ML20197F809
| ML20197F809 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1996 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197F769 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9712300298 | |
| Download: ML20197F809 (29) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ . . . . . _ . _ . _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _. _
'e-
- Public Meeting Rs Mains Yankes 'Condommelt" - . 4/29/96 -Part 1
.. $ Page 4 8- I' PROCEEDINGS 8
muc men.e 2 . MR. TROY!1ER: Good evening It's 6 o' clock and 8 3 as advertised m'd like to get this thing started. If ,
- 4 you would all take your seats, I'll take care of some
= mv u. te warne nam nesau unumr comiu m mrt uo mi rans a miep.,u 5 adminierative things right ott the bat.
-ceneuso.se men a ta e,mu maw we- 6 l's Ed Trottaer the NRC's project for or caou., ace m n m u n n. 7 Maine Yankee, and I'd like to welcome e lure to -
s~ this public meeting between the NRC and, ne 9 As you may already know w're having a two-part .
" 10 meeta'ns The Tarst part will b,e betwee the Nac,on
" 11 e ade, Maine Yankee on the other. Maine Yankee is .
" 12 ' to snake a presentation, recent events, that sort
" encun,a h' h. r una is 14 may analyses,liaanning mformation. We will-some questions during the hour.
" " 15 At the conclumon of that, we'll close this first
~
16 part of the meeting, and then we'll bring up the State
" 17 of Maine, take a few minutes to shuffle chairs and -
" is abuffle people, break. We'll have the State of Maine :
" 19 ovtr nere and we'd still be on this side.
" 20 We'll have some brief opem'as remarks at the
" 21 beginning of the manand hour. The State of Maine will
" 22 have some brief opentag resnarks. And the we're goin;
" 23 to throw the floor open, as advertised, to questions
"' v3 u m u n nov,
- no"El" kl.q'Q8 f jgjj4,d!"*8Hu 24 ublic.
" 8 25 from the Io facilitate that or make it easier, one of Now,
.. : Page5 8 '"""'**" a the things that worked well the last time we wre up 8
roa to une 2 here was we had a little list of questions, and I'm 8
- n. yo n 3 going to leave this pad of paper - list of questioners.
- 4- I'll leave this pad of paper up on the podium up there.
cmg! "'no . - . 5 and my pencil. It's government issue, so don't walk off el8 6 with it.
' '"" #mih"t "
0,-{ ["" 1 An down,yway, if you'd just please write your, q a i rom mins tune 9 . the first hour we'll take up the list of tne names.
" 10 LJNIDENT1FIED SPECTATOR: Why can't we ask them
" cua g rja '; t
*lhu g * *ui " N I"'" 11 ourselves?
" 12 MR.11tOTI1ER: Sure. l
" 13 IfNIDENT1:tED SPECTATDR: why do we have to wiite -
" i 14 MR. TROTTIER: We're just trying to get a feel for 1
" .5 how mriy. And then you can ask it. We'll recognize you !
" 16 and then have at it. Okay?
" 17 Are you sure Phil Donahue started like this? I
" is A little history. - As you know 19 allegation against Maine Yankee December m,- December there was
" 20 4th wept it. De NRC took the allegation very !
" 21 seriously. We had an allegation review panel. A team
" 22 of three NRC inspectors and two inspectors from One
" 23 State of Maine came un the next week. We spent the week
" 24 at Yankee Atomic, took the information back to
" 25 headquarters We had the experts and management pore
- e. .
Page 6 i over it. And the result of that was a Confirmatory
- e. ,. 2 Order. There were six i: ems in the Order. Four of them ine uu er nac e 3 had to be donc promptly before the plant could even u .a .=*. ern o s. u n e 4 start up. Dey were shut down, as you know, for the l .
s sleevmg matage. And then there are two longer range a ame .n,- 6 er, i u . . sua. n ,, i , items on the_ Ord.they started up on January 16th 3, y,,,,,y
- s ' think it was. We issued the Order on die 3rd. 211:e 9- plant started up around the 16th. . Another team of
" to mapoctors - I was on that team as well - visited the
"' 11 picnt for thste days, January 24th,25th, and 26th, I
" 12 tlunk.- And we reviewed the four items that were
" 13 necessary for the plant to start up, and we found them
- i. saiisfacio,y at ihat time.
E ". Is Since that time, the two rnnaining issues Maine 16 Yankee's complied with. One was to produce a adiarhile 17 for submitting their small break LOCA and the other was l' " is to pr% ace a =r h=while for completing their new -
" 19 . contammnnt analysis. So they've done both of them,
" 20 both of those analyses.
" 21 Now,in the past couple of days, Maine Yankee has 22 submitted their small break t.OCA analysis. That was P
% Q$,
PDR 23 24 stated last Thursday, and they ' working on on centainment ysis. That's due later in the And we roccived,it on Friday.,ttals had some interim mabrm
- j. 25
! THE REPOP. TING.OROUP/ Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Rannadall , , Page 1 - Page 6 ;
4/29/96 - Part I Condesselt" PuMic Meeting Re Maine Yankee Page71 @ 10 I year. Pa finally wound up. So that's the background I want to give you. Te project was leted in early December of 2 3 Ycu'll notice that our meeting is being .
. And with to the ftnal status of the 4 transcribed. So we're takin :t, going in we prod;cted that we could,wm, d up s produce a transcript of and this,g all inthis it will go the dovm and m'll m. 4 many as 9% of the tubes plugged or equivalent a public h-t room. You'll get it in the library up al + the Maine Yanked steam generators. After the 1 on the hill shortly, as quick as we can get it, wi'h a arte <oject was leted, w wound up with a total meeting summary. W' ,T the tubes . Since the plant is power with de fgill 9% plug 9 1 duLt that's about all I have right now, w of to T\vo-part meeting, w not that; sign up sheet, we've got. ; we ous y w up with magpn nsoctated with t}e 11 Okay. I guess that's a5out it. . M, f the plant to generate full power.
