LIC-03-0001, Unit No.1 License Amendment Request, Containment Pressure Analysis Using Gothic Computer Code

Unit No.1 License Amendment Request, Containment Pressure Analysis Using Gothic Computer Code

ML030360205
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	01/27/2003
From:	Bannister D Omaha Public Power District
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response
References
LIC-03-0001
Download: ML030360205 (153)

Text

UNiPI Omaha PublicPower Distnct 444 South 16th Street Mall Omaha NE 68102-2247 January 27, 2003 LIC-03-0001 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001

Reference:

Docket No. 50-285

SUBJECT:

Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) Unit No. I License Amendment Request, "Containment Pressure Analysis using the GOTHIC Computer Code Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) hereby proposes to use GOTHIC, version 7.0 for performing containment pressure analyses therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2), a license amendment pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90 is required. Section 14.16 and Figures 14.16-1 through 14.16-4 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) were re-written to reflect the use of the GOTHIC computer code and the results associated with the updated containment pressure analyses for a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) and main steam line break (MSLB).

GOTHIC will be used for the analysis of future plant upgrades associated with containment response and will be maintained consistent with other NRC approved OPPD methodologies. The proposed amendment does not require any changes to the Technical Specifications.

Attachment 1 provides the No Significant Hazards Evaluation and the technical bases for the requested changes to the USAR. Attachment 2 contains the requested complete re-write to Section 14.16 and replacements for Figures 14.16-1 through 14.16-4 of the USAR. Attachment 3 contains the non-proprietary version of the applicable References from Attachment 1.

Attachments 4 through 7 are the input files for the GOTHIC models.

GOTHIC, version 7.0 is a state-of-the-art computer code used to evaluate the containment pressure response to a LOCA or MSLB and to determine the bounding temperature profile associated with environmental equipment qualifications. The "new" analysis of record using GOTHIC shows an improvement in the containment pressure response design margins because GOTHIC more accurately models the containment response during design basis events. The computer code is needed to support Fort Calhoun Station's (FCS) installation of replacement steam generators (RSGs). GOTHIC will also be used to demonstrate adequate margins of safety during a potential future power uprate at the FCS for containment pressure analyses. t'*

/ý Employment with Equal Opportunity 171

__7

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission LIC-03-0001 Page 2 OPPD requests the approval of this License Amendment Request before November 14, 2003 for use during the licensing phase of FCS RSGs. OPPD requests 60 days to implement this amendment. No commitments are made to the NRC in this letter.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. (Executed on January 27, 2003)

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Dr. R. L. Jaworski of my staff at 402-533-6833.

Sincerely, D. J. Bannister Plant Manager Fort Calhoun Station DJB/RLJ/fjj Attachments

1. Fort Calhoun Station's Evaluation

2. Markup and Clean Versions of Updated Safety Analyses Report Pages

3. References for Attachment 1 (Non-proprietary Version)

4. Input File for the LOCA Benchmark Model using GOTHIC

5. Input File for the LOCA Evaluation Model using GOTHIC

6. Input File for the MSLB Benchmark Model using GOTHIC

7. Input File for the MSLB Evaluation Model using GOTHIC c: E. W. Merschoff, NRC Regional Administrator, Region IV A. B. Wang, NRC Project Manager J. G. Kramer, NRC Senior Resident Inspector Division Administrator, Public Health Assurance, State of Nebraska Winston & Strawn LIC-03-0001 Page 1 Fort Calhoun Station's Evaluation For Containment Pressure Analysis using the GOTHIC Computer Code

2.0 DESCRIPTION

OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT

3.0 BACKGROUND

4.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS & GUIDANCE

6.0 REGULATORY ANALYSIS

7.0 NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION (NSHC)

8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

9.0 PRECEDENCE

10.0 REFERENCES

LIC-03-0001 Page 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This letter is a request to apply the GOTHIC, version 7.0, methodology to the loss-of coolant accident (LOCA) and the main steam line break (MSLB) event. This method change affects Section 14.16 and Figures 14.16-1 through 14.16-4 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) for the Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) Unit No. 1.

The Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) proposes to use GOTHIC, version 7.0 to verify that containment pressure will be maintained below its design pressure of 60 psig during a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) or main steam line break (MSLB) and to determine the bounding temperature profile associated with environmental equipment qualifications (EEQ) when FCS installs its replacement steam generators (RSGs).

GOTHIC will also be used to demonstrate adequate margins of safety during a potential future power uprate at the Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) for containment pressure analyses.

NRC approval of this amendment request by September 1, 2003 and an implementation period of 60 days is desired by OPPD.

2.0 DESCRIPTION

OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT The proposed changes to the USAR include a complete re-write to Section 14.16 and replacements for Figures 14.16-1 through 14.16-4. This is necessary to reflect the change in computer codes and incorporate the results of the updated containment pressure analyses that are included in Section 5.0 using GOTHIC, version 7.0. Section 5.0 also contains the benchmark between the CONTRANS and GOTHIC computer codes using the applicable analysis of record (AOR) stated currently in Section 14.16 of the USAR for a LOCA and MSLB, respectively.

In Summary, the proposed amendment does not require any changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) but requires a complete revision to Section 14.16 and Figures 14.16 1 through 14.16-4 of the USAR. This is required as a result of shifting from the proprietary computer code CONTRANS to GOTHIC, version 7.0 and to reflect the results of the updated containment pressure analyses for a LOCA and MSLB.

3.0 BACKGROUND

FCS will be in the process of performing the engineering design and analysis for RSGs in late 2003. In order to analyze the containment pressure response and EEQ with the RSGs, OPPD requests to shift from the proprietary CONTRANS computer code to GOTHIC, version 7.0.

4.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS & GUIDANCE Containment pressure analyses are required per FCS design basis. FCS was licensed for construction prior to May 21, 1971, and at that time committed to the preliminary LIC-03-0001 Page 3 General Design Criteria (GDC). These preliminary design criteria are contained in the FCS USAR Appendix G.

This activity complies with FCS Design Criterion 10, "Containment," which is similar to 10 CFR 50 Appendix A GDC 16, "Containment design." FCS Design Criterion 10 states that containment shall be provided. The containment structure shall be designed to sustain the initial effects of gross equipment failures, such as a large coolant boundary break, without loss of required integrity and, together with other engineered safety features as may be necessary, to retain for as long as the situation requires the functional capability to protect the public.

This activity complies with FCS Design Criterion 12, "Instrumentation and Control Systems," which is similar to 10 CFR 50 Appendix A GDC 13, "Instrumentation and control." FCS Design Criterion 12 states that instrumentation and controls shall be provided as required to monitor and maintain variables within prescribed operating ranges.

This activity complies with FCS Design Criterion 17, "Monitoring Radioactivity Releases," which is similar to 10 CFR 50 Appendix A GDC 64, "Monitoring radioactivity releases." FCS Design Criterion 17 states that a means shall be provided for monitoring the containment atmosphere, the facility effluent discharge paths, and the facility environs for radioactivity that could be released from normal operations, from anticipated transients and from accident conditions.

This activity complies with FCS Design Criterion 49, "Containment Design Basis,"

which is similar to 10 CFR 50 Appendix A GDC 50, "Containment design basis." FCS Design Criterion 49 states the containment structure, including access openings and penetrations, and any necessary containment heat removal systems shall be designed so that the containment structure can accommodate without exceeding the design leakage rate the pressures and temperatures resulting from the largest credible energy release following a loss-of-coolant accident, including a considerable margin for effects from metal-water or other chemical reactions that could occur as a consequence of failure of emergency core cooling systems.

This activity complies with FCS Design Criterion 52, "Containment Heat Removal Systems," which is similar to 10 CFR 50 Appendix A GDC 38, "Containment heat removal." FCS Design Criterion 52 states that where active heat removal systems are needed under accident conditions to prevent exceeding containment design pressure, at least two systems, preferably of different principles, each with full capacity, shall be provided.

All of these FCS Design Criteria will continue to be satisfied after these proposed changes to the USAR are accepted.

LIC-03-0001 Page 4

5.0 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

5.1 Design Basis/Nomenclature used in Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 Area = A Containment Height = Hc Containment Volume = Vc Density = p Diameter D Heat Transfer Coefficient = h Hydraulic Diameter = DHYD Perimeter = P Thermal Conductivity = k Thickness = 8 Volume = V (Note 1: In Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, the CONTRANS model refers to the applicable AOR stated currently in Section 14.16 of the USAR.)

(Note 2: The LOCA and MSLB analyses that are discussed in Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 were prepared and reviewed in References 10.8 and 10.9, respectively.)

5.1.1 LOCA The LOCA benchmark and LOCA evaluation model (LEM) will be discussed in this Section. Figure 5.13 is a schematic of the benchmark model using GOTHIC. Figure 5.14 is a schematic of the LEM using GOTHIC. The LOCA benchmark model will be used to compare containment pressure and temperature results to the current AOR stated in Section 14.16 of the USAR using the WEC proprietary computer code CONTRANS.

The LEM is a variation of the benchmark model that will use updated inputs to determine the "new" limiting AOR in which the results will be incorporated into the USAR as shown in Attachment 2 of this letter. The LEM will be used to perform future LOCA analyses for containment pressure response. Any changes to the LEM that are required by the Safety Evaluation Report resulting from the NRC's review of this submittal will be incorporated into the LEM and the "new" results will be translated into Section 14.16 of the USAR. Additionally, any changes that are required in the LEM after approval (e.g.

active heat removal system operation, containment initial conditions, and passive heat sink structures, updating the calculation for determining the safety injection tank (SIT) nitrogen contribution to the peak containment results) will be evaluated for 10 CFR 50.59 conformance.

5.1.1.1 Assumptions LIC-03-0001 Page 5 These assumptions are applicable to the benchmark model and LEM except as annotated below.

1) A lumped volume was used to represent the containment to be consistent with the NRC approved methodology of the CONTRANS code.

2) The containment initial pressure is conservatively assumed as 3 psig per TS 2.6(2).

Standard Atmospheric pressure at FCS due to the 1000 ft elevation is assumed to be 14.2 psia. Therefore, the value used in the GOTHIC LOCA containment models is 17.2 psia. The higher the initial pressure, the higher the moles of the non condensable gases. The partial pressure being additive, this contributes to the peak pressure and also degrades condensation on heat conductors and spray droplets.

3) Since there is negligible water in the sump during normal operation and hence, prior to the occurrence of an accident, a zero liquid volume fraction is initially assumed.

4) For ease of determining the hydraulic diameter that GOTHIC needs to infer the wetted surface area of the containment volume, it was assumed the containment is shaped like a cylinder. Sensitivity studies were used to demonstrate that this assumption is acceptable per Section 5.1.1.3.1.

5) A relative humidity value of 30% was assumed which is consistent with the current AOR.

6) The break drop size was assumed to be 100-micron (0.00394 in.). See Section 5.1.1.3.2.1.

7) No heat transfer is assumed to occur between the containment atmosphere and the sump water or between the containment building outer surface and the outside atmosphere.

8) The GOTHIC Uchida heat transfer coefficient (HTC) is being used.

9) The enthalpy used at the zero time step was assumed to be the same as the time step at 0.002 seconds to prevent the code from interpolating between zero and this time step.

10) An assumed containment spray (CS) drop diameter of 100-microns (0.00394 inches) is used to simulate the CS efficiency using the CONTRANS computer code.

(Benchmark Model only)

11) The containment initial temperature is conservatively assumed to be at 1207F.

5.1.1.2 Conservatisms These conservatisms are applicable to the benchmark model and LEM except as designated below by "LEM only".

1) No containment fan coolers (CFCs) were credited.

2) An air gap between the containment steel liner and the concrete wall is included which reduces the effectiveness of the related heat sinks.

3) The amount of surface area to selected heat sinks were conservatively reduced by 10%.

LIC-03-0001 Page 6

4) The manner in which the steam/water mass and energy calculations were performed using CEFLASH-4A and CONTRANS (Reference 10.1).

5) A conservatively high containment initial pressure was used per TS 2.6(2).

6) The surface area between the sump and the atmosphere is conservatively assumed to be 0 f12. This is to prevent steam condensation on the surface of colder water collected in the sump during the accident, which would otherwise reduce containment pressure and temperature. Additionally, no heat transfer is assumed to occur between the containment building outer surface and the outside atmosphere.

7) The revaporization fraction is conservatively set at zero to maximize peak containment pressure.

8) Even though GOTHIC takes the effect of non-condensable gases on the mass and energy transfer at the liquid - vapor interface into account, spray effectiveness was imposed, which further degrades condensation and reduces the CS effectiveness.

(LEM only)

9) Uncertainties were conservatively applied to the safety injection refueling water tank (SIRWT) initial temperature. (LEM only)

10) The addition of the nitrogen cover gas of the SITs is conservatively included. (LEM only) 5.1.1.3 Inputs These inputs are applicable to the benchmark model and LEM except as annotated below.

(Note: There are several instances in which the input files, that are located in Attachments 4 and 5, do not display the complete values stated in this Section. This is due to field-size constraints only; the GOTHIC computer code used the complete value in its calculations.)

5.1.1.3.1 Containment Geometry This includes volume, elevation, height, hydraulic diameter, and liquid to vapor interfacial area. A total free volume (Vc) of 1,050,000 ft3 was used for the containment atmosphere. No water is assumed to be initially in the sump. The sump elevation was arbitrarily set at zero. Containment height (Hc) is 137.375 ft. Reference 10.2 requires the hydraulic diameter of a lumped volume to be specified. This value is used by the code to infer the potentially wetted surface area of the volume. For ease of calculation, it was assumed the containment is shaped like a cylinder. Therefore, the hydraulic diameter is equal to the diameter of a cylinder as follows:

Equation 1: D 4A = 47-2 DHd = D PWErTED 4(;rD)

LIC-03-0001 Page 7 The flow area was approximated as follows:

V~ 1050000fi3 Equation 2: AFLOW = = -c 7643.312fi2 Hc 137.375ft

,TD 2 14 A F Equation 3: AFLOW = 44 D= ow = 98.65ft Therefore, a hydraulic diameter of 98.65 ft was used. Determining the actual hydraulic diameter would require a rigorous calculation that was determined not to be necessary through sensitivity studies. These sensitivity studies showed that raising or lowering the calculated hydraulic diameter by as much as 40% did not impact the peak containment pressure or temperature.

The sump liquid to containment atmosphere vapor interfacial area is conservatively assumed to be 0 ft2 . This is to prevent steam condensation on the surface of the relatively cooler water collected in the sump during the accident, which would otherwise reduce containment pressure and temperature. (Note: Sensitivity studies have shown that increasing the liquid to vapor interfacial area to as much as 100 ft2 does not impact containment peak pressure or temperature.)

5.1.1.3.2 Fluid Boundary Condition Boundary conditions (BCs), as defined in Reference 10.2 were used to specify the following phenomena to assess their impact in containment: 1) mass and energy addition of the water and steam due to the break; 2) nitrogen addition from the four SITs (LEM only); 3) spray from the CS system. During this event, the first 14 seconds describes the blowdown portion in which the reactor coolant system (RCS) is depressurizing and massive amounts of steam and water are exiting the RCS via the break and entering the containment. Note that except for the BC representing the nitrogen gas, all other BCs specify a liquid volume fraction as well as a steam partial pressure of 100%. These are specified as zero for the nitrogen BC.

5.1.1.3.2.1 BC #1, Break Flow Boundary Condition This simulates the mass and energy transfer from the RCS to the containment via the break. Westinghouse Electric Company (WEC) performed the mass and energy transfer rates using a combination of proprietary computer codes called CEFLASH 4A and CONTRANS. CEFLASH-4A generated the first 14 seconds (called the blowdown phase) and then CONTRANS calculated them after this time step. Time dependent data are specified using GOTHIC forcing functions (FFs) (Reference 10.2). The RCS pressure versus time is specified by FF #1. This FF is used by GOTHIC to determine the fluid density at the boundary. The fluid density is then LIC-03-0001 Page 8 used to calculate the boundary flow velocity, but the source momentum is dissipated within the lumped parameter containment volume, hence this FF does not have a significant impact on the peak containment pressure or temperature. The initial pressure used in the mass and energy calculations was 2250 psia. The next known pressure point based on the mass and energy calculation is at about 14 seconds which is about 69.1 psia. Since the blowdown of the RCS occurs in a rapid fashion, and since several iterations showed that the resultant pressure drop had no effect on containment peak pressure or temperature, the values used in FF #1 of the model were based on a "best estimate" for the first 14 seconds. After the first 14 seconds, several model runs were performed to determine RCS pressure since it will follow containment pressure after the blowdown portion of the LOCA and these values were then used in FF #1. Mass flow rate of the fluid is specified in FF #2 and the enthalpy is specified in FF #3. (Note: The enthalpy used at the zero time step was assumed to be the same as the time step at 0.002 seconds to prevent the code from interpolating between zero and this time step.)

A drop diameter of 100-micron (0.00394 in.) is used for the break. This value is recommended in Reference 10.2 and is determined to be acceptable based on the following:

1) During a design basis event (DBE) LOCA, the water entering the containment from the RCS is at a temperature above the saturation temperature at the containment pressure. Upon entering the containment the water flashes to steam, fracturing the water jet into fine droplets. Experimental test data has shown that when superheated water flashes to steam, the mean drop size is less than 100 micron. (Reference 10.3)

2) The GOTHIC qualification analyses, presented in the GOTHIC code documentation qualification report (Reference 10.10), were performed using a drop size of 100-microns. These qualification analyses showed that GOTHIC calculations with the 100-micron assumption agreed with and typically bounded the measured pressure and temperature response from blowdown tests and measured pressure drops from orifice pressure drop tests.

3) A 100-micron drop has a terminal velocity (rainout velocity) of between 1 and 2 ft/sec. This is a realistic terminal velocity and allows for the drop to be in the containment atmosphere for a realistic time period.

5.1.1.3.2.2 BC #2, CS Boundary Condition CS is modeled in this BC.

Benchmark Model: An assumed drop diameter of 100-microns (0.00394 inches) is used to simulate the CS efficiency using the CONTRANS computer code.

LEM: See Section 5.1.1.3.2.2.4.

LIC-03-0001 Page 9 5.1.1.3.2.2.1 CS Water Temperature Benchmark Model: The temperature value used is 105'F to match the CONTRANS model.

LEM: The source of water for CS is the SIRWT. A high temperature value for this tank is more conservative due to less heat transfer capabilities of water at higher temperatures (i.e. the higher temperature water is closer to the saturation temperature of the steam, therefore less steam would condense and containment peak pressure would be higher). The value used in this BC for the temperature of the water in the SIRWT was 115'F, which incorporates temperature indication uncertainty and an additional 5'F for added conservatism. The 5°F conservatism was added for operational flexibility. Sensitivity studies showed that the increase in temperature from 105'F to 11 5°F had a negligible impact on the peak containment pressure.

5.1.1.3.2.2.2 CS Flow Rate The CS volumetric flowrate of 1885 gpm is based upon one CS pump and one header.

The spray mass flowrate is dependent upon the density of water. The benchmark model uses a density of water at 105'F. The LEM uses a density of water at 115'F.

The following equation is used to convert the volumetric flowrate into the mass flowrate that the GOTHIC code requires:

Equation 4: Mass Flowrate = Volumetric flowrate

• Pwater

• conversion factors Therefore, using Equation 4, the benchmark model uses 260.69 lbm/sec and the LEM uses 260.1 Ibm/sec.

5.1.1.3.2.2.3 CS Delay for Actuation Benchmark Model: The spray delay time used in FF #4 is 133 seconds to match the CONTRANS model.

LEM: The spray delay used in FF #4 is 131.1 seconds. This spray delay time is updated from the value that is currently being used by the CONTRANS model.

5.1.1.3.2.2.4 CS Nozzle (LEM Only)

CS is modeled as having a spray nozzle. The advantage of this nozzle is to control the fraction of water that becomes droplets, to specify a drop diameter, and to determine the spray efficiency. A drop diameter of 0.059055 inches is used. (Note:

LIC-03-0001 Page 10 This drop diameter is based on the engineering specifications for FCS CS nozzles for the volumetric CS flow stated in Section 5.1.1.3.2.2.2.)

Since the presence of the non-condensable gases reduces steam condensation of the spray droplets, a spray efficiency or effectiveness is used as a multiplier (Reference 10.4). This is represented by FF #5.

FF #5 uses the mass ratio of steam to air as an independent variable. To do this, a control variable (CV) is defined. This CV divides the mass of steam by the mass of non-condensable gases at each time step. The results are used in FF #5 to obtain the CS efficiency.

The spray nozzle and spray effectiveness in this model add a slight conservatism in the results. The reason is that the effect of non-condensable gases on the mass and energy transfer at the liquid - vapor interface is already taken into account in GOTHIC.

The methodology GOTHIC used for the heat and mass transfer to spray droplets includes the effects of steam versus non-condensing gases in the atmosphere.

Basically, the mass transfer rate (condensation) depends on the drop surface area, the drop temperature and the steam concentration in the atmosphere. The mass transfer rate decreases when the steam/air ratio decreases. The only direct control GOTHIC allows for the spray efficiency is through the drop diameter. If the drops are made larger, the efficiency decreases. However, one can attempt to mimic other computer codes (e.g. CONTRANS) spray efficiency by adjusting the amount of spray and forcing the reduced spray to be 100% efficient by using a small diameter. This is not needed because, as discussed above, the condensation degradation of steam on the spray droplets due to the presence of non-condensable gases is already accounted for in GOTHIC.

Regarding specification of the drop diameter at the BC, it must be emphasized that a spray nozzle does not have any effect on drops flowing through a junction. If a drop diameter is specified for a BC, then the water flow through a junction is all drops at the specified diameter and the nozzle will have no effect. However, if the drop diameter is set to 0.0 (or NONE) all of the water flow through the junction is in the liquid phase and the spray nozzle will convert the specified fraction to drops. With this approach, one can vary the fraction of the liquid that is converted to drops. This can't be done with BC's which are not connected to a nozzle, that is to say that it's all drops or none.

To duplicate the approach used in earlier containment codes such as COPATTA, and CONTRANS, (i.e. to specify a spray efficiency), one can come close by setting the nozzle spray conversion fraction to the efficiency and use a small diameter so that the remaining spray is nearly 100% efficient. Care must be exercised in the selection of a small diameter for the spray. That is to say that the use of a diameter that is too small LIC-03-0001 Page 11 may cause the spray to hang in the atmosphere for a very long time. The diameter should be small enough to get the drop temperature near the vapor temperature. To match containment pressure and temperature conditions from another code, one may adjust the drop diameter to affect the efficiency and therefore the pressure and temperature results. For a best-estimate analysis, Reference 10.2 recommends to just input the sprays at the rate and diameter from physical specifications to allow the computer code to calculate the effective efficiency.

5.1.1.3.2.2.5 Post-RAS CS Boundary Condition Presently, the mass and energy transfer rates as provided by WEC extends to 600 seconds. While this duration is sufficient to cover the peak pressure and temperature in the containment, it is not long enough to include depletion of the SIRWT and switch over of CS to the sump. Therefore, the benchmark model and LEM includes only the CS system which covers the pre-recirculation actuation signal (pre-RAS).

Since the sump water is cooled by the shut down cooling heat exchanger (SDC HX),

the elimination of the post-RAS spray model also eliminated any need to include the SDC HX. Therefore, when the mass and energy transfer rates are recalculated in the future, the length of time in which they are performed could potentially be extended, hence it would require the addition of the post-RAS spray model to include the SDC HX in the LEM.

5.1.1.3.2.3 BC #3, SIT Nitrogen Boundary Condition (LEM Only)

The AOR, as stated currently in Section 14.16 of the USAR using CONTRANS, does not take into account any deleterious effects on peak containment pressure or temperature due to SIT nitrogen. As stated in Section 5.1.1.4, the determination of a more realistic approach is a very complicated problem that would require a rigorous calculation to receive a more reasonable result. The LEM uses a very conservative approach (See Section 5.1.1.4) in determining the effects of nitrogen on peak containment pressure and temperature to ensure that FCS has sufficient margin to the design containment pressure.

5.1.1.3.2.3.1 SIT Nitrogen Mass Flow Rate & Enthalpy The mass flow rate and temperature of the SIT nitrogen entering containment is calculated as 9.611 lbm/s for 277.49 seconds at 417.84°F (See Section 5.1.1.4).

5.1.1.3.3 GOTHIC Flow Paths All BCs must be connected to a control volume by a flow path (FP). FP #1 for example, shows the path through which the inventory leaves the break and enters containment.

All FP elevations, heights, as well as flow areas, hydraulic diameters, inertial lengths, and friction lengths used in developing this model are best estimates. The reason that a rigorous effort was not invested is that the mass flow rates through all flow paths are LIC-03-0001 Page 12 specified. For example, no flow area is actually used in the GOTHIC calculation. The same applies to forward and reverse loss coefficients. Loss coefficients are used to calculate the flow rate if upstream and downstream pressures are known or to calculate the pressure difference if the flow rate is given. In the GOTHIC models no differential pressure calculation is required between the containment and any of the BCs and all flow rates are specified. Still, the values used are reasonably representative of the actual geometry.

LEM only: The arbitrary high value used for the reverse loss coefficient for FP #3 is to prevent backflow of nitrogen into the SITs and ensure that it enters the containment to maximize its effect on peak containment pressure and temperature.

5.1.1.3.4 GOTHIC Thermal Conductors (Note: See the GOTHIC benchmark model and LEM input files (Attachments 4 and 5 respectively) for a complete detailed listing of the heat sinks and thermal properties that were used. These heat sinks and thermal properties were the same ones used in the CONTRANS model.) All heat sources or heat sinks which transfer heat by the conduction mechanism must be described as thermal conductors. 10 heat conductors are specified. Each heat conductor may consist of several regions, each region made of a different material. The transfer of heat from a heat conductor to the surrounding fluid is specified by a GOTHIC HTC. The concrete associated with the foundation slab and reactor cavity floor were conservatively excluded from the list of available heat sinks since they would be exposed to the sump versus the containment atmosphere and would not be available as a heat sink during the DBE LOCA. Additionally, selected concrete surfaces were conservatively reduced by 10%. (Note: The heat sink data used in the GOTHIC models explicitly match the data used in the CONTRANS model. For all material types except for air, volumetric heat capacities are incorporated into the GOTHIC model by using a value of 1 for the density and then inputting the volumetric heat capacity into the specific heat column for each material type. The temperature values used for these materials are arbitrary values. For air, a table of values is used that is indicative of containment temperature during a LOCA event.)

5.1.1.3.4.1 Thermal Contact Resistance Specification of heat conductors in CONTRANS is always associated with the definition of a HTC between neighboring regions. This feature is intended to specify any air gap or pocket between the regions. This "air gap" is intended to simulate possible lack of perfect contact between the steel liner and concrete due to the existence of gravel, etc. The existence of an air gap substantially reduces heat absorption by the massive concrete wall, reducing its ability to aid in the minimization of the containment peak pressure. GOTHIC however, does not allow the specification of a HTC between regions. Therefore, to explicitly match the air gap in GOTHIC to the CONTRANS model, an associated thickness must be determined. To find this thickness, the fundamental definition is used. Using a LIC-03-0001 Page 13 thermal conductivity of about 0.018 Btu/hr-fl-°F for air, and a HTC of 10 Btu/hr-fl 2

'1 we obtain:

Equation 5: _k _0.018 E --. = 0.0018 ft = 0.0216 inches h 10 Therefore, a region consisting of air and having a thickness of 0.0216 inches was defined between the steel liner and concrete in the benchmark model and LEM.

5.1.1.3.4.2 Description of GOTHIC HTC GOTHIC provides a variety of HTCs for related applications. The benchmark model and LEM uses two HTCs, the Tagami correlation (Reference 10.8), which is appropriate for a LOCA analysis and the zero heat flux option. The zero heat flux option prevents any heat transfer from the materials to the atmosphere and hence effectively insulates them. The Tagami correlation requires the specification of the time to the first peak pressure (known as the blowdown phase peak) and the accumulated energy during this time. These values are given as 13.317 seconds and 175,649,448.00 Btu, respectively (Reference 10.8) 5.1.1.3.4.2.1 Other Heat Transfer Options The benchmark model and LEM use the GOTHIC Uchida HTC as the condensation option. The CONTRANS model uses the CONTEMPT Uchida HTC which is very similar to the GOTHIC Uchida correlation. (See Section 5.1.1.5.3.2.1 for more details.)

