ML113390156
| ML113390156 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 12/05/2011 |
| From: | Exelon Nuclear |
| To: | Division of Operating Reactor Licensing |
| Billoch-Colon A, NRR/DORL, 301-415-3302 | |
| References | |
| TAC ME7495, TAC ME7496 | |
| Download: ML113390156 (21) | |
Text
LaSalle County Station Pre-Application Meeting Extended Power Uprate Extended Power Uprate December 7, 2011
2
Introductions
Exelon Team Kenneth Ainger - Project Management Director, EPU Kevin Borton - Power Uprate Licensing Manager John Rommel - Power Uprate Engineering Director Harold Vinyard - LaSalle Engineering Director Tim Byam - Power Uprate Lead Licensing Engineer y
p g
g Vikram Shah - Power Uprate Senior Engineering Manager Terry Simpkin - LaSalle Regulatory Assurance Manager Faramarz Pournia - Power Uprate Project Manager Stevie Du Pont - Power Uprate Licensing Engineer
3 Agenda and Meeting Purpose
Introduce LaSalle EPU Staff
Describe NEI Pre-Submittal Meeting Pilot
Present LaSalle Extended Power Uprate Schedule and Approach
Describe Key Aspects of Technical Evaluations and Obtain Feedback Annulus Pressurization Loads ECCS NPSH Analysis
Discuss Potential Topics for Future Meetings
4 NEI Pilot - Pre-submittal Meetings
Purpose is to enhance License Amendment Request pre-submittal meetings Reach a common understanding on the regulatory criteria and standards to be applied during the NRC review of the proposed changes Identify potential application issues that can be addressed during the application conceptual phase that will reduce acceptance review time, requests for additional information, and application review time
Process Pilot Checklist is used to focus on applicable review criteria, codes, standards, justification required for use of a new analytical method applicability of a precedent or justification required for use of a new analytical method, applicability of a precedent, or feasibility of a desired schedule in order to reach alignment with the NRC NRC meeting notice and meeting summary will docket the expectations and outcomes of the alignment in order to greatly reduce the risk and uncertainty associated with future application acceptance and NRC review
LaSalle specific checklist focus Verify methodology and approach used for analyses of Annulus Pressurization Load Verify current NRC expectations and approach regarding ECCS NPSH calculations
5 Background
LaSalle Original License Unit 1 licensed 1982 / Unit 2 licensed 1983 Original Licensed Thermal Power (OLTP) of 3323 MWt per unit
LaSalle Previous Uprates Stretch Power Uprate of 5% in 2000 to 3489 MWt MUR Uprate of 1.6% in 2010 to 3546 MWt Current Licensed Thermal Power (CLTP) of 3546 MWt
EPU Projected Power Uprate level of 3988 MWt (increase ~12.5% of current licensed power or 120% of original licensed power)
6 Schedule Overview NRC Communication Schedule 2nd Pre-Submittal Meeting:
Target February 2012 3rd Pre-Submittal Meeting:
Target April 2012 Final Pre-Submittal Meeting:
Target June 2012 EPU Implementation Schedule Submit LAR:
Target 3rd QTR 2012 LAR Approval:
Target 1st QTR 2014 (20 months)
Unit 2 Implementation:
2nd QTR 2015 (Outage L2R15)
Unit 1 Implementation:
1st QTR 2016 (Outage L1R16)
Steam Dryer Evaluation could impact above schedule
LAR will meet criteria in NRC RS-001, Review Standard for Extended Power Uprates
Evaluations supporting the LAR were performed using Constant Pressure Power Uprate (CPPU) Licensing Topical Report (NEDC - 33004P-A) (commonly called CLTR)
Fuel related evaluations were performed to the guidance in NRC-approved NEDC-32424P-A (commonly called ELTR1)