12 I m going to turn the meeting over now to 12 A orought the project in for a total cost of $27 13 representives from Maine Yankee and - oh, before I do 13 a versus the 540 million that had been budgeted 14 that, let me have everybody here on tie NRC side 14 for the project. I 15 introduce themself. We'll start up here. Is And fmally, when we completed the proj,ect and 16 MS. MARCO. My name is Catherine Marco. I'm with 16 closed the reactor Coolant system and measured reactor 17 the Office of the General Counsel. 17 which la obviously impacted by a is UNIDENUMED SPEC *TATDR: Stand up. We can't see is coolant system stem generator sleevflow,ing project, w measured,375,000 ; 19 you. 19 gallons a mmute flow versus the tcQuired mmtm'.trn for i
; 20 MR. ZwOUNSKl: I'm John Zwolinski. I'm the Deputy 20 generating full power of 360,000 gallons a minute. i 21 Division Dirwtor for scactors in 'on I and 11. 2 So, in all the pmiect was extremely 2J UNIDENUMED SPECTATDR: $ u 22 successful and generttors are performing Very, very -
23 MR. Cot.uNs: He's in a wheelchair,p.ma'am. I'm 23 well today. 24 sorry, he can't stand up. Okay? 24 As Ed has aheady mentioned, in December of 1975, ! 25 My name is Timothy Collins. I'm a Section Chief of 25 virtually coincident with completion of the steam ,. Page 8 Page11 I the Reactor Systems Branch. I tor project, w received the allegation letter l 2 MR. SUN: I'm Summer Sun and I'm a member of the 2 t Ed has referred to. We immediately initiated a 3 Reactor System BranA 3 two-pronged investigation of that - of the allegations 4 MR. ROGGE: I'm I?.' Romte. I'm from King of 4 in that letter; one associated with the technical s Prussia, Pennsylvania. I'm ilie Branch Chief for Maine 5 all ations and the other associated with the wrongdoing 6 Yankee over the inspection program. 6 all ations. ! 7 MR YEROKUN: I'm Jimi Yerokun, the NRC Senior 1 carly December, December 11 through 14, the
- Resident inspector at Maine Yankee. : Nuclear Regulatory Commission came to Bolton, 9 MR. Ot.SEN; And I'm William Olsen. I'm the 9 Masschusetts to Resident Inspector at Maine Yankee. to conducted an m, the ofTices of Yankee Atomic, and il MR. TROT'nER: All these names, titles, positions, 11 file s ciated with the substance of the technical ,
12 will be on the meeting summary, and they will also be in 12 alleg' : ms. The State of Maine participated in that ; 13 the transcription hat this gentleman is preparing right 13 s 1C mspection throuS b the wtek of Deamber 11 through l 14 now. 14 11. l is We'll try and remember to introduce ourselves as we is That was followed by an NRC public meeting in i 16 stand up, but we know who w are, so it's hard to 16 Washington, D.C., on December 18th. The State of Maine j . 17 remember that. 17 v as also represented at that public meeting. ! is Anyway, I'm going to turn this over now to Maine is Maine i ankee presented it's opinion based on our i 19 Yankee. 19 is vestigatka of the technical aspects of the allegation 20 MR. Fprm r. Um Charlie Frizzle President and 20 t%at the cornuter cocie RELAP5YA represented a 21 CEO of Maine Yankee, and before llegin Maine Yankee's 2 c.mservative approach to anal ' small break loss of 22 coolant accidents. The Nuct latory Commission j 22 portion of the presentation' Yankee table introducewhy don't e asI let not the rest of satisfied, and, as a result that meeting, 23 t!e members at the Maine 23 24 themselves. 24 e meluded that until had been - were presented 25, MR. WHIT'nER: My name is Doug Whittier. I'm Vice 25 yith further evidence, had no right to conclude Page 9 Page 12 i
- 1 President of 1.icensing and Engineering for Maine Yankce. I a iythmg but that RELAP5YA had not been applied in l 2 MR.1.Enni. I'm Graham Leitch. I m Vice President 2 awardance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and an 3 of Operations for Maine Yankee. 3 NRC safety evaluation conducted in the 1989 time frame.
l Maine Yankee accepted that conclusion from the NRC, f 4 MR. JORDAN: Pm Bob Jordan. I'm Senior Licensing 4 i 5 Engineer for Maine Yankee. 5 despite our own conviction that RELAP5YA was, in fact, a 6 MR. FRrm F. Okay. Maine Yankee's presentation 6 conservative analysis code. And on December 22nd of 7 will be essentially in two parts, as indicated on the 7 1995 we made a commitm:nt to the Nuclear Rcqulatory s first slide here. Pil be ap= dig a few minutes Commission that in light of their concerns with respect i 9 providing an update on plant activities since the last 9 to the analysis code, we would operate the plant so as ! 10 lic meeting in September of 1995. I'll do my best to to not to exceed 90% power and we would operate so as not l 11 this as bhef as possible. And then the substance Ii to exceed a normal operating internal contamment i 12 of aine Yankee's prescotation this year will be on the 12 pressure of 2 pounds square inch.
) issue of the small break loss of coolant accident 13 On January 3, I the Nuclear Regulatory 14 14 Commission tssued Confirmatory Order and Demand is reanalysis, presentation wtand,l! be Dods Whittier and Bob Jordan, is bothproviding for Information, which that portion confirmedofour Marne commitmentYankee's to 16 c2 the table here. 16 operate the plant sc s not to exceed 90% power, and it l 17 let me begin the update on plant activities since 17 also laid out the requirements for returning the plant i
is tbc last pubhc meeting. Those of you that remember is to service and ultimately the requirements that we were , 19 that last public meeting recall that the steam generator 19 aom' g to have to meet in order to restore the plant to ! 20 sleeving proje cwas the substance of the last public 20 ibe full 100% l 21 meeting, and the public meeting provided an awful lot of 21 Maine Y responded to that Order and Demand for 22 very detailed mformation associated with that steam 22 Infortnation on January 10,1996, and thereby satisfied - 23 generator , project. ,lt is not my mtcut to 23 the requirements retwy to return the plant to 24 over that information again, but, t ther, go 24 service. 25 provide kind of a top-down summary of how the project 25 Having satisfied the requirements to return the
-u m % n my