Benchmark Model: The Cond/Cnv option will be set to XOR to simulate how CONTRANS handles condensation and convection. The XOR option uses condensation heat transfer or convection and radiation heat transfer when the condensation is zero. Condensation is defined to be zero when Twail > Tvapor and Twal

> Tsat. Since the CONTRANS analysis did not mention any radiation heat transfer, it is turned off.

LEM only: The Cond/Cnv option will be set to ADD and the radiation heat transfer option will be set to on. The ADD option allows GOTHIC to combine condensation heat transfer with convection as well as radiation. This provides a more realistic representation of the heat transfer where condensation, convection and radiation are simultaneously contributing. This is appropriate since Reference 10.5 states that all modes of heat transfer must be considered.

5.1.1.3.5 Containment Fan Coolers CFCs were not credited in either the benchmark model or LEM.

LIC-03-0001 Page 14 5.1.1.3.6 Initial Conditions The initial conditions refer to the containment initial pressure, temperature, relative humidity, and water by volume fraction.

5.1.1.3.6.1 Containment Initial Pressure The containment initial pressure is conservatively assumed as 3 psig per TS 2.6(2).

Standard Atmospheric pressure at FCS due to the 1000 ft elevation is assumed to be at 14.2 psia. Therefore, the value used in the benchmark model' and LEM is 17.2 psia. The higher the initial pressure, the higher the moles of the non-condensable gases. The partial pressure being additive, this contributes to the peak pressure and also degrades condensation on heat conductors and spray droplets.

5.1.1.3.6.2 Containment Initial Temperature Containment initial temperature is conservatively assumed to be at 120'F.

5.1.1.3.6.3 Containment Initial Relative Humidity A relative humidity value of 30% is used. A lower initial relative humidity is a conservative assumption as it increases the mass of air in the containment. This contributes both to the peak pressure and degrades condensation on heat sinks. This value is consistent with what is currently used in the AOR.

5.1.1.3.6.4 Containment Initial Water Volume Since there is no water in the sump during normal operation and hence, prior to the occurrence of an accident, a zero liquid volume fraction is assumed.

5.1.1.3.7 Run Control Parameters/Run Options A minimum time step of 1E-6 seconds is specified for all time intervals. The maximum time step for the duration is limited to 0.01 seconds. The revaporization fraction is conservatively set to zero to maximize the peak containment pressure.

5.1.1.4 Determination of SIT Nitrogen (LEM Only) 5.1.1.4.1 Purpose The purpose of this Section is to determine the mass flow rate and temperature of SIT nitrogen entering containment in a postulated LOCA that will be used for BC #3.

LIC-03-0001 Page 15 5.1.1.4.2 Problem Description In a postulated LOCA, the pressure in the RCS falls below the pressure that is maintained in the SITs by a nitrogen blanket and the water is discharged to the RCS. Subsequent to the discharge of the SIT water inventory, the nitrogen would then exit the SITs and enter the RCS. Some nitrogen gas would then leave the RCS through the break and enter the containment. If the nitrogen gas enters the containment prior to peak pressure, then it would increase the peak pressure. The contribution to the peak pressure is by two mechanisms. The first mechanism is that it increases the non-condensable gas partial pressure by adding to the amount of non-condensables in the containment and the second mechanism is via condensation degradation for example by degrading spray nozzle efficiency.

5.1.1.4.3 Assumptions Major assumptions used are as follows:

1) It is conservatively assumed that the nitrogen inventory of the four SITs enter containment prior to the peak containment pressure. This is to maximize the nitrogen effect on containment response.

2) To maximize the initial mass of nitrogen in the SITs, the lowest water level is used.

3) To maximize the amount of nitrogen in the SITs, the following was taken into account:

a) The highest nitrogen pressure was used.

b) The uncertainty of the SIT pressure instrument was incorporated.

Therefore, the nitrogen pressure that was used is calculated as follows:

Nitrogen Pressure = 275 psig + 12.4 psi = 282.4 psig + 14.2 psi = 301.6 psia 5.1.1.4.4 Analysis Determination of the nitrogen flow rate and temperature is a complicated analysis. For example, once the RCS pressure reaches the SIT pressure, the water inventory is discharged to the RCS; nitrogen begins expanding hence, the SIT source pressure is changing with time. The sink pressure, being the containment is also changing with time due to the RCS discharge. Therefore, to minimize the complexity of this analysis, a very conservative method was used in this Section using the assumptions of Section 5.1.1.4.3.

5.1.1.4.4.1 Calculation of Initial Nitrogen Mass The initial mass (m) of the nitrogen gas in all four SITs is found from the ideal gas law:

LIC-03-0001 Page 16 Equation 6: M = 144PV RT Where:

Initial pressure (psia), P: 301.6 Initial temperature (OR), T: 120'F + 460 = 580 3

Initial volume (ft ), V. 491 ft3

• 4 (SITs) = 1964 Nitrogen gas constant (ft-lbf/lbm-R), R: 1545 /28.013 (lbm/lbmol) = 55.153 2

144 is the conversion factor from in to ft Therefore:

m - 144PV - 144 x 301.6 x1964 =26 26 6 7 lbnz b

RT 55.153x 580 (Note: This calculation very conservatively assumes all the nitrogen from the four SITs is completely evacuated and added to the containment prior to the peak pressure and temperature occurring.)

5.1.1.4.4.2 Determination of the Duration for Nitrogen Ingress To find the flow rate of nitrogen, the time from the start of SIT delivery to the time of peak pressure needs to be calculated. At time 0, the RCS initial pressure used is 2250 psia and at time 14 seconds, which is the end of the blowdown phase of the LOCA, RCS pressure is about 69.1 psia. Since the blowdown phase is very rapid, pressure drops practically linearly. Therefore, RCS pressure as a function of time may be found from:

Equation 7: P = -155.78t + 2250 Where t is in seconds and P is in psia. From Equation 7, the time at which the RCS pressure becomes equal to the SIT pressure of 301.6 psia can be found as:

t = (2250- 301.6)/155.78 = 12.51 s 5.1.1.4.4.3 Determination of Nitrogen Mass Flowrate Determination of the nitrogen flowrate is conservatively determined as follows:

LIC-03-0001 Page 17 The conservative time to containment peak pressure is found as 290 seconds. This time was obtained by performing a sensitivity run without the consideration of any SIT nitrogen addition.

Therefore; Equation 8: r1 = 2667 9.611 ibm/s 0 (290-12.51)

Where:

nh = mass flowrate of nitrogen 0= time (seconds) m = mass of nitrogen(Ibm) 5.1.1.4.4.4 Determination of Nitrogen Temperature A complicated analysis is required to determine the nitrogen temperature entering containment. The reason is that when nitrogen expands in the SIT following water discharge, its temperature drops to very low values. In addition, prior to the nitrogen exiting the RCS via the break, the nitrogen is heated by either the RCS for the broken leg or for the intact leg by a combination of the RCS and SG. Therefore, it is conservatively assumed in this analysis that the nitrogen fully mixes with the RCS inventory and reaches saturation temperature of the RCS at the point at which the SITs start discharging their water inventory into the RCS. This value is a steam temperature of 417.84°F, which corresponds to the saturation temperature of the SIT pressure of 301.6 psia.

5.1.1.4.4.5 Results and Conclusions In the first phase of a postulated LOCA, the RCS pressure drops rapidly due to the discharge of highly subcooled water. In the first 14 seconds of the event, the RCS pressure drops from 2250 psia to about 69 psia. This is below the set point of the SITs for discharge. Therefore, SITs being a passive safety system, deliver water to the RCS. Subsequent to the discharge of all SIT water inventory, the nitrogen gas used to pressurize the SITs would then enter the RCS. A conservative methodology was therefore developed which accounts for the contribution of the nitrogen from all four SITs to the containment peak pressure.

It was determined that the nitrogen mass flowrate out all four SITs is 9.611 lbm/s for the duration of 277.49 seconds and the temperature of the nitrogen that enters containment is 417.84'F. This is determined to be limiting and bounding for the purposes of determining the adverse effects of nitrogen on containment pressure and temperature following a DBE LOCA. Section 5.1.1.4 discusses the methodology (using the values associated specifically with FCS DBE hot leg LOCA event) that LIC-03-0001 Page 18 will be employed in future analyses using the LEM to determine the adverse effects of SIT nitrogen on peak containment pressure and temperature results.

5.1.1.5 Analysis 5.1.1.5.1 Accident Description The FCS containment system is designed for a DBE LOCA up to and including the DEHLS (double-ended hot leg slot) break of a reactor coolant pipe to maintain containment peak pressure below the design pressure of 60 psig. The containment pressure analysis demonstrates the acceptability of the containment safeguards systems to mitigate the consequences of a DBE inside containment. WEC performed a series of analyses using different break sizes and locations. The case that GOTHIC is benchmarking is the AOR stated in Section 14.16 of the USAR for a LOCA using the CONTRANS computer code. The LOCA AOR assumes a DEHLS break of the RCS.

The limiting event that causes the maximum peak pressure in containment is a single CS pump and spray header being available for active heat removal. Additionally, for added conservatism, CFC's are not credited in the LOCA AOR.

5.1.1.5.2 Input Parameters The input parameters used to develop the GOTHIC benchmark model and LEM are stated in Section 5.1.1.3. The input decks are located in Attachment 4 and 5 respectively.

The major input into these models is the mass and energy releases from the RCS into the containment following the LOCA. These values were calculated by WEC using the proprietary computer codes CEFLASH-4A and CONTRANS.

5.1.1.5.3 Benchmark Model 5.1.1.5.3.1 Method The LOCA benchmark containment model (Attachment 4) was used to produce peak containment pressure and temperature values. These values and the CONTRANS model peak containment pressure and temperature values are presented in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1, Benchmark Model Peak Pressure and Temperature Comparison Computer Peak Pressure Time To Peak Peak Time To Peak Code (psig) Pressure (see) Temperature (0 F) Temperature (see)

GOTHIC 56.83 288 280.6 282 CONTRANS 58.96 291.82 282.75 291.82 Plots of these parameters are shown in Figures 5.1 through 5.6. Figures 5.7 through 5.9 are the benchmark comparisons between the GOTHIC and CONTRANS containment results.

LIC-03-0001 Page 19 5.1.1.5.3.2 Discussion The GOTHIC benchmark model was developed to be consistent with the CONTRANS model. All input parameters were matched as much as possible to compare how the GOTHIC model predicts the peak pressure and temperature following a DBE LOCA to the CONTRANS model. There appears to be some differences in the condensation HTCs and the use of different heat transfer options.

Additionally, the CS drop size was set to 100-microns to simulate the spray efficiency that is used in CONTRANS.

5.1.1.5.3.2.1 Heat Transfer Coefficients CONTRANS uses the CONTEMPT Uchida HTC while GOTHIC uses the following equation to calculate the Uchida HTC:

[08 Equation 9: Uchida = 79.33 LPvgj

_ Btu hr _ft 2

- F Where Pvs"Pvg is the steam/air mass ratio.

Table 5.2 displays the HTCs for different air/steam mass ratios for both the CONTEMPT Uchida and GOTHIC Uchida using Equation 9. For ratios above 50 and less than 0.1, the CONTEMPT Uchida is set to a constant value while GOTHIC continues to use Equation 9. Figure 5.12 depicts the air/steam ratio inside containment during the time period of the DBE LOCA event with the highest value of 3.441 at 1.004 seconds and the lowest value of 0.6728 at 282 seconds. Therefore, based on Table 5.2, CONTRANS and GOTHIC use essentially the same HTCs.

Another difference is that it appears the two codes transition differently from the Tagami HTC to the Uchida HTC. In a LOCA, two HTCs are used to describe the rate of condensation inside containment. They are the Tagami HTC and Uchida HTC.

The rate of condensation determines the impact the heat sinks have on the steam atmosphere inside the containment. With a higher HTC, the heat sinks have more of an effect on minimizing peak containment pressure. The Tagami HTC is appropriate during the blowdown phase of the LOCA while Uchida is appropriate after this phase.

Figure 5.7 depicts CONTRANS as shifting almost immediately to Uchida at about 14 seconds while GOTHIC decays over a time period to the Uchida correlation. The peak HTC defined by the Tagami HTC is calculated as follows:

Equation 10: HTAG =72.5[-F-° BTU

~tp [ hr- ft 2 -F LIC-03-0001 Page 20 Where:

HTAG = Tagami HTC Q = Energy release to containment at time of blowdown peak pressure tp = Time to blowdown peak pressure V = Containment free volume Therefore, using those values stated in Section 5.1.1.3.1 and 5.1.1.3.4.2, the peak Tagami HTC is 348.13 BTU/hr-ft2 -°F. Figure 5.12 depicts the air/steam ratio inside containment during this transition time as about 0.73. Hence per Table 5.2, the Uchida HTC is about 112 BTU/hr-ft2 -°F, which is significantly less than the Tagami HTC. Therefore, CONTRANS appears to conservatively shift to the Uchida HTC earlier and hence have a higher containment peak pressure.

5.1.1.5.3.2.2 Heat Transfer Options Since the CONTRANS model did not make any mention of using forced or natural convection or radiation heat transfer, the GOTHIC benchmark model had the radiation option turned off and the Cond/Cnv option was set to XOR. XOR uses condensation heat transfer or convection and radiation heat transfer only when condensation is zero. Condensation is defined to be zero when Twani > Tvapor and Tall

> Tsat.

Table 5.2, Uchida Heat Transfer Coefficients Mass Ratio Contempt GOTHIC Mass Ratio Contempt GOTHIC (Air/Steam) Uchida Uchida (Air/Steam) Uchida Uchida 2 2 Unitless BTU/hr-ft '-F BTU/hr-ft -°F Unitless BTU/hr-ft2-°F BTU/hr-ft2 -OF

> 50 2 3.469456533 3 29 32.94127848 20 8 7.221267911 2.3 37 40.74320466 18 9 7.856325166 1.8 46 49.57006064 14 10 9.605832861 1.3 63 64.31063124 10 14 12.5729577 0.8 98 94.83430476 7 17 16.72472642 0.5 140 138.1215524 5 21 21.89079081 <0.1 280 500.5384614 4 24 26.16914064 1n77'777 7 5.1.1.5.3.3 Conclusions Figures 5.7 through 5.9 demonstrate that the GOTHIC benchmark model and CONTRANS model containment pressure and temperature graphs predict essentially the same trends with the exception of the following:

LIC-03-0001 Page 21

1) CONTRANS overpredicts the peak containment pressure and temperature by 2.13 psi and 2.15°F respectively.

2) Following the blowdown phase, the CONTRANS model shifts almost immediately to the Uchida HTC while GOTHIC transitions more slowly. This is noted on the graphs during the time period from about 10 to 80 seconds. The CONTRANS pressure line is almost a straight line during this time period while the GOTHIC pressure line shows a decay then a build up in pressure.

Per Section 5.1.1.5.2 all input parameters and heat transfer options were matched as much as possible between the two computer codes. Therefore it is determined that this model is suitable for performing a containment pressure analysis using the LEM as discussed in Section 5.1.1.5.4.

5.1.1.5.4 LEM 5.1.1.5.4.1 Method The LEM (Attachment 5) was used to maximize peak containment pressure and temperature values. These values are presented in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3, Peak Pressure and Temperature Using the LEM Computer Code Peak Pressure Time To Peak Peak Time To Peak (psig) Pressure (see) Temperature (*F) Temperature (sec)

GOTHIC 57.81 290 280.9 282 Plots of these parameters are shown in Figures 5.10 and 5.11.

5.1.1.5.4.2 Discussion The LEM uses the benchmark model stated in Section 5.1.1.5.3 with the following exceptions:

1) CS temperature is 115'F per Section 5.1.1.3.2.2.1. Additionally, due to the higher temperature, the density of water is lower; therefore the mass flowrate of CS was reduced to 260.1 lbm/sec per Section 5.1.1.3.2.2.2.

2) Time to CS actuation is 131.1 seconds per Section 5.1.1.3.2.2.3.

3) CS nozzle is as stated in Section 5.1.1.3.2.2.4.

4) Nitrogen from the SITs is incorporated per Section 5.1.1.3.2.3

5) An arbitrary high reverse loss coefficient is incorporated on the flow path associated with the SIT BC per Section 5.1.1.3.3.

6) All heat transfer options are as discussed in Section 5.1.1.3.4.2.1.

The LEM and its results demonstrate that there is sufficient margin during a DBE LOCA that containment pressure is maintained less than the design limit. It is deemed acceptable due to 1) the successful benchmarking as discussed in Section LIC-03-0001 Page 22 5.1.1.5.3; 2) it conservatively considers the addition of nitrogen from the SITs; 3) it conservatively increases the temperature of CS; 4) it conservatively considers the use of a spray nozzle. The results of the containment and pressure analysis using the LEM as stated in Section 5.1.1.5.4 were incorporated into Attachment 2.

5.1.2 MSLB The MSLB benchmark and MSLB evaluation model (MEM) will be discussed in this Section. Figure 5.24 is a schematic of the benchmark model using GOTHIC. Figure 5.25 is a schematic of the MEM using GOTHIC. The MSLB benchmark model will be used to compare containment pressure and temperature results to the current AOR stated in Section 14.16 of the USAR using the WEC proprietary computer code CONTRANS.

The MEM is a variation of the benchmark model that will use updated inputs to determine the "new" limiting AOR in which the results will be incorporated into the USAR as shown in Attachment 2 of this letter. The MEM will be used to perform future MSLB analysis for containment pressure response. Any changes to the MEM that are required by the Safety Evaluation Report resulting from the NRC's review of this submittal will be incorporated into the MEM and the "new" results will be translated into Section 14.16 of the USAR. Additionally, any changes that are required in the MEM after approval (e.g. active heat removal system operation, containment initial conditions, and passive heat sink structures) will be evaluated for 10 CFR 50.59 conformance.

5.1.2.1 Assumptions These assumptions are applicable to the benchmark model and MEM except as annotated below.

1) A lumped volume was used to represent the containment to be consistent with the NRC approved methodology of the CONTRANS code.

2) The containment initial pressure is conservatively assumed as 3 psig per TS 2.6(2).

Standard Atmospheric pressure at FCS due to the 1000 ft elevation is assumed to be 14.2 psia. Therefore, the value used in the GOTHIC MSLB containment models is 17.2 psia. The higher the initial pressure, the higher the moles of the non condensable gases. The partial pressure being additive, this contributes to the peak pressure and also degrades condensation on heat conductors and spray droplets.

3) A relative humidity value of 30% is used. A lower initial relative humidity is a conservative assumption as it increases the mass of air in the containment. This contributes both to the peak pressure and degrades condensation on heat sinks. This value is consistent with the current AOR.

4) Since there is negligible water in the sump during normal operation and hence, prior to the occurrence of an accident, a zero liquid volume fraction is initially assumed.

5) For ease of determining the hydraulic diameter that GOTHIC needs to infer the wetted surface area of the containment volume, it was assumed the containment is shaped like a cylinder. Sensitivity studies were used to demonstrate that this assumption is acceptable per S eciion 5.1.2.3.1.

LIC-03-0001 Page 23

6) The CFCs are assumed to remove no heat at 120'F, since the cooling water is assumed to be at the initial containment temperature. Also, since there is no heat removal capacity data available for air/steam temperatures above 288°F, the heat removal rate is assumed to remain constant between 288°F and 500'F.

7) The break drop size was assumed to be 100-micron (0.00394 in.) per Section 5.1.2.3.2.1.

8) No heat transfer is assumed to occur between the containment atmosphere and the sump water or between the containment building outer surface and the outside atmosphere.

9) The GOTHIC Uchida HTC is being used.

10) For FF #1, the pressure at the zero time step was assumed to be the same as the time step at 0.51 seconds to prevent the code from interpolating between zero and this time step.

11) For FF #3, the enthalpy used at the zero time step was assumed to be the same as the time step at 0.51 seconds to prevent the code from interpolating between zero and this time step.

12) An assumed CS drop diameter of 100-microns (0.00394 inches) is used to simulate the CS efficiency using the CONTRANS computer code. (Benchmark Model only)

13) The containment initial temperature is conservatively assumed to be at 120'F.

5.1.2.2 Conservatisms These conservatisms are applicable to the benchmark model and MEM except as designated below by "MEM only".

1) An air gap between the containment steel liner and the concrete wall is included which reduces the effectiveness of the related heat sinks.

2) The amount of surface area to selected heat sinks were conservatively reduced by 10%.

3) A conservatively high containment initial pressure was used per TS 2.6(2).

4) The surface area between the sump and the atmosphere is conservatively assumed to be 1 ft2 . This is to prevent steam condensation on the surface of colder water collected in the sump during the accident, which would otherwise reduce containment pressure and temperature. Additionally, no heat transfer is assumed to occur between the containment building outer surface and the outside atmosphere.

5) The CFCs use design accident condition airflow that has been reduced by 10%.

6) The revaporization fraction is conservatively set at zero to maximize peak containment pressure.

7) Even though GOTHIC takes the effect of non-condensable gases on the mass and energy transfer at the liquid - vapor interface into account, spray effectiveness was imposed, which further degrades condensation and reduces the CS effectiveness.

(1MEM only)

8) Uncertainties were conservatively applied to the SIRWT initial temperature. (MEM only)

LIC-03-0001 Page 24 5.1.2.3 Inputs These inputs are applicable to the benchmark model and MEM except as annotated below.

(Note: There are several instances in which the input files, that are located in Attachments 6 and 7, do not display the complete values stated in this Section. This is due to field-size constraints only; the GOTHIC computer code used the complete value in its calculations.)

5.1.2.3.1 Containment Geometry The MSLB models use the same containment geometry as the LOCA models per Section 5.1.1.3.1 with the exception of the last paragraph.

The sump liquid to containment atmosphere vapor interfacial area is conservatively assumed to be 1 ft 2 . This is to effectively prevent steam condensation on the surface of the relatively cooler water collected in the sump during the accident, which would otherwise reduce containment pressure and temperature. (Note: Sensitivity studies have shown that increasing the liquid to vapor interfacial area to as much as 100 ft 2 reduces the peak containment pressure by only 0.01 psi and does not affect the peak containment temperature.)

5.1.2.3.2 Fluid Boundary Condition BCs, as defined in Reference 10.2, were used to specify the following phenomena to assess their impact on containment response: 1) mass and energy addition of the steam due to the MSLB; 2) spray from the CS system. (Note: All boundary conditions specify a liquid volume fraction as well as a steam partial pressure of 100 %.)

5.1.2.3.2.1 BC #1, Break Flow Boundary Condition This BC simulates the mass and energy transfer from the broken SG to the containment. WEC performed the mass and energy transfer rates using the proprietary computer code SGN-III. Time dependent data are specified using GOTHIC FFs (Reference 10.2). ,The RCS pressure versus time is specified by FF #1.

This FF is used by GOTHIC to determine the fluid density at the boundary.

Specification of a pressure for the GOTHIC boundary condition representing a MSLB is generally not too important because the momentum of the flow is dissipated within a lumped parameter containment volume. However, the pressure could have a very slight role in terms of the influence of the boundary flow on the cell-centered velocity. The cell-centered velocity is used in the calculation of HTCs. Specification of a pressure contributes to the determination of density in the break flow. This, combined with mass flow rate and flow area, allows for a calculation of velocity at the break. For a specified mass flow rate and flow area, higher pressure results in LIC-03-0001 Page 25 higher vapor density, hence lower flow velocity and vice versa. Lower flow velocity in turn is associated with a lower HTC and subsequently higher containment pressure.

Overall, sensitivity runs showed that removing this FF and using a constant value of 60 psia only had a slight impact on containment pressure and temperature and did not change the peak values. Mass flow rate of the steam is specified in FF #2 and the enthalpy of the steam is specified in FF #3.

A drop diameter of 100-micron (0.00394 in.) is used for the break flow. This value is completely arbitrary and is being used to maintain consistency between the GOTHIC LOCA and MSLB models for containment pressure response analysis. Sensitivity runs have shown that using a value 100 times greater (0.394 in.) has no effect on the peak containment pressure. This is due to very little water exits the break versus the massive amounts of steam during the MSLB event.

5.1.2.3.2.2 BC #2, Containment Spray Boundary Condition CS is modeled in this boundary condition.

Benchmark Model: An assumed drop diameter of 100-microns (0.00394 inches) is used to simulate the CS efficiency using the CONTRANS computer code.

MEM: See Section 5.1.2.3.2.2.4.

5.1.2.3.2.2.1 CS Water Temperature Benchmark Model: The temperature value used is 105F to match the CONTRANS model.

MEM: The source of water for CS is the SIRWT. A high temperature value for this tank is more conservative due to less heat transfer capabilities of water at higher temperatures (i.e. the higher temperature water is closer to the saturation temperature of the steam, therefore less steam would condense and containment peak pressure would be higher). The value used in this BC for the temperature of the water in the SIRWT was l15'F, which incorporates temperature indication uncertainty and an additional 5°F for added conservatism. The 5°F conservatism was added for operational flexibility. Increasing the temperature from 105'F to 11 5°F does not have an impact on peak containment pressure and temperature results since it already occurs prior to CS actuation. This value is being used to maintain consistency between the GOTHIC LOCA and MSLB models.

5.1.2.3.2.2.2 CS Flow Rate The containment spray volumetric flowrate is based upon three CS pumps and two headers. The spray mass flowrate is dependent upon the density of water. The benchmark model uses a density of water at 105'F. The MEM uses a density of LIC-03-0001 Page 26 water at 115 0F. The following equation is used to convert the volumetric flowrate into the mass flowrate that the GOTHIC code requires:

Equation 4: Mass Flowrate = Vohlmetric flowrate

• Pwater

• conversion factors Benchmark model: The CS volumetric flowrate value used is 5100 gpm to match the CONTRANS model.

MEM: Uses an updated CS volumetric flowrate value of 5000 gpm.

Therefore, using Equation 4, the benchmark model uses 705.41 Ibm/see and the MEM uses 690.00 lbm/sec.

5.1.2.3.2.2.3 CS Delay for Actuation (Note: CS actuation is unimportant to the peak containment pressure or temperature since it has already occurred prior to when CS starts.)

Benchmark Model: The spray delay time used in FF #4 is 93.54 seconds to match the CONTRANS model.

MEM: The spray delay used in FF #4 is 104.3 seconds. This spray delay time is updated from the value that is currently being used by the CONTRANS model.

5.1.2.3.2.2.4 CS Nozzle (MEM Only)

CS is modeled as having a spray nozzle. The advantage of this nozzle is to control the fraction of water which becomes droplets, to specify a drop diameter, and to determine the spray efficiency. A drop diameter of 0.04724 inches is used. (Note:

This drop diameter is based on the engineering specifications for FCS CS nozzles for the volumetric CS flow stated in Section 5.1.2.3.2.2.2.)

Since the presence of the non-condensable gases reduces steam condensation of the spray droplets, a spray efficiency or effectiveness is used as a multiplier (Reference 10.4). This is represented by FF #5.

FF #5 uses the mass ratio of steam to air as an independent variable. To do this, a CV is defined. This CV divides the mass of steam by the mass of non-condensable gases at each time step. The results are used in FF #5 to obtain the CS efficiency.

The spray nozzle and a spray effectiveness in this model add a slight conservatism in the results. (Note: CS has no effect on the peak containment pressure due to it being actuated after the peak has already occurred. CS does provide cooling to the LIC-03-0001 Page 27 containment in an effort to aid the CFCs and various heat sinks in returning the containment environment to pre-accident conditions). The reason is that the effect of non-condensable gases on the mass and energy transfer at the liquid - vapor interface is already taken into account in GOTHIC.

The methodology GOTHIC used for the heat and mass transfer to drops includes the effects of steam versus non-condensing gases in the atmosphere. Basically, the mass transfer rate (condensation) depends on the drop surface area, the drop temperature and the steam concentration in the atmosphere. The mass transfer rate decreases when the steam/air ratio decreases. The only direct control GOTHIC allows for the spray efficiency is through the drop diameter. If the drops are made larger, the efficiency decreases. However, one can attempt to mimic other computer codes (e.g.

