approved by NRC 6/28/96
L l
I I
BELOCA No Variation from WCAP-12945 Methodology
'estinghouse has Reviewed Information Notice 96-39 and Verified Proper Decay Heat Inputs
~ Plant Specific Information Limited to Analysis Inputs
I I
BELOCA Major Elements
~ Data Development
~ Reference Case
~ Monte Carlo Runs
~ Discretionary Runs
~ Report and LAR Submittal
\\
C l
l
BELOCA Data Development
~ Data is of two types Single Value Parameter Ranges
~ Data was Developed both at PG8 E and Westinghouse Gale STA-006 provides single reference document for all PG8 E developed data Some Data and Calculation was a Joint Effort between Westinghouse and PG8 E
l a
(
l 1
BELOCA Data Development
~ Philosophy was to Maximize Operability Margins by use of Conservative Data T,g Envelopes possible TReduction
~ PG8 E placed Conservatisms into Reference Case, that other Utilities Opted to put in Discretionary Runs
t s
I I
BELOCA Data Development 32 Parameters are Sampled from Ranges.
Most of these are developed by Westinghouse in accordance with WCAP-12945 Methods.
These include:
Flow discharge coefficients Heat transfer coefficients Decay heat uncertainty Condensation Fo up to max of 2.7 FH up to max of 1.7
l s
J I
tl I
BELOCA Data Development 0.25- 0.45 0.3- 0.8 T
560 - 582. 3 F Pzr P 2190 - 2310 psia RWST T 68-90F Accum T 85 - 120 F Accum Wtr 814 - 886 ft Accum P 579-664 psig
~ Plant Specific Parameter Ranges:
PBOT 0.2 - 0.43
t s
It
BELOCA Data Development
~ Accumulator Temperature is Conservative Relative to Containment Temperature History (assumption is that accumulafors are approximately at containmenf temperature)
Containment Temperature Data and Sampling Bin 140 c
120 1OO 80 60 40 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 Temperature (F)
I A
I c
I l
I
BELOCA Data Development
~ RWST Temperature is Conservative Relative to Site Temperature History (assumpfion is that RWSTis up fo 90 F after refueling; fhereafter near ambiegj fygpggy(qrgl,,,...
Tem perature 10 o
8 O
g 6
4 0
30
A I
I
BELOCA Reference Case Deterministic WCOBRA/TRAC Limiting Unit (Unit 1)
Limiting Tube Plugging (15%)
Limiting Offsite Power Assumption (LOOP) 0.3 Power Level in the Outer Assemblies (Limiting)
High T.,g =5773 F 70 - 90% Confidence Level Completed June 28, 1996
I g
~
l J
0
BELOCA Reference Case 2000
$ 800 1 eoo 1 400 1 200 l
1 OOO 500 coo T irne (s) 0 Figare 5-3-1 FCnal Reference Translcat - Hot Rod PCT
1 l
J p
a n
BELOCA Reference Case
~ PCT for Reference Case is 1984 'F (compares to 2042 'F for Unit 1 and 2108
'F for Unit 2 in current FSAR)
~ 95% Confidence PCT will be higher
~ No Second Reflood Peak
~ Limited by Unit 1, LOOP
I S
l l
- J
BELOCA Monte Carlo Variables Selected by Random Sampling from within Parameter Ranges Delta-PCT Terms generated based on sensitivity of parameter variation from the Reference Case PCT for one trial is Reference PCT plus delta due to power distribution variables plus delta due to initial condition variables plus delta due to modeling variables PCT, = PCTJb+ dPCTpD, + dPCTic, + dPCTMoo)
Normally done for j = 1 (blowdown) and j = 2,3 (reflood peaks), but DCPP has no second peak
I
~
I
)
II i
0
BELOCA Monte Carlo
~ The 95'io Cumulative Value is compared to allowable PCT limitof 2200 'F Sample Monte Carlo Output 1
~) 0 (p 0.5 O
LL 0
800 1200 1600 2000 2400 PCT
p l e
4
BELOCA Discretionary Runs
~ Five Additional Runs for Operability Evaluation
~ Actions that can be taken to Lower PCT
~ PCT Penalty Associated with Off Normal Operation
I 4
BELOCA Discretionary Runs
~ Evaluate PCT Benefit 1/3rd Cycle Burnup Current Peaking Factors Lower Power Unit 2 Internals
~ Evaluate PCT Penalty No High Head Injection
a
'L J
BELOCA Schedule Dat a Devel opment Reference Case Monte Carl o Runs Discretionary Runs W Report LAR Devel opment LARSubmittal D J9 F
M A
M J
J A
S 0
N D J9 F
M
I p
)
J
,I t9
BELOCA Comparison to Indust
~ Lead Plant Indian Point 2, 4-loop 17x1 7 fuel Extensive Review Similar to DCPP
~ Other Westinghouse BELOCAs in 1996 Indian Point 3 Turkey Point 3 8 4
~ Other Westinghouse BELOCAs in 1997 Farley 1 8 2 V.C. Summer Watts Bar
l J
I I
0 1
"I
,1 A
24 Month Cycle 1995-97 Submittal
~ First Request (December 1995)
Tech Spec Surveillance Interval Increases
~ Second Request (July 1996) 1 Tech Spec Surveillance Interval Increases and 43 Setpoint Evaluations
~ Third Request (September 1996)
Tech Spec Surveillance Interval Increases and 35 Setpoint Evaluations
~ Fourth Request (January 1997) 23 Tech Spec Surveillance Interval Increases and 19 Setpoint Evaluations
e
) ~
l
24 Month Cycle Schedule
~ 20-Month Cycle in effect now at Unit 2, Cycle 8
~ Phase II I Analysis 1998
~ 24-Month Cycles begin Unit 2, Cycle 11, in 2001
a i
I
24 Month Cycle Phase 3 Anal ses
~ Steam Generator Tube Rupture, Overfill and Dose
~ DNBR Analyses using RTDP
~ Non-LOCA impacted by new Peaking Factors, increased Boron concentration, and increased PMTC
e 1
l
)
II Y
Unit 1 Uprate
~ From 3338 MWt to 3411 MWt (2.2%)
~ Makes Unit 1 and Unit 2 Equal Thermal Rating
~ Satisfies Commitment to redo SBLOCA by 1998 Single Component Analysis Set for both Units
~ Single LBLOCAAnalysis for both Units
l
~
~
Unit 1 Uprate Major Elements
~ Component Analysis
~ Balance of Plant
~ Accident Analysis License Amendment
P
~
'I l
Unit 1 Uprate Analysis
~ Many Analyses Already Performed for Limiting Unit
~ Balance of Plant Near Identical for Units 1 & 2
~ Unit 1 Minimum Flow is 87,700 gpm per loop, Unit 2 Minimum Flow is 89,000 gpm per loop.