Public Meeting Ro Maine Yankee Condenselt" 4/29/96 - Part 1 Page 13 Page 16 a plant to senice we completed our reactor startup on I we were denied access to a couple of NRC employtes by 2 January 11,1946; the plant was connected to the grid, 2 tie office of investigations, who winted to mteniew 3 the electrical grid, on January 16th; and we achieved 3 those employees first before Maine Yankee had access to ; 4 90% power on January 22nd. 4 them. 5 All in all, despite the fact that the plant had 5 We were granted access to those employees here 6 been shut down for almost exactly a yeai, the startup 6 within the last week or two. So, to the best of my 7 7 knowledge, that wrongdoing investigation, at least Maine s wentalbei well, very,t with a 90% restriction since that startup.very e smootwrongdoing Yankee's .ly and the plant has should investigation, operated very be completed 9 We did experiena a brief shutdown on February 13th 9 sometime witlun the next few weeks. 10 associated with a component failure within the system 10 By way of recap, the steam it that supplies (cedwater for the stcam generators, but it si performing exceptionally well; generators arewe en 12 was a very brief shutdown And since then the plant has 12 startup, tn spite of being shut down f or a full year, i 13 operated at esentially steady state 90% power without 13 and the plant continues to run very well as we speak 14 any serious difficulties. 14 this evening 15 Even at 90% power, the Maine Yankee plant is still 15 At this point I will introduce Doug Whittier, the 16 Maine's largest smgle source of electricit 16 Vice President of Engineering and licensing, to take 17 generate close to one-quarter of sthe state'y. needs, and We 17 care of the second portion of Maine Yankee's is we do it at an all in cost of approximately 3 cents per is presentation. iv kilowatt hour. 19 Doug. 20 I would be remiss if I didn't also talk about 20 MR. Wit!T71ER: I a preriate the opportunity to meet 21 another incident that has occuned in the recent past, a 21 with all of toni t and provide you with the results 22 few weeks ago, as a result of maintenance on a pine cap 22 of our > sis o the small break loss of coolant 23 at the outlet of a vent valve. Because of the fact that 23 acc+nt by iemens Corporation. Before proceeding with 24 some of the valve bolts were not sufficiently tight, the 24 that discussion, I wanted to briefly cover some 25 maintenance that was taking place on the pipe cap 25 background material that led up to this reanalysis. Fage 14 Page 17 1 disturoed the valve and resulted in a very small gas i Some of that's been covered already tonight, so I won t 2 release from the vent valve. 2 spend a long time on it. 3 The gas release also resulted in some minor 3 As has been indicated previously back in early 4 contanunation of the workers that were involved ir, the 4 December Maine Yankee received allegations regarding the 5 mamtenance. 5 adequacy of our small break loss of coolant accident. 6 The bolts were tightened within a matter of minutes 6 This analysis was performed for us by Yar.kee Atomic 7 and the release was terminated. The release itself and 7 Corporation and the analysis is done to confirm in the contaminations were all sery minor and well below a part, a 9 any regulatory limits- 9 coolmto conf *trm ,sthe. g system desip. soonadequacy oftheour emer as we received lo 'The state and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 allegation, Maine Y ankee and Yankee Atomic technical 11 were immedately notified. The state was notified 11 personnel, as Charlie has indicated, perfomed a 12 because of the fact that the release was inadvertent. 12 thorough analysis of the RELAP analysis, and our 13 It doesn't matter how small a release is If it's 13 conclusions were that the analysis was performed in a 14 inadvertent, the state must be notified. And, as a 14 technically sound manner and performed in accordance is result of the state being notified, the Nuclear 15 with apphcable aulatory requirenents. 16 Regulatory Commission also rets notified of any event 16 As has been ' cated here, NRC also performed 17 the state is notified of. So boih agencies were 17 evaluation. Their evaluation identified several is informed. is as a result of ttrir concerns, we 19 The NRC Sent l 3me people to the site to investigate 19 concems. volunteered to And,imit l the power, the maximum power 20 the circumstances associated with this event. 20 Maine Yankee, to 90% until those concems could be 21 Ulttmately, as the result of that inspection, they 21 resolved. 22 med with Mairr Yankee that the release itself was 22 The Nuclear R atory Commission then issued an r minor and that the contaminations associated with 23 Order which basi ly confirmed our reduction of power a ec 'ose were also very minor. 24 to 90% and also demanded certain information be
'2s theless, they cited Maine Yankee with three 25 submitted to them which would enable them to further Page 15 Page 18 a 4 violations as a result of that event. Level 4 i tyckate the Maine Yankee small break loss of coolant 2 is the lowest of the four levels to which violations are 2 accident before we could proceed back to 100% power.
3 m-d Three level 4 violations associated with work 3 Maine Yankee, after considerin6 the various options 4 control management and procedural adherrnm issues. 4 available to us, decided to select Siemens Corporation 5 On Apnl 25th wt responded to those violations and 5 to perform a complete reanalysis of our small break loss 6 participated in c management conference with the Nuclear 6 of coolant accident. We believe that this reanalysis 7 Regulatery Commission in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 7 ' was the most ' tforward, the best wiy to resolve a at witich time we had a chance to outline to them the a the concerns that staff had, the concems that had 9 thrust of our response to those Violations. 9 been expressed by members or the public regarding the 10 And as far as I know the meeting went well. De 10 adequacy of Yankee Atomic's analysis, and also, more il vnc was essentially satisfied with tic length and il tmportantly, regarding the adeq of Maine Yankee's 12 breadth of our response, but,like any other 12 w w.ucy core coolmg system 13 circumstance like this, they tntead to wait until the 13 At the same time we aao sel Scientech, an 14 correctist actions have produced appropriate performance 14 mdependent consulting firm, to assist us in looking is changes before they're about to render any judgment, is over the shoulder of Siemens as they performed their . 16 One other issue that I would hke to return to just 16 analysis. We wanted to make very sure that the analysis 17 briefly. As I mentioned early on, in December, when wt 17 that was performed by Siemens was thorough and rigorous. is received the allegation letter, we tnitiated a two-prong is Just last week on hursday, Maine Yankee subimtted to investigation, one dealt'na with the technical aspects of 19 the results of the Siemens analysis to the NRC for their 20 the allegation letter and t'he other mvestigstion 20 xview and approval. 21 deshng with the wrongdoing aspects of the allegation 21 At this pomt, I'd like to introduce Bob Jordan. 22 letter. 22 Bob Jordan is Maine Yankee's project e anager for the 23 Again, that investigation commenced back in 23 reanalysis effort, to briefly describe the analysis that 24 December. The investigation itself was slowed somewhat 24 we performed and its results. 25 in the February-March time frame, due to the fact that _ __25 _ MR. JO_RDAN 7 hanks. I'd_like, to express my
4/29/96 - Part I Condsmaalt" PmMis Meeting Re Maine Yankee L -- ..
- Page 19 4 22 I to dancuss the small i dunng'and followmg the accident.
