ML20210U713
| ML20210U713 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 04/19/1985 |
| From: | Friend H PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210U520 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-197 NUDOCS 8610100158 | |
| Download: ML20210U713 (51) | |
Text
.
T Nll&LS(V%.
l.'
,3v H. B. FRIEbO'S COMMENTS BEFORE TI-E NRC STAFF APRIL 19,1985 INTRODUCTION Good morning, I am Howard Friend, Diablo Canyon Project Completion Manager.
I will continue our discussion regarding the operational readiness of Unit 2 with a brief discussion of the design effort and some comments on the status of certain licensing matters that are of particular interest to the Staff.
UNIT 2 DESIGN EFFORTS Overview of Engineering Activities Lost September, we met with you here in Bethesda to give you o fairly detailed presentation on the engineering activities for Unit 2. At that time, we had our key technical people offer specific descriptions of their design and review efforts, and we described in some detail the similarities and differences between Units I and 2, both in terms of the physical plant and the status of the engineering work. At that time, we emphasized that the two units were nearly identical. The two units have the some design criteria, design methodology, mechanical and electrical systems design, basic plant layout, and structural concepts. But, as you know, the plants ore designed as " opposite hand" units, so there are some local minor differences to accommodate the physical arrange-ment requirements of equipment and shared facilities between the two units.
Those structures that are common are the intake structure and the Auxiliary Building, including the Fuel Handling Building. The common structures were reanalyzed as part of the Unit I design review efforts and independently reviewed by the Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP).
861010015e 860930 i
h
--197 PDR I
h
For structures that are essentially identical, the some analyses apply; these structures are the containment shells, containment concrete interiors of the containments, and Class I outdoor storage tanks and buried diesel fuel oil tanks.
These were also reonalyzed as part of the Unit I efforts and the criterio, methodology, and analyses of these structures were reviewed by the IDVP.
The structures that were basically the same, but onalyzed separately, were the annulus structures and the two halves of the Turbine Building. The criteria and methodology for these structures were the same for both units, and they were used as the basis for Unit 2 design completion efforts. The IDVP reviewed these criterio, methodology, and analyses for the annulus of Unit I and the Unit I side of the Turbine Building. Further, the NRC staff has placed special emphasis on these Unit 2 structures in their recent review of our work.
The mechanical, electrical, HVAC, and instrumentation and control systems used in Unit 2 are of the some design as the systems in Unit 1.
The basic system functions, criteria, and methodologies are identical between units.
The components are either common to both units or essentially identical for Units I and 2.
The piping arrangement is essentially the some for both units. However, because of the " opposite hand" arrangement of the two units, separate analyses and support designs were performed for each unit. These analyses and designs were based essentially on the some criterio, methodology, design process, and procedures in Unit 2 as in Unit 1. The IDVP and the NRC reviewed and found these criterio, methodology, design process, and procedures acceptable.
The IDVP also addressed raceway and HVAC duct supports. The criteria and methodology, which were also applied to Unit 2, were found to be acceptable.
Design Completion and Review We also described, in our September meeting that the status of engineering at the stort of the design verification program in late 1981 was quite different i
2
between the two units. Unit I was being reviewed under the design verification program, and Unit 2 was being completed as port of the normal engineering work.
So the engineering emphasis in Unit I was on " reviewing", and the emphasis on Unit 2 was on "doino". The doing for Unit 2 included such major octivities os upgrading the piping systems for the Hosgri design conditions, compierion of small bore piping design, high energy line break analysis, and systems interaction reviews.
When we established the project team in early 1982, we adopted a very rigorous set of procedures and controls which outomatically required Unit 2 engineering to follow the criteria and methodology applied and used for Unit 1. For example, when the methodology was changed in response to the IDVP concerns regarding the seismic modeling of the containment annulus oreo for Unit I, the seismic i
modeling was required to be changed for Unit 2. Similarly, all other corrections, modifications, or upgrading resulting from the design verification program for Unit I were required by the project procedures to be opplied to Unit 2.
This procedural control ensures that Unit I issues, concerns, end modifications are properly addressed and factored into the Unit 2 design.
I would like to emphasize that throughout the engineering completion effort for Unit 2, the criterio, methodology, and design processes were the some os those reviewed by the IDVP and our own Internal Technical Program (ITP) on Unit 1.
