Text

Development and Qualification of a Gothic Containment Evaluation Model for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plants.
	ML042570292
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	04/30/2004
From:	Ofstun R; Westinghouse
To:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	L-PI-04-017 WCAP-16219-NP
	Download: ML042570292 (135)
	v • d • e

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 Development and Qualification of a GOTHIC Containment Evaluation Model for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plants g Westinghouse

WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 WCAP-16219-NP Development and Qualification of a GOTHIC Containment Evaluation Model for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plants R. Ofstun Systems and Safety Analysis April 2004 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0355 0 2004 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC All Rights Reserved 6403-NP.doc-042904

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................

iii LIST OF FIGURES ................. iii LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................... ..................................

iii I INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1-3 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PRAIRIE ISLAND GOTHIC CONTAINMENT EVALUATION MODELS .. 2-3 2.1 NODING STRUCTURE ............................ 2-3 2.2 VOLUME INPUT ............................ 2-3 2.3 INITIAL CONDITIONS ............................ 2-3 2.4 FLOW PATHS ............................ 2-3 2.5 HEAT SINKS ............................ 2-3 2.6 MODELING SUMP RECIRCULATION ............................ 2-3 2.7 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ............................ 2-3 3 COMPARISON OF MODELING ASSUMPTIONS FOR CONTAINMENT ANALYSES ........ 3-3 3.1 CODE COMPARISON ................................................................ 3-3 3.2 INPUT COMPARISON ................................................................ 3-3 4 BENCHMARK COMPARISON ................................................................ 4-3 4.1 LOCA CONTAINMENT RESPONSE BENCHMARK COMPARISON ....................... 4-3 4.2 MSLB CONTAINMENT RESPONSE BENCHMARK COMPARISON ...................... 4-3 5 SAMPLE TRANSIENT RESULTS USING THE PRAIRIE ISLAND GOTHIC CONTAINMENT EVALUATION MODEL. ..................................... 5-3 5.1 LOCA SAMPLE TRANSIENT RESULTS ...................................... 5-3 5.2 MSLB SAMPLE TRANSIENT RESULTS ...................................... 5-3 6

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS . ..................................... 6-3 7 REFERENCES ....................................... 7-3 APPENDIX A GOTHIC PRAIRIE ISLAND MSLB CONTAINMENT RESPONSE MODEL INPUT TABLES ....................................... A-3 APPENDIX B GOTHIC PRAIRIE ISLAND LOCA CONTAINMENT RESPONSE MODEL INPUT TABLES........................................................................................... B-3 April 2004 WCAP-16219-NP 64033NNPdod0c20424 W6CA3NPd1629O April 2004

v LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Heat Sink Data for the Prairie Island Containment Model ....................................... 2-3 Table 2-2 Thermal Conductivity, Density, and Volumetric Heat Capacity (VHC) for Heat Sink Materials ............ 2-3 Table 3-1 Input Comparison ............ 3-3 April 2004 WCAP-l 6219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 Prairie Island GOTHIC Containment Model for MSLB Events ...................................... 2-3 Figure 2-2 Prairie Island GOTHIC Containment Model for LOCA Events ...................................... 2-3 Figure 3-1 Fan Cooler Heat Removal Rate per Train ..................................................... 3-3 Figure 4-1 Containment Pressure Comparison for LOCA Benchmark Case .................................... 4-3 Figure 4-2 Containment Temperature Comparison for LOCA Benchmark Case ................ .............. 4-3 Figure 4-3 Containment Sump Temperature Comparison for Benchmark LOCA Case .................... 4-3 Figure 4-4 Containment Pressure Comparison for LOCA Benchmark Case with Input Change to Simulate the CONTEMPT Temperature Flash Model .4-3 Figure 4-5 Containment Temperature Comparison for LOCA Benchmark Case with Input Change to Simulate the CONTEMPT Temperature Flash Model .4-3 Figure 4-6 Containment Sump Temperature Comparison for LOCA Benchmark Case with Input Change to Simulate the CONTEMPT Temperature Flash Model .................. 4-3 Figure 4-7 Containment Pressure Comparison for MSLB Benchmark Case .................................... 4-3 Figure 4-8 Containment Temperature Comparison for MSLB Benchmark Case .............................. 4-3 Figure 4-9 Containment Sump Temperature for MSLB Benchmark Case ........................................ 4-3 Figure 4-10 Containment Pressure Comparison for MSLB Benchmark Case with Input Changes to Simulate the CONTEMPT Temperature Flash Option .4-3 Figure 4-11 Containment Temperature Comparison for MSLB Benchmark Case with Input Changes to Simulate the CONTEMPT Temperature Flash Option .4-3 Figure 4-12 Containment Sump Temperature Comparison for MSLB Benchmark Case with Input Changes to Simulate the CONTEMPT Temperature Flash Option .4-3 Figure 4-13 Containment Pressure Comparison for MSLB Benchmark Case with Input Changes to Simulate the CONTEMPT Temperature Flash Option and 100% Spray Efficiency .4-3 Figure 4-14 Containment Temperature Comparison for MSLB Benchmark Case with Input Changes to Simulate the CONTEMPT Temperature Flash Option and 100% Spray Efficiency .4-3 Figure 4-15 Containment Sump Temperature Comparison for MSLB Benchmark Case with Input Changes to Simulate the CONTEMPT Temperature Flash Option and 100% Spray Efficiency ............................................ 4-3 Figure 5-1 Containment Pressure Transient Response for LOCA ............................................ 5-3 Figure 5-2 Containment Temperature Transient Response for LOCA ............................................ 5-3 Figure 5-3 Containment Sump Temperature Transient Response for LOCA .................................... 5-3 April 2004 WCAP-l 621 9-NP April 2004 6403.NP.doc.042904

viii LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)

Figure 54 Containment Pressure Transient Response for MSLB ........................................ 5-3 Figure 5-5 Containment Temperature Transient Response for MSLB ........................................ 5-3 Figure 5-6 Containment Pressure Transient Response for MSLB ........................................ 5-3 WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

ix LIST OF ACRONYIS CCW component cooling water CS containment spray DBA design basis accident DLM diffusion layer model EPRI Electric Power Research Institute FRV feedwater regulator valve HTA heat transfer area HX heat exchanger LCO limiting condition of operation LOCA loss-of-coolant accident M&E mass and energy MDLM mist diffusion layer model MSLB main steamline break NAI Numerical Applications Incorporated NMC Nuclear Management Company NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NSP Northern States Power RAI Request for Additional Information RCS reactor coolant system RH relative humidity RHR residual heat removal USAR Updated Safety Analysis Report VHC volumetric heat capacity WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

I-I 1 INTRODUCTION The GOTHIC program is rapidly becoming the industry standard for performing both inside and outside containment pressure and temperature design basis analyses. The program is being developed by Numerical Applications Incorporated (NAI) with funding by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). The GOTHIC program consists of a pre-processor, which helps with input generation; a solver, which performs the calculations; and a post-processor, which produces the output tables and plots. The GOTHIC Technical Manual (Reference 1) provides a description of the governing equations, constitutive models, and solution methods in the solver. The GOTHIC Qualification Report (Reference 2) provides a comparison of the solver results with both analytical solutions and experimental data. The GOTHIC User Manual (Reference 3) provides information to help the user develop models for various applications.

Nuclear Management Company (NMC) approved a plan to develop a GOTHIC containment evaluation model for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plants. The GOTHIC model would replace the current CONTEMPT containment evaluation model and be used to perform the containment peak pressure and temperature analyses, equipment qualification analyses, and peak liner temperature calculation.

The Prairie Island GOTHIC containment evaluation model was constructed based on the recently accepted Kewaunee GOTHIC containment evaluation model, including the limitations and conditions specified in the associated Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Safety Evaluation Report (Reference 4). Both the Kewaunee and Prairie Island containment evaluation models use the diffusion layer model (DLM) heat and mass transfer option in GOTHIC.

The Kewaunee containment evaluation model was developed with GOTHIC version 7.Op2 and submitted for NRC review. The NRC conditions for acceptance, primarily the change from the mist diffusion layer model (MDLM) to the DLM correlation, along with other improvements and error corrections, were incorporated into GOTHIC version 7.1pl and subsequent analyses for the Kewaunee Updated Final Safety Analysis Report were performed with that version. The differences between GOTHIC version 7.0 and 7.1 are documented in Appendix B of the GOTHIC User Manual (Reference 3).

The Prairie Island GOTHIC containment evaluation model was compared with the CONTEMPT containment evaluation model to identify modeling differences. Changes were then made to the GOTHIC containment evaluation model to create a model for benchmark comparison with the CONTEMPT model.

The GOTHIC benchmark model results were compared with the CONTEMPT model results for both a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) and main steamline break (MSLB) transient.

Finally, representative LOCA and MSLB cases were run using the Prairie Island containment evaluation model to demonstrate that the new evaluation model produces an acceptable (less than containment design pressure), conservative analysis result.

April 2004 WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

2-1 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PRAIRIE ISLAND GOTHIC CONTAINMENT EVALUATION MODELS The modeling assumptions used in the Prairie Island containment evaluation models for LOCA and MSLB events are described below. The Prairie Island containment evaluation models are based on the previously accepted Kewaunee containment evaluation models (Reference 4) and use GOTHIC version 7.1patchl with the DLM heat and mass transfer correlation. The GOTHIC input tables for the LOCA and MSLB sample cases presented in Section 5 are provided in Appendices A and B, respectively.

2.1 NODING STRUCTURE The Prairie Island GOTHIC containment model for an MSLB event is shown in Figure 2-1. The containment (Volume 1) is modeled with a single lumped parameter node. Two boundary conditions (I F and 2F) are used to represent the sources of mass and energy (M&E) from the break. The spray injection system is modeled with boundary condition (3F). Flow paths connect the boundary conditions to the containment volume. Twenty-four heat sinks and a fan cooler component are also shown.

The Prairie Island GOTHIC containment model for a LOCA event is shown in Figure 2-2. Additional boundary conditions, volumes, flow paths, and components are used to model accumulator nitrogen release and sump recirculation. The recirculation system model uses GOTHIC component models for the residual heat removal (RHR) and component cooling water (CCW) heat exchangers and the CCW pumps.

Recirculation flow from the sump is modeled using a boundary condition.

2.2 VOLUME INPUT GOTHIC requires the volume, height, diameter, and elevation input values for each node. The containment free volume specified in the Prairie Island Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) was used as input for the volume of node 1. Standard values of 100 feet, 10 feet, and 0 foot were used for the GOTHIC height, diameter, and elevation input values; the model is not sensitive to these representative input values.

A conservatively calculated pool surface area is used to model interfacial heat and mass transfer to the liquid pools on the various floor surfaces inside containment. The conductors representing the floors are essentially insulated from the vapor afterthe pools develop; however, there can still be condensation or evaporation from the surface of the liquid pools. The pool area input value represents the sum of the three floor conductor surface areas (22, 23, and 24) from Table 2-1. Using this method to model the interfacial heat and mass transfer between the pools and the atmosphere was previously approved by the NRC for the Kewaunee containment design basis accident (DBA) and equipment qualification analyses (Reference 4).

The LOCA containment response model includes an additional volume to represent the nominal volume of pressurized nitrogen gas in the accumulators that is released to the containment after the accumulator water volume has been discharged. Standard values of 20 feet, 20 feet, and 0 foot were used for the GOTHIC height, diameter, and elevation input values for the accumulator volume, respectively; the model is not sensitive to these representative input values.

WCAP-16219-NP 6403-NP.doc-042904

J a 2-2 The LOCA containment response model input values for the RHR and CCW systems' volume, height, diameter, and elevation are not important for modeling the sump temperature response after recirculation.

Standard values of 100 feet 3 , 10 feet, 10 feet, and 0 foot were used, respectively; the model is not sensitive to these representative input values. l 2.3 INITIAL CONDITIONS IL The containment initial conditions are listed below:

Pressure - 16.7 psia (biased high for peak pressure and liner temperature calculation) l

- 14.2 psia (biased low for peak vapor temperature calculation)

Relative Humidity - 30% (biased low for peak pressure and liner temperature calculation) I

- 100% (biased high for peak vapor temperature calculation) I

Temperature - 120'F I The LOCA containment response model contains volumes representing the accumulators, the RHR system, and the CCW system. The initial pressure of the volume representing the accumulators (366 psia) A was calculated assuming an ideal gas law expansion of the initial accumulator gas volume to the full accumulator volume. The gas temperature was set to a conservatively high value (2601F). The RHR ],

system volumes were initially filled with hot (200'F) water at the containment pressure. Most of the 1 CCW system volumes in the LOCA containment response model were also initially filled with hot water, I, but at a higher pressure of 60 psia; the CCW surge tank was modeled as half full. I 2.4 FLOW PATHS I, Flow paths connect the boundary conditions to the containment volume. The flowrate is specified by the boundary condition, so most of the flow path input is not important. Standard values are used for the area, hydraulic diameter, friction length, and inertia length of the flow path. The elevation of the break \I flow paths is arbitrarily set to 30 feet and the elevation of the spray flow path is arbitrarily set to 90 feet.