2-appacistion bienk tocA analysis for theresults. opportunity's It a rare occasion that2 And as a follow-on to that, you must be able to 3 actually set an analys in front of a crowd 3 demonstrate a maintenance of long term core cooling-4 delad' ad analytical results 4 following the accident. s I'd to start off by ' a few v<ords about- 5 Now with aspect to what a loss of coolant s- the Maine Yankee plant how we are characteriand e or wtist a toCA is really defined as, a tDCA 1 Maase Yankee is a 3 loop r*i- 1 isa thermal-hydraulic tranment resulting in and constructed ty bustion a to s . We were a len, of reactor coolant in eacess of our capacity's e ' of W' r==articut. We are the only 9 make up to the syslem It's part of ewry reactor ion tant. In many aspects we to safety analve's. whether the reactor is here in Maine or le- ) Cah'fornia'er North Carolina or wherever. Every reactor is appear as we more a Westinsi.cuse 3 loop il - 12 pressuriand reactur than a Combustion higineering 12 has analyses of these types. 13- plant. u A loss of cooling accident is a loss of the in the 14 la terms of thermal hydraulic analysis, which is 14 coolant which is caused by a dated what a small break toCA analysis is, there are many is reactor coolant pressure and that goes all the is break, wiuch we're 16 instances where the 3 loop Westinghouse plants each 16 way from the smaliant postul 17 loop consists of a steam a reactor coolant on p talliing about tomaht, all the way up to the largest is ve sim,ilarly to the is break, which,in Maine Yankee's case,is a 33 inch hot ing and cold lant.les However, Mune Yankee has a19 it - Westinghouse diameter cols . 20 Combustion ' reactor vessel, which has a lower 20 There are i three classifications ofIDCAs* 21 power density reactors, and, at the 21 the small, you see tonight, which probably range 22 same time, we have an emergency core cooling symem 22 typically up to about a 6 incti diameter pipe; tM and, which is consistent with Comb':stion design. 23 23 24 So what does all that mean? That a sans that we 24 intermediate as would you break, occur awhich little bit are moreaquic little bit larger, kly; and then the large toCA which in that case you re 25 neither behave like a Combustion T.4. -4i reactor nor 25 Page 20 Page 23 like a esta, shouse reactor, but we behave similarly to about the large reactor coolant system pip'ns l'd like to reemphasiw we're talking about 2 both types of' reactors. 2 3 One of the areas that I want to touch upon is the 3 the break tDCA piping. 4 emergency core cooling dest'an The assessment of a 4 A few words about the selection of Siemens as a s snall break toCA or a 1 break tDCA,or an 5 ver. dor to perform this type of ECCS simulation for Maine 6 of a transient hydraulic pkrme r.r., y is other 6 Yankee. Some of you may recogniae Siemens as an 1 to test and evaluate the emergency core cooling 7 international name. In the United States they have an s of teactor system. Maine Yankee s emergency core unsurpassed reputation in the nuclear analysis and fuel 9 9 manuf acturing area. cooli on a symem,-in-depth as with all philosophy. safety other reactors'Ihere areis designed to We selected Siemens based on some of the - some of 10 t systems for all components of the emergency 11 the results of the criteria that we used in selecting la core cooling. system We have multiple high-pressure 12 Siemens are up on the screen Most recent ,tMyare 12 anjection pumps for each of the reactor coolant 13 NRC reviews oT all of the vendors in the show 13 - ng I 14 1 mentioned before. We have a safety injection 14 compliance with the NRC regulations, and is capable of flooding the core with well over 11,000 is haven't addressed yet, and that's the Three Mile Island 16 we have redundant low pressure 16 Action items. And you'll hear me address them as 17 gallens safety injectionof borated pumpswater,hich w are designed to provide 17 itu.3o or n.u.3i or 11.u.s. That's simply a is term coolmg. Is shorthand. 19 long A ll of the ECCS is o'esigned to protect the reactor 19 lhe Siemens codes were ?-4=r5M6d as late as 1994 20 core during the postulateciloss of coolant accident in 20 to meet or exceed all of the NRC acceptance criteria for at that we transfer the heat from the reactor core in order 2: ECCS evaluation analysis. 22 to prevent the fuel and cladding damage and to limit the 22 The Siemens Power Corporation is i= '------ht of 23 fuel clad metal water reaction, which generates 23 anything we have at the plant. They are not our current 24 - additional heat and hydrogen 24 fuel supplier, nor are they our future fuel supplier, as 25 There are NRC regulations addressing the 25 planned Page 21 Page 24 i perfonnece and adeq of the scCs in terms of the You can read the next bullet. This may embarrass 2 acceptance criteria of and also the required 2 some of the Siemens folks here tonight, but we have 3 featu os of those coenputer which are necessary to 3 ' personnel qualifications. In the PWR LDCA 4 enmulak the BOC design and performance. 4 minlysis, is what Maine Ymikee is, pressurized 5 Some of these key criteria, and I think one of them s water reactor Siemana has close to 240 person-years of 6 1 was ===8i==t before, and that is the regulation 10 CFR 4 experience. 's a tremandnna experience base 1 50.46, or 10, Code of Federal. Regulations, Section 7 covenas all types of pressurtand water reactors. 'lheir s 54 46, and 10 CPR so, Appendut K, specify some of the a entsting 1.ioensqbasis includes both Combustion e acceptance criteria for thine emergency core cooling e and weetinghouse le m7=il=* . to 'd like to dispues for a ma= plants.=t here and go to the Pmbebly the criteriala the first one thue. It next slide.1he 5 emme qualifications, as I mentioned it12 - - 1he mar.iseum cted fuel clad t hng teenperature must be 12 ve been perf calculations for a long is less than 2,200 degrees. The ======= cladding u before, time, rmeethey'he t early 1970s.not only do larne and 14 omidation must be less than 17% of the thwima= of the 14 small break toCAs,but they al do trunnent analysts, is - cladding , is fuel management studies, analytical stuches of all 16 - You'll have to excuse me. I'm over the it sorts. 17 flu, no I have to keep rey mouth a tale bit moist. 17 The current plants operatang with the same - is Additional acceptana criteria, which are - . is methodology that Maine Yankee is using and has submitted it algnificant, the vnanimum b generation must be 19 to the NRC are the Westinghouse 3 loop plants H.B,' amount.1het is,if you 20 leis than the total 20 Robinson and Shenron Harris and the Combuntion -
' ~
21 was to take all of the 'in the core and react 2: Engineering plants St. bacie I and Millstone n. 22 - it all under a metal water there would be a 22 we have representives of Siemens here tonight. We 23 -i== sanount of hydrogen generated. We must remain 23 have the of FwR safety analysis, Rich Catoula, 28- less than 1% of that amoist 24 and we have manager for Maine Yankee, Ttm 25 - We reust saaintain a coolable core seamstry both 25 Hows la case I m unable to answer any questions, these
&~dhDrdh _MViiUTGWFMWWXbIlFMMa Imekhart Hmmfe & F==ahll .
- PuMic Mosting Re Maine Yamham Coadcascit" - 4/29/96 - Part 1 Page 25 Page 28 I folks r '
'y how the answers on their fingerups.
I We have different computer codes doing different things, 2 As was mentioned eartur, Maine Yankee provided - 2 and they need to interact with each othw, The 3 was interested in insuring that .a '- ' , 't oversight 3 methodology, the useand of this methodology,50.46. complies with 4 of the selection of the correct voidor occurred. To 4 tw1 Action Item 11.1L3.30 to regulation
$ - that end, we've hired a emarany called Scientsch, s These codes, the FROESHY2, ANF RELAP, and the 6 lacorporated, to assist in the vendor review and 6 1DODEE2 code, which you can see up there, were all used 1 selection. 7 in conjunction with each other to produce an accurate s The toca emparts that we used from Scientsch came : simulation of the Maine Yankee Eccs.
