RS-08-045, LaSalle, Units 1 and 2, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (Ufsar), Revision 17, Chapter 6.0 - Engineered Safety Features
ML081330058 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | LaSalle |
Issue date: | 04/14/2008 |
From: | Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear |
To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
References | |
RS-08-045 | |
Download: ML081330058 (656) | |
Text
LSCS-UFSAR 6.0-i REV. 15, APRIL 2004 CHAPTER 6.0 - ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 6.0 ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES 6.0-1 6.1 ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURE MATERIALS 6.1-1 6.1.1 Metallic Materials 6.1-1 6.1.1.1 Materials Selection and Fabrication 6.1-1 6.1.1.2 Composition, Compatibility and Stability of Containment and Core Spray Coolants 6.1-4 6.1.2 Organic Materials 6.1-4 6.1.3 Postaccident Chemistry 6.1-4 6.2 CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS 6.2-1 6.2.1 Containment Functional Design 6.2-1 6.2.1.1 Containment Structure 6.2-1 6.2.1.1.1 Design Bases 6.2-1 6.2.1.1.2 Design Features 6.2-3 6.2.1.1.3 Design Evaluation 6.2-7 6.2.1.1.3.1 Accident Response Analysis 6.2-8 6.2.1.1.3.1.1 Recirculation Line Rupture 6.2-9 6.2.1.1.3.1.2 Main Steamline Break 6.2-18 6.2.1.1.3.1.3 Intermediate Breaks 6.2-19 6.2.1.1.3.1.4 Small Size Breaks 6.2-20 6.2.1.1.3.2 Accident Analysis Models 6.2-22 6.2.1.1.4 Negative Pressure Design Evaluation 6.2-28 6.2.1.1.5 Suppression Pool Bypass Effects 6.2-28 6.2.1.1.6 Suppression Pool Dynamic Loads 6.2-30 6.2.1.1.7 Asymmetric Loading Conditions 6.2-31 6.2.1.1.8 Containment Ventilation System 6.2-31 6.2.1.1.9 Postaccident Monitoring 6.2-31 6.2.1.1.10 Drywell-to-Wetwell Vacuum Breaker Valves Evaluation for LOCA Loads 6.2-31 6.2.1.1.11 Impact of Increased Initial Suppression Pool Temperature 6.2-32 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
PAGE 6.0-ii REV. 15, APRIL 2004 6.2.1.2 Containment Subcompartments 6.2-32 6.2.1.2.1 Design Bases 6.2-32 6.2.1.2.2 Design Features 6.2-34 6.2.1.2.3 Design Evaluation 6.2-36 6.2.1.2.4 Impact of Increased Initial Suppression Pool Temp erature
6.2-45 6.2.1.3 Mass and Energy Releas e Analyses for Postulated Loss-of-Coolant Accidents 6.2-45 6.2.1.3.1 Mass and Energy Release Data 6.2-45 6.2.1.3.2 Energy Sources 6.2-46 6.2.1.3.3 Effects of Metal-Water Reaction 6.2-46 6.2.1.3.4 Impact of Increased Initial Suppression Pool Te mperature
6.2-46 6.2.1.4 Mass and Energy Releas e Analysis for Postulated Secondary Systems Pipe Ruptures Inside Containment (PWR) 6.2-46 6.2.1.5 Minimum Containment Pressure Analysis for Performance Capability Studies on Emergency Core Cooling System (PWR) 6.2-46 6.2.1.6 Testing and Inspection 6.2-47 6.2.1.7 Instrumentation Requirements 6.2-47 6.2.1.8 Evaluation of 105
°F Suppression Pool Initial Temperature 6.2-47 6.2.2 Containment Heat Removal System 6.2-48 6.2.2.1 Design Bases 6.2-48 6.2.2.2 System Design 6.2-49 6.2.2.3 Design Evaluation 6.2-49 6.2.2.3.1 RHR Contai nment Cooling Mode 6.2-49 6.2.2.3.2 Summary of Containment Cooling Analysis 6.2-50 6.2.2.3.3 Impact of Increased Initial Suppression Pool Temperature 6.2-50 6.2.2.3.5 Impact of Power Uprate 6.2-51 6.2.2.3.6 Sensitivity of Initiation Time of RHR Containment Cooling Mode 6.2-51 6.2.2.4 Test and Inspections 6.2-51 6.2.2.5 Instrumentation Requirements 6.2-51 6.2.3 Secondary Containment Functional Design 6.2-51 6.2.3.1 Design Bases 6.2-51 6.2.3.2 System Design 6.2-51 6.2.3.3 Design Evaluation 6.2-53 6.2.3.4 Test and Inspections 6.2-53 6.2.3.5 Instrumentation Requirements 6.2-53 6.2.4 Containment Isolation System 6.2-53 6.2.4.1 Design Bases 6.2-54 6.2.4.2 System Design 6.2-55 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
PAGE 6.0-iii REV. 15, APRIL 2004 6.2.4.2.1 Evaluation Against General Design Criterion 55 6.2-55 6.2.4.2.2 Evaluation Against General Design Criterion 56 6.2-59 6.2.4.2.3 Evaluation Against General Design Criterion 57 6.2-61 6.2.4.2.4 Miscellaneous 6.2-64 6.2.4.3 Design Evaluation 6.2-64 6.2.4.4 Tests and Inspections 6.2-65 6.2.5 Combustible Gas Control in Containment 6.2-65 6.2.5.1 Design Bases 6.2-66 6.2.5.2 System Design 6.2-67 6.2.5.3 Design Evaluation 6.2-70 6.2.5.3.1 General 6.2-70 6.2.5.3.2 Sources of Hydrogen 6.2-71 6.2.5.3.3 Accident Description 6.2-72 6.2.5.3.4 Analysis 6.2-72 6.2.5.4 Testing and Inspections 6.2-73 6.2.5.5 Instrumentation Requirements 6.2-73 6.2.6 Containment Leakage Testing 6.2-73 6.2.6.1 Containment Integrated Leakage Rate Test 6.2-74 6.2.6.2 Containment Penetration Leakage Rate Test 6.2-77 6.2.6.3 Containment Isolation Valve Leakage Rate Test 6.2-80 6.2.6.4 Scheduling and Reporting of Periodic Tests 6.2-80 6.2.6.5 Special Testing Requirements 6.2-80 6.2.7 References 6.2-80 6.3 EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEMS 6.3-1 6.3.1 Design Bases 6.3-1 6.3.1.1 Summary Description of the Emergency Core Cooling System 6.3-1 6.3.1.1.1 Range of Coolant Ruptures and Leaks 6.3-2 6.3.1.1.2 Fission Product Decay Heat 6.3-2 6.3.1.1.3 Reactivity Required for Cold Shutdown 6.3-2 6.3.1.2 Functional Requirement Design Bases 6.3-2 6.3.1.3 Reliability Requirements Design Bases 6.3-3 6.3.2 System Design 6.3-3 6.3.2.1 Schematic Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams 6.3-4 6.3.2.2 Equipment and Component Descriptions 6.3-4 6.3.2.2.1 High-Pressure Core Spray (HPCS) System 6.3-4 6.3.2.2.2 Automatic Depressurization System (ADS) 6.3-6 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
PAGE 6.0-iv REV. 15, APRIL 2004 6.3.2.2.3 Low-Pressure Co re Spray (LPCS) System 6.3-6 6.3.2.2.4 Low-Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI)
Subsystem 6.3-8 6.3.2.2.5 ECCS Discharge Line Fill System 6.3-9 6.3.2.2.6 ECCS Pumps NPSH 6.3-9 6.3.2.2.7 Design Pressu res and Temperatures 6.3-11 6.3.2.2.8 Coolant Quantity 6.3-11 6.3.2.2.9 Pump Characteristics 6.3-11 6.3.2.2.10 Heat Exchanger Characteristics 6.3-12 6.3.2.2.11 ECCS Flow Diagrams 6.3-12 6.3.2.2.12 Relief Valves and Vents 6.3-12 6.3.2.2.13 Motor-Operated Valves and Controls (General) 6.3-13 6.3.2.2.14 Process Instrumentation 6.3-14 6.3.2.2.15 Scram Discharge System Pipe Break 6.3-14a 6.3.2.3 Applicable Codes and Classification 6.3-15 6.3.2.4 Materials Specifications and Compatibility 6.3-15 6.3.2.5 System Reliability 6.3-15 6.3.2.6 Protection Provisions 6.3-16 6.3.2.7 Provisions for Performance Testing 6.3-16 6.3.2.8 Manual Actions 6.3-18 6.3.3 ECCS Performance Evaluation 6.3-18 6.3.3.1 ECCS Bases for Technical Specifications 6.3-19 6.3.3.2 Acceptance Criteria for ECCS Performance 6.3-19 6.3.3.3 Single-Failure Considerations 6.3-20 6.3.3.4 System Performance During the Accident 6.3-21 6.3.3.5 Use of Dual Function Components for ECCS 6.3-22 6.3.3.6 Limits on ECCS Parameters 6.3-22 6.3.3.7 ECCS Analysis for LOCA 6.3-22 6.3.3.7.1.1 GE LOCA Anal ysis Procedures and Input Variables 6.3-22 6.3.3.7.1.2 SPC LOCA An alysis Procedures and Input Variables 6.3-24 6.3.3.7.2 Accident Description 6.3-25 6.3.3.7.3 Break Spectrum Calculations 6.3-26 6.3.3.7.4 Large Recirculation Line Break Calculations 6.3-27 6.3.3.7.4 Deleted 6.3.3.7.4.1 GE LOCA Analysis Large Recirculation Line Break Calculations 6.3-27 6.3.3.7.4.2 SPC LOCA Anal ysis Large Recirculation Line Break Calculations 6.3-27 6.3.3.7.6.1 GE LOCA Analysis Small Recirculation Line Break Calculations 6.3-29 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
PAGE 6.0-v REV. 17, APRIL 2008 6.3.3.7.6.2 SPC LOCA Anal ysis Small Recirculation Line Break Calculations 6.3-29 6.3.3.7.7.1 GE LOCA Anal ysis Calculations for Other Break Locations 6.3-31 6.3.3.7.7.2 SPC LOCA Analysis Calculations for Other Break Locations 6.3-31 6.3.3.7.8.1 GE Steamline Break Outside Containment Analysis 6.3-32 6.3.3.7.8.2 SPC Steamlin e Break Outside Containment Analysis 6.3-32 6.3.3.8.1 Errors and Changes Affecting LOCA Analysis 6.3-32 6.3.3.9.1 GE LOCA An alysis Conclusions 6.3-34 6.3.3.9.2 AREVA LOCA Analysis Conclusions 6.3-34 6.3.3.10 MSIV Closure Change from Reactor Water Level 2 to Level 1 6.3-34 6.3.4 Tests and Inspections 6.3-35 6.3.5 Instrumentation Requirements 6.3-37 6.3.5.1 HPCS Actuation Instrumentation 6.3-37 6.3.5.2 ADS Actuation Instrumentation 6.3-37 6.3.5.3 LPCS Actuation Instrumentation 6.3-37 6.3.5.4 LPCI Actuation Instrumentation 6.3-37 6.3.6 References 6.3-38
6.4 HABITABILITY SYSTEMS 6.4-1 6.4.1 Design Bases 6.4-1 6.4.2 System Design 6.4-3 6.4.2.1 Definition of Control Room Envelope 6.4-3 6.4.2.2 Ventilation System Design 6.4-3 6.4.2.3 Leaktightness 6.4-3 6.4.2.4 Interaction with Other Zones and Pressure- Containing Equipment 6.4-4 6.4.2.5 Shielding Design 6.4-4 6.4.3 System Operational Procedures 6.4-5 6.4.4 Design Evaluation 6.4-6 6.4.5 Testing and Inspection 6.4-7 6.4.6 Instrumentation Requirements 6.4-8
6.5 FISSION PRODUCT REMOVAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 6.5-1 6.5.1 Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) Filter Systems 6.5-1 6.5.1.1 Design Bases 6.5-1 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
PAGE 6.0-vi REV. 15, APRIL 2004 6.5.1.1.1 Standby Gas Treatment System 6.5-1 6.5.1.1.2 Emergency Makeup Air Filter Units 6.5-4 6.5.1.2 System Design 6.5-6 6.5.1.2.1 Standby Gas Treatment System 6.5-6 6.5.1.2.2 Emergency Makeup Air Filter Units 6.5-8 6.5.1.2.3 Supply Air Filter Unit Recirculation Filter 6.5-11 6.5.1.3 Design Evaluation 6.5-11 6.5.1.3.1 Standby Gas Treatment System 6.5-11 6.5.1.3.2 Emergency Makeup Air Filter Units 6.5-12 6.5.1.4 Tests and Inspections 6.5-12 6.5.1.4.1 Standby Gas Treatment System 6.5-12 6.5.1.4.2 Emergency Makeup Air Filter Units 6.5-13 6.5.1.5 Instrumentation Requirements 6.5-15 6.5.1.6 Materials 6.5-16 6.5.2 Containment Spray Systems 6.5-17 6.5.3 Fission Product Control System 6.5-17 6.5.4 Ice Condenser as a Fission Product Cleanup System 6.5-17 6.6 INSERVICE INSPECTION OF ASME CODE CLASS 2 AND 3 COMPONENTS 6.6-1 6.6.1 Components Subject to Examination 6.6-1 6.6.2 Accessibility 6.6-1 6.6.3 Examination Techniques and Procedures 6.6-1 6.6.4 Inspection Intervals 6.6-1 6.6.5 Examination Categories and Requirements 6.6-2 6.6.6 Evaluation of Examination Results 6.6-2 6.6.7 System Pressure Tests 6.6-2 6.6.8 Augmented Inservice Inspection to Protect Against Postulated Piping Failures 6.6-2
6.7 MAIN STEAM ISOLATIO N VALVE LEAKAGE CONTROL SYSTEM (MSIV-LCS)
Unit 2 Deleted, Unit 1 Abandoned In Place 6.7-1 6.8 MAIN STEAM ISOLATION VALVE - ISOLATED CONDENSER LEAKAGE TREATMENT METHOD - UNIT 1
6.8.1 Design Bases 6.8-1 6.8.1.1 Safety Criteria 6.8-1 6.8.1.2 Regulatory Acceptance Criteria 6.8-1 6.8.1.3 Leakage Rate Requirements 6.8-1 6.8.2 System Description 6.8-2 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
PAGE 6.0-vii REV. 15, APRIL 2004 6.8.2.1 General Description 6.8-2 6.8.2.2 System Operation 6.8-2 6.8.2.3 Equipment Required 6.8-3 6.8.3 System Evaluation 6.8-3 6.8.4 Instrumentation Requirements 6.8-3 6.8.5 Inspection and Testing 6.8-3 ATTACHMENT 6.A ANNULUS PRESSURIZATION 6.A-i ATTACHMENT 6.B RECIRCULATION SYSTEM SINGLE-LOOP OPERATION 6.B-i LSCS-UFSAR 6.0-viii REV. 15, APRIL 2004 CHAPTER 6.0 - ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES LIST OF TABLES NUMBER TITLE 6.1-1 Principal Pressure-Retaining Material for ESF Components 6.1-2 Organic Materials Within the Primary Containment 6.2-1 Containment Design Parameters 6.2-2 Engineered Safety Systems Information for Containment Response Analysis (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-3 Initial Conditions Employed in Containment Response Analyses (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-3a Initial Conditions Employed in Containment Response Analyses (at 3559 MWt) 6.2-4 Mass and Energy Release Data for Analysis of Water Pool Pressure-Suppression Containment Accidents Analyses (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-5 LOCA Long Term Primary Containm ent Response Summary Analyses (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-5a LOCA Long Term Primary Containment Response Summary (at 3559 MWt) 6.2-6 Energy Balance for Design-Basis Recirculation Line Break Accident (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-7 Accident Chronology Design-Basis Recirculation Line Break Accident (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-8 Summary of Accident Results for Containment Response to Recirculation Line and Steamline Breaks (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-8a Summary of Accident Results for Short-Term Containment Response to Recirculation Line Breaks (at 3559 MWt) 6.2-9 Subcompartment Nodal Descriptio n Recirculation Outlet Line Break With Shielding Doors 6.2-10 Subcompartment Nodal Descript ion Feedwater Line Break With Shielding Doors 6.2-11 Subcompartment Nodal
Description:
Head Spray Line Break 6.2-12 Subcompartment Nodal Descript ion: Recirculation Line Break 6.2-13 Subcompartment Vent Path Description-Head Spray Line Break 6.2-14 Subcompartment Vent Path
Description:
Recirculation Line Break 6.2-15 Simultaneous Break of the Head Spray Line and RPV Head Vent Line in the Head Cavity Input Data 6.2-16 Recirculation Line Break Input Data 6.2-17 Main Steamline Break Input Data 6.2-18 Reactor Blowdown Data for Re circulation Line Break (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-18a Reactor Blowdown Data for Re circulation Line Break (at 3559 MWt) 6.2-19 Reactor Blowdown Data for Main Steamline Break (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-20 Core Decay Heat Following LOCA for Containment Analyses (at 3434 MWt)
LSCS-UFSAR 6.0-viiia REV. 15, APRIL 2004 6.2-20a Core Decay Heat Following LOCA for Containment Analyses (at 3559 MWt) 6.2-21 Summary of Lines Penetrating the Primary Containment 6.2-22 Parameters Used to Dete rmine Hydrogen Concentration 6.2-23 Containment Leakage Testing 6.2-24 Subcompartment Vent Path Description Recirculation Outlet Line Break with Shielding Doors 6.2-25 Subcompartment Vent Path Description Feedwater Line Break with Shielding Doors
LSCS-UFSAR LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
NUMBER TITLE 6.0-ix REV. 15, APRIL 2004 6.2-26 Mass and Energy Release Rate Data Recirculation Outlet Line Break 6.2-27 Mass and Energy Release Rate Data Feedwater Line Break 6.2-28 Primary Containm ent Isolation Valves 6.3-1 DELETED 6.3-2 Significant Input Variables Used in the GE Loss-of-Coolant Accident Analysis 6.3-2a Significant Input Variables Used in FANP Loss-of-Coolant Accident Analysis 6.3-3 Operational Sequence of Emer gency Core Cooling Systems for GE Design-Basis Accident Analysis 6.3-4 Key to Figures and Tables in Section 6.3 6.3-5 ECCS Single Valve Failure Analysis 6.3-6 Single Failures Considered for ECCS Analysis 6.3-6a ATRIUM-9B MAPLHGR Analysis Results 6.3-6b DELETED 6.3-6c DELETED 6.3-6d DELETED 6.3-6e DELETED 6.3-6f DELETED
6.3-6g DELETED 6.3-6h DELETED 6.3.6i ATRIUM-10 MAPLHGR Analysis Results 6.3-7a Event Times for FANP Limiting La rge Break LOCA, 1.0 DEG Pump Suction SF-LPCS/DG for ATRIUM-9B Fuel 6.3.7b Event Times for FANP LOCA, 1.1 ft 2 Pump Discharge SF-HPCS/DG for ATRIUM-9B Fuel 6.3-8 Summary of Results of GE (SAFER/GESTR) LOCA Analysis 6.3-8a Summary of Results of FANP (HU XY) LOCA Analysis (Recirculation Line Breaks) 6.3-8b Summary of Results of FANP (HUXY) LOCA Analysis (Non-Recirculation Line Breaks) 6.3-9 List of Motor-Operated Valves Ha ving Their Thermal Overload Protection Bypassed During Accident Conditions 6.4-1 Dose Rates in the Control Room and Auxiliary Electric Equipment (AEE)
Rooms During Normal Operation 6.4-2 Dose Experienced by Control Room Personnel Following Loss-of-Coolant Accident 6.5-1 Standby Gas Treatment System Components 6.5-2 Standby Gas Treatment System Equipment Failure Analysis 6.7-1 DELETED 6.7-2.1 DELETED 6.8-1 Dose Consequences of MSIV Leakage
LSCS-UFSAR 6.0-x REV. 15, APRIL 2004 CHAPTER 6.0 - ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES LIST OF FIGURES AND DRAWINGS FIGURES NUMBER TITLE 6.2-1 Diagram of the Recirculation Line Break Location 6.2-2 Recirculation Line Break Pressure Response (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-2a Short-term Pressure Response Following a Recirculation Line Break (at 3559 MWt) 6.2-3 Temperature Response for Reci rculation Line Break (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-3a Short-term Temperature Response Fo llowing a Recirculation Line Break (at 3559 MWt) 6.2-4 Containment Vent System Flow Rate vs. Time for Recirculation Line Break (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-5 Containment Pressure Response (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-5a Long-Term Containment Pressure Response Following a Recirculation Line Break (at 3559 MWt) - Case C (2 pumps 1 Heat Exchanger Without
Continuous Spray) 6.2-6 Drywell Temperatur e Response (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-6a Long-Term Drywell Temperature Response Following a Recirculation Line Break (at 3559 MWt) - Case C (2 pumps 1 Heat Exchanger Without Continuous Spray) 6.2-7 Pool Temperature Response - Isolation/Scram, 1 RHR Available (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-7a Long-Term Suppression Pool Temperat ure Response Following a Recirculation Line Break (at 3559 MWt) - Case C (2 pumps 1 Heat Exchanger Without
Continuous Spray) 6.2-8 Pressure Response for a Main Steamline Break (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-9 Temperature Response Following a Main Steamline Break (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-10 Pressure Response for 0.1 ft 2 Liquid Line Break (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-11 Temperature Response for 0.1 ft 2 Liquid Line Break (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-12 Schematic of ECCS Loop 6.2-13 Allowable Steam Bypass Leakage Capacity 6.2-14 Containment Response to Large Primary System Breaks 6.2-15 Containment Response to Small Primary System Breaks 6.2-16 Nodalization Schematic For Recirculation Line Break 6.2-17 Nodalization Schematic For Feedwater Line Break 6.2-18 -P vs. Log t About Break - Recirculation Line Break 6.2-19 Head Spray Line Break Nodalization 6.2-20 Recirculation Line Break Nodalization 6.2-21 Pressure Response for Recirculation Line Break 6.2-22 P vs. Log t About Break - Feedwater Line Break LSCS-UFSAR 6.0-xa REV. 15, APRIL 2004 6.2-23 Pressure Response for Feedwater Line Break 6.2-24 Pressure Histories of Nodes for Worst Cases 6.2-25 Pressure Differential for Nodes of the Worst Break Cases 6.2-26 Vessel Liquid Blowdown Rate (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-27 Vessel Steam Blowdown Rate (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-28 Main Steamline Break Response Pa rameters Blowdown Flow (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-29 Temperature Response of Reactor Vessel (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-30 Sensible Energy Transient in the Reactor Vessel and Internal Metals (at 3434 MWt) 6.2-31 Containment Valve Arrangements 6.2-32 Energy Release Rates as a Function of Time 6.2-33 Integrated Energy Release as a Function of Time 6.2-34 Integrated Hydrogen Production as a Function of Time 6.2-35 Uncontrolled Hydrogen and Oxygen Generation 6.2-36 Hydrogen Concentration with 125 SCFM
LSCS-UFSAR FIGURES (Cont'd)
NUMBER TITLE 6.0-xi REV. 15, APRIL 2004 6.2-37 Nodalization Overlay For Recirculation Line Break 6.2-38 Nodalization Overlay For Feedwater Line Break 6.2-39 Nodalization For Original Recirculation Line Break Analysis 6.2-40 "Equivalent" Nodalization (Case A) 6.2-41 Azimuthal Pressure Distribution (At C Recirculation Outlet Nozzle) Original Data and Case A 6.2-42 Axial Pressure Distribution Original Data and Case A 6.2-43 Simplified Nodalization (Case B) 6.2-44 Azimuthal Pressure Distribution (At C Recirculation Outlet Nozzle) Case A and Case B 6.2-45 Axial Pressure Distribution Case A and Case B 6.2-46 Complex Nodalization (Case C) 6.2-47 Azimuthal Pressure Distribution (At C Recirculation Outlet Nozzle) Case A And Case C 6.2-48 Axial Pressure Distribution (Case A and Case C) 6.2-49 Axial Pressure Distribution at t = 0.500 Seconds 6.2-50 Circumferential Pressure Di stribution at t = 0.500 Seconds 6.2-51 Axial Pressure Distribution at t = 0.500 Seconds (Case C) 6.2-52 Circumferential Pressure Distribution at t = 0.500 Seconds (Case C) 6.3-1 HPCS System Process Diagram 6.3-2 Vessel Pressure vs. HPCS Flow Assumed in SPC and GE LOCA Analyses 6.3-3 HPCS Pump Characteristics 6.3-4 LPCS System Process Diagram 6.3-5 Vessel Pressure vs. LPCS Flow Assumed in SPC and GE LOCA Analyses 6.3-6 LPCS Pump Characteristics 6.3-7 Vessel Pressure vs. LPCI Flow Assumed in SPC and GE LOCA Analyses 6.3-8 Residual Heat Removal System (RHR) 6.3-9 LPCI Pump Characteristics 6.3-10 HPCS Minimum Required Pump Head to Meet LOCA Analysis Assumptions 6.3-11 LPCS Minimum Required Pump Head to Meet LOCA Analysis Assumptions 6.3-12 LPCI Minimum Required Pump Head to Meet LOCA Analysis Assumptions 6.3-13 Upper plenum pressure as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX. (1.0 DEG Suction, SF-LPCS/DG) 6.3-14 Total Break Flow as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX. (1.0 DEG Suction, SF-LPCS/DG) 6.3-15 Core inlet flow as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX. (1.0 DEG Suction, Sp-LPCS/DG) 6.3-16 Core outlet flow as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX. (1.0 DEG Suction, SF-LPCS/DG)
LSCS-UFSAR FIGURES (Cont'd)
NUMBER TITLE 6.0-xii REV. 15, APRIL 2004 6.3-17 Lower downcomer mixture level as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX. (1.0 DEG Suction, SF-LPCS/DG) 6.3-18 Lower plenum liquid mass as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX. (1.0 DEG Suction, SF-LPCS/DG) 6.3-19 Hot channel high power node quality as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX. (1.0 DEG Suction, SF-LPCS/DG) 6.3-20 Hot channel high power node heat transfer coefficient as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX. (1.0 DEG Suction, SF-LPCS/DG) 6.3-21 System pressure as a function of time from FLEX. (1.0 DEG Suction, SF-LPCS/DG) 6.3-22 Lower plenum mixture level as a function of time during refill/reflood from FLEX. (1.0 DEG Suction, SF-LPCS/DG) 6.3-23 Relative entrainment as a function of time during refill/reflood from FLEX. 6.3-24 Core entrained liquid flow as a function of time during refill/reflood from FLEX. (1.0 DEG Suction, SF-LPCS/DG) 6.3-25 ADS flow as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX. (1.0 DEG Suction, SF-LPCS/DG) 6.3-26 LPCI flow as a functi on of time during blowdo wn from RELAX. (1.0 DEG Suction, SF-LPCS/DG) 6.3-27 LPCS flow as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX. (1.0 DEG Suction, SF-LPCS/DG) 6.3-28 HPCS flow as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX. (1.0 DEG Suction, SF-LPCS/DG) 6.3-29 Peak cladding temperature as a f unction of time from HUXY. (1.0 DEG Suction, SF-LPCS/DG) 6.3-30 Upper plenum pressure as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX.