Flow path 14 in the LOCA containment response model represents the accumulator injection lines to the reactor coolant system (RCS). The valve in this flow path is opened to model the release of the accumulator nitrogen gas to the containment after the accumulator water volume is depleted. This is different from the Kewaunee model, in which the accumulator gas was released at a specified rate over a fixed time period using a boundary condition. The flow path friction length, inertia length, hydraulic diameter, and flow area input values are based on actual line data.

Flow path 6 in the LOCA containment response model connects the containment volume to the RHR J system model. The valve in this flow path is opened at the start of recirculation. The upstream elevation of this flow path was set to the bottom of the containment (0.0 foot) and the downstream elevation was set to the middle of the RHR piping volume (-5.0 feet). The height, area, hydraulic diameter, friction, and inertial length input values for this flow path were arbitrarily set to 0.1 foot, 1.0 foot 2, 1.0 foot, 1.0 foot 'I and 1.0 foot, respectively. I WCAP-1 6219-NP 6403-NP.doc-042904

2-3 2.5 HEAT SINKS The CONTEMPT model documented in Reference 5 provides data for 24 containment heat sinks. The heat sink data for the Prairie Island GOTHIC containment model is based on conservatively low surface areas and nominal thicknesses and is summarized in Table 2-1. Since the heat sink area input provided in CONTEMPT represents the total exposed surface area of the heat sink, the actual thickness of the two-sided heat sinks was divided by 2 to preserve the heat sink volume, and the Volume B boundary was modeled as adiabatic for the GOTHIC model.

A thin air gap is assumed to exist between the steel and concrete for steel-jacketed heat sinks in the GOTHIC containment evaluation model; this gap is not modeled in the CONTEMPT containment evaluation model. A standard value of 100 Btu/hr-ft2~-F is assumed for the minimum gap conductance.

The gap width is determined by dividing the gap thermal conductivity by the gap conductance.

The volumetric heat capacity and thermal conductivity for most of the heat sink materials are taken from Reference 5 as summarized in Table 2-2 and taken from engineering publications. Values for the density of concrete and steel were taken from Reference 6 and the specific heat values were calculated based on the volumetric heat capacity values specified in Reference 5.

The density and specific heat input values for the paint, the zinc coating on galvanized steel, and the air gap (between the concrete and steel) were not specified in Reference 5. The specific heat for the paint was assumed to be 1.0 BtuAbm-0 F; the density was calculated based on the volumetric heat capacity given in Reference 5. The thermal properties for zinc and air were taken from Reference 6 at a temperature of approximately 200'F.

Heat and Mass Transfer Correlations GOTHIC has a number of heat transfer coefficient options that can be used for containment analyses.

These include the film, direct, Tagami, and user-specified heat transfer coefficient options. GOTHIC also has a number of condensation options that can be used for containment analyses. These include the Uchida, Gido-Koestel, and DLM options.

The direct heat transfer coefficient set is used, along with the DLM mass transfer correlation, for all of the heat sinks inside containment. This heat and mass transfer methodology was recently reviewed and approved for use in the Kewaunee containment DBA analyses (Reference 4). The DLM correlation does not require the user to specify a revaporization input value, as was done in previous analyses using the Uchida correlation.

The direct heat transfer coefficient set (with split option) is used for the heat sinks representing floors.

The split option will shut off heat transfer to the floor once the containment liquid volume fraction exceeds 0.0001.

Insulated surfaces are modeled with a constant (0.0 Btu/hr-ft2 -F) heat flux.

WCAP-1621 9-NP 6403-NP.doc-042904

24 2.6 MODELING SUMIP RECIRCULATION

[

]ac 2.7 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS The LOCA and MSLB transient M&E releases are calculated separately and input to the GOTHIC 4 containment models via boundary conditions. The break mass and enthalpy are input to the containment I model through forcing functions on flow boundary conditions IF and 2F. It1 This report addresses the applicability of GOTHIC for Prairie Island and is not intended to address other methods used to determine GOTHIC inputs such as the M&E releases. The M&E release inputs used in the benchmarking cases (Sections 4.1 and 4.2) and sample cases (Sections 5.1 and 5.2) were calculated specifically for Prairie Island and are considered representative of Prairie Island and thus, sufficient for the purposes of this report.

JI The M&E input used in the GOTHIC and CONTEMPT LOCA benchmarking case is from the existing Prairie Island licensing basis LOCA containment response, as documented in Appendix K of the Prairie Island USAR. The M&E input used in the LOCA GOTHIC containment evaluation model sample case was calculated using the Westinghouse method for LOCA M&E, as described in WCAP-10325 WCAP-16219-NP 6403-NP.doc-042904

2-5 (Reference 7). While the M&E release input used in the containment evaluation model sample case is not presently the licensing basis LOCA release input, it is considered adequately conservative, yet representative of actual expected LOCA release input, for Prairie Island.

The M&E input used in the GOTHIC and CONTEMPT MSLB benchmarking case is from the existing Prairie Island licensing basis MSLB containment response, as documented in Section 14.5.5.3.1 of the Prairie Island USAR (Reference 8). The M&E used as input into the MSLB GOTHIC containment evaluation model sample case was calculated using the Westinghouse method for MSLB M&E, as described in WCAP-8822 (Reference 9). While the M&E release input used in the containment evaluation model sample case is not presently the licensing basis MSLB release input, it is considered adequately conservative, yet representative of actual expected MSLB release input, for Prairie Island.

The liquid portion of the break flow is released as drops with an assumed diameter of 100 microns (0.00394 inches). This is consistent with the methodology approved for Kewaunee (Reference 4) and is based on data presented in Reference 10.

The containment fan coolers are modeled with a cooler component. There are two fan coolers per train and two trains are normally available. The fan coolers are modeled to actuate on the containment HI-1 pressure setpoint (including biased high uncertainty) and to begin removing heat from the containment after an accumulation of conservatively long delays. The fan cooler heat removal rate per train is given as a function of containment temperature in Reference 5 and is shown in Figure 3-1. This fan cooler heat removal rate is conservatively low to account for the two-phase flow analysis that was completed to address NRC Generic Letter 96-06. The heat removal rate is read into a GOTHIC function and a multiplier, based on the number of fan cooler trains running, is used to calculate the heat removal rate from containment.

Containment spray is modeled with a flow boundary condition. There is one spray pump per train and two trains are normally available. The spray pumps are modeled to actuate on the containment HI-2 setpoint (including biased high uncertainty) and to begin injecting water from the spray header after an accumulation of conservatively long delays. The spray flowrate is biased low and entered into GOTHIC as a function of time. From Section 6.4.2.2.2 of Reference 8, the Prairie Island containment spray nozzles produce a mean drop diameter of 700 microns. Therefore, in the GOTHIC model, the spray is injected in the form of drops with a conservatively large diameter of 1,000 microns (0.0394 inches). A function multiplier is used to convert the input volumetric spray flowrate (in gpm) to units of cubic feet per second and factors in the number of trains running.

WCAP-16219-NP 6403-NP.doc-042904

2-6 Table 2-1 Heat Sink Data for the Prairie Island Containment Model Actual Actual Actual Model Area Paint Primer Zinc' Stainless Steel Carbon Steel Air Concrete Total Conductor (fty) Sides (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.)

1 40,300 I 0.011 1.5 1.5110 2 17,300 1 0.011 0.75 0.7610 3 1,260 02 0.011 0.1875 0.0021 12 12.2006 4 5,150 1 0.1875 0.0021 12 12.1896 5 1,010 1 0.25 0.0021 12 12.2521 6 5,780 1 0.011 0.375 0.3860 7 4,055 2 0.011 0.336 0.1790 8 16,925 2 0.011 0.5 0.2610 9 28,500 2 0.011 0.75 0.3860 10 2,000 2 0.011 1.5 0.7610 l l 500 2 0.011 2 1.0110 12 1,695 2 0.011 0.5 0.2610 13 12,400 2 0.011 0.1875 0.1048 14 14,000 1 0.004 0.1 0.1040 15 27,100 2 0.004 0.1084 0.0582 16 1,346 1 0.011 2.75 2.7610 17 1,256 1 0.011 1.39 1.4010 18 973 2 0.011 0.625 0.3235 19 19,320 2 . 12 6.0000 20 15,000 1 12 12.0000 21 3,810 2 0.028 12 6.0280 22 3,322.5 i3 0.028 12 12.056 23 5,830 1 0.028 12 12.0280 24 7,687.5 _ _ 0.028 6 6.056 Notes:

1. The zinc plating thickness was not dcefincd in Refercnce 5, it was estimated to bc 4 mils.

2. Rcfcrencc 5 states that the reactor vessel liner (conductor 3) is not to be modeled as a heat sink, so both surfaces were modeled as insulated.

3. This heat sink represents a floor on one side and a ceiling on the other side. The area of one side is given.

WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904 i -e-w f, /e w " /e # t, we e

2-7 Table 2-2 Thermal Conductivity, Density, and Volumetric Heat Capacity (VHC) for Heat Sink Materials Conductivity Density VHC Specific Heat

_ (Btu/hr-ft-0 F) (Ibm/cf) (Btu/cf- 0 F) (Btu/lbm-0 F)

Paint- Steel 0.29 28.0 28 1.0 Paint - Concrete 0.29 28.0 28 1.0 Concrete 0.8 144 28.8 0.2 Carbon Steel 26 490 56.4 0.115 Stainless Steel 9.4 488 60.12 0.123 Zinc 64 446 N/A 0.091 Air(gap) 0.0174 0.06 N/A 0.241 WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc.042904

2-8 Figure 2-1 Prairie Island GOTHIC Containment Model for MSLB Events WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

2-9 ac Figure 2-2 Prairie Island GOTHIC Containment Model for LOCA Events April 2004 WCAP-l 621 9-NP WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

3-1 3 COMPARISON OF MODELING ASSUMPTIONS FOR CONTAINMENT ANALYSES The Prairie Island licensing basis containment response analyses had been performed previously with the CONTEMPT code. This section presents a comparison of the differences between the CONTEMPT and GOTHIC containment models.

3.1 CODE COMPARISON The GOTHIC and CONTEMPT code features and modeling techniques are compared in Reference 11.

The key differences are summarized below:

GOTHIC was designed as a general purpose thermal-hydraulic transient analysis code.

CONTEMPT was specifically designed for containment analyses and contains four special hard-wired volume types for this purpose.

GOTHIC performs M&E balances for the droplet phase; the spray efficiency is a user input in CONTEMPT. Similarly, GOTHIC performs M&E balances for steam/air bubbles rising through a pool; CONTEMPT assumes 100 percent condensation efficiency.

For interface heat and mass transfer, CONTEMPT assumes the interface is always at saturation.

GOTHIC calculates the interface temperature from first principles. Spray droplets condense steam based on the difference in steam partial pressure at the drop surface and in the atmosphere.

The droplets can eventually come to thermal equilibrium with the containment atmosphere and fall into the sump.

CONTEMPT uses a user-specified phase separation model for blowdown (pressure flash or temperature flash). GOTHIC determines the blowdown phase separation based on fundamental models for interface heat and mass transfer at the containment conditions. Liquid break flow released to the containment evaporates based on the difference in steam partial pressure at the drop surface and in the atmosphere. The droplets can eventually come to thermal equilibrium with the containment atmosphere and fall into the'sump.

GOTHIC models momentum balanced, multi-phase flow between compartments and to the atmosphere. GOTHIC uses break flow tables or correlations for choked flow. CONTEMPT only models the vapor phase flow between compartments and to the atmosphere.

GOTHIC calculates the tube and shell heat transfer coefficients for heat exchangers. The overall heat transfer coefficient is a user input for CONTEMPT heat exchangers.

Each version of GOTHIC is qualified against a wide range of tests (both experimental and analytical) and the results are documented in the code Qualification Report (Reference 2).

Although CONTEMPT results from various versions have been compared with various experimental and analytical tests, there is no corresponding documentation to demonstrate the qualification of each version of CONTEMPT.

April 2004 WCAP-l 621 9-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

3-2 3.2 INPUT COMPARISON L Table 3-1 presents a comparison of the key input values for the CONTEMPT and GOTHIC containment I models. The key differences between modeling input assumptions are summarized below: L

The DLM is used to calculate condensation mass transfer between the heat sinks and the atmosphere in the Prairie Island GOTHIC containment evaluation model. The DLM model is 'I}

described in Reference I and the qualifications for its use in the containment design basis I, analyses are described in References 2 and 3. In addition to the results presented in the GOTHIC IL code Qualification Report, the DLM correlation was compared with additional test data in response to a Request for Additional Information (RAI) from the NRC on the Kewaunee submittal (Reference 12). CONTEMPT uses the Tagami and Uchida heat and mass transfer I correlations.