fresa all over the country. We used Joe Milkr from 9 it's 9 And youpurpose alized can see that is to the FROSSTEY determine the initial 2 code, fuel to llockville, Maryland; we used Larry Barcado, the to 11 president of Scientech, from Idaho Falls, Idaho; and we iI terizations. It was last reviewed and approved by 12 used Jack thi-naa from Albuquerque, New Mexico. Jack is 12 the NRC in September of 1992. The ANF-REIAP code, which here tonaght representing Scianisch, 13 was 13 is a largeand reviewed transient approvedthermal-hydraulic the NRcin Octo code,ber of 1994. 14 We didn't turn Siemens looec ce the small break 14 I5 toca analysis and just in ihan run their compum codes t5 And tir 1DODEE2 cok 'ch provi&s the transient (tel 16 and simulations wnhout some direction, la fact, there 16 characterizations,likewir by the NRC in 1994. 17 - was a great deal of direction. To ensure that we knew 17 There was one chan TOODF.E2 code required is what the resuhs were going to be with the lughest is by the Maine Yankee .ge touel, and that was the incorpora 19 depee of confidace, and to enture that their 19 of the annular fuel pellets, which are currently part of 20 caeculations wee native of Maine Yankee, and 20 our fuel design. 21 that they answwed Confirmatory Order of the Nac 21 l'd like to get into the analysis from - what i 22 wA respect to satisfying 10 cra so u and the three 22 call the analysts progression to give you a handle of 23 Twt action items - wrong slide. I'm sorry about that. 23 what type of calculations were bet'ag done for the Maine 24 1*m not looking at the shdes, I'm looking at my paper. 24 Yankeeplant. 25 There we go. 25 The first thing that's being done is that you run Page 26 Page 29 i We performed extensive ov t of the Siemens I what's known as a break spectrum. You postulate 2 analysis. We generated a team of y qualified 2 different breaks in the reactor coolant system. And you 3 technicalindividuals from Maine oc and Yankee 3 can see here that we have postulated six different Atomic, independent oversight was additionall provided 4 breaks 4 by Scientech. We implemented we devel and s The 6)square ranging feetfrom is 10%.05 square of our feet cold Ice flowto .61 square feet. area. 5 6 implemented a vendor review plan covering aspects of 6 It's at the upper limit of the anal,ysis methodology. 1 the tocA analysis, from regulatory compliance through 7 These calculations were done using an assumed worst case , a computer code management, results assessment, quahty a power peak at 7'% of the core height. 9 assurance, programatic reQutretoents. All of these items 9 Based on tkee calculations, the Worst case was 10 were covered and followed in a vendor evaluation plan to selected in terms of p; x clad temperature, and we it which was designed to systematically assess and evaluate 11 performed an axial power sensitivity at 52,65 and 85% 12 all the portions of the Siemens analysis. 12 of the core height. U ' the worst of those 13 We conducted these reviews not sitting here in 13 calculations, we core crom.-Gow sensitivities 14 Maine, but as a team out at the Siemens facility in 14 at a factar of 10 as or minus the nominal core 15 Richland, Washington The total review time in Richland is cross flow resistance. U.ing those worst calculations, 16 over the three-month period that it took to create tius 16 we performed fuel studies based on cWr the standard 11 analysis was equivalent to about 50% of the time out 17 fuel rod or the new fuel that we have in, the IFB 4 fuel. la there. We had Maine Yankee or Yankee Atomic people and is When everythi is said and done, the accumu!ation
- to Scientech people watching over Siemens' shoulder better 19 of the computer results, the activation of these 20 than 50% of the time they were calculating numbers. 20 three computer codes, were exercised a total of 32 times 2: We've shared these results with the NRC,and we 21 over the three months. *lhat's a substantial amount of 22 will continue to share any cf the results with the NRC 22 analysis. That is far in excess of your typical 23 of these reviews. .
23 licenstng small break toCA analysts. 24 What soes all this mean? Well, the oversight team 24 The results that we created from these analyses, 25 conclM that, number one, Siemens performed a very 25 these results demonstrate compliance with the TMl Action Page 27 Page 30 i mandard small break toCA analysis for Maine Yankee. I Item 11n3 and 10 CFR 50.46. what was the worst 2 They performed it in compliance with their requirements 2 case that we found? Well as expected, with the power 3 and their methodology and in accordance with the NRC 3 at 73% of the axial shape with the postufated 4 regulations. 4 siae of .10 square-foot, wtu'ch is equivalent to 5- Number two, the analysis is well-behaved. There 5 about a 4.25 inch diameter pine, with a minimum 6' are no oscillations, there are no little bumps or 6 cross-flow resistance, and with the new tFBA type fuel, 7 wiggles or unknown nachnical factors. The analysis is ? we found the limiting small br ak toCA case. s r.hweistically well defined. s - When you compare those vesults with the 10 CFR o lhe Siemens personnel are experts in the 9 50.46 utremesits of the NRC,)ou find that they easily to acolication of their methodolony. They've become very to it weill versed in understandag the behavior of their 1i comply, degroeis. Maine Yankee calMated 1781 degrees, worstpe 12 '. models and how they' inly not the least important,re 12 case. We've got 20% margin to that limit. And last, and certa 13 applied The claddin to Maine Yankee. 13 14 but of critical importance, all of the work done at 14 clad thickness.g oxidation, we're allowed 17% of theW ' is Sienne was done under their approved quality assurance 15 regul limit. 16 program in compliance with the NRC's quality assurance 16 The generation. We're allowed less than 11 regulations. 17 1% of the cal amount. Virtually zero in is The reviews haven't ended there. In fact, for the is the Maine Yankee analysis. We have greater than 90% to Nac,the reviews have just started. And the NRC has 19 margin to the regulatory limit. 20 provided at Siernene to initiale the technical 20 Tbc analysis demonstrates the core remains coolable 21 reviews. 've alread 2i dunns and after the accident and that long-term core 22 that it will be contmund.y started that, and I imagine 22 cooling has been established. 23 So, what is this methodology? What is this 23 These results, as I said before, easily comply with 24 . computer code sunulation for Maine Yankne? Well, unhke 24 the NRC regulations of 10 CFR 50.46. 25 what you =iaht think, it's not just one computer code. 25 in terms of actually showing you what some of the
- -__ - - _Dcm W V:r m 1W
' 4/2946 - Part I Condesselt" Publis Meeting Re Maine iabse_
l Page 31 % is .Page 3C 1- dotaded sesults this is a lot of peak clad i Sasinses analysis that we mentioned, est --
. 2- temperature as a ' of mac. What you see 2 up on te screen now. What you see Ihme is that for -
3- c2 the initial - at the break siae of .05 square foot, 3 : the Westu' ghouse 3 loop plants, wome te Shenron Farris 4 .the results of the 's are somewhat deceiving at 4 and H.B. Robianon plants fall, lilemse for the . 5 this point. 'the clad not heat up. What you see 5 _ Combustion Eagesuring St. Lucis and Millstone plants. 6 ' esse is a steady state fuel temperature At break 6 You can ese that Mame Yankee fans within about 7 - sians of this ass, there is no clad hestup, there is no 7 the middle of these plants. What this tous you is that l- s- fuel . s the analysis is consistant with other plants tiroughout 9- For a sim of .1 square feet we see that 9 the industry. It also tous you - gives you an idea of - ' the distance herwesa the Maine Yankee mad =u= peak clad lo we've achieved a snaximum peak clad ure of 1781 to , il - then it decreases from there .15, .2, 11 snapesture and the tory lanit. - 12 . 2 aguare tory action item, we were
.- 12- As part of the con 13 When you get out to the .61 square feet, which is 13 also required to address the TMI ten noJ,which i- 14 14 demis with reactor coolant pump logic. Based on
! 15 the bebevior tapper of thelinut system of the methodologyd an you enter15more the intothe NBC guidance phenomenological on the Osneric - back in - 8310b, 16 . en ielsemediate type LDCA ' And that's why 16 the mid 1980s Maine Yankee instituted a inanual reactor 17 you see an intrease at that . 17 coolant pump trip as sert of our emergency opes'atmg ! Is It's t to note the small break LDCA ' la procedwes he small break LoCA analysM was called 19 transient we're talki, about too we've got a 19 mio quesnon as part of the bas:s for that trip logic.