~ Unit 1 is Limiting for DNBR and LOCA
seal
Uprating Unit to Unit Differences Unit 1 Unit 2
/1
)
Unit 1 Uprate Schedule Data Devel opment Component Analysis Bal ance of Plant Accident Analysis
- BELCH, LARDevel opment LARSubmittal D J9F MA M J J
A S 0 N D J9F MA M
\\
l I)
Uprating Comparison to Industry
~ Other Recent Upratings Indian Point 2 (1990), 2758 MWtto 3071 MWt Galloway (1993), 3411 MWtto 3565 MWt Vogtle (1993), 3411 MWtto 3565 MWt Peach Bottom (1994), 3293 MWtto 3458 MWt Limerick (1995), 3293 MWtto 3458 MWt 21 units in all
~ DCPP by comparison brings Unit 1 up just 78 MWtto match Unit 2 Power
q >c
~ 7
Other Analysis Activities Under Consideration
~ T<<T Reduction Improved Steam Generator Life
~ RCS Minimum Flow Requirement Reduction Response to possible SG tube plugging
~
~
il I I
>P
Upcoming Analysis Activities BELOCA 24 M-onth, Phase 3 Unit 1 Uprate Thof Reduction RCS FlowReduction 1996 1997 1998
I
~
~
Vl
Upcoming Analysis Activities 1996 1997 1998 24-$bnth, Phase 3 Unit 1 Up(ate Thot Reduction FlowReduction
CONCLUSION
~ BELOCA LAR, March 1997
~ 24-Month Cycle LARs, 3rd and 4th On S hedule for late fall 1996 and early 1997
~ Unit 1 Uprate LAR, May 1997
r
t ese our ants?
~ Morro Bay: will need to be fullycompetitive in new market.
~ Separation of Pittsburg and Contra Costa not advisable for many reasons.
~ Moss Landing, Hunters Pt., and Oakland, with MBPP, add up to the right number of megawatts.
NPG
I sf
at can em o
ees ex ect ~
~ Safety is our first priority in our working environment.
~ About a three-year transition period during which we will run the plants safely and reliably.
~ Fair and equitable treatment for all employees.
~ Answers as soon as we have them.
NPG
I
'i
ores eci ca
~ Management employees:
focus now on current work and future transition programs; also placement assistance, severance programs.
~ IBEW employees:
partnership talks are scheduled to begin immediately.
~ ESC employees:
Union/management talks are going on now. Also, many opportunities are available in other PG8 E departments.
NPG
I~q
~>I P
0
NPG Transi tion Management Itic~',%,:;i.
support guides, monitors and enables appoints
'v>nba'SC~
~>4%&NHO P X>ighhi>>yggygiiy~yxxK<i~Xjy and enables convene, enable, support and drive coach and support
$>>.ceWA+g>>. y>>axe~ X>Xi~x, NPG
e~>
J
Proposed Project: Timeline
~
~
~Based on a number of constraints, the team developed a proposed transition project timeline. Given a resource constraint of 75 full-time equivalent employees working full-time on these projects at any time (based on resources dedicated to current initiatives), the nineteen projects can be designed and implemented by the end of year 2000. All high business value projects will be designed by the end of 1998, and the projects with high risk have been balanced throughout the proposed transition plan.
oThe project timeline depicted below reflects the prioritization of transition projects based on business value combined with logical sequencing required by both the implementation timeline and the expected needs of the competitive market. An example of this logical sequence is designing the Market and Trade Energy process which is not a business requirement prior to actual market competition, but which must be timed for successful implementation by 2002.
g 4
r ~
~
III Ii
~
8 0
0
~
f
~
0 0
~
0 0
~
ti 0
8 1
kA t8Adi IBf6s1lt l'086tfcotitfc4fMt6rI815Ãkt88tvfcos'ococo;:::.::::Fk Aiii%rate'iiid't'"""erne'iit'itii'ii"'eliiro'me8airi""rYcYiN.:i','i":.""'.i:":'::".::i:) ":::i";:;:i",:;::. i:ANN:"::::.'k$!
' ~~A ~
!'6~<!
,