Safety issues identified in ELTR1 that should be addressed in a plant-specific EPU license amendment request are addressed in the LaSalle Specific Power Uprate Safety Analysis Report (PUSAR) (NEDC-33603P)
For generically evaluated issues - the PUSAR references the NRC-approved generic evaluations in either ELTR1 or ELTR2 (NEDC-32523P-A)
No Submittals Linked to Proposed EPU Submittal
Incorporated Past RAIs
8 EPU LAR Approach Exelons submittal will include Cover Letter and Amendment Request Attachments Description/Evaluation of Proposed Changes including No Significant Hazards Consideration Markup of Operating License and Technical Specifications Markup of Technical Specifications Bases and Technical Requirements Manual (Information Only)
Power Uprate Safety Analysis Report (PUSAR) (non-proprietary, proprietary, and affidavit)
Regulatory Commitments Supplemental Environmental Report List of Modifications EPU Startup Test Plan Grid Stability Study PRA Report Flow Induced Vibration (FIV) Piping and Component Evaluation Instrument Setpoint Calculations Affected by EPU Steam Dryer Evaluation (High Cycle Fatigue Report) (non-proprietary, proprietary, and affidavit)
9 Annulus Pressurization Loads Analysis Annulus Pressurization Loads Analysis Vikram Shah
10 Annulus Pressurization (AP) Loads Analysis Purpose
Verify methodology and approach used for analyses of Annulus Pressurization Load Perform the EPU break mass and energy release (M&E) and pressurization calculations for the annulus pressurization using the GEH TRACG computer code TRACG based M&E release methodology for the AP loads will address GEH corrective action of the Safety Communication SC09-01 Methodology
Current CLTP Methodology NEDO-24548, Annulus Pressurization Load Adequacy Evaluation Computer Code: RELAP4/ MOD 3
EPU Methodology NEDE-32176P, Revision 4, TRACG Model Description NEDE-32177P, Revision 3, TRACG Qualification NEDE-33083P-A, TRACG Application for ESBWR, October 2005 NEDE-33440P, Revision 2, TRACG ESBWR Safety Analysis - Additional Information, March 2010 Computer Code: TRACG V.04
Same computer code was used in the Grand Gulf EPU Submittal to address AP loads
Annulus Pressurization (AP) Loads Analysis Overview 11 High Energy line break analysis Sub-compartment analysis Integrated dynamic analysis Structures &
attached piping analysis 30 Pipe Whip Jet Reaction Jet Impingement 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 Time (sec)
Mass Flowrate (10^3 lbm/sec)
Mass / energy release vs. time Annulus pressure vs. time Displacements, accelerations, forces, stresses, moments and response spectra Piping and component loads, stress, fatigue, and accelerations
Annulus Pressurization Loads Analysis Methods Comparison Evaluation CLTP Method EPU Method Comparison /
Comments Mass and Energy Release Generic NEDO-24548 TRACG 04 Note 1 Annulus Pressurization Loads RELAP4/MOD 3 TRACG 04 Note 2 Jet Loads ANSI 176 (draft)
ANSI/ANS 58.2-1988 Same method, Old standard superseded.
Pipe Whip Restraint PDA PDA Same 12 Dynamic Structural Analysis SAP4G07 SAP4G07 Same
Note 1 - The TRACG 04 allows the calculation of mass and energy (M&E) release rates to include the physical attributes of the piping system for both rated and off-rated conditions. TRACG eliminates unphysical and artificially imposed jumps in mass and energy. Providing estimates of M&E at off-rated and rated conditions addresses the concerns identified in GEH Safety Communication SC 09-01, Annulus Pressurization Loads Evaluation, dated June 8, 2009
Note 2 - The use of the TRACG 04 vessel component together with a fine mesh model (336 nodes) of the LaSalle annulus provides a more detailed annulus pressurization response than the analysis of record, which uses a coarse node (35 node) RELAP 4/MOD 3 model.