- 20 margin of almost 420 to the i t. 20 . De Siemens seen break t.ocA analysis replaces that-i 21 Ma. COLdNL acfore you go on to your next 21 logic - or replaces hat analysis, it arrives at the 22 elide ~ escuse me, this is Tim Collins from the Nac. 22 sense conclusions as the original 1985 or '86 small break 23 Where does your large break methods - where do they 23 - tocA analysis. And te documentation for that is in the l 24 overlap with your small break methods? 24 Siemens report.
25 Ma. JORDAN: we submitted an extension of our larre 25 We conclude ibat maintaining our existias reactor Page 32 Page 35 l l ~ break methods starting at 20% of the cold leg area, or a i coolant pump trip crioria, as it has been since the 2 break size of about 1.22 sqaare fe4 and they compare 2 mid-1980s, conunues to result in the safest operation !- 3 very well. 3 of the plant. 4 ML COLUNS: 1.22 aguare fer.t 4 So, I guess in conclusion, what l'd like to say is 5 overlap anything on this plot? , so it doesn't 5 that we performed a smaU break t.OCA analysis; we ' Ma JORDAN: No. The two methodologies are not 6 performed it ei 2700 ww in ,esponse io ihe conrirmaiory 6 7 designed to overlap tw-arily 7 Order. Our resuhs for the absolute worst case of any [ s Ma. COLuNS: well, how do know you have the s of the calculatiora indicate we still have a 20 degree i 9 whole spectnan covered if you . 't have the two 9 margm to the regulatory lanit, we've got 97% margin for to seethodologies overlap at some pomt? 10 the risula innit for the maximum clad oxidation: the
- il ML JOaDAN
- You can take a look st fl'c heat il maximum gensstion wet wou above 90% ciargin 12 clad :.. .. mare as a function of break siae, you 12 to the regulatory t; the core soumsey ranains 13 see a very smooth transition between the methodologies. 11 coolable; we've established long-term core coolability It And we use that as an indication of the break spectrum la in ecos s:mulations. The sman break t.oc4 analysis 15 coverage, We did break spectrum calculations at 20 and 15 (amplies with 10 cym so4: The subminal of the
- 16 - 80%, m addition to the 120,16'l - 16 analysis complies with TMi Action items t u.30 l 17 - Ma COLUNS: Let me slow this down a little bit, 17 D K.3.31.and Dus.
i is okay? Is - And finally, the operation of Maine Yankee at 2700 4 19 Ma. JORDAN: Sure. 19 is justified. 20 Ma. COLUNS: All I'm looking ,ayour curve here is 20 And that concludes m portion of the tation. Il continuing to rise at .6. It's stiu increasing, ok 21 I would like to turn it over to Dous ttier, ! 22 And yet it seems to have stopped there. I woul nk 22 unless you'w got questions. " 23 23 wa.zwouNsKl: t's not sure the staff received an l 24 that like. y$ square feet,30 that we can see what - that 24 theour answer to large break, te question then, ngardmg thelias comespectrum continuous down to someplace
- 25 whole spectrum is covered. 25 of break siaes fmm .C up to 1.22. Absent a better Page 33 Page 36 t Now, I don't unders
- and your reeponse to my I articulation by lves, I think you can expect us to 2 quotion, so I'm asking it agam. Okay? 2 ask that formal of you in our development of our 3 - Ma.JoaDAN. Sure. 3 review package --
, 4 ML COtuNS: Now, ical the large break 4 Ma. JOaDAN: wat's fine.
e 5 method will stop an at I square foot; oka 5 Ma. ZWOUNSK!: - through an mA1.
- This is telling me ~ wtmid appear to me, then, y? 6 Any other questions froen the staff 7 7 that there is a void between .6 and 1. Oka That's 7 ML COtuNS: No, we don't have any more 'ons r s - why I wanted to know where your method is a at this time, but I would like ta ' t out that 's is proposing their 9 approved. How small a break isyour break method 9 presentation is what Maine
- 10 approved for? Io method will do.- We have not even do evaluate il Mit JonDAN We fan the large break calculations to 11 - dicir submittal, it was made to us on ,the 12 1.22 square feet. 12 package. Our total involvement so far has to go 13- Mm. COLUNS. . Well ~ . 13 and visit with the fuel vendor to look at their code 14 Ma.JoaDAN Whi is 20% of the cold one. 14 develomnental records. Okay? Is . Ma.COLUND but 1.22 is off lot,so 15 So t'his should not be in as that
- 16 he r are covering .6 and 1.22, Okay? That's 16 we have seen or agreed to at ' t. Okay? 1 4
17 - basicall the question. How are you covering that part 17 want to make sure everybody that. This is is ' of the spectrum? I can't teill from this - la their to us that was just received. '- 19 - ML JoaDAN. We're interpolating between the 19 you. 4 20 - results. 20 ML WHTITIEa ijust wanted to underecore a couple 21: UNIDEN7WlED SPECTA70s: %st meaus yes7_ 21 points in el 22 ML JORDAN %st wasn't a yes or no, 22 frtrst indicated, we beheve that the 2J Ma.ZWOUNSKI please contmue. . 23 Simma, asanalyus results lies with licable 24 - - Ma.JoaDAN %eak you. If you take the small- 24 story requirements. includes CFa 50.46 and 23 break LOCA results and you compare them with the prior 23 vanous DG Action Plan items that Bob cited. Page 31 - Page 36 THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason I4ckhart Bagopian & Ramadell
1 PaWie Masting Re Maine Yaakes Condensslt" - - 4/29/96 - Part 1 I Page 37
"*- 1- emnand we believe that the results conrum Maine 2 - Yankse's confidence in the adequacy of the previous 3 Yankee Atomic analysis results. .
- 4. Perhaps most we believe that the - j s analyms results trm the uncy of Maine Yankee's
- e. emergencv core cooling system
;. 7' I want to underscore that we've made - we've -
s tcentified no hart' ware changes and no procedure changes 9 - that are necessary to have us come to that conclusion. 1 10 And finally as Bob indicated, we believe that , II Maine Yankee,is safe to opwate at 100% reactor power, , 12 As has been indicated, we have just recently made is the submittal of our analysis to the NRC. The NRC now
- 14. will be ramarting a formal review of our submittal.