GOTHIC uses something similar to the CONTEMPT pressure flash assumption to model phase separation for the break flow. The liquid portion of the break flow is released as 100 p droplets that come into temperature equilibrium with the atmosphere before falling into the sump. i

A larger pool surface area for interface heat and mass transfer is modeled in GOTHIC. The GOTHIC pool surface area input value is the sum of the horizontal floor heat sink areas.

Condensation occurs when the containment steam partial pressure is higher than the saturation pressure at the pool surface; evaporation occurs when the containment steam partial pressure is t lower than the saturation pressure at the pool surface. I

The accumulator nitrogen release is modeled for the LOCA event in the GOTHIC containment I model. This was not considered in the CONTEMPT model for the LOCA event. I.

GOTHIC models the fan cooler and spray actuation based on the containment pressure setpoint. ]

Both CONTEMPT and GOTHIC model delays for containment heat removal from the fan coolers and spray. The fan cooler heat removal delay is modeled to account for signal generation, diesel i generator and fan startup, and other factors. The spray injection delay is modeled to account for 9, signal generation, diesel generator and pump startup and filling of the spray lines. L

GOTHIC models the incoming spray as droplets with a 1,000 p diameter. GOTHIC models the J interface heat and mass transfer between the drops and the atmosphere. CONTEMPT models a .1' fixed spray efficiency rate. 1

The long-term LOCA heat removal rate from the RHR and CCW heat exchangers is flow and IL temperature dependent. GOTHIC calculates the overall heat transfer coefficient for each type of '

heat exchanger based on the flowrates, number of tubes and tube hydraulic diameter. The J.

CONTEMPT model uses a fixed UA for the RHR heat exchanger and assumes a conservative i CCW flowrate and temperature.

Some of the differences between the modeling assumptions can be eliminated by input changes in the A, GOTHIC model. The impact of these changes is shown in the benchmark tests described in Section 4. 1, April 2004 WCAP- 16219-NP WCAP-1 6219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

3-3 Table 3-1 Input Comparison Description CONTEMPT GOTHIC Containment Data Noding Structure Single lumped Single lumped Volume (cf) 1,320,000 1,320,000 Height (fi) N/A 100 Pool Area (sqft) 8,659(') 16,840 Heat Sink Geometry Area Thickness Area Thickness Number Description (sqft) Sides (inches) (sqft) Sides (inches) 1(2) Containment Cylinder 40,300 1 1.5 40,300 1 1.511 2(2) Containment Dome 17,300 1 0.75 17,300 1 0.761 3P) Vessel Cavity Liner 1,260 0 12 1,260 0 12.20059 4(4) Refueling Canal 5,150 1 12.1875 5,150 1 12.18959 5(4) Refueling Canal 1,010 1 12.25 1,010 1 12.25209 6(2) Exposed Piping 5,780 1 0.375 5,780 1 0.386 7(2).(S) Steel Structures 4,055 2 0.336 4,055 2 0.179 8(2).(5) Steel Structures 16,925 2 0.5 16,925 2 0.261 9(2),(5) Steel Structures 28,500 2 0.75 28,500 2 0.386 lo(2).(5) Steel Structures 2,000 2 1.5 2,000 2 0.761 Steel Structures 500 2 2.0 500 2 1.011 12 Handrails & Ladders 1,695 2 0.5 1,695 2 0.261 13(2)(5) Grating 12,400 2 0.1875 12,400 2 0.10475 14(6) Cable Trays & Conduit 14,000 1 0.1 14,000 1 0.104 15(5) (6) Ductwork 27,100 2 0.1084 27,100 2 0.0582 16(2) Accumulators (2) 1,346 1 2.75 1,346 1 2.761 17(2) Accumulators (2) 1,256 1 1.39 - 1,256 1 1.401 I8(2),(5) Accumulators (2) skirt 973 2 0.625 973 2 0.3235 19(5) Heavy Walls 19,320 2 12 19,320 2 6.0 20 Heavy Walls 15,000 1 12 15,000 1 12.0 21(5)_(v) Heavy Walls 3,810 2 12 3,810 2 6.028 22(51(7).(12) Heavy Floors 6,645 2 12 3,322.5 1 12.056 23' Heavy Floors 5,830 1 12 5,830 1 12.028 24(5),M,(12) Light Floors 15,375 2 6 7,687.5 1 6.056 WCAP-1621 9-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc.042904

3-4 Table 3-1 Input Comparison (cont.)

Description CONTEMPT GOTHIC Heat Sink Material Properties Thermal Volumetric Thermal Volumetric Conductivity Heat Conductivity Heat Material (Btu/hr-ft-0 F) Capacity (Btu/hr-ft-0 F) Capacity Paint - Steel 0.29 28 0.29 28 Paint - Concrete 0.29 28 0.29 28 Concrete 0.8 28.8 0.8 28.8 Carbon Steel 26 56.4 26 56.4 Stainless Steel 9.4 60.12 9.4 60.12 Zinc N/A N/A 64 40.59 Air (gap) N/A N/A 0.0174 0.01446 Heat Transfer Coefficients - LOCA Tagami/Uchida Direct + DLM Heat Transfer Coefficients - MSLB Uchida Direct + DLM Revaporization Fraction 0.08 N/A Initial Conditions Initial Pressure (psia)(8) 14.2, 16.85 14.2, 16.70(9)

Initial Temperature (0 F) 120 120 Initial Humidity- LOCA (% RH) 30 30 Initial Humidity- MSLB (% RH) 30 100("°)

Boundary Conditions Break Flow Phase Separation Liquid released as a stream, uses a Liquid released as 100 [L diameter temperature flash assumption drops, uses a pressure flash assumption Accumulator Nitrogen Release Not Modeled Modeled for LOCA Fan Cooler Initiation 60 seconds after event initiation(i) 19.7 psia with a 60-second delay Fan Cooler Heat Removal Rate See Figure 3-1 See Figure 3-1 Spray Flow Initiation - LOCA 75 seconds after event initiation 38.7 psia with a 72-second max.

l_ delay Spray Flow Initiation - MSLB 80 seconds after event initiation 38.7 psia with a 73-second max.

l_ delay Spray Flowrate (gpm/pump) 1,200 1,200 Spray Drop Modeling 100% efficiency 1,000 g drop diameter WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

3-5 Table 3-1 Input Comparison (cont.)

Description CONTEMPT GOTHIC LOCA Sump Recirculation Modeling Transfer to Recirculation after event 3,000 840/1,680 (max)( 13) initiation (seconds) 1,440 (min)

RHR Flowrate (Ibm/s) 208 277.9/555.8 (max)( 13) 207.3 (min)

RHR Heat Exchanger UA 689,842 Code calculated using flow area, (Bt/hr-F) Dh and HTA of HX CCW Flowrate (lbm/s) 313.9 305.5 CCW Heat Exchanger UA N/A(t15) Code calculated using flow area, l (Btu/hr-__)_ Da and HTA of HX Other CCW Heat Loads (Btu/hr) N/A(' 5) 500,000 Service Water Flowrate (lbm/s) N/A(15) 275 Service Water Temperature (OF) N/A(15) 95(14)

Notes:

(1) The pool evaporation/condensation modeling is conservatively used for the CONTEMPT MSLB limiting temperature case but is not used for the CONTEMPT MSLB limiting pressure case or the LOCA containment response case.

(2) An 11 mil paint thickness is modeled for painted steel heat sinks in both GOTHIC and CONTEMPT, but not shown in the CONTEMPT thickness.

(3) Heat transfer to/from this heat sink is not modeled.

(4) A thin (2.09 mil) air gap is modeled between the steel plate and the concrete in GOTHIC. This simulates a gap conductance of 100 Btu/hr-sqft-0 F.

(5) The two-sided conductors are modeled with half thickness to conserve heat sink volume in both GOTHIC and CONTEMPT.

(6) A 4 mil zinc coating for the galvanized steel is modeled GOTHIC.

(7) A 28 mul paint thickness is modeled for painted concrete heat sinks in GOTHIC and CONTEMPT, but not shown in the CONTEMPT thickness.

(8) The MSLB limiting temperature case conservatively uses the containment minimum pressure, 14.2 psia.

(9) The value used in GOTHIC reflects the Technical Specification Limit on containment pressure of2 psig (LCO 3.6.4).

(10) Sensitivity cases have shown that GOTHIC calculates higher MSLB peak temperatures when an initial humidity of 100 percent was assumed.

(11) The CONTEMPT MSLB limiting temperature case conservatively starts the CS pump at 120 seconds after event initiation.

(12) This two-sided conductor represents a floor/ceiling inside containment and is modeled with the full thickness and one side area in GOTHIC.

(13) The LOCA M&E releases are calculated with minimum and maximum safety injection flowrates. The RHR flowrate varies with time in the maximum safety injection case.

(14) Service water temperature may vary for the long-term equipment qualification analysis.

(15) The CCW and Service Water systems were not explicitly modeled in CONTEMPT. A conservatively high CCW water temperature of 122.81F was used for the entire transient.

Note:

It is not the intent to restrict use of any of these inputs that are specific to plant equipment design or operation that may require changes in the future due to plant modifications conducted under 10 CFR 50.59 or due to any input calculations corrections or conservative enhancements.

WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

3-6 1

I'l 20000 L

rr~ I EI 15000 1 E-/

100 150 200 250 300 Vapor Temperature (F) 4.

I I

J.

J Figure 3-1 Fan Cooler Heat Removal Rate per Train It WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

4-1 4 BENCHMARK COMPARISON A benchmark comparison between the CONTEMPT and GOTHIC code results was made to determine the impact of differences in the modeling methodology that cannot be completely eliminated with input changes (i.e., the modeling of liquid flashing and droplets). The containment response for both the LOCA and MSLB events was compared.

4.1 LOCA CONTAINMENT RESPONSE BENCHMARK COMPARISON The GOTHIC containment response model described in Section 2 was modified for the benchmark comparison to be like the CONTEMPT LOCA containment response model documented in Reference 13.

The following input changes were made to the GOTHIC model for the LOCA benchmark comparison case:

1. The LOCA mass and enthalpy input data from Reference 13 was input to GOTHIC.

2. Entrainment of the liquid break flow was limited to the blowdown portion of the event (22 seconds) by using a multiplier function on the break drop diameter. This was done to try to simulate the liquid temperature flash option in CONTEMPT.

3. All the GOTHIC direct/DLM heat transfer coefficients were changed to Tagami/Uchida to match the CONTEMPT model. The Tagami peak was set to the end of blowdown (22 seconds) with an integrated energy release value of I .76E8 Btu, based on an integration of the LOCA energy release input data up to the end of blowdown.

4. The GOTHIC revaporization fraction input value was set to 0.08 to match CONTEMPT.

5. The GOTHIC fan cooler start time was set to 60 seconds to match CONTEMPT. Only one train (two fan coolers) was assumed to be operating, as in CONTEMPT.

6. The GOTHIC spray start time was set to 75 seconds to match CONTEMPT. Only one pump was assumed to be running with a spray flowrate of 1,200 gpm, as in CONTEMPT.

7. The GOTHIC containment volume liquid-vapor interface area was set to 8,659 square feet to match CONTEMPT.

8. The GOTHIC initial containment pressure was set to 16.85 psia to match CONTEMPT.

The LOCA benchmark case was run until the start of recirculation. The containment pressure, temperature, and sump temperature comparisons are shown in Figures 4-1 through 4-3. The GOTHIC results are plotted as a solid line and the CONTEMPT results are represented by Xs. GOTHIC predicted a lower transient containment pressure and temperature response than CONTEMPT, but a higher transient sump temperature response. This indicated that GOTHIC was putting more energy into the water than the air. It was postulated that the difference might be due to the CONTEMPT temperature flash option for liquid break flow.

April 2004 WCAP-1 6219-NP WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc 042904

4-2 A modification was made to the GOTHIC input model to better simulate the temperature flash option in CONTEMPT. A circular flow path with a volumetric fan was added for this sensitivity case. The fan flowrate was set to 60,000,000 cfm and the flow path drop deposition was set to -1 (simulates 100 percent I) de-entrainment). All of the liquid drops that enter the circular flow path are de-entrained and put into the sump. The volumetric fan is tripped off when the spray starts.

The containment pressure comparison with the simulated temperature flash model is shown in Figure 4-4.

GOTHIC predicted the same pressure response as CONTEMPT during the blowdown phase of the large l LOCA; however, GOTHIC still predicted a slight decrease in pressure between 20 and 60 seconds. The I GOTHIC peak pressure is slightly lower than CONTEMPT (59.85 psia at 160.1 seconds versus 60.2 psia l at 159 seconds) and the GOTHIC pressure is increasing slowly at the end of the transient. I The containment temperature comparison is shown in Figure 4-5. GOTHIC did not predict the increase in temperature that occurred just prior to the spray injection in CONTEMPT. The GOTHIC peak I temperature was 275.51F at 160.1 seconds versus a CONTEMPT peak temperature of 274.40 F at 75.4 seconds.