Thus, the IDVP and ITP review of Unit I opplies to the engineering completion i
work for Unit 2.
4 Interno! Review Program in addition to the project's procedural control of the completion of Unit 2 engineering work, we established a monogement system colled the Internal Review Program to provide a double check that, indeed, oil of the issues raised by the IDVP and our own ITP for Unit I were fully addressed on Unit 2.
The 4
Internal Review Program identified each issue, documented it, and trocked it to ensure that nothing was overlooked between the IDVP and ITP for Unit I and the i
completion effort for Unit 2.
The scope of the Internal Review Program included: (1) determining the applicability for Unit 2 review of issues identified I
i 3
.m._,_._
. m
in the IDVP, ITP, and NRC reviews of Unit I; (2) monitoring the development and completion of the Unit 2 resolutions; and (3) providing documented records of the resolution process.
Specific items covered by this review and resolution process were:
o Design-related Error or Open items (EOls) identified by the IDVP, Open items (Ols) identified by the ITP, and Unit I items discussed in the PG&E Phase I and Phase 11 final reports.
o Unit i Open items and Follow-up ltems identified by the NRC staff in IDVP-related SSERs 18, 19, 20, and 24.
(This covers the seven Unit I license conditions in the piping oreo.)
The Unit 2 Internal Review Program addressed a total of 414 review items and issues identified in the Unit I design verification program and assured that the oppropriate resolutions were implemented for Unit 2.
The Stoff's SSER-29 confirmed that this Internal Review Program effectively identified and resolved Unit I design verification issues with regard to Unit 2.
Conclusion in our view, the overall Unit 2 design and review effort provided three layers of assurance for the engineering work:
1.
The first layer is the original engineering work done prior to 1981. While this work was done to earlier engineering standards, we have found that this earlier work represents good basic engineering and gives us confidence in the adequacy of the plant's design.
2.
The second layer is the completion work including the Hosgri upgrading, as well as the general upgrading of engineering, analyses, documentation, etc., that was done in response to the design verification program on Unit I.
This work was performed by our project team under curren+ OA programs, design control, and standards for engineering work.
4
1 3.
The third layer is the Internal Review Program which documents and tracks, on an issue-by-issue basis, the resolution for Unit 2 of issues raised in the design verification program for Unit 1.
The extensive Unit i IDVP and ITP reviews of structures, systems, criterio, and methodology common to both units, as well as the NRC Staff reviews, have provided odditional assurance of the quality of the design of Unit 2.
LICENSING MATTERS I will now address specific licensing matters and describe very briefly their resolution or implementation on Unit 2.
Seven Pipino License Conditions License Condition 2.C(II) of the Unit I low power license established seven license condition items concerning piping and pipe supports that were required to be met prior to issuance of a Unit I full power license. They related to the occuracy of the small bore piping calculations; the close proximity of snubbers, supports, and restraints; and certain technical issues regarding calculation of stresses in piping supports. These seven conditions were also fully addressed for Unit 2 as part of the Unit 2 plant completion effort.
The seven items were all orplied to Unit 2 with the exception of License Condition 4, thermal gap modeling. Unit 2 did not model thermal gops in the piping analyses. For the other six license conditions, any design changes or modifications required were issued as part of the normal plant completion effort.
The Staff has reviewed Unit 2 piping design activities including the application of those license conditions, and found Diablo Canyon's design activities acceptoble. This position is reflected in SSER 30.
5
TMI Requirements (NUREG-0737)
Since 1980, PG&E has been actively implementing TMI lessons learned requirements. All TMI requirements will be completed by fuel load except for two. One is with regard to PG&E's submittal of small-break LOCA analyses.
PG&E will submit Diablo Canyon-specific analyses for small-break LOCA one year ofter the NRC staff has completed their SER on the Westinghouse generic methodology. The other item relates to the performance of a turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater pump test, which is scheduled to be completed during the low power test program.
Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment All Unit 2 equipment required to be qualified by 10 CFR 50.49, has been qualified.
All Regulatory Guide 1.97-specified equipment within the scope of the regulation is qualified. This equipment will be installed prior to fuel load, except for the primary coolant reactivity meter and the boric acid charging flow meter. These are not available to the industry. Additionally, the post-accident reactor flux monitor fission chamber will be installed during power ascension.