CONTRANS) spray efficiency by adjusting the amount of spray and forcing the reduced spray to be 100% efficient by using a small diameter. This is not needed in the analysis because, as discussed above, the condensation degradation of steam on the spray droplets due to the presence of non-condensable gases is already accounted for in GOTHIC.

Regarding specification of the drop diameter at the BC, it must be emphasized that a spray nozzle does not have any effect on drops flowing through a junction. If a drop diameter is specified for a BC, then the water flow through a junction is all drops at the specified diameter and the nozzle will have no effect. However, if the drop diameter is set to 0.0 (or NONE) all of the water flow through the junction is in the liquid phase and the spray nozzle will convert the specified fraction to drops. With this approach, one can vary the fraction of the liquid that is converted to drops. This can't be done with BC's which are not connected to a nozzle, that is to say that it's all drops or none.

To duplicate the approach used in earlier containment codes such as COPATTA, and CONTRANS, (i.e. to specify a spray efficiency), one can come close by setting the nozzle spray conversion fraction to the efficiency and use a small diameter so that the remaining spray is nearly 100% efficient. Care must be exercised in the selection of a small diameter for the spray. That is to say that the use of a diameter that is too small may cause the spray to hang in the atmosphere for a very long time. The diameter should be small enough to get the drop temperature near the vapor temperature. To match containment pressure and temperature conditions from another code, one may adjust the drop diameter to affect the efficiency and therefore the pressure and temperature results. For a best-estimate analysis, Reference 10.2 recommends to just input the sprays at the rate and diameter from physical specifications to allow the computer code to calculate the effective efficiency.

In conclusion, CS does not have any effect on the MSLB peak containment pressure and temperature due to the peak occurs before the actuation of CS. The spray nozzle and CS are incorporated in this model to maintain consistency between the GOTHIC LOCA and MSLB models for containment pressure response.

LIC-03-0001 Page 28 5.1.2.3.3 GOTHIC Flow Paths See Section 5.1.1.3.3.

5.1.2.3.4 GOTHIC Thermal Conductors (Note: See the GOTHIC benchmark model and MEM input decks (Attachments 6 and 7 respectively) for a complete detailed listing of the heat sinks and thermal properties that were used. These heat sinks and thermal properties were the same ones used in the CONTRANS model.) All heat sources or heat sinks which transfer heat by the conduction mechanism must be described as thermal conductors. 10 heat conductors are specified. Each heat conductor may consist of several regions, each region made of a different material. The transfer of heat from a heat conductor to the surrounding fluid is specified by a GOTHIC HTC. The concrete associated with the foundation slab and reactor cavity floor were conservatively excluded from the list of available heat sinks since they would be exposed to the sump versus the containment atmosphere and would not be available as a heat sink during the DBE MSLB. Additionally, selected concrete surfaces were conservatively reduced by 10%. (Note: The heat sink data used in the GOTHIC models explicitly match the data used in the CONTRANS model. For all material types except for air, volumetric heat capacities are incorporated into the GOTHIC model by using a value of 1 for the density and then inputting the volumetric heat capacity into the specific heat column for each material type. The temperature values used for these materials are arbitrary values. For air, a table of values is used that is indicative of containment temperature during a MSLB event.)

5.1.2.3.4.1 Thermal Contact Resistance See Section 5.1.1.3.4.1.

5.1.2.3.4.2 Description of GOTHIC HTC GOTHIC provides a variety of HTCs for related applications. The benchmark model and MEM uses two HTCs. The Uchida correlation, which is appropriate for the MSLB analysis and the zero heat flux option. The zero heat flux option prevents any heat transfer from the materials to the atmosphere and hence effectively insulates them.

5.1.2.3.4.2.1 Other Heat Transfer Options The benchmark model and MEM use the GOTHIC Uchida HTC as the condensation option. The CONTRANS model uses the CONTEMPT Uchida HTC which is very similar to the GOTHIC Uchida correlation. (See Section 5.1.2.4.3.3 for more details.)

LIC-03-0001 Page 29 Benchmark Model: The Cond/Cnv option will be set to XOR to simulate how CONTRANS handles condensation and convection. The XOR option uses condensation heat transfer or convection and radiation heat transfer when the condensation is zero. Condensation is defined to be zero when Twali > Tvapor and Twall

> Tsat. Since the CONTRANS analysis does not mention any radiation heat transfer, it is turned off.

MEM: The Cond/Cnv option will be set to ADD and the radiation heat transfer option will be set to on. The ADD option allows GOTHIC to combine condensation heat transfer with convection as well as radiation. This provides a more realistic representation of the heat transfer where condensation, convection and radiation are simultaneously contributing. This is appropriate since Reference 10.5 states that all modes of heat transfer must be considered. (See Section 5.1.2.4.4.2 for more details.)

5.1.2.3.5 Containment Fan Coolers The CFCs are modeled using GOTHIC coolers. The four CFCs were modeled as two coolers.

1) Cooler #1: This cooler lumps together fans VA-3A and 3B. Under design accident conditions, the design flow rate of these fans is 86,000 fR3/min each. Per Reference 10.6, the fans must be shown to be operable to within 10% of design flow. Therefore, this cooler uses a combined volumetric flowrate of 154,800 fl3/min.

2) Cooler #2: This cooler lumps together fans VA-7C and 7D. Under design accident conditions, the design flow rate of these fans is 52,000 ft3/min each. Per Reference 10.6, the fans must be shown to be operable to within 10% of design flow. Therefore, this cooler uses a combined volumetric flowrate of 93,600 ft 3/min.

The CFCs are assumed to remove no heat at 120°F since the cooling water is assumed to be at this temperature (See Section 5.1.2.3.6.2). Also, since there is no heat removal capacity data available for air/steam temperatures above 288°F, the heat removal rate is assumed to remain constant between 288°F and 500'F. The heat removal capacity is conservatively limited to a combined 200 x 106 BTU/hr. This is specified by GOTHIC FF #6. The CFC delay for actuation is specified as 25.58 seconds.

5.1.2.3.6 Initial Conditions The initial conditions refer to the containment initial pressure, temperature, relative humidity, and water by volume fraction.

5.1.2.3.6.1 Containment Initial Pressure The MSLB models use the same containment initial pressure as the LOCA models per Section 5.1.1.3.6.1.

LIC-03-0001 Page 30 5.1.2.3.6.2 Containment Initial Temperature The MSLB models use the same containment initial temperature as the LOCA models per Section 5.1.1.3.6.2.

5.1.2.3.6.3 Containment Initial Relative Humidity The MSLB models use the same relative humidity value as the LOCA models per Section 5.1.1.3.6.3.

5.1.2.3.6.4 Containment Initial Water Volume The MSLB models assumes the same containment initial water volume as the LOCA models per Section 5.1.1.3.6.4.

5.1.2.3.7 Run Control Parameters/Run Options The MSLB models use the same run control parameter and run options as the LOCA models per Section 5.1.1.3.7.

5.1.2.4 Analysis 5.1.2.4.1 Accident Description The FCS containment system is designed for a MSLB inside containment to maintain containment peak pressure below the design pressure of 60 psig. The containment response analysis demonstrates the acceptability of the containment safeguards systems 2

to mitigate the consequences of a MSLB inside containment. A break size of 3.330 ft was used to ensure a pure steam blowdown. Additionally, RCPs are left running throughout the event to maximize the primary to secondary heat transfer. As a result, a loss of offsite power is assumed not to occur. The single failure criteria that caused the maximum peak pressure in containment, is the ruptured SG feedwater regulating valve to fail "as is" and the main feed isolation valves (MFIVs) take 40 seconds to close. For the MEM, a leak rate of 2.45% of full power flow or approximately 195 gpm past the broken SG MFIV was also considered. :(Note: This limiting event is translated into the benchmark model and MEM models via the mass and energy transfer rates that were performed by WEC.)

5.1.2.4.2 Input Parameters The input parameters used to develop the GOTHIC benchmark model and MEM are stated in Section 5.1.2.3. The input files are located in Attachment 6 and 7 respectively.

The major input into these models is the mass and energy transfer rates from the broken SG into containment. These transfer rates were calculated by WEC using the SGN-III computer code and then incorporated into these models.

LIC-03-0001 Page 31 5.1.2.4.3 Benchmark Model 5.1.2.4.3.1 Method The MSLB benchmark containment model (Attachment 6) was used to produce peak containment pressure and temperature values. These values and the CONTRANS model peak containment pressure and temperature values are presented in Table 5.4 Table 5.4, Benchmark Peak Pressure and Temperature Comparison Computer Peak Pressure Time To Peak Peak Time To Peak Code (psig) Pressure (see) Temperature (0 F) Temperature (see)

GOTHIC 58.46 67.01 404 58.01 CONTRANS 59.766 66.99 417.822 64.99 Plots of these parameters are shown in Figures 5.15 through 5.18. Figures 5.19 and 5.20 are the benchmark comparisons between the GOTHIC and CONTRANS containment results.

5.1.2.4.3.2 Discussion The GOTHIC benchmark model was developed to be consistent with the CONTRANS model. All input parameters were matched as much as possible to compare how the GOTHIC model predicts the peak pressure and temperature following a MSLB to the CONTRANS model. There appears to be some differences in the condensation HTCs and the use of different heat transfer options. Additionally, the CS drop size was set to 100-microns to simulate the spray efficiency that was used in CONTRANS.

5.1.2.4.3.3 Heat Transfer Coefficients CONTRANS uses the CONTEMPT Uchida HTC while GOTHIC uses the following equation to calculate the Uchida HTC:

Equation 9: Uchida = 79.33 [T kVgJ hr Bft 2 -F Where Pvs/pvg is the steam/air mass ratio.

Table 5.2 displays the HTCs ,for different air/steam mass ratios for both the CONTEMPT Uchida and GOTHIC Uchida using Equation 9. For ratios above 50 and less than 0.1, the CONTEMPT Uchida is set to a constant value while GOTHIC continues to use Equation 9. Figure 5.23 depicts the air/steam ratio inside containment during the time period of the MSLB event with the highest value of 15 at LIC-03-0001 Page 32 1.004 seconds and the lowest value of 0.8235 at 67.01 seconds. Therefore, based on Table 5.2, CONTRANS and GOTHIC use essentially the same HTCs.

5.1.2.4.3.4 Heat Transfer Options Since the CONTRANS model does not make any mention of using forced or natural convection or radiation heat transfer, the GOTHIC benchmark model had the radiation option turned off and the Cond!Cnv option was set to XOR. XOR uses condensation heat transfer or convection and radiation heat transfer only when condensation is zero. Condensation is defined to be zero when Twai, > Tvapor and Twal

> Tsat.

5.1.2.4.3.5 Conclusions Figures 5.19 and 5.20 demonstrate that the GOTHIC benchmark model and CONTRANS model containment pressure and temperature graphs predict essentially the same trends with the exception that CONTRANS overpredicts the peak containment pressure by 1.316 psi and peak containment temperature by 13.822°F.

Per Section 5.1.2.4.2 all input parameters and heat transfer options were matched as much as possible between the two computer codes. Therefore it is determined that this model is suitable to for performing a containment pressure analysis using the MEM as discussed in Section 5.1.2.4.4.

5.1.2.4.4 MEM 5.1.2.4.4.1 Method The MEM (Attachment 7) was used to maximize peak containment pressure and temperature values. These values are presented in Table 5.5.

Table 5.5, Peak Pressure and Temperature Using the MEM Computer Code Peak Pressure Time To Peak Peak Time To Peak (psig) Pressure (sec) Temperature (0 F) Temperature (see)

GOTHIC 56.50 67.01 376.3 47.01 Plots of these parameters are shown in Figures 5.21 and 5.22.

5.1.2.4.4.2 Discussion The MEM uses the benchmark model as stated in Section 5.1.2.4.3 with the following exceptions:

1) CS temperature is l15'F per Section 5.1.2.3.2.2.1 and a lower volumetric flowrate. Additionally, due to the higher temperature, the density of water is LIC-03-0001 Page 33 lower; therefore the mass flowrate of CS was reduced to 690.0 ibm/sec per Section 5.1.2.3.2.2.2.

2) Time to CS actuation is 104.3 seconds per Section 5.1.2.3.2.2.3.

3) CS nozzle is as stated in Section 5.1.2.3.2.2.4.

4) All heat transfer options are as stated in Section 5.1.2.3.4.2.1. Per Reference 10.5, it is appropriate to include these heat transfer options since these heat transfer mechanisms are occurring inside containment. For a MSLB, it is especially important due to the amount of superheat that is occurring in containment. The driving force for these heat transfer mechanisms is the difference between the surface temperature and the containment atmosphere. The higher temperatures in the MSLB make these heat transfer significant in the overall energy balance and help to reduce containment pressure and temperature.

5) A leak-rate past the broken SG MFIV of 2.45% of full power flow or approximately 195 GPM is used.

(Note: Items 1 through 3 are related to the CS system and are inconsequential to the peak containment pressure or temperature since it has already occurred prior to CS actuation.)

This model and its results demonstrate that there is sufficient margin during a MSLB that containment pressure is maintained less than the design limit. It is deemed acceptable due to the successful benchmarking as discussed in Section 5.1.2.4.3. The results of the containment pressure and temperature analysis using the MEM as stated in Section 5.1.2.4.4 are incorporated into Attachment 2.

LIC-03-0001 Page 34 5.1.3 Figures Figure 5.1 Containment Pressure for LOCA (GOTHIC Benchmark Model) 60-

.50 S4 0 . . ' " ...

30 S20 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Time (Sec)

Figure 5.2 Containment Temperature for LOCA (GOTHIC Benchmark Model)

U

-200 I00 .

50 50 - - - - - - - - - - - -

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Time (Sec)

LIC-03-0001 Page 35 Figure 5.3 Containment Temperature for LOCA (GOTHIC Benchmark Model)

~~300 25 150 E 1 50 1200 -. - _ - . .. -- . .. . . .

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Time (Sec)

Figure 5.4 Containment Pressure for LOCA (CONTRANS Model) 70 . . . - -.-

660 - - -

S50 .

~40 S30

~20 0 11 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Time (Sec)

LIC-03-0001 Page 36 Figure 5.5 Containment Temperature for LOCA (CONTRANS Model)

' 25 0-- - - - - - - - - -

~150- - - - - - - - - -

100 - - - - - - - - - - - -

E 50- - ----------------

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Time (Sec)

Figure 5.6 Containment Temperature for LOCA (CONTRANS Model)

S300 .

m 250 2 0

.150 = _

100 E 50 0 52 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Time (Sec)

LIC-03-0001 Page 37 Figure 5.7 Comparison between the Benchmark and CONTRANS Models for Containment Pressure (LOCA)

K CONTRANS Pressure:

GOTICPressurcF' 60 _________________

U)

C.

U)

IL 10 0.

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 560 600 Time (Sec)

Figure 5.8 Comparison between the Benchmark and CONTRANS Models for Containment Temperature (LOCA) 300 - - .

S250 - - _ _ _

150 1 - 3 41 S, - - - Te100-E 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Time (Sec)

J -'CONTRANS Temperature. THIC Temperature, LIC-03-0001 Page 38 Figure 5.9 Comparison between the Benchmark and CONTRANS Models for Containment Temperature (LOCA) 3 00 . .. . . . , ,,1 ,

250 50 -00 15 - - - - - - -

200 .-..--- - - - -,- -_

Ue150meueu--mpar 100 - ~ - __ _ _

0.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 5504 600 Time (Sec) pH-~CONTRANS Tempe'rature "-GTl Temrn eratured Figure 5.10 Containment Pressure (LEM) 60 -ii**,;. ... . .. . - - - -_._ _.. -,.

40 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

60 30 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Time (Sec)

LIC-03-O001 Page 39 Figure 5.11 Containment Temperature (LEM)

, 300 S250 200 ._ _ __ _.

CL E= 100 150 . ...

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Time (Sec)

Figure 5.12 Air/Steam Ratios for LOCA (GOTHIC Benchmark Model) 4 3.5 3

0 2.5 S2 1.5 0.5 0

1 10 100 1000 Time (Sec)

LIC-03-0001 Page 40 Containment Spray 2

If Containment 1

Flow Thermal Conductors Figure 5.13, Schematic of the GOTHIC Benchmark Model for LOCA LIC-03-0001 Page 41 Containment SIT Spray Nitrogen 1N Break Flow Thermal 1 2EH Figure 5.14, Schematic of the GOTHIC LOCA Evaluation Model LIC-03-0001 Page 42 Figure 5.15 Containment Pressure for MSLB (GOTHIC Benchmark Model) 70 60 Z 50

~40 S30 020

[L10~

n~

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Time (Sec)

Figure 5.16 Containment Temperature for MSLB (GOTHIC Benchmark Model) 5,00 2 300 ":* '"

400 E 200 300 . . ...... .... ,*. ..

E 100 E 00 0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Time (Sec)

LIC-03-0001 Page 43 Figure 5.17 Containment Pressure for MSLB (CONTRANS Model) 70 460 250

~40 S30 10 0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Time (Sec)

Figure 5.18 Containment Temperature for MSLB (CONTRANS Model)

.500 S400 S30 0 .

2 200 E 100 0.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Time (Sec)

LIC-03-0001 Page 44 Figure 5.20 Comparison between the Benchmark and CONTRANS Models for Containment Temperature (MSLB) 300_ -4 CNTRANS' 250 _ Temperature,

-:";ý'ýGOTHICTemperaure 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Time (Sec)

LIC-03-0001 Page 45 Figure 5.21 Containment Pressure (MEM) 60

~50

~40 1~30 In20 1 0 0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Time (Sec)

Figure 5.22 Containment Temperature (MEM)

.. 400 4350

-* 300.

S250.

S200 1.150 L.

C)50 0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Time (Sec)

LIC-03-0001 Page 46 Figure 5.23 Air/Steam Ratio for MSLB (GOTHIC Benchmark Model) 16 14 12 0 10

'*8 S6 4

2 0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Time (Sec)

LIC-03-0001 Page 47 Containment Spray 1

Containment I Containment Fan Coolers FLow IC 2C Thermal Conductors 1 23 4 5 6 A EE1 9L10 Figure 5.24, Schematic of the GOTHIC Benchmark Model for MSLB LIC-03-0001 Page 48 Containment Spray 1

1N Containment Fan Coolers 7 11C IF Break I Flow Thermal DD EE]IF1F Conductors Figure 5.25, Schematic of the GOTHIC MSLB Evaluation Model LIC-03-0001 Page 49 5.1.4 GOTHIC Code Errors In order to maintain awareness in GOTHIC applications, OPPD is a member of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) sponsored GOTHIC Enhancement Project.

This Enhancement Project has three key objectives:

1) Perform maintenance and user support. This includes distributing error notifications and corrections on all versions of the GOTHIC computer code.

2) Perform extensions of computer code capabilities.

3) Perform continuous validation of the computer code to experimental data (e.g.

International Standard Problem 47 for containment thermal hydraulics, Battelle Model Containment Tests)

As a member of the GOTHIC Enhancement Project, OPPD is informed of any computer code errors. Currently, OPPD has evaluated all open errors associated with GOTHIC, version 7.0 and there are none that would affect a containment pressure analysis. If one occurs in the future, it will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine its impact on any results that the computer code has provided.

5.1.5 Training OPPD:

1) has been formally trained in GOTHIC, version 7.0 by Numerical Applications Incorporated.

2) is an active participant of the EPRI sponsored GOTHIC Enhancement Project.

3) prepared the LOCA and MSLB GOTHIC Benchmark and Evaluation models and analyses that are presented in Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2. Each of them were separately documented in an engineering analysis (References 10.8 and 10.9) that was reviewed by ENERCON Services, Inc. for completeness and accuracy.

4) regularly attends the semi-annual GOTHIC Advisory Committee meetings that provides a forum for user interface with the GOTHIC Enhancement Project.

5) has 20 years of experience in performing reload and code based safety analysis.

The FCS program consists of:

a) formal and on-the-job training.

b) mentoring of inexperienced users whenever they prepare a safety analysis.

c) independent review of the safety analysis for completeness and accuracy.

5.2 Risk Information The proposed amendment does not involve application or use of risk-informed decisions.

The risk to the health and safety of the public as a result of implementing these changes is not impacted and does not reduce the margin to safety.

LIC-03-0001 Page 50

6.0 REGULATORY ANALYSIS

The use of GOTHIC, version 7.0 and the results produced in Section 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 using the applicable evaluation models conform to FCS design basis. Hence, shifting the use of computer codes from CONTRANS to GOTHIC, version 7.0 is an administrative requirement.

Therefore, based on the considerations discussed above, (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

7.0 NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment(s) by focusing on the three standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92, "Issuance of Amendment," as discussed below:

1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed changes will not increase the probability or consequence of any accident based on the following:

The proposed changes to Section 14.16 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) and replacements for Figures 14.16-1 through 14.16-4 is required due to using GOTHIC, version 7.0 and the updated containment pressure analyses.

Demonstrating that containment pressure is maintained less than the containment design pressure is required by Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) design basis. Additionally, the analyses credit all modes of heat transfer defined by Reference 10.5. Therefore, the updated containment pressure analyses using GOTHIC, version 7.0 is in compliance with FCS design basis. Changes to the containment pressure analyses for either a loss-of-coolant accident or main steam line break will be controlled by 10 CFR 50.59. Therefore, the probability or consequence of any accident is not increased.

2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

LIC-03-0001 Page 51 The proposed revision does not change any equipment required to mitigate the consequences of an accident. The continued use of the same USAR administrative controls prevents the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. Since the proposed changes do not involve the addition or modification of equipment nor alter the design of plant systems, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The changes proposed do not change how design basis accident events are postulated nor do the changes themselves initiate a new kind of accident or failure mode with a unique set of conditions (proposed administrative controls). Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The use of GOTHIC, version 7.0 is in compliance with FCS design basis.

Additionally, GOTHIC has been benchmarked to the current analysis of record for a loss-of-coolant accident and main steam line break using the NRC approved computer code CONTRANS. These benchmark models demonstrate that GOTHIC provides similar results to CONTRANS. Future updates of the containment pressure analyses will be conducted under the 10 CFR 50.59 process. The analyses will credit all available modes of heat transfer defined by Reference 10.5. Additionally, the main steam line break containment evaluation model considers the leakage past the broken steam generator main feed isolation valve of 2.45% of full power flow or approximately 195 gpm. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction to the margin of safety.

Based on the above, OPPD concludes that the proposed amendment presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c),

and, accordingly, a finding of"no significant hazards consideration" is justified.

8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The proposed amendment is confined to administrative procedures or requirements. The changes meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) for the following reasons:

1) As demonstrated in Section 7.0, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

2) The proposed amendment does not result in a significant change in the types or increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite. Also, the USAR change does not introduce any new effluents or significantly increase the LIC-03-0001 Page 52 quantities of existing effluents. As such, the change cannot significantly affect the types or amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite.

3) The proposed amendment does not result in a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The proposed change does not result in any physical plant changes. No new surveillance requirements are anticipated as a result of these changes that would require additional personnel entry into radiation controlled areas. Therefore, the amendment has no significant affect on either individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

Accordingly, the proposed amendment meets the eligibility criterion for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the proposed amendment.

9.0 PRECEDENCE The NRC previously reviewed and approved the use of GOTHIC to perform containment pressure analyses in Reference 10.7.

10.0 REFERENCES

10.1 Letter from NRC (0. D. Parr) to CE (A. E. Scherer). This letter details the NRC approval of CENPD-140-A, "Description of the CONTRANS Digital computer Code for Containment Pressure and Temperature Analysis. This letter had no subject line or legible date. *****

10.2 GOTHIC Containment Analysis Package User Manual, Version 7.0, dated July 2001.

10.3 "Sprays Formed by Flashing Liquid Jets," by R. Brown and J. L. York, AICHE Journal Vol. 8, #2, May 1962, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

10.4 CENPD-140-A, "Description of the CONTRANS Digital Computer Codes for Containment Pressure and Temperature Transient Analysis," by R. C. Mitchell dated June 1976.

10.5 ANSI/ANS 56.4, 1983, "pressure and temperature transient analysis for light water reactor containments."

10.6 OPPD Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station Technical Specification 3.6(3)(f)

Amendment 166.

10.7 Letter from NRC (J. G. Lamb) to NMC (M. Reddemann), dated September 10, 2001, "Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant - Review for Kewaunee Reload Safety Evaluation Methods Topical Report WPSRSEM-NP, Revision 3 (TAC No.

MB0306)."

10.8 EA-FC-02-001, Rev. 0, "Containment Response to a Hot Leg Break LOCA with GOTHIC."

10.9 EA-FC-02-002, Rev. 0, "Containment Response to a MSLB with GOTHIC."

LIC-03-0001 Page 53 10.10 GOTHIC Containment Analysis Package Qualification Report, Version 7.0, dated July 2001.

• • • • • References included in Attachment 3 for NRC use.

LIC-03-0001 Non-Proprietary References from Attachment 1 LIC-03-0001 Reference 10.1 Letter from NRC (0. D. Parr) to CE (A. E. Scherer).

- "* .UNITED STATES

-1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ZAK..WASHINGTON. D. C. 2M555 Mr. A. E. Scherer Licensing Manager (460-4)

Nuclear Power Systems Division Combustion Engineering, Inc.

1000 Prospect Hill Road Windsor, Connecticut 06095

Dear Mr. Scherer:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has completed its review of Combustion Engineering Topical Report CENPD-140 entitled, "Description of the COM'rRANS Digital Computer Code for Containment Pressure and TeLperature Transient .Analysis."

We have concluded that CENPD-140 provides an acceptable analytical procedure for predicting the containment temperature and pressure line

trahsients following a loss-of-coolant accident and main steamwith dry break accident. C5ND-140 may be referenced by applications the or subatmospheric containment structures. For each plant analyzed, initial as containment specific plant dependent input information such and passive heat conditions, active heat removal system operation, sink structures should be provided and justified. CENPD-140 may also be referenced for the annulus analysis of dual containments.

In addition, future applications which utilize the CONTRANS code and reference CENPD-140 nust indicate the revision number of the code utilized.

as a part of If the revision number is different from that reviewed CENPD-140, all modifications to the code must be identified.

Should NR1C criteria or regulations change, such that our conclusions given concerning CENPD-140 are invalidated, you will be notified and review, the opportunity to revise and resubmit your topical report for should you so desire.

it is requested that this report be resubmitted as an approvedourreport approval within three -wnths. The approved report should incorporate The staff letter and its enclosed evaluation as a part of the document.

CENPD-140 when it appears as a does not intend to repeat its review of reference in a particular license application.

S .ncerely,

• D.Parr, Chief Light Water Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Project 'anagement

Enclosure:

Staff Evaluation of CEMPD-140

TOPICAL REPORT EVATLUJATION CNPD-40O Report No.:

Recort

Title:

Description of the CONTrANS Digital Computer Code for Containment Pressure and Temperature Analysis, Amandment Nos. 1, 2 arn 3 (Nonproprietary)

April 1974, November ig7', Mareh 1975, Reort De-.e: October 1975 Originating Organization: Corrbustion Engineering, Inc.