13 Annulus Pressurization (AP) Loads Analysis Summary The application of TRACG for both the mass and energy release analysis and the annulus pressurization analysis is appropriate to provide a response frequency used in all downstream load analyses SC 09-01 will be addressed by analyzing the pipe breaks considered in the LaSalle design and licensing basis at various rated and off-rated operating conditions with bounding conditions being used in the downstream analysis Confirm NRC agreement that the above approach to calculation of AP Loads is acceptable
14 ECCS NPSH Analysis Vikram Shah
Purpose:
Verify methodology and Exelons approach to perform NPSH analysis for a non-CAP credit plant is in accordance with NRCs expectations, and draft regulatory guidance Methodology
SECY 11-0014, Use of Containment Accident Pressure in Analyzing Emergency Core Cooling System and Containment Heat Removal System Pump Performance in Postulated Accidents Event-specific analyses determine containment response Suppression Pool Temperature Event-specific NPSHa determined for each applicable event/pump NPSHa compared to NPSHreff for each applicable pump Time in Maximum Erosion Zone
16 ECCS NPSH Analysis Key Assumptions
No Containment Accident Pressure
Deterministic analysis with conservative inputs for DBA-LOCA, ASDC and Small Break LOCA.
Nominal inputs for non-design basis events (SBO, Appendix R, ATWS) analyses
Vendor supplied NPSHr 3% curves pp
21% uncertainty for NPSHreff for DBA-LOCA, ASDC and Small Break LOCA events
0% uncertainty for non-design basis events (ATWS, SBO, Appendix R)
Assumes minimum Suppression Pool Inventory (level) for all events
All events are evaluated at 102% of EPU power
17 ECCS NPSH Analysis Preliminary Results Event Pump NPSHa (Feet)
NPSHreff (Feet)
Margin (Feet)
DBA-LOCA RHR 18.8 16.9 1.9 DBA-LOCA HPCS 19.7 6.1 13.6 DBA-LOCA LPCS 19.0 2.4 16.6 ASDC RHR 17.8 16.9 0.9 ASDC HPCS 17.5 6.1 11.4 ASDC LPCS 18.0 2.4 15.6 NPSHreff values consistent with draft guidance (NPSHreff = NPSHr3% + uncertainties) including 21% uncertainty for Design Basis Events and 0% uncertainty for non-Design Basis Events No modifications are required to achieve the above results SBO RHR 19.2 14.0 5.2 SBO RCIC Analysis in Progress SBO HPCS 18.9 5.0 13.9 ATWS RHR 32.4 14.0 18.4 App R RHR 25.9 14.0 11.9 App R HPCS 25.7 5.0 20.7 App R LPCS 26.1 2.0 24.1
18 ECCS NPSH Analysis Summary Exelons approach to perform NPSH analysis is in accordance with NRC expectations and draft guidance
- Demonstrates that adequate positive margin exist for ECCS/RCIC pumps
- Demonstrates that ECCS/RCIC pumps will perform their safety functions Confirm NRC agreement that the above approach to determine ECCS NPSH is acceptable
19 Future EPU Meeting Topics and Schedule
Follow-up EPU Meetings
- Proposed Topics
- Steam Dryer Strategy and FIV Analysis
- Impact and Changes to Human Factors
- Impact on Primary Containment internal pressure (Pa)
- Ultimate Heat Sink Analysis
- Setpoint Calculations
- Alternate Source Term Analysis
Next meeting target February 2012
20 Meeting Summary Pilot Alignment and Outcome
- Discussion
- Checklist Mark-up Critique
21 Acronym List
ASDC - Alternate Shut Down Cooling
ATWS - Anticipated Transient Without Scram
CAP - Containment Accident Pressure
CLTP - Current Licensed Thermal Power
DBA - Design Basis Accident
ECCS - Emergency Core Cooling System
EPU - Extended Power Uprate
ESBWR - Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor
GEH - General Electric - Hitachi
HPCS - High Pressure Core Spray
LAR - License Amendment Request
LOCA - Loss of Coolant Accident
LPCS - Low Pressure Core Spray
LTR - Licensing Topical Report g
p p
MUR - Measurement Uncertainty Recapture power uprates
MWt - Mega Watts thermal
NEI - Nuclear Energy Institute
NPSH - Net Positive Suction Head
NPSHa - Net Positive Suction Head available
NPSHr - Net Positive Suction Head required
NPSHreff - Effective Net Positive Suction Head required
PRA - Probabilistic Risk Assessment
PUR - Power Uprate
RAI - Request for Additional Information
SBO - Station Black Out
SC - GEH Safety Communication
SECY - Commission Papers (Written issues papers the NRC staff submits to the Commission to inform them about policy, rulemaking, and adjudicatory matters)