Appendix R Fire Protection Requirements On December 6,1984, PG&E submitted a report that reviewed the fire protec-tion for Unit 2 for compliance to oppropriate ports of 10 CFR 50, Appendix R.
This report addressed the Appendix R requirements, including safe shutdown capability, emergency lighting, and reactor coolant pump oil collection system.
PG&E has completed the fire protection modifications identified in this report.
Lono-Term Seismic Program As required by License Condition 2.C(7) on the Unit I full power license (DPR-80), PG&E has developed a Long-Term Seismic Program Plan for Units !
l 6
and 2.
This plan was sebmitted on January 30,19.85 for staff review and approval. Work on this program is already underway in the crea of gathering geology and seismic data. We are awaiting stoff comments on the program at-this time.
Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28)
Generic Letter 83-28 specified required octions based on the generic implico-tions of the Salem breaker events. PG&E has completed many of these required octions including implementation of a post-trip review program, implementation of the shunt trip modifications and all other items identified in the generic letter as being of the highest priority.
PG&E has provided the staff with the details of its program and its responses to Generic Letter 83-28.
In its most recent response dated April 18,1985 (DCL-85-151), PG&E provided a consolidated status and ~ implementation sche-dule which includes the medium priority items remaining to be completed. Work on all the remaining items is in progress.
CONCLUSION in conclusion, engineering and licensing activities required for a Unit 2 low power license ore essentially complete and will be completed prior to fuel load.
7
DIABLO CANYON UNIT 2 DESIGN APO LICENSING MATTERS DISCUSSION TOPICS:
o UNIT 2 DESIGN EFFORTS o
LICENSING MATTERS OF PARTICULAR INTEREST l
l
UNIT 2 DESIGN EFFORTS o
DETAILED ENGINEERING ACTIVITIES PRESENTED IN SEPTEMBER 1984 o
UNITS I AND 2 ARE VERY SIMILAR:
SAME DESIGN CRITERIA SAME DESIGN METHODOLOGY SAME SYSTEMS DESIGN SAME BASIC LAYOUT AND STRUCTURAL CONCEPTS i
l
i 4
UNIT 2 DESIGN COMPLETlON APO REVIEW o
UNIT 2 DESIGN COMPLETION STATUS DIFFERENT FROM UNIT l AT START OF UNIT I DESIGN VERIFICATION o
UNIT I WAS BEING REVIEWED, UNIT 2 WAS BEING COMPLETED J
o UNIT 2 COMPLETION EFFORTS INCLUDED:
PIPING UPGRADE FOR HOSGRI COMPLETION OF SMALL BORE PIPING HIGH ENERGY LINE BREAK ANALYSIS SYSTEMS INTERACTION REVIEWS DIABLO CANYON PROJECT CONTROLS ASSURED UNIT 2 EFFORTS o
FOLLOWED CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY OF UNIT I
UNIT 2 INTERNAL REVIEW PROGRAM o
THE UNIT 2 INTERNAL REVIEW PROGRAM PROVIDED A DOUBLE CHECK TO ASSURE UNIT l lSSUES ADDRESSED o
THE INTERNAL REVIEW PROGRAM ASSURED UNIT 2 REVIEW AND RESOLUTION OF:
IDVP EOls ITP Ols NRC ITEMS IN SSERs 18,19,20,24 (INCLUDING 7 LICENSE CONDITIONS) o SSER-29 CONCLUDES INTERNAL REVIEW PROGRAM EFFECTIVE
/
UNIT 2 DESIGN ADEQUACY CONCLUSION o
DESIGN EFFORTS HAVE SHOWN THREE LAYERS OF ASSURANCE:
1.
CONFIDENCE IN THE ORIGINAL ENGINEERING WORK (PRE-1981) 2.
DESIGN COMPLETION WORK, INCLUDING HOSGRI UPGRADES, UNDER CURRENT APPROVED PROGRAMS 3.
THE INTERNAL REVIEW PROGRAM o
IDVP, ITP, AND NRC REVIEWS PROVIDED ADDED ASSURANCE o
TOTAL EFFORT PROVIDES ASSURANCE OF QUALITY OF DESIGN
LICENSING MATTERS o
SEVEN LICENSE CONDITIONS o
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT o
APPENDIX R - FIRE PROTECTION o
LONG-TERM SEISMIC PROGRAM o
SALEM ATWS EVENT (GENERIC LETTER 83-28)
..j PROPOSED AGEtOA NRC STAFF - PGard MEETING - 10:00 A.M.