The containment sump temperature comparison is shown in Figure 4-6. The GOTHIC calculated sump I.

temperature is closer to, but still slightly higher than CONTEMPT.

Therefore, with these input changes, the GOTHIC model can be made to match the CONTEMPT results for the containment LOCA response reasonably well. l 4.2 MSLB CONTAINMENT RESPONSE BENCHMARK COMPARISON The GOTHIC containment response model described in Section 2 was modified for the benchmark l comparison to be like the CONTEMPT MSLB containment response model documented in Reference 5.

The following input changes were made to the GOTHIC model for the MSLB benchmark comparison case:

Id

1. The faulted MSLB mass and enthalpy input data from Reference 5 was added to GOTHIC.

2. The intact MSLB mass and enthalpy input data from Reference 5 was added to GOTHIC. ,

3. A boundary condition and flow path were added to the GOTHIC model to incorporate the auxiliary feedwater mass and enthalpy input data from Reference 5. 1

4. All the GOTHIC directlDLM heat transfer coefficients in GOTHIC were changed to direct/Uchida to match the CONTEMPT model. I

5. The GOTHIC revaporization fraction input value was set to 0.08 to match CONTEMPT.

6. The GOTHIC fan cooler start time was set to 60 seconds to match CONTEMPT. Only one train I' (two fan coolers) were assumed to be operating, as in CONTEMPT. -

WCAP-16219-NP Apil 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

4-3

7. The GOTHIC spray start time was set to 80 seconds to match CONTEMPT. Only one pump was assumed to be running with a spray flowrate of 1,200 gpm, as in CONTEMPT.

8. A trip to terminate spray flow at 1,200 seconds was added to GOTHIC to match CONTEMPT.

9. The GOTHIC containment volume liquid-vapor interface area was set to 0.0 square feet to eliminate heat and mass transfer to the break pool, as in CONTEMPT.

10. The GOTHIC initial containment pressure was set to 16.85 psia to match CONTEMPT.

The MSLB benchmark case was run for 3,000 seconds. The containment pressure, temperature, and sump temperature comparisons are shown in Figures 4-7 through 4-9. The GOTHIC results are plotted as a solid line and the CONTEMPT results are represented by Xs. GOTHIC predicts a slower increase in pressure during the early part of the transient (0 to 80 seconds). GOTHIC does not predict the rapid increase in air temperature predicted by CONTEMPT at between 20 and 80 seconds. The GOTHIC calculated sump temperature is higher than predicted by CONTEMPT. This indicates that GOTHIC is storing more energy in the water than the air. The GOTHIC and CONTEMPT calculated pressure and temperature transient response converge again after spray starts. The GOTHIC calculated peak pressure is slightly lower than CONTEMPT (60.2 psia at 140.2 seconds versus 60.6 psia at 140.4 seconds).

A modification was made to the GOTHIC model to better simulate the temperature flash option in CONTEMPT. A circular flow path with a volumetric fan was added for this sensitivity case. The fan flowrate was set to 60,000,000 cfm and the flow path drop deposition was set to -1 (simulates 100 percent de-entrainment). All of the liquid drops that enter the circular flow path are de-entrained and put into the sump. The volumetric fan is tripped off when spray starts.

The containment pressure, temperature, and sump temperature comparisons are shown in Figures 4-10 through 4-12. Now, GOTHIC predicts the same initial increase in pressure and temperature prior to spray injection, but still does not predict the same response to the spray injection as CONTEMPT. The sump temperature comparison is much better. After spray injection occurs, the GOTHIC pressure continues to increase, but at a slower rate. The GOTHIC calculated peak pressure for this sensitivity case is about 1.3 psi higher than CONTEMPT (61.9 at 138.2 seconds).

A second modification was made to the GOTHIC model to simulate the 100 percent spray efficiency in CONTEMPT. The spray drop diameter input value was reduced from 1,000 microns to 100 microns.

The containment pressure, temperature, and sump temperature comparisons are shown in Figures 4-13 through 4-15. With the change in the spray drop diameter input value, GOTHIC predicts the same response to spray injection as CONTEMPT. The GOTHIC calculated peak pressure for this sensitivity case is about 0.2 psi higher than CONTEMPT (60.8 psia at 140.2 seconds).

Therefore, with these input changes, the GOTHIC model can be made to match the CONTEMPT results for the containment MSLB response reasonably well.

April 2004 WCAP-1 6219-NP April 2004 6403.NP.doc-042904

4-4

.1 AL 1 ~Containment Pressure.l GOTHIC CONTEMPT l 110 'rme Fiue4tContainment Pressure

-GOTHIC 7.1Patrhl(QA) OdW2=003 11:41:55 100 CoprsnfrIC (sec)1 1000 ecmr aea, 1e+00 s

4 WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

4-5 2 Containment Temperature GOTHIC CONTEMPT o X-- X 0t 0

04 EL 0

LO 0 I I IIIII ,,1 I I ,, ,,, ,, , 1,1,,,,1 , . , .,, ,

1 10 100 1000 le+004 Time (see)

GOTHIC 7.1Pat h1(QA) Oc=2O2003 l1A1i5 Figure 4-2 Containment Temperature Comparison for LOCA Benchmark Case April 2004 WCAP-1 6219-NP WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP doc4042904

4-6 C1.1 .1 I

LOL C14.1 U.1 xL I, CLL .1 E 0 Ln GOTHIC CONTEMPT 1II II 111

.1

'I, C)1 Time (sec).

GOTHIC 7.1 POW l(QA) OCVJ~2=DD 11.41.5.[

.1

.1~

14 It F igue4D otimn upTmeaueCmaio o ecmr OACs WCAP-1 6219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

4-7 Containment Pressure GOTHIC CONTEMPT o X- -x LO In Iin ELt U)_

I I H i l I I I I If l I I I I 1I 1 II 1 10 100 1000 Ie.004 Time (sec)

GOTHIC 7.1Pah1(QA) Octt2OZ03 11:52:0 Figure 4-4 Containment Pressure Comparison for LOCA Benchmark Case with Input Change to Simulate the CONTEMPT Temperature Flash Model WCAP-I 6219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

-- U-4-8 1' 2 Containment Temperaturel GOTHIC CONTEMPT.l o X- -X LL 0L MX1L GOTHIC 1:20 CONTEMPTQA Ld I Il I II C1.1 I I"-11 I I IIHl I1I 0 .1 I,

Figure 4-5 Containment Temperature Comparison for LOCA Benchmark Case with Input l Change to Simulate the CONTEMPT Temperature Flash Model April 2004 WCAP- 16219-NP WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-04290.4

4-9 3 Sump Water Temperature GOTHIC CONTEMPT x- -x C,.'

0 x 0x E i CD II a ..1l l I II *il I I, I.. 1 'I 'I '"

I "

1 10 100 1000 1e+004 Time (sec)

GOTHIC 7.lPakhl Q(ANow2O1ZXS3 12At3 Figure 4-6 Containment Sump Temperature Comparison for LOCA Benchmark Case with Input Change to Simulate the CONTEMPT Temperature Flash Model WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

4-10 L I,

I

.1 Containment Pressure .

GOTHIC CONTEMPT .

C,,)

.I, l

0.1 0 50 C..1 100 150 200 250 GOTHIC 7.11Parth1(OA) Ocf=01148:28 O

Time (see) .1 U .1~

Figue47CotaimentPresureComarisn fr MSB, encharkCas April 2004 WCAP-162 19-NP WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

4-11 2 Containment Temperature GOTHIC CONTEMPT X -~X -xXXt NI (N

U)

E 0 50 100 150 200 250 Tine (sec)

C0`HC7.1Paft1ct(QA) MdfSf=O3 12A828 Figure 4-8 Containment Temperature Comparison for MSLB Benchmark Case WCAP-1 6219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

I 4-12 L L

3 Sump Water Temperature GOTHIC CONTEMPT I o X--X xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxII

.1 0 .1 50 100 15D 200 250 1 La0 I,

GoT~l7.ln~hl(A~ocn5 o..1 14828Time (sec).

GO 7.49 FgrC 12.4828 CPotnn(A) Scum Tm5e2 B a

.1 49CotaimentSum FigueTemeraure or SLB encmarkCas WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

4-13 Containment Pressure GOTHIC CONTEMPT

.i5, c)mo _XX XX~

2X -,{

LO a.a 0,0 5010 10 0025 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (sec)

GOTHIC 7.1Psth1(QA) Odt152003 11:1727 Figure 4-10 Containment Pressure Comparison for MSLB Benchmark Case with Input Changes to Simulate the CONTEMPT Temperature Flash Option WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

L 4-14 1 xL 2Containment Temperature LOL GOTHIC CONTEMPT o ~X- -X .

CLL C1.1 1

0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (sec).

GOT11C 7.1 Pa"I (QA) Od/15J203 I1A:T.27.

Figure 4-11 Containment Temperature Comparison for MSLB Benchmark Case with Input 1 Changes to Simulate the CONTEMPT Temperature Flash Option April 2004 WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403.NP.doc-042904

4-15 3 Sump Water Temperature GOTHIC CONTEMPT 04 6,X ->x

-X.-_ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx E

0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (sec)

Oc~ts2003 11727 GtWC7.1Palh1e0Aj Figure 4-12 Containment Sump Temperature Comparison for MSLB Benchmark Case with Input Changes to Simulate the CONTEMPT Temperature Flash Option WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

4-16 '

AL

.L L

1 Containment Pressure GOTHIC CONTEMPT x- -x 0 ___100 150 200 250 Time (sec)l Figure 4-13 Containment Pressure Comparison for MSLB Benchmark Case with Input Changes to Simulate the CONTEMPT Temperature Flash Option and 100% Spray Effciency WCAP-1 6219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-442904

4-17 2 Containment Temperature GOTHIC CONTEMPT

-- x- -x X E 10 EE 0 50 100 150 200 250 Time (see)

GOThiC 7.1 Patchc(OA) Fe~btllb004 1428.1 Figure 4-14 Containment Temperature Comparison for MSLB Benchmark Case with Input Changes to Simulate the CONTEMPT Temperature Flash Option and 100% Spray Efficiency April 2004 WCAP-1 621 9-NP April 2004 6403.NP.doc-042904

I 4-18 I

L L

3 Sump Water Temperature I GOTHIC CONTEMPT X--x I

CI I,

I E0 I,

in L

I C_

I, I-L1 I

o so 100 150 200 250 I Time (sec) I, GOTIC 7.1Pldl t(Q Febf1 t20G4 1425;35 I'

I, IL J,

I,

.1~

Figure 4-15 Containment Sump Temperature Comparison for MSLB Benchmark Case with Input -I, Changes to Simulate the CONTEMPT Temperature Flash Option and 100% Spray Efficiency t WCAP-I 6219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

5-1 5 SAMPLE TRANSIENT RESULTS USING THE PRAIRIE ISLAND GOTHIC CONTAINMENT EVALUATION MODEL This section presents containment response results for representative LOCA and MSLB transients using the Prairie Island GOTHIC containment evaluation model described in Section 2.0. The GOTHIC input tables for these sample cases are given in Appendices A and B and summarized in Section 3. The purpose of these sample cases is to demonstrate that the GOTHIC model has analysis margin to the containment design basis pressure limits.

5.1 LOCA SAMPLE TRANSIENT RESULTS The M&E input used in the LOCA GOTHIC containment evaluation model sample case was calculated using the Westinghouse method for LOCAM&E, as described in WCAP-10325 (Reference 7). The double-ended pump suction (DEPS) LOCA case was run through the transfer to sump recirculation.

While the M&E release input used in the containment evaluation model sample case is not presently the licensing basis LOCA release input, it is considered adequately conservative, yet representative of actual expected LOCA release input, for Prairie Island.

A DEPS LOCA is initiated from full power. A loss of offsite power and failure of an emergency diesel generator is assumed. The fan coolers start to remove heat at 60.3 seconds and the spray starts to inject at 75.6 seconds.

The containment pressure response is shown in Figure 5-1. The containment peak pressure is 40.7 psig at 14 seconds. This is less than the containment design pressure of 46 psig. The containment temperature response is shown in Figure 5-2. The containment temperature remains less than 260'F for the entire transient. The containment sump temperature response is shown in Figure 5-3. The containment sump temperature remains less than 2501F for the entire transient.

5.2 MSLB SAMPLE TRANSIENT RESULTS The M&E used as input into the MSLB GOTHIC containment evaluation model sample case was calculated using the Westinghouse method for MSLB M&E, as described in WCAP-8822 (Reference 9). A number of MSLB M&E cases, covering various break sizes and power levels, were generated to determine the limiting conditions for containment pressure. While the M&E release input used in the containment evaluation model sample case is not presently the licensing basis MSLB release input, it is considered adequately conservative, yet representative of actual expected MSLB release input, for Prairie Island.

The limiting MSLB event in terms of containment pressure represents a 4.6 ft2 break at 70-percent power.