Nuclear "Power Systens ReviewNead By: Containrent Syst-e.Ts Branch Division of Systen-s Safety Date of Evaluation: April 6, 1976 SUI*YAPY OF TDPICAL REPORT to calculate the tarsient pressure The CONTRANIS computer program is used and annulus building to a loss-of tennerature response of the contairufl-nt CONTRAS is not a part of the cooiant or nain steam line break accident.nodel and will not be used to Combus-tion Engineering's ECS evaluationfor ECCS evaluation. Amendment 3 to calculate contaiuhprnt back-pressrie the CON'RAINS code, designated CONTRANS CENPD-140 describes rodifications co in the calcula-ion of temperature and Revision 1. These changes were ratde a main steam line break and in pressure within the containment followingannulus of dual contairnents.

tihe analysis of the pressure within the consists of nmss, energ/, and volume The analytical =odel in CONTRANS annulus building for dual containzents.

balances cn the contairment and following an accident are Mass and enerU releases to the contairfMnt heat sinks such as con tainment active code invuts. Capability to consider .coling heat ehan-gers as well as the sprays," fan coolers, and shutdcwn the program. A vari-ety of wall passive heat sinks is provided within either as interral code functions heat trznsfer coefficients are available release, after the pri-nry system or as ccde inputs. For long-term enerV the containr-ent, a nmdel of the has reached pressure equilibritum with This rodel includes decay heat, primary. system boil-off is included.

fluid stored energy and primary andhe.t pr2*Tmry system and steam generator We have comared the decay secondary mretal-to-coolant hea- transfer.

to the recomrended curve in curve used by CoLabustion Engineering Branch Position 9-2 and find it Auxntary and Power Conversion Systems to be conservative.

mixing" To determi-ne contair~ment design conditions, the "instantaneous This assumption m.axidizes will be used.

assumDtion for the break effluent atmosphere for in the contaifre-rt the saturation te-rature of tne vapor rVa-jimizes the anount of e-ergY the bulk of -the transient, and therefore and available for the deter-ir-ation of either the con:taflfl-flt pressure temperature.

er-dary containu-Ont annulus pressure and zmeratue, or the se, the peak contairfent The rajor input assumptions used to determine lcw heat transfer pressure and temperature include conservatively the containment atmosphere.

coefficients to maximize the ener=*v in obtained from the Tagami and are Condensing heat transfer coefficients of 1.0. Convective heat transfer Uchida correlations with rmltipliers for vertical planes presented coefficients are obta~ined from a correlation cal'ly checks the surface by rAdaris. The COL'PA+/-Q code aurtomati whether -heAs co-ndensing or temperatue_ of each heat- sink to deternmine is to be used. condersate foI convective heat transfer coefficier**

assumed to fall, to the sumip.

on verttical s is jt-es it is to assured automa-tic--alY occur at the outer surface of the Io heat transfer Dresst='e calculations.

contain/rent shell for containnent the prediction of the temperature For a main steam line break accident, is very sensitive to heat and pressure r_*esponse of the contaýi-,vant The CONTP"NS code has been modified tr_-e_-sfer to the passive heat sinks.

difference for heat "-ansfer to the so that the driving temperature and heat sinks is -he difference between the heat sink's surface Dassive than vapor in the at-osphere rather the saturation temperature of the

-the actual varr tem.erature.

by conservatism in the CONTPRAS code involves the mretrod and An additional sinks transfer to the passive heat which water is condensed by heat atrosphere. The CONTIRANS code is r-moved from the corntainment heat flow to the containment heat sink conservatively assumes that allequivalent amount of steam which is added results in condensation of an actual steam line break ins ide containment, to the sump region. During an would entrain some the contairzent arosphere the noncondensable gases in prevent it from reaching the heat siink of the condensed water and would bring this water into This the Turbulence in the atrosthere surface. it could be reevaporated.

hotter regions of the contýainment'where of superheat in the containmirent and action would reduce the amoun-for steam line break accident.

reduce the containment pressure and temperatc=re input assumptiors used to determine the pressure The maj-r annulus include conservatively response of tb -econdarv cntainment to maximize the energy into the annulus hih heat transx)".ccefficients recommended for the volume. The lensing heat transfer coefficient the Tagami correlation and K ECCM Evaluation .Model (four tines Appendix

-3 an exponential decrease to 1.2 times the Uchida correlation) will be used shell. Subsequent heat to determine heat transfer to the containment she!l and other tryansfer into the annulus air space from thebycontainment a corr-elation for turbulent strtuural heat source-s wrll be deterndined is assumed to occur at the outer natural convection. No heat transfer however, heat transfer into the surface of -the secondary contaiz.ient; secondary contair-zm-nt walls is corsidered.

The calculation of the pressure response, in the secondary containment annulus ventilation system and leakage considers -he operation of the of flow rate as a function of time.

into the annulus using an input table calculation, provided the prope.

We will accept the present form, of this selected as a function of tine to fan cakpacity and infiltration rate arepressure. Ai least one code corresnond to the calculated annulus proper values using the pDesennc intnration will be necessary to selectthe of the contairimnt shell into

=rdel. Thermal and mechanical expansion in the pressur- response. The the annulus space are also consideredcode have been modified to be expansion equations in the CONTRANiS as well as spherical steel apolicable to cylindrical steel containment CONTANS.

containment in the original version of St AiY OF REG LATORY EVALUATION the CONTRANS computer code is an We have reviewed CE NFD-!LO and conclude tenrT_*ature and pressure transients acceptable method for analysis of theaccident and a main steam line break that would follow a loss-of-coolant accident.

I the results from our CONTM2T-LT code to a In addition, we have comra-red for a loss-of-coolanlt accide-nt and savgle problem provided in C"NPD-!40 The CONMTT-LT code is the "have calculated consistent results. by the staff. We have also compared the conta-inment analysis method used the exoperiental te-.peature- and predictions of the CONTRANS code to Tube Reactor containment pre-ssure_ data taken at the Carolina-Virginia these data using the CONE*T-LT e-.-rimrents and to our predictions of predictions of the CONTRA-NS code computer code. We have determined the line break.

to be conservative for the irain steam RBC-JLATORY POSITION Revision 1 computer code may The above topical reeport and the CONTRANS transients andr main be referenced for analysis for icss-of-coolant establish the design mressure steam line break transients used to struc-tures. Future applications for dry or subat:nspheric containment

must indicate the code which utilize This code and reference CENPD-l"Orevie-ied as part- of this revision nurrber and if differeent from that topical report, all modifications to the code must be identified. The annulus analysis of dual contair*ren-tS.

code may also be referenced for the input inforration For each plant analyzed, the specific plant-dependent heat renoval system such as containment iLnitial conditions, active st-u=tures, should be provided and operation, and passive heat sink justified.

LIC-03-0001 Reference 10.3 "Sprays Formed by Flashing Liquid Jets," by R. Brown and J. L. York, AICHE Journal Vol. 8, #2, May 1962, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Sprays Formed 6y Flashing Liquid Jets RALPH BROWN and J. LOUIS YORK University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan Ltquids forced from c hg9h-prcssurc zone into c Iow..pressure zone oflen cross the cquilbrium pressure for the I~quid temperature and dis;ntcgrtc into a spray by parl;al evolut;on OF Vapor.

Tier ordinary aerosol dispenser is a common eoamplc of this operation, and flash boiling is anonhcr.

This paper reports on a study of the sprays formed by such a process and of the mcechanism or spray formation Sprays frnm w~ater end Freon.11 jels were analyzed for diop sizes, drop relscit;eso, nd spro) patterns Thec breoakup meclaonism was cnaolyzed and data presented to sh- some of tr*e controlling foctors.

A criico! superheat was found, aboet *-hlch the jet a! liquid is shattered by rapid bubble gro. Ie within it. The bubble-growth rote ,as correlated with the Weber number, and a critical

,i!e of the Weber number was found to be 12 5 for lo*.-'is:osity liquids. The mean drop size Oas also correlated with Weber nurmber end degree of superheat The spror from rough Orilices end sherp-edged orifices was compared with sprays produced 111N1 te eh;u&ai e cn ob or rbei l e csee tronC o r. . . . . . . . ... numbers the masses and drops of liq temperature.

uid formed originally from the mabi Liquidq moving isothermally from a relationshipc were examined with the jet will themselhes be broken up still

]liihi-pressuit -onc to a lo%%-pressute data from flashing jets in an attempt further; that is secondary atomization osne" may cross the bubble-point to organize and to explain the data, will occur.

Ceurve, attaining final equilbrium and some were helpful. Thermodyinamically, flashing results v'holl" or in part as a vapor. This ac IRayleigh (2) analyzed the instabil- from suddenly lowering the pressuse tio:s fhas long been dte basis for Lash icy of liquid jets which disintegrated on a liquid until the bubble point is tvaporation and for pressure dispens by" surface tension forces, and Weber reached. Further lowering of the pres in of aerosols, such as insecticides, (3) extended the analysis to include sure will leave the liquid superheated hair sprays, and man), other household aesodynamic forces. Weber found that or at a temperature higher than the mnaterials Thermodynamic studies of the magnitude of the disruption in. saturation temperature corresponding tile process have been made, but prac creases with a dimensionless number, to the pressure, and the liquid tends to ti~ali% nothing appears in the ltera now, called the Wclicbi number. one convert to a vapor to regain equilib Cure Tegarding the physical process of form of which is rium. Under adiabatic conditions the vapor formed can obtain its latent heat disintegration of the hiqiid mass into

_-p,V d of vaporization only at the expense of dirops and vapor.

This paper reports on a study o. the 0g . " the sensible heat of the remaining liquid. Equilibrium will be reached mechanism of spray formation by Eashing of a cylLndrical jet and on the The Weber number may be con- when the fraction of liquid converted spray formed by this process (1). Ex sidered as the ratio of the impact. to vapor.has extracted -enough energy: "

perimental ,tec*niques .Incli*de 'high-' stress of the &as p*ase o the .intertface. :froin -the--xesiduil .lijuia "-to. co6 oe th to the normal -tress" caused -by' thbe`...vo :plzas.es tohle .t' speed photograp'ny of. the.*breas'up  :"." "

zone and of the spray,,with drop sizes interfacial tension acting.on any.cross ':]libri=u tempetr.'. -.

and velocities computed froni a photo section. For low-viscosity fluids.Abfe Flashing =n alsPoCe= _whe- a graphic analytical procedure. Most cf type of dcsi-ttegration depends upon solution of gas in liquid. is suddenly the data are for superheated water the Weber number (4). Whe N*4. <.. reduced in pressure below the bubble injected into the room atmosphere, 0.2, only the pinching-off action -of point. As the gas comes out of solu but some data on Freon-li (trichloro interfacial tension appbes; from 0.2 < don, it will require heat which can monoauoromethane) are considered. NX, < 8, the action is a sinuous dis- come only from cooling of the residual The voluminous literature on sprays tortion which wvhips the jet into seg- liquid. When the phase change has includes a reasonable number of ZA'i ments; and for N., > 8, the action is restorea-"'equilibrium, the process ties on mechanism of spray formation, more violent with ligaments of fluid ceases.

but all of these describe systems for separating from the jet and atomiza- The generation of vapor in either which aerodvnramic forces and.surface tion occurring. At even higher Weber case is not restricted to the surface of -

tension are the key forces in disinte-gration. The range of £ow' rates, ve1 0-ities, and stream sizes enployea in tils bpviodes poor spray foa ton M cold.-water as the li-d_ . "

ltedium, but a satisfactory spray wih ..

• ts-superheated 'water. This init that . -. . "

the normal relationships of *-imension-less roups and variables is not effec tive w*en bulkva-porization is I factor . . '"*"' j an the spray formation. Many of these*  :. . .

Brlp h L

-a.-- a .'

Si Ca y.r

. .sys' .tm..... .

-"Fig. 1. Liquid injection r.

C I%

"TAnLa1. Dr*sc:n'To.- o- Norn s i,.* 5 **,1 C Diameter. Length. LI/D Rougin.ess oo*

eto*zo 1

,+*

• fl in.. Cpic. RMS)

Type - I=> ,I Al, 9 A 0.030 0.040 0.0301 0.040 *1 A

A 0.080 0.080 1 1

B 0.020 0.020 _ - 0.0004 (er.)

B " 0.031 0.040 0.02. "

0.035 ' -0.90.8 P, . . *B 0.054 ." 0.9 251 ". 0.00042 0.12.

-- EXpermental no~le types. B 0.030 0.020 0.05-. *.""3000 C

"the liquid phase but can originate at LE csowmrH i," VATER U.,O'm 1 Anr1.

"."any suitable nucleus in the liquid 0300 0.245 0.10 of the TAa5* 2 Mrzstu, 1.rrL RAO:us rod Btra 0.378 302 311 uble After

• • hase. the gas initialwill nucleation be more likely to r. (A) 2.90 0.605 0.470 !S4 _293 the bubble surfaces, causing a cor T. ('F.) 220 26 275 form at bubble and ia".

"rapid groth of the of respondmg physical displacement temwt ashing are in a narrow range oF about 1 adjacent hauld. The displacement rate in. each noz.

the 1.0 and a rouglraess o! about 20 ;- in. It E *F. for each fEoi6 can cause disintegration of unconSned delivered gave arge a rough-surfacca jet wit. cold 5 Ie, although the limiting terne:aturen "liaui, analog.ous to that resultir" water, appearng rbuclent but being quite 21hilt in absolute value for each chanpe from bumpin~oof su prated*-* .. liqa bo im b ing Type-Cfor several hundred d&amete:s be stable n variable. The shtt.ering nmper.c in soe ore eventuallly disintegrating by surface lo sre is the name given to the mea.

. "~ tension action. Type C was a nozzle of 'alue of the limits between no signii-.

ExPER.ME .TALEU.IPMENT TyeB wit lassbead (170 to 200 rmesh) " 2ant effect on the jet and rather Co=

e .. nozzlehrce top r:vie an disintegation of the jet: Data ca "lete

~Z~Th ligni oeccur Lyinquiescen ina t 'o - trernely roughi suracce. With .co1d water C showed'little gaia 0 or-b azed=e v he sprays produced sure ia, ejde thouh om frorn the maina j;t as it emerged in breakup of the jet by further in.

from tetornoriice.

. bin --

S* nozze.on~graton ito a lo- . 'ssur snnts Three wepe stprayed: water, creases in the temoerature; thus the "region,. I ann tuid p p .t-ayrougwhhcar'bo shattering temperature indicates s con- Thre gas quand waere bee bub-led-4 r2 m m geometrical system this sMuy wvas dioxide had ruique action on the jet and is a dis ducted on cylindrical jets issuing from eor a O0 b.gsq. ia. "rac.caulyeld 5 ru2s di tinct and reproducible eSect.

simple circulaz openings, with no tubulence

-Inernal . herewere "nt water. A series of sample photograpýs to induce swirl, twist, or the in addition to that which is acquired by cussd.. e.zwe wi e that e . w shows best the erect of changLng Sow though oranary tubing. The breakup zone and the spray were nozzle type 2rid size. Figure 3 shows FEgure I shows the general piping dLa- tuphy (5)b Light Bashes of about p tsec a Type A nozzle with orifice diameter:

a gram. The pressure tanlk could be operated Photographs were of 0.040 in., and Figure 4 shows water or duration were delivered.

with steam pressurization on hot The talcen %ith a magnification of 10 Y. Veloc Type A nozzle with an orifice 0030' fluits.

aLr or gas pressurization on other as a ity measurements were made by double in. in diameter. The smooth %ater je heat exchanger could be operated exposures with a time interval or 20-4 seems to explode suddenly and vio the liquid heater or cooler to control u sec. bev.een the two exposures The ,is Naximurn lently, and repeated photographs showr temperature fed to the nozzle. about 300 tance between two images of a drop gave pressure on the system was Its velocity. that the location of the dislntegralion employed. one component oFwere made on Irages of varies rapidly and randomly from 0.1 lb /sq. In., but t6is was rarely is to Spray analyses as the purpose of flash spraying onto a gound.glass to 05 in. downstream from the orifie to produce a the negatives'projected o!

reduce the pressures needed screen at 10 X, a total magnLfcalion for the larger jet. The smaller jet dis.

in good spray. counted integrates further downstream and The three types of nozzle$ employed arc 100 X. Then the drop .irnages 'were Into size classes horn which the szes cal distribution a manner which cuts the jet into dLu*

In Tble shown in Figure 2 and deccribed orifice and could be shown and the average tinct sections which disintegrate ore:

1. Type A was a sharp-edged cold water, culated. The depth of field and the as slowly. The center oF Figure 4 is about jet with In gave a smooth-surface 100 jce sociated deree of blur o. the images the 1 in. hrom the nozzle.

which w,-s stable for more than was known; therefore by each size class Fiaure 5 shows a jet from a Type B diameters and then disintegrate- the drops in a known action ms discussed by count was for By mulýplying the num nozzle 0.031 in. in diameter, and Fill surface-teslion drilled ho1"e volume of spray.

Rayleigh (2). Type B was a size by the average veocity ratio of about ber of each which with a length.to-,damcter that size a weighted average reuled to the distribution of drops correvponded 3 . soving through the sample volume in a u nit time.

JET BREAKUP Operation of the equipment it n constant flow rate and incre.tingly

• higher liquid tempcratures shnws that signeifcnnt flashing does not occur at temperatures just above the saturation temperature. but that a substantial in crcase above saturation must be pro Fig. 4. Flas*n;g jet 10X. Type A D vided. The temperatures below which in,. P = 131 tlb./sq 'in. T =2i37F. one no effect is shown on the jet and from Crifice.

Fig. 3. Flashing jet 10X. Type A, D = 0.040 above which the jet is shattered by May, 1962 in., P = 120 IbJsq. in. T = 216*F.

A.I.Ch.E. Journal Page 150 I

So

• bubble is subject to tlire~c for=c,.

prcssurc on the liquid 11., the ir preswurc in the bubble P., and pressure exerted by the interfacial * . .

ion. The interfacial tension causes rcs~urc of 2cr/r. For a bubble to win a superheated liquid the pres I . .. .

acting outward must excccd sc acting inward, or P. > J*.L +

e smallest bubble capable of growth B, ) = 0.031 Th*that one whose radius r. just satis

,; 5 Flos~inS let 10X Ty,, is in, P = 120 Ib.isq in T = 2951F. ties the equation noz JIre 6 shows a jet from a Type B zlc 0.020 in in diameter. The larger or "je: of Figure 5 is 'tpicalof the shat 1'.--?.

tering occurring in the jet f*om such a rough nozzle, and Figure 6 shows is a function the effect of a tempera'-ure just below Si nce the vapor pressure then the Fi9_7.'. Bubble growlth-rote conslonts for super

- ow - the liquid temperature,-

the shattering .temperature. heated SYSt*ers ot I ,,ti.

inimurn bubble radius can be calcu 7'1 The Type C nozzle is not shown of temperature and ted as a function dominant.

because its extremely rough surface la shown in Table 2. Since the rough- bheat conduction becomes disintegrated even a coid jet, although la ,he radius then follows the relation B nozzles is of the 1 irregularly, and the effect of Lashing n ess in the Type temperature of r - r, - -e" rder of 0 5 F., then a is not apparent in the photographs .

The rough 'he nozzles show nozl disintegra aicire, bout 270*F. would reduce the mini discharge hum radius to the order of the rough developed by Forster and zuber "tobe tion beginning at the nozzle orifice, and the eddies ess in the and the sharp-edged orifices give a nnight be influential.

delayed action, w'ith dismtegýation setting in several diameters cown- The bubble must continue to grow stream. This difierence is ex-plained on i it is to disrupt the jet, and the The first grouping in It e parentheses As the hot growth rate will determine the shat the basis of nucleation. is the weigh t-fraction fiashing at the passes through the nozile and terin~e effect it will have. Plesset and saturation temperature and .owermres water and Forster and Zuber (7) sure, the second pb enthess enonoses the pressure decreases until enougha Zwi&c (6) the growth rate and the spe fic-volowte n ratio o gas ton lq driving force is established to form have studied in mathematical system by ua, and the.r product is then tie bubble, the molecular arrangement of solved the arrive at the the biud controls the nuc~eaton has suf different techniques to volunetrie is incea~se theterweiiht-fraction uponm Lahnga iua the The ashing. as -. :

"b le. The rough orifice The bubble grows ini hst o a w-measue.

tis oh.-henrate ofsta-t.was file buble cem low -pesur same results. ond lower prest fident length.,to. pe:-iit the surface. tially at ILvery rapida..te because of. Catcuratintedperatures parntheis= 7no"*

r-te ~uax-ities " "to faor-m .low-pressure th. rapid .relaxation of the surface vapor.cutht;ae srae, Largby secondvFoues-er the Ze*r-t eadies. These eddies in Shea regu-* more tension pressure and the slow decrease rate constant wop d indicate as part of the in temperature of the liquia surround larly, inove do-nstre-m In a few microseconds jet, and serve as low-pressure stagna-

• ing the bubble. about ten times its in-.

tim 'spots-.wic. may wel nucleate. the bubble is tia radius, the amount of liquid va four c-iolerent ofuigs.Watertas a bubbles. The shahip-edged orifce f for the rate more than twice as large fes no such opportunity, and the bub porized to UII the bubble cools re growth at the surface, and ble formation is much like that of a maining liquid bumping liquid in a boiling flask, with a sudden violent eruption of the bu iles.

2..

I-. . -- _ ' -- * ,

S -

• -'.:.E J~0.UIr C,_-.:q5*

i- '-'-4.

- I iI I I I .i ' I  ! 1q -" " "

I -

fig & Flashing et 1-0X..Type', D Fig. a. Effect arveb-et ,,umbe on v-oter asd Fri-n-li jet Iekt in., P = 120 Ibisq in. T - 2i*F...

2."

0dN.  : "" """ . -.

V ol*.Z._ 14 .

sc a

I.?

• " i 0 2 4 I$ 68 20 1? a 220 1.0 20,2 250 180 27 200 200 300 20C .7 1.0TR[ P01 T' ONLY1 14JECTIO T44I.;[I rate and Weber number an Fig. 9. Effect of bubble growth drop sizes.

as the organic compounds,. when com pared at the same superheaL. .I The analogy betveen thermal dif . N fusiity and. molecular difusivity in "30 I :: z v'r,,

-_.:."a*iatelybrings forth.-the parallel I conceýt of f "as sh:g.g-.rorn super-satu-..

"'rate liquds well as super-heated difu

. liquids. The values of =61ecular lower sivity are an order of magnitude r& 7.0 however, and the corresponding 10

.- c-107.4 about one growth-rate constants are liq 0 04 0I 1.1 *I tenth as large as for superheated SPR tAY0.X IINC O 2I210 PCilROW $1IC across sprays forn flashing attempted uids. One experiment was Fig. 10. Variation in drop dicmeters jet.

carbon water on cold water through which min. at dioxide was bubbled for 20 was "90lb./sq. in. gauge. If saturation liquid vol C - 19.7 - 0.58 N., for N,. < 12.5 given drop mean in Table sizes 3.were Thecomputed four different from attained, about 1%a of the C = 11.5--0.42 N. for N,. > 12.5 ume would be fLashed off. This system [ D," ,1&N, a,]

breal-up almost identical with aspect of Figure 8 is "D-.-- LED 0 shno.ed An interesting that of water containing no dissolved the lack of infiuence of roughness on if the gas, which would be erpected low to the relationship.

with close agreement Thus D-- is the hnear mean diameter, growth-rate constant was too for data for both kinds of orifice. This D. the surface mean diameter, -D*.the super.

• influence break-up. Water at a 1% is in contrast to the marked difference volume mean diameter, and "--

the heat sutncient to cause flashing of in breakup seen in the photographs. volume-surface mean diameter.

of the volume easily shattered a jet. of Observation and the data bring out The corresponding dimensions SPRAY CHARACTERISTICS orifice and the jet itself are given the fact that a jet of large diameter the a

may shatter at a superheat for which The drop sizes in the spray at in Table ,, along with temperatureb, This of 6 in. from the nozzle are a smaller jet does not shatter. distance brings in the possibility that jet stabil ity may be an important factor; there i Weber number was deter I fore the The mined for each system studied.

temperature at which each jet shat j.. * .. -5+/-- ** I the tered permitted calculation of i* Q tl @h I * . .. .... . .

t++ 144

- P.4*

Weber number and the growth-rate ii--. , 9 *tI *. '- IA'II-.

.A-s A. I... "*4 *9 constant for each fluid system, with *"

• , ,30 0 4

• t4 the result shown in Figure 8. Higher 9.

?' h- ' .J.

flI+ ii 5 ... 9? .9

2. 0 values of the Weber numbcr permit . .45-** - 5 91 I.. i..20

• 9. . . . .

14* 14 - 9.-:

shattering to occur with less superheat I + *,-i.

• 1,4 .. +t It' I, 4

.7 at the same flow velocity, giving 90 IF4 9* 9

4. I.

smaller growth-rate constants. A Weber II 9' 59 -- . *..ls i I.I i

.9.

I 0* 9: I,.

9.11 0

number of 12.5 is critical, with lower

• 9 *9 114 14-0

.9 .59

-alues of the Weber number requirinn .i- 4 04I * .9. il 4

. . .* .. .9.

significantly higher growth rate foi I: l; .

54 0 JI4

.59 shattering. This usually requires highei I55* 9 - 2' 9,44 9* I

.5 superheat St.' .- *4 9 The two straight lines reprcsentinm I. C *kA aI.

have the equations May, 1962 the data best I

A.I.Ch.E. Journal Page 152

I,nbble growth-ratc constants, and t, = -.

• O-j

,,thcI. i,.vitr.%. ]ligh pi cirt-_s :wid high

%\Vehcr numbers. \clct'itit's arc not zii'cCtenry for the M ag]h s up c rl i rvtting m u nt I - . .,

The uniformity parameter, albo J[i 1 , -. t .%,, : ,h h1 shown in Table 3, is derived from a I " provicled.

lOg-rlormal probability plot of the data ,,,.

as NOTATION tor each analysis and is defined

r. C = hbablc growth-rata constant 8 = 0 394/log,0 (DJD,,,) C, lhiat capac'ity of liquid SI I , = nvcragc drop size in each where D., :and Dw, are the diameters ... *..

• IS I.

for cumulative per sie Lloss in in analysis rc.'d from the plot D.. = mean drop size correspond tealtages of 90 and 50, respectively.

The size distribution fits the log.nor ing to chosen values of sr

_:_:./ .* " , .. , .l aind ni rnal probabilir" function as well as any other spray data. D., = thermal diffusivity of liquid The two lines in Table 3 for water d = diameter of liquid jet below its boiling point show the poor g. conversion factor (poundals breakup to be expected from such Fig. 11. Velocity oi drops in a spray from per pound force) low-pressure orifice injection, even flHsing water jet 6 in from the orifice. L = latent heat of vaporization with the artificially roughened Type C ni, n = integer constants such that

,ozzle, which tends to tear the stream rn> n Into irregular masses because oof its value. The line through the band for Nr, = NWeber number roughness alone. water can be described by the equa P. = pressure on system at free Comparison of the mean drop sizes tion liquid surface

%-ith those, for other types of spray - 1,840 - 5.18 T(F.) P, = vapor pressure of liquid at devices is only approximate, shince in DN, = its temperature T.

jection conditions are quite si.gnificant r = radius of bubble at any time for man)' devices In general the flash- The standard deviation is 6.1 %. t ing of water through these orifices An attempt to correlate the uni- r. = radius of smallest bubble produced a spray roughly similar to formit)' parameter with the bubble capable of growth that from a swirl-chamber nozzle, gro%,th-rate constant failed to show Tr = radius of bubble when heat somewhat larger in mean drop size anm, significant relationship, conduction begins to control than for gas atomized sprays, and brop-size analyses at different loca- (r, - 21 r.)

somewhat smaller than the spray pro- tions across the spray showed a trend t = time from bubble radius rT duced by most spinning-disk units of increasing drop size with distance V = velocity of jet relative to gas The mass fraction of the liquid flashed from the spray axis. This is shown in medium upon emerging from the nozzle can Figure 10, in which the effect of Greek, Leers be computed from the first term of the Weber number is indicated for each AN, = number of drops in each bubble growth-rate constant and ranges nozzle type at various temperatures. size class in an analysis up to a maximum of 7.8% (at 2877F.) The larger drops apparently migrate . AT = superheat for water. This compares favorab.lo away from the center because of their S - uniformity parameter in drop uth'. the need for 0.5 to 1.0 ]b. of air inertia and the radial component added size distribution needed per pound of water in many to the drops by the explosive flashing 'height of roughness "project S . - This effect is less evident when the . ..- ......

The uniforzixty'r* etr avned ,~Veber' ~ ~ thi- a it:- -

isumbe+ . . .*

-1.55 fur a range of -1.21 t -195. This The velocities of the &,ros at the enden*sit- .. h . .

typical values 6-in. distance are shown in Figure 11 = densit o vap

=a)y he compared with .. "

for other devices (8):for.~~~~~~Poterevies():""ity..m9 for the different drop sizes at different . .density of of Vpor liquid.