DIABLO CANYON UNIT 2 LOW POWER LICENSE BETKSDA, MARYLAto - APRIL 19,1985
/
l.
Opening Remarks NRC 2.
Overview Status of Units I and 2 G. A. Monectis e
Unit i Test Completion and Unit i Schedule e
Unit 2 Construction, Readiness, and Schedule 3.
Operational Readiness of Unit 2 J. D. Shiffer 4.
Unit 2 Design and Licensing Motters H. B. Friend 5.
Other Topics NRC 6.
Concluding Remarks NRC I
['d
(
MANAGEMENT ISSUES l
- Shift Staffing
~
l
- Operator Training i
- Supplementary Staffing of Operating Shifts
- Work Control Processes
. Incorporation of Unit 1'
Experience t
- SALP Reviews
- Dual - Unit Operational Considerations l
STATUS OF UNIT 2
- System Turnover Process
- Unit 2 Hot Functional Testing
- Status of Systems F*
,~
. Level of Construction Activity During Fuel Load and
(
Low Power Testing
e CONTROL ROOM MANN":?
Technical Specification Requiremet
- 2 SLO
- 3 LO
-1 STA
- 3 AO
- DCPP 5 Shift Requirements
- 10 SLO
- 15 LO
-5 STA
- 20 SLO
- 11 LO
- 39 AO
- 19 SLO (Management)
\\
i f
OPERATOR TRAINING
- Fuel Load
- Low Power Testing
- Power Ascension
- Unit 1 & 2 Differences
- Emergency Procedures
\\
j
l.
i 1
l i
l
/.
l 9#*,
4..
t n
..4 I
r"w.
w Or8 tort L
l
~a:s-(
\\
.W =
.w h
.A l
I
.:-q.-
l i
I' r
7 mg
\\
.3..
- t...
oPpP.
- " ' 4
- ",.e
?~
f.
e g~
~
g
.~**
p
'C W
~
n
- n p
a,.
m
?I: ** sp..
'[.
e*
n.. :.
~
.. E
*94 I
l i
1 h4.'.* -
^'
',4.
n-i 4.
g i
US SOr I
I si' is j
(
M b.
'j I
1 p..
?*
^
u 4..
- ~
T *S
-t
0 WORK PLANNING ORGANIZATION PLANT MANAGER ASSISTANT PLANT MANAGER PL ANT SUPERINTENDENT WORK PLANNING CENTER SUPERVISOM CHEM STRY INSTRUM NTATION ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL RADIATK)N MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE CONTROLS PROTECTK)N
1 I
=
i OUTAGE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION PLANT MANAGER l
i i
l OUTAGE MANAGER l
i i
l i
l I
DCPP DIABLO C ANYON WORK PLANNING DEPARTMENTS PROJECT CENTER l
l e
d C
/
+
e
=* %
,4.
e l-T M'
m.c
{
..... k* h.
. ~....m
~
5W h
3 l
a.
e f.-
,7..,
J,.
- _a, pKW1.w.
E 5
)
3 L
?
.- v&;*
e.
g l
g i
s
- s..
=
1..
d w
r
. y
...; 7., P m
l s
- g L.s -
t i
E h
k'
~~
y.
M$:' _ y m
g 9.:..
=
7-
-r 1
3,
- ,u b.fp c.
3
,,;.pe; c.g,g g.-
3 w
.r-
+,
> ~
.s
'. d.
3 P
5-Ma g *-
Id'.
5 h
$ f*
3 e,:w m
s,, f, l-M *
-1
~ W.-
_T
=
o
{
N K
E e
- )
m
't
_a y
M n, s...
g
~
y 92-2 M
F s
j n.