Is Also, we understand that the State of Maine has is ' hirad an espert to also conduct an independent review of 17 our submittal.- We will be pienned to meet with either is ' the state or the NRC reviewers as they nanart their 19 20 review to answer any guestions that they may have., ht. 1 hat completes Manne Yankee's presentation tems 21 Uniees there are any questions I'll turn it over to F4. 22 MR. TaornER: 6kay. Thanks much Ibis mike 23 works much better. La sm!- a of thi l've 24 nunti I want to reemphasiae for -ain6 25 pursa== = Page 38 i The NRC,in the Order end Demand for Information 2 had six items for Maine Yankee to take care of. Four 'of 3 - thoor items were for restart at 2440, and then two of 4 them were long-range items. 3 As I mentioned earlier, we came up and reviewed the a four restart items. And we - the NRC staff prepared an 7- inspection reoort that was reviewed by management. We i a closed out all four of those restart items. And 1 hat 9- material and that closeout is found in inspection Report ; 10: %01. Ijust dropped it off about an hour and a half 1 M: at your public library up the street, in the book 12 and on the front door. So that's where it is. l 13 - 14 have also a copy, ioned the part about the sleeving I ment is and the plugging ratio that we inspected th.it, as w!!, 16 as well as core flow. 50 that's all in 96 01, it 17 ort Is starts on page I wanted to tell11 of we you the rep're a. bout to break now for le - the end of this meeling. The first thing we're noing to
.- 20 - have wh .n we start back, of course, is a quiz '1 hope 21 you auys all paid attention.
i 22 We rre going to collect the names of people who want 1 23 -- to speak, and we'll call your name and ask your , 24 questions. If p've thought of some mon:,just ratse 25 your hand, we 11 recognize you, and we'll stay here just Page 19 I.- .mme a mas e e imm . 2- : s% .en em. . .w.,,.e e. ' 3 sam e .en. .n.sn. .m ma 4 a.s m.a . s. . ., e, , s - l 6 men. - ' 7 (nr p=ussess. amed a ksse m) - , s e: e e 9 antwicate 10- a n-a, wren e.n .. ma lI 'a um e.megun. er er se y.ses sein unen.t . 12 - e. a , ime , !z 13 ~ [ 14 - ..,. t i5 assessedoismannias, - 16 - 17 Is-19 .- 20 21 22 ! 23 i y,. 25 :
i ', :NRC PUBLIC MEETING i Wiscasset, Maine April 29,1996 MAINE YANKEE PRESENTATION 1 )
- Update on Plant Activities .
i C. D. Frizz: e, Presic.ent and Chief l Executive Officer
- Sma:.1 Break Loss of Coolant Accident Re-
! Analysis i G. D. Whittier, Vice Presic.ent, Licensing and Engineering R. P. Jordan, Senior Licensing Engineer ) 9
. j I
STEAM GENERATOR SLEEVING T3ROJECT Final Status j
- Equivalent Tubes Plugged: 6.5% vs.
9.0% l
- Project Cost: S27 million vs. S40 mi:. lion
('aud.get)
- Reactor Coolant Flow: 375,000 gpm
. vs. 360,000 gpm (limit)
ALLEGATION LETTER e Received December e ,1995
- Immed.iate Investigation
- NRC Inspection, December 11-12.,1995
- NRC Puiic Meeting, December 18, ~.995 e Maine Yan<ee Commitment Letter, December 22,1995
- NRC Confirmatory Order and. Demand. :for In: formation, January 3, :.996
- Maine Yarkee Response to Order and.
Demand for Information, January '.0,1996
PLANT OPERATIONS
- Reactor Startup, January 11,1996 l
e Connection to Electric Grid, January 16, 1996 1 e 90% Power, January 22,1996 e Brief Shutdown, February 13,1996 ; e Plant Continues to Operate Well at 90% Power l l l l
l. i I . NRC - MY MEETING APRIL 29,1996 SMALL BREAK LOSS OF COOLANT ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION Allegations received in early December 1995 regarding the adequacy of Maine Yankee's Small Break Loss of Coolant Analysis. Analysis had been performed by Yankee Atomic using the RELAP5YA computer code. Maine Yankee and Yankee Atomic performed technical evaluations of the analysis. Evaluations concluded RELAP5YA analysis was adequate and in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. NRC performed an evaluation and had concerns with the analysis. Maine Yankee volunteered to limit power t.: 90% until the NRC's concerns were resolved. veemuut l
NRC - MY MEETING APRIL 29,1996 SMALL BREAK LOSS OF COOLANT ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION (continued) NRC issued an order limiting power to 90% pending resolution of NRC concerns with the Small Break Analysis. Maine Yankee selected Siemens Corporation to re-perform the Small Break Loss of Coolant analysis. Analysis by Sierra-: provides an in' dependent check on the Yankee Atomic analysis and prov.ues assurance of the adequacy of the Maine Yankee design. Scientech selected to conduct independent review of analysis and results. A summary of the analysis was submitted to the NRC for review and approval on Thursday, April 25,1996. I Ugdw@c396 trjd
1 Maine. Yankee Small Break Loss of Coolant Aceldent Analysis Summarv Presentatien to USNRC , Wiscasset Middle School April 29,1996 . l l- 1 l 4
-t y , e- --
y y ..wr- __ ,r.- - -- - - .--~,-
l i Maine Yan <ee Overview a Characterized as a 3 loop CE plant.
. Comparisons between,CE plants, Westinghouse plants, and Maine Yankee.
. For Smali creak LOCAs, Maine Yankee behaves similarly to Westinghouse and CE plants.
1 4
. Emergency Core Coo ing System flesign & Performance Cri:eria
. Design based on redundant systems. " Design in depth" safety philosophy.
4
. Dosigned to protect and cool the reactor core during a postulated " Loss of Coolant Accident".
! . The function of the ECCS is to transfer the heat from the reactor core following a loss of coolant such that:
. Fuel and clad damage that could interfere l; with coolability is prevented, and
. The fuel clad metal water reaction generating heat and hydrogen is limited.
o i < . .NRC regulations addressing the adequacy of ECCS designs: ,
. Acceptance criteria for ECCS designs.
. Required features of ECCS evaluation , l computer codes.
i
l , I t [ D ' Key ECCS Accep:ance Cri:eria . From 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR 50 Appendix K:
. Maximum predicted fuel clad temperature less
- than 2,200 F.
i
- Maximur.1 cladding oxidation less than 17% of the total cladding thickness.
. Maximum hydrogen generation less than 1% of total hypothetical amount.
I. . Maintain a coolable core geometry during and
~
following an accident. . . Maintain long term core cooling following an accident. t E' i e
l [ D Loss of Coo an: Acciden: ' (LOCA) Descriy: ion
. - Part of FSAR Chapter 14 Safety Analysis.
- Postulated accident resulting in a loss of reactor coolar'in excess of the makeup capacity.
Caused by postulated breaks in the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary, including up to the double-ended rupture of the largest reactor coolant pipe. (in Maine Yankee's case, this is the 33" diameter cold leg piping).
. Typically 3 classifications of LOCAs:
. Small
. Intermediate
. Large
4 [ D -
.Se ec" ion of Siemens as i
SBLOCA Vendor t
. Siemens selection based on:
. Most recent NRC reviews showing compliance -
t-with 10 CFR 50.46 & TMl Action item II.K.3.30.
. Siemens codes meet or exceed all NRC regulations.
. Independent of current fuel vendor usage at Maine Yankee.
. Outstanding personnel qualifications. Over 238 person-years of PWR LOCA analysis exoerience.
. Existing licensing basis includes both CE :
plants and Westinghouse 3 loop plants. 4 i
. Independent oversight of vendor review and selection
. provided by technical LOCA experts from Scientech, Inc. -(Rockville, MD; Idaho Falls, ID; Albuquerque, NM) k
1 ( D Siemens SBLOCA Licensing Basis ;
. Performing NRC licensing calculations for the nuclear industry since early 1970's.