G:- a . locations .2cross the spray. The saer ' surf ace tension * .

Cas atonioer: S -0.93 drops appeai to have 'reached the'-. . . . ." " .

nozz lea 1.29 multiphase flow velocity at that dis- LITERATURE -rED*

nozzle:

Vaned-disk sprayer: 8 .

1.54 with and the decreasing tance, increasing distance from velocities the 1. Brown, Ralph. Ph.D. tliesis, 'Univ.

Studofthe.atain.Tble..shws a ai r s te v , 2 Micbigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (1960).

Study of the data in Table 3 Shows ... ayg, Lora, Proc. London Math.

that the mean thatthemeadrp szesdecase gradient to he expected in such a 'So., 10, 4 (1878).

icrop sizes decrease multiphase system. .3. Weber, C., Ze. fur Angew. Math., 11, ghera aith increasing Weber num- The spray pattern was one of rapid 106 (1931).

Lbr a1t a g rat'te ani there- expansion to a diameter of 3 to 4 in., 4. ainze, 3. 0., AI.Ch.E. Journal, 1, 289 fore at t.ee same bubble growth-rate with no sgnificant expaion evident (1955).

constant. A slight decrease is also in- beyond the 6-in. distance chosen for 5..York,3. L. abd H. E. Stulabs, ..TTO. '"

dicated with increasing temperature' our analytical point. 'Evaporation is Am. Soc. 2£ech. Eigri., 74, 1157 and bubhle gsow-rate constant when .. p.* beyond the 6in., distance how- .'(195). .-

• I.

'the Weber. uiber '3 approxiatl.

• ve. lrops 6..PleSetk . %ntiS.K.Zwic, 7. AppL consant These two *Te Itw rnsaPrsug Yse" 1 '!:y.sgaeste with'practically all of the 'TPhys:

constant trends ppearing withn to fo e .Forster,25,11.492(94-

Y.. nd.

the best gener" , ,zedcrrelation a d*o*e"-- p- .. to. ..... ,.e . . , an N". -, ,

sizes found, a .plot of (D, - N,.) -vs. ... a..

8.a, W. E De .Zu .- &S.,,I * ".

C, as sbown i e

-".-AM water O" - - 65. The Pennsylvania.State Univ., State inFgre'.Al wtrCONCLUSIONS e  :. ,.

data for Type -A'nd Type B nozzles .. . . .. College, TP=sylvanii (1958).,:

fall in a zeasonalle had, but'the Flashng is an efective technique Type C nozzle shows a smller drop for producing sprays with a drop-size ,.& rmefoad )s'v 1,, ,-air ,.cevgr A  :ý-'"

Swt2.16.P&P~r

. r'resirme *I Aa.ChXZ N~ew ahe and Freon-i shows* a smaller pattern similar to 'that produced b-- y Val ",.-.E

'- -: .. 7.,-*

'~.....

. .  : C. L Journ.

. I.C.. . *'-"

"~1 "- *. .-"'" 4-..* .....

,.-. ÷ .

se. ..

.. ".*Y

. .. - ... .. ..... . . :. . . * ... , , . .. .. -,. *- ... , :j .. -. -. * .-..-- ,*-.-7.

LIC-03-0001 Page 1 Input File for the LOCA Benchmark Model using GOTHIC

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:50:45 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlbench Control Volumes Vol Vol Elev Ht Hyd. D. L/V IA Burn

1. Description (ft3) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft2) Opt 1 ýContainment 11050000. 0. 137.375 98.65 0. NONE Laminar Leakage Lk Rate Ref Ref Ref Sink Leak Vol Factor Press Temp Humid /Src Model Rep Subvol Area

1. (k/hr) (psia) (F) (%) BC Option Wall Option (ft2) 1 0. 1 1CNST T UNIFORM DEFAULTI Turbulent Leakage Lk Rate Ref Ref Ref Sink Leak Vol Factor Press Temp Humid /Src Model Rep Subvol Area

1. (%/hr) (psia) (F) (%) BC Option Wall Option (ft2) fL/D 1 0. 1111 1CNST T I IUNIFORM IDEFAULTI Fluid Boundary Conditions - Table 1 Press. Temp. Flow ON OFF BC# Description (psia) FF (F) FF (lbm/s) FF Trip Trip IF Break I. 1 el 3 1 2 2F Cont. Spray 70. 105 1 4 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 (Btu/s) FF Quality FF IF 1. 1 0.0039 0 DEFAULT 2F 1. 1 0.0039 DEFAULT

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:50:45 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlbench Fluid Boundary Conditions - Table 3 Gas Pressure Ratios Air N2 BC# Gas 1 FF Gas 2 FF Gas 3 FF Gas 4 FF IF 0.

2F Fluid Boundary Conditions - Table 4 Gas Pressure Ratios BC# Gas 5 FF Gas 6 FF Gas 7 FF Gas 8 FF IF 2F Flow Paths - Table 1 F.P. Vol Elev Ht Vol Elev Ht

1. Description A (ft) (ft) B (ft) (ft) 1 Break 1 10. 1. IF 12. 1.

2 Spray Pre-RAS 1 120. 2F 121.

Flow Paths - Table 2 Flow Flow Hyd. Inertia Friction Relative Dep Mom Strat Path Area Diam. Length Length Rough- Bend Trn Flow

1. (ft2) (ft) (ft) (ft) ness (deg) Opt Opt 1 6. 4.5 1. 1. 0. 0. - NONE 2 3. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0. - NONE Flow Paths - Table 3 Flow Fwd. Rev. Critical Exit Drop Path Loss Loss Comp. Flow Loss Breakup

1. Coeff. Coeff. Opt. Model Coeff. Model 1 0. 0. OFF OFF 0. OFF 2 0. 0. OFF OFF 0. OFF

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:50:45 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlbench Thermal Conductors - Table 1 Cond Vol HT Vol HT Cond S. A. Init.

1. Description A Co B Co Type (ft2) T.(F) Or 1 Cylidrical wall 1 1 1 2 1 43420. 120. I 2 Dome 1 1 1 2 2 6400. 120. I 3 Misc. concrete 1 1 1 2 3 53600. 120. I 4 Misc. Concrete 1 1 1 2 4 10035. 120. I 5 Misc. Concrete 1 1 1 2 5 8334. 120. I 6 Misc. Steel 1 1 1 2 6 5700. 120. I 7 Misc. Steel 1 1 1 2 7 10960. 120. I 8 Vent. duct 1 1 1 2 8 72000. 120. I 9 Refuel cavity 1 1 1 2 9 12774. 120. I 10 Misc. concrete 1 1 1 2 10 7200. 120. I Thermal Conductors - Table 2 Cond Therm. Rad. Emiss. Therm. Rad. Emiss.

1. 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 Heat Transfer Coefficient Types - Table 1 Heat Cnd Sp Nat For Type Transfer Nominal Cnv Cnd Cnv Cnv Cnv Rad

1. Option Value FF Opt Opt HTC Opt Opt Opt 1 Tagami XOR UCHI VERT SURF PIPE FLOW OFF 2 Sp Heat 0.

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:50:45 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlbench Heat Transfer Coefficient Types - Table 2 Min Max Convect Condensa Type Phase Liq Liq Bulk T Bulk T

1. Opt Fract Fract Model FF Model FF 1 VAP Tg-Tf Tb-Tw 2

Heat Transfer Coefficient Types - Table 3 Char. Nat For Nom Minimum Type Length Coef Exp Coef Exp Vel Vel Conv HTC

1. (ft) FF FF FF FF (ft/s) FF (B/h-f2-F) 1 D EAULT 2

HTC Types - Table 4 Total Peak Initial Post-BD Type Heat Time Value Direct

1. (Btu) (sec) (B/h-f2-F) FF 1 175649448. 13.317 0.

2 Thermal Conductor Types Type Thick. O.D. Heat Heat

1. Description Geom (in) (in) Regions (Btu/ft3-s) FF 1 WALL 46.7796 0. 9 0.

2 WALL 36.2796 0. 9 0.

3 WALL 12.008 0. 5 0.

4 WALL 6.008 0. 4 0.

5 WALL 30.008 0. 6 0.

6 WALL 0.13304 0. 3 0.

7 WALL 0.508004 0. 3 0.

8 WALL 0.062499 0. 1 0.

9 WALL 24.06 0. 5 0.

10 WALL 4.508 0. 4 0.

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:50:45 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA).- July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlbench Thermal Conductor Type 1

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 3 0.008 0.25 10 0.

4 4 0.258 0.0216 1 0.

5 5 0.2796 3. 60 0.

6 5 3.2796 3. 20 0.

7 5 6.2796 6. 15 0.

8 5 12.2796 12. 10 0.

9 5 24.2797 22.5 18 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 2

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 3 0.008 0.25 10 0.

4 4 0.258 0.0216 1 0.

5 5 0.2796 3. 60 0.

6 5 3.2796 3. 20 0.

7 5 6.2796 6. 15 0.

8 5 12.2796 12. 10 0.

9 5 24.2796 12. 10 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 3

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 5 0.008 3. 60 0.

4 5 3.008 3. 20 0.

5 5 6.008 6. 15 0.

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:50:45 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) 7 July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlbench Thermal Conductor Type 4

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 5 0.008 3. 60 0.

4 5 3.008 3. 20 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 5

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 5 0.008 3. 60 0.

4 5 3.008 3. 20 0.

5 5 6.008 6. 15 0.

6 5 12.008 18. 10 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 6

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 3 0.008 0.12504 7 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 7

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 3 0.008 0.500004 20 0.

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:50:45 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlbench Thermal Conductor Type 8

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 3 0. 0.062499 10 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 9

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 3 0. 0.06 10 0.

2 5 0.06 3. 60 0.

3 5 3.06 3. 20 0.

4 5 6.06 6. 15 0.

5 5 12.06 12. 10 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 10 Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 5 0.008 3. 60 0.

4 5 3.008 1.5 10 0.

Volume Initial Conditions Vapor Liquid Relative Liquid Ice Ice Vol Pressure Temp. Temp. Humidity Volume Volume Surf.A.

1. (psia) (F) F (%) Fractio Fract. (ft2) def 14.7 80. 80. 60. 0. 0. 0.

1 17.2 120. 120. 30. 0. 0. 0.

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:50:45 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlbench Initial Gas Pressure Ratios Vol Air N2

1. Gas I Gas 2 Gas 3 Gas 4 Gas 5 Gas 6 Gas 7 Gas 8 def 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

1 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

Noncondensing Gases Gas Description Symbol Type Mol. Lennard-Jones Parameters No. Weight Diameter e/K (Ang) (K) 1 Air Air POLY 28.97 3.617 97.

2 Nitrogen N2 POLY 28.02 3.681 91.5 Noncondensing Gases - Cp/Visc. Equations Gas Cp Equation (Required) Visc. Equation (Optional)

No. Tmin Tmax Cp Tmin Tmax Viscosity (R) (R) (Btu/lbm-R) (R) (R) (lbm/ft-hr) 1 360. 2280. 0.238534-6.2006 2 180. 5400. 0.413186-8.7659 Materials Type # Description 1 paint 2 Primer 3 steel 4 air 5 concrete

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:50:45 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) 7 July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlbench Material Type 1

paint Temp. Density Cond. Sp. Heat (F) (lbm/ft3) (Btu/hr-ft-F) (Btu/lbm-F) 100. 1. 0.51 33.7 Material Type 3

steel Temp. Density Cond. Sp. Heat (F) (lbm/ft3) (Btu/hr-ft-F) (Btu/lbm-F) 100. 1.1 26. 59.

Material Type 4

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

80. 0.0735 0.01516 0.2402 170. 0.0623 0.01735 0.241 260. 0.0551 0.01944 0.2422 350. 0.0489 0.02142 0.2438 440. 0.044 0.02333 0.2459

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:50:45 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) 7 July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlbench Material Type 5

concrete Temp. Density Cond. Sp. Heat (F) (lbm/ft3) (Btu/hr-ft-F) (Btu/lbm-F) 100. 1. 0.85 32.

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

15. 33.43 FuCHIDA Functions FF# Description Ind. Var. Dep. Var. Points 0 Constant - - 0 1 Pressure Time (s) Pressure ( 130 2 Break flow Time (s) Flow Rate 131 3 Break Enthalpy Time (s) Enthalpy ( 131 4 Spray Pre-RAS Time (s) Dep. Var. 4 Function 1

Pressure Ind. Var.: Time (s)

Dep. Var.: Pressure (psia)

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

0. 2250. 0.1 1200.

5. 1000. 7. 500.

10. 500. 12. 250.

14.017 69.094 15. 66.85

16. 66.62 17. 66.42

18. 66.24 19. 66.08

20. 65.94 21.01 65.81 26.01 65.36 31.01 65.11 36.01 64.99 41.01 64.96 46.01 65. 51.01 65.08 56.01 65.18 61.01 65.31 66.01 65.47 71.01 65.65 76.01 65.85 81.01 66.06 86.01 66.28 91.01 66.51 96.01 66.74 101. 66.94 106. 67.13 Ill. 67.33 116. 67.53 121. 67.73

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:50:45 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA).7 July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlbench Function (continued) 1 (continued)

Pressure (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

Dep. Var.: Pressure (psia) (continued)

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

126. 67.94 131. 68.15 136. 68.28 141. 68.41 146. 68.55 151. 68.69 156. 68.83 161. 68.97 166. 69.12 171. 69.26 176. 69.41 181. 69.55 186. 69.7 191. 69.84 196. 69.98 201. 70.12 206. 70.27 211. 70.4 216. 70.49 221. 70.56 226. 70.64 231. 70.71 236. 70.79 241. 70.87 246. 70.95 251. 71.01 256. 71.08 261. 71.15 266. 71.21 271. 71.28 276. 71.35 281. 71.42 286. 71.46 291. 71.49 296. 71.51 301. 71.53 306. 71.55 311. 71.58 316. 71.6 321. 71.62 326. 71.64 331. 71.67 336. 71.69 341. 71.72 346. 71.72 351. 71.71 356. 71.7 361. 71.69 366. 71.68 371. 71.65 376. 71.63 381. 71.61 386. 71.58 391. 71.56 396. 71.54 401. 71.52 406. 71.5 411. 71.48 416. 71.46 421. 71.43 426. 71.4 431. 71.37 436. 71.34 441. 71.31 446. 71.29 451. 71.26 456. 71.23 461. 71.2 466. 71.18 471. 71.15 476. 71.13 481. 71.1 486. 71.08 491. 71.05 496. 71.03 501. 71.01 506. 70.98 511. 70.96 516. 70.94 521. 70.92 526. 70.89 531. 70.87 536. 70.85 541. 70.83 546. 70.81 551. 70.79 556. 70.77 561. 70.76 566. 70.74 571. 70.72 576. 70.7 581. 70.69 586. 70.67 591. 70.66 596. 70.65 600. 70.64

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:50:45 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlbench Function 2

Break flow Ind. Var.: Time (s)

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

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

0. 0. 0.002 14136.5 0.006 31420. 0.01 52010.3 0.024 51091.2 0.05 50701.6 0.07 50811.5 0.1 51041.3 0.15 50631.7 0.2 49093.1 0.4 47284.9 0.6 45166.9 0.8 42959. 1. 40880.98 1.5 36175.5 2. 32449.

2.5 30251.1 3. 29641.7 3.5 30231.1 4. 30530.9 4.5 29961.4 5. 28882.4 5.5 27483.8 6. 25835.3

7. 21879.1 8. 16254.5

9. 11618.9 10. 7913.45

11. 5190.05 12. 3085.06

13. 1494.57 13.8 278.13 14.4 248. 19.4 242.

24.4 239. 29.4 237.

34.4 235. 39.4 225.

44.4 224. 49.4 215.

54.4 203. 59.4 202.

64.4 201. 69.4 201.

74.4 200. 79.4 199.

84.4 197. 89.4 196.

94.4 195. 99.4 173.

104. 168. 109. 167.

114. 167. 119. 166.

124. 166. 129. 165.

134. 165. 139. 165.

144. 164. 149. 164.

154. 164. 159. 163.

164. 163. 169. 162.

174. 160. 179. 160.

184. 160. 189. 158.

194. 157. 199. 156.

204. 156. 209. 156.

214. 127. 219. 126.

224. 126. 229. 126.

234. 125. 239. 125.

244. 125. 249. 119.

254. 118. 259. 118.

264. 118. 269. 117.

274. 117. 279. 117.

284. 103. 289. 103.

294. 95.9 299. 95.

304. 94.8 309. 94.6 314. 94.4 319. 94.2 324. 94. 329. 93.8 334. 93.7 339. 93.5 344. 80.5 349. 80.3 354. 80.1 359. 76.

364. 75.9 369. 75.7 374. 75.5 379. 75.4

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:50:45 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlbench Function (continued) 2 (continued)

Break flow (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

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

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

384. 75.2 389. 75.1 394. 75. 399. 74.8 404. 74.7 409. 74.5 414. 74.4 419. 70.

424. 69.9 429. 69.7 434. 69.6 439. 69.5 444. 69.4 449. 69.3 454. 69.1 459. 69.

464. 68.9 469. 68.8 474. 68.7 479. 68.6 484. 68.5 489. 68.4 494. 68.3 499. 68.2 600. 66.6 Function 3

Break Enthalpy Ind. Var.: Time (s)

Dep. Var.: Enthalpy (Btu/lbm)

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

0. 615.74 0.002 615.74 0.006 614.36 0.01 614.15

0. 024 614.24 0.05 614.43 0.07 614.48 0.1 614.65 0.15 614.69 0.2 614.82 0.4 616.36 0.6 618.05 0.8 620.05 1I. 621.5 1.5 625.84 2. 629.98 2.5 625.19 3. 620.2 3.5 605.47 4. 595.27 4.5 591.24 S. 590.5 5.5 590.74 6. 593.24

7. 600.5 S. 630.66

9. 666.17 10. 722.31 Ii. 806.22 12. 945.67

13. 1099.02 13.8 1232.16 14.4 1282.26 19.4 1285.12 24.4 1284.52 29.4 1282.7 34.4 1285.11 39.4 1284.44 44.4 1285.71 49.4 1283.72 54.4 1285.71 59.4 1287.13 64.4 1283.58 69.4 1278.61 74.4 1280. 79.4 1281.41 84.4 1279.19 89.4 1280.61 94.4 1282.05 99.4 1277.46 104. 1279.76 109. 1287.43 114. 1281.44 119. 1283.13 124. 1277.11 129. 1284.85

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:50:45 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) ,- July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlbench Function (continued) 3 (continued)

Break Enthalpy (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

Dep. Var.: Enthalpy (Btu/lbm) (continued)

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

134. 1284.85 139. 1278.79 144. 1280.49 149. 1280.49 154. 1274.39 159. 1282.21 164. 1276.07 169. 1277.78 174. 1281.25 179. 1281.25 184. 1275. 189. 1278.48 194. 1273.89 199. 1282.05 204. 1275.64 209. 1275.64 214. 1275.59 219. 1277.78 224. 1277.78 229. 1269.84 234. 1280. 239. 1280.

244. 1272. 249. 1268.91 254. 1279.66 259. 1279.66 264. 1271.19 269. 1282.05 274. 1282.05 279. 1273.5 284. 1271.84 289. 1271.84 294. 1272.16 299. 1273.68 304. 1276.37 309. 1279.07 314. 1271.19 319. 1273.89 324. 1276.6 329. 1279.32 334. 1270.01 339. 1272.73 344. 1279.5 349. 1270.24 354. 1273.41 359. 1275.

364. 1274.04 369. 1273.45 374. 1274.17 379. 1273.21 384. 1275.27 389. 1274.3 394. 1273.33 399. 1274.06 404. 1273.09 409. 1275.17 414. 1274.19 419. 1272.86 424. 1273.25 429. 1274.03 434. 1272.99 439. 1273.38 444. 1272.33 449. 1272.73 454. 1273.52 459. 1273.91 464. 1274.31 469. 1273.26 474. 1273.65 479. 1274.05 484. 1272.99 489. 1273.39 494. 1273.79 499. 1274.19 600. 1273.27

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:50:45 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlbench Function 4

Spray Pre-RAS Ind. Var.: Time (s)

Dep. Var.:

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

0. 0. 132.9 0.

133. 260.69 600. 260.69 Control Variables CV Func. Initial Coeff. Coeff. Upd. Int.

1. Description Form Value G aO Min Max Mult.

1 air/stm ratiol divI 0. 1. 0. -le+32 Ile+32 0.

Function Components Control Variable 1 air/stm ratio div Y=G* (aO+a2X2) / (alXl)

Gothic s Variable Coef.

Name location a Rs cVl 1.

2 Rm cVl 1.

FPDOSE Control Options Setting Units Generate FPDOSE Input NO Transfer Time Interval 0.0 s Isolation Valve #

Washout Factor 0.0 Containment Leak Rate/Pressure 0.0  %/hr-psig Vacuum Bldg Leak Rate/Pressure 0.0  %/hr-psig

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:50:45 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlbench FPDOSE Volume Types Vol FP Transfer Transfer Type Option Vol. Frac.

1 NORMAL NORMAL 0.

Run Control Parameters (Seconds)

Time DT DT DT End Print Graph Max Dump Phs Chng Dom Min Max Ratio Time Int Int CPU Int Time Scale 1 le-06 0.01 1. 20. le+05 I. le+05 0. DEFAULT 2 le-06 0.01 1. 600. le+05 1. le+05 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 SEMI-IMP 0. 1 DIRECT 0. 1 FOUP 0.0 2 SEMI-IMP 0. 1 DIRECT 0. 1 FOUP 0.0 Run Options Option Setting Restart Time (sec) 0.0 Restart Time Step # 0 Restart Time Control NEW Revaporization Fraction 0 Fog Model OFF Maximum Mist Density DEFAULT Drop Diam. From Mist DEFAULT Minimum HT Coeff. 0.0 Reference Pressure IGNORE Forced Ent. Drop Diam. DEFAULT Vapor Phase Head Correction INCLUDE Kinetic Energy IGNORE Vapor Phase INCLUDE Liquid Phase INCLUDE Drop Phase INCLUDE Force Equilibrium IGNORE Drop-Liq. Conversion INCLUDE QA Logging OFF Debug Output Level 0 Restart Dump on CPU Interval (sec) 3600.

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:50:45 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlbench Graphs Graph Curve Number

1. Title Mon 1 2 3 4 5 1 Containment Atm PRI 2 Containment Atm TVl 3 PRI 4 TV1 5 air/stm ratio cvi Envelope Sets Set Set No.

II I No. Type Description I -

Items LIC-03-0001 Page 1 Input File for the LOCA Evaluation Model using GOTHIC

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:52:44 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9O84/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlaor Control Volumes Vol Vol Elev Ht Hyd. D. L/V IA Burn

1. Description (ft3) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft2) Opt 1 IContainment 1050000. 0. 137.375 98.65 0. NONE Laminar Leakage Lk Rate Ref Ref Ref Sink Leak Vol Factor Press Temp Humid /Src Model Rep Subvol Area

1. (%/hr) (psia) (F) (%) BC Option Wall Option (ft2) 1 0. 1 1CNST Ti UNIFORM IDEFAULTI Turbulent Leakage Lk Rate Ref Ref Ref Sink Leak Vol Factor Press Temp Humid /Src Model Rep Subvol Area

1. (%/hr) (psia) (F) (%) BC Option Wall Option (ft2) fL/D 1 0. CNST T UNIFORM IDEFAULT Fluid Boundary Conditions - Table 1 Press. Temp. Flow ON OFF BC# Description (psia) FF (F) FF (lbm/s) FF Trip Trip IF Break 1. 1 el 3 1 2 2F Cont. Spray 70. 115 1 4 3F SIT 70. 417.84 1 6 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 (Btu/s) FF Quality FF 1F 1. 1 0.0039 0 DEFAULT 2F 1. 1 NONE DEFAULT 3F 0. 0 NONE DEFAULT

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:52:44 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlaor Fluid Boundary Conditions - Table 3 Gas Pressure Ratios Air N2 BC# Gas 1 FF Gas 2 FF Gas 3 FF Gas 4 FF

[F 2F 0.

3F I.

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 Break 1 10. 1. iF 12. 1.

2 Spray Pre-RAS 1 120. 2F 121.

3 SIT Injection 1 11. 0.01 3F 13. 0.01 Flow Paths - Table 2 Flow Flow Hyd. Inertia Friction Relative Dep Mom Strat Path Area Diam. Length Length Rough- Bend Trn Flow

1. (ft2) (ft) (ft) (ft) ness (deg) Opt Opt 1 6. 4.5 1. 1. 0. 0. - NONE 2 3. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0. - NONE 3 0.5592 0.844 1. 1. - NONE

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:52:44 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlaor Flow Paths - Table 3 Flow Fwd. Rev. Critical Exit Drop Path Loss Loss Comp. Flow Loss Breakup

1. Coeff. Coeff. Opt. Model Coeff. Model 1 0. 0. OFF OFF 0. OFF 2 0. 0. OFF OFF 0. OFF 3 0. le+08 OFF OFF 0. OFF Thermal Conductors - Table 1 Cond Vol HT Vol HT Cond S. A. Init.

1. Description A Co B Co Type (ft2) T. (F) Or 1 Cylidrical wall 1 1 1 2 1 43420. 120. I 2 Dome 1 1 1 2 2 6400. 120. I 3 Misc. concrete 1 1 1 2 3 53600. 120. I 4 Misc. Concrete 1 1 1 2 4 10035. 120. I 5 Misc. Concrete 1 1 1 2 5 8334. 120. I 6 Misc. Steel 1 1 1 2 6 5700. 120. I 7 Misc. Steel 1 1 1 2 7 10960. 120. I 8 Vent. duct 1 1 1 2 8 72000. 120. I 9 Refuel cavity 1 1 1 2 9 12774. 120. I 10 Misc. concrete 1 1 1 2 10 7200. 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

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:52:44 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlaor Heat Transfer Coefficient Types - Table 1 Heat Cnd Sp Nat For Type Transfer Nominal Cnv Cnd Cnv Cnv Cnv Rad

1. Option Value FF Opt Opt HTC Opt Opt Opt 1 Tagami ADD UCHI VERT SURF PIPE FLOW ON 2 Sp Heat 0.

Heat Transfer Coefficient Types - Table 2 Min Max Convect Condensa Type Phase Liq Liq Bulk T Bulk T

1. Opt Fract Fract Model FF Model FF 1 VAP Tg-Tf Tb-Tw 2

Heat Transfer Coefficient Types - Table 3 Char. Nat For Nom Minimum Type Length Coef Exp Coef Exp Vel Vel Cony HTC

1. (ft) FF FF FF FF (ft/s) FF (B/h-f2-F) 1 DEFAULT 2

HTC Types - Table 4 Total Peak Initial Post-BD Type Heat Time Value Direct

1. (Btu) (sec) (B/h-f2-F) FF 1 175649448. 13.317 0.

2 Thermal Conductor Types Type Thick. O.D. Heat Heat

1. Description Geom (in) (in) Regions (Btu/ft3-s) FF 1 WALL 46.7796 0. 9 0.

2 WALL 36.2796 0. 9 0.

3 WALL 12.008 0. 5 0.

4 WALL 6.008 0. 4 0.

5 WALL 30.008 0. 6 0.

6 WALL 0.13304 0. 3 0.

7 WALL 0.508004 0. 3 0.

8 WALL 0.062499 0. 1 0.

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:52:44 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) t July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlaor Thermal Conductor Types (continued)

Type Thick. O.D. Heat Heat

1. Description Geom (in) (in) Regions (Btu/ft3-s) FF 9WALL 24.06 0. 0.

I =0 WALL 4.5 08 0 4 0.[

Thermal Conductor Type 1

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 3 0.008 0.25 10 0.

4 4 0.258 0.0216 1 0.

5 5 0.2796 3. 60 0.

6 5 3.2796 3. 20 0.

7 5 6.2796 6. 15 0.

8 5 12.2796 12. 10 0.

9 5 24.2797 22.5 18 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 2

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 3 0.008 0.25 10 0.