=
=
=
N
-3 n
SALP REVIEWS 11 Functional Areas Rated for 1/1/83 to 6/30/84 1 - Level 1 Rating, No Change
= 10 - Level 2 Ratings of Which:
4 - Showed improvement 4 - Showed No Change I
l 1 - Emergency Planning, Declined From Level 1 to 2 1 - Fuel Loading, Not Previously Evaluated
STATUS OF UNIT 2 i
- System Turnover Process Status of Systems 4
~
LOW POWER TESTING NON-OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS Condensate Make-up Water Feed Water Lube Oil Turbine Steam Turbine Generat n Heater Drain Turbine Sump Service Cooling Water Secondary Sampling
- These Systems will be Operationa for Power Ascension
1 l
STATUS OF SYSTEMS
- 40 Systems Required for Fuel Load & Low Power Testing 1
- 22 Systems Accepted by NPG i
10 Systems under Review by NPG l
8 Systems Remaining i
j
~
l
i AVERAGE DIRECT MANUAL MANPOWER PER SHIFT FUEL LOAD THROUGH i
i 5% POWER l
l l
l f
j AREA MANPOWER l
Containment 25
~
Control Room 3
Turbine Building 100
'l l
Auxiliary Building 60 l
Total Power Block 188 l
i i
i I
N_
1 l
d-e O
4 DIABLO CANYON UNIT 2 DESIGN APO LICENSING MATTERS DISCUSSION TOPICS:
j 4
c o
UNIT 2 DESIGN EFFORTS o
LICENSING MATTERS OF PARTICULAR INTEREST 4
9 l
t i
I I
i J
3 i
i h
^h m
l 1
l
4 UNIT 2 DESIGN EFFORTS o
DETAILED ENGINEERING ACTIVITIES PRESENTED IN SEPTEMBER 1984 o
UNITS I AND 2 ARE VERY SIMILAR:
SAME DESIGN CRITERIA SAME DESIGN METHODOLOGY SAME SYSTEMS DESIGN SAME BASIC LAYOUT AND STRUCTURAL CONCEPTS 1
1 I
-r
,----,,---n-w-.--
r-,-nc.,.---
.m,,
- r. - - -. - -.----.
,-w
UNIT 2 DESIGN COMPLETION APO REVIEW o
UNIT 2 DESIGN COMPLETION STATUS DIFFERENT FROM UNIT l AT START OF UNIT I DESIGN VERIFICATION o
UNIT l WAS BEING REVIEWED, UNIT 2 WAS BEING COMPLETED o
UNIT 2 COMPLETION EFFORTS INCLUDED:
PIPING UPGRADE FOR HOSGRI COMPLETION OF SMALL BORE PIPING HIGH ENERGY LINE BREAK ANALYSIS SYSTEMS INTERACTION REVIEWS o
DIABLO CANYON PROJECT CONTROLS ASSURED UNIT 2 EFFORTS FOLLOWED CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY OF UNIT l m
-%-m
...--w,s-e,
,.--.y--g-
,m4-_
o.,,
9
-m.-
,5-..,.,.,
p m,-g.--w,m*w--
4 UNIT 2 INTERNAL REVIEW PROGRAM o
THE UNIT 2 INTERNAL REVIEW PROGRAM PROVIDED A DOUBLE CHECK TO ASSURE UNIT I ISSUES ADDRESSED o
THE INTERNAL REVIEW PROGRAM ASSURED UNIT 2 REVIEW AND RESOLUTION OF:
IDVP EOls ITP Ols NRC ITEMS IN SSERs 18,19,20,24 (INCLUDING 7 LICENSE CONDITIONS) o SSER-29 CONCLUDES INTERNAL REVIEW PROGRAM EFFECTIVE i
.y,,
,rm-w.--
e
-m-------
-a---r------r-------
-- - +
(
UNIT 2 DESIGN ADEQUACY CONCLUSION o
DESIGN EFFORTS HAVE SHOWN THREE LAYERS OF ASSURANCE:
1.
CONFIDENCE IN THE ORIGINAL ENGINEERING WORK (PRE-1981) 2.
DESIGN COMPLETlON WORK, INCLUDING HOSGRI UPGRADES, UNDER CURRENT APPROVED PROGRAMS 3.