A single failure of a feedwater regulator valve (FRV) is assumed. The fan coolers start to remove heat at 61 seconds and spray starts to inject at 73 seconds.

The containment pressure response for the peak pressure case is shown in Figure 5-4. The peak pressure for this case was 45.8 psig at 89 seconds. This is less than the containment design pressure of 46 psig.

The containment temperature response is shown in Figure 5-5. The containment temperature remains less than 2680 F for the entire transient. The containment sump temperature response is shown in Figure 5-6.

The containment sump temperature remains less than 2551F for the entire transient.

WCAP-1 621 9-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc.042904

L 5-2 IL L-l I

I L

L.

I, Containment Pressure GOTHIC I

L 1,

.1 Ul)

L I

IL U

L11 I,

.1 U

1 10 100 1000 1le+004 1le+005 11 Time (sec)

GOTHIC 7.1Patch1(QA) Mar/19/204 13:32-20 L

I.

I I11 II

.1~

I, I,

.1 Figure 5-1 Containment Pressure Transient Response for LOCA I, I

I WCAP-1 6219-NP 6403-NP.doc-042904 April 2004 I

5-3 2 Containment Temperature GOTHIC CO 0to 04 c'j M.

1 to0 100 1000 le+004 1 e+005 Time (sec)

GOTHIC 7.1 Patchl (OA) Mar/19/2004 13:3220 Figure 5-2 Containment Temperature Transient Response for LOCA WCAP-1 6219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

s5..1 t/

1~

I L

II 3 ~Sump Water Temperature >

0L 0U CD0. 0 GOTHIC 7.1 arh a

E1 E in i 10Ql 100 1000 I e+004 p e +005 0~1/

GOTHIC 7.1 Patchl1(OA) Mar11 9/2004 13:32:20 0.1 Tm sc

.1 Figre5-SmpTepeatreTrnsen Cntinen Rspns fr OC WCAP- 16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

5-5 Containment Pressure GOTHIC F~LO/

0 0 25 So 75 100 125 150 Time (sec)

GOTHIC 7.11Patchl (aA) Mar/19/2X0416:31:45 Figure 5-4 Containment Pressure Transient Response for MSLB April 2004 WCAP-1 621 9-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

L 5-6 L L

L L

.1, 2 Containment Temperature I GOTHIC9 04 0+

c'J o.1~

Q..

lt12 Figure 5-5 Containment Temperature Transient Response for MSLB[

WCAP- 16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

5-7 3 Sump Water Temperature GOTHIC 0

LO CNI E _a E

CD cn 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Time (sec)

GOTHIC 7.1Patch (A) Mar/19/2004 16:31:45 Figure 5-6 Containment Pressure Transient Response for MSLB WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

6-1 6

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The original Prairie Island containment evaluation model was based on the CONTEMPT code. A new Prairie Island containment evaluation model, based on the NRC-approved containment evaluation model for Kewaunee, was built using the GOTHIC code. Most of the input data for the Prairie Island GOTHIC containment evaluation model was taken from the CONTEMPT LOCA and MSLB containment model input decks.

The GOTHIC code modeling assumptions and input values were compared with the CONTEMPT code modeling assumptions and input values. Differences were identified in modeling condensation heat and mass transfer to the heat sinks, flashing of the liquid break flow, and condensation on the spray droplets.

The heat and mass transfer correlations can be changed in GOTHIC to match the CONTEMPT models; however, GOTHIC does not have the same flashing or spray condensation models as CONTEMPT. To determine the effect of these differences, the GOTHIC Prairie Island containment evaluation model was modified for benchmark comparisons with the original CONTEMPT LOCA and MSLB containment evaluation models. In addition to the various input changes required to add the M&E releases and change the heat transfer correlations, a circular flow path with drop de-entrainment was used to simulate the temperature flash option in CONTEMPT and the containment spray drop diameter input value was reduced by a factor of 10 to simulate the 100 percent spray efficiency in CONTEMPT. With these changes, the GOTHIC model results were reasonably close to those predicted by CONTEMPT. For the LOCA event, GOTHIC predicted a slightly lower (0.35 psi) peak pressure and a slightly higher (1.1 0F) peak temperature. For the MSLB event, GOTHIC predicted a slightly higher (0.2 psi) peak pressure and a slightly lower (10 0 F) peak temperature. GOTHIC predicted a slightly higher sump temperature forboth the LOCA and MSLB transients.

The GOTHIC Prairie Island containment evaluation model was used to produce sample results for the LOCA and MSLB transients. The GOTHIC model predicted that the containment would remain below design pressure for both cases.

In conclusion, as shown in the benchmark cases, the GOTHIC code maintains a similar degree of conservatism with respect to the present licensing basis CONTEMPT code. The modeling assumptions used in the proposed GOTHIC evaluation model have adequate engineering justification for being more mechanistic or conservative, as has been previously determined in the Kewaunee License Amendment No. 169, which was reviewed and approved by the NRC. Since the Prairie Island and Kewaunee plants are nearly identical Westinghouse two-loop pressurized water reactor plants in design and operation, it is reasonable to apply the same methodology for performing the containment design basis calculations.

Therefore, the GOTHIC evaluation model described in this report will provide conservative results to assure containment design basis limits are met as required by the Prairie Island licensing basis General Design Criterion 10 with consideration of General Design Criterion 41, as described in Section 1.5 of the Prairie Island USAR.

April 2004 WCAP-1 6219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc.042904

7-1 7 REFERENCES

1. NAI 8907-06, Revision 13, "GOTHIC Containment Analysis Package Technical Manual,"

Version 7.1, January 2003.

2. NAI 8907-09, Revision 7, "GOTHIC Containment Analysis Package Qualification Report,"

Version 7.1, January 2003.

3. NAI 8907-02, Revision 14, "GOTHIC Containment Analysis Package User Manual," Version 7.1, January 2003.

4. NRC Letter from Anthony C. McMurtray (NRC) to Thomas Coutu (NMC), Enclosure 2, Safety Evaluation, September 29, 2003.

5. NMC folder CF.PX.00.RSE.016 "MSLB Cont Press Response, Updated," February 2001.

6. Kreith, "Principles of Heat Transfer," Third Edition, 1973.

7. WCAP-1 0325-P-A, "Westinghouse LOCA Mass and Energy Release Model for Containment Design March 1979 Version," May 1983.

8. Prairie Island Updated Safety Analysis Report, Revision 25, May 2003.

9. WCAP-8822, "Mass and Energy Releases Following a Steam Line Rupture," September 1976.

10. Brown and York, "Sprays formed by Flashing Liquid Jets," AICHE Journal Volume 8, #2, May 1962.

11. NAI 9301-05, "Comparison of Results from GOTHIC to Results from Other Codes,"

January 1996.

12. NMC Letter NRC-03-077, "Response to Request for Additional Information Related to NMC Request for the use of GOTHIC 7 for the Kewanuee Nuclear Power Plant Containment Design Basis Accident Analyses," July 24, 2003.

13. NMC CONTEMPT Case Number: /CASE/PX/00/CONTEQ/CNP/C010006.

April 2004 WCAP-l 6219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc.042904

A-l APPENDIX A GOTHIC PRAIRIE ISLAND MSLB CONTAINMENT RESPONSE MODEL INPUT TABLES WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

U A-2 Pl Containment DBA Model - MSLB Peak Pressure for OSG Apr/16/2004 13:08:12 GOTHIC Version 7.1 Patcthl(OA) - September 2003 L

File: D.\DATA\GOTHIC\Prairte Island\OSG MSLB Cases\FCFlp\peak-press-mslb PI Containment DBA Model - MSLB Peak Pressure for OSG IJ Control Volumes Vol Vol Elev Ht Hyd. D. L/V IA Burn Description (ft3) (ft) Cft) (ft) (ft2) Opt 1 lContainment Vol l1320000. l 0. I 100. I 10. l 16840. lNONE Laminar Leakage Leak Rate Ref Ref Ref Sink/ Leak Vol Factor Press Temp Humid Source Model Rep Subvol Area I (%/hr) (psia) (F) C%) BC Option Wall Option (ft2) l1 0. I I I I I I I IDEFAULT Turbulent Leakage Leak Rate Ref Ref Ref Sink/ Leak Vol Factor Press Temp Humid Source Model Rep Subvol Area 1 (%/hr) (psia) (F) (%) BC Option Wall Option (ft2) fL/D 1 0. I I I I I IUNIFORM IDEFAULT I Fluid Boundary Conditions - Table 1 Press. Temp. Flow S J ON OFF Elev.

BC# Description (psia) FF (F) FF (lbn/s) FF P 0 Trip Trip Mft) 1F SG Side Break F 60. El 2 1 1 N Y 0 0 30.

2F Condenser Side 60. El 2 0 1 N Y 30.

3F Spray from RWST 14.7 120 V0.0044 4 N Y 2 0 90.

Fluid Boundary Conditions - Table 2 Liq. V. Stm. Drop D. Cpld Flow Heat Outlet BC# Frac. FF P.R. FF (in) FF BC# Frac. FF CBtu/s) FF Quality FF 1F 1. 1 0.C039 DEFAULT 2F 1. l1 0.0039 DEFAULT WCAP- 16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

A-3 Pl Containment DBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure 2 Feb/18/2004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.1Patch1 (OA) - September 2003 File: D:XDATA\GOTHICAPrairie Island\MSLB Cases\peak-pressrnsib Fluid Boundary Conditions - Table 2 (cont.)

Liq. V. Stxn. Drop D. Cpld Flow Heat Outlet BC# Frac. FF P.R. FF (in) FF BC1 Frac. FF (Btu/s) FF Quality FF 3F -1.l 1l 10.0394 l l 1 DEFAULT Fluid Boundary Conditions - Table 3 Gas Pressure Ratios Air BC# Gas 1 FF Gas 2 FF Gas 3 FF Gas 4 FF IF 1.

2F 1.

3F 1.

Fluid Boundary Conditions - Table 4 Gas Pressure Ratios BC# Gas 5 FF Gas 6 FF Gas 7 FF Gas 8 FF IF 2F 3F Flow Paths - Table 1 F.P. Vol Elev Ht Vol Elev Ht Description A (ft) (ft) B (ft) (ft) 1 SG Side Break F 1 30. 1F 30.

2 Condenser Side 1 30. 2F 30.

3 Spray Flow 1 90. 3F 90.

Flow Paths - Table 2 Flow Flow Hyd. Inertia Friction Relative Dep Mom Strat.

Path Area Diam. Length Length Rough- Bend Trn Flow (ft2) (ft) (ft) (ft) ness (deg) Opt Opt I 1.I 1. 1 1 0. NONE WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403.NP.doc.042904

M A4 L

I,1 PI Containment DBA Model - MSLB Peak Pressure for OSG 3 Apr116/2004 13:08:12 GOTHIC Version 7.1 Patch I (QA) - September 2003 File: D NDATA\GOTHIC\Praide Islanc\OSG MSLB Cases\FCFIX\peak_press~mslb Flow Paths - Table 2 (cont.)

Flow Flow Hyd. Inertia Friction Relative Dep Mom Strat Path Area Dian. Length Length Rough- Bend Trn Flow

(ft2) (ft) (ftl (ft) ness (deg) Opt Opt 2 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. - NONE 3 1. 1. 1. 1. 0. _ NONE Flow Paths - Table 3 Flow Fwd. Rev. Critical Exit Drop Path Loss Loss Comp. Flow Loss Breakup d Coeff. Coeff. Opt. Model Coeff. Model 1 OFF OFF 0. OFF 2 OFF OFF 0. OFF 3 OFF OFF 0. OFF Thermal Conductors - Table 1 Cond Vol HT Vol HT Cond S. A. Init.

d Description A Co B Co Type (ft2) T.(F) Or 1 Containment Cyl 1 1 1 2 1 40300. 120. I 2 Containment Dom 1 1 1 2 2 17300. 120. I 3 Reactor Vessel 1 2 1 2 3 1260. 120. I 4 Refueling Canal 1 1 1 2 4 5150. 120. I 5 Refueling Canal 1 1 1 2 5 1010. 120. I 6 Exposed Piping 1 1 1 2 6 5780. 120. I 7 Structural Stee 1 1 1 2 7 4055. 120. I 8 Structural Stee 1 1 1 2 8 16925. 120. I 9 Structural Stee 1 1 1 2 9 28500. 120. I 10 Structural Stee 1 1 1 2 10 2000. 120. I 11 Structural Stee I 1 1 2 11 500. 120. I 12 Handrails 1 1 1 2 12 1695. 120. I 13 Grating 1 1 1 2 13 12400. 120. I 14 Conduit - Cable 1 1 1 2 14 14000. 120. I 15 Ductwork 1 1 1 2 15 27100. 120. I 16 Accumulators 1 1 1 1 2 16 1346. 120. I 17 Accumulators 2 1 1 1 2 17 1256. 120. I 18 Accumulators 3 1 1 1 2 18 973. 120. I 19 Heavy Walls 1 1 1 2 19 19320. 120. I 20 Heavy Walls 1 1 1 2 20 15000. 120. I 21 Heavy Walls w/P 1 1 1 2 22 3810. 120. I 22 Heavy Floors 1 3 1 1 22 3322.5 120. I WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

A-5 PI Containment DBA Model -MSLB Peak Pressure for OSG 4 Apr/16/2004 13:08:12 GOTHIC Version 7.1 Patchl (OA) - September 2003 File: D:.DATA\GOTHICXPrairie Island\OSG MSLB CasesXFCFl)Cpeak-pressjimsib Thermal Conductors - Table 1 (cont.)