(1.1 ft 2 Discharge, SF-HPCS/DG) 6.3-31 Total Break Flow as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX.
(1.1 ft 2 Discharge, SF-HPCS/DG) 6.3-32 Core inlet flow as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX. (1.1 ft 2 Discharge, SF-HPCS/DG) 6.3-33 Core outlet flow as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX. (1.1 ft 2 Discharge, SF-HPCS/DG) 6.3-24 Lower downcomer mixture level as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX. (1.1 ft 2 Discharge, SF-HPCS/DG) 6.3-35 Lower plenum liquid mass as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX. (1.1 ft 2 Discharge, SF-HPCS/DG) 6.3-36 Hot channel high power node quality as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX. (1.1 ft 2 Discharge, SF-HPCS/DG) 6.3-37 Hot channel high power node heat transfer coefficient as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX. (1.1 ft 2 Discharge, SF-HPCS/DG)
LSCS-UFSAR FIGURES (Cont'd)
NUMBER TITLE 6.0-xiii REV. 15, APRIL 2004 6.3-38 System pressure as a function of time from FLEX. (1.1 ft 2 Discharge, SF-HPCS/DG) 6.3-39 Lower plenum mixture level as a function of time during refill/reflood from FLEX. (1.1 ft 2 Discharge, SF-HPCS/DG) 6.3-40 Relative entrainment as a function of time during refill/reflood from FLEX.
(1.1 ft 2 Discharge, SF-HPCS/DG) 6.3-41 Core entrained liquid flow as a function of time during refill/reflood from FLEX. (1.1 ft 2 Discharge, SF-HPCS/DG) 6.3-42 ADS flow as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX. (1.1 ft 2 Discharge, SF-HPCS/DG) 6.3-43 LPCI flow as a functi on of time during blowdown from RELAX. (1.1 ft 2 Discharge, SF-HPCS/DG) 6.3-44 LPCS flow as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX. (1.1 ft 2 Discharge, SF-HPCS/DG) 6.3-45 HPCS flow as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX. (1.1 ft 2 Discharge, SF-HPCS/DG) 6.3-46 Peak cladding temperature as a function of time from HUXY. (1.1 ft 2 Discharge, SF-HPCS/DG) 6.3-47 Schematic of the Therma l Overload Bypass Circuitry 6.3-48 DELETED 6.3-49 DELETED 6.3-50 DELETED
6.3-51 DELETED 6.3-52 DELETED 6.3-53 DELETED 6.3-54 DELETED 6.3-55 DELETED 6.3-56 DELETED 6.3-57 DELETED
6.3-58 DELETED 6.3-59 DELETED 6.3-60 DELETED 6.3-61 DELETED 6.3-62 DELETED 6.3-63 DELETED 6.3-64 DELETED
6.3-65 DELETED 6.3-66 DELETED 6.3-67 DELETED 6.3-68 DELETED 6.3-69 DELETED LSCS-UFSAR FIGURES (Cont'd)
NUMBER TITLE 6.0-xiv REV. 15, APRIL 2004 6.3-70 DELETED 6.3-71 DELETED 6.3-72 DELETED 6.3-73 DELETED 6.3-74 DELETED 6.3-75 DELETED 6.3-76 DELETED 6.3-77 DELETED
6.3-78 DELETED 6.3-79 DELETED 6.3-80 Post-LOCA Time-Pressure in Secondary Containment (Based on One SGTS Equipment Train Operating) 6.4-1 Control and Auxiliary Elec tric Equipment Room Layout 6.4-2 Location of Outside Air Intakes 6.4-3 Control Room Shielding Model 6.7-1 DELETED 6.7-2 DELETED 6.7-3 DELETED DRAWINGS CITED IN THIS CHAPTER*
DRAWING* SUBJECT
M-89 P&ID Standby Gas Treatment System, Units 1 and 2 M-94 P&ID Low Pressure Core Spray (LPCS) System, Unit 1 M-95 P&ID High Pressure Core Spray (HPCS) System, Unit 1 M-100 P&ID Control Rod Drive Hydraulic Piping System, Unit 1 M-130 P&ID Containment Combustible Gas Control System M-140 P&ID Low Pressure Core Spray (LPCS) System, Unit 2 M-141 P&ID High Pressure Core Spray (HPCS) System, Unit 2 M-146 P&ID Control Rod Drive Hydraulic Piping System, Unit 2 M-1443 P&ID Control Room Air Conditioning System M-1468 P&ID Refrigerant Piping Control Room HVAC System M-3443 HVAC C&I Details Control Room Air Conditioning System
- The listed drawings are included as "General References" only; i.e., refer to the drawings to obtain additional detail or to obtain background information. These drawings are not part of the UFSAR. They are controlled by the Controlled Documents Program.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.0-1 REV. 13 CHAPTER 6.0 - ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES
The engineered safety features of LaSa lle County Station are those systems whose actions are essential to a safety action required to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents. The features can be divided into five general groups as follows: containment system s, emergency core cooling systems (ECCS), habitability systems, fission product removal and control systems and other systems. The LSCS engineered safety features, listed by th eir appropriate general grouping, are given below:
GROUP SYSTEM
Containment Systems
Primary Containment Secondary Containment Containment Heat Removal System Combustible Gas Control System Containment Isolation System
Emergency Core Cooling System High-Pressure Core Spray System (HPCS)
Low-Pressure Core Spray System (LPCS)
Low-Pressure Coolant Injection System (LPCI)
Automatic Depressurization System (ADS)
Habitability Systems Control Room HVAC Fission Product Removal and Control Systems
Standby Gas Treatment System Emergency Make-Up Air Filter System LSCS-UFSAR 6.0-2 REV. 13 GROUP SYSTEM Other Systems Main Steamline Isolation Valve Isolated Condenser Leakage Treatment Method
LSCS-UFSAR 6.1-1 REV. 13 6.1 ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURE MATERIALS The materials utilized in the LSCS engineered safety feature systems have been selected on the basis of an engineering review and evaluation for compatibility with:
- a. the normal and accident service conditions of the (engineered safety feature) ESF system, b. the normal and accident environmental conditions associated with the ESF system, c. the maximum expected normal and accident radiation levels to which the ESF will be subjected, and
- d. other materials to preclude material interactions that could potentially impair the operation of the ESF systems.
The materials selected for the ESF systems ar e expected to function satisfactorily in their intended service without adverse effects on the service, performance or operation of any ESF.
6.1.1 Metallic Materials
In general, all metallic materials used in ESF systems comply with the material specifications of Section II of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
Pressure-retaining materials of the ESF systems comply with the stringent quality requirements of their applicable quality group classification and ASME B&PV Code,Section III classification. Adherence to these requirements assures materials of the highest quality for the ESF systems. In those cases where it is not possible to adhere to the ASME material specifications, metallic materials have been selected in compliance with other nationally recognized standards, e.g., ASTM, where practicable, or chosen in compliance with current industry practice.
6.1.1.1 Materials Selection and Fabrication Metallic materials in ESF systems have, in general, been designed for a service life of 40 years, with due consideration of the effects of the service conditions upon the properties of the material, as required by Section III of the ASME B&PV Code, Article NC-2160.
Pressure retaining components of the ECCS have been designed with the following corrosion allowances, in compliance with the general requirement of Section III of the ASME B&PV Code, Article NC-3120:
- a. Ferritic Materials LSCS-UFSAR 6.1-2 REV. 13
- 1. water service 0.08 inches
- 2. steam service 0.120 inches
- b. Austenitic Materials 0.0024 inches For ESF systems other than ECCS, appropriate corrosion allowances, considering the service conditions to which the material will be subjected, have been applied.
The metallic materials of the ESF syst ems have been evaluated for their compatibility with core and containment spray solutions. No radiolytic or pyrolytic decomposition of ESF material will occur during accident conditions, and the integrity of the containment or function of any other ESF will not be effected by the action of core or containment spray solutions.
Material specification for the principal pressure-retaining ferritic, austenitic, and nonferrous metals in each ESF component ar e listed in Table 6.1-1. Materials that would be exposed to the core cooling water and containment sprays in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident are identified in th is table. Sensitization of austenitic stainless steel is prevented by the following actions:
- a. Design specifications for austenitic stainless steel components require that the material be cleaned using halide free cleaning solutions and that special care be exercised in the fabrication, shipment, storage, and construc tion to avoid contaminants.
- b. Design specifications call for ASME material, which is to be supplied in the solution annealed condition.
- c. Design specifications prohibit the use of materials that have been exposed to sensitizing temperatures in the range of 800° F to 1500° F.
Cold-worked austenitic stainless steels wi th yield strengths greater than 90,000 psi are not utilized in ESF systems. Therefore, there are no compatibility problems with core cooling water or the containment sprays.
Metallic reflective thermal insulation is used exclusively inside the primary containment. Premoulded non-hydrophobic Microtherm MPS Insulation with the water resistant Agricoat coating enclosed in a 24 gauge stainless steel jacket is installed on the Unit 2 RVWLIS piping, 2BN86A-3/4" and 2NB88A-3/4", and the main steam high-flow instrument piping, 2MSC6AD-3/4" inside primary containment. Premoulded non-hydrophobic Microtherm MPS insulation enclosed in LSCS-UFSAR 6.1-3 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 24 gauge stainless steel jacket is insta lled on Unit 1 RVWLIS piping 1NB09A-2", 1NB09B-1", 1NB88A-1", 1NB24A-2", and 1NB24B-1", and the main steam high-flow instrument piping, 1MSC6AK-3/4", inside primary containment. The aforementioned Microtherm Insulation is also installed on the Unit 1 main steam high-flow instrument piping, 1MSC6AK-3/4", inside primary containment.
ARMAFLEX insulation is installed on the chilled water system inside primary containment.
Outside containment, calcium silicate or an engineering approved alternative thermal insulation is utilized. Design specifications on the nonmetallic insulation require that it be in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.36, in order to avoid the possibility of chloride induced stress corrosion cracking in austenitic stainless steel in contact with the insulation.
To avoid hot cracking (fissuring) during weld fabrication and assembly of austenitic stainless steel components of the ESF, the design specifications require the following:
- a. Maximum delta ferrite content for wrought and duplex cast components is 5% - 15%.
- b. Chemical analyses are performed on undiluted weld deposits, or alternately, on the wire, consumable insert, etc., to verify the delta ferrite content.
- c. Delta ferrite content in weld metal is determined using magnetic measurement devices.
- d. Maximum interpass temperatur e shall not exceed 350°F during welding. e. Test results as discussed above are included in the qualification test report.
- f. Weld materials meet the re quirements of Section III.
- g. Production welds are examined to verify that the specified delta-ferrite levels are met.
- h. Welds not meeting these leve ls are unacceptable and must be removed.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.1-4 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 6.1.1.2 Composition, Compatibility and Stability of Containment and Core Spray Coolants The core sprays have two possible sources of coolant. The HPCS system is supplied from either the cycled condensate storage tank or the suppression pool. The normal source of water for HPCS is the suppression pool. The capability remains for the HPCS system to draw a suction on the cycl ed condensate tank because the piping to the tank is installed, but isolated by a b lind flange. Establishment of this flowpath is under administrative control. The LPCS and LPCI are supplied from the suppression pool only. Water quality in both of these sources is maintained at a high level of purity with the possible exception of potentially high soluble-iron metallic impurities. Additional discussion of the water qualities are given in Subsections 6.1.3, 9.2.7, and 9.2.11. Limited corrosion inhibitors or other additives (such as zinc and noble metals) are present in either source.
The containment spray utilizes the suppression pool as its source of supply. No radiolytic or pyrolytic decomposition of ESF materials are induced by the
containment sprays. The containment sprays should not be a source of stress-corrosion cracking in austenitic stainless steel during a LOCA.
6.1.2 Organic Materials
Table 6.1-2 lists all the organic compounds that exist within the containment in significant amounts. All these materials in ESF components have been evaluated with regard to the expected service conditions, and have been found to have no adverse effects on service, performance, or operation.
The dry well liner and coated exposed metal surfaces inside containment are prime coated with an inorganic zinc compound that has been fully qualified in accordance with ANSI standards N101.2, N101.4, an d N512 , with the exception of a small quantity (44 gallons) used on pipe hangers and snubber attachments and recirculating pump motors. Uncoated metal surfaces shall be evaluated for acceptability. No radiolytic or pyrolytic decomposition or interaction with other ESF materials will occur.
6.1.3 Postaccident Chemistry
The post-accident chemical environment inside the primary containment will consist of water from the suppression pool and the cycled condensate storage tank, i.e. water sources for the high pressure core spray, low pressure core spray, low pressure core injection, reactor core isolation cooling and containment spray. The
suppression pool may contain trace amounts of corrosion inhibiting chemicals such as hydrogen, zinc and noble metals. Additionally, portions of the Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water (RBCCW) system and the Primary Containment Chilled Water (PCCW) system are inside the containment. Both systems contain limited LSCS-UFSAR 6.1-5 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 amounts of corrosion inhibitors, and have portions of their piping inside containment classified as Seismic Category 2. During a Design Basis Accident (DBA) either or both of these systems can fail and release the corrosion inhibitors to the suppression pool before isolation. Due to the limited quantity (trace amounts) of these chemicals in the secondary systems and the dilution factor as a result of a DBA, the water will be approximately neutral (pH = 7), and there will be no adverse affect to equipment, coatings or other materials during ECCS or RCIC operation.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.1-1 (SHEET 1 OF 5) TABLE 6.1-1 REV. 13 PRINCIPAL PRESSURE-RETAINING MATERIAL FOR ESF COMPONENTS I. Containment Systems A. Primary Containment
- 1. Containment Walls 4500 psi Concrete *2. Drywell Liner SA-516, Grade 60 *3. Suppression Chamber Liner SA-240, Type 304
- 4. Drywell Head SA-516, Grade 70 *5 Penetrations
- a. Drywell SA-333, Grade 1 or 6 (Seamless) b. Suppression Chamber SA-312, Grade TP 304 (Seamless) *6. Equipment Hatch SA-516, Grade 70 *7. Personnel Access Hatch
- a. Drywell SA-516, Grade 70 b. Suppression Chamber SA-240, Type 304 *8. Suppression Vent Downcomers SA-240, Type 304 *9. Vacuum Relief Piping a. Drywell to Suppression Chamber Penetration SA-106, Grade B b. Suppression Chamber Penetration SA-312, Grade TP 304 (Seamless) 10. Vacuum Relief Valves SA-105
- Indicates that material may be subjected to containment spray or core cooling water in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.1-1 (SHEET 2 OF 5) TABLE 6.1-1 REV. 13
- 11. Pressure Retaining Bolts a. Drywell SA-320, Grade L43 SA-193, Grade B7 SA-194, Grade 7 b. Suppression Chamber SA-193, Class 2, Grade B8C, Type 347 SA-194, Class 2, Grade 83, Type 347 B. Secondary Containment 1. Ducts A-526 2. Dampers A-285, Grade B A-181, Grade 1 C. Containment Heat Removal System 1. RHR Pumps A-516, Grade 70 2. RHR Heat Exchanger
- a. Shell Side SA-516, Grade 70 b. Tube Side SA-249, Grade TP 304L *3. Piping SA-106, Grade B *4. Valves SA-216, Grade WCB or SA-105 *5. Pressure-Retaining Bolting SA-193, Grade B7
- 6. Welding Material SFA-5.18E70S-3(F-6, A-1) D. Containment Isolation System
- 1. Piping SA-106, Grade B or SA-312, Grade TP 304 *2. Valves SA-216, Grade WCB or SA-105 or SA-182, Grade 316L or Grade F316 or SA-351, Grade C8FM or SA-351 Grade CF3
- Indicates that material may be subjected to containment spray or core cooling
water in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.1-1 (SHEET 3 OF 5) TABLE 6.1-1 REV. 13
- 3. Pressure-Retaining Bolting SA-193, Grade B7 *4. Welding Material SFA-5.18E70S-3 (F-6, A-1)
E. Combustible Gas Control System
- 1. Piping SA-106, Grade B
- 2. Valves SA-216, Grade WCB
- 3. Recombiner SA-358, Grade 304
- 4. Blower 5. Pressure-Retaining Bolting SA-193, Grade B7 6. Welding Material SFA-5.18E70S-3 (F-6, A-1)
II. Emergency Core Cooling System A. High-Pressure Core Spray 1. Pump A-516, Grade 70 2. Piping
- a. Inside Reactor Building SA-106, Grade B
- b. Outside Reactor Building SA-409, Grade TP 304
- 3. Valves SA-216, Grade WCB or SA-105 *4. Pressure-Retaining Bolting SA-193, Grade B7
- 5. Welding Materials SFA-5.18E70S-3 (F-6, A-1)
B. Low-Pressure Core Spray
- 1. Pump A-516, Grade 70 *2. Piping SA-106, Grade B *3. Valves SA-216, Grade WCB or SA-105
- Indicates that material may be subjected to containment spray or core cooling water in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.1-1 (SHEET 4 OF 5) TABLE 6.1-1 REV. 13
- 4. Pressure-Retaining Bolting SA-193, Grade B7 *5. Welding Materials SFA-5.18E70S-3 (F-6, A-1)
A. Low-Pressure Coolant Injection 1. RHR Pump A-516, Grade 70
- 2. Piping SA-106, Grade B
- 3. Valves SA-216, Grade WCB or SA-105
- 4. Pressure-Retaining Bolting SA-193, Grade B7
- 5. Welding Materials SFA-5.18E70S-3 (F-6, A-1) B Automatic Depressurization System *1. Piping
- a. Inlet SA-155, Grade KCF70
- b. Outlet SA-106, Grade B
- 2. Valves
III. Habitability System A. Blowers A-283, A-242 B. Dampers A-285, Grade B A-181, Grade 1 C. Ducts A-526 D. Housing A-36 IV. Fission Product Removal and Control System A. Standby Gas Treatment System
- 1. a. Piping (Downstream of Filter Unit)
SA-106, Grade B b. Piping (Upstream of Filter Unit)
A-106, Grade B 2. Housing A-36 *Indicates that material may be subjected to containment spray or core cooling water in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.1-1 (SHEET 5 OF 5) TABLE 6.1-1 REV. 13
- 3. Valves SA-216, Grade WCB or SA-105, or SA-516, Grade 7 4. Dampers A-285, Grade B A-181, Grade 1 5. Blowers A-283, A-242 6. Pressure-Retaining Bolting a. Pressure-Retaining Bolting (Downstream of Filter Unit)
SA-193, Grade B7 b. Pressure-Retaining Bolting (Upstream of Filter Unit)
A-193, Grade B7 7. Welding Materials SFA-5.18E70S-3 (F-6,A-1) B. Emergency Air Filter System 1. Ducts A-526 2. Dampers A-285, Grade B A-181, Grade 1 3. Housing A-36 4. Blower A-283, A-242 V. Other Systems A. Main Steamline Isolation Valve Leakage Control System (Deleted)
- Indicates that material may be subjected to containment spray or core cooling water in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.1-2 (SHEET 1 OF 2) TABLE 6.1-2 REV. 13 ORGANIC MATERIALS WITHIN THE PRIMARY CONTAINMENT MATERIAL USE QUANTITY Acrylomitrile Butadiene/PVC Foam Rubber ARMAFLEX Insulation on the Chilled Water Piping Throughout Drywell Chlorosulfinated Polyethylene (Hypalon)
Low Voltage Electrical
Power Cable Jacketing and Insulation Material Throughout Drywell Etylene Propylene Rubber (EPR) Low Voltage Electrical
Power Cable Jacketing and Insulation Material Throughout Drywell High Temperature Ethylene Propylene Medium Voltage Electrical
Power Cable Jacketing and
Insulation Material Throughout Drywell Hypalon/Hypalon Instrumentation Cable
Insulation/Jacketing Material Throughout Drywell EPR/Hypalon Instrumentation Cable Insulation/Jacketing Material Throughout Drywell Agricoat Water Resistant Coating on the Premoulded non-hydrophobic Microtherm MPS Insulation 25.8 ft 2 - Unit 2 Cross-Linked Polyolefin/Alkaneimide
Polymer Instrumentation Coaxial and Triaxial Insulation/
Jacketing Material Throughout Drywell Modified Phenolic Coating for Exposed
Carbon Steel Surfaces 16 ft 3 Modified Phenolic Surfacer Coating for Exposed Concrete Surfaces 17 ft 3 Modified Phenolic Finish Coating for Exposed Concrete Surfaces 5 ft 3 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.1-2 (SHEET 2 OF 2) TABLE 6.1-2 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 MATERIAL USE QUANTITY Alkyd Primer and Finish Pipe hangers and Snubber Attachments
and GE Recirculating Pump 44 gal. Lube Oil Reactor Recirculation Pump Motor (2 motors/unit) 145 gal. in Unit 1 120 gal. in Unit 2 Silicone Fluid (SF 1147, GE) MSIV Hydraulic Fluid (4
valves within containment) 1 1/2 gal. per valve Non-separating high temperature grease Drywell cooling area
coolers < 1 gal.
Fyrquel EHC Recirculation Control
Valve Hydraulic Fluid (2 valves) 118 gal. per valve Silicone Fluid Lisega Hydraulic Snubbers
< 1 1/2 gal. per snubber Fiberglass Reinforced
Silicone Fabric 1 (2) RF01 and 1 (2) RE02 Sump Cover Mat 400 ft 2 per unit Silicone Sealant 1 (2) RF01 and 1 (2) RE02 Sump Cover Mat < 1 gal. per unit
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-1 REV. 13 6.2 CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS 6.2.1 Containment Functional Design
This section establishes the design bases for the primary containment structure, describes the major design features of the structure, and presents an evaluation of the capacity of the containment to perform its required safety function during all normal and postulated accident conditions described in this UFSAR.
6.2.1.1 Containment Structure
6.2.1.1.1 Design Bases The primary containment structure has been designed to meet the following safety design bases:
- a. Containment Vessel Design
- 1. The containment structure has the capability to withstand the peak transient pressures and temperatures that could occur due to the postulated design-basis accident (DBA).
- 2. The containment has the capability to maintain its functional integrity indefinitely after the postulated DBA.
- 3. The containment structure also withstands the peak environmental transient pressures and temperatures associated
with the postulated small line break inside the drywell.
- 4. The containment structure has also been designed to withstand the coincident fluid jet forces associated with the flow from the postulated rupture of any pipe within the containment.
- 5. The containment has also been designed to withstand the hydrodynamic forces associated with a DBA and safety-relief valve discharge, as described in the LaSalle Design Assessment
Report. Design loading combinat ions are also described in the design assessment report: Design pressure and temperature, and the major containment design parameters are listed in Table 6.2-1.
- b. Containment Subcompartment Design The internal structures of the containment have been designed to accommodate the peak transient pressures and temperatures LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-2 REV. 13 associated with the postulated design-basis accident (DBA). The effects of subcompartment pressuri zation for the postulated pipe ruptures have been evaluated. Subcompartment pressurization is more fully discussed in Subsection 6.2.1.2.
- c. Containment Internals Design The drywell floor has been designed to withstand a downward acting differential pressure of 25 psig in combination with the normal operating loads and safe shutdown earthquake (SSE). The drywell floor has also been designed to accommodate an upward acting deck differential pressure of 5 psig, in order to account for the wetwell pressure increase that could occur after a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). d. Containment Design for Mass and Energy Release
- 1. The maximum postulated rele ase of mass and energy to the containment is based upon the instantaneous circumferential rupture of a 24- inch reactor recirculation line or a 26-inch main
steamline.
- 2. The effects of metal-water reactions and other chemical reactions following the DBA can be accommodated in the
containment design.