THE INTERNAL REVIEW PROGRAM o
IDVP,ITP, AND NRC REVIEWS PROVIDED ADDED ASSURANCE o
TOTAL EFFORT PROVIDES ASSURANCE OF QUALITY OF DESIGN 1
i I
i
LICENSING MATTERS o
SEVEN LICENSE CONDITIONS o
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT o
APPENDIX R - FIRE PROTECTION o
LONG-TERM SEISMIC PROGRAM 1
o SALEM ATWS EVENT (GENERIC LETTER 83-28)
-w-e
--.,.,,.-----,,,,e,.--
. ___m.,
,,m.-
4 1
DIABLO CANYON UNIT 2 DESIGN A>O LICENSING MATTERS DISCUSSION TOPICS:
o UNIT 2 DESIGN EFFORTS o
LICENSING MATTERS OF PARTICULAR INTEREST
s 4
i UNIT 2 DESIGN EFFORTS o
DETAILED ENGINEERING ACTIVITIES PRESENTED IN SEPTEMBER 1984 o
UNITS l AND 2 ARE VERY SIMILAR:
SAME DESIGN CRITERIA SAME DESIGN METHODOLOGY SAME SYSTEMS DESIGN SAME BASIC LAYOUT AND STRUCTURAL CONCEPTS 4
UNIT 2 DESIGN COMPLETlON AfO REVIEW o
UNIT 2 DESIGN COMPLETION STATUS DIFFERENT FROM UNIT l AT START OF UNIT I DESIGN VERIFICATION o
UNIT I WAS BEING REVIEWED, UNIT 2 WAS BEING COMPLETED o
UNIT 2 COMPLETION EFFORTS INCLUDED:
PIPING UPGRADE FOR HOSGRI COMPLETION OF SMALL BORE PIPING HIGH ENERGY LINE BREAK ANALYSIS SYSTEMS INTERACTION REVIEWS o
DIABLO CANYON PROJECT CONTROLS ASSURED UNIT 2 EFFORTS FOLLOWED CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY OF UNIT I I
m, m
t l
UNIT 2 INTERNAL REVIEW PROGRAM THE UNIT 2 INTERNAL REVIEW PROGRAM PROVIDED A DOUBLE o
CHECK TO ASSURE UNIT I ISSUES ADDRESSED o
THE INTERNAL REVIEW PROGRAM ASSURED UNIT 2 REVIEW AND RESOLUTION OF:
lDVP EOls lTP Ols NRC ITEMS IN SSERs 18,19,20,24 (INCLUDING 7 LICENSE CONDITIONS) o SSER-29 CONCLUDES INTERNAL REVIEW PROGRAM EFFECTIVE 1
I I
4 UNIT 2 DESIGN ADEQUACY CONCLUSION o
DESIGN EFFORTS HAVE SHOWN THREE LAYERS OF ASSURANCE:
1.
CONFIDENCE IN THE ORIGINAL ENGINEERING WORK (PRE-1981) 2.
DESIGN COMPLETION WORK, INCLUDING HOSGRI UPGRADES, UNDER CURRENT APPROVED PROGRAMS 3.
THE INTERNAL REVIEW PROGRAM o
IDVP,ITP, AND NRC REVIEWS PROVIDED ADDED ASSURANCE o
TOTAL EFFORT PROVIDES ASSURANCE OF QUALITY OF DESIGN 6
a r-+--2 r,,
e-,
--r=e
,n n
- - -.-~
--r
=,-n
-r--
' t 1
LICENSING MATTERS o
SEVEN LICENSE CONDITIONS o
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT o
APPENDIX R - FIRE PROTECTION o
LONG-TERM SEISMIC PROGRAM o
SALEM ATWS EVENT (GENERIC LETTER 83-28) i 4
l
.e--,
,,,,m--,
-w w-
l f
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
- Shift Staffing l
- Operator Training
- Supplementary Staffing of Operating Shifts Work Control Processes
. Incorporation of Unit 1'
Experience t
SALP Reviews
- Dual - Unit Operational
. Considerations STATUS OF UNIT 2 System Turnover Process
- Unit 2 Hot Functional Testing
- Status of Systems
,~
= Levelof Construction Activity During Fuel Load and
(
Low Power Testing
CONTROL ROOM MANN!':?
Technical Specification Requiremem
- 2 SLO
- 3 LO
-1 STA
- 3 AO
- DCPP 5 Shift Requirements
- 10 SLO
- 15 LO
-S STA
- 15 AO
- DCPP Operators
- 20 SLO
- 11 LO
- 39 AO
- 19 SLO (Management)
---..--.-----,------n n
n
L OPERATOR TRAINING
- Fuel Load
- Low Power Testing
. Power Ascension l
I
- Unit 1 & 2 Differences
. Emergency Procedures
p-N" l
s-l l
~
~
erhtort i
p
- -s
.s t
1 1
l
.-c.-.
l
__?
.-T-
- j,
F 4.-
- ' N.7 ex. :
^
?: w
,W_
e w.:
i s.' -
w;_' '
s,%
e^
r
?