4 4 0.258 0.0216 1 0.

5 5 0.2796 3. 60 0.

6 5 3.2796 3. 20 0.

7 5 6.2796 6. 15 0.

8 5 12.2796 12. 10 0.

9 5 24.2796 12. 10 0.

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:52:44 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlaor Thermal Conductor Type 3

Description

'Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 5 0.008 3. 60 0.

4 5 3.008 3. 20 0.

5 5 6.008 6. 15 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 4

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 5 0.008 3. 60 0.

4 5 3.008 3. 20 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 5

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 5 0.008 3. 60 0.

4 5 3.008 3. 20 0.

5 5 6.008 6. 15 0.

6 5 12.008 18. 10 0.

I

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:52:44 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA),- July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlaor Thermal Conductor Type 6

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 3 0.008 0.12504 7 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 7

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 3 0.008 0.500004 20 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 8

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 11 3 0.10.0624991 101 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 9

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 3 0. 0.06 10 0.

2 5 0.06 3. 60 0.

3 5 3.06 3. 20 0.

4 5 6.06 6. 15 0.

5 5 12.06 12. 10 0.

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:52:44 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlaor Thermal Conductor Type 10 Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 5 0.008 3. 60 0.

4 5 3.008 1.5 10 0.

Spray Nozzles Flow Dis. Drop Drop Spray Flow Nozzle Path Vol. Dia. Dia. Flow Frac.

1. Description # # (in.) FF Frac. FF IN jPreRas Spray 1 2 1 1 0.05901 1.1 5 Volume Initial Conditions Vapor Liquid Relative Liquid Ice Ice Vol Pressure Temp. Temp. Humidity Volume Volume Surf.A.

1. (psia) (F) F (%) Fractio Fract. (ft2) def 14.7 80. 80. 60. 0. 0. 0.

1 17.2 120. 120. 30. 0. 0. 0.

Initial Gas Pressure Ratios Vol Air N2

1. Gas 1 Gas 2 Gas 3 Gas 4 Gas 5 Gas 6 Gas 7 Gas 8 def 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

1 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:52:44 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) r July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlaor Noncondensing Gases Gas Description Symbol Type Mol. Lennard-Jones Parameters No. Weight Diameter e/K (Ang) (K) 1 Air Air POLY 28.97 3.617 97.

2 Nitrogen N2 POLY 28.02 3.681 91.5 Noncondensing Gases - Cp/Visc. Equations Gas Cp Equation (Required) Visc. Equation (Optional)

No. Tmin Tmax Cp Tmin Tmax Viscosity (R) (R) (Btu/lbm-R) (R) (R) (lbm/ft-hr) 1 360. 2280. 0.238534-6.2006 2 180. 5400. 0.413186-8.7659 Materials Type # Description 1 paint 2 Primer 3 steel 4 air 5 concrete Material Type 1

paint Temp. Density Cond. Sp. Heat (F) (lbm/ft3) (Btu/hr-ft-F) (Btu/lbm-F) 100.1 1. 0.51 33.7

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:52:44 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) 7 July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlaor Material Type 2

Primer Temp. Density Cond. Sp. Heat (F) (lbm/ft3) (Btu/hr-ft-F) (Btu/lbm-F) 100. 1. 0.5 43.2 Material Type 3

steel Temp. Density Cond. Sp. Heat (F) (lbm/ft3) (Btu/hr-ft-F) (Btu/lbm-F) 100. 1. 26. 59.

Material Type 4

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

80. 0.0735 0.01516 0.2402 170. 0.0623 0.01735 0.241 260. 0.0551 0.01944 0.2422 350. 0.0489 0.02142 0.2438 440. 0.044 0.02333 0.2459 Material Type 5

concrete Temp. Density Cond. Sp. Heat (F) (lbm/ft3) (Btu/hr-ft-F) (Btu/lbm-F) 100. 1. 0.85 32.

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:52:44 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlaor Ice Condenser Parameters Initial Bulk Surface Area Heat Temp. Density Multiplier Transfer (F) (lbm/ft3) Function Option

15. 33.43 UCHIDA Functions FF# Description Ind. Var. Dep. Var. Points 0 Constant - 0 1 Pressure Time (s) Pressure ( 130 2 Break flow Time (s) Flow Rate 131 3 Break Enthalpy Time (s) Enthalpy ( 131 4 Spray Pre-RAS Time (s) Dep. Var. 4 5 Spray Efficienc cvi Efficiency 21 6 SIT Nitrogen Time (s) FLow Rate 6 Function 1

Pressure Ind. Var.: Time (s)

Dep. Var.: Pressure (psia)

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

0. 2250. 0.1 1200.

5. 1000. 7. 500.

10. 500. 12. 250.

14.017 69.094 15. 66.85

16. 66.62 17. 66.42

18. 66.24 19. 66.08

20. 65.94 21.01 65.81 26.01 65.36 31.01 65.11 36.01 64.99 41.01 64.96 46.01 65. 51.01 65.08 56.01 65.18 61.01 65.31 66.01 65.47 71.01 65.65 76.01 65.85 81.01 66.06 86.01 66.28 91.01 66.51 96.01 66.74 101. 66.94 106. 67.13 il1 . 67.33 116. 67.53 121. 67.73 126. 67.94 131. 68.15 136. 68.28 141. 68.41 146. 68.55 151. 68.69 156. 68.83 161. 68.97 166. 69.12 171. 69.26 176. 69.41 181. 69.55 186. 69.7 191. 69.84 196. 69.98 201. 70.12 206. 70.27 211. 70.4 216. 70.49 221. 70.56

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:52:44 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlaor Function (continued) 1 (continued)

Pressure (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

Dep. Var.: Pressure (psia) (continued)

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

226. 70.64 231. 70.71 236. 70.79 241. 70.87 246. 70.95 251. 71.01 256. 71.08 261. 71.15 266. 71.21 271. 71.28 276. 71.35 281. 71.42 286. 71.46 291. 71.49 296. 71.51 301. 71.53 306. 71.55 311. 71.58 316. 71.6 321. 71.62 326. 71.64 331. 71.67 336. 71.69 341. 71.72 346. 71.72 351. 71.71 356. 71.7 361. 71.69 366. 71.68 371. 71.65 376. 71.63 381. 71.61 386. 71.58 391. 71.56 396. 71.54 401. 71.52 406. 71.5 411. 71.48 416. 71.46 421. 71.43 426. 71.4 431. 71.37 436. 71.34 441. 71.31 446. 71.29 451. 71.26 456. 71.23 461. 71.2 466. 71.18 471. 71.15 476. 71.13 481. 71.1 486. 71.08 491. 71.05 496. 71.03 501. 71.01 506. 70.98 511. 70.96 516. 70.94 521. 70.92 526. 70.89 531. 70.87 536. 70.85 541. 70.83 546. 70.81 551. 70.79 556. 70.77 561. 70.76 566. 70.74 571. 70.72 576. 70.7 581. 70.69 586. 70.67 591. 70.66 596. 70.65 600. 70.64 J. .5. S

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:52:44 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) o- July 2001 File: /home/x9O84/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlaor Function 2

Break flow Ind. Var.: Time (s)

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

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

0. 0. 0.002 14136.5 0.006 31420. 0.01 52010.3

0. 024 51091.2 0.05 50701.6 0.07 50811.5 0.1 51041.3 0.15 50631.7 0.2 49093.1 0.4 47284.9 0.6 45166.9 0.8 42959. 1. 40880.98 1.5 36175.5 2. 32449.

2.5 30251.1 3. 29641.7 3.5 30231.1 4. 30530.9 4.5 29961.4 5. 28882.4 5.5 27483.8 6. 25835.3

7. 21879.1 8. 16254.5

9. 11618.9 10. 7913.45

11. 5190.05 12. 3085.06

13. 1494.57 13.8 278.13 14.4 248. 19.4 242.

24.4 239. 29.4 237.

34.4 235. 39.4 225.

44.4 224. 49.4 215.

54.4 203. 59.4 202.

64.4 201. 69.4 201.

74.4 200. 79.4 199.

84.4 197. 89.4 196.

94.4 195. 99.4 173.

104. 168. 109. 167.

114. 167. 119. 166.

124. 166. 129. 165.

134. 165. 139. 165.

144. 164. 149. 164.

154. 164. 159. 163.

164. 163. 169. 162.

174. 160. 179. 160.

184. 160. 189. 158.

194. 157. 199. 156.

204. 156. 209. 156.

214. 127. 219. 126.

224. 126. 229. 126.

234. 125. 239. 125.

244. 125. 249. 119.

254. 118. 259. 118.

264. 118. 269. 117.

274. 117. 279. 117.

284. 103. 289. 103.

294. 95.9 299. 95.

304. 94.8 309. 94.6 314. 94.4 319. 94.2 324. 94. 329. 93.8 334. 93.7 339. 93.5 344. 80.5 349. 80.3 354. 80.1 359. 76.

364. 75.9 369. 75.7 374. 75.5 379. 75.4

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:52:44 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlaor Function (continued) 2 (continued)

Break flow (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

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

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

384. 75.2 389. 75.1 394. 75. 399. 74.8 404. 74.7 409. 74.5 414. 74.4 419. 70.

424. 69.9 429. 69.7 434. 69.6 439. 69.5 444. 69.4 449. 69.3 454. 69.1 459. 69.

464. 68.9 469. 68.8 474. 68.7 479. 68.6 484. 68.5 489. 68.4 494. 68.3 499. 68.2 600. 66.6 Function 3

Break Enthalpy Ind. Var.: Time (s)

Dep. Var.: Enthalpy (Btu/lbm)

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

0. 615.74 0.002 615.74 0.006 614.36 0.01 614.15 0.024 614.24 0.05 614.43 0.07 614.48 0.1 614.65 0.15 614.69 0.2 614.82 0.4 616.36 0.6 618.05 0.8 620.05 I. 621.5 1.5 625.84 2. 629.98 2.5 625.19 3. 620.2 3.5 605.47 4. 595.27 4.5 591.24 5. 590.5 5.5 590.74 593.24

7. 600.5 630.66

9. 666.17 I0. 722.31

11. 806.22 12. 945.67

13. 1099.02 13.8 1232.16 14.4 1282.26 19.4 1285.12 24.4 1284.52 29.4 1282.7 34.4 1285.11 39.4 1284.44 44.4 1285.71 49.4 1283.72 54.4 1285.71 59.4 1287.13 64.4 1283.58 69.4 1278.61 74.4 1280. 79.4 1281.41 84.4 1279.19 89.4 1280.61 94.4 1282.05 99.4 1277.46 104. 1279.76 109. 1287.43 114. 1281.44 119. 1283.13 124. 1277.11 129. 1284.85 129. 1284.85

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:52:44 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA), 7 July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlaor Function (continued) 3 (continued)

Break Enthalpy (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

Dep. Var.: Enthalpy (Btu/lbm) (continued)

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

134. 1284.85 139. 1278.79 144. 1280.49 149. 1280.49 154. 1274.39 159. 1282.21 164. 1276.07 169. 1277.78 174. 1281.25 179. 1281.25 184. 1275. 189. 1278.48 194. 1273.89 199. 1282.05 204. 1275.64 209. 1275.64 214. 1275.59 219. 1277.78 224. 1277.78 229. 1269.84 234. 1280. 239. 1280.

244. 1272. 249. 1268.91 254. 1279.66 259. 1279.66 264. 1271.19 269. 1282.05 274. 1282.05 279. 1273.5 284. 1271.84 289. 1271.84 294. 1272.16 299. 1273.68 304. 1276.37 309. 1279.07 314. 1271.19 319. 1273.89 324. 1276.6 329. 1279.32 334. 1270.01 339. 1272.73 344. 1279.5 349. 1270.24 354. 1273.41 359. 1275.

364. 1274.04 369. 1273.45 374. 1274.17 379. 1273.21 384. 1275.27 389. 1274.3 394. 1273.33 399. 1274.06 404. 1273.09 409. 1275.17 414. 1274.19 419. 1272.86 424. 1273.25 429. 1274.03 434. 1272.99 439. 1273.38 444. 1272.33 449. 1272.73 454. 1273.52 459. 1273.91 464. 1274.31 469. 1273.26 474. 1273.65 479. 1274.05 484. 1272.99 489. 1273.39 494. 1273.79 499. 1274.19 600. 1273.27

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:52:44 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlaor Function 4

Spray Pre-RAS Ind. Var.: Time (s)

Dep. Var.:

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

0. 0. 131. 0.

131.1 260.1 600. 260.1 Function 5

Spray Efficiency Ind. Var.:

Dep. Var.: Efficiency Ind. Var. Dep. Var. Ind. Var. Dep. Var.

0. 0.73 0.1 0.735 0.2 0.745 0.25 0.756 0.3 0.76 0.4 0.775 0.5 0.79 0.6 0.81 0.7 0.83 0.75 0.843 0.8 0.86 0.85 0.88 0.915 0.9225 0.95 0.94

1. 0.96 1.05 0.973 1.1 0.9825 1.15 0.99 1.2 0.995 1.25 1.

1000. 1.

Function 6

SIT Nitrogen Ind. Var.: Time (s)

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

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

0. 0. 12.5 0.

12.51 9.611 290. 9.611 290.1 0. 100000. 0.

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:52:44 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlaor Control Variables CV Func. Initial Coeff. Coeff. Upd. Int.

1. Description Form Value G aO Min Max Mult.

1 cvi div 0. 1. 0. -le+32 le+32 0.

Function Components Control Variable 1 cvi div Y=G*(aO+a2X2)/(alXI)

Gothic s Variable Coef.

1. Name location a 1 Rm cVl 1.

2 Rs cV1 1.

FPDOSE Control Options Setting Units Generate FPDOSE Input NO Transfer Time Interval 0.0 s Isolation Valve #

Washout Factor 0.0 Containment Leak Rate/Pressure 0.0  %/hr-psig Vacuum Bldg Leak Rate/Pressure 0.0  %/hr-psig FPDOSE Volume Types Vol FP Transfer Transfer

1. Type Option Vol. Frac.

1 1NORMAL NORMAL 0.

Run Control Parameters (Seconds)

Time DT DT DT End Print Graph Max Dump Phs Chng Dom Min Max Ratio Time Int Int CPU Int Time Scale 1 le-06 0.01 1. 20. le+05 1. le+05 0. DEFAULT 2 le-06 0.01 1. 600. le+05 1 . le+05 0. DEFAULT

OPPD Containment Response to a Hot Leg LOCA Dec/10/2002 07:52:44 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/hlfiles/hlaor 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 SEMI-IMP 0. 1 DIRECT 0. 1 FOUP 0.0 2 SEMI-IMP 0. 1 DIRECT 0. 1 FOUP 0.0 Run Options Option Setting Restart Time (sec) 0.0 Restart Time Step # 0 Restart Time Control NEW Revaporization Fraction 0 Fog Model OFF Maximum Mist Density DEFAULT Drop Diam. From Mist DEFAULT Minimum HT Coeff. 0.0 Reference Pressure IGNORE Forced Ent. Drop Diam. DEFAULT Vapor Phase Head Correction INCLUDE Kinetic Energy IGNORE Vapor Phase INCLUDE Liquid Phase INCLUDE Drop Phase INCLUDE Force Equilibrium IGNORE Drop-Liq. Conversion INCLUDE QA Logging OFF Debug Output Level 0 Restart Dump on CPU Interval (sec) 3600.

Graphs Graph Curve Number

1. Title Mon 1 2 3 4 5 1 Containment Atm PRI 2 Containment Atm TV1 3 PRI 4 TVl LIC-03-0001 Page 1 Input File for the MSLB Benchmark Model using GOTHIC

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench Control Volumes Vol Vol Elev Ht Hyd. D. L/V IA Burn

1. Description (ft3) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft2) Opt 11 con 1 050000. 0. 137.375 98.65 1. NONE Laminar Leakage Lk Rate Ref Ref Ref Sink Leak Vol Factor Press Temp Humid /Src Model Rep Subvol Area

1. (%/hr) (psia) (F) (%) BC Option Wall Option (ft2) 1 0. 1CNST T UNIFORM IDEFAULTI Turbulent Leakage Lk Rate Ref Ref Ref Sink Leak Vol Factor Press Temp Humid /Src Model Rep Subvol Area

1. (k/hr) (psia) (F) (%) BC Option Wall Option (ft2) fL/D I1 0.1 CNST T I UNIFORM IDEFAULTI Fluid Boundary Conditions - Table 1 Press. Temp. Flow ON OFF BC# Description (psia) FF (F) FF (lbm/s) FF Trip Trip IF Break 1. 1 el 3 1 2 2F Spray Pre-RAS 70. 105 1 4 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 (Btu/s) FF Quality FF IF 1. 1 0.0039 0 DEFAULT 2F 1. 1 0.0039 DEFAULT

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9O84/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench Fluid Boundary Conditions - Table 3 Gas Pressure Ratios Air BC# Gas 1 FF Gas 2 FF Gas 3 FF Gas 4 FF IF 0.

2F Fluid Boundary Conditions - Table 4 Gas Pressure Ratios BC# Gas 5 FF Gas 6 FF Gas 7 FF Gas 8 FF IF 2F Flow Paths - Table 1 F.P. Vol Elev Ht Vol Elev Ht

1. Description A (ft) (ft) B (ft) (ft) 1 Break 1 60. 1. IF 62. 1.

2 Spray Pre-RAS 1 120. 2F 121.

Flow Paths - Table 2 Flow Flow Hyd. Inertia Friction Relative Dep Mom Strat Path Area Diam. Length Length Rough- Bend Trn Flow

1. (ft2) (ft) (ft) (ft) ness (deg) Opt Opt 1 6. 4.5 1. 1. 0. 0. - NONE 2 3. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0. - NONE Flow Paths - Table 3 Flow Fwd. Rev. Critical Exit Drop Path Loss Loss Comp. Flow Loss Breakup

1. Coeff. Coeff. Opt. Model Coeff. Model 1 0. 0. OFF OFF 0. OFF 2 0. 0. OFF OFF 0. OFF

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench Thermal Conductors - Table 1 Cond Vol HT Vol HT Cond S. A. Init.

1. Description A Co B Co Type (ft2) T. (F) Or 1 Cylindrical wal 1 1 1 2 1 43420. 120. I 2 Dome 1 1 1 2 2 6400. 120. I 3 Misc. concrete 1 1 1 2 3 53600. 120. I 4 Misc. concrete 1 1 1 2 4 10035. 120. I 5 Misc. concrete 1 1 1 2 5 8334. 120. I 6 Misc. steel 1 1 1 2 6 5700. 120. I 7 Misc. steel 1 1 1 2 7 10960. 120. I 8 Ventilation duc 1 1 1 2 8 72000. 120. I 9 Refueling cavit 1 1 1 2 9 12774. 120. I 10 Misc. concrete 1 1 1 2 10 7200. 120. I Thermal Conductors - Table 2 Cond Therm. Rad. Emiss. Therm. Rad. Emiss.

1. 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 Heat Transfer Coefficient Types - Table 1 Heat Cnd Sp Nat For Type Transfer Nominal Cnv Cnd Cnv Cnv Cnv Rad

1. Option Value FF Opt Opt HTC Opt Opt Opt 1 Direct XOR UCHI VERT SURF PIPE FLOW OFF 2 Sp Heat 0.

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench Heat Transfer Coefficient Types - Table 2 Min Max Convect Condensa Type Phase Liq Liq Bulk T Bulk T

1. Opt Fract Fract Model FF Model FF 1 VAP Tg-Tf Tb-Tw 2

Heat Transfer Coefficient Types - Table 3 Char. Nat For Nom Minimum Type Length Coef Exp Coef Exp Vel Vel Conv HTC

1. (ft) FF FF FF FF (ft/s) FF (B/h-f2-F) 1 DEFAULT 2

HTC Types - Table 4 Total Peak Initial Post-BD Type Heat Time Value Direct

1. (Btu) (sec) (B/h-f2-F) FF 1

2 Thermal Conductor Types Type Thick. O.D. Heat Heat

1. Description Geom (in) (in) Regions (Btu/ft3-s) FF 1 WALL 46.7796 0. 9 0.

2 WALL 36.2796 0. 9 0.

3 WALL 12.008 0. 5 0.

4 WALL 6.008 0. 4 0.

5 WALL 30.008 0. 6 0.

6 WALL 0.13304 0. 3 0.

7 WALL 0.508004 0. 3 0.

8 WALL 0.062499 0. 1 0.

9 WALL 24.06 0. 5 0.

10 WALL 4.508 0. 4 0.

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA)-- July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench Thermal Conductor Type 1

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 3 0.008 0.25 10 0.

4 4 0.258 0.0216 1 0.

5 5 0.2796 3. 60 0.

6 5 3.2796 3. 20 0.

7 5 6.2796 6. 15 0.

8 5 12.2796 12. 10 0.

9 5 24.2797 22.5 18 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 2

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 3 0.008 0.25 10 0.

4 4 0.258 0.0216 1 0.

5 5 0.2796 3. 60 0.

6 5 3.2796 3. 20 0.

7 5 6.2796 6. 15 0.

8 5 12.2796 12. 10 0.

9 5 24.2796 12. 10 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 3

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 5 0.008 3. 60 0.

4 5 3.008 3. 20 0.

5 5 6.008 6. 15 0.

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) 7 July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench Thermal Conductor Type 4

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 5 0.008 3. 60 0.

4 5 3.008 3. 20 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 5

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 5 0.008 3. 60 0.

4 5 3.008 3. 20 0.

5 5 6.008 6. 15 0.

6 5 12.008 18. 10 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 6

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 3 0.008 0.12504 7 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 7

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 3 0.008 0.500004' 20 0.

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench Thermal Conductor Type 8

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 11 3 1 0.10.0624991 101 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 9

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 3 0. 0.06 10 0.

2 5 0.06 3. 60 0.

3 5 3.06 3. 20 0.

4 5 6.06 6. 15 0.

5 5 12.06 12. 10 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 10 Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2' 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 5 0.008 3. 60 0.

4 5 3.008 1.5 10 0.

Cooler/Heater Heater On Off Flow Flow Heat Heat Cooler Vol. Trip Trip Rate Rate Rate Rate Phs Ctrlr

1. Description # # (CFM) FF (Btu/s) FF Opt Loc IC CFC#1 1 1 2e+05 1. 5 VTE 1 2C CFC#2 1 1 93600. 1. 5 VTE 1

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench Volume Initial Conditions Vapor Liquid Relative Liquid Ice Ice Vol Pressure Temp. Temp. Humidity Volume Volume Surf.A.

1. (psia) (F) F (%) Fractio Fract. (ft2) def 14.7 80. 80. 60. 0. 0. 0.

1 17.2 120. 120. 30. 0. 0. 0.

Initial Gas Pressure Ratios Vol Air

1. Gas I Gas 2 Gas 3 Gas 4 Gas 5 Gas 6 Gas 7 Gas 8 def 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

1 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

Noncondensing Gases Gas Description Symbol Type Mol. Lennard-Jones Parameters No. Weight Diameter e/K (Ang) (K) 1FAir Air POLY 28.97 13.617 97.

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

No. Tmin Tmax Cp Tmin Tmax Viscosity (R) (R) (Btu/lbm-R) (R) (R) (lbm/ft-hr) 1 360. 2280. 10.238534-6.2006111 Materials Type # Description 1 paint 2 Primer 3 steel 4 air 5 concrete

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench Material Type 1

paint Temp. Density Cond. Sp. Heat (F) (lbm/ft3) (Btu/hr-ft-F) (Btu/lbm-F) 100. 1.1 0.5 33.7 Material Type 2

Primer Temp. Density Cond. Sp. Heat (F) (lbm/ft3) (Btu/hr-ft-F) (Btu/lbm-F) 100. 1. 0.5 43.2 Material Type 3

steel Temp. Density Cond. Sp. Heat (F) (lbm/ft3) (Btu/hr-ft-F) (Btu/lbm-F) 100. 1. 26. 59.

Material Type 4

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

80. 0.0735 0.01516 0.2402 170. 0.0623 0.01735 0.241 260. 0.0551 0.01944 0.2422 350. 0.0489 0.02142 0.2438 440. 0.044 0.02333 0.2459

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench Material Type 5

concrete Temp. Density Cond. Sp. Heat (F) (lbm/ft3) (Btu/hr-ft-F) (Btu/lbm-F) 100. 1. 0.85 32.

Ice Condenser Parameters Initial Bulk Surface Area Heat Temp. Density Multiplier Transfer (F) (lbm/ft3) Function Option 15.7 33.43 1 UCHIDA Component Trips Trip Sense Sensor Sensor Var. Set Delay Rset Cond Cond

1. Description Var. I Loc. 2 Loc. Limit Point Time Trip Trip Type 1 Time TIME UPPER1 25.581 0. AND Functions FF# Description Ind. Var. Dep. Var. Points 0 Constant - 0 1 Pressure Time (s) Pressure ( 330 2 Break flow Time (s) Flow Rate 330 3 Break Enthalpy Time (s) Enthalpy ( 330 4 Spray Pre-RAS Time (s) Dep. Var. 4 5 CFC Temperatur Rate of He 4

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench Function 1

Pressure Ind. Var.: Time (s)

Dep. Var.: Pressure (psia)

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

0. 755.8 0.51 755.8 1.01 686.5 1.51 629.1 2.01 581.1 2.51 540.6 3.01 506.3 3.51 477.1 4.01 452.3 4.51 431.2 5.01 413.2 5.51 397.7 6.01 385. 6.51 373.9 7.01 364.2 7.51 355.7 8.01 348. 8.51 341.

9.01 334.5 9.51 328.4 10.01 322.5 10.51 316.8 11.01 311.3 11.51 305.9 12.01 300.7 12.51 295.7 13.01 290.9 13.51 286.3 14.01 282. 14.51 277.9 15.01 274.2 15.51 270.7 16.01 267.5 16.51 264.6 17.01 261.9 17.51 259.3 18.01 256.9 18.51 254.6 19.01 252.3 19.51 250.1 20.01 247.8 20.51 245.6 21.01 243.3 21.51 241.

22.01 238.7 22.51 236.4 23.01 234.1 23.51 231.8 24.01 229.5 24.51 227.3 25.01 225.2 25.51 223.1 26.01 221.1 26.51 219.2 27.01 217.3 27.51 215.6 28.01 213.9 28.51 212.3 29.01 210.7 29.51 209.2 30.03 207.6 31.03 204.7 32.03 201.7 33.03 198.7 34.03 195.7 35.03 192.7 36.03 189.8 37.03 186.9 38.03 183.8 39.03 180.5 40.03 177.3 41.03 174.

42.03 170.6 43.03 167.6 44.03 164.5 45.03 161.4 46.03 158.5 47.03 155.5 48.03 152.7 49.03 150.

50.03 147.4 51.03 141.8 52.03 142.3 53.03 139.9 54.03 137.6 55.03 135.3 56.03 133. 57.03 130.8 58.03 128.6 59.03 128.2 60.03 128.8 61.03 129.3 62.03 129.7 63.03 129.4 64.03 128.9 65.03 128.2 66.03 107.3 67.03 76.1 68.03 74. 69.03 73.8 70.03 74. 71.03 73.4 72.03 73.2 73.03 73.

74.03 72.8 75.03 72.7

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA).7 July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench Function (continued) 1 (continued)

Pressure (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

Dep. Var.: Pressure (psia) (continued)

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

76.03 72.5 77.03 72.3 78.03 72.2 79.03 72.

80.03 71.9 81.03 71.7 82.03 71.6 83.03 71.4 84.03 71.3 85.03 71.1 86.03 71. 87.03 70.8 88.03 70.7 89.03 70.5 90.03 70.4 91.03 70.2 92.03 70.1 93.03 70.

94.03 69.8 95.03 68.8 96.03 67.8 97.03 66.7 98.03 65.6 99.03 64.5 100.03 63.5 101.03 62.4 102.03 62. 103.03 61.8 104.03 61.6 105.03 61.5 106.03 61.3 107.03 61.1 108.03 60.9 109.03 60.8 110.03 60.6 111.03 60.4 112.03 60.3 113.03 60.1 114.03 59.9 115.03 59.8 116.03 59.6 117.03 59.4 118.03 59.3 119.03 59.1 120.03 59. 121.03 58.8 122.03 58.6 123.03 58.5 124.03 58.3 125.03 58.2 126.03 58. 127.03 57.9 128.03 57.7 129.03 57.6 130.03 57.4 131.03 57.3 132.03 57.1 133.03 57.