Cond Vol HT Vol HT Cond S. A. Init.

Description A Co B Co Type (ft2) T.(F) Or 23 Heavy Floors 1 3 1 2 21 5830. 120. I 24 Light Floors 1 3 1 1 23 7687.5 120. I Thermal Conductors - Table 2 Cond Therm. Rad. Emiss. Therm. Rad. Emiss.

Side A Side A Side B Side B 1 No No 2 No No 3 No No 4 No No 5 No No 6 No No 7 No No 8 No No 9 No No 10 No No 11 No No 12 No No 13 No No 14 No No 15 No No 16 No No 17 No No 18 No No 19 No No 20 No No 21 No No 22 No No 23 No No 24 No No WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

I A-6 I PI Containment DBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure Feb/18/2004 11:44:57 5 I GOTHIC Version 7.1 Patch1 (QA)- September 2003 File: DADATA\GOTHIC\Prairie IslandWMSLB Cases'peakpress.mslb Heat Transfer Coefficient Types - Table 1 (cont.)

Heat Cnd/ Sp Nat For Type Transfer Nominal Cnv Cnd Cnv Cnv Cnv Rad

Option Value FF Opt Opt HTC Opt Opt Opt 31Direct I I IADD DLM l IVERT SURF IPIPE FLOW ION Heat Transfer Coefficient Types - Table 2 Min Max Convection Condensation Type Phase Liq Liq Bulk Temp Bulk Temp 4 Opt Fract Fract Model FF Model FF 1 YAP Tg-Tf Tb-Tw 2

3 SPLIT 0. le-004 Tg-Tf Tb-Tw

.1 Heat Transfer Coefficient Types - Table 3 Char. Nat Conv For Conv Nom Minimum Char.

Type Length Coef Exp Coef Exp Vel Vel Conv HTC Height 4 (ft) FF FF FF FF I ft/s) FF (B/h-f2-F) Ift)

DEFAULT 1.

DEFAULT HTC Types - Table 4 Total Peak Initial BD Post-BD Post-BD Type Ccnst Heat Time Exp Value Exp EXP Direct

CT IBtu) Isec) XT (B/h-f2-F) yt xt FF 1 72.5 0.62 1. 0.025 2

3 72.5 0.62 1. 0.025 WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

A-7 PI Containment DBA Model - MSLB Peak Pressure for OSG 6 Apr/16/2004 13:08:12 GOTHIC Version 7.1Patchl (OA) - September 2003 File: D:tDATA\GOTHIC\Prairie lslandOSG MSLB Cases\FCFIX\peakpress_mstb Thermal Conductor Types Type Thick. O.D. Heat Heat

Description Geom (in) (in) Regions (Btu/ft3-s) FF 1 Painted CS WALL 1.511 0. 2 0.

2 Painted CS WALL 0.761 0. 2 0.

3 CS Lined Concre WALL 12.2006 0. 4 0.

4 SS Lined Concre WALL 12.1896 0. 3 0.

5 SS Lined Concre WALL 12.2521 0. 3 0.

6 Painted CS WALL 0.386 0. 2 0.

7 Painted CS WALL 0.179 0. 2 0.

8 Painted CS WALL 0.261 0. 2 0.

9 Painted CS WALL 0.386 0. 2 0.

10 Painted CS WALL 0.761 0. 2 0.

11 Painted CS WALL 1.011 0. 2 0.

12 Painted CS WALL 0.261 0. 2 0.

13 Painted CS WALL 0.10475 0. 2 0.

14 Galvanized WALL 0.104 0. 2 0.

15 Galvanized WALL 0.0582 0. 2 0.

16 Painted CS WALL 2.761 0. 2 0.

17 Painted CS WALL 1.401 0. 2 0.

18 Painted CS WALL 0.3235 0. 2 0.

19 6-in Concrete WALL 6. 0. 1 0.

20 12-in Concrete WALL 12. 0. 1 0.

21 12-in Painted C WALL 12.028 0. 2 0.

22 12-in Painted C WALL 12.056 0. 3 0.

23 6-in Painted Co WALL 6.056 0. 3 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 1

Painted CS Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.011 1 0.

2 2 0.011 1.5 15 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 2

Painted CS Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.011 1 0.

WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc.042904

A-8 Pl Containment DBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure 7 Febl8/2004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.1 Patctl(OA) - September2003 File: D:\DATA\GOTHIC\Prairie Island\MSLB Cases\peakpressmsIb Thermal Conductor Type (cont.)

2 Painted CS Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region (in) (in) regs. Factor 2 2 0.011 0.75 8 0.

Thermnal Conductor Type 3

CS Lined Concrete Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Regicn N (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.011 1 0.

2 2 0.011 0.1875 2 0.

3 5 0.1985 0.0021 1 0.

4 4 0.2006 12. 24 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 4

SS Lined Concrete Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region x (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 3 0. 0.1875 2 0.

2 5 0.1875 0.0021 1 0.

3 4 0.1896 12. 24 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 5

SS Lined Concrete Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 3 0. 0.25 3 0.

2 5 0.25 0.0021 1 0.

3 4 0.2521 12. 24 0.

WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

A-9 PI Containment DBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure 8 Feb/18/2004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.1 Patchl (OA) - September 2003 File: D:ADATA\GOTHIC\PraIrie Island\MSLB Cases\peakpressnmslb Thermal Conductor Type 6

Painted CS Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region y (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.011 1 0.

2 2 0.011 0.375 4 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 7

Painted CS Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.011 1 0.

2 2 0.011 0.168 2 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 8

Painted CS I.at. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.011 1 0.

2 2 0.011 0.25 3 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 9

Painted CS Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.011 1 0.

2 2 0.011 0.375 4 0.

WCAP-16219-NP - April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

U I

A-10 L

'L Pt Containment DBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure 9 1L Feb/1 8/2004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.1 Patchl(OA) - September 2003 File: D:IDATA\GOTHIC\Prairie Island\MtSLB Cases~peakpressmslD Thermal Conductor Type 10 Painted CS Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region I (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.011 1 0.

2 2 0.011 0.75 8 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 11 Painted CS Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.011 1 0.

2 2 0.011 1. 10 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 12 Painted CS Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.011 1 0.

2 2 0.011 0.25 3 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 13 Painted CS Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.011 1 0.

2 2 0.011 0.09375 1 0.

WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-04290.4

A-1l Pi Containment DBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure 10 Feb/1812004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.1 Patchl (OA) - September 2003 File: D:tDATA\GOTHICPrairie Island\MSLB Casestpeak-press-nmsIb Thermal Conductor Type 14 Galvanized Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 6 0. 0.004 1 0.

2 2 0.004 0.1 1 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 15 Galvanized Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 6 0. 0.004 1 0.

2 2 0.004 0.0542 1 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 16 Painted CS Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.011 1 0.

2 2 0.011 2.75 28 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 17 Painted CS Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.011 1 0.

2 2 0.011 1.39 14 0.

WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc.042904

A-12 PI Containment DBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure 11 Feb/i8/2004 11:44:57 .11 GOTHIC Version 7.1lPatchl(OA) -September 2003 File: D:\DATA\GOTHIC\Prairie )sland\MSLBCases\poak-press-mslb Thermal Conductor Type 18 Painted CS I.

.1 Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.011 1 0. I 2 2 0.011 0.3125 3 0.

.1 Thermal Conductor Type 19 6-in Concrete Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region K (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 4 1 0.1 6. 12 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 20 12-in Concrete Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region If (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 4 0. 12. 1 24 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 21 12-in Painted Concrete Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region K (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.028 1 0.

2 4 0.028 12. 24 0.

WCAP-I 6219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

A-13 PI Containment DBA Model - MSLB Peak Pressure for OSG 12 Apr/1612004 13:08:12 GOTHIC Version 7.1 Patchl (GA) - September2003 File: D:-DATA\GOTHIC\Prairie Islarfd\OSG MSLB Cases\FCFIX\peak.pressmsfb Thermal Conductor Type 22 12-in Painted Concrete Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region * (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.028 1 0.

2 4 0.028 12. 24 0.

3 1 12.028 0.028 1 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 23 6-in Painted Concrete Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.028 1 0.

2 4 0.028 6. 12 0.

3 1 6.028 0.028 1 0.

Cooler/Heater Heater On Off Flow Flow Heat Heat Cooler Vol. Trip Trip Rate Rate Rate Rate Phs Ctrlr I Description # I # (CFM) FF (Btu/s) FF Opt Loc IC IFan Cooler Tr I 1 l 1 le+005 I l 2.1 3 lVTS I1 Volume Initial Conditions Vapor Liquid Relative Liquid Ice Ice Vol Pressure Temp. Temp. Humidity Volume Volume Surf.A.

(psia) (F) F (%) Fract. Fract. (ft2) def 16.7 120. 120. 30. 0. 0. 0.

Initial Gas Pressure Ratios Vol Air I Gas 1 Gas 2 Gas 3 Gas 4 Gas 5 Gas 6 Gas 7 Gas 8 def 1. 0. I 0. I 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

WCAP-162 19-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

L A-14 L

L 1L PI Containment DBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure 13 Feb/18/2004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.1 PatchI (OA) - September 2003 File: D:\DATANGOTHIC\Prairie lstand\MSLB Cases'peak press-mslb Noncondensing Gases Gas Description Symbol Type Mol. Lennard-Jones Parameters No. Weight Diameter e/K (Ang) (K) 1 Air I Air IPOLY 1 28.97 l 3.617 1 97.

Noncondensing Gases - Cp/Visc. Equations Gas Cp Equation (Required) Visc. Equation (Optional)

No. Tmin Tmax Cp Tmin Tmnax Viscosity (R) (R) (Btu/lbm-R) (R) (R) (lbm/ft-hr) 11 360. 2280. 0.238534-6.2006 Materials Type # Description Gap 1 Paint NO 2 Carbon Steel NO 3 Stainless Steel NO 4 Concrete NO 5 Gap NO 6 Zinc NO Material Type 1

Paint Temp. Density Cond. Sp. Heat (F) (lb-n/ft3) (Btu/hr-ft-F) (Btu/lbm-F)

32. 28. 0.29 1.

500. 28. 0.29 1.

WCAP-1621 9-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

A-15 Pi Containment DBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure 14 Feb/18/2004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.1 Patchl (OA) - September 2003 File: DO:\DATA\GOTHIC\Prairie Island\MSLB Cases\peak-press-mslb Material Type 2

Carbon Steel Temp. Density Cond. Sp. Heat (F) (lbm/ft3) (Btu/hr-ft-F) (Btu/lbm-F)

32. 490. 26. 0.115 500. 490. 26. 0.115 Material Type 3

Stainless Steel Temp. Density Cond. Sp. Heat (F) (lbm/ft3) (Btu/hr-ft-F) (Btu/lbm-F)

32. 488. 9.4 0.123 500. 488. 9.4 0.123 Material Type 4

Concrete Temp. Density Cond. Sp. Heat (F) (lbm/ft3) (Btu/hr-ft-F) (Btu/lbm-F)

32. 144. 0.8 0.2 500. 144. 0.8 0.2 Material Type 5

Gap Temp. Density Cond. Sp. Heat (F) (lbm/ft3) (Btu/hr-ft-F) (Btu/lbm-F)

32. 0.06 0.0174 0.241 500. 0.06 0.0174 0.241 WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

L A-16 L

L L

Pi Containment DBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure 15 Feb/11 12004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.1 Patchl (OA) - September 2003 File: D:\DATA\GOTHICPrairie IsIand\MSLB Cases\peak_pressmsib Material Type 6

Zinc Temp. Density Cond. Sp. Heat (F) (lbm/ft3) (Btu/hr-ft-F) (Btu/lbm-F)

32. 446. 64. 0.091 500. 446. 64. 0.091 Ice Condenser Parameters Initial Bulk Surface Area Heat Temp. Density Multiplier Transfer (F) (lbm/ft3) Function Option

15. 33.43 UCHIDA Component Trips Trip Sense Sensor Sensor Var. Set Delay Rset Cond Cond I Description Var. 1 Loc. 2 Loc. Limit Point Time Trip Trip Type 1 Fan Cooler PRESS 1 UPPER 19.7 60.