. Transient analysis, Large Break LOCAs, Small Break LOCAs, FSAR updates, fuel management studies.
. -Current plants operating with Siemens SBLOCA licensing analyses:
. Westinghouse 3 Loop Plants:
H.B. Robinson Shearon Harris
. CE Plants:
St Lucie i Millstone Il 4 I
D Maine Yan <ee SB _OCA Ana ysis . _QXersig T:
- To ensure with the highest degree of confidence that the SBLOCA analysis is:
i . Representative of Maine Yankee, and '
. Satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and the TMI Action items ll.K.3.30, ll.K.3.31, and ll.K.3.5.
- . Performed by a team of individuals from Maine j Yankee and Yankee Atomic Electric Co. Total experience level exceeds 60 person-years of LOCA
- analysis experience.
. Independent oversight provided by Scientech, Inc.
i personnel. Over20 person-years of LOCA analysis experience.
. Vendor Evaluation Plan
. Systematically assess and evaluate the technical and QA portions of the Siemens analysis.
. Implemented via reviews conducted at Siemens facility.
. Total review time at Siemens exceeded over 50% of the analysis duration.
. Review results shared with NRC.
. ea
[ Vlaine Yankee SBLOCA Ana ysis D Oversig T: ! (Continued) r
. The Siemens SBLOCA oversight activities have.
concluded that:
. Siemens has performed a standard SBLOCA analysis for Maine Yankee in compliance with the requirements of their methodology and NRC regulations.
. The analysis le characteristically "well i
behaved". There are no open or unresolved technical items, r
. The Siemens personnc: are experts in
- LOCA analysis and are well versed in the behavior of their models. They have demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the Maine Yankee results.
l . The Quality Assurance program applied to this work .is in accordance with the Siemens- QA program and the NRC's Quality Assurance regulations. , , i !
. NRC reviews have been initiated and are ongoing.
- l. - NRC technical personnel at Siemens during the week L of April 8th to start reviews.
y
- Maine Yan <ee SBLOCA Me': 1 o d o o a v. .
. Use demonstrates compliance with TMI Action item II.K 3.30 and 10 CFR 50.46.
Code Name Purpose Latest NRC Review FROSSTEY-2 Initial fuel September characterizations 1992 ANF-RELAP Transient system October 1994 I thermal-hydraulics TOODEE2 Transient fuel October 1994 ' characterizations
. Incorporation of annula fuel pellet modeling into TOODEE2 for this appi cation.
. -Analysis progression:
- . Break spectrum :alculations using one axial-power shape (73 %) at 0.05, 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25,0.61 squar 3 feet.
. Axial power shape sensitivity using the worst
. break size (0,10'sq ft) at 52%,65%, and 85% i core height.
. Core cross flow sensitivities using the worst :
break size and axial shape.
. Calculations for standard and IFBA fuel.
u . Total of 32 separate computer analyses performed to verify worst SBLOCA has been determined. 1. t q ~.- )
i Vlaine Yan <ee SB _OCA Resu ':s
. Demonstrate compilance with TMI Action item II.K.3.31 and 10 CFR 50.46.
. Worst or " Limiting" SBLOCA : !
. Axia! power shape peaked at 73% of core height.
. Postulated break size of 0.10 square feet (4.25" diameter).
. Minimum core cross flow resistance.
. IFBA fuel type.
. Computational results easily comply with 10 CFR l 50.46 requirements-Requirement 10 CFR 50.46 Maine Yankee Margin to i Limit Results Limit Peak Clad 2200 F 1781 F ~20%
Temperature Clad Less than Less than 1% Oxidation 17% of clad core wide; -91 % thickness 1.5% worst fuel rod Hydrogen Less than Greater Generation 1% total available -0% than amount 90 % l Cectable Maintain ' Core During & After Yes N/A Geometry Accident Long Term Establish & Cooling Maintain After Yes N/A Accident Psee n
, , t ;' ; ! ! II ;t:i! ! ! ;!l !-! :i t :I ek' 7
0 F . 9 1 4 s ' 6 0 t i m Ls i L . u y 5 s r o 0) e t R )Y a t 0 ) l u e g e A o F l 0 e F H C do 2 0 o 4 e r O o ( 2 t n 0a u Lh t i g q Bt e i m r a S S M i ( L M e s y lI e z r ke en ) t o ' 3. i 0S a-anme ( F l u-g- k c YiS e r e e r u H e( t a '
- 2. B 9 r 0
M M e p m e T d a */\ ' 1 0 l C k a e ' P 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 8 8 4 2 0 8 8 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 gg
Comoarison Between Maine Yankee
-and Other Siemens SBLOCA Acolications CE Westinghouse Plants 3 Loop Plants c
Regulatory Limit 2,200 F 2100 2100 2000 2000 Shearon Harris 1900 1900 1 St.1.ucle i H.S.Ro bin a o n 1s00 Main e Yankee 1s00 1.781 F. Willstene il 1700 1700 , i 1e00 1s0o , 1800 1600 f Peak Clad Temperatures (F) i Y e D
4 t
- Reac':or Coo an: Pumo -
Trio S:uc ies
. Demonstrates compliance with TMI Action item
- II.K.3.5.
. Based on the NRC guidance in Generic Letter 83-t 10b, Maine Yankee instituted a manual Reactor Coc! ant Pump (RCP) trip as part of our Emergency 4
- Operating Procedures,
- i. . Siemens SBLOCA analysis substitutes for prior SBLOCA analysis.
Conclusion:
.- Maintaining the existing RCP trip criteria will continue to result in the safest operation.of the plant.
4 e
( [ D S 3_OCA Ana ysis Conc usions :
. Maine Yankee SBLOCA analysis performed at 2700 MWth by Siemens in response to NRC Confirmatory Order.
. Limiting SBLOCA Results:
.
- Peak Clad Temperature: 1781 F.
(~20% margin to regulatory limit.)
. Maximum Clad Oxidation: 1.5%
(~97% margin to regulatory limit.)
.- Maximum H2 generation: ~0%
(>90% margin to regulatory limit.)
. Core geometry remains coolable. :
. Long term core coc! ability maintained.
. Maine Yankee SBLOCA analysis compiles with requirements of 10 CFR 50.46.
. TMI Action items ll.K 3.30, ll.K 3.31, and ll.K.3.5 are satisfied with the . submittal of the Siemens analysis.
. Operation of Maine Yankee at a power level of 2700 MWth is justified.
e
. r 1
NRC - MY MEETING APRIL 29,1996 SMALL BREAK LOSS OF COOLANT ANALYSIS CONCLUSION Siemens analysis results: a comply with applicable regulatory requirements. 4
- confirm Maine "ankee's confidence in the adequacy of previous RELAP5YA resw.s.
. confirm adequacy of Maine Yankee's Emergency Core Cooling System Design.
- demonstrate that Maine Yankee is safe to operate at 100% power.
e LS M 23 M agd
. . - . . - - . - . . . ..- - -}}