- ~
r g
rO '
1
\\
U WORK PLANNING ORGANIZATION PLANT MANAGER ASSISTANT PLANT MANAGER PLANT SUPERINTENDENT WORK PLANNING T. ENTER SUPERVISOR I
CHEM STRY INSTRUM NTATION ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL RADIATK)N MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE CONTROLS i
PROTECTK)N 1
l
~ ~ - - ~ - ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ " ' ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' '
q I
1 OUTAGE MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION l
l PLANT MANAGER l
s i
OUTAGE MANAGER I
l l
i i
i h
i r
I DCPP DIABLO CANYON WORK PLANNING DEPARTMENTS PROJECT CENTER
?
i Y
O C
.ma
_m____m
-mm.-..._
m.
2_. _
.m._m_
/
- -d a
s
.e e,. 4
'h,
. M b'".
[
en
-o%
.m..
l l
....=F-
. ;+.. -
4
~
, -^
.s.
Fr2,'F-l I
Fs.
- * * * *~
f
+
.c.
l
- A, *. p.
s
's -
.. ~
.f
~
,.],.
,.g--
n.
V
- F, 1
g'
- 4 s
8 * * '
,aa v;y1;.
l
.g.
='
F * 'w :. -
.e.,.
,g.
-Y.
~s.ded l
s..a...
y..,>,..
.W
"=.
. 14
,..hi,3. ;*
t...;t.n.9
- r. -
7 h,
h?':
?$
=
. Y f. 5-
\\,
.;r-t R f,*
2-
\\
-.u.
g m:..
>P h
1
.e
- '*t 4 * :6 l
,'.;.~.-
(
SALP REVIEWS 11 Functional Areas Rated for 1/1/83 to 6/30/84 1 - Level 1 Rating, No Change 10 - Level 2 Ratings of Which:
4 - Showed Improvement 4 - Showed No Change l
1 - Emergency Planning, Declined From Level 1 to 2 1 - Fuel Loading, Not Previously Evaluated l
f STATUS OF UNIT 2 System Turnover Process Status of Systems i
{
~
LOW POWER TESTING -
NON-OPERATIONAL SYSTEIV S 1
Condensate Make-up Water Feed Water Lube Oil Turbine Steam Turbine Generat >r -
l Heater Drain Turbine Sump l
a Service Cooling Water Secondary Sampling
- These Systems will be Operational for Power Ascension
f STATUS OF SYSTEMS
- 40 Systems Required for Fuel Load & Low Power Testing i
l 22 Systems Accepted by NPG 10 Systems under Review by NPG 8
S; stems Remaining
-_-,-,---,--,,y...,-_-_,w,-
,__,,__,_,,_,_,,-,__,,,_,,.,n,,
e AVERAGE DIRECT MANUAL MANPOWER PER SHIFT FUEL LOAD THROUGH l
5% POWER i
AREA
-MANPOWER Containment 25 l
j Control Room 3
i l
Turbine Building 100 l
Auxiliary Building 80 Total Power Block 188 i
1 l
l N
..Y
t-
/
~
m
(,
./
e.
~
(' (i
<l l
anI'/p7.--
- r. s t9
...w:. f r u
+
l\\, n.*s <, 1. ',
,. [', r; _,,., t.
.s r
.c i.Ls tmg c k, k,
,m v.r.
AJR./
.. t.-
m p
5 Je a. I,s,
A; u K
/vt c..
f 7 F~) C 3Nik-T usu /pd n). Let NRR/ot N
AL.k2A.
it/gAz/pg f,7~. KUO NU/PE /56ers M
Haa r td.
^*c/oc/ me6 3 bu#_.'
L
,vap %,
J. 5fl< l v (--
ju p q.1~G,' D/r' C.f.0 5 k ra it 'li.VPR d&c :.e!Ac/h c o se n'-
fJ bOClf f4 YI UfS3 MGhooSE
/
M X 00^iovbl Catvoc.wau 5 A2 6KiDA10M PCrs'jG~(f/9
.. _ m..
. b P S. Aaron 76lE 94 D. 5 o w o t. s t<.y P c. + r: - a c.n.u.i ra 3
K. L..l.ich y G e c.:M r.-k._
($
- - - - - - -