2 Spray Injec PRESS 1 UPPER 38.7 72. AND Functions FF# Description Ind. Var. Dep. Var. Points 0 Constant - 0 1 Framatome Mass Time (sec) Flow Rate 76 2 Framatome Entha Time (sec) Enthalpy ( 76 3 Fan Cooler Heat Vapor Sat. Heat Remov 14 4 Spray Flow Rate Time (sec) Flow Rate 5 WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

A-17 PI Containment DBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure 16 Feb/18004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.1 Patchl (OA) - September 2003 File:DA\DATA\GOTHIC\Prairie Island\MSLB Cases'peakpress_mslb Function 1

Framatome Mass Limiting Pressure Case (tabl Ind. Var.: Time (sec)

Dep. Var.: Flow Rate (lbm/s)

Ind. Var. Dep. Var. Ind. Var. Dep. Var.

0. 1253.3 1. 1253.3

2. 1220.1 3. 1226.2

4. 1595.1 5. 2136.1

6. 2364.3 7. 2589.9

8. 2702. 9. 2567.

10. 2349. 12. 2249.5

14. 2042.5 16. 1577.5

18. 1377.5 20. 1308.

22. 1366.5 24. 1084.5

26. 1145.5 28. 1087.

30. 1109.5 32. 1013.5

34. 1266. 36. 891.5

38. 831. 40. 741.

42. 689. 44. 696.

46. 757.5 48. 650.

50. 629. 55. 607.

60. 578.4 65. 553.2

70. 529.8 75. 508.8

80. 490.2 85. 472.8

90. 457.2 95. 442.6 100. 429.6 105. 420.2 110. 411.4 115. 404.6 120. 399. 125. 393.8 130. 389.2 135. 385.2 140. 382. 145. 378.8 150. 376.8 160. 375.9 170. 374.9 180. 373.3 190. 371.5 200. 369.2 220. 365.2 240. 360.

260. 354.3 280. 348.

300. 340.3 320. 329.2 340. 312.7 360. 291.6 380. 267.2 400. 230.7 420. 201.8 440. 114.9 460. 25.3 480. 12.2 500. 12. 520. 12.

540. 12.1 560. 12.

580. 12.1 600. 12.1 WCAP-1 621 9-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

aa A-18

,L Pi Containment DBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure L

17 Fob/18/2004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.IPatchi(OA) - September 2003 File: D:\DATA\GOTHIC\Praine Islanr\MSLB Cases'peak pressrnslb Function 2

Framatome Enthalpy Limiting Pressure Case L Ind. Var.: Time (sec)

Dep. Var.: Enthalpy (BTU/lbm)

L Ind. Var. Dep. Var. Ind. Var. Dep. Var. F

0. 1190.04 1. 1190.04

2. 1188.31 3. 1167.82

4. 959.28 5. 792.65

6. 739.69 7. 699.14

8. 679.68 9. 692.79

10. 719.88 12. 726.65

14. 751.46 16. 851.32

18. 897.68 20. 907.15

22. 871.72 24. 996.36

26. 944.96 28. 964.77

30. 939.25 32. 983.23

34. 843.84 36. 1044.03

38. 1078.04 40. 1153.17

42. 1195.72 44. 1168.97

46. 1082.38 48. 1190.92

50. 1201.19 55. 1201.52

60. 1202.52 65. 1202.35

70. 1202.57 75. 1203.26

80. 1202.65 85. 1203.05

90. 1203.06 95. 1202.89 100. 1203.26 105. 1202.57 110. 1203.31 115. 1203.51 120. 1203.51 125. 1202.84 130. 1203.49 135. 1203.53 140. 1203.14 145. 1203.27 150. 1203.29 160. 1203.78 170. 1203.25 180. 1203.32 190. 1203.23 200. 1202.87 220. 1203.31 240. 1203.06 260. 1202.96 280. 1202.87 300. 1203.23 320. 1204.92 340. 1208.38 360. 1211.93 380. 1214.49 400. 1211.53 420. 1224.54 440. 1193.3 460. 1193.68 480. 1255.14 500. 1262.5 520. 1262.5 540. 1257.26 560. 1266.67 580. 1261.41 600. 1257.26 WCAP- 16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

A-19 PI Containment DBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure 18 Feb/12004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.lPatchl (OA) - September 2003 File: D:\DATA\GOTHIC\Prairie Island\MSLB Cases\peak-press_...slb Function 3

Fan Cooler Heat Removal vs. Vapor Temp.

Ind. Var.: Vapor Sat. Temp. (F)

Dep. Var.: Heat Removal (BTU/s)

Ind. Var. Dep. Var. Ind. Var. Dep. Var.

0. 0. 100. 500.

120. 2000. 140. 4500.

160. 6250. 180. 8250.

200. 11000. 220. 14000.

240. 17750. 240.1 9861.

260. 12500. 265. 13194.

270. 13611. 270.1 0.

300. 0. 500. 0.

Function 4

Spray Flow Rate Ind. Var.: Time (sec)

Dep. Var.: Flow Rate (gpm)

Ind. Var. Dep. Var. Ind. Var. Dep. Var.

0. 0. 0.1 1200.

3600. 1200. 3601. 0.

1000000. 0.

Control Variables CV Func. Initial Coeff. Coeff. Upd. Int.

Description Form Value G aO Min Max Mult.

1 Drop Mass ault 0. le+006 0. -le+03 le+032 0.

2 Liquid Mass mult 0. le+006 0. -le+03 le+032 0.

3 Heat Rate 1 mult 0. 1. 0. -le+03 le+032 0.

4 Heat Rate 2 mult 0. 1. 0. -le+03 le+032 0.

5 Heat Rate 3 mult 0. 1. 0. -le+03 le+032 0.

6 Heat Rate 4 mult 0. 1. 0. -le+03 le+032 0.

7 Heat Rate 5 mult 0. 1. 0. -le+03 le+032 0.

8 Heat Rate 6 mult 0. 1. 0. -le+03 le+032 0.

9 Heat Rate 7 mult 0. 1. 0. -le+03 le+032 0.

10 Heat Rate 8 mult 0. 1. 0. -le+03 le+032 0.

11 Heat Rate 9 mult 0. 1. 0. -le+03 le+032 0.

12 Heat Rate 10 mult 0. 1. 0. -le+03 le+032 0.

13 Heat Rate 11 mult 0. 1. 0. -le+03 le+032 0.

WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

L A-20 L

PI Containment DBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure Feb/1182004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.1Patchl (A) - September 2003 19 L

File: DA\DATA\GOTHIC\Prairie lsland\MSLB Casestpeakpressmsib L Control Variables (cont.) L CV Func. Initial Coeff. Coeff. Upd. Int.

LI

Description Form Value G aO Min Max Mult. L 14 Heat Rate 12 mult 0. 1. 0. -le+03 le+032 0.

I 15 Heat Rate 13 mult 0. 1. 0. -le+03 le+032 0.

16 Heat Rate 14 mult 0. 1. 0. -le+03 le+032 0.

17 Heat Rate 15 rnult 0. 1. 0. -le+03 le+032 0.

18 Heat Rate 16 mult 0. 1. 0. -le+03 le+032 0.

19 Heat Rate 17 mult 0. 1. 0. -le+03 le+032 0.

20 Heat Rate 18 mult 0. 1. 0. -le+03 le+032 0. L.

21 22 Heat Heat Rate Rate 19 20 mult mult 0.

0.

1.

0.

-le+03

-le+03 le+032 le+032 0.

0.

I 23 24 Heat Heat Rate Rate 21 22 mult mult 0.

0.

1.

0.

-le+03

-le+03 le+032 le+032 0.

0.

I, 25 Heat Rate 23 mult 0. 1. 0. -le+03 le+032 0. L 26 Heat Rate 24 rmult 0. 1. 0. -le+03 le+032 0.

27 28 Drop Drop Enth Q

Dif sum mult 0.

0.

1.

0.

-le+03

-le+03 le+032 le+032 0.

0.

I, I-Function Components Control Variable 1 Drop Mass mult Y=G* (alXlla2X2*. ... *anXn)

Gothic-s Variable Coef.

0 Name location a l Ad cVl 1.

2 Rd cVl 1.

Function Components Control Variable 2 Liquid Mass mult Y=G* (alXl'a2X2. . . anXnl Gothic-s Variable Coef.

Name location a 1 Al cVl .

2 Rl cVl 1.

WCAP- 16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

A-21 PI Containment DBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure 20 Feb/18/2004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.1Patchl (OA) - September 2003 File: DADATA\GOTHIC\Prairie IsIand\MSLB Cases\peak-press-mslb Function Components Control Variable 3 Heat Rate 1 mult Y=G*IalXl*a2X2*... *anXn)

Gothics Variable Coef.

Name location a 1 Qwv l) ccl 1.

2 Rmuls(l) ccl 1.

Function Components Control Variable 4 Heat Rate 2 mult Y=G*(alXl*a2X2*... *anXn)

Gothic_s Variable Coef.

Name location a 1 Qwv(l) cC2 1.

2 Rmuls(l) cC2 l.

Function Components Control Variable 5 Heat Rate 3 mult Y=G*(alXl*a2X2*... *anXn)

Gothic-s Variable Coef.

Name location a 11 Qwv(l) I cC3 1.

2 Rmuls(l) cC3 l.

WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

A-22 L

Pi Containment DBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure 21 Fet/18/2004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.1 Patchl(OA) - September 2003 File: D:\DATA\GOTH IC\Praine IsIand\MSLB Cases'peakpressmsIb L

L Function Components Control Variable 6 L Heat Rate 4 mult U

Y=G*(alXl*a2X2*... *anXn) I Gothic-s Variable Coef.

I Name location a L

12 2

Qwv(l)

Rmuls(l) cC5 cC5 1.

1.

L Function Components Control Variable 7 Heat Rate 5 mult Y=C*(alXl*a2X2*... *anXn)

Gothics Variable Coef.

Name location a 1 Qwv(l) cC4 1.

2 Rmuls(l) cC4 1.

Function Components Control Variable 8 Heat Rate 6 mult Y=G*(alXl*a2X2 ... *anXn)

Gothics Variable Coef.

Name location a 1 Qwv(l) cC7 1.

2 Rmuls(l) cC7 1.

WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

A-23 Pi Containment DBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure 22 Feb/18/2004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.1 Patch1 (OA) - Septembor 2003 File: D:\DATA\GOTHIC\Prairie Island\MSLB Cases\peakjpress.mstb Function Components Control Variable 9 Heat Rate 7 mult Y=G* (alXl*a2X2*.. . *anXn)

Gothics Variable Coef.

Name location a 1 Qwv(l) cC8 1.

2 Rmuls(l) cC8 1.

Function Components Control Variable 10 Heat Rate 8 mult Y=G* (alXl*a2X2* ... *anXn)

Gothics Variable Coef.

4 Name location a 1 Qwv(l) cC9 1.

2 Rmuls(l) cC9 l.

Function Components Control Variable 11 Heat Rate 9 mult Y=G* (alXl*a2X2* ... *anXn)

Gothics Variable Coef.

Name location a 1 QV(l) cclo 1.

2 Rmuls(l) cClO 1.

WCAP-1 6219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

L A-24 I

IL IL Pl Containment DBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure 23 Feb/18/2004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.1 Patchl (OA) - September 2003 File: D:ADATA\GOTHIC\Prairie Island\MSLB Cases'peak-press-mslb Function Components Control Variable 12 Heat Rate 10 mult Y=G* (alXl*a2X2* ... .anXn)

Gothics Variable Coef.

If Name location a 1 Qwv(1 cCl .

2 Rmuls(l) cC11 .

Function Components Control Variable 13 Heat Rate 11 mult Y=G*(alXl*a2X2* ... *anXn)

Gothics Variable Coef.

f Name location a 1 Qwv (1) cC12 1.

2 Rmuls(l) cCl2 1.

Function Components Control Variable 14 Heat Rate 12 mult Y=G* (alXl*a2X2* .. . *anXn)

Gothics Variable Coef.

f Name 1ccation a 1 Qwv(1) cC13 1.

2 Rmuls(l) cC13 1.

WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

A-25 Pi Containment DBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure 24 Feb/t8/2004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.1 Patch1 (OA) - September 2003 File: D:%DATA\GOTHIC\Prairie Island\MSLB Cases\peak-press-mslb Function Components Control Variable 15 Heat Rate 13 mult Y=G*(alXl*a2X2*... *anXn)

Gothics Variable Coef.

Name location a 1 Qwv l) cC14 1.

2 Rmuls(l) cC14 1.

Function Components Control Variable 16 Heat Rate 14 mult Y=G*(alXl*a2X2*... *anXn)

Gothics Variable Coef.

Name location a 1 QWV(1) cC15 1.

2 Rmuls(l) cC15 1.

Function Components Control Variable 17 Heat Rate 15 mult Y=G*(alXl*a2X2*... *anXn)

Gothic-s Variable Coef.

Name location a 1 QWV(l) cC21 1.