134.03 56.8 135.03 56.7 136.03 56.6 137.03 56.4 138.03 56.3 139.03 56.1 140.03 56. 141.03 55.9 142.03 55.7 143.03 55.6 144.03 55.5 145.03 55.3 146.03 55.2 147.03 55.1 148.03 54.9 149.03 54.8 150.03 54.7 151.03 54.5 152.03 54.4 153.03 54.3 154.03 54.2 155.03 54.

156.03 53.9 157.03 53.8 158.03 53.7 159.03 53.5 160.03 53.4 161.03 53.3 162.03 53.2 163.03 53.

164.03 52.9 165.03 52.8 166.03 52.7 167.03 52.6 168.03 52.5 169.03 52.3 170.03 52.2 171.03 52.1 172.03 52. 173.03 51.9 174.03 51.8 175.03 51.7 176.03 51.6 177.03 51.4 178.03 51.3 179.03 51.2 180.03 51.1 181.03 51.

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench Function (continued)

I (continued)

Pressure (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

Dep. Var.: Pressure (psia) (continued)

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

182.03 50.9 183.03 50.8 184.03 50.7 185.03 50.6 186.03 50.5 187.03 50.4 188.03 50.3 189.03 50.2 190.03 50.1 191.03 50.

192.03 49.9 193.03 49.8 194.03 49.7 195.03 49.6 196.03 49.5 197.03 49.4 198.03 49.3 199.03 49.2 200.03 49.1 201.03 49.

202.03 48.9 203.03 48.8 204.03 48.7 205.03 48.6 206.03 48.5 207.03 48.4 208.03 48.3 209.03 48.2 210.03 48.1 211.03 48.

212.03 47.9 213.03 47.9 214.03 47.8 215.03 47.7 216.03 47.6 217.03 47.5 218.03 47.4 219.03 47.3 220.03 47.3 221.03 47.2 222.03 47.1 223.03 47.

224.03 46.9 225.03 46.9 226.03 46.8 227.03 46.7 228.03 46.6 229.03 46.6 230.03 46.5 231.03 46.4 232.03 46.3 233.03 46.3 234.03 46.2 235.03 46.1 236.03 46. 237.03 46.

238.03 45.9 239.03 45.8 240.03 45.7 241.03 45.7 242.03 45.6 243.03 45.5 244.03 45.4 245.03 45.4 246.03 45.3 247.03 45.2 248.03 45.2 249.03 45.1 250.03 45. 251.03 44.9 252.03 44.9 253.03 44.8 254.03 44.7 255.03 44.7 256.03 44.6 257.03 44.5 258.03 44.4 259.03 44.4 260.03 44.3 261.03 44.2 262.03 44.2 263.03 44.1 264.03 44. 265.03 44.

266.03 43.9 267.03 43.8 268.03 43.8 269.03 43.7 270.03 43.6 271.03 43.6 272.03 43.5 273.03 43.4 274.03 43.4 275.03 43.3 276.03 43.2 277.03 43.2 278.03 43.1 279.03 43.

280.03 43. 281.03 42.9 282.03 42.8 283.03 42.8 284.03 42.7 285.03 42.6 286.03 42.6 28-7.03 42.5

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench Function (continued) 1 (continued)

Pressure (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

Dep. Var.: Pressure (psia) (continued)

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

288.03 42.4 289.03 42.4 290.03 42.3 291.03 42.2 292.03 42.2 293.03 42.1 294.03 42.1 295.03 42.

296.03 41.9 297.03 41.9 298.03 41.8 299.03 41.7 Function 2

Break flow Ind. Var.: Time (s)

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

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

0. 0. 0.51 5395.57 1.01 4913.19 1.51 4529.63 2.01 4208.9 2.51 3938.6 3.01 3709.36 3.51 3506.96 4.01 3332.92 4.51 3184.67 5.01 3058.15 5.51 2949.93 6.01 2860.21 6.51 2782.73 7.01 2714.86 7.51 2654.86 8.01 2601.08 8.51 2552.06 9.01 2506.59 9.51 2463.69 I0.01 2422.62 10.51 2382.92 I1.01 2344.31 11.51 2306.73 12.01 2270.25 12 .51 2235.03 13.01 2201.27 13.51 2169.2 14.01 2138.98 14.51 2110.72 15.01 2084.47 15.51 2060.22 16.01 2037.85 16.51 2017.19 17.01 1998.03 17.51 1980.12 18.01 1963.16 18.51 1946.89 19.01 1931.06 19.51 1915.42 20.01 1899.81 20.51 1884.1 21.01 1868.24 21.51 1852.2 22.01 1836.03 22.51 1819.82 23.01 1803.65 23.51 1787.65 24.01 1771.9 24.51 1756.46 25.01 1741.43 25.51 1726.9 26.01 1712.91 26.51 1699.48 27.01 1686.61 27.51 1674.28 28.01 1662.46 28.51 1651.08 29.01 1640.1 29.51 1629.44 30.03 1618.62 31.03 1598.08 32.03 1577.42 33.03 1556.14 34.03 1534.22 35.03 1512.37 36.03 1490.75 37.03 1469.53 38.03 1446.71 39.03 1422.89

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench Function (continued) 2 (continued)

Break flow (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

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

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

40.03 1399.07 41.03 1375.32 42.03 1351.41 43.03 1328.13 44.03 1305.41 45.03 1283.11 46.03 1261.22 47.03 1239.86 48.03 1219.12 49.03 1199.09 50.03 1179.78 51.03 1161.13 52.03 1143.06 53.03 1125.45 54.03 1108.18 55.03 1091.21 56.03 1074.51 57.03 1058.12 58.03 1042.08 59.03 908.833 60.03 913.148 61.03 916.853 62.03 919.015 63.03 913.779 64.03 905.076 65.03 894.83 66.03 658.191 67.03 143.455 68.03 41.024 69.03 40.178 70.03 63.339 71.03 30.615 72.03 14.637 73.03 7.007 74.03 3.91 75.03 3.225 76.03 3.619 77.03 4.25 78.03 4.599 79.03 4.431 80.03 3.766 81.03 2.803 82.03 1.822 83.03 1.078 84.03 0.73 85.03 0.808 86.03 1.248 87.03 1.831 88.03 2.373 89.03 2.713 90.03 2.767 91.03 2.544 92.03 2.134 93.03 1.67 94.03 1.286 95.03 9.313 96.03 10.793 97.03 11.599 98.03 12.11 99.03 12.436 100.03 12.586 101.03 12.556 102.03 5.162 103.03 3.41 104.03 2.56 105.03 2.113 106.03 1.89 107.03 1.819 108.03 1.857 109.03 1.958 110.03 2.074 111.03 2.162 112.03 2.194 113.03 2.163 114.03 2.081 115.03 1.973 116.03 1.869 117.03 1.794 118.03 1.762 119.03 1.773 120.03 1.813 121.03 1.864 122.03 1.905 123.03 1.922 124.03 1.908 125.03 1.868 126.03 1.812 127.03 1.754 128.03 1.708 129.03 1.682 130.03 1.676 131.03 1.688 132.03 1.706 133.03 1.723 134.03 1.729 135.03 1.721 136.03 1.699 137.03 1.669 138.03 1.635 139.03 1.607 140.03 1.586 141.03 1.576 142.03 1.575 143.03 1.579 144.03 1.583 145.03 1.583

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench Function (continued) 2 (continued)

Break flow (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

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

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

146.03 1.576 147.03 1.563 148.03 1.545 149.03 1.524 150.03 1.505 151.03 1.49 152.03 1.48 153.03 1.474 154.03 1.471 155.03 1.469 156.03 1.466 157.03 1.459 158.03 1.449 159.03 1.436 160.03 1.422 161.03 1.408 162.03 1.396 163.03 1.386 164.03 1.378 165.03 1.372 166.03 1.367 167.03 1.361 168.03 1.354 169.03 1.346 170.03 1.336 171.03 1.326 172.03 1.315 173.03 1.306 174.03 1.297 175.03 1.289 176.03 1.283 177.03 1.277 178.03 1.271 179.03 1.264 180.03 1.257 181.03 1.249 182.03 1.241 183.03 1.232 184.03 1.224 185.03 1.217 186.03 1.21 187.03 1.203 188.03 1.197 189.03 1.191 190.03 1.185 191.03 1.178 192.03 1.171 193.03 1.164 194.03 1.157 195.03 1.15 196.03 1.144 197.03 1.138 198.03 1.132 199.03 1.126 200.03 1.12 201.03 1.115 202.03 1.109 203.03 1.103 204.03 1.097 205.03 1.091 206.03 1.085 207.03 1.079 208.03 1.074 209.03 1.068 210.03 1.063 211.03 1.057 212.03 1.052 213.03 1.047 214.03 1.042 215.03 1.036 216.03 1.031 217.03 0.937 218.03 0.922 219.03 0.915 220.03 0.911 221.03 0.908 222.03 0.904 223.03 0.901 224.03 0.898 225.03 0.895 226.03 0.892 227.03 0.889 228.03 0.885 229.03 0.882 230.03 0.879 231.03 0.876 232.03 0.873 233.03 0.87 234.03 0.867 235.03 0.864 236.03 0.861 237.03 0.858 238.03 0.856 239.03 0.853 240.03 0.85 241.03 0.847 242.03 0.844 243.03 0.841 244.03 0.839 245.03 0.836 246.03 0.833 247.03 0.831 248.03 0.828 249.03 0.825 250.03 0.823 251.03 0.82

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) ; July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench Function (continued) 2 (continued)

Break flow (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

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

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

252.03 0.817 253.03 0.815 254.03 0.812 255.03 0.81 256.03 0.807 257.03 0.805 258.03 0.803 259.03 0.8 260.03 0.798 261.03 0.796 262.03 0.793 263.03 0.791 264.03 0.789 265.03 0.786 266.03 0.784 267.03 0.782 268.03 0.78 269.03 0.777 270.03 0.775 271.03 0.773 272.03 0.771 273.03 0.769 274.03 0.766 275.03 0.764 276.03 0.762 277.03 0.76 278.03 0.758 279.03 0.755 280.03 0.753 281.03 0.751 282.03 0.749 283.03 0.747 284.03 0.745 285.03 0.743 286.03 0.741 287.03 0.739 288.03 0.737 289.03 0.735 290.03 0.733 291.03 0.731 292.03 0.729 293.03 0.727 294.03 0.725 295.03 0.723 296.03 0.721 297.03 0.719 298.03 0.718 299.03 0.716 Function 3

Break Enthalpy Ind. Var.: Time (s)

Dep. Var.: Enthalpy (Btu/lbm)

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

0. 1199.91 0.51 1199.91 1.01 1201.59 1.51 1202.74 2.01 1203.53 2.51 1204.04 3.01 1204.35 3.51 1204.53 4.01 1204.59 4.51 1204.58 5.01 1204.53 5.51 1204.44 6.01 1204.34 6.51 1204.23 7.01 1204.12 7.51 1204.

8.01 1203.89 8.51 1203.77 9.01 1203.65 9.51 1203.53 10.01 1203.41 10.51 1203.28 11.01 1203.15 11.51 1203.01 12.01 1202.87 12.51 1202.73 13.01 1202.59 13.51 1202.45 14.01 1202.31 14.51 1202.18 15.01 1202.05 15.51 1201.92 16.01 1201.81 16.51 1201.7

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench Function (continued) 3 (continued)

Break Enthalpy (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

Dep. Var.: Enthalpy (Btu/lbm) (continued)

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

17.01 1201.59 17.51 1201.49 18.01 1201.39 18.51 1201.29 19.01 1201.19 19.51 1201.1 20.01 1201. 20.51 1200.9 21.01 1200.8 21.51 1200.69 22.01 1200.58 22.51 1200.46 23.01 1200.35 23.51 1200.23 24.01 1200.11 24.51 1200.

25.01 1199.88 25.51 1199.77 26.01 1199.66 26.51 1199.55 27.01 1199.44 27.51 1199.34 28.01 1199.24 28.51 1199.14 29.01 1199.04 29.51 1198.95 30.03 1198.85 31.03 1198.67 32.03 1198.47 33.03 1198.27 34.03 1198.06 35.03 1197.85 36.03 1197.64 37.03 1197.42 38.03 1197.18 39.03 1196.92 40.03 1196.66 41.03 1196.39 42.03 1196.1 43.03 1195.82 44.03 1195.54 45.03 1195.25 46.03 1194.97 47.03 1194.67 48.03 1194.39 49.03 1194.1 50.03 1193.82 51.03 1193.54 52.03 1193.26 53.03 1192.98 54.03 1192.7 55.03 1192.42 56.03 1192.14 57.03 1191.85 58.03 1191.57 59.03 1191.51 60.03 1191.58 61.03 1191.66 62.03 1191.71 63.03 1191.68 64.03 1191.61 65.03 1191.52 66.03 1188.64 67.03 1182.16 68.03 1181.59 69.03 1181.54 70.03 1208.84 71.03 1228.21 72.03 1238.32 73.03 1242.92 74.03 1244.67 75.03 1245.64 76.03 1246.39 77.03 1247.57 78.03 1248.96 79.03 1250.69 80.03 1252.03 81.03 1253.04 82.03 1253.24 83.03 1253.28 84.03 1253.28 85.03 1251.89 86.03 1252.17 87.03 1251.52 88.03 1251.82 89.03 1252.59 90.03 1253.33 91.03 1253.98 92.03 1254.3 93.03 1254.73 94.03 1254.36 95.03 1252.46 96.03 1251.09 97.03 1250.51 98.03 1250.36 99.03 1250.51 100.03 1250.94 101.03 1251.48 102.03 1253.64 103.03 1255.21 104.03 1256.01 105.03 1256.47 106.03 1255.93 107.03 1256.21 108.03 1256.17 109.03 1256.08

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench Function (continued) 3 (continued)

Break Enthalpy (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

Dep. Var.: Enthalpy (Btu/lbm) (continued)

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

110.03 1255.88 111.03 1256.22 112.03 1256.39 113.03 1256.69 114.03 1256.91 115.03 1256.89 116.03 1256.89 117.03 1257.03 118.03 1257.07 119.03 1256.73 120.03 1257.09 121.03 1257.1 122.03 1257.38 123.03 1257.37 124.03 1257.8 125.03 1257.71 126.03 1257.76 127.03 1258.15 128.03 1258.17 129.03 1257.86 130.03 1258.38 131.03 1257.71 132.03 1258.27 133.03 1257.92 134.03 1258.17 135.03 1258.27 136.03 1258.69 137.03 1258.32 138.03 1259.13 139.03 1258.48 140.03 1259.18 141.03 1259.33 142.03 1259.28 143.03 1259.15 144.03 1259.17 145.03 1259.17 146.03 1259.59 147.03 1259.42 148.03 1259.24 149.03 1259.88 150.03 1259.93 151.03 1259.79 152.03 1259.59 153.03 1259.89 154.03 1260.15 155.03 1260.17 156.03 1259.83 157.03 1260.15 158.03 1260.08 159.03 1260.29 160.03 1260.19 161.03 1260.33 162.03 1260.11 163.03 1260.19 164.03 1260.62 165.03 1260.77 166.03 1260.64 167.03 1261.08 168.03 1261.12 169.03 1261.11 170.03 1261.5 171.03 1261.13 172.03 1261.68 173.03 1260.94 174.03 1261.27 175.03 1261.8 176.03 1261.32 177.03 1261.32 178.03 1261.31 179.03 1261.84 180.03 1261.68 181.03 1261.86 182.03 1261.6 183.03 1262.28 184.03 1262.21 185.03 1261.64 186.03 1261.69 187.03 1262.32 188.03 1262.25 189.03 1262.27 190.03 1262.14 191.03 1262.77 192.03 1263.07 193.03 1263.14 194.03 1263.15 195.03 1263.28 196.03 1262.69 197.03 1262.48 198.03 1262.61 199.03 1262.98 200.03 1263.46 201.03 1262.8 202.03 1263.15 203.03 1263.35 204.03 1263.43 205.03 1263.48 206.03 1263.59 207.03 1263.85 208.03 1263.13 209.03 1263.78 210.03 1263.42 211.03 1264.35 212.03 1264.12 213.03 1263.85 214.03 1263.52 215.03 1264.37

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB

'Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench Function (continued) 3 (continued)

Break Enthalpy (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

Dep. Var.: Enthalpy (Btu/lbm) (continued)

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

216.03 1264. 217.03 1264.47 218.03 1264.38 219.03 1264.79 220.03 1264.48 221.03 1263.84 222.03 1264.96 223.03 1264.81 224.03 1264.69 225.03 1264.56 226.03 1264.43 227.03 1264.27 228.03 1265.56 229.03 1265.43 230.03 1265.36 231.03 1265.34 232.03 1265.37 233.03 1265.46 234.03 1265.58 235.03 1265.73 236.03 1265.89 237.03 1266.05 238.03 1264.73 239.03 1264.9 240.03 1265.09 241.03 1265.32 242.03 1265.72 243.03 1266.18 244.03 1265.18 245.03 1265.73 246.03 1266.3 247.03 1265.35 248.03 1265.95 249.03 1266.57 250.03 1265.65 251.03 1266.29 252.03 1266.96 253.03 1266.11 254.03 1266.85 255.03 1266.05 256.03 1266.83 257.03 1266.26 258.03 1265.83 259.03 1267.

260.03 1266.58 261.03 1266.17 262.03 1267.34 263.03 1266.94 264.03 1266.54 265.03 1267.76 266.03 1267.39 267.03 1267.03 268.03 1266.68 269.03 1267.97 270.03 1267.64 271.03 1267.32 272.03 1267.01 273.03 1266.7 274.03 1268.06 275.03 1267.78 276.03 1267.51 277.03 1267.26 278.03 1267.01 279.03 1268.46 280.03 1268.25 281.03 1268.05 282.03 1267.86 283.03 1267.67 284.03 1267.62 285.03 1267.65 286.03 1267.71 287.03 1267.78 288.03 1267.86 289.03 1267.96 290.03 1268.06 291.03 1268.18 292.03 1268.31 293.03 1268.44 294.03 1268.65 295.03 1268.91 296.03 1269.19 297.03 1269.48 298.03 1268.02 299.03 1268.33

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench Function 4

Spray Pre-RAS Ind. Var.: Time (s)

Dep. Var.:

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

0. 0. 93.53 0.

93.54 705.41 3300. 705.41 Function 5

CFC Ind. Var.: Temperature (F)

Dep. Var.: Rate of Heat Removal (Btu/s)

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

0. 0. 120. 0.

288. 27777.77 500. 27777.77 Control Variables CV Func. Initial Coeff. Coeff. Upd. Int.

1. Description Form Value G aO Min Max Mult.

1 air/stm ratio div 0. 1. 0. -le+32I le+32 0.

Function Components Control Variable 1 air/stm ratio div Y=G*(aO+a2X2)/(alXl)

Gothic-s Variable Coef.

1. Name location a 1 Rs cVl 1.

2 Rm cVl 1.

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench FPDOSE Control Options Setting Units Generate FPDOSE Input NO Transfer Time Interval 0.0 s Isolation Valve #

Washout Factor 0.0 Containment Leak Rate/Pressure 0.0 %/hr-psig Vacuum Bldg Leak Rate/Pressure 0.0 1/hr-psig FPDOSE Volume Types Vol FP Transfer Transfer

1. Type Option Vol. Frac.

1 NORMAL NORMAL 10.1 Run Control Parameters (Seconds)

Time DT DT DT End Print Graph Max Dump Phs Chng Dom Min Max Ratio Time Int Int CPU Int Time Scale 1 le-0G 0.01 1. 20. le+05 1. le+05 0. DEFAULT 2 le-0G 0.01 1. 299.03 le+05 1. le+05 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 SEMI-IMP 0. 1 DIRECT 0. 1 FOUP 0.0 2 SEMI-IMP 0. 1 DIRECT 0. 1 FOUP 0.0 Run Options Option Setting Restart Time (sec) 0.0 Restart Time Step # 0 Restart Time Control NEW Revaporization Fraction 0 Fog Model OFF Maximum Mist Density DEFAULT Drop Diam. From Mist DEFAULT Minimum HT Coeff. 0.0 Reference Pressure IGNORE Forced Ent. Drop Diam. DEFAULT Vapor Phase Head Correction INCLUDE

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB Dec/10/2002 07:47:41 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/slbbench Run Options (continued)

Option Setting Kinetic Energy IGNORE Vapor Phase INCLUDE Liquid Phase INCLUDE Drop Phase INCLUDE Force Equilibrium IGNORE Drop-Liq. Conversion INCLUDE QA Logging OFF Debug Output Level 0 Restart Dump on CPU Interval (sec) 3600.

Graphs Graph Curve Number

1. Title Mon 1 2 3 4 1 Containment Atm PRI 2 Containment Atm TVi 3 PRI 4 TVl 5 cvl 6 FD1 7 FVI Envelope Sets Set Set No.

I I No. Type I1 Description Items LIC-03-0001 Page 1 Input File for the MSLB Evaluation Model using GOTHIC

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) . July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Control Volumes Vol Vol Elev Ht Hyd. D. L/V IA Burn

1. Description (ft3) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft2) Opt 11 Fcon 11050000. 1 0. 1137.375 198.65 1 1. 1N,ONE Laminar Leakage Lk Rate Ref Ref Ref Sink Leak Vol Factor Press Temp Humid /Src Model Rep Subvol Area

1. (%/hr) (psia) (F) (%) BC Option Wall Option (ft2) 1 0.1 1CNST TI UNIFORM IDEFAULT Turbulent Leakage Lk Rate Ref Ref Ref Sink Leak Vol Factor Press Temp Humid /Src Model Rep Subvol Area

1. (%/hr) (psia) (F) (%) BC Option Wall Option (ft2) fL/D 1 0. 1111 1CNST T I IUNIFORM IDEFAULTI Fluid Boundary Conditions - Table 1 Press. Temp. Flow ON OFF BC# Description (psia) FF (F) FF (lbm/s) FF Trip Trip

=F Break 1. 1 el 3 1 2 2F Spray Pre-RAS 70. 1151 1 4 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 (Btu/s) FF Quality FF 1F 1. 1 0.0039 0 DEFAULT 2F 1. 1 NONE DEFAULT

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA)-- July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Fluid Boundary Conditions - Table 3 Gas Pressure Ratios Air BC# Gas 1 FF Gas 2 FF Gas 3 FF Gas 4 FF IF 0.

2F Fluid Boundary Conditions - Table 4 Gas Pressure Ratios BC# Gas 5 FF Gas 6 FF Gas 7 FF Gas 8 FF IF 2F Flow Paths - Table 1 F.P. Vol Elev Ht Vol Elev Ht Description A (ft) (ft) B (ft) (ft) 1 Break 1 60. 1. IF 62. 1.

2 Spray Pre-RAS 1 120. 2F 121.

Flow Paths - Table 2 Flow Flow Hyd. Inertia Friction Relative Dep Mom Strat Path Area Diam. Length Length Rough- Bend Trn Flow

1. (ft2) (ft) (ft) (ft) ness (deg) Opt Opt 1 6. 4.5 1. 1. 0. 0. - NONE 2 3. 1. 1. 1. 0. 0. - NONE Flow Paths - Table 3 Flow Fwd. Rev. Critical Exit Drop Path Loss Loss Comp. Flow Loss Breakup

1. Coeff. Coeff. Opt. Model Coeff. Model 1 0. 0. OFF OFF 0. OFF 2 0. 0. OFF OFF 0. OFF

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Thermal Conductors - Table 1 Cond Vol HT Vol HT Cond S. A. Init.

1. Description A Co B Co Type (ft2) T. (F) Or 1 Cylindrical wal 1 1 1 2 1 43420. 120. I 2 Dome 1 1 1 2 2 6400. 120. I 3 Misc. concrete 1 1 1 2 3 53600. 120. I 4 Misc. concrete 1 1 1 2 4 10035. 120. I 5 Misc. concrete 1 1 1 2 5 8334. 120. I 6 Misc. steel 1 1 1 2 6 5700. 120. I 7 Misc. steel 1 1 1 2 7 10960. 120. I 8 Ventilation duc 1 1 1 2 8 72000. 120. I 9 Refueling cavit 1 1 1 2 9 12774. 120. I 10 Misc. concrete 1 1 1 2 10 7200. 120. I Thermal Conductors - Table 2 Cond Therm. Rad. Emiss. Therm. Rad. Emiss.

1. 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 Heat Transfer Coefficient Types - Table 1 Heat Cnd Sp Nat For Type Transfer Nominal Cnv Cnd Cnv Cnv Cnv Rad

1. Option Value FF Opt Opt HTC Opt Opt Opt 1 Direct 0. ADD UCHI VERT SURF PIPE FLOW ON 2 Sp Heat

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Heat Transfer Coefficient Types - Table 2 Min Max Convect Condensa Type Phase Liq Liq Bulk T Bulk T

1. Opt Fract Fract Model FF Model FF 1 VAP Tg-Tf Tb-Tw 2

Heat Transfer Coefficient Types - Table 3 Char. Nat For Nom Minimum Type Length Coef Exp Coef Exp Vel Vel Conv HTC

1. (ft) FF FF FF FF (ft/s) FF (B/h-f2-F) 1 DEFAULT 2

HTC Types - Table 4 Total Peak Initial Post-BD Type Heat Time Value Direct

1. (Btu) (sec) (B/h-f2-F) FF 1

2 Thermal Conductor Types Type Thick. O.D. Heat Heat

1. Description Geom (in) (in) Regions (Btu/ft3-s) FF 1 WALL 46.7796 0. 9 0.

2 WALL 36.2796 0. 9 0.

3 WALL 12.008 0. 5 0.

4 WALL 6.008 0. 4 0.

5 WALL 30.008 0. 6 0.

6 WALL 0.13304 0. 3 0.

7 WALL 0.508004 0. 3 0.

8 WALL 0.062499 0. 1 0.

9 WALL 24.06 0. 5 0.

10 WALL 4.508 0. 4 0.

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA),- July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Thermal Conductor Type 1

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 3 0.008 0.25 10 0.

4 4 0.258 0.0216 1 0.

5 5 0.2796 3. 60 0.

6 5 3.2796 3. 20 0.

7 5 6.2796 6. 15 0.

8 5 12.2796 12. 10 0.

9 5 24.2797 22.5 18 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 2

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 3 0.008 0.25 10 0.

4 4 0.258 0.0216 1 0.

5 5 0.2796 3. 60 0.

6 5 3.2796 3. 20 0.

7 5 6.2796 6. 15 0.

8 5 12.2796 12. 10 0.

9 5 24.2796 12. 10 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 3

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 5 0.008 3. 60 0.

4 5 3.008 3. 20 0.

5 5 6.008 6. 15 0.

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Thermal Conductor Type 4

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 5 0.008 3. 60 0.

4 5 3.008 3. 20 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 5

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 5 0.008 3. 60 0.

4 5 3.008 3. 20 0.

5 5 6.008 6. 15 0.

6 5 12.008 18. 10 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 6

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. - 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 3 0.008 0.12504 7 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 7

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 3 0.008 0.500004 20 0.

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) 7 July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Thermal Conductor Type 8

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region (in) (in) regs. Factor 11 3 1 0. 10.062499 10 .

Thermal Conductor Type 9

Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 3 0. 0.06 10 0.

2 5 0.06 3. 60 0.

3 5 3.06 3. 20 0.

4 5 6.06 6. 15 0.

5 5 12.06 12. 10 0.

Thermal Conductor Type 10 Description Mat. Bdry. Thick Sub- Heat Region # (in) (in) regs. Factor 1 1 0. 0.005 2 0.

2 2 0.005 0.003 3 0.

3 5 0.008 3. 60 0.

4 5 3.008 1.5 10 0.

Cooler/Heater Heater On Off Flow Flow Heat Heat Cooler Vol. Trip Trip Rate Rate Rate Rate Phs Ctrlr

1. Description # # # (CFM) FF (Btu/s) FF Opt Loc IC CFC#1 1 1 2e+05 1. 6 VTE 1 2C CFC#2 1 1 93600. 1 . 6 VTE 1

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) 7 July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Spray Nozzles Flow Dis. Drop Drop Spray Flow Nozzle Path Vol. Dia. Dia. Flow Frac.

1. Description # # (in.) FF Frac. FF 1N 112 1 0.0472 1 1 1. 5 Volume Initial Conditions Vapor Liquid Relative Liquid Ice Ice Vol Pressure Temp. Temp. Humidity Volume Volume Surf.A.

1. (psia) (F) F (%) Fractio Fract. (ft2) def 14.7 80. 80. 60. 0. 0. 0.

1 17.2 120. 120. 30. 0. 0. 0.

Initial Gas Pressure Ratios Vol Air

1. Gas I Gas 2 Gas 3 Gas 4 Gas 5 Gas 6 Gas 7 Gas 8 def 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

1 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

Noncondensing Gases Gas Description Symbol Type Mol. Lennard-Jones Parameters No. Weight Diameter e/K (Ang) (K) 1lAir Air POLY 28.97 3.617 97.

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

No. Tmin Tmax Cp Tmin Tmax Viscosity (R) (R) (Btu/lbm-R) (R) (R) (ibm/ft-hr) 1 360. 2280. 10.238534-6.2006111

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) r July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Materials Type # Description 1 paint 2 Primer 3 steel 4 air 5 concrete Material Type 1

paint Temp. Density Cond. Sp. Heat (F) (lbm/ft3) (Btu/hr-ft-F) (Btu/lbm-F) 100. 1. 0.51 33.7 Material Type 2

Primer Temp. Density Cond. Sp. Heat (F) (lbm/ft3) (Btu/hr-ft-F) (Btu/lbm-F) 100.1 1. 0.51 43.2 Material Type 3

steel Temp. Density Cond. Sp. Heat (F) (lbm/ft3) (Btu/hr-ft-F) (Btu/lbm-F) 100.1 1. 26.1 59.

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) o July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Material Type 4

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

80. 0.0735 0.01516 0.2402 170. 0.0623 0.01735 0.241 260. 0.0551 0.01944 0.2422 350. 0.0489 0.02142 0.2438 440. 0.044 0.02333 0.2459 Material Type 5

concrete Temp. Density Cond. Sp. Heat (F) (lbm/ft3) (Btu/hr-ft-F) (Btu/lbm-F) 100. 1.1 0.85 32.

Ice Condenser Parameters Initial Bulk Surface Area Heat Temp. Density Multiplier Transfer (F) (lbm/ft3) Function Option 15.7 33.43 UCHIDA Component Trips Trip Sense Sensor Sensor Var. Set Delay Rset Cond Cond

1. Description Var. 1 Loc. 2 Loc. Limit Point Time Trip Trip Type 1 Time TIMI UPPER 25.581 0. 1 1 AND Functions FF# Description Ind. Var. Dep. Var. Points 0 Constant - 0 1 Pressure Time (s) Pressure ( 330 2 Break flow Time (s) Flow Rate 330 3 Break Enthalpy Time (s) Enthalpy ( 330 4 Spray Pre-RAS Time (s) Dep. Var. 4 5 Spray Efficienc cvl Efficiency 21 6 CFC Temperatur Rate of He 4

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Function 1

Pressure Ind. Var.: Time (s)

Dep. Var.: Pressure (psia)

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

0. 755.8 0.51 755.8 1.01 686.5 1.51 629.1 2.01 581.1 2.51 540.6 3.01 506.3 3.51 477.1 4.01 452.3 4.51 431.2 5.01 413.2 5.51 397.7 6.01 385. 6.51 373.9 7.01 364.2 7.51 355.7 8.01 348. 8.51 341.

9.01 334.5 9.51 328.4 10.01 322.5 10.51 316.8 11.01 311.3 11.51 305.9 12.01 300.7 12.51 295.7 13.01 290.9 13.51 286.3 14.01 282. 14.51 277.9 15.01 274.2 15.51 270.7 16.01 267.5 16.51 264.6 17.01 261.9 17.51 259.3 18.01 256.9 18.51 254.6 19.01 252.3 19.51 250.1 20.01 247.8 20.51 245.6 21.01 243.3 21.51 241.

22.01 238.7 22.51 236.4 23.01 234.1 23.51 231.8 24.01 229.5 24.51 227.3 25.01 225.2 25.51 223.1 26.01 221.1 26.51 219.2 27.01 217.3 27.51 215.6 28.01 213.9 28.51 212.3 29.01 210.7 29.51 209.2 30.03 207.6 31.03 204.7 32.03 201.7 33.03 198.7 34.03 195.7 35.03 192.7 36.03 189.8 37.03 186.9 38.03 183.8 39.03 180.5 40.03 177.3 41.03 174.

42.03 170.8 43.03 167.7 44.03 164.6 45.03 161.6 46.03 158.7 47.03 155.8 48.03 153. 49.03 150.3 50.03 147.7 51.03 145.2 52.03 142.7 53.03 140.3 54.03 138. 55.03 135.7 56.03 133.5 57.03 131.2 58.03 129.1 59.03 128.3 60.03 128.8 61.03 129.3 62.03 129.8 63.03 129.6 64.03 129.1 65.03 128.5 66.03 127.7 67.03 87.5 68.03 74.5 69.03 74.2 70.03 74. 71.03 73.9 72.03 73.7 73.03 73.7 74.03 73.4 75.03 73.1

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Function (continued) 1 (continued)

Pressure (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

Dep. Var.: Pressure (psia) (continued)

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

76.03 73. 77.03 72.8 78.03 72.7 79.03 72.5 80.03 72.4 81.03 72.2 82.03 72.1 83.03 71.9 84.03 71.8 85.03 71.7 86.03 71.5 87.03 71.4 88.03 71.3 89.03 71.1 90.03 71. 91.03 70.9 92.03 70.8 93.03 70.6 94.03 70.5 95.03 69.6 96.03 68.5 97.03 67.5 98.03 66.4 99.03 65.4 100.03 64.3 101.03 63.3 102.03 62.7 103.03 62.5 104.03 62.4 105.03 62.2 106.03 62. 107.03 61.9 108.03 61.7 109.03 61.5 110.03 61.4 111.03 61.2 112.03 61.1 113.03 60.9 114.03 60.8 115.03 60.6 116.03 60.5 117.03 60.3 118.03 60.2 119.03 60.

120.03 59.9 121.03 59.7 122.03 59.6 123.03 59.4 124.03 59.3 125.03 59.1 126.03 59. 127.03 58.9 128.03 58.7 129.03 58.6 130.03 58.4 131.03 58.3 132.03 58.2 133.03 58.

134.03 57.9 135.03 57.8 136.03 57.6 137.03 57.5 138.03 57.4 139.03 57.2 140.03 57.1 141.03 57.

142.03 56.9 143.03 56.7 144.03 56.6 145.03 56.5 146.03 56.4 147.03 56.2 148.03 56.1 149.03 56.

150.03 55.9 151.03 55.8 152.03 55.6 153.03 55.5 154.03 55.4 155.03 55.3 156.03 55.2 157.03 55.1 158.03 54.9 159.03 54.8 160.03 54.7 161.03 54.6 162.03 54.5 163.03 54.4 164.03 54.3 165.03 54.2 166.03 54.1 167.03 53.9 168.03 53.8 169.03 53.7 170.03 53.6 171.03 53.5 172.03 53.4 173.03 53.3 174.03 53.2 175.03 53.1 176.03 53. 177.03 52.9 178.03 52.8 179.03 52.7 180.03 52.6 181.03 52.5

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Function (continued) 1 (continued)

Pressure (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

Dep. Var.: Pressure (psia) (continued)

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

182.03 52.4 183.03 52.3 184.03 52.2 185.03 52.1 186.03 52. 187.03 51.9 188.03 51.8 189.03 51.7 190.03 51.6 191.03 51.5 192.03 51.4 193.03 51.3 194.03 51.2 195.03 51.2 196.03 51.1 197.03 51.

198.03 50.9 199.03 50.8 200.03 50.7 201.03 50.6 202.03 50.5 203.03 50.4 204.03 50.3 205.03 50.3 206.03 50.2 207.03 50.1 208.03 50. 209.03 49.9 210.03 49.8 211.03 49.7 212.03 49.7 213.03 49.6 214.03 49.5 215.03 49.4 216.03 49.3 217.03 49.2 218.03 49.2 219.03 49.1 220.03 49. 221.03 48.9 222.03 48.8 223.03 48.8 224.03 48.7 225.03 48.6 226.03 48.5 227.03 48.4 228.03 48.4 229.03 48.3 230.03 48.2 231.03 48.1 232.03 48.1 233.03 48.

234.03 47.9 235.03 47.8 236.03 47.8 237.03 47.7 238.03 47.6 239.03 47.5 240.03 47.5 241.03 47.4 242.03 47.3 243.03 47.2 244.03 47.2 245.03 47.1 246.03 47. 247.03 47.

248.03 46.9 249.03 46.8 250.03 46.7 251.03 46.7 252.03 46.6 253.03 46.5 254.03 46.5 255.03 46.4 256.03 46.4 257.03 46.3 258.03 46.2 259.03 46.2 260.03 46.1 261.03 46.

262.03 46. 263.03 45.9 264.03 45.9 265.03 45.8 266.03 45.7 267.03 45.7 268.03 45.6 269.03 45.6 270.03 45.5 271.03 45.4 272.03 45.4 273.03 45.3 274.03 45.3 275.03 45.2 276.03 45.1 277.03 45.1 278.03 45. 279.03 45.

280.03 44.9 281.03 44.8 282.03 44.8 283.03 44.7 284.03 44.7 285.03 44.6 286.03 44.5 287.03 44.5

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Function (continued) 1 (continued)

Pressure (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

Dep. Var.: Pressure (psia) (continued)

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

288.03 44.4 289.03 44.4 290.03 44.3 291.03 44.3 292.03 44.2 293.03 44.1 294.03 44.1 295.03 44.

296.03 44. 297.03 43.9 298.03 43.9 299.03 43.8 Function 2

Break flow Ind. Var.: Time (s)

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

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

0. 0. 0.51 5395.57 1.01 4913.19 1.51 4529.63 2.01 4208.9 2.51 3938.6 3.01 3709.36 3.51 3506.96 4.01 3332.92 4.51 3184.67 5.01 3058.15 5.51 2949.93 6.01 2860.21 6.51 2782.73 7.01 2714.86 7.51 2654.86 8.01 2601.08 8.51 2552.06 9.01 2506.59 9.51 2463.69 10.01 2422.62 10.51 2382.92 11.01 2344.31 11.51 2306.73 12.01 2270.25 12.51 2235.03 13.01 2201.27 13.51 2169.2 14.01 2138.98 14.51 2110.72 15.01 2084.47 15.51 2060.22 16.01 2037.85 16.51 2017.19 17.01 1998.03 17.51 1980.12 18.01 1963.16 18.51 1946.89 19.01 1931.06 19.51 1915.42 20.01 1899.81 20.51 1884.1 21.01 1868.24 21.51 1852.2 22.01 1836.03 22.51 1819.82 23.01 1803.65 23.51 1787.65 24.01 1771.9 24.51 1756.46 25.01 1741.43 25.51 1726.9 26.01 1712.91 26.51 1699.48 27.01 1686.61 27.51 1674.28 28.01 1662.46 28.51 1651.08 29.01 1640.1 29.S1 1629.44 30.03 1618.62 31.03 1598.08 32.03 1577.42 33.03 1556.14 34.03 1534.22 35.03 1512.37 36.03 1490.75 37.03 1469.53 38.03 1446.71 39.03 1422.89

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Function (continued) 2 (continued)

Break flow (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

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

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

40.03 1399.07 41.03 1375.32 42.03 1351.75 43.03 1328.92 44.03 1306.55 45.03 1284.53 46.03 1262.9 47.03 1241.75 48.03 1221.21 49.03 1201.37 50.03 1182.23 51.03 1163.75 52.03 1145.84 53.03 1128.4 54.03 1111.3 55.03 1094.49 56.03 1077.95 57.03 1061.71 58.03 1045.82 59.03 909.834 60.03 913.459 61.03 917.089 62.03 920.564 63.03 915.902 64.03 907.49 65.03 897.382 66.03 886.563 67.03 379.19 68.03 57.771 69.03 48.261 70.03 47.961 71.03 46.562 72.03 44.607 73.03 55.942 74.03 39.814 75.03 32.449 76.03 29.447 77.03 28.566 78.03 28.407 79.03 28.172 80.03 27.523 81.03 26.47 82.03 25.241 83.03 24.136 84.03 23.405 85.03 23.173 86.03 23.414 87.03 24.009 88.03 24.694 89.03 25.26 90.03 25.546 91.03 25.491 92.03 25.141 93.03 24.626 94.03 24.105 95.03 32.237 96.03 33.764 97.03 34.646 98.03 35.257 99.03 35.712 100.03 36.006 101.03 36.11 102.03 28.978 103.03 26.825 104.03 25.687 105.03 25.032 106.03 24.652 107.03 24.469 108.03 24.439 109.03 24.517 110.03 24.648 111.03 24.777 112.03 24.86 113.03 24.873 114.03 24.814 115.03 24.705 116.03 24.579 117.03 24.469 118.03 24.401 119.03 24.385 120.03 24.415 121.03 24.471 122.03 24.532 123.03 24.573 124.03 24.582 125.03 24.556 126.03 24.502 127.03 24.436 128.03 24.373 129.03 24.329 130.03 24.309 131.03 24.313 132.03 24.332 133.03 24.357 134.03 24.374 135.03 24.378 136.03 24.364 137.03 24.335 138.03 24.299 139.03 24.263 140.03 24.234 141.03 24.216 142.03 24.21 143.03 24.213 144.03 24.22 145.03 24.225

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Function (continued) 2 (continued)

Break flow (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

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

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

146.03 24.224 147.03 24.215 148.03 24.199 149.03 24.177 150.03 24.155 151.03 24.135 152.03 24.121 153.03 24.112 154.03 24.109 155.03 24.108 156.03 24.106 157.03 24.103 158.03 24.095 159.03 24.084 160.03 24.07 161.03 24.055 162.03 24.042 163.03 24.03 164.03 24.021 165.03 24.015 166.03 24.011 167.03 24.007 168.03 24.001 169.03 23.994 170.03 23.985 171.03 23.974 172.03 23.963 173.03 23.952 174.03 23.942 175.03 23.934 176.03 23.927 177.03 23.921 178.03 23.915 179.03 23.909 180.03 23.902 181.03 23.894 182.03 23.886 183.03 23.877 184.03 23.869 185.03 23.86 186.03 23.853 187.03 23.846 188.03 23.84 189.03 23.834 190.03 23.828 191.03 23.821 192.03 23.815 193.03 23.808 194.03 23.801 195.03 23.793 196.03 23.786 197.03 23.78 198.03 23.773 199.03 23.767 200.03 23.762 201.03 23.756 202.03 23.75 203.03 23.744 204.03 23.738 205.03 23.732 206.03 23.726 207.03 23.719 208.03 23.713 209.03 23.708 210.03 23.702 211.03 23.697 212.03 23.691 213.03 23.686 214.03 23.681 215.03 23.676 216.03 23.67 217.03 23.665 218.03 23.66 219.03 23.654 220.03 23.649 221.03 23.644 222.03 23.639 223.03 23.634 224.03 23.63 225.03 23.625 226.03 23.62 227.03 23.615 228.03 23.61 229.03 23.606 230.03 23.601 231.03 23.596 232.03 23.592 233.03 23.587 234.03 23.582 235.03 23.578 236.03 23.574 237.03 23.569 238.03 23.565 239.03 23.56 240.03 23.556 241.03 23.552 242.03 23.547 243.03 23.543 244.03 23.539 245.03 23.535 246.03 23.531 247.03 23.527 248.03 23.523 249.03 23.519 250.03 23.515 251.03 23.456

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Function (continued) 2 (continued)

Break flow (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

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

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

252.03 23.443 253.03 23.438 254.03 23.434 255.03 23.431 256.03 23.428 257.03 23.426 258.03 23.423 259.03 23.421 260.03 23.418 261.03 23.416 262.03 23.413 263.03 23.411 264.03 23.408 265.03 23.406 266.03 23.403 267.03 23.401 268.03 23.399 269.03 23.396 270.03 23.394 271.03 23.392 272.03 23.389 273.03 23.387 274.03 23.385 275.03 23.383 276.03 23.38 277.03 23.378 278.03 23.376 279.03 23.374 280.03 23.372 281.03 23.369 282.03 23.367 283.03 23.365 284.03 23.363 285.03 23.361 286.03 23.359 287.03 23.357 288.03 23.355 289.03 23.353 290.03 23.351 291.03 23.349 292.03 23.347 293.03 23.345 294.03 23.344 295.03 23.342 296.03 23.34 297.03 23.338 298.03 23.336 299.03 23.334

.1. & I Function 3

Break Enthalpy Ind. Var.: Time (s)

Dep. Var.: Enthalpy (Btu/lbm)

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

0. 1199.91 0.51 1199.91 1.01 1201.59 1.51 1202.74 2.01 1203.53 2.51 1204.04 3.01 1204.35 3.51 1204.53 4.01 1204.59 4.51 1204.58 5.01 1204.53 5.51 1204.44 6.01 1204.34 6.51 1204.23 7.01 1204.12 7.51 1204.

8.01 1203.89 8.51 1203.77 9.01 1203.65 9.51 1203.53 10.01 1203.41 10.51 1203.28 11.01 1203.15 11.51 1203.01 12.01 1202.87 12.51 1202.73 13.01 1202.59 13.51 1202.45 14.01 1202.31 14.51 1202.18 15.01 1202.05 15.51 1201.92 16.01 1201.81 16.51 1201.7

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Function (continued) 3 (continued)

Break Enthalpy (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

Dep. Var.: Enthalpy (Btu/lbm) (continued)

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

17.01 1201.59 17.51 1201.49 18.01 1201.39 18.51 1201.29 19.01 1201.19 19.51 1201.1 20.01 1201. 20.51 1200.9 21.01 1200.8 21.51 1200.69 22.01 1200.58 22.51 1200.46 23.01 1200.35 23.51 1200.23 24.01 1200.11 24.51 1200.

25.01 1199.88 25.51 1199.77 26.01 1199.66 26.51 1199.55 27.01 1199.44 27.51 1199.34 28.01 1199.24 28.51 1199.14 29.01 1199.04 29.51 1198.95 30.03 1198.85 31.03 1198.67 32.03 1198.47 33.03 1198.27 34.03 1198.06 35.03 1197.85 36.03 1197.64 37.03 1197.42 38.03 1197.18 39.03 1196.92 40.03 1196.66 41.03 1196.39 42.03 1196.11 43.03 1195.83 44.03 1195.56 45.03 1195.28 46.03 1194.99 47.03 1194.7 48.03 1194.42 49.03 1194.14 50.03 1193.86 51.03 1193.58 52.03 1193.3 53.03 1193.03 54.03 1192.75 55.03 1192.48 56.03 1192.19 57.03 1191.92 58.03 1191.64 59.03 1191.53 60.03 1191.59 61.03 1191.66 62.03 1191.74 63.03 1191.71 64.03 1191.64 65.03 1191.55 66.03 1191.46 67.03 1184.87 68.03 1181.71 69.03 1181.65 70.03 1181.6 71.03 1181.55 72.03 1181.51 73.03 1191.68 74.03 1200.65 75.03 1205.43 76.03 1208.22 77.03 1210.25 78.03 1212.15 79.03 1214.02 80.03 1215.72 81.03 1217.03 82.03 1217.74 83.03 1217.87 84.03 1217.57 85.03 1217.03 86.03 1216.58 87.03 1216.27 88.03 1216.38 89.03 1216.76 90.03 1217.36 91.03 1218.05 92.03 1218.66 93.03 1218.98 94.03 1219.09 95.03 1217.27 96.03 1215.99 97.03 1215.31 98.03 1215.05 99.03 1215.08 100.03 1215.4 101.03 1215.87 102.03 1217.53 103.03 1219.22 104.03 1220.1 105.03 1220.48 106.03 1220.61 107.03 1220.57 108.03 1220.48 109.03 1220.39

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Function (continued) 3 (continued)

Break Enthalpy (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

Dep. Var.: Enthalpy (Btu/lbm) (continued)

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

110.03 1220.42 111.03 1220.55 112.03 1220.74 113.03 1220.93 114.03 1221.16 115.03 1221.33 116.03 1221.42 117.03 1221.49 118.03 1221.48 119.03 1221.44 120.03 1221.41 121.03 1221.48 122.03 1221.52 123.03 1221.66 124.03 1221.8 125.03 1221.93 126.03 1222.06 127.03 1222.13 128.03 1222.23 129.03 1222.24 130.03 1222.27 131.03 1222.28 132.03 1222.35 133.03 1222.37 134.03 1222.49 135.03 1222.56 136.03 1222.67 137.03 1222.8 138.03 1222.86 139.03 1222.91 140.03 1222.95 141.03 1223.01 142.03 1223.06 143.03 1223.11 144.03 1223.16 145.03 1223.24 146.03 1223.32 147.03 1223.39 148.03 1223.44 149.03 1223.54 150.03 1223.59 151.03 1223.67 152.03 1223.69 153.03 1223.77 154.03 1223.78 155.03 1223.83 156.03 1223.94 157.03 1223.97 158.03 1224.07 159.03 1224.13 160.03 1224.2 161.03 1224.27 162.03 1224.29 163.03 1224.36 164.03 1224.43 165.03 1224.48 166.03 1224.51 167.03 1224.56 168.03 1224.64 169.03 1224.69 170.03 1224.75 171.03 1224.83 172.03 1224.88 173.03 1224.94 174.03 1225. 175.03 1225.02 176.03 1225.07 177.03 1225.11 178.03 1225.18 179.03 1225.23 180.03 1225.29 181.03 1225.37 182.03 1225.41 183.03 1225.48 184.03 1225.5 185.03 1225.59 186.03 1225.61 187.03 1225.67 188.03 1225.7 189.03 1225.76 190.03 1225.81 191.03 1225.9 192.03 1225.92 193.03 1225.97 194.03 1226.01 195.03 1226.1 196.03 1226.15 197.03 1226.16 198.03 1226.25 199.03 1226.3 200.03 1226.31 201.03 1226.37 202.03 1226.22 203.03 1226.48 204.03 1226.52 205.03 1226.56 206.03 1226.6 207.03 1226.69 208.03 1226.74 209.03 1226.75 210.03 1226.82 211.03 1226.84 212.03 1226.93 213.03 1226.97 214.03 1227. 215.03 1227.03

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Function (continued) 3 (continued)

Break Enthalpy (continued)

Ind. Var.: Time (s) (continued)

Dep. Var.: Enthalpy (Btu/lbm) (continued)

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

216.03 1227.11 217.03 1227.14 218.03 1227.17 219.03 1227.25 220.03 1227.3 221.03 1227.34 222.03 1227.39 223.03 1227.44 224.03 1227.45 225.03 1227.5 226.03 1227.56 227.03 1227.61 228.03 1227.66 229.03 1227.67 230.03 1227.72 231.03 1227.78 232.03 1227.8 233.03 1227.87 234.03 1227.94 235.03 1227.96 236.03 1227.98 237.03 1228.05 238.03 1228.08 239.03 1228.15 240.03 1228.18 241.03 1228.21 242.03 1228.28 243.03 1228.31 244.03 1228.35 245.03 1228.38 246.03 1228.42 247.03 1228.46 248.03 1228.5 249.03 1228.54 250.03 1228.58 251.03 1228.64 252.03 1228.72 253.03 1228.73 254.03 1228.79 255.03 1228.83 256.03 1228.88 257.03 1228.9 258.03 1228.96 259.03 1228.97 260.03 1229.03 261.03 1229.05 262.03 1229.12 263.03 1229.13 264.03 1229.2 265.03 1229.21 266.03 1229.28 267.03 1229.3 268.03 1229.33 269.03 1229.4 270.03 1229.42 271.03 1229.45 272.03 1229.52 273.03 1229.55 274.03 1229.57 275.03 1229.6 276.03 1229.68 277.03 1229.7 278.03 1229.73 279.03 1229.76 280.03 1229.79 281.03 1229.87 282.03 1229.9 283.03 1229.93 284.03 1229.96 285.03 1230.

286.03 1230.04 287.03 1230.08 288.03 1230.12 289.03 1230.16 290.03 1230.2 291.03 1230.24 292.03 1230.28 293.03 1230.32 294.03 1230.31 295.03 1230.35 296.03 1230.39 297.03 1230.44 298.03 1230.49 299.03 1230.53

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Control Variables CV Func. Initial Coeff. Coeff. Upd. Int.

1. Description Form Value G aO Min Max Mult.

1 IcvliI divl 0. I. 0. -Ie+32 le+32 0.

Function Components Control Variable 1 cvl div Y=G*(aO+a2X2)/(alXl)

Gothic s Variable Coef.

1. Name location a Rm cVl 1.

2 Rs cVl 1.

FPDOSE Control Options Setting Units Generate FPDOSE Input NO Transfer Time Interval 0.0 s Isolation Valve #

Washout Factor 0.0 Containment Leak Rate/Pressure 0.0  %/hr-psig Vacuum Bldg Leak Rate/Pressure 0.0  %/hr-psig FPDOSE Volume Types Vol FP Transfer Transfer

1. Type Option Vol. Frac.

1 INORMAL NORMAL 1 0.

Run Control Parameters (Seconds)

Time DT DT DT End Print Graph Max Dump Phs Chng Dom Min Max Ratio Time Int Int CPU Int Time Scale 1 le-06 0.01 1. 20. le+05 1. le+05 0. DEFAULT 2 le-06 0.01 1. 299.03 le+05 1. le+05 0. DEFAULT

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Function 4

Spray Pre-RAS Ind. Var.: Time (s)

Dep. Var.:

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

0. 0. 104.3 0.

104.31 690. 3300. 690.

Function 5

Spray Efficiency Ind. Var.:

Dep. Var.: Efficiency Ind. Var. Dep. Var. Ind. Var. Dep. Var.

0. 0.73 0.1 0.735 0.2 0.745 0.25 0.756 0.3 0.76 0.4 0.775 0.5 0.79 0.6 0.81 0.7 0.83 0.75 0.843 0.8 0.86 0.85 0.88 0.915 0.9225 0.95 0.94

1. 0.96 1.05 0.973 1.1 0.9825 1.15 0.99 1.2 0.995 1.25 1.

1000. 1.

Function 6

CFC Ind. Var.: Temperature (F)

Dep. Var.: Rate of Heat Removal (Btu/s)

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

0. 0. 120. 0.

288. 27777.77 500. 27777.77

OPPD Containment Response to a MSLB (Case 1)

Dec/10/2002 07:47:17 GOTHIC Version 7.0(QA) - July 2001 File: /home/x9084/GOTHIC/slbfiles/caselslb Solution Options Time Solution Imp Conv Imp Iter Pres Sol Pres Cony Pres Iter Differ Burn Dom Method Limit Limit Method Limit Limit Scheme Sharp 1 SEMI-IMP 0. 1 DIRECT 0. 1 FOUP 0.0 2 SEMI-IMP 0. 1 DIRECT 0. 1 FOUP 0.0 Run Options Option Setting Restart Time (sec) 0.0 Restart Time Step # 0 Restart Time Control NEW Revaporization Fraction 0 Fog Model OFF Maximum Mist Density DEFAULT Drop Diam. From Mist DEFAULT Minimum HT Coeff. 0.0 Reference Pressure IGNORE Forced Ent. Drop Diam. DEFAULT Vapor Phase Head Correction INCLUDE Kinetic Energy IGNORE Vapor Phase INCLUDE Liquid Phase INCLUDE Drop Phase INCLUDE Force Equilibrium IGNORE Drop-Liq. Conversion INCLUDE QA Logging OFF Debug Output Level 0 Restart Dump on CPU Interval (sec) 3600.