- e. Energy Removal Features The RHR system, through the containment cooling mode, is utilized to remove energy from the containment following a LOCA by circulating the suppression pool water throug h a residual heat removal (RHR) heat exchanger for cooling, and returning the water to the pool through the low-pressure core injection (LPCI) in the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) or the suppression chamber spray header. The containment spray mode of the RHR system can also be utilized to condense steam and reduce the temperature in the drywell following a LOCA. A more detailed description is available in Subsection 6.2.2. The RHR containment cooling mode energy removal capability is not affected by a single failure in the system, sinc e a completely redundant loop is available to perform this functi on. Two redundant loops of the containment spray system are also provided.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-3 REV. 13 f. Pressure Reduction Features The containment vent system directs the flow from postulated pipe ruptures to the pressure suppression pool, and distributes such flow
uniformly throughout the pool, to condense the steam portion of the flow rapidly, and to limit the pressure differentials between the drywell and wetwell during various postaccident cooling modes.
- g. Hydrostatic Loading Design The containment design permits filling the containment system drywell with water to a level 1 foot below the refueling floor to permit removal of fuel assemblies during postaccident recovery.
- h. Impact Loading Design The containment system is protected against missiles from internal or external sources and excessive motion of pipes that could directly or indirectly jeopardize containment integrity.
- i. Containment Leakage Design The containment limits leakage duri ng and following the postulated DBA to values less than leakage rates that would result in offsite doses greater than 10 CFR 100.
- j. Containment Leakage Testability It is possible to conduct periodical leakage tests as may be appropriate to confirm the integrity of the containment at calculated peak pressure resulting from the postulated DBA.
For the purposes of the containment structure design, the design-basis accident (DBA) is defined as a mechanical failure of the reactor primary system equivalent to the circumferential rupture of one of the recirculation lines. During the DBA, the long-term peak suppression pool temperature shall not exceed the design temperature.
6.2.1.1.2 Design Features
The primary containment is a concrete stru cture with the exception of the drywell head and access penetrations, which are fabricated from steel. The major components are shown in Figure 3.8-1. The concrete is designed to resist all loads associated with the design-basis accident.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-4 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 The primary containment walls have a steel liner, which acts as a low leakage barrier for release of fission products.
The walls of the primary containment are posttensioned concrete; the base mat is conventional reinforced concrete. The dividing floor between the drywell and suppression chamber is conventional reinforced concrete and is supported on a cylindrical base at its center, on a seri es of concrete co lumns and from the containment wall at the periphery of the slab.
The drywell floor is rigidly connected to the primary containment wall. A full moment and shear connection is provided by dowels and shear lugs welded to the reinforced liner plate as shown in Figure 3.
8-4. The thermal expansion is accounted for in the containment design; the resulting forces and moments are accommodated within the allowable stress limits.
The primary containment walls support the reactor building floor loads and, in addition, also serve as the biological shield. A detailed discussion of the structural design bases is given in Chapter 3.0. The codes, standards, and guides applied in the design of the containment structure and internal structures are identified in Chapter 3.0.
The walls of the primary containment st ructure are posttensioned, using the BBRV system of posttensioning utilizing parallel lay, unbonded type tendons. The tendons are fabricated from 90 one-quarter inch diameter, cold drawn, stress relieved, prestressing grade wire. Each tendon is encased in a conduit. The walls are prestressed both vertically and horizontally for floor elevations below 820 feet. The horizontal tendons are placed in a 240
° system using three buttresses as anchorages with the tendons staggered so that two-thirds of the tendons at each buttress terminate at that buttress. For floor elevations above 820 feet, the horizontal tendons are placed in a 360
° system using two buttresses as anchorages. Access to the tendon anchorages is maintained to allow for periodic inspection. For a typical layout of hoop tendons, see Fi gure 3.8-11. A typical layout of the vertical tendons is illustrated in Figure 3.8-11.
All liner joints have full penetration welds. The field welds have leaktightness testing capability by having a small steel channel section welded over each liner weld. Fittings are provided in the channel for leak testing of the liner welds under pressure. The actual containment leakag e boundary during normal operation and accident conditions consists of the liner an d liner joint butt welds when the leak test channel is vented to the containment atmosphere and the combined containment liner, liner joint butt welds, containment liner leak test channels, channel fillet welds and the leak test connections when the leak test channel test connection plugs are installed. The liner anchorage system considers the effects of temperature, negative pressure, prestressing, and stress transfer around penetrations.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-5 REV. 13 Drywell The drywell is a steel-lined posttensioned concrete vessel in the shape of a truncated cone having a base diameter of approximately 83 feet and a top diameter of 32 feet.
The floor of the drywell serves both as a pressure barrier between the drywell and suppression chamber and as the support structure for the reactor pedestal and downcomers. The drywell head is bolted at a steel ring girder attached to the top of the concrete containment wall and is sealed with a double seal. The double seal on the head flange provides a plenum for determining the leaktightness of the bolted connection. The base of the ring serves as the top anchorage for the vertical prestressing tendons and the top of the ring serves as anchorage for the drywell head. The drywell houses the reactor and its asso ciated auxiliary systems. The primary function of the drywell is to contain the effects of a design-basis recirculation line break and direct the steam released from a pipe break into the suppression chamber pool. The drywell is designed to resist the forces of an internal design pressure of 45 psig in combination with thermal, seismic, and other forces as outlined in Chapter 3.0.
The drywell is provided with a 12-foot diameter equipment hatch for removal of equipment for maintenance and an air lock for entry of personnel into the drywell.
Under normal plant operations, the equipment hatch is kept sealed and is opened only when the plant is shut down for refueling and/or maintenance.
The equipment hatch is covered with a st eel dished head bolted to the hatch opening frame which is welded to the steel lin er. A double seal is utilized to ensure leaktightness when the hatch is subjected to either an internal or external pressure. The space between the double seal serves as a plenum for leak testing the hatch seal. The personnel air lock is a cylindrical inta ke welded to the steel liner. The double doors are interlocked to maintain containment integrity during operation.
All welds that make up the vapor barrier have test channels to permit leak testing of the welds: When the leak test channel test connections are plugged, the leak test channel is part of the vapor barrier.
The primary containment ventilation system, as described in Subsection 9.4.9, is provided to maintain drywell te mperatures at approximately 135
° F during normal plant operation.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-6 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 The primary containment vent and purge syst em, as described in Subsection 9.4.10, is designed to purge potentially radioactive gases from the drywell and suppression chamber prior to and during personnel access to the containment.
Containment penetration cooling is provided on high temperature penetrations through the primary containment wall by the reactor building closed cooling water system. The penetrations served by this system and the design basis for the cooling loads are described in Subsection 9.2.3.
Pressure Suppression Chamber and Vent System
The primary function of the suppression ch amber is to provide a reservoir of water capable of condensing the steam flow from the drywell and collecting the noncondensable gases in the suppression chamber air space. The suppression chamber is a stainless steel-lined posttensioned concrete vessel in the shape of a cylinder, having an inside diameter of 86 feet 8 inches. The foundation mat serves as the base of the suppression chamber. The suppression chamber is designed for the same internal pressure as the drywell in combination with the thermal, seismic, and other forces. The liner design and te sting are the same as covered previously within this subsection (6.2.1.1.1.2).
The entire suppression chamber is lined with stainless steel. The drywell floor support columns are also provided with a stainless steel liner on the outside surface. Two 36-inch diameter openings are provided for access into the suppression chamber for inspection. Under normal plant operation, these access openings are kept sealed. They are opened only when the plant is shut down for refueling and/or maintenance. The access openings are located in the cylindrical walls of the chamber 14 feet 2 inches above the suppression pool water level. The access openings are closed using a bolted steel hatch cover. The hatch cover is designed with a double seal and test plenum to ensure leaktightness.
The suppression chamber vent system consists of 98 downcomer pipes open to the drywell and submerged 12 feet 4 inches below the low water level of the suppression pool, providing a flow path for uncondensed steam into the water. Each downcomer has a 23.5-inch internal diameter. The downcomers project 6 inches above the drywell floor to prevent flooding from a broken line. Each vent pipe opening is shielded by a 1-inch thick steel deflecto r plate to prevent overloading any single vent pipe by direct flow from a pipe break to that particular vent. The principal parameters for design of the primary containment, suppression pool, reactor
building and the vent downcomers are listed in Table 6.2-1.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-7 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 Vacuum Relief System Vacuum relief valves are provided betwee n the drywell and suppression chamber to prevent exceeding the drywell floor negative design pressure and backflooding of the suppression pool water into the drywell.
In the absence of vacuum relief valves, drywell flooding could occur following isolation of a blowdown in the drywell. Condensation of blowdown steam on the drywell walls and structures could result in a negative pressure differential between the drywell and suppression chamber.
The vacuum relief valves are designed to equalize the pressure between the drywell and wetwell air space regions so that the reverse pressure differential across the
diaphragm floor will not exceed the design value of five pounds per square inch.
The vacuum relief valves (four assemblies) are outside the primary containment and form an extension of the primary co ntainment boundary. The vacuum relief valves are mounted in special piping which connects the drywell and suppression chamber, and are evenly distributed around the suppression chamber air volume to prevent any possibility of localized pressure gradients from occurring due to
geometry. In each vacuum breaker asse mbly, two local manual butterfly valves, one on each side of the vacuum breaker, are provided as system isolation valves should failure of the vacuum breaker occur.
The vacuum relief valves are instrumented with redundant position indication and are indicated in the main control room. The valves are provided with the capability for local manual testing. The position indication requirements for the vacuum relief valves are located in the Administrative Technical Requirements. (References 21, 22, and 23)
This design provides adequate assurance of limiting the differential pressure between the drywell and suppression cham ber and assures proper valve operation and testing during normal plant operation.
No vacuum relief valves are provided between the drywell and the reactor building atmosphere. The concrete containment structure has the ability to accommodate subatmospheric pressures of approximately 5 psi absolute.
6.2.1.1.3 Design Evaluation
The key design parameters for the pressure suppression containment being provided for the LaSalle County Statio n (LSCS) are listed in Table 6.2-1.
These design parameters are not determined from a single accident event but from an envelope of accident conditions. As a result, there is no single design-basis accident (DBA) for this containment system.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-8 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 The containment system was analyzed originally at 3434 MWt reactor power. Since then, the containment system evaluation was performed for a reactor power of 3559 MWt by analyzing the limiting events at this power level. The results for 3559 MWt power are included in this section, while keeping most of the original analysis
results for 3434 MWt power as a referenc e analysis for historical purposes.
A maximum drywell and suppression chamber pressure of 39.6 psig and 30.6 psig, respectively is predicted near the end of the blowdown phase of a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) transient. Approximately the same peak pressure occurs for either the break of a recirculation line or a main steamline. Both accidents are evaluated at 3434 MWt.
For 3559 MWt reactor power, the maximum cont ainment pressure is predicted to be 39.9 psig in the drywell and 27.9 psig in the suppression chamber for the recirculation line break. The main steamline break was not reevaluated for the uprated power level.
The most severe drywell temperature condition is predicted for a small primary system rupture above the reactor water level that results in the blowdown of reactor steam to the drywell. Based upon the thermodynamic conditions this would produce high temperature steam in the drywell.
In order to demonstrate that breaks smaller than the rupture of the largest primary system pipe will not exceed the containment design parameters, the blowdown phase of an intermediate size break is ev aluated. Containment design conditions are not exceeded for this or the other break sizes.
All of the analyses assume that the primary system and containment are at the maximum normal operating conditions. Re ferences are provided that describe relevant experimental verification of the analytical models used to evaluate the containment response.
Table 6.2-1 provides a listing of the key design parameters of the LSCS primary containment system including the design characteristics of the drywell, suppression chamber and the pressure suppression vent system.
Table 6.2-2 provides the performance parame ters of the related engineered safety feature systems which supplement the de sign conditions of Table 6.2-1 for containment cooling purposes during po staccident operation. Performance parameters given include those applicable to full capacity operation and to those reduced capacities employed for containment analyses.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-8a REV. 14, APRIL 2002 6.2.1.1.3.1 Accident Response Analysis
The containment functional evaluation performed at 3434 MWt is based upon the consideration of several postulated accident conditions resulting in release of reactor coolant to the containment. These accidents include:
- a. an instantaneous guillotine rupture of a recirculation line, b. an instantaneous guillotine rupture of a main steam-line, c. an intermediate size liquid line rupture, and
- d. a small size steamline rupture.
Energy release from these accidents is reported in Subsection 6.2.1.3.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-9 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 The accident response analysis based on the GE calculations remains applicable to and bounds the SPC ATRIUM-9B fuel. This is determined based on the containment response being dependent on the amount of energy in the system, the containment design, and the failure modes that allow the pressurization to occur rather than the fuel type. The amount of energy in the system is based on initial conditions and the assumed blowdown. As the blowdown assumed for the containment response analysis as shown in Tables 6.2-18 and 6.2-19 bound the blowdown predicted by the SPC LOCA methodology and results, le ss energy would be released to the containment using the SPC blowdown. For this reason SPC ATRIUM-9B fuel and
LOCA results are considered to be bound by the current GE accident response analysis results for the containment.
For 3559 MWt reactor power, the limiting even t, an instantaneous guillotine rupture of a recirculation line, was analyzed to perform the containment functional evaluation. The analysis at 3559 MWt was performed in accordance with the Generic Guidelines for General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Power Uprate, NEDC-31897P-A (Reference 24). This analysis employed essentially the same methodology, while taking a more detailed modeling approach for the reactor vessel blowdown evaluation. The analysis re sults for 3559 MWt reactor powe r are included at the end of this subsection under the heading "Evaluation at 3559 MWt Reactor Power," after a description of the original 3434 MWt analysis which is kept as a reference analysis for historical purposes.
6.2.1.1.3.1.1 Recirculation Line Rupture
The instantaneous guillotine rupture of a main recirculation line results in the maximum flow rate of primary system fluid and energy into the drywell as illustrated in Figure 6.2-1 by the diagram showing th e location of a recirculation line break.
Immediately following the rupture, the flow out of both sides of the break will be limited to the maximum allowed by critical fl ow considerations. Figure 6.2-1 shows a schematic view of the flow paths to the break. Flow in the suction side of the recirculation pump will correspond to critical flow in the 2.565 square foot pipe cross section. Flow in the discharge side of the recirculation pump will correspond to critical flow at the ten jet pump nozzles associated with the broken loop, providing an effective break area of 0.468 ft
- 2. In addition, there is a 4- inch cleanup line crosstie that will add 0.080 ft 2 to the critical flow area, yielding a total of 3.113 ft
- 2.
Assumptions for Reactor Blowdown The response of the reactor coolant syst em during the blowdown period of the accident is analyzed using the following assumptions:
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-9a REV. 14, APRIL 2002
- a. At the time the recirculation pipe breaks, the reactor is operating at the most severe condition that maximizes the parameter of interest; that is, primary containment pressure.
- b. The recirculation line is considered to be severed instantly. This results in the most rapid coolant loss and depressurization, with coolant being discharged from both ends of the break.
- c. The reactor is shut down at the time of accident initiation because of void formation in the core region. Scram also occurs in less than 1 LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-10 REV. 13 second from receipt of the high drywell pressure signal. The difference between shutdown at time zero and 1 second is negligible.
- d. The vessel depressurization flow rates are calculated using Moody's critical flow model (Reference 1) assuming "liquid only" outflow, since this assumption maximizes the energy release to the containment: "Liquid only" outflow requires that all vapor formed in the RPV by bulk flashing rises to the surface rather than being entrained in the existing flow. Some of the vapor would be entrained and would significantly reduce the RPV discharge flow rates. Moody's critical flow model, which assumes annular, isentropic flow, thermodynamic flow, thermodynamic phase equilibrium, and maximized slip ratio, accurately predicts vessel outflows through small diameter orific es. However, actual rates through larger flow areas are less than the model indicates because of the effects of a near homogeneous two- phase flow pattern and phase nonequilibrium. This effect is in addition to the reduction caused by vapor entrainment, discussed previously.
- e. The core decay heat and the sensible heat released in cooling the fuel to 545° F are included in the reactor pressure vessel depressurization calculation: The rate of ener gy release is calculated using a conservatively high heat transfer coefficient throughout the depressurization period. By maximizing the assumed energy release rate, the RPV is maintained at nearly rated pressure for approximately 20 seconds. The high RPV pressure increases the calculated blowdown flowrates; this is conservative for containment analysis purposes. With the RPV fluid temperature remaining near 545
° F, however, the calculated release of sensible energy stored below 545
° F is negligible during the first 20 seconds. The sens ible energy is released later, but does not affect the peak drywell pres sure. The small effect of sensible energy release on the long-term suppression pool temperature is included.
- f. The main steam isolation valves are assumed to start closing at 0.5 seconds after the accident. They are assumed to be fully closed in the shortest possible time of 3 seconds following closure initiation.
Actually, the closure signal for the main steam isolation valves is expected to occur from low water leve l, so these valves may not receive a signal to close for more than 4 seconds, and the closing time could be as long as 5 seconds. By assuming rapid closure of these valves, the RPV is maintained at a high pressure, whic h maximizes the discharge of high energy steam and water into the primary containment: In addition, the rapid closure of the main steam isolation valves cuts off motive power to the steam-driven feedwater pumps.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-11 REV. 13 g. Reactor feedwater flow is assumed to stop instantaneously at time zero.
Since cooler feedwater flow tends to depressurize the RPV, thereby reducing the discharge of steam and water into the primary containment, this assumption is considered conservative and consistent with that of assumption f.
With respect to suppression pool temperature, this assumption has been supplemented with an additional evaluation. The purpose being to evaluate the suppression pool long term temperature response. For this evaluation, the feedwater is assumed to have been injected into the suppression pool, by the end of the recirculation piping break blowdown phase (at 600 seconds), in order to assess long term peak pool temperature. See paragraph enti tled "Evaluation of Post-LOCA Feedwater Injection" in this section.
- h. A complete loss of offsite power occurs simultaneously with the pipe break. This condition results in th e loss of power conversion system equipment and also requires that all vital systems for long-term cooling be supported by onsite power supplies.
Assumptions for Containment Pressurization
The pressure response of the containment during the blowdown period of the accident is analyzed using the following assumptions:
- a. Thermodynamic equilibrium exists in the drywell and suppression chamber. Since nearly complete mixing is achieved, the analysis assumes complete mixing, which is in the conservative direction.
- b. The fluid flowing through the drywell-to-suppression chamber vents is formed from a homogeneous mixture of the fluid in the drywell. The use of this assumption results in complete liquid carry-over into the drywell vents. c. The fluid flow in the drywell-to-suppression chamber vents is compressible except for the liquid phase.
- d. No heat loss from the gases inside the primary containment is assumed.
This adds extra conservatism to the analysis; that is, the analysis will tend to predict higher containment pressures than would actually result.
Assumptions for Long-Term Cooling
Following the blowdown period, the emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) discussed in Section 6.3 provide water for core flooding and long-term decay heat LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-12 REV. 13 removal. The containment pressure and temperature response during this period are analyzed using the following assumptions:
- a. The LPCI pumps are used to flood the core prior to 600 seconds after the accident. The high-pressure core sp ray (HPCS) is assumed available for the entire accident.
- b. After 600 seconds, the LPCI pump flow may be diverted from the RPV to the containment spray. This is a manual operation. Actually, the containment spray need not be activated at all to keep the containment pressure below the containment design pressure. Prior to activation of the containment cooling mode (arbit rarily assumed at 600 seconds after the accident), all of the LPCI pump flow will be used only to flood the core. c. The effect of decay energy, stor ed energy, and energy from the metal-water reaction on the suppression pool temperature are considered.
- d. During the long-term containment response (after depressurization of the reactor vessel is complete) the suppression pool is assumed to be the only heat sink in the containment system.
- e. After approximately 600 seconds, the RHR heat exchangers are activated to remove energy from the containment via recirculation cooling from the suppression pool wi th the RHR service water systems.
- f. The performance of the ECCS equipment during the long-term cooling period is evaluated for each of the following three cases of interest:
Case A - Offsite Power Available All ECCS equipment and containment spray operating.
Case B - Loss of Offsite Power Minimum diesel power available for ECCS and containment spray.
Case C - Same as Case B (except no containment spray) Initial Conditions for Accident Analyses Table 6.2-3 provides the initial reactor co olant system and containment conditions used in all the accident response evaluation
- s. The tabulation includes parameters for the reactor, the drywell, the suppressi on chamber and the vent system. A supplementary safety evaluation has also been performed, as discussed in LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-13 REV. 13 Section 6.2.1.8, to evaluate an increase in the initial suppression pool temperature value to 105
° F. Table 6.2-4 provides the initial conditio ns and numerical values assumed for the recirculation line break accident as well as the sources of energy considered prior to the postulated pipe rupture. The assumed conditions for the reactor blowdown are also provided.
The mass and energy release sources and rates for the containment response analyses are given in Subsection 6.2.1.3. Short-Term Accident Response The calculated containment pressure and temperature responses for the recirculation line break are shown in Figures 6.2-2 and 6.2-3 respectively. The calculated peak drywell pressure is 39.6 psig, which is 12% below the containment design pressure of 45 psig. The suppression chamber is pressurized by the carryover of noncondensables from the drywell and by heatup of the suppression pool. As the vapor formed in the drywell is condensed in the suppression pool, the temperature of the suppression chamber water approaches 150
° F and the suppression chamber pressure stabilizes at approximately 30 psig. The drywell pressure stabilizes at a slightly higher pressure, the difference being equal to the downcomer submergence. During the RPV depressurization phase, most of the noncondensable gases in the drywell initially are forced into the suppression chamber. However, following the depressurization the noncondensables will redistribute between the drywell and suppression chamber via the vacuum breaker system. This redistribution takes place as pressure is decreased by the steam condensation process occurring in the drywell.
The LPCI and LPCS systems supply sufficient core cooling water to control core heatup and limit metal-water reaction to less than 0.2%. After the RPV is flooded to the height of the jet pump nozzles, the excess flow discharges through the recirculation line break into the drywell. This flow of water (steam flow is negligible) transports the core decay heat out of the RPV, through the broken recirculation line, in the form of hot water which flows into the suppression chamber via the drywell to suppression chamber vent system. This flow, in addition to heat losses to the drywell walls, provides a heat sink for the drywell atmosphere, LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-14 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 causes a depressurization of the containment, and redistributes the noncondensables as the steam in the drywell is condensed.
Table 6.2-8 provides the peak pressure, temperature, and time parameters for the recirculation line break as predicted for the conditions of Table 6.2-1 and in correspondence with Figures 6.2-2 and 6.2-3. The transient peak calculated drywell floor (deck) differential pressure is 24.2 psid, which is 3.2% below the design sustained differential pressure of 25 psid.
During the blowdown period of the LOCA, the pressure suppression vent system conducts the flow of the steam-water gas mixture in the drywell to the suppression pool for condensation of the steam. The pressure differential between the drywell and suppression pool controls this flow vers us time. Figure 6.2-4 provides the mass flow versus time relationship through the vent system for this accident. A supplementary evaluation has been performed for the addition of feedwater to the suppression pool to assess the impact on long term pool temperature. This evaluation estimates that th e peak short term pool temp erature will increase by an additional 15.4
° F. This results in a short term pool temperature (at 600 seconds) of approximately 166
° F . For further discussion, s ee Section 6.2.1.1.3.1.1 in the paragraph titled, "Evaluation of Post-LOCA Feedwater Injection."
Long-Term Accident Responses In order to assess the adequacy of the containment following the initial blowdown transient, an analysis was made of the long-term temperature and pressure response following the accident. The analysis assumptions are those discussed previously for the three cases of interest. The initial pressure response of the containment (the first 600 seconds after th e break) is the same for each case.
Case A - All ECCS Equipment Oper ating (with containment spray)
This case assumes that offsite a-c power is available to operate all cooling systems.
During the first 600 seconds following the pi pe break, the high-pressure core spray (HPCS), low-pressure core spray (LPCS), and all three LPCI pumps are assumed operating. All flow is injected directly into the reactor vessel.
After 600 seconds, both RHR heat exchangers are activated to remove energy from the containment. During this mode of operation the flow from two of the LPCI pumps is routed through the RHR heat exchanger, where it is cooled before being discharged into the containment spray header.
The containment pressure response to this set of conditions is shown as curve A in Figure 6.2-5. The corresponding drywell and suppression pool temperature responses are shown as curve A in Figure s 6.2-6 and 6.2-7. After the initial blowdown and subsequent depressurization due to core spray and LPCI core LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-15 REV. 13 flooding, energy addition due to core decay heat results in a gradual pressure and temperature rise in the containment. When the energy removal rate of the RHR exceeds the energy addition rate from the decay heat, the containment pressure and temperature reach a second peak valu e and decrease gradually. Table 6.2-5 summarizes the cooling equipment operation, the peak containment pressure following the initial blowdown peak, and the peak suppression pool temperature.
Case B - Loss of Offsite Power (with containment spray)
This case assumes no offsite power is available following the accident with only minimum diesel power. The containment sp ray is operating and injecting into the drywell after 600 seconds. During this mode of operation the LPCI flow through one RHR heat exchanger is discharged into the containment spray nozzles.
The containment response to this set of co nditions is shown as curve B in Figure 6.2-5. The corresponding dyrwell and suppression pool temperature responses are
shown as curve B in Figures 6.2-6 and 6.2-7. A summary of this case is given in Table 6.2-5.
Case C - Loss of Offsite Power (no containment spray)
This case assumes that no offsite power is available following the accident, with only minimum diesel power. For the fi rst 600 seconds following the accident, one HPCS and two LPCI pumps are used to cool the core. After 600 seconds the spray may be manually activated to further reduce containment pressure if desired. This analysis assumes that the spray is not activated.
After 600 seconds, one RHR heat exchanger is activated to remove energy from the containment. During this mode of operation, one of the two LPCI pumps is shut down and the service water pumps to the RHR heat exchanger are activated. The LPCI flow is cooled by the RHR heat exchanger before being discharged into the reactor vessel.
The containment pressure response to this set of conditions is shown as curve C in Figure 6.2-5. The corresponding drywell and suppression pool temperature responses are shown as curve C in Figures 6.
2-6 and 6.2-7. A summary of this case is given in Table 6.2-5.
When comparing the "spray" Case B with th e "no spray" Case C, the same duty on the RHR heat exchanger is obtained since the suppression pool temperature response is approximately the same as shown in Figure 6.2-7. Thus, the same amount of energy is removed from the pool whether the exit flow from the RHR heat exchanger is injected into the reactor vessel or into the drywell as spray. However, the peak containment pressure is higher for the "no spray" case, but the pressure is LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-16 REV. 13 still much less than the containment design pressure of 45 psig. (Subsection 6.2.2.3 describes the containment cooling mode of the RHR system.)
A supplemental evaluation has been performed for the purpose of evaluating the suppression pool long term temperature response. For this evaluation, the feedwater is assumed to have been injected into the suppression pool, by the end of the recirculation piping break blowdown phase (at time t = 600 seconds), in order to assess long term peak pool temperature. See paragraph entitled "Evaluation of Post-LOCA Feedwater Injection" in this se ction. Additionally, a slightly reduced RHR pump flow rate of 7200 gpm (versu s 7450 gpm) has been evaluated, as discussed in Section 6.2.2.3.4. Both of these evaluations are evaluated for the DBA-LOCA in Reference 18. The results indica te an increase in the long term peak suppression pool temperature of approximately 8 F due to the feedwater injection and an approximately 1.5
° F increase due to the lower RHR flow rate. The 200
° F peak pool temperature given in Table 6.2-5 is not exceeded. Plant specific safety evaluations have been performed and have concluded that the existing DBA-LOCA analyses referenced above bounds thes e effects on the containment response.
Energy Balance During Accident
In order to establish an energy distribution as a function of time (short term, long term) for this accident, the following energy sources and sinks are required:
- a. blowdown energy release rates, b. decay heat rate and fuel relaxation energy, c. sensible heat rate, d. pump heat rate, and
- e. heat removal rate from suppression pool.
Items a, b, and c are provided in Subsection 6.2.1.3. The pump heat rate value that has been used in the evaluation of the containment response to a LOCA for Case A is 4881 Btu/sec. A complete energy balance for the recirculation line break accident is given in Table 6.2-6 for the reactor system, the containment, and the containment cooling systems at time zero, at the time of peak drywell pressure, at the end of reactor blowdown, and at the time of the long-term second peak pressure reached in the containment.
The energy and mass balance have been annotated to include the effects of feedwater coastdown/injection on the long te rm peak suppression pool temperature. See paragraph entitled "Evaluation of Post-LOCA Feedwater Injection" in this
section and footnote in Table 6.2-6.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-17 REV. 13 Chronology of Accident Events
The complete description of the containment response to the design-basis recirculation line break has been given above. Results for this accident are shown in Figures 6.2-2 through 6.2-7. A chronological sequence of events for this accident from time zero is provided in Table 6.2-7.
The original and 1988 General Electric co ntainment analysis (references 8 & 17), assumed feedwater flow stopped at the initiation of the LOCA. This assumption is conservative for an assessment on the peak cladding temperature (PCT) or containment pressure and temperature response. However, in order to make a more conservative analysis on the suppression pool predicted temperatures, the feedwater energy due to feedwater pump coastdown, or depressurization and resulting feedwater liquid carryover to the pool, should be taken into account in the suppression pool energy balance. A suppl ementary evaluation was performed to assess the impact on peak suppression pool temperature due to the addition of energy from the feedwater system. (Reference 18)
For this evaluation, the feedwater mass downstream of the 2nd Low Pressure Feedwater Heater is injected into the vessel. The feedwater upstream of this feedwater heater is at a temperature less than 212
° F and would not be expected to be injected into the vessel during a DBA-LOCA. The mechanism for FW injection into the vessel during a LOCA with loss of onsite power is flashing of feedwater liquid when the vessel drops below the saturation pressure corresponding to the feedwater liquid temperature. Thus, only feedwater initially at a temperature above 212° F is assumed to flash and be inje cted into the vessel. This is conservative since vessel pressures are expected to remain higher than atmospheric
pressure during the period when the peak pool temperature occurs. The latest revision of plant piping drawings were used as input to determine the feedwater volume.
Additionally, the sensible energy in the feedwater system metal is also added to the feedwater liquid injected into the vessel. It is conservatively assumed that the feedwater flowing into the vessel and coming into contact with hotter feedwater piping metal downstream, will instantaneously achieve thermal equilibrium with the hotter feedwater system metal. This maximizes the metal sensible energy transfer to the feedwater.
For the analysis, all feedwater mass and energy is injected to the vessel and subsequently transferred to the suppre ssion pool by 600 seconds into the LOCA event. This is modeled by adding all the feedwater mass and energy input at time t
= 600 seconds. Based on this previous discussion, this analysis provides a conservative estimate of the amount of en ergy addition to the pool due to feedwater injection.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-18 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 The results indicate an increase in the long term peak suppr ession pool temperature of approximately 8
° F (Reference 18). The 200
° F peak pool temperature given in Table 6.2-5 is not exceeded.
Evaluation at 3559 MWt Reactor Power The analysis of an instantaneous guilloti ne rupture of a recirculation line at 3559 MWt reactor power, Reference 25, employed essentially the same methodology as the 3434 MWt analysis, except for the RPV blow down calculation in the short-term containment response analysis. The blowdown calculation was performed using the LAMB break flow model (Reference 26), which models physical phenomena in the pipe and vessel in a more detailed manner. Th e LAMB break flow rate and enthalpy calculated at initial reactor power of 3559 MWt and initial pressure of 1025 psig were used as input to the containment analysis model in the short-term analysis. For the analysis of the long-term containment response, Case C, which was the limiting case among the three cases (Cases A, B, and C) analyzed at 3434 MWt reactor power, was analyzed at 3559 MWt. The analysis of Case C at 3559 MWt had the same assumptions as the original analysis at 3434 MWt with respect to the availability of the ECCS pumps and RHR heat exchanger.
The key input assumptions updated for the analysis at 3559 MWt are: a) the core decay heat is based on the ANSI/ANS 5.1-1979 decay heat model with a two-sigma uncertainty adder (the decay heat calculations also include contributions from miscellaneous actinides and activation products consistent with the recommendation of GE SIL 636.); and b) the water in the feedwater system continues to flow into the RPV until all feedwater above 212ºF is depleted to maximize pool heat-up.
Table 6.2-a shows initial conditions assume d for the analysis of the design basis recirculation line rupture at 3559 MWt.
The analysis results are tabulated and plotted, as follows. Tables 6.2-5a and 6.
2-8a show a summary of the analysis results for the long-term and short-term responses, respectively. The short-term containment pressure and temperature responses are plotted in Figures 6.2-2a and 6.2-3a, respectively. Figure 6.2-5a provides the long-term containment pressure response. The long-term drywell airspace and pool temperature responses are given in Figure
6.2-6a and 6.2-7a respectively.
6.2.1.1.3.1.2 Main Steamline Break The main steamline break, which is not the limiting event with respect to the containment response, was not analyzed at a reactor power of 3559 MWt. The original analysis at 3434 MWt is presented in this subsection.
The sequence of events immediately following the rupture of a main steamline between the reactor vessel and the flow limiter has been determined. The flow on both sides of the break will accelerate to the maximum allowed by critical flow considerations. In the side adjacent to the reactor vessel, the flow will correspond to LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-18a REV. 14, APRIL 2002 critical flow in the 2.98-ft 2 steamline cross section. Blowdown through the other side of the break can occur because the stea mlines are all interconnected at a point upstream of the turbine by the bypass header. This interconnection allows primary system fluid to flow from the three unbroken steamlines, through the header and back into the drywell via the broken line. Flow will be limited by critical flow in the 0.94-ft 2 steamline flow restrictor. The total effective flow area is thus 3.92 ft 2 , which is the sum of the steamline cross-sectional area and the flow restrictor area.
Subsection 6.2.1.3 provides information on the mass and energy release rates.
Immediately following the break, the total steam flow rate leaving the vessel would be approximately 12,000 lb/sec, which exceeds the steam generation rate in the core of 4,500 lb/sec. This steam flow to stea m generation mismatch causes an initial depressurization of the reactor vessel at a rate of 50 psi/sec. The void formation in the reactor vessel water causes a rapid rise in the water level, and it is conservatively assumed that the water level reaches the vessel steam nozzles 1 second after the break occurs. The water level rise time of 1 second is the minimum that could occur under any reactor operating condition. From that time on, a two-phase mixture would be discharged from the break. During the first second of the blowdown, the blowdown flow will consist of saturated reactor steam. This steam will enter the containment in a super-heated condition of approximately 330
° F. Figures 6.2-8 and 6.2-9 show the pressure and temperature response of the drywell and containment during the primary system blowdown phase of the accident.
Figure 6.2-9 shows that the drywell atmosphere temperature approaches 330
° F after 1 second of primary system steam blowdown. At that time, the water level in the vessel will reach the steamline nozzle elevation and the blowdown flow will change to a two-phase mixture. This increased flow causes a more rapid drywell pressure rise. However, the peak differen tial pressure is 24.2 psid, which occurs shortly after the vent clearing transient. As the blowdown proceeds, the primary system pressure and fluid inventory will decrease and this will result in reduced break flow rates.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-19 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 As a consequence, the flow rate in the vent system also starts to decrease, and this results in a decreasing differential pressure between the drywell and containment.
Table 6.2-8 presents the peak pressures, peak temperatures, and times of this accident as compared to the recirculation line break.
Approximately 50 seconds after the start of the accident, the primary system pressure will have dropped to the drywell pressure and the blowdown will be over. At this time the drywell will contain pure steam, and the drywell and suppression chamber pressures will stabilize at approximately 30 and 25 psig, respectively; the difference corresponds to the hydrostatic pr essure at the lower end of the submerged vents.
The drywell and containment will remain in this equilibrium condition until the reactor pressure vessel refloods. During this period, the emergency core cooling pumps will be injecting cooling water from the suppression pool into the reactor. This injection of water will eventually flood the reactor vessel to the level of the steamline nozzles, and at this time, the ECCS flow will spill into the drywell. The water spillage will condense the steam in the drywell and thus reduce th e drywell pressure. As soon as the drywell pressure drops below the suppression chamber pressure, the drywell vacuum breakers will open and noncondensable gases from the suppression chamber will flow back into the drywell.
This process w ill continue until the pressures in the two regions equalize and stabilize at approximately 7.5 psig.
6.2.1.1.3.1.3 Intermediate Breaks The intermediate-size break, which is not the limiting event with respect to the containment response, was not analyzed at a reactor power of 3559 MWt. The original analysis at 3434 MWt is presented in this subsection.
The failure of a recirculation line results in the most severe pressure loading on the drywell structure. However, as part of the containment performance evaluation, the consequences of intermediate breaks are also analyzed. This classification covers those breaks for which the blowdown will result in reactor depressurization and operation of the ECCS. This subsection describes the consequences to the containments of a 0.1-ft 2 break below the RPV water level. This break area was chosen as being representative of the intermediate size break area range. These breaks can involve either reactor steam or liquid blowdown.
Following the 0.1-ft 2 break, the drywell pressure increas es at approximately 1 psi/sec. This drywell pressure transient is sufficientl y slow so that the dynamic effect of the water in the vents is negligible and the vents will clear when the drywell-to-wetwell differential pressure is equal to the ve nt submergence pressure. For the LSCS containment design, the maximum distance between the pool surface and the bottom
of the vents is 12 feet 10 inches. Thus, th e water level in the ve nts will reach this point when the drywell-to-containment pr essure differential reaches 5.2 psid.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-20 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 Figures 6.2-10 and 6.2-11 show the drywe ll and wetwell pressure and temperature response, respectively. The ECCS respon se is discussed in Section 6.3.
Approximately 5 seconds after the 0.1-ft 2 break occurs, air, steam, and water will start to flow from the drywell to the suppression pool; the steam will be condensed and the air will enter the wetwell free space. After 5 seconds there will be a constant pressure differential of 5.2 psid between the drywell and wetwell. The continual purging of drywell air to the suppression chamber will result in a gradual pressurization of both the wetwell and dryw ell to about 22 and 27 psig, respectively. Some continuing containment pressurization will occur because of the gradual pool heatup. The ECCS will be initiated by the 0.1-ft 2 break and will provide emergency cooling of the core. The operation of these systems is such that the reactor will be depressurized in approximately 600 seconds. This will terminate the blowdown phase of the transient. The drywell w ill be at approximately 27 psig and the suppression chamber at approximately 22 psig.
In addition, the suppression pool temperature will be the same as following the DBA because essentially the same amount of primary system energy would be released during the blowdown. After reactor depressurization, the flow through the break will change to suppression pool water that is being injected into the RPV by the ECCS. This flow will condense the drywell steam and will eventually cause the drywell and containment pressures to equalize in the same manner as following a recirculation line rupture.
The subsequent long-term suppression pool and containment heatup transient that
follows is essentially the same as for the recirculation break.
From this description, it can be concluded that the consequences of an intermediate size break are less severe than those from a recirculation line rupture.
6.2.1.1.3.1.4 Small Size Breaks The small-size break, which is not the limiting event with respect to the containment response, was not analyzed at a reactor power of 3559 MWt. The original analysis at 3434 MWt is presented in this subsection.
Reactor System Blowdown Considerations
This subsection discusses the containment transient associated with small primary system blowdowns. The sizes of primary system ruptures in this category are those blowdowns that will not result in reactor depressurization due either to loss of LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-20a REV. 14, APRIL 2002 reactor coolant or automatic operation of the ECCS equipment. Following the occurrence of a break of this size, it is assumed that the reactor operators will initiate an orderly plant shutdown and depressurization of the reactor system. The thermodynamic process associated with the blowdown of primary system fluid is one of constant enthalpy. If the primary system break is below the water level, the blowdown flow will consist of reactor water. Bl owdown from reactor pressure to the drywell pressure will flash approximately one-third of this water to steam and two-LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-21 REV. 13 thirds will remain as liquid. Both ph ases will be at saturation conditions corresponding to the drywell pressure. Thus, if the drywell is at atmospheric pressure, the steam and liquid associated with a liquid blowdown would be at 212
° F. Similarly, if the containment is assumed to be at its design pressure, the reactor coolant will blow down to approximately 293
° F steam and water.
If the primary system rupture is located so that the blowdown flow consists of reactor steam only, the resultant stea m temperature in the containment is significantly higher than the temperature associated with liquid blowdown. This is because the enthalpy of high-energy saturated steam is nearly twice that of saturated liquid. The higher enthalpy will result in a superheat condition. For example, decompression of 1000-psia steam to atmospheric pressure will result in 298° F superheated steam (86
° F of superheat).
Based upon this thermodynamic process, it is concluded that a small reactor steam leak will impose the most severe temperature conditions on the drywell structures and the safety equipment in the drywell. For larger steamline breaks, the superheat temperature is nearly the same as for small breaks, but the duration of the high-temperature condition is less. This is because the larger breaks will depressurize the reactor more rapidly than the orderly reactor shutdown that is assumed to terminate the small break.
Containment Response For drywell design consideration, the following sequence of events is assumed to occur. With the reactor and containment operating at the maximum normal
conditions, a small break occurs that a llows blowdown of reactor steam to the drywell. The resulting pressure increase in the drywell will lead to a high drywell pressure signal that will scram the reacto r and activate the containment isolation system. The drywell pressure will continue to increase at a rate dependent upon the size of the steam leak. This pressure increase will lower the water level in the vents until the level reaches the bottom of th e vents. At this time, air and steam will start to enter the suppression pool. The steam will be condensed and the air will be carried over to the suppression chamber free space. The air carry-over will result in a gradual pressurization of the containment at a rate dependent upon the size of the steam leak. Once all the drywell air is carried over to the suppression chamber, pressurization of the containment will cease and the system will reach an equilibrium condition with the drywell pressure at 27 psig and the suppression chamber at approximately 22 psig. The drywell will contain only superheated steam, and continued blowdown of reactor steam will condense in the suppression pool.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-22 REV. 13 Recovery Operations The reactor operators will be alerted to the incident by the high drywell pressure signal and the reactor scram. For the purposes of evaluating the duration of the superheat condition in the drywell, it is assumed that their response is to cool down the reactor in an orderly manner using any method, but limiting the reactor cooldown rate to 100
° F per hour. The normal method to achieve recovery is by use of the high pressure core spray in conjunction with the automatic depressurization system. This feed and bleed process can be utilized until the reactor is depressurized. Depending upon their availability and the situation, other methods such as the use of turbine bypass valves in conjunction with the main condenser can be utilized to achieve depressurization. This will result in the reactor primary system being depressurized within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
Drywell Design Temperature Considerations
For drywell design purposes, it is assume d that there is a blowdown of reactor steam for the 6-hour cooldown period. The corresponding design temperature is determined by finding the combination of primary system pressure and containment pressure that produces the maximum superheat temperature. Thus for design purposes, this results in a temperature condition of 340
° F. 6.2.1.1.3.2 Accident Analysis Models
The short-term pressurization analytical models, assumptions, and methods used by GE to evaluate the containment respon se during the reactor blowdown phase of a LOCA are described in References 2 and 3.
Once the RPV blowdown phase of the LOCA is over, a fairly simple model of the drywell and suppression chamber may be used. During the long-term, post-blowdown containment cooling mode, the ECCS flow path is a closed loop and the suppression pool mass will be constant. Schematically, the cooling model loop is shown in Figure 6.2-12. Since there is no storage other than in the suppression pool (the RPV is reflooded during the blowdown phase of the accident), the mass flowrates shown in the figure are equal, thus:
==eccs S Dmmm O O LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-23 REV. 13 Analytical Assumptions The key assumptions employed in the model are as follows:
- a. The drywell and suppression chamber atmosphere are both saturated (100% relative humidity).
- b. The drywell atmosphere temperature is equal to the temperature of the coolant spilling from the RPV, or to the spray temperature if the
sprays are activated. c. The suppression chamber atmosphere temperature is equal to the suppression pool temperature or to the spray temperature if the sprays are activated. d. No credit is taken for heat losses from the primary containment or to the containment internal structures. Energy Balance Considerations The rate of change of energy in the suppression pool, E p , is given by: =s h s w M dt d p E dt d ()().s.s s s h dt d M M dt d h w w+= Since _d_d_t (M w s) = 0 (because there is no storage), and for water at the conditions that will exist in the containment:
where: C p = 1.0 for the specific heat of pool water, Btu/ lb-
°F T s = pool temperature, °F.
The pool energy balance yields:
()= h m h m T d t d C M s o sD o D sp s w This equation can be rearranged to yield:
()()s T dt d p C s h dt d=
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-24 REV. 13 An energy balance on the RHR heat exchanger yields
(6.2-3)
where: h c = enthalphy of ECCS flow entering the reactor, Btu/lb.
Similarly, an energy balance on the RPV will yield:
Combining Equations 6.2-1, 6.2-2, 6.2-3, and 6.2-4 gives This differential equation is integrated by finite difference techniques to yield the suppression pool temperature transient.
Containment Thermodynamic Conditions Once the energy equations are solved, the drywell and suppression chamber atmospheric temperatures can be calculated.
()=s w M sh o sm Dh o D m sT dt d o x s Hsc m qhh= +=eccs m e q D q c h D h ()+=s w M X H q e q D q s T dt d LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-25 REV. 13 For the case in which no containment spray is operating, the suppression chamber temperature, T w, at any time will be equal to the current temperature of the pool, T s, and the drywell temperature, T d, will be equal to the temperature of the fluid leaving the RPV. Thus:
and T w = T s. For the case in which the containment spra y is assumed to be operating, both the drywell and suppression chamber atmosphere will be at the spray temperature, T sp where: eccs m x H q s T sp T= and, T D = T w = T sp. Using the suppression chamber and dr ywell atmosphere temperatures, and assumption (a) (drywell and suppression chamber saturated), it is possible to solve for the containment total pressures, since:
(6.2-6)
(6.2-7)
where: P D = drywell total pressure, psia, P a D = partial pressure of air in drywell, psia, P v D = partial pressure of wate r vapor in drywell, psia, P s = suppression chamber total pressure, psia, P a s = partial pressure of air in the suppression chamber, psia, eccs m x H q e q D q s T D T++=D v P D a P D P+=s v P s a P s P+=
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-26 REV. 13 P v s = partial pressure of water vapor in the suppression chamber, psia, and, from the Ideal Gas Law:
(6.2-8)
(6.2-9) where: M a D = mass of air in drywell, lb, M a s = mass of air in the suppression chamber, lb, R = gas constant ft-lbf/lb V D = drywell free volume, ft
- 3. V s = suppression chamber free volume, ft
- 3. With known values of T D and T w , Equations 6.2-6, 6.2-7, 6.2-8 and 6.2-9 can be solved by transient analysis and iteration.
This iteration procedure is also used to calculate the unknown quantities M a D and M a s. Solution of Equations The transient analysis is based on successive time step integration of the suppression pool temperature. When this integration has been performed and the value of T s at the end of a time step has been calc ulated, a pressure balance is made. Using values of M a D and M a s from the end of the previous time step and the updated values of T D and T s, a check is made to see if P s is greater than or equal to P D using Equations 6.2-6, 6.2-7, 6.2-8, and 6.2-9. If P s is greater than or equal to P D, then the two values are made equal. The vacuum breakers between the drywell and suppression chamber are provided to ensure that P s cannot be greater than P D. 144 D V D RT D a M D a P= 144 s V w RT s a M s a P=
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-27 REV. 13 Hence, with P D = P s and knowing that:
M a D + M a s = constant; (6.2-10) where the constant is the known total initial mass of air in the suppression chamber and drywell prior to the accident, Equation s 6.2-6, 6.2-7, 6.2-8, and 6.2-9 can be solved for M a s , M a D , and P s/P D.
It is conservatively assumed that the total mass of air remains constant, which ignores any containment leakage that might occur during the transient.
If, as a result of the end-of-time-step pressure check, where: H = submergence of vents, ft, and V w = specific volume of fluid in vent, ft 3/lb then the pressure in the drywell is high er than the pressure in the suppression chamber but not sufficiently so to depress the water to the bottom of the vents and thus permit air to flow from the drywell to the suppression chamber. Under these circumstances, no air transfer is assumed to have occurred during the time step, and Equations 6.2-6, 6.2-7, 6.2-8, and 6.2-9 are solved using the updated temperatures with the same M a s and M a D values from the previous time step.
If the end-of-time step pressure check shows:
then the drywell pressure is set to the value:
(6.2-11)
'w V H s P D P s P+ w V H s P D P+ +=V H s P D P LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-28 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 This requires that the drywell pressure never exceed the suppression chamber pressure by more than the hydrostatic head associated with the submergence of the vents. To maintain this condition, some transfer of drywell air to the suppression chamber will be required. The amount of air transfer is calculated by using Equation 6.2-10 and combining Equations 6.2-6, 6.2-7, 6.2-8, 6.2-9 and 6.2-11 to
give:
ws w s a s v D D D a D v v HV144RTM PV144RTM P++=+
which can be solved for the unknown air masses. The total pressures can then be determined.
6.2.1.1.4 Negative Pressure Design Evaluation
Containment negative pressure has been addressed in Chapter 3.0 and in the Design Assessment Report.
6.2.1.1.5 Suppression Pool Bypass Effects Protection Against Bypass Paths
The pressure boundary between drywell and suppression chamber including the vent pipes, vent header, and downcomers are fabricated, erected, and inspected by nondestructive examination methods in accordance with and to the acceptance standards of the ASME Code Sectio n III, Subsection B, 1971 (Summer 1972 Addenda). This special construction, inspection and quality control ensures the integrity of this boundary. The design pressure and temperature for this boundary was established at 25 psid and 340
° F, which is substantially greater than conditions during a DBA. Actual peak accident differential pressure and temperature across this boundary will be less than their design values during a LOCA. In addition a stainless steel liner has been provided between the drywell and the wetwell as des cribed in Chapter 3.0.
All penetrations of this boundary except the vacuum breaker seats and suppression pool temperature monitoring probe pene trations and testing penetrations are welded. All penetrations are available for periodic visual inspection.
The following paragraphs describe the evaluation of the steam bypass event at 3434MWt. The limiting event was analyzed for a reactor power level of 3559 MWt, and it was concluded that this reactor power has no significant impact on the suppression pool steam bypass.
LSCS-UFSAR LU2000-027I 6.2-28a REV. 14, APRIL 2002 Reactor Blowdown Conditions and Operator Response
In the highly unlikely event of a reactor depressurization to the drywell accompanied by a simultaneous open bypass path between the drywell and suppression chamber, several postulated conditions may occur. For a given primary system break area, the maximum allowabl e leakage capacity can be determined LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-29 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 when the containment pressure reaches the design pressure at the end of reactor blowdown. The most limiting conditions would occur for those primary system break sizes which do not cause rapid reactor depressurization. This corresponds to breaks of less than approximately 0.4 ft 2 which require some operator action to terminate the reactor blowdown.
Immediately after the postulated conditions given above for a small primary system break, there would be a fairly rapid rise in containment pressure as the noncondensable gases in the drywell are carried over to the suppression chamber. During this portion of the transient, it is assumed that the plant operators are unaware that a leakage path exists. Under normal circumstances, the maximum pressure that can occur in the suppression chamber is approximately 25 psig. This is the pressure that would result if all of the noncondensable gases initially in the containment are carried over to the suppression chamber free space. For the
maximum allowable leakage calculations, it was assumed that the plant operators realize a leakage path exists only when the suppression chamber pressure reaches 30 psig. For conservatism, an additional 10-minute delay is assumed before any
corrective action is taken to terminate the transient. The corrective action is also assumed to take 5 minutes to be effective. At that time, the containment pressure would be equal to the design pressure if the allowable leakage had occurred. The specific type of corrective action taken after 10 minutes is not accounted for in the analysis. The operators have several options available to them. If the source of the leakage is undefined, they could depressurize the primary system via either the main condenser or relief valves, or they could activate the containment sprays.
Analytical Assumptions When calculating the allowable leakage capacities for a spectrum of break sizes, the following assumptions are made:
- a. Flow through the postulated leakage path is pure steam. For a given leakage path, if the leakage flow consists of a mixture of liquid and vapor, the total leakage mass flowrate is higher, but the steam flowrate is less than for the case of pure steam leakage. Since the steam entering the suppression chamber free space results in the additional containment pressurization, this is a conservative assumption.
- b. There is no condensation of the leakage flow on either the suppression pool surface or the containment and vent system structures. Since condensation acts to reduce the suppression chamber pressure, this is a conservative assumption. For an actual containment there will be condensation, especially for the larger primary system breaks where vigorous agitation at the pool surface will occur during blowdown.
Analytical Results
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-30 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 The LSCS containment has been analyzed to determine the allowable leakage between the drywell and suppression chamber.
Figure 6.2-13 shows the allowable leakage capacity )K/A( as a function of primary system break area. A is the area of the leakage flow path and K is the total geometric loss coefficient associated with the leakage flow path.
The maximum allowable leakage capacity is at )K/A( = .030 ft
- 2. Since a typical geometric loss factor would be 3 or grea ter, the maximum allowable leakage area would be .052 ft
- 2. This corresponds to a 3-inch line size.
Figure 6.2-13 is a composite of two curves.
If the break area is greater than approximately 0.4 ft 2, reactor depressurization will terminate the transient and allow higher leakage. However break areas less than 0.4 ft 2 result in continued reactor blowdown which limits the allowable leakage.
Figure 6.2-14 shows the containment response associated with br eaks larger than 0.4 ft 2. The containment pressure would reach design pressure at the end of reactor blowdown. Figure 6.2-15 shows the same response for a typical small break less than 0.4 ft
- 2. The containment pressure would reach design conditions, in this case, approximately 5 minutes after operator action.
6.2.1.1.6 Suppression Pool Dynamic Loads The manner in which suppression pool dynamic loads resulting from postulated loss-of-coolant accidents, transients, and se ismic events have been integrated into the LSCS design is completely described in the LaSalle Design Assessment Report, which was submitted with the FSAR as a re ference document. The load histories, load combinations, and analyses are all presen ted in detail in this referenced report.
A safety relief valve in-plant test was conducted on unit 1 as committed by Commonwealth Edison per NUREG-0519. A report entitled "Commonwealth Edison Proprietary LaSalle County I In-Plant S/RV Test Initial Evaluation Report" was submitted March 4, 1983 (C. W. Schroed er to A. Schwence r) and resubmitted October 14, 1983 (C.W. Schroeder to H.R.
Denton). The document contains information and data demonstrating the adequacy of existing design basis hydrodynamic loads resulting from safety/relief valve actuation.
Supplementary evaluations have been performe d, as discussed in Section 6.2.1.8, to verify that an increase in the initial suppression pool temperature (from 100
° F to 105° F) would not significantly impact th e dynamic loading scenarios associated with containment response to post ulated LOCAs and SRV operation.
Containment Dynamic Loads were evaluated for power uprate to 3489MWt in Reference 25. The evaluation shows the LOCA and SRV loads remain within the defined limits.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-31 REV. 13 6.2.1.1.7 Asymmetric Loading Conditions The manner in which potential asymmetric lo ads were considered for LSCS is fully described in the Design Assessment Report.
A description of the analytical models utilized for these analyses, as well as a description of the containment testing program, is also presented in this report.
6.2.1.1.8 Containment Ventilation System
The primary containment ventilation system is discussed in Section 9.4.
6.2.1.1.9 Postaccident Monitoring A description of the postaccident monitoring system is provided in Section 7.5.
6.2.1.1.10 Drywell-to-Wetwe ll Vacuum Breaker Valves Evaluation for LOCA Loads
During the pool swell phase of a loss-of-c oolant accident, air fl ows from the drywell through the vent pipes and the suppression pool into the suppression chamber air space resulting in a rise of the suppression pool surface and compression of the air space region above it. This transient wetwell air space pressurization may cause the vacuum breaker valves to experience hi gh opening and closing impact velocities. To estimate the valve disc actuation velocities, the Mark II Owner's Group developed a vacuum breaker valve dynami c model described in NEDE-22178-P(1), "Mark II Containment Drywell-to-Wetwell Vacuum Breaker Models," August 1982, which describes the generic methodology us ed to calculate the response of the drywell-to-wetwell vacuum breaker to certain transients in the Mark II containment. The LaSalle plant, however, is unique in that it is the only domestic Mark II plant which has its vacuum breakers located outside containment. Because of this feature, the Mark II Owners Group model was modified to take credit for the pressure losses associated with the exte rnal piping and isolation valves which connect the vacuum breaker between the wetwell and drywell at LaSalle. In a letter dated December 28, 1982, CECo submi tted a report to the NRC, CDI-82-33, "Reanalysis of the LaSalle Wetwell-to-Dry well Vacuum breakers under Pool Swell Loading Condition," December 1982, out lining the valve modeling improvement which have been made to take credit for the pressure losses associated with vacuum breaker piping. This report documents the reduction of the valve impact velocities during pool swell which are attributed to the use of a more realistic hydrodynamic torque on the valve disc. This analysis has been accepted by the NRC. However, because the hydrodynamic loads associated with a loss-of-coolant accident were not considered in the original design of th e vacuum breaker, CECo decided to modify the vacuum breakers to improve performance and reliability, and to further increase the margin of safety. The modifications included material upgrade and/or dimensional changes to strengthen eccentric shaft, hinge arms, hinge plates, fasteners and a load distribution device to reduce the severity of the vacuum LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-32 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 breaker pallet opening impact loading. Th e modified design was tested under an applied mechanical force which produced an opening pallet impact velocity of 20.2 radians/second and a closing impact veloci ty of 25.8 radians/second. The predicted pallet impact velocities for LaSalle are an opening impact velocity of 16.6 radians/second and a closing impact velocity of 24.2 radians/second. After testing, the vacuum breaker leak rate was verified to be within the acceptable limit. The test results verified the operability and fu nctional capability of the vacuum breaker well in excess of the predicted opening and closing impact velocities, and, thus, demonstrated that the modified LaSalle vacuum breakers will function properly under pool swell induced impact loadings with a considerable margin of safety.
6.2.1.1.11 Impact of Increased Initial Suppression Pool Temperature Supplementary safety evaluations have been performed, as discussed in Section 6.2.1.8, to verify that an increase in the initial suppression pool temperature (from 100
° F to 105° F) would not significantly impact the consequences of the various containment line break analyses.
6.2.1.2 Containment Subcompartments
For the most part, the drywell is a large continuous volume interrupted at various locations by piping, grating, ventilation ducting, etc. The only two volumes within the drywell which can be classified as subcompartments are the annular volume between the biological shield and the reactor pressure vessel, and the volume bounded by the drywell head and the reactor vessel head. These regions are referred to as the biological shield a nnulus and head cavity, respectively, and require special design consideration resulting from the postulation of line breaks in
these volumes.
6.2.1.2.1 Design Bases The methodology used to determine the containment subcompartment pressurization loads and the results pertaining to the pressurization loads documented herein are applicable to reactor operation at or below the bounding thermal power level of 3559 MWt (Reference 30).
Biological Shield Annulus
Pressure transients within the biologic al shield annulus are important for two considerations: (1) determination of the design conditions for the shield wall, and (2) determination of the tipping forces on the reactor pressure vessel. It is not a priori clear that one line break will yiel d the most severe conditions for both considerations. Therefore, consequences of two line breaks were studied: (a) a LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-32a REV. 14, APRIL 2002 complete circumferential failure of one of the two recirculation outlet lines at the safe end to pipe weld, and (b) a complete circumferential failure of one of the six feedwater lines at the safe end to pipe weld. While it was assumed that the recirculation line break with its high mass and energy blowdown rates yields most severe shield wall loads, the break of the feedwater line was added to determine the most severe conditions on the vessel. The pressure transien ts following either LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-33 REV. 13 postulated break were used in determin ation of shield wall and pressure vessel design adequacy.
The performed pressurization analyses for the postulated recirculation line break and feedwater line break were based on the nodalization schemes depicted on Figures 6.2-16 and 6.2-17, respectively.
Both nodalization schemes were given careful consideration to assure correct local and overall pressure responses.
Recirculation Line Break
The sudden injection of the subcooled liquid into the shield penetration (Node 35) and adjoining annulus initially causes a sign ificant fraction of the liquid to flash to steam, pressurizing the penetrations and annulus. The responses of the penetration volume and adjoining subcompa rtments are shown on Figure 6.2-18. Within 10 milliseconds after the postulated break both flows out of the penetration have choked. Some 10 milliseconds later, both the penetration pressure and the pressure in the surrounding annulus node peak, reflecting subcooling and inventory effects addressed in the blowdown flow rates. Flow into the annulus initially proceeds in all directions, but soon swings preferentially upward in response to increasing pressures within the dead-ended skirt region. By 0.1 second into the transient, the pressures in and about the penetration have stabilized and shortly
after (by 0.5 seconds), the differential pressures across the shield wall have begun to decrease (Figure 6.2-21). The differential pressure across the shield wall peaks at 115 psid in the region immediately around the penetration. Peak differential pressure across the shield door in the penetration, however, reaches 325 psid.
Feedwater Line Break Pressurization effects of the postulated feedwater line break are much less pronounced than for the recirculation break. Much of the injected fluid finds its way up and out of the annulus and over the top of the shield wall and into the drywell. Nevertheless, the differential pressure across the shield wall surrounding the penetration peaks at 50 psid, while the differential pressure across the shield door in the penetration reaches 205 psid (F igure 6.2-22). By 0.5 second into the transient all the differential pressures ac ross the shield wall have peaked and are decreasing (Figure 6.2-23).
The break area for the recirculation line break was assumed to be time dependent and limited by effects of pipe restraints (see Attachment 6A). The feedwater line break was assumed to provide instantaneous full size break area. Both break models included the effects of subcooled liquid inventory in the determination of mass and energy flux data.
No margins were applied to the calculated differential pressures for this final pressurization analysis.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-34 REV. 13 Head Cavity
The head cavity area was analyzed for specific line breaks. They were: 1) a break of the recirculation outlet line within the drywell; and 2) a break of the main steamline within the drywell; and, 3) a simultaneous break of the head spray line and the RPV head vent line within the head cavity. These analyses were carried out to establish the pressure differentials that would exist across the refueling bulkhead plate as a result of these accident conditions. The break of the recirculation outlet line, the drywell DBA, was found to produce the highest pressure differential across the refuelin g bulkhead plate, a value of 9.0 psid upward. The simultaneous break of the he ad spray line and RPV head vent line caused a pressure differential of 7.0 psid downward. The main steamline data are not presented due to the fact that the recirculation line break produced the higher differential pressure value.
The break size, mass flow rate, and energy content for the recirculation line were defined in Subsection 6.2.1.1.3.1 and Tabl e 6.2-18. The supporting assumptions for these data are also supplied in the same su bsection. The break size, mass flow rate, and energy content for the head spray line were determined using Moody's flow through the 3.72-inch diameter head spra y nozzle at reactor conditions with a multiplier of 1.0. Flow from the other side of the head spray line break was neglected. In addition, the simultaneous break of the RPV head vent line was considered because of the lack of whip restraints on the head spray line. The break size, mass flow rate, and energy conten t for the RPV head vent line were determined using Moody's flow at reactor conditions with a multiplier of 1.0. The RPV head vent line was postulated to ruptur e at the four-to-two inch reducer in the line located in the head cavity. The flow occurred at both ends of the break, one having a diameter of 4.0 inch es and the other 2.0 inches.
No margin was applied to the results, since the analysis was done for the final design, and a margin is not required for that situation. However, a margin does exist, and this is indicated in Tables 6.2-11 and 6.2-12.
6.2.1.2.2 Design Features
Biological Shield Annulus
The biological shield annulus is an annul ar space 48.7 feet high and about 2 feet thick formed by the reactor pressure vesse l and its skirt and the biological shield wall. The shield wall is provided with 32 penetrations to allow for routing for the lines connected to the vessel. The shield wall is also pierced to provide 2 HVAC openings and 2 reactor skirt access doors. The 3-1/2 inch thermal insulation divides the shield annulus, except for the lower skir t portion, into 2 almost equal annului. The inner steel shell of the annulus is spanned with vertical and horizontal LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-35 REV. 13 stiffeners which extend 5 inches into the annulus. Egress to the drywell at the top of the shield is partially blocked by the gusset plates supporting the reactor vessel stabilizers (Figures 3.8-23). The penetratio ns in the shield wall are designed with shield doors with a gap of approximately 3 inches between the doors and the thermal insulation on the penetrating lines.
Figure 3.8-39 provides an exterior wall stretchout of the shield wall.
In the annulus pressurization analysis , it was assumed that following the postulated line break the vessel insulation within the annulus was instantaneously displaced to the shield wall. The vessel insulation support structure remains in its original configuration. Venting of the annulus into the drywell was possible through the annulus between the pipe and shield doors in the 32 nozzle penetrations in the shield wall and by mean s of an opening at the top of the shield wall above which the insulation was assume d to blow out instantaneously when the pressure across the insulation above the shield wall reaches 3 psid. Other possible vent paths such as HVAC openings, reac tor skirt access doors, and insulation blowout panels were assumed to remain closed.
Head Cavity Note: The current flow paths have b een changed to include the two manholes between the head cavity and the drywell and the four ducted HVAC vents have
been modified by the addition of discharge nozzles. The impact of this change has been evaluated and it has been determined that the analysis presented here is bounding.
The physical system, shown in Figure 3.8-1, was modeled as three node with two flow paths for this analysis. The head cavity, drywell, and wetwell are all described by single volumes. The model for the simultaneous break of the head spray and RPV head vent lines in the head cavity is shown in Figure 6.2-19, and that for the recirculation line break in the drywell in Figure 6.2-20. The pertinent data
regarding the volumes and flow paths are given in Tables 6.2-11 through 6.2-14.
There are eight HVAC vents in the refuelin g bulkhead plate: four sixteen-inch diameter supply vents, and four eighteen-inch diameter return vents. The return vents have ductwork attached to them. All of the HVAC (supply and return) were modeled for the postulated break in the head cavity since the pressure in the return vents with the ductwork would always be greater than the drywell pressure.
However, only the supply vents were considered to allow flow for the breaks in the drywell. It was assumed that the HVAC re turn ductwork would be crushed by the fast rising drywell pressure. The do wncomer vents between the drywell and wetwell were modeled as one flow path with a valve in the path set to open at 0.824 second for the recirculation line brea
- k. The 0.824 second was taken as a conservative estimate of the time normally required to clear the downcomer vents. At this time, the entire vent area becomes available for pressure relief of the drywell and head cavity region. The simultaneous head spray line and RPV head LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-36 REV. 13 vent line break is a much smaller break and results in a relatively slow pressurization of the drywell. A valve was again used in the flow path, but in this instance, the valve opening was dependent upon the drywell pressure exceeding the hydrostatic head at the downcomer exit. The opening differential pressure used was 5.2 psid which is equivalent to a 12-foot downcomer submergence. The flow was carried over directly into the wetwell air volume. No credit was taken for condensation. The flow through both flow paths was taken to be a completely homogeneous mixture.
6.2.1.2.3 Design Evaluation
Biological Shield Annulus The RELAP 4 Mod 3 computer code was used to perform the analyses. The assumptions made in modeling the problem were in accordance with the applicable
USNRC guidelines.
The mass and energy blowdown rates were determined according to the methods described in Attachment 6.A.
Initial conditions in the annulus and drywell are indicated in Tables 6.2-9 and 6.2-10. In subsonic flow conditions, two flow models were used, as defined in RELAP 4 Mode 3: (a) compressible flow, single st ream model was used for the path of major flow direction, and (b) incompressible flow without momentum flux model was used for flow paths other than the paths of the major flow direction. For sonic flow conditions the Moody or sonic choking model were specified with the multiplier 0.6 for the Moody choking model. Homogeneous flow was assumed for the vent mixture.
The biological shield annulus between th e reactor pressure vessel and the shield wall was modeled differently for each of the two postulated line breaks. In either case, advantage was taken of the near sy mmetry of the annular space across the vertical plane passing through the centerline of the failed line.
Nodalization of the biological shield annulus was determined on the basis of natural geometric boundaries and the constraint that the pressure drop within a node be reasonably low as compared to pressure drop across the boundaries of the node. Nodal boundaries were suggested by the pr esence of the reinforcing steel, thermal insulation support structure and nozzles.
Significant pressure drops near the break suggested smaller nodes (by and large limited with two successive obstructions) around the penetration than elsewhere (Fig ures 6.2-37 and 6.2-38). Therefore the assumption was made that since RELAP 4 allo ws input of loss c oefficients only at the junctions between nodes, the junctions should be placed at points where major LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-37 REV. 13 pressure losses occur. Furthermore, it may be concluded that increasing the number of junctions (by making smaller nodes) beyond this point will yield no improvement in the accuracy of the results.
To test this hypothesis, a sensitivity study was performed on the sacrificial shield nodalization. Using the original noda lization (Figure 6.2-39) as a basis, an "equivalent" model was run which maintained the nodalization near the break but drastically reduced the number of nodes fu rther from the break (Figure 6.2-40). This model demonstrated identical pressure response close to the break and only minor differences away from the break (Fig ures 6.2-41 and 6.2-42). This indicated that the nodalization far from the break was sufficiently refined in the original model and that the "equivalent" model could be used to simulate a response close to the break.
Two additional models were run. The first combined the nodes closest to the break into one large node (Figure 6.2-43). The pressure response was not consistent with the original runs (Figures 6.2-44 and 6.
2-45). This indicated that a model which does not locate node boundaries at all flow restrictions close to the break is not acceptable. The last model substituted six nodes for the three original nodes, causing junctions to occur at locations which coincide with no actual flow restriction (Figure 6.2-46). This model showed a net increase of 5% in the force caused by the pressures in the area being investigated. An examination of the axial and circumferential pressure distributions showed only minor differences (Figures 6.2-47 and 6.2-48).
The sensitivity study indicates that the original nodalization provides an adequate description of the pressurization of the sacri ficial shield annulus.
An increase in the complexity of the RELAP 4 model would not result in a significant change in the results. As previously indicated, half of the annulus was nodalized in case of either postulated line break; for the recirculation line break half-annulus consisted of 35 nodes and the half-drywell of 3 nodes (T able 6.2-9), while for the feedwater line break the half-annulus consisted of 29 nodes and the half-drywell of 3 nodes (Table 6.2-10). Volume of each node was calculated as a net volume, that is, the respective volume of the annulus including the volume of penetrations (if any) was corrected for the volume of the insulation and nozzles. The junctions, 85 and 69 for the recirculation line break and feedwater line break respectively, were assigned the smallest flow area anywhere between the centers of two volumes. All partial loss coefficients, k j's, were derived from Reference 6. The total loss coefficient k t was then determined by adding the weighted partial loss coefficients in series:
2 i A t A i K i t k=
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-38 REV. 13 where A t is the junction area and A i is the area within the junction and pertaining to the partial loss coeffici ent k. When parallel paths, j, were combined, the following relations were utilized:
Only similar junctions were combined in this manner (like 2 or more penetrations connecting drywell with the same volume of the annulus), other junctions were modeled separately.
Inertia coefficients were similarly calculated using simplified conservative approximations to the integrated junction characteristics. Thus, for the junctions with only minor variations, in cross-sect ional flow area along the junction, the inertia, I, was approximated by:
where L i is the distance along the junction wh ere junction's cross-sectional area is A i. In cases where there appear major variations in the cross-sectional flow area (constriction in the conduit) the inertia was estimated by:
where d is a "characteristic" diameter of the constriction of length L o and with area A o (for an orifice the characteristic diameter is taken to be the diameter of the orifice). L 1 , A 1 and L 2 , A 2 are the length and flow area of the conduit partitioned by the constriction. In special cases, where the constriction is not an ordinary orifice, a variation of the above relation was used to evaluate I.
j A j t A=2 i k 1 t A i A i t K=i L i t A 1 I= 2 A d 2 L o Ad2 o L 1 A d 1 L I+++=
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-39 REV. 13 Parallel paths were characterized by:
To further illustrate methods of determination of the junction characteristics, treatment of selected representative junctions will be shown in detail. The junctions are those for the recirculation lin e break nodalization scheme: 9, 47, 72.
Junction 9 connects the break volume (nod e 35), which consists of the half-annulus in the recirculation line penetration extended from the shield door to the reactor vessel, with the surrounding annular node (34). The minimum junction area was in this case within the break volume, half of the annular area formed by the recirculation line and the penetration wall was calculated to be 7.04 ft
- 2. In determining the loss coefficient for this junction, Diagram 11-9, Reference 6, was utilized. An upper limit value was set at 0.85 and considered the only loss for this junction.
The inertia coefficient, I, for the junction was calculated as a sum of two contributions: (a) inertia through the half-annulus of the penetration (0.23), and (b) an upper limit estimate of the inertia within the annulus, node 34 (0.07), totaling 0.30 ft-1. Junction 47 is a vertical junction connecting nodes 16 and 21. The junction area is
the related annulus cross-section area redu ced by two constrictions, stiffener and the thermal insulation support structure.
Although the constrictions appear at different elevations (11 inches apart), they were assumed at the same elevation.
This assumption leads to the junction area of 7.72 ft 2 (upstream volume flow area is 11.87 ft 2 and the flow area of the downstream volume is 12.36 ft 2). The loss coefficient was estimated using Diagram 4-9 of Reference 6, at 0.66 for flow area 7.72 ft 2. The total junction loss coefficient is therefore 0.67. The junction area is characterized by the radial width of 1.
45 feet. This width was taken as the characteristic length, d, for the purposes of the inertia coefficient determination.
Then, using a variation of the above described relation for I, it was found that I = 0.45 ft
-1. 1 j I 1 j I= 2 AdL o A d I+=
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-40 REV. 13 Junction 72 is an example of the vent path through the line penetration and connects annular node 28 with the containment node 37. The actual penetration is located on the boundary between nodes 28 and 29. For this reason, only half of the penetration was treated as the junction 72.
The minimum area of the junction is the cr oss-sectional area of the half of annulus between the shield door and penetration line. It was determined to be 9.71 ft
- 2. Half-penetration flow area was calculated at 5.33 ft
- 2. The inertia coefficient for this junction was determined on the basis of the above areas and the characteristic diameter as being the hydraulic diameter at the penetration exit (3.3 ft
-1). The loss coefficient for the junction was, however, determined for the whole penetration and it consisted of a friction loss (0.02 for A = 10.65 ft 2), turning losses at the nozzle and contraction-expansion losses at the shie ld doors. The turning losses were approximated with losses in the branch of a tee section as shown in Diagram 7-21, Reference 6, and estimated at 1.05 bas ed on the penetration area 10.65 ft
- 2. The loss at the shield door was approximated with a loss due to a discharge from a straight conduit through a thick-walled orifice or grid, Diagram 11-28, Reference 6, and calculated at 1.69 based on the penetration exit area 1.424 ft
- 2. Then the total loss coefficient based on the area 1.424 ft 2 is 1.71, which is the loss coefficient of the junction.
A complete review of all volume and junction parameters as used in the analyses is given in Tables 6.2-9, 6.2-10, 6.2-24, and 6.2-25. Tables of junction characteristics include an indication whether the junction was choked during the analysis. The junctions closer to the break volume choked very early in the transient; an indication that the pressurization was hardly a function of either assigned loss coefficients or inertia coefficients.
Mass and energy blowdown rates used in th e analysis are given in Tables 6.2-26 and 6.2-27.
Figure 6.2-18 depicts the calculated differ ential pressures across the biological shield wall (doors) for the postulated recirculation line break. Figures 6.2-49 and 6.2-50 show final pressure distribution in axial and circumferential direction, respectively also for the recirculation line break. Figures 6.2-22, 6.2-51, and 6.2-52 give the same information for the postulated feedwater line break.
Head Cavity
Note: The current flow paths have b een changed to include the two manholes between the head cavity and the drywell and the four ducted HVAC vents have been modified by the addition of discharge nozzles. The impact of this change has been evaluated and it has been determined that the analysis presented here is bounding.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-41 REV. 13 The computer code utilized for this investigation was RELAP4/Mod 5 (Reference 7) as received from the Argonne Code Center. A listing of the input for each case (Tables 6.2-15 and 6.2-16) is provided to demonstrate the options of the code that were utilized to obtain a solution. The mass and energy inputs were taken from Table 6.2-18 for the recirculation line break, and calculated based on Moody's flow model with a multiplier of 1.0 for the simultaneous head spray line and RPV head vent line break. The details regarding th e data contained in Table 6.2-18 are given in Subsection 6.2.1.1.3.1. The basic assumptions utilized in the analysis are given below. a. Thermodynamic equilibrium exists in each containment subcompartment. The containmen t option of the RELAP4/MOD5 computer code was utilized which a llows for the flow of air, water vapor, and liquid between the nodes.
- b. The constituents of the fluid flowing through the subcompartment vents are based on a homogeneous mixture of the fluid in the subcompartment. The consequences of this assumption result in complete liquid carry-over through subcompartment vents.
- c. No heat loss from the gases inside the primary containment is assumed. This adds extra conservatism to the analysis, i.e., the analysis will tend to predict higher containment pressures than would actually exist.
- d. Incompressible single-stream flow without momentum flux was used for all junctions.
- e. The Moody model for critical flow was used when choking occurred in a junction.
- f. The stagnation properties which include dynamic velocity effects were used to determine the flow rate in conjunction with the Moody model.
- g. A contraction coefficient of 0.6 was implemented with the junction flow areas which reduces the flow and retains higher pressures closer to the break. In addition, a contraction coefficient of 1.0 was utilized for the fill junction which was used to simulate the break.
- h. The reactor pressure vessel head insulation remains in place and retains its structural integrity during any postulated accident. This is conservative since the RPV head cavity volume is minimized which will result in higher pressures in the head cavity.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-42 REV. 13 i. The manholes between the head cavity and the drywell are assumed to be closed. This reduces the flow area between the volumes increasing the differential pressure across the bulkhead.
- j. All of the HVAC vents (supply and return) are modeled for the postulated break in the head cavity since the pressure in the return vents with the ductwork would alwa ys be greater than the drywell pressure. However, only the supply vents are considered to allow flow for the breaks in the drywell. It is assumed that the HVAC return ductwork would be crushed by the rising drywell pressure.
- k. To simplify the input to RELAP4/MOD5, the flow area properties of the HVAC vents are combined into one equivalent vent.
- l. The downcomers are represented by an equivalent single flow path with a flow area equal to the sum of the actual flow areas.
- m. The modeling of downcomer clearing the initiation of flow into the wetwell was modeled in two ways. In the case of the recirculation line break, the downcomer clearing is extremely rapid. To accurately simulate this, the model would have to be rather complex due to the large inertial and frictional effects present in the downcomer. This complexity was avoided by making use of an accident chronology shown in Table 6.2-7 which found th e vent clearing time to be 0.824 second. A valve was placed in the flow path and opened 0.824 second after the line break. The simultan eous head spray line and RPV head vent line break is a much smaller break and results in a relatively slow pressurization of the drywell. A va lve was again used in the flow path, but in this instance, the valve opening was dependent upon the drywell pressure exceeding the hydrostatic head at the downcomer exit. The opening differential pressure used was 5.2 psid which is equivalent to a 12-foot downcomer submergence.
- n. No significant depressurization of the reactor pressure vessel occurs during the postulated break.
- o. The simultaneous pipe break of the head spray line and the RPV head vent line was considered because of the lack of whip restraints on the head spray line. The resultant whip of the head spray line is assumed to rupture the RPV head vent line. Neither the RCIC nor the RHR system is operating during the time of the head spray line break, i.e., the RHR-RCIC stop valve is assumed to be closed during the time of the accident. The RPV head vent line is connected at the RPV head and at the main steam header. Therefore, a break in this line results in a two direction blowdown, one side feeds directly from the RPV, and LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-43 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 other feeds from the main steamline. The head spray line has a limiting flow area at the head spray nozzle which has a diameter of 3.72 inches. The RPV head vent line is postulated to rupture at the 4-inch to 2-inch reducer in the line located in the head cavity. The steam flow occurs at both ends of the break, one having a diameter of 4.0 inches and the other 2.0 inches. The total flow area was determined to be 0.163 square feet. All of the fl ows are assumed to have the same RPV conditions which are a pressure of 1050.0 psia and an enthalpy of 1190.0 Btu/lbm. Utilizing Moody' s choked flow tables from RELAP4/MOD5, a maximum flow of 2200.0 lbm/sec-ft 2 or 357.9 lbm/sec was calculated. This is used as a constant flow rate for the break in the head cavity.
- p. The mass and energy release rates used for the recirculation line break are those given in Table 6.2-18. The break sizes are specified in Subsection 6.2.1.1.3.1.1 and the details regarding line size, break size, orifice size, etc., are given in Table 6.2-4.
- q. RELAP4/MOD5 lacks the ability to model steam condensation in the suppression pool. This limitation has no effect on the results obtained prior to vent clearing but will re sult in an overestimation of the pressure rise in the wetwell after vent clearing. Since the maximum differential pressure across the refu eling bulkhead occurs very shortly after downcomer vent clearing in the case of the recirculation line
break, the effect is negligible. However, it is noted that the long-term pressure values are not realistic because of this modeling method. In the case of the break in the head cavity, flow through the downcomers does not begin until long after the peak differential pressure across the refueling bulkhead plate occurs.
- r. The initial conditions are taken to be the normal operating conditions as given in Table 6.2-3 except with a relative humidity of 0.1%. In the head cavity and drywell the initial pressure is 15.45 psia, the initial temperature is 135
° F and the relative humidty is 0.1%. In the wetwell the initial pressure is 15.45 psia, the initial temperature is 100° F and the relative humidity is 0.1%.
The node and flow path data specifics are given in Tables 6.2-11 and 6.2-12 for the simultaneous break of the head spray and RPV head vent lines and Tables 6.2-13 and 6.2-14 for the recirculation line break. The nodes and flow paths are graphically depicted in Figure 6.2-19 for the simultaneous break of the head spray line and RPV head vent line, and Figure 6.2-20 for the recirculation line break.
A description of the loss coefficient determination for the flow paths is provided. This problem has only two flow paths to co nsider. The first path connects the head LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-44 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 cavity to the drywell and consists of eight ports through the bulkhead plate. Four of these ports are the HVAC supply ports for the head cavity and do not have any ductwork attached to them. The remain ing four ports are the HVAC return ducts from the head cavity and have ductwork attached to them. All of the HVAC vents (supply and return) were modeled for the po stulated break in the head cavity since the pressure in the return vents with th e ductwork would always be greater than the drywell pressure. The losses considered were the turning losses of the fluid around the RPV head from the break to the HVAC ports in the bulkhead. These losses are very small since the turning radius around the RPV head is so large.
Therefore, this loss was neglected. The ports without the ductwork were considered as thick-edged orifices. This loss coeffi cient was determined using Diagram 4-14 of Reference 6 and was calculated to be 1.52. The ports with the ductwork consist of a 24-inch to 18-inch diameter reducer followed by ductwork which includes a series of elbows and one tee. The flow finally exit s into the drywell through one of the tee branches. Diagrams 3-9, 6-1, and 7-25 of Reference 6 were used to calculate the loss coefficient and it was determined to be 4.
- 62. Since the flow through the ports with and without ductwork is parallel, the losses were combined for parallel flow and the total loss coefficient was calculated, as described in Subsecti on 6.2.1.2.3, to be 2.62. The flow area for this case is the total of the minimum flow areas through each of the eight HVAC vents. The total flow area was determined to be 11.12 square feet. For the recirculation line break within the drywell, only the supply vents which are without ductwork were considered to allo w for flow. It is assumed that the HVAC return ductwork would crush because the drywell pressure would be greater than the pressure in the ductwork. The loss coefficient for this case is calculated for the ports without the ductwork. The loss coefficient was determined as mentioned earlier and was calculated to be 1.52. The flow area for this case was determined to be 4.92 square feet.
The loss coefficient for the second flow path, through the downcomers, was taken from Table 6.2-1 and is 5.2. No attempt was made to model the inertial effects of the clearing transient. The path was treated as a valve that opened at a prespecified time of 0.824 second for the recirculation line break. For the simultaneous head spray line and RPV head vent line break, the path was treated as a valve that opened when the drywell pressure exceeded the hydrostatic head of 5.2 psid which is equivalent to a 12-foot downcomer submergence. The path model considers no inertial effects; this is a conservative approach, since it has the effect of making the pressure differentials across the bulkhead plate higher.
Figure 6.2-24 depicts the pressure histories of the head cavity and drywell for the break in the head cavity and the recirculati on line break in the head cavity and the recirculation line break in the drywell. The pressure differential histories across the bulkhead plate for the break in the head cavity and the recirculation line break in the drywell are shown in Figure 6.2-25. The peak pressure differential for each break was found to be 9.0 psid upward fo r the recirculation line break and 7.0 psid downward for the simultaneous head spray line and RPV head vent line break. The LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-45 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 differential pressure history as shown for the simultaneous break of the head spray line and RPV head vent line shows two differential pressure peaks. The first differential pressure peak is due to the su dden pressurization of the head cavity and the second peak is due to the sudden opening of the downcomers at a pressure differential between the drywell and wetwell of 5.2 psid. This second peak is erroneous because no inertial effects were modelled in the downcomer flow path and therefore was not considered as the design downward differential pressure. The design pressure differential is 10.6 psid in both directions.
This provides for a margin factor of approximately 1.2 at the final design stage.
6.2.1.2.4 Impact of Increased Initial Suppression Pool Temperature
Supplementary safety evaluations have been performed, as discussed in Section 6.2.1.8, to verify that an increase in the initial suppression pool temperature would not significantly impact the consequences of this accident scenario.
6.2.1.3 Mass and Energy Release Analyses for Postulated Loss-of-Coolant Accidents
This section contains a description of th e transient energy release rates from the reactor primary system to the containment system following a LOCA with minimum ESF performance. In general, a very conservative analytical approach is taken in that all possible sources of energy are accounted for, whereas the suppression pool is assumed to be the only available heat sink. No credit is taken for either the heat that will be stored in the suppression chamber and drywell structures, or the heat that will be transmitted through the containment and dissipated to the environment.
The analysis at 3559 MWt used essentially th e same methodology as the analysis at 3434 MWt, except for the RPV blowdown in the short-term containment response analysis, as noted in Subsection 6.2.1.1.3. The break flow rate and enthalpy used for the short-term containment response analysis at 3559 MWt are given in Table 6.2-18a. For the analysis of the long-t erm containment response, one of the key input assumptions upda ted for the analysis at 3559 MWt is that the core decay heat is based on the ANSI/ANS 5.1-1979 decay he at model with a two sigma uncertainty adder. The core decay heat values used in the 3559 MWt analysis are provided in Table 6.2-20a. The following subsections explain how the transient mass and release rates from the vessel to the containment were determined for the original analysis at 3434 MWt.
6.2.1.3.1 Mass and Energy Release Data Table 6.2-18 provides the mass and enthalpy release data for the containment DBA, recirculation line break. Blowdown steam and liquid flow rates and their respective enthalpies are reported for a 24-hour period following the accident. Figures 6.2-26 LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-45a REV. 14, APRIL 2002 and 6.2-27 show the blowdown flow rates for the recirculation lines break graphically. This data was employed in the DBA containment pressure-temperature transient analyses repo rted in Subsection 6.2.1.1.3.1.
Table 6.2-19 provides the mass and enthal py release data for the main steamline break. Blowdown data is presented for a 24-hour period following the accident.
Figure 6.2-28 shows the vessel blowdown flow rates for the main steamline break as a function of time after the postulated rupture. This information has been employed in the containment response analys es presented in Subsection 6.2.1.1.3.1.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-46 REV. 13 6.2.1.3.2 Energy Sources The reactor coolant system conditions prior to the design basis recirculation line break are presented in Tables 6.2-3 and 6.
2-4. Reactor blowdown calculations for containment response analyses are based upon these conditions during a loss-of-coolant accident.
Following each postulated accident event, the stored energy in the reactor system and the energy generated by fission product decay will be released. The rate of release of core decay heat for the evaluation of the containment response to a LOCA is provided in Table 6.2-20 as a function of time after accident initiation. This data is based upon a normalization factor of 3440 MWt and includes the energy of fuel
relaxation.
Following a LOCA, the sensible energy stored in the reactor primary system metal will be transferred to the recirculating ECCS water and will thus contribute to the suppression pool and containment heatup. Figure 6.2-29 shows the temperature transients of the various primary system structures which contribute to this sensible energy transfer. Figure 6.2-30 shows the variation of the sensible heat content of the reactor vessel and internal structures during a recirculation line break accident based upon the temperature transient responses.
6.2.1.3.3 Effects of Metal-Water Reaction
The containment systems shall accommodate the effects of metal-water reactions and other chemical reactions following a postulated DBA. The amount of metal-water reaction is limited to values consistent with the performance objectives of the emergency core cooling systems (ECCS).
6.2.1.3.4 Impact of Increased Initial Suppression Pool Temperature
Supplementary safety evaluations have been performed, as discussed in Section 6.2.1.8, to verify that an increase in the initial suppression pool temperature would not significantly impact the consequences of this accident scenario.
6.2.1.4 Mass and Energy Release Analysis for Postulated Secondary System Pipe Ruptures Inside Containment (PWR)
Not applicable.
6.2.1.5 Minimum Containment Pressure Analysis for Performance Capability Studies on Emergency Core Cooling System (PWR)
Not applicable.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-47 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 6.2.1.6 Testing and Inspection Containment testing and inspection programs are fully described in Subsection 6.2.6 and in Chapter 14.0 of the FSAR. The requirements and bases for acceptability are outlined completely in the Technical Specifications.
6.2.1.7 Instrumentation Requirements
A complete description of the instrumentation employed for monitoring the containment conditions and actuating those systems and components having a safety function is presented in Chapter 7.0.
6.2.1.8 Evaluation of 105
° F Suppression Pool Initial Temperature Temperature limits on the suppression pool for Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) with Mark II containment were implemented to minimize the potential for high amplitude loads on the pool during accide nt events. However, some of the limits were implemented with excessive conservatism because the loading phenomena were not completely understood. This suppression pool temperature limit has therefore been historically chosen based on the maximum expected service water temperature. For LaSalle County Statio n Units 1 and 2, the licensing safety evaluations were based upon a 100
° F suppression pool water temperature, which was equivalent to the Ultimate Heat Sink design temperature limit.
Hot weather in Illinois can cause the temperature of the ultimate heat sink to rise to the point where the suppression pool temperature limit of 100
° F may be exceeded. However, the ultimate heat sink design limit will not be exceeded. To prevent an unnecessary plant shutdown during a period of high electrical demand, plant specific safety evaluations have been performed (References 10-20) to demonstrate that plant operation with higher suppression pool temperature is acceptable, i.e., the plant safety limits will still be met with the higher temperatures.
The suppression pool was designed to fu nction as both a heat sink and an emergency water source during transient and accident events as discussed throughout section 6.2. Therefore, performance of the following evaluations were required to support a 5
° F increase in the initial suppression pool temperature as LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2:
a) Containment loads associated with SRV operation including air clearing loads and steam condensation loads.
b) Containment response associated with LOCA events including the peak pressure and temperature design limits, condensation capability, condensation oscillation load s (CO), and chugging loads.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-48 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 c) Equipment performance for design basis events including the impact on the core cooling capability of the ECCS and the parameters which could impact the operability of the ECCS pumps (such as NPSH availability, etc.).
d) Equipment and ECCS performance for other non-LOCA events, e.g., ATWS.
For each of these cases the evaluation showed that the increase of the initial suppression pool temperature would have an insignificant impact on the existing
design margin for the suppression pool and ECC systems. Peak local pool temperature will increase by 3
° F at a 105
° F initial pool bulk temperature for SRV related events.*
The results of this evaluation were subm itted to the NRC (Reference 11), and an approved license amendment to change the maximum suppression pool temperature limit to 105
° F was received (Reference 12). The Ultimate Heat Sink design temperature limit is changed to 104
° F in Reference 32.
6.2.2 Containment Heat Removal System
The containment heat removal system func tion is accomplished by the containment cooling mode of the RHR system. The system is also equipped with spray headers in the drywell and suppression chamber areas. However, no credit was taken for these spray headers for either heat removal or fission product control following a LOCA. 6.2.2.1 Design Bases
The containment heat removal system, consisting of the suppression pool cooling system, is an integral part of the RHR syst em. It meets the following safety design bases: a. The source of water for restoring RPV coolant inventory is located within the containment to establish a closed cooling-water path.
- b. A closed loop flow path between the suppression pool and the RHR heat exchangers is established so that the heat removal capability of these heat exchangers can be utilized.
- c. This system, in conjunction with the ECC systems, has such diversity and redundancy that no single failure can result in its inability to cool the core adequately (Subsection 6.3.1).
- Peak bulk suppression pool temperature, in the case of LOCA events, is still approximately 10° F below the allowable values.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-49 REV. 13 d. To ensure that the RHR containment cooling subsystem operates satisfactorily following a LOCA, each active component shall be testable during operation of the nuclear system.
6.2.2.2 System Design The containment cooling subsystem is an integral part of the RHR system, as described in Subsection 5.4.7. The piping and instrumentation diagram is given in Drawing Nos. M-96 (sheets 1-4) and M-142 (sheets 1-4). Re dundancy is achieved by having two complete containment cooling systems.
Consideration of the fouling of heat exch angers and the selection of temperatures for heat exchanger design are di scussed in Subsection 5.4.7.
6.2.2.3 Design Evaluation
In the event of the postulated LOCA, the short-term energy release from the reactor primary system will be dumped to the suppression pool. This will cause a pool temperature rise of approximately 46
° F. Subsequent to the accident, fission product decay heat will result in a continui ng energy dump to the pool. Unless this energy is removed from the primary containment system, it will eventually result in unacceptable suppression pool temperatur es and containment pressures. The containment cooling mode of the RHR system is used to remove heat from the
suppression pool.
A supplementary evaluation has been performed for the addition of feedwater to the suppression pool to assess the impact on long term pool temperature. This evaluation estimates that th e peak short term pool temp erature will increase by an additional 15.4
° F. This results in a short term pool temperature (at 600 seconds) of approximately 166
° F. Further details are given in Section 6.2.1.1.3.1.1 in the paragraph titled, "Evaluation of Post-LOCA Feedwater Injection".
6.2.2.3.1 RHR Containment Cooling Mode
When the RHR system is in the containment cooling mode, the pumps draw water from the suppression pool, pass it throug h the RHR heat exchangers, and inject it back either to the suppression pool or to the RPV.
In order to evaluate the adequacy of the RHR system, the following limiting case is postulated:
- a. Reactor initially at maximum power.
- b. Isolation scram occurs.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-50 REV. 17, APRIL 2008
- c. Manual depressurization discharges heat to suppression pool.
- d. Suppression pool cooling is established approximately 10 minutes after the technical specification limit for pool water temperature is reached.
A complete discussion of the suppression pool temperature transients is contained in Chapter 6 of the LSCS-DAR.
The suppression pool temperature transients have been analyzed based on an increased initial suppression pool temperature of 105
° F as discussed in Section 6.2.1.8. The scenarios analyzed are based on those spec ified in NUREG-0783, Reference 15 provides the results of this analysis. For all analyzed cases the long term suppression pool temperature is less than 200
° F. 6.2.2.3.2 Summary of Containment Cooling Analysis
When calculating the long term, post LOCA pool temperature transient, it is assumed that one RHR heat exchanger loop is not available, the suppression pool level initially is at the technical specification minimum, the suppression pool temperature initially is at the technica l specification maximum, and the design RHR heat exchanger fouling factors are used. No credit is taken for heat loss to environs or to the pool structures.
The resultant suppression pool transient maximum temperature for 3434 MWt is 200° F (see References 8, 15, 16, 17, and 18). It is concluded that even with the very conservative assumptions described above, the RHR system in the containment cooling mode can meet its design objectiv e of safely terminating the limiting case temperature transient. See subsection 6.
2.2.3.5 for impact of power uprate to 3489 MWt.
6.2.2.3.3 Impact of Increased Initial Suppression Pool Temperature
Supplementary evaluations have been performe d, as discussed in Section 6.2.1.8, to verify that an increase in the initial suppression pool temperature would not impact the ability of the RHR containment cooling system to meet its design objective.
6.2.2.3.4 Impact of Reduced RHR Suppression Pool Cooling Flow Rate
The original and 1988 General Electric co ntainment analyses (references 8 & 17), has been supplemented with an evaluation which considers an RHR pump flow rate during the suppression pool cooling of 7200 gpm. As noted in Table 6.2-2, the previous analysis used a flow rate of 7450 gpm. Although the RHR pump is capable of such performance, the minimum requ ired Technical Specification flow per specification SR 3.6.2.3.2 is only 7200 gpm.
Since suppression pool cooling is only initiated after 600 seconds into the DBA-LOCA, the affect of this lower flow rate LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-51 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 will be seen as slightly lower efficiency for the RHR heat exchanger and a higher long term suppression pool temperature. The results of th e Reference 18 General Electric analysis indicate an increase in the long term pool temperature of 1.5
° F for the DBA-LOCA case.
For cases which involve SRV blowdown to the suppression pool the lower RHR
pump flow rate was a ssessed in S&L Calculation 3C7-0181-003, Rev. 3 (Reference 15) and the effect on the peak suppression pool temperature was an increase of less than or equal to 1
° F in the peak suppression pool temperature. For all cases examined, the highest peak pool temperature calculated is 195
° F which is still less than 200
° F peak temperature for all cases analyzed. Thus, complete steam condensation is assured with these elevated pool temperatures.
6.2.2.3.5 Impact of Power Uprate
The resultant post-LOCA maximum suppre ssion pool temperature at 102% of uprated reactor thermal power, 3559 MWt, is 196.1º F, as shown in Table 6.2-5a. The maximum suppression pool temper ature at 3559 MWt for NUREG-0783 events is 190.7º F as evaluated in Reference 31.
The suppression pool limit for events with SRV discharge is evaluated in References 25 and 27. In the NRC's Safety Evaluation of Reference 28 for the elimination of local suppression pool temperature limits for plants with T-Quenchers, an additional concern was raised on the pote ntial transfer of non-condensed SRV steam plumes to ECCS suction strainers. An an alysis was performed in Reference 29 that modeled the steam plume formation, de termined the extent of steam plume projection, and verified that the plume can not enter ECCS suction strainers.
However, the analysis determined the existence of a potential steam ingestion concern for the "K" SRV and the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) suction strainer, if the temperature of the suppression pool is above 200º F. Administrative controls have been implemented to caution the operators on th e use of "K" SRV and RCIC simultaneously when the suppression pool temperature is above 200º F.
6.2.2.3.6 Sensitivity of Initiation Time of RHR Containment Cooling Mode A one-time sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the impact on the peak suppression pool temperature, if the star t of the RHR Containment Cooling Mode is delayed for longer than 10 minutes, fo llowing a DBA-LOCA. Manual operator action from the main control room is needed, in order for Suppression pool cooling to be initiated. These actions could require up to a few minutes to accomplish (accounting for valve stroke times, etc.). The impact on peak suppression pool temperature was studied if the start of suppression pool cooling is delayed from 10 minutes to 30 minutes.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-51a REV. 15, APRIL 2004 The study utilized power uprate decay heat loads. The results of this study indicate there is a very small impact on peak suppression pool temperature. The 30 minute case results in an increase of 1.24 deg-F, added to the current analysis peak of 193 deg-F, results in a postulated peak temper ature of less than 195 deg-F. This peak temperature does not challenge the suppression pool design limits. The operator actions to re-align RHR are anticipated to require much less time than the additional 20 minutes of this analysis. The increase in peak suppression pool temperature is concluded to be negligible (i.e. less than 1 deg-F) for these anticipated starting times which are only a few minutes longer than 10 minutes.
6.2.2.4 Test and Inspections The operational testing and the periodic inspection of components of the containment heat removal system are described in Subsection 5.4.7.4.
6.2.2.5 Instrumentation Requirements Suppression pool cooling by the RHR system is manually initiated from the control room where sufficient instrumentatio n is provided for that purpose.
6.2.3 Secondary Containment Functional Design The Secondary Containment consists of th e Reactor Building, the equipment access structure, and a portion of the main steam tunnel and has a minimum free volume of 2,875,000 cubic feet.
The reactor building completely encloses the reactor and its primary containment.
The structure provides secondary contai nment when the primary containment is closed and in service, and primary cont ainment when the primary containment is open, as it is during the refueling period. The reactor building houses the refueling and reactor servicing equipmen t, the new and spent fuel st orage facilities, and other reactor auxiliary or service equipment, including the reactor core isolation cooling system, reactor water cleanup demineralizer system, standby liquid control system, control rod drive system equipment, the emergency core cooling system, and electrical equipment components.
6.2.3.1 Design Bases The functional capability of the ventilation system to maintain negative pressure in the secondary containment with respect to ou tdoors is discussed in Subsection 9.4.2.
6.2.3.2 System Design
The reactor building is designed and constructed in accordance with the design criteria outlined in Chapter 3.0. The reactor buildin g exterior walls and superstructure up to the refueling floor are constructed of reinforced concrete.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-52 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 Above the level of the refueling floor, the building structure is fabricated of structural steel members, insulated siding and a metal roof. Joints in the superstructure paneling are detailed to assure leaktightness.
Penetrations of the reactor building are designed with leakage characteristics consistent with leakage requirements of the entire building. The reactor building is de signed to limit the inleakage to 100% of the reactor building free volume per day at a negative interior pressure of 0.25 inch H 2 0 gauge, while operating the standby gas tr eatment system. The building structure above the refueling floor is also designed to contain a negative interior pressure of 0.25 inch H 2 0 gauge. Personnel entrance to the reactor building is through an interlocking double door airlock. Rail car access openings in the reactor building at elevation 710 feet 6 inches provided with double doors to assure that building access will not interfere with maintaining integrity of the secondary containment.
Ventilation for the reactor building is provided by means of a once-through ventilation system. Outdoor air is filter ed then evaporatively or chilled glycol cooled to *reduce the supply air dry bulb temperature to increa se the sensible cooling capacity of this air. This air is then preheated as required to satisfy the plant operating conditions.
The equipment is arranged as follows: outside air inlet, filter, chilled glycol/heating coil evaporative *cooler (abandoned-in-place), resistive heating coils, and supply fans. Three 50% vane axial fans are provided, two of which normally operate and one which serves as a standby.
Supply air is distributed to the reactor building by means of a duct system to provide
equipment cooling in various areas as requir ed. Air is routed from clean areas to areas with progressively greater contamination potential. Pressure differential control dampers are used as required to maintain negative pressures in potentially contaminated cubicles. All exhaust air is ro uted through a return duct system to the exhaust fans.
All supply air delivered to the refueling floor level is exhausted from the periphery of
the spent fuel and equipment storage pools and the reactor well. This air is routed directly to the main system exhaust duct.
Three vane axial exhaust fans are provided, two of which normally operate and one of which serves as a standby. The discharge from the exhaust fans is routed to the plant vent where the air is discharged to the atmosphere. All exhaust air is monitored for radiation.
Normal ventilation systems are not required to operate during accident conditions and
are automatically shut down whenever the standby gas treatment system starts. The equipment for this system is not powered from essential buses. To
- Note: The evaporative coolers are abandoned-in-place.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-53 REV. 13 maintain the integrity of the secondary containment, two isolation dampers are provided in the supply air duct between the supply fan discharge and the penetration through the secondary containment wall.
The secondary containment structure protects the equipment in the building from externally generated missiles. Piping syst ems within the secondary containment have been analyzed for high energy pipe breaks outside primary containment and pipe whip restraints are provided as required. The effects of jet impingment have also been analyzed and included in the design of the structure and pipe whip restraints. For more information on high energy pipe breaks outside primary containment see Appendix C.
The isolation features and isolation signals for secondary containment are discussed in Section 6.5, Chapter 7.0 and Subsection 9.4.2.
6.2.3.3 Design Evaluation
The design evaluation of secondary containment ventilation system and atmospheric cleanup system is given in Sect ion 6.5 and Subsection 9.4.2.
6.2.3.4 Test and Inspections
The program for initial performance testing is outlined in the Technical Specifications. Periodic functional testing of the second ary containment and secondary containment isolation system is described in the Technical Specifications.
6.2.3.5 Instrumentation Requirements The instrumentation to be employed for the monitoring and actuation of the standby gas treatment system is fully described in Chapter 7.0.
The instrumentation used for the monitori ng and actuation of the ventilation and cleanup system is discussed in Subsections 7.3.8 and 7.6.1.2.
6.2.4 Containment Isolation System
The primary objective of the containment is olation system is to provide protection against the release of radioactive materials to the environment through the fluid system lines penetrating the containment.
This objective is accomplished by ensuring that isolation barriers are provided in all fluid lines that penetrate primary containment, and that automatic closure of the appropriate isolation valves occurs.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-54 REV. 13 6.2.4.1 Design Bases The design requirements for containment isolation barriers are:
- a. The capability of closure or isolation of pipes or ducts that penetrate the containment is provided to ensure a containment barrier sufficient to
maintain leakage within permissible limits.
- b. The arrangements of isolation valving and the criteria used to establish the isolation provisions conform to the requirements of General Design Criteria 54 through 57, as discussed in Section 3.1.
- c. The design of all containment isolat ion valves and associated piping and penetrations is Seismic Category I.
- d. Containment isolation valves and associated piping and penetrations meet the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, for Class 1 or 2 components, as applicable.
- e. Isolation valves, actuators, and co ntrols are protected against loss of safety function from missiles and accident environments.
- f. Containment isolation valves provide the necessary isolation of the containment in the event of accidents or other conditions to limit the
untreated release of radioactive materi als from the containment in excess of the design limits.
- g. Appropriate isolation valves are auto matically closed by the signals listed in Table 6.2-21. The criteria for assigning isolation signals to their associated isolation valves is descri bed in Subsection 7.3.2. Once the isolation function is initiated, it goes to completion.
- h. Redundancy and physical separation are required in the electrical and mechanical design to ensure that no single failure in the system prevents the system from performi ng its safety function.
The governing conditions under which cont ainment isolation becomes mandatory are high drywell pressure or low water level in the reactor vessel. One or both of these signals initiate closure of isolation valves not required for emergency shutdown of the plant. These same signals also initiate the ECCS. The valves associated with an ECCS may be closed remote manually from th e control room or close automatically, as appropriate.
Excess flow check valves are used as a means of automatic isolation on all static instrument sensing lines that penetrate the drywell containment and connect to LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-55 REV. 16, APRIL 2006 either the reactor pressure boundary or the drywell atmosphere. The valve is located downstream of the root valve and as close as practical to the outside surface of the containment. This valve is automatically closed to restrict flow in case of a sensing line break outside containment.
Backfill Injection lines have been added to the reference legs originating from Condensing Chambers 1(2) B21-D004A/B/C/D to comply with NRC Bulletin 93-03.
These lines use two simple check valves in series to accomplish the outboard containment isolation function. It is acceptable to use the two simple check valves instead of one excess flow check valve for the backfill injection lines because these
lines would not need the built-in bleed flow path in an excess flow check valve to reopen when appropriate. The 4 lbs./hr. CRD flow would reopen the check valves when it is available. If it is not availabl e, it is not appropriate to reopen the check valves. This meets the Regulatory Guide 1.11 "... the valve should reopen automatically or be capable of being reopened readily under the conditions that prevail when reopening is appropriate. It should not be necessary to break a line to reopen a closed valve." In addition, there is no instrument reading that will be significantly effected by the closure of these check valves.
Dead-end instrument sensing lines that are in communication with the reactor pressure boundary and penetrate the primary containment are equipped with 1/4
inch orifice as close to the process as possible inside the drywell.
6.2.4.2 System Design Table 6.2-21 presents the design information regarding the containment isolation provisions for fluid system lines and instru ment lines penetrating the containment. Containment isolation signals are identified in Table 6.2-21 and valve arrangements are represented in Figure 6.2-31.
The plant protection system signals that initiate closure of the containment isolation valves are listed in Table 7.3-2.
The isolation provisions follow the requirem ents of General Design Criteria 54, 55, 56, and 57. General Design Criteria 54 ap plies to all of the containment isolation valves. Compliance with General Design Crit eria 55, 56, and 57 is described below. The justification for this design is also presented.
6.2.4.2.1 Evaluation Agains t General Design Criterion 55 Feedwater Line
Each feedwater line forming a part of th e reactor coolant pressure boundary is provided with a swing type check valve on Unit 1 and a swing type check valve on Unit 2 inside the containment, and a nonslam type, air operated testable check valve outside the containment, as close as LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-56 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 practicable to the containment wall. In addition, a motor-operated gate valve is installed upstream of the outside isolat ion valve to provide long-term isolation capability.
During a postulated LOCA, it is desirable to maintain reactor coolant makeup from all available sources. Therefore, it would not improve safety to install a feedwater isolation valve that closed automatically on signals indicating a LOCA, and, thereby, eliminate a source of reactor makeup. The provision of the check valves, however, ensure the prevention of a significant lo ss of reactor coolant inventory and offer immediate isolation should a break occur in the feedwater line. For this reason, the outermost valve does not automatically is olate upon signal from the protection system. The valve is remote manually closed from the main control room to provide long-term leakage protection upon operat or determination that continued makeup from the feedwater system is unavailable or unnecessary.
In addition, the outboard check valve is provided with a special actuator that performs the following functions:
- a. The actuator is capable of partially moving the valve disc into the flow stream during normal plant operation in order to ensure that the valve is not bound in the open position. The actuator is not capable of fully closing the valve against flow, however, and there is no significant disruption of feedwater flow.
- b. The actuator is capable of applying a seating force to the valve at low differential pressures and abnormal conditions. This improves the leaktightness capability of the valves. The actuator will be utilized during leak testing.
The subject penetration(s) meet the alternate primary containment isolation criteria of NUREG 0800 "Standard Review Plan for the review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants" (SRP) instead of the explicit requirements of GDC 55.
The HPCS, LPCS, and LPCI lines penetrate the drywell and inject coolant directly into the reactor pressure vessel. Isolation is provided on each of these lines by a normally closed check valve inside the containment and a normally closed motor-operated gate valve located outside the cont ainment, as close as practicable to the exterior wall of the containment. If a loss-of-coolant accident occurred, each of these valves would be required to open to supply coolant to the RPV. The motor-operated gate valves are automatically opened by their appropriate signals, and the check valves are opened by the coolant flow in th e line. The opening capability of the check valve can be tested by monitoring flow through the valve into the reactor vessel.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-57 REV. 16, APRIL 2006 Control Rod Drive Lines The control rod drive system, has two type s of lines to the RPV; the insert and withdraw lines that penetrate the drywell and connect to the control rod drive.
The control rod drive insert and withdraw lines can be isolated by the solenoid valves outside the primary containment.
These lines that extend outside the primary containment are small, and termin ate in a system that is designed to prevent out-leakage. Solenoid valves normally are closed, but open on rod movement and during reactor scram. In addition, a ball check valve located in the control rod drive flange housing automatically seals the insert line in the event of a
break. RHR and RCIC Head Spray Lines The subject penetration(s) meet the alternative primary containment isolation
criteria of NUREG 0800 "Standard Review Plan for the review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants" (SRP) in stead of the explicit requirements of GDC 55.
The RHR and RCIC head spray lines meet outside the containment to form a common line which penetrates the drywell and discharges directly into the reactor pressure vessel. The testable check valve in side the drywell is normally closed. The testable check valve is located as close as practicable to the reactor pressure vessel.
Three types of valves, a testable check valve, a normally closed motor-operated remote manual gate valve, and a normally closed motor-operated automatic globe valve, are located outside the containmen
- t. The check valve assures immediate isolation of the containment in the event of a line break. The globe valve on the RHR line receives an automatic isolation signal while the gate valve on the RCIC line is remote manually actuated to provide long-term leakage control.
Standby Liquid Control System Lines The standby liquid control system line penetrates the drywell and connects to the reactor pressure vessel. In addition to a simple check valve inside the drywell, a check valve together with an explosive actuated valve are located outside the drywell. Since the standby liquid control li ne is a normally closed, nonflowing line, rupture of this line is extremely remote. The explosive actuated valve, though, functions as a third isolation valve. This valve provides an absolute seal for long-term leakage control as well as preventing leakage of sodium pentaborate into the reactor pressure vessel during normal reactor operation.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-57a REV. 14, APRIL 2002 Reactor Water Cleanup System
The reactor water cleanup (RWCU) pumps, heat exchangers, and filter demineralizers are located outside the primary containment. The return line from the filter demineralizers connects to the feedwater line outside the containment between the outside containment feedwate r check valve and the outboard motor-operated gate valve. Isolation of this line is provided by the feedwater system check LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-58 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 valve inside the containment, the feedwater check valve outside the containment, and a motor-operated gate valve which provid es a long term isolation capability.
During the postulated loss-of-coolant accide nt, it is desirable to maintain reactor coolant makeup. For this reason, valves wh ich automatically isolate upon signal are not included in the design of the system.
Consequently, a third valve is required to provide long-term leakage control. Should a break occur in the reactor water cleanup return line, the check valves would prevent significant loss of inventory and offer immediate isolation, while the outermost isolation valve would provide long-term
leakage control.
Recirculation Pump Seal Water Supply Line The recirculation pump seal water line extends from the recirculation pump through the drywell and connects to the CRD supply line outside the primary containment. The seal water line forms a part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, therefore the consequences of failing this line have been evaluated. This evaluation shows that the consequences of breaking this line is less severe than that of failing an instrument line. The recirculation pump seal water line is 3/4-inch Class B from the recirculation pump through the second check valve (located outs ide the containment). From this valve to the CRD connection the line is Class D. Sh ould this line be postulated to fail and either one of the check valves is assumed not to close (single active failure), the flow rate through the broken line has been calcul ated to be substantially less than that permitted for a broken instrument line. Therefore, the two check valves in series provide sufficient isolation capability for postulated failure of this line.
RHR Shutdown Cooling Return Line The subject penetration(s) meet the altern ative primary containment isolation criteria of NUREG 0800 "Standard Review Plan for the review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants" (SRP) instead of the explicit requirements of GDC 55.
The shutdown cooling return lines are connected to the reactor recirculation pump discharge lines. The isolation valve arrangement on these lines is identical to that on the ECCS lines connected to the RPV. Ho wever, the motor-operated valve outside containment closes automatically upon receipt of an isolation signal.
RHR Shutdown Cooling Suction Line The penetration (M-7) has been protected by a relief valve mounted between the inboard automatic isolation and the containm ent penetration. This relief valve was added in response to NRC Generic Lette r GL 96-06 concerns for isolated line overpressurization during a LOCA.
Because the RHR Shutdown Cooling piping up to and including the outer containment penetration automatic isolation valve is part of the RCPB, the penetration configuration must meet GDC 55.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-59 REV. 13 Reactor Recirculation System Sample Line
The Reactor Recirculation sample line is a 3/4" line that is an extension of the RCPB to the outboard isolation valve. The containment penetration (M-36) has an automatic isolation inside containment and an automatic isolation outside
containment. A 3/4" bypass line with a check valve has been added around the inboard isolation valve in response to Generic Letter 96-06. The check valve will open to relieve penetration overpressurization following a LOCA. Manual valves between the check valve and the RR 24" process line will be maintained locked open, when required for overpressure protection, to assure a vent path for overpressure protection.
The two automatic valves and the inboard check valve meet the requirements of GDC 55.
6.2.4.2.2 Evaluation Agains t General Design Criterion 56
Primary Containment Chilled Water System The Primary Containment Chilled Water System (PCCW) consists of two independent trains of cooling for the prim ary containment atmosphere. Each train penetrates the containment with a supply and return line. Each line has an inboard and an outboard automatic isolatio n valve. Each penetration (M-25, M-27, M-28, M-26) has been protected by a relief valve mounted between the inboard automatic isolation and the containment penetration. These relief valves were added in response to NRC Generic Lette r GL 96-06 concerns for isolated line overpressurization during a LOCA.
The penetration configuration must meet GDC 56.
RCIC Turbine Exhaust Vacuum Breaker Line Minimum Flow Bypass
The RCIC turbine exhaust line is provided with a vacuum breaker system to prevent condensation of the exhaust steam from inducing a vacuum in the line. The vacuum relief line connects the turbine exhaust line to the suppression chamber atmosphere. Two check valves in-series in the line prevent steam from exhausting to the vapor space above the pool, and two motor-operated globe valves, one on
either side of the aforementioned check valves, provide remote manual isolation capability for the RCIC turbine exhaust vacuum breaker line.
Combustible Gas Control and Post-LOCA Atmosphere Sampling Lines
The post-LOCA sampling system lines which penetrate the containment and connect to the drywell and suppression ch amber air volume are each equipped with LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-60 REV. 13 a single divisional fail-open, solenoid operated isolation valve located outside and as close to the containment as possible. The combustible gas control system lines which penetrate the containment are equipped with two normally closed motor-operated valves in series, located outsid e containment, remote manually actuated from the control room. These valves provide assurance of isolating these lines in the event of a break and also provide long-term leakage control. In addition, the piping is considered an extension of containment boundary since it must be available for long-term usage following a de sign basis loss-of-coolant accident, and, as such, is designed to the same qualit y standards as the primary containment.
Thus, the need for isolation is conditional.
Containment Vent and Purge and Containment Drain Lines The drywell and suppression chamber vent and purge and containment drain lines have test isolation capabilities commensurate with the importance to safety of isolating these lines. Each line has two normally closed, instrument air powered, air cylinder actuated valves located outside the primary containment. The air cylinders are operated by solenoid valv es connected to the control logic. Containment isolation requirements are me t on the basis that the purge and drain lines are normally closed, low-pressure lines constructed to the same quality
standards as the containment and meet th e Branch Technical Position CSB 6-4. These isolation valves are interlocked to preclude opening of the valves while a containment isolation signal exists. Furt hermore, the consequences of a break in these lines result in no significant safety consideration.
Drywell and Suppression Chamber Air Sampling Lines The air sampling lines are used for continuously drawing containment air during normal operation as part of the leak detection system. These lines are equipped with two normally open, solenoid operated, spring to close valves in series, located outside and as close as possible to the containment. This manner of routing the system piping reduces the number of cont ainment penetrations and minimizes the potential pathways for radioactive material release. In addition, the piping upstream of the air sampling isolation valv es is considered an extension of the containment since it must be available fo r long-term usage following a design basis loss-of-coolant accident. The piping is pa rt of the post-LOCA atmosphere sampling system, and as such, is designed and fabr icated to the same quality standards as
the containment. Containment isolation requirements are met on the basis that these lines are low-pressure lines construc ted to the same quality standards as the containment furthermore, the consequences of a break in these lines result in no significant safety consideration.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-61 REV. 13 Service Air and Clean Condensate Supply Lines The Service Air and Clean Condensate supply lines, which penetrate the containment, provide air and water service connectors inside the drywell during reactor shutdown and outages. These lines are equipped with two manually operated valves which are locked closed during reactor operations. In addition, each line is equipped with a spool piece which is removed and respective blank flanges installed during reactor operations. The va lves and spool pieces are located outside of and as close as possible to the containment. This manner of routing the system piping reduces the number of containmen t penetrations. Since these lines are isolated during reactor operations, the po tential pathways for radioactive material release is minimized. Furthermore, the consequences of a break in these lines result in no significant safety consideration.
Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water System
The Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water System (RBCCW) inside containment consists of a closed loop providing cooling for the reactor recirculation pump heat loads and penetration heat loads. The system penetrates the containment with a supply and return line. Each line has an inboard and an outboard automatic isolation valve. Each penetration (M-16, M-17) has been protected by a relief valve mounted between the inboard automatic isolation and the containment penetration. These relief valves were added in response to NRC Generic Letter GL 96-06 concerns for isolated line overpressurization during a LOCA.
The penetration configuration must meet GDC 56.
Primary Containment Chilled Water System
The Primary Containment Chilled Water System (PCCW) consists of two independent trains of cooling for the prim ary containment atmosphere. Each train penetrates the containment with a supply and return line. Each line has an inboard and an outboard automatic isolatio n valve. Each penetration (M-25, M-27, M-28, M-26) has been protected by a relief valve mounted between the inboard
automatic isolation and the containment penetration. These relief valves were added in response to NRC Generic Lette r GL 96-06 concerns for isolated line overpressurization during a LOCA.
The penetration configuration must meet GDC 56.
6.2.4.2.3 Evaluation Agains t General Design Criterion 57 Lines penetrating the primary containment for which neither Criterion 55 nor Criterion 56 govern comprise the closed system isolation valve group.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-62 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 Influent and effluent lines of this group are isolated by automatic or remote manual isolation valves located as closely as possible to the containment boundary.
ECCS Pump Test Lines and Minimum Flow Bypass Lines
The LPCS, HPCS, and RHR pump test and minimum flow bypass lines have
isolation capabilities. All the pump test lines are equipped with normally closed motor-operated globe valve outside the containment that is opened only during pump testing. The RHR pump test lin es discharge below the surface of the suppression pool. Thus, the lines are not directly open to the containment atmosphere, since the pool acts to seal the discharge from the containment. The LPCS and HPCS lines discharge into the air space above the suppression pool surface. All the test lines are low-pressure lines, constructed to the same quality
standards as the containment. All valves can be remote manually operated from the main control room, and close automatically on a system start signal.
The minimum flow bypass line on the HPCS has a normally closed motor-operated gate valve located outside the containment while the LPCS and RHR are minimum flow bypass lines equipped with a normally open motor-operated gate valve. A high speed valve is utilized to assure that pump minimum flow requirements are met.
The LPCS and RHR valves are closed when adequate flow in the pump discharge lines is established. The minimum flow bypass lines connect into the associated pump test lines outside the containment.
This reduces the number of penetrations through the primary containment, thus minimizing the potential pathways for radioactive material release.
RCIC Turbine Exhaust, Vacuum Pump Discharge and RCIC Pump Minimum Flow Bypass
The RCIC turbine exhaust and vacuum pump discharge lines which penetrate the containment and connect to the suppression chamber are equipped with a normally open, motor-operated, remote manually actuated valve located as close to the containment as possible. The RCIC turbine exhaust line motor-operated isolation valve is a gate valve and the RCIC vacuum pump discharge line moter-operated isolation valve is a globe valve. In addition, there is a simple check valve upstream of the motor-operated valve which provides positive actuation for immediate isolation in the event of a break upstream of this valve. The gate valve in the RCIC turbine exhaust is designed to be locked op en in the control room and interlocked to preclude opening of the inlet steam valve to the turbine while the turbine exhaust valve is not in a full open position. The RCIC vacuum pump discharge line is also normally open but has no requirement for interlocking with the steam inlet valve to the turbine. The RCIC pump minimum flow bypass line is isolated by a normally closed motor-operated globe valve with a check valve installed upstream. This valve is controlled by sensors in the RCIC pump discharge line flow and pressure.
The valve is also remote manually controlled from the main control room.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-63 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 The RCIC turbine exhaust line is also provided with a vacuum breaker system to prevent condensation of the exhaust steam from inducing a vacuum in the line. The vacuum relief line connects the turbine exhaust line to the suppression chamber atmosphere.
Two check valves in-series in the line prev ent steam from exhausting to the vapor space above the pool, and two motor-operat ed globe valves provide remote manual isolation capability for the vacuum breaker line.
ECCS and RCIC Safety/Relief Valves
The safety/relief valves which serve the RHR shutdown cooling line located outside primary containment, RHR Pumps A and C suction lines, RHR Pumps A, B, and C discharge lines, RHR Heat Exchanger drain lines to the RCIC System, LPCS and HPCS suction drain lines, RHR Pumps A and B suction drain lines and discharge drain lines, RHR Pump C discharge drain line, LPCS Pump suction and pump discharge lines, and the HPCS Pump suction line and water leg pump discharge line, discharge water into the air space above the suppression pool surface. The safety/relief valve on RHR Pump B su ction line discharges water below the suppression pool surface. The safety/re lief valves on the RHR Heat Exchangers Shell Side and the RCIC steam supply lines to the RHR Heat Exchangers discharge steam below the suppression pool surface. The safety/relief valves are normally closed and provide a containment barrier in the lines. The thermal expansion safety/relief valve on the Unit 1 HPCS pump discharge line discharges water to the reactor building equipment drains and is normally closed. The thermal expansion safety/relief valve on the Unit 2 HPCS pump discharge line discharges water to the Unit 2 HPCS Pump Room and is normally closed. The safety/relief valves on the RCIC Lube Oil Cooler Supply Line, the RCIC System Pump suction line, and the RCIC Barometric Condenser discharge water to the reactor building equipment drains and are normally closed. Block valves cannot be added to the safety/relief valve discharge lines because they would preclude proper operation of the safety/relief valves, and are prohibited by the piping codes.
ECCS and RCIC Pump Suction Lines The RHR, RCIC, LPCS, and HPCS suction lines contain motor-operated, remote manually actuated, gate valves which provide assurance of isolating these lines in the event of a break. These valves also provide long-term leakage control. In addition, the suction piping from the suppression chamber is considered an extension of containment since it must be available for long-term usage following a design basis loss-of-coolant accident, and as such is designed to the same quality LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-63a REV. 14, APRIL 2002 standards as the containment. Thus, the n eed for isolation is conditional since the ECCS pumps take suction from the suppression pool in order to mitigate the consequences of LOCA. Therefore, their proper position for performing their safety fuction is open, not closed.
It should also be noted that the suction line of the ECCS pumps serves as the source of supply to the water leg pumps, which keep the ECCS discharge lines filled to avoid hydrodynamic effects on ECCS pump initiation. Isolating these water leg pumps from their supply source would de grade rather than improve the safe operation of the plant. However, the suction lines are provided with a motor-operated gate valve that can be remote manually closed from the control room, if required by a system line break or other highly unlikely event.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-64 REV. 17 APRIL 2008 6.2.4.2.4 Miscellaneous
Compliance with regulatory guides is addressed in Appendix B.
The isolation valves have been designed against loss of function from missiles, jet forces, pipe whip, and earthquake. The containment isolation valves and valve operators have been designed to oper ate under normal plant and postulated accident conditions. The effects of radi ation, humidity, pressure and temperature both inside and outside the containment, as defined in Chapter 3.0, have been
accounted for in the valve design.
Containment isolation valves are provided with adequate mechanical redundancy to preclude common mode failures. The power supplies to the inboard isolation valves are provided from a separate electrical division than those that supply the outboard isolation valves. Therefore, a common mode failure in one electrical division would not prevent containment isolation. The vent and purge valves consist of Air
Operated Valves and Motor Operated Valv es. See Table 6.2-21 for specific valve characteristics.
A complete list of Primary Containmen t Isolation Valves is contained in Table 6.2-28.
A leak detection system has been provided to detect leakage for determining when to isolate the affected systems that require remote manual isolation. This leak
detection system is described in Subsection 5.2.5.
The design provisions for testing the leakage rates of the containment isolation valves are shown in the valve arrangement drawings, Figure 6.2-31 as referenced in Table 6.2-21. The test connections indicated consist of a double-valved test line with provision for a pressure gauge attachment.
The design provision for testing the leakage rates of the containment isolation valves 2FC086 and 2FC115 is shown on va lve arrangement drawing, Figure 6.2-31, Sheet 10C, Detail "AD". The test connection indicated consists of a single valve test line with a provision for a pressure gauge attachment.
6.2.4.3 Design Evaluation
The main objective of the containment isolation system is to provide protection by preventing releases to the environment of radioactive materials. Redundancy is provided in design aspects to satisfy the requirement that an active failure of a single valve or component does not prev ent containment isolation: Mechanical components are redundant, as shown by the isolation valve arrangements.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-65 REV. 17 APRIL 2008 Electrical redundancy is provided in isolation valve arrangements to eliminate dependence on a single power source to attain isolation. Electrical cables for isolation valves in the same process line have been routed separately. Cables have been selected based upon the specific environment to which they will be subjected.
Provisions ensure that the position of all nonpowered isolation valves is maintained.
For all powered valves, the position is indicated in the main control room. A discussion of the instrumentation and controls associated with the isolation valves is given in Chapter 7.0.
In single failure analysis of electrical systems, no distinction is made between mechanically active or passive components; all fluid system components such as valves are considered "electrically active" whether or not "mechanical" action is required.
Electrical systems as well as mechanical systems are designed to meet the single failure criterion for both mechanically active and passive fluid system components
regardless of whether that component is required to perform a safety action. Even though a component such as an electrically operated valve is not designed to receive a signal to change state (open or closed) in a safety scheme, it is assumed as a single failure that the system component changes state or fails. Electrically operated valves include valves that are electrically piloted but air operated as well as valves that are directly operated by an electrical device. In addition, all electrically operated valves that are automatically actu ated also can be manually actuated from the main control room. Therefore, a single failure in any electrical system is analyzed regardless of whether the loss of a safety function is caused by component failing to perform a requisite mechanical motion or a component performing an unnecessary mechanical motion.
6.2.4.4 Tests and Inspections
A discussion of the testing and inspection pe rtaining to isolation valves is provided in Subsection 6.2.6, the Technica l Specifications, and Table 6.2-21.
6.2.5 Combustible Gas Control in Containment
In order to assure that the containment integrity is not endangered due to the generation of combustible gases following a postulated LOCA, systems for controlling the relative concentrations of su ch gases are provided within the plant. The system includes subsystems for mixing the containment atmosphere, monitoring hydrogen concentration, reduci ng combustible gas concentrations, and, as a backup, purging. The hydrogen recombining function of the hydrogen recombiners is abandoned in place.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-66 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 6.2.5.1 Design Bases The hydrogen recombining function of th e hydrogen recombiners is abandoned in place. The valves that provide RHR cooling water to the hydrogen recombiners are also abandoned in place in the closed posi tion. The blower an d associated piping are not abandoned and remain operational to maintain the drywell mixing function. The design basis information for the hydrogen recombination function remains for historical reference.
The following design bases were used for the combustible gas control system design:
- a. A double-ended rupture of a main recirculation line results in the most rapid coolant loss and reactor depressurization, with the coolant being discharged from both ends of th e break. The noncondensable gas initially in the drywell is forced into the suppression chamber during the RPV depressurization phase. This transfer process takes place through downcomers that connect the drywell and suppression chambers. The postulated metal-water reaction begins in the core region and is assumed to produce hydrogen immediately after the recirculation pipe breaks. The reaction would last 2 minutes during
which 0.945% of the active Zircaloy fuel cladding has reacted. The radiolysis of the coolant in the core region, water sump on the drywell floor and suppression pool also is assumed to begin immediately. The hydrogen and oxygen thus generated will evolve to drywell and suppression chamber atmospheres.
- b. The combustible gas control system has the capability for monitoring the hydrogen concentration in drywell and suppression chamber and alarming as the hydrogen concentrat ion reaches 4%. It also has the capability of mixing the atmosphere s of both drywell and suppression chamber. It also will control the combustible gas concentrations in the primary containment without reliance on purging and without the release of radioactive material to the environment.
- c. The primary systems for combustible gas control, including measuring, meet the design, quality assurance, redundancy, energy source, and instrumentation requirements for an engineered safety feature system according to Appendix A of 10 CFR 50.
- d. The combustible gas control system will be activated after a LOCA in time to assure that the hydrogen concentration does not exceed 4 volume percent of hydrogen in either the drywell or wetwell atmospheres. In addition, the LSCS containment is nitrogen inerted to
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-67 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 an oxygen concentration of 4% by volume. This is below the combustible limit of oxygen in hydrogen but still provides enough oxygen to react with all the hydrogen that would be produced by the metal water reaction.
- e. One recombiner system is provid ed for each nuclear unit. Each recombiner is capable of being cross-connected to the other unit to provide 100% redundancy. The recomb iners are located outside of the primary containment in an accessible area and, therefore, routine maintenance, testing and/or inspection can be performed during normal plant operation or shutdown conditions.
- f. The components of the combustible gas control system are protected from missiles and pipe whip to assu re proper operation under accident conditions as required for safety-related systems. The system has been designed to perform in the event of failure of any one of its active components.
- g. The combustible gas control systems are designed as Seismic Category I devices. As previously mentioned, the units are capable of being cross-connected to provide redundancy and are further capable of withstanding the temperature and pressure transients resulting from a LOCA. All components that can be subjected to containment atmosphere are capable of withstanding the humidity, temperature, pressure, and radiation conditions in the containment following a LOCA. h. The combustible gas control system is designed to remain operable in the postaccident environment in the reactor building. Components subjected to the reactor containment postaccident environment are likewise designed for those conditions.
- i. The combustible gas control system recombiner units are located outside of the primary containment in an accessible area. They can be inspected or tested during normal plant operation or during shutdown conditions.
- j. The hydrogen recombiner units are fixed units that are permanently installed; therefore, it is not necessary to have the ability to transport
them. k. The recombiner units are remotely started from the control room and the local control panel in the auxiliary electric equipment room. They are designed such that there are no local operating adjustments required on a unit operating in a post-LOCA environment. This fact eliminates the necessity of biological shielding.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-67a REV. 17, APRIL 2008 6.2.5.2 System Design The combustible gas control system consists of four subsystems: a mixing system, a hydrogen monitoring system, two hydrogen recombiners, and a purge system. The design features of these four systems are described in the following sections.
The hydrogen recombining function of th e hydrogen recombiners is abandoned in place. The valves that provide RHR cooling water to the hydrogen recombiners are also abandoned in place in the closed posi tion. The blower an d associated piping are not abandoned and remain operational to maintain the drywell mixing function. The design basis information for the hydrogen recombination function remains for historical reference.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-68 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 Hydrogen Mixing System The function of the mixing subsystem is to ensure that local concentrations with greater than 4% hydrogen cannot occur within the primary containment following a LOCA. The atmospheres of both drywell proper and suppression chamber area, each of
which is a single compartment, are well mixe
- d. The mixing is achieved by natural convection processes. Natural convection occurs as a result of the temperature difference between the bulk gas space in the vessel and the containment wall. The natural convective action is enhanced by the momentum of steam emitted from the point of rupture. Th ere are two interior subcompartments where gases may not achieve thorough mixing with the bulk containment atmosphere. The drywell
head area, which is for reactor vesse l refueling purposes, is one such subcompartment. The other is the control rod drive area immediately below the reactor pressure vessel. The physical arrangements and/or location of the monitoring system and the hydrogen recombiner system are such that concentrations above the 4% limit of combustible gases will not occur.
The atmosphere between the drywell and suppression pools will be mixed during the depressurization phase of the LOCA. The hydrogen recombiner units will also serve to affect mixing between these two compartments. The hydrogen recombiner will take suction on the drywell and discharge to the suppression pool. This will in turn cause the atmosphere from the suppression pool to circulate into the drywell via the vacuum breaker lines.
The monitoring system will alert the operator of the concentration within these subcompartments and the positions of the effluent and suction points of the recombiner will preclude the building of concentrations above the limit in these areas as well as the dryw ell and wetwell proper.
Hydrogen Monitoring System The hydrogen monitoring system form s a part of the primary containment monitoring system which is discussed in Subsection 7.5.2.
Hydrogen Recombiner System The concentration of combustible gases in the primary containment (drywell and suppression pool areas) following a LOCA is controlled by the hydrogen recombiner system. The combustible gas control system contains one hydrogen recombiner per reactor unit. The hydrogen recombiner is located outside of the primary containment. The amount of Hydr ogen in the effluent gas being returned to the wetwell shall not exceed 0.1% by volume. The system will process the primary containment atmosphere at a rate of at least 125 scfm using a blower to supply containment gases to the recombiner. The recombination process LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-69 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 takes place within the recombiner as a resu lt of an exothermic reaction. The steam is then cooled and the resulting water and remaining gases are returned to the primary containment. Suction is taken from the drywell area, and the discharge is returned to the suppression po ol area above water level.
The hydrogen recombiner unit is skid mounted and is an integral package. All pressure containing equipment including pi ping between components is considered as an extension of the containment and, ther efore, is designed as ASME III Class 2. The skid and the equipment mounted on it are designed to meet Seismic Category I
requirements. The hydrogen recombiner system is designed to accommodate conditions present in the containment (temperature and pressure) following a LOCA event. Piping and instrumentation for the system are shown in Drawing No. M-130. The hydrogen recombiner unit, which requires a 1-2 hour warmup period, is initiated manually from the control room and the local control panel in the aux. electric equipment room. It is initiate d prior to primary containment hydrogen concentration reaching 3 volume percent which occurs approximately 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> after the accident. Based on the original core loading, the time at which containment hydrogen generation reaches 4 volume percent varies with fuel types located in the core. However, this is acceptable based on Design Basis described in Section 6.2.5.1.d. Once placed in operation, the system continues to operate until it is manually shut down when an adequate margin below the hydrogen concentration design limit is reached. The operation of the system can be tested from the control room or the auxiliary equipment room. The test consists of energizing the blower and heaters and observing system operatio n to see if components are performing properly. Flow and pressure measuremen t devices are periodically calibrated.
The hydrogen recombiner system is serviced by electrical power and cooling water systems, which are placed in operation concurrent with a loss-of-coolant accident. Cooling water required for the operation of the system is taken from the residual heat removal system. The cooling water is utilized to cool the water vapor and the residual gases leaving the recombiner prior to returning them to the containment. All hydrogen recombiner unit cooling water is returned to the suppression pool.
Each recombiner unit has the capability of serving either containment; therefore, there is 100% redundancy of all components and controls.
All functions and controls necessary to start the combustible gas control system are also located in the control room and in the auxiliary electric equipment room which is readily accessible from the control room.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-70 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 6.2.5.3 Design Evaluation
The hydrogen recombining function of th e hydrogen recombiners is abandoned in place. The valves that provide RHR cooling water to the hydrogen recombiners are also abandoned in place in the closed posi tion. The blower an d associated piping are not abandoned and remain operational to maintain the drywell mixing function. The design basis information for the hydrogen recombination function remains for historical reference.
6.2.5.3.1 General
In evaluating the combustible gas control system design, it was found necessary to
consider:
- a. hydrogen generated in the post-LOCA environment, b. resultant drywell and containment concentrations, and
- c. the functional requirements of the combustible gas control system.
The following analytical results are provided:
- a. The beta, gamma, and beta plus ga mma energy release rates plotted as functions of time (Figure 6.2-32).
- b. The integrated beta, gamma and beta plus gamma energy release plotted as functions of time (Figure 6.2-33).
- c. The integrated production of combustible gas within the containment (drywell and suppression chamber) plotted as a function of time for each source (i.e., metal-water reac tion and radiolysis) (Figure 6.2-34).
- d. The concentration of combustible gas in the drywell and suppression chamber plotted as a function of ti me, if uncontrolled (Figure 6.2-35). This curve establishes the basis for activation of the combustible gas
control system.
- e. The combustible gas concentration in the containment (drywell and suppression chamber) plotted as a function of time with (125 scfm) 100% recombiner capacity initiated at 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> after LOCA (Figure 6.2-36).
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-71 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 6.2.5.3.2 Sources of Hydrogen Short-Term Hydrogen Generation
In the period immediately after the LOCA, hydrogen is generated by both radiolysis and metal-water reaction. However, in ev aluating short-term hydrogen generation, the contribution from radiolysis is insignificant when compared to the hydrogen generated by the metal-water reaction. The only metal-water reaction considered to be significant is reaction of water with the zirconium fuel cladding which produces hydrogen by the following reaction:
Zr + 2H 2 O ZrO 2 + 2H 2 Based on loss-of-coolant accident calculat ional procedures and the analyses of emergency core cooling system (ECCS) pe rformance in conformance with 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K, the extent of the above chemical reaction is estimated to be
0.1% of the fuel cladding material. However, the metal-water reaction-generated hydrogen based on a core-wide penetrat ion of 0.00023 inches for 764 bundles with each bundle containing 101 pounds of zircon ium in the active fuel cladding, results in a 0.945% metal-water reaction. Therefore, 0.945% of fuel cladding, which is greater than five times the maximum amount calculated in accordance with 10 CFR 50.46, is assumed to react with water to produce hydrogen. The duration of this reaction is assumed to be 120 seconds with a constant re action rate. The resulting hydrogen is assumed to be uniformly distributed in the drywell containment. This assumption is supported by the test data reported in BNWL 1592 of July 1971.
Figure 6.2-34 presents the accumulated hydrogen generation as a result of this chemical reaction.
Long-Term Hydrogen Generation
Hydrogen is also produced by decomposition of water due to absorption of the fission product decay energy immediately after LOCA.
2H 2 O 2H 2 + O 2 Generation of hydrogen and oxygen due to radiolysis of coolant water is an important factor in determining the long-term gas mixture composition within the containment compartments. Conservative assumptions were used to determine the fission product distribution model that applies after the accident and, therefore, the hydrogen generation rates. The incore radiolysis contributes hydrogen to the drywell, and radiolysis of the suppression pool water contributes hydrogen directly to the suppression chamber. Hydrogen is also discharged from the radiolysis of sump water on drywell floor into the drywell atmosphe re. The total decay energy utilized in the analyses was based on American Nuclear Society Standard ANS 5.1-1979 multiplied by a factor of 1.2, conservatively assuming a 1000-day reactor LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-72 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 operating time at constant full power level to determine the fission product buildup.
Halogen and noble gas inventories were determined from TID-14844.
Hydrogen can also be formed by corrosion of metals in the containment. The significant portion of this source is from the co rrosion of zinc and aluminum. Since the spray system uses only demineralized water for the purpose of reducing temperature and pressure inside the drywe ll, the corrosion of aluminum and zinc will contribute a negligible amount of hydrogen to the containment atmosphere.
Hydrogen is, during normal operation of the plant, dissolved in the primary system water. Figure 6.2-35 presents the accumulated hydrogen and oxygen generation from both chemical reaction and radiolysis decomposition of water.
6.2.5.3.3 Accident Description A complete description of the post-LOCA cond itions is found in Subsection 6.2.1 and Section 6.3.
Following the postulated LOCA, the postulated metal-water reaction begins in the core region and is assumed to produce hydrogen immediately after the recirculation pipe breaks. The reaction lasts 2 minut es during which 0.945% of the active zircaloy fuel cladding reacts. The radiolysis of the coolant in the core region, water sump on the drywell floor and suppression pool is assumed to begin immediately.
The hydrogen and oxygen thus generated will evolve to drywell and suppression chamber atmospheres. The hydrogen conc entration in the drywell would, after about 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br />, approach the flammability limit if uncontrolled. The hydrogen recombiner system is manually activated before the hydrogen concentration reaches 3 volume percent. The recombiner system takes gases from the drywell atmosphere, recombines the hydrogen with oxygen to form water vapor, and returns the resulting cooled water and remaining gases to the suppression chamber. The pressure buildup in the suppression chamber due to the operation of recombiner system taking suction on the drywell and discharging to the suppression pool will cause the opening of the vacuum brea ker valves between the drywell and suppression chamber. As a result, the flow of the gas mixture from the wetwell to the drywell will balance the negative pressure differential between two volumes and
will also result in lower concentrations due to the influx of the wetwell gases.
6.2.5.3.4 Analysis
Based on the above hydrogen sources and the accident description, the hydrogen concentration in the drywell and suppression chamber is calculated as a function of time. In formulating the model of the Mark II containment for these calculations, a conservative assumption is made, name ly the interchange of mass between the drywell and the suppression chamber through downcomers which takes place during blowdown process is neglected, th at is, no hydrogen is removed from the drywell except through the recombiner system. This assumption is conservative, as LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-73 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 it results in a shorter time for the drywell hydrogen concentration to reach the flammability limit. Furthermore, the hydr ogen and oxygen gases can flow back to the drywell from suppression chamber thro ugh vacuum breakers due to pressure increase in the suppression chamber by th e operation of the recombiner system.
Table 6.2-22 gives all of the necessary parameters used to determine the amount of
hydrogen generation in the LSCS analys is. The results of the analyses are presented in Figures 6.2-35 and 6.2-36. It was determined that the uncontrolled hydrogen concentration in the drywell eventually reaches 4% by volume (dry basis) approximately 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> after the LOCA. The suppression chamber hydrogen concentration was determined to be 3.0% by volume due to radiolytic hydrogen generation. Prior to the drywell concentrat ion reaching 3% by volume, a recombiner system is activated. A single system is designed to keep the hydrogen concentration below 4% by volume at all times until ra diolytic generation has ceased. The performance of the recombiner system, which is initiated 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> after LOCA, is shown in Figure 6.2-36. The hydrogen conc entration is 3.0% by volume at the time of initiation. Thus, the use of a sing le 125 scfm recombiner system provides effective control of hydrogen concentrat ion and, therefore, would prevent the formation of combustible gas mixture in both drywell and suppression chamber.
6.2.5.4 Testing and Inspections
Each active component of the combustible gas control system is testable during normal reactor power operation.
The combustible gas control systems and the containment purge system will be tested periodically to assure that they will operate correctly.
Preoperational tests of the combustible gas control system are conducted during the final stages of plant construction prior to initial startup (Chapter 14.0). These tests assure correct functioning of all controls, instrumentation, recombiners, piping, and valves. System reference characteristics, such as pressure differentials and flow rates, are documented during the preoperational tests and are used as base points for measurements in subsequent operational tests.
6.2.5.5 Instrumentation Requirements
The instrumentation provisions for actuating the combustible gas control system and monitoring the system are described in Subsection 7.3.5.
6.2.6 Containment Leakage Testing This section presents the testing program for the reactor containment, containment penetrations and containment isolation barriers that comply with the requirements of the General Design Criteria and Append ix J to 10 CFR 50. Each of the tests LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-74 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 described in this Subsection was perf ormed as a preopera tional and will be performed as a periodic test.
6.2.6.1 Containment Integrated Leakage Rate Test
Following the completion of the construction, repair, inspection, and testing of welded joints, penetrations, and mechanical closures including the satisfactory completion of the structural integrity test s as described in Subsection 3.8.1.7, a preoperational containment leakage rate test was performed to verify that the
actual containment leak rate does not exceed the design limits.
In order to ensure a successful integrated leak rate test, loca l leakage tests (Type B and C tests) were performed on penetrations and isolation valves, and repairs are made, if necessary, to ensure that leakage through the containment isolation barriers does not exceed
the design limits.
An integrated leakage rate test is then performed on the entire containment in order to determine that the total leakage (exclusive of MSIV leakage) through
containment isolation barriers does not ex ceed the maximum allowable leakage rate of 0.635% per day at the calculated peak co ntainment internal pressure at 39.9 psig. The pertinent test data, including test pressures and acceptance criteria, is presented in Table 6.2-23.
Pretest requirements have been descri bed in the preoperational test abstract included in Chapter 14.0 of the FSAR. As stated therein, power operated isolation valves will be closed by their actuators prior to the start of the integrated leakage rate test.
During the integrated leak rate test the containment systems are configured as follows; a. Reactor building closed cooling water - lined up for normal operation; isolation valves closed and system filled.
- b. Primary containment chilled water - lined up for normal operation; isolation valves closed and system filled.
- c. Residual heat removal - One loop lined up in shutdown cooling mode. Other loops lined up in low-pressure coolant injection standby mode and isolated, containment and suppression pool spray flow paths isolated, full flow test lines isolated, reactor head cooling flow path isolated, minimum flow isolated, shutdown cooling discharge line isolated on standby system and condensate discharge from RHR heat exchangers shell side flow pa th isolated; system filled.
- d. Low-pressure core spray - system filled and isolated.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-75 REV. 13 e. High-pressure core spray - system filled and isolated.
- f. Reactor core isolation coolin g - isolation valves closed; RCIC condensate filled and isolated. RCI C full flow test return line to suppression pool filled and isolated.
- g. Reactor water cleanup - suction line filled and isolated; return line filled and isolated.
- h. Standby liquid control - lines filled and isolated.
- i. Control rod drive - lined up in scram conditions; pumps off, system filled. j. Reactor recirculation system - pumps off, system filled.
- k. RPV and primary containment instrumentation - lines filled and vented to containment instrumentation to the RPV or drywell will be opened. l. Neutron monitoring sytem (TIP) - TIPs will be fully withdrawn and the ball valves closed.
- m. Floor and equipment drains - sumps pumped down to low water level, isolation valves closed.
- n. Clean condensate - drained and ve nted, isolation valves closed, spool piece removed and blind flange installed or filled and isolated and system leakage added to type A result.
- o. Service air - vented, isolation valves closed, spool piece removed and blind flange installed.
- p. Feedwater - filled and isolated.
- q. Main steam - filled, isolation valves closed.
- r. Containment monitoring - post-LOCA monitoring system open to containment, pumps off, valves op en; drywell monitoring and sampling system isolated, pumps off.
- s. Post-LOCA hydrogen control - lined up for unit operation, isolation valves open or isolated and system leakage added to type A result.
- t. Primary containment instrument air - all accumulators vented, isolation valves closed.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-76 REV. 17, APRIL 2008
- u. Fuel Pool Cooling - Cycled Condensate to Refueling Bellows filled and isolated, Reactor Well Drain filled and isolated.
- v. All accessible liner leak test channel plugs are verified installed.
The Type C leak rates for the following penetrations are added to the Type A test results on a Minimum-Path Basis:
- a. reactor building closed cooling water, b. primary containment chilled water, c. RHR shutdown cooling suction, d. reactor core isolation cooling steam supply, e. reactor water cleanup suction, f. reactor water sample, g. floor and equipment drains,
- h. inboard MSIV drain,
- k. Cycled Condensate to Refueling Bellows
- l. Reactor Well Drain
Measures will be taken to ensure stabilization of the containment conditions prior to containment leakage rate testing.
The test method utilized is the absolute method, as described in ANSI/ANS 56.8-1994. The test procedure, test equipment and facilities, period of testing, and verification of leak test accuracy also follow the recommendations of ANSI/ANS 56.8-1994.
The acceptance criteria for the preoperational containment integrated leakage rate test are in compliance with the criteria given in Appendix J of 10 CFR 50. except as LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-77 REV. 13 noted below. Structural verification test acceptance criteria are described in Subsection 3.8.1.7.
The acceptance criteria for the periodic containment integrated leakage rate test are in compliance with the criteria given in 10CFR50 Appendix J Option B, NRC Reg Guide 1.163, NEI-94-01, Rev. 0, and ANSI/ANS 56.8-1994. The As-Found Type
A test leakage must be less than the acceptance criterian of 1.0 La (Primary Containment overall leakage rate acceptance criterion). During the first unit startup following testing (prior to enteri ng a mode where containment integrity is required) the As-Left Type A leakag e rate shall not exceed 0.75 La.
6.2.6.2 Containment Penetration Leakage Rate Test Containment penetrations whose design inco rporates resilient seals, gaskets, or sealant compounds; air lock door seals, equipment and access doors with resilient seals or gaskets; and other such penetrat ions received a preoperational and will be periodically leak tested in accordance wi th Appendix J of 10 CFR 50 except as noted in the following paragraph.
The following penetrations were preoperationally and will be periodically tested to Type B criteria:
- a. equipment access hatch, b. personnel air lock, by (when co ntainment integrity is required, the personnel airlock should be test ed within 7 days after each containment access except when the airlock is being used for multiple entries, then at least once per 30 da ys, by verifying seal leakage to be less than or equal to 5 scfh when the gap between the door seals is pressurized to greater than or equal to 10 psig - exception to 10 CFR 50 Appendix J) overall air lock leakage rate is less than or equal to 0.05 La when tested at greater than or equal to Pa.
- c. drywell head,
- d. suppression chamber access hatches, e. CRD removal hatch, f. electrical penetrations, g. TIP penetration flanges, SA flange and MC flange, h. Drywell to suppression pool vacuum breaker and associated manual isolation