2 Rmuls(l) cC21 1.

WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc.042904

I A-26 IF I

PI Containment DBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure 25 Feb11812004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.1 Patchl (OA) - September 2003 File: DAOATAWGOTHIC\Prairie lsland\MSLB Cases'peak_ press-msIb Function Components Control Variable 18 Heat Rate 16 mult Y=G* (alXl*a2X2* ... *anXn)

Gothics Variable Coef.

Name location a 1 Qwv(l) cC23 l.

2 Rmuls(l) cC23 1.

Function Components Control Variable 19 Heat Rate 17 mult Y=G*(alXl*a2X2* ... -anXn)

Gothic-s Variable Coef.

Name location a 1 Qwv(l) cCl9 1.

2 Rmuls(l) cCl9 1.

Function Components Control Variable 20 Heat Rate 18 mult Y=G* (alXl*a2X2*. . . *anXn)

Gothics Variable Coef.

Name location a 1 Qwv(l) cC22 1.

2 Rmuls l) cC22 1.

WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

A-27 Pi Containment DBA Evaluation Model -MSLB Peak Pressure 26 Feb18004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.1 Patch 1(OA) - September 2003 File: D:\DATA\GOTHIC\Prairie IsIand\MSLB Cases\peakpress-mstb Function Components Control Variable 21 Heat Rate 19 mult Y=G*(alXl*a2X2*... *anXn)

Gothics Variable Coef.

Name location a I Qwv(1) cC20 1.

2 Rmuls(1) cC20 1.

Function Components Control Variable 22 Heat Rate 20 mult Y=G*(alXl1a2X2*... *anXn)

Gothics Variable Coef.

Name location a 1 QWV(l) cC24 1.

2 Rmuls(l) cC24 1.

Function Components Control Variable 23 Heat Rate 21 mult Y=G*(alXl*a2X2... .*anXn)

Gothics Variable Coef.

Name location a 1 QWV(l) cC16 1.

2 Rmuls(l) cC16 1.

WCAP-1 621 9-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

I A-28 U

I Pi Containment OBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure Feb/18/2004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.1 Patchl(OA) - Septomber 2003 27 I

File: DADATA\GOTHIC\Prairie Island\MSLB Cases\peak._pressmsIb L

Function Components I, Control Variable 24 Heat Rate 22 mult I

Y=G*(alXl*a2X2*... *anXn) L Gothics Variable Coef.

Name location a 1 Qwv(l) cC17 1. L 2 Rmuls l) cC17 1. I, Function Components Control Variable 25 Heat Rate 23 mult Y=G (alXlla2X2*...*anXn)

Gothics Variable Coef.

Name location a 1 QWV(l) cC18 1.

2 Rmuls(l) cC18 1.

Function Components Control Variable 26 Heat Rate 24 mult Y=G*(alXl*a2X2-... anXn)

Gothics Variable Coef.

Name location a 1 Qwv(l) cC6 1.

2 Rmuls(l) cC6 1.

WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

A-29 Pi Containment DBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure 28 Feb/18/2004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.1 Patch1 (QA) - September 2003 File: D:\DATA\GOTHIC\Prairie Island\MSLB Cases\peak.press..msIb Function Components Control Variable 27 Drop Enth Diff sum Y=G*(aO+alXl+a2X2+...+anXn)

Gothic_s Variable Coef.

Name location a 1 Hd cVl l.

2 Bc_hd cB3F -1.

Function Components Control Variable 28 Drop Q mult Y=G*(alXl*a2X2*... *anXn)

Gothics Variable Coef.

Name location a 1 Cvval cv27 .

2 Wdjnc cJ3 1.

Run Control Parameters (Seconds)

Time DT DT DT End Print Graph Max Dump Phs Chng Int Min Max Ratio Time Int Int CPU Int Time Scale 1 0.001 0.05 1. 600. 5. 1. 1200. 0. DEFAULT Solution Options Time Solution Imp Conv Imp Iter Pres Sol Pres Conv Pres Iter Differ Burn Dom Method Limit Limit Method Limit Limit Scheme Sharp 1 lSEMI-IMP 0. 1l DIRECT I 0.I 1l FOUP I 0.

Run Options Parameter Value Restart Time (sec) I 0 WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

I A-30 I, I1 Pi Containment DBA Evaluation Model - MSLB Peak Pressure 29 I, Feb/18/2004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.lPatchl(OA) - September 2003 File: D:\DATA\GOTHIC\Prairie Island\MSLB Cases~peak-press-mslb L

Run Options (cont.)

I, Parameter Value LI Restart Time Step 4 0 L Restart Time Control NEW Revaporization Fracticn Fog Model DEFAULT OFF I

Maximum Mist Density(lbm/ft3) DEFAULT Drop Diam. From Mist(in)

Minimum HT Coeff.(B/h-ft2-F)

DEFAULT 0

I, Reference Pressure(psia) IGNORE L Forced Ent. Drop Diam.(in) 0.09996 Vapor Phase Head Correction INCLUDE I Kinetic Energy Vapor Phase IGNORE INCLUDE I-Liquid Phase INCLUDE I Drop Phase Force Equilibrium INCLUDE IGNORE I,

Drop-Liq. Conversion INCLUDE I.

QA Logging OFF Debug Output Level 0 'I Restart Dump on CPU Interval (sec) 3600.0 T1 1/

Graphs Graph Curve Number Title Mon 1 2 3 4 5 0 M & E Imbalance EM EE 1 Containment Pre PRl 2 Containment Tem TVl 3 Sump Water Temp TLE 4 Sump Level LL1 5 Fan Cooler Heat CQlC 6 Spray Flow Rate FD3 7 Metal and Concr HAl HA4 8 Drop and Liquid cvl cv2 9 Heat Rate for C cv3 cvl0 cv15 cv20 10 cv28 cv27 11 ED1 12 TA1 TA2 WCAP-1 621 9-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

A-31 PI Containment DBA Evaluation Model- MSLB Peak Pressure 30 Feb/i 8/2004 11:44:57 GOTHIC Version 7.1 Patchl (OA) - September 2003 Fie: D:ADATA\GOTHIC\Prairie IslandMSLB Cases\peak_pressnmsib Envelope Sets Set Set No.

No. Description Type Items Data Files File Inter- Output II Name Type polate Files 1 datal_case3rpo_ TIME YES SINGLE 2 data2_case3rpo_ TIME YES SINGLE 3 pressurecase3r TIME YES SINGLE WVCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

B-I APPENDIX B GOTHIC PRAIRIE ISLAND LOCA CONTAINMENT RESPONSE MODEL INPUT TABLES WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

I I

B-2 a, I I

I

'I IL I,

I I.

I.

I, I

I, I,

L IL I,

.t I

I, U.

I 1I I,

I I

1U WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 ',t 6403-NP.doc-042904

-I'

B-3 ac WCAP-1 621 9-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

I B4 I

a,c L t.1 L.

I I.

I.

I-I, I.1 I

It LI

'I

.1, I

1~

I

.I1L

.I It'

'IL I-

.1~

I I.

I

.1I II I -

WCAP-16219-NP April 2004, 6403-NP.doc-042904 1t

B-5 a,c April 2004 WCAP-1 6219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

B-6 1.

a,c.

.1~

L 1-

..1

.1

.1 I,

.1~

.1,

.1

.1~

.1 I

I, I,

1 WCAP-162 19-NP April 2004 l, 6403-NP.doc-04290 4

B-7 a,c WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

I B-8 "L I

'I I-I I-I.

L I,

I I

.1~

I II I1, I,

I

,I, I,

I, I,

I, I

I, Lj I

"I

'I I,

I '

WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 I 6403-NP.doc-042904

'I

B-9 a,c WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

B-10 a,c I I,

'I-,

I 1I 1,

L

'L 1I I,

L It L

L1

'L.

IL

'L I,

I1 I,

-11 I

'L "L

I, I.

L, I

I I

I WCAP-1 6219-NP April 2004 1, 6403-NP.doc-042904

'L

B-Il wS a,c K'

K' K>

i_'

K' K'

k-K' K,'A-61-N pl20 KY3N~oc020 V>

I I,

B-12 a,c L I-I-

II I,

I I,

Id I,

I, I

I,

'I

'I I

I, I)

I,

.1, I-It I

I I

I

'I

'I, I,

I, WCAP-1 6219-NP Apr i112004 -1' 6403-NP.doc-042904 L

B-13 a,c April 2004 WCAP-1 6219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

I, B-14 1L a,c L L

F L

I, I,

I, L

I; I-F

'I I

1.

I I,

I-I I,

.1 I,

I, I

'I, I

I, I,

'I I

I WCAP-1 6219-NP Apnil 2004 1 6403-NP.doc-042904

B-15 a,c WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

B-16 I a,c L 1

I-I'

.1 I)

I.

11 1~

.1 I.

'I I.1 I

I.

I I,

I, I,

'I I,

I.t I,

I

.1I, I,

.1 I,

I,

__ I I

WCAPI16219-NP 6403-NP.doc-042904 April 2004 J

ItId

B-17 ac WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

B-18 axc WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

B-19 a,c WCAP-16219-NP April ZUU4 6403-NP.doc-042904

IF B-20 F I

I I

I

'It ah,c I I

It I

I I

I)

IL I;

I, IL It, It I

'I I

WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 J 6403-NP.doc-042904

B-21 ac WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

B-22 I 1~

a,c i

'IL F

'It IL IL J)

JF F

F IL

.I April 2004 WCAP-16219-NP 6403-NP.doc-042904

B-23 a,c WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

B-24 FL a, IL FL FL I

IL

'IL I)

FL I)

IL IL I

Id I

'IL I,

IL

'I)

IL

'I I,L I,

WCAP-1 6219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904I

v B-25 v a,c v-vY vY vY vY vY vY KY vY vY vY vY vY vY vY KY vY WCP1619NPArl20 vI60-Pdc020 v'

B-26 axc WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

B3-27 v

a,c v

v v~

v-v-

v-vY

'v/

vY vY vY WCAP-1 6219-NP Arl20 pl20 6403-NP.doc-042904 VY

B-28 F a,c 1

I I

J.I l

IL It

_ _ .1 IL WCAP-16219-NP April 2004il 6403-NP.doc-042904 1

B-29 a,c WCAP-1 621 9-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

B-30 ac April 2004 WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc4042904

B-31 a,c WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

B-32 'IL a,t I)

It It IL IL I)

IL

-1I, It I)

IL IL I'

It It I~t It IL I1

.1 IL It'I, 11

'It I

"IL It

KYV B-33 a,c KY1 KYv KYl kY/

NKY KYV KY~

WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

IL B-34 I a,c I,

.1~

I, "ti

'I I-)

"t I

1t I

IL

'.t

\.t I) 11 IL

'Ii It I

'I it It IJ I

IL It

.,L it

-j :,L It WCAPd16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

B-35 axc WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

It B-36I a,c I 1)

I, I

'IL I

IL I

I, It

'I-I, It IL I-IL I)

'I, I)

It IL

__ IL WCAP-1 6219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904I

B-37 a,c WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

lb NIL B-38 I st

'I I,

'I 1'

I' 4L I/

I' MI I,

It 1)

.11 VI

'It It sIt I,

NI I'

It 1/

't

'IL It

-i .1 I-)

It J1.

NI 11 NI1 WCAPI16219-NP April 2004 4,L 6403-NP.doc-042904 1t

B-39 a,c Api .ZUU4 WCAP-16219-NP April 2Uo4 6403-NP.doc-042904

B40 a,c WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

B-41 a,c WCAP-1 6219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

B-42 a,c WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

B43 ac I

K1.'

k-1 kl,~

KY-MY.1 WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

B-44 a,c WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

B45 axc I

WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

B-46 I a,c

-IL I,

It

-I

.I I,

VJo IitI, It J,

I' 4'

Ii It I.

'I i4 4

A\}

utI

'It I

I

.J

'IL' It A

,II I

I, 11

,I JiA J

WCAP-I 6219-NP April 2004 4 6403-NP.doc-042904 Jit

B-47 a,c A - -! %%flrIA WCAP-16219-NP Apnl suuq 6403-NP.doc-042904

B-48 a,c WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

0 B-49

_ a,c C;

k-kI' k-k-

k_/

k-;

-t K-'

K_

-WCAP-1 6219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

y B-50

.1 a,c I,

't 1~

It Is IL 1

-I I'

IJ I

It 4,

I1 Is II.

I

'1, I~i4 3'

I+

It I

J

'I

.,II It

>1 3

_J.J WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 j 6403-NP.doc-042904 J

B-51I a,c WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

B-52 a,c April 2004 WCAP-1 6219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

B-53 a,c April 2004 WCAP-1 621 9-NP WCAP-16219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc 042904

B-54 ac WCAP-1 6219-NP April 2004 6403-NP.doc-042904

L-PI-04-017, Development and Qualification of a Gothic Containment Evaluation Model for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plants.

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

L-PI-04-017, Development and Qualification of a Gothic Containment Evaluation Model for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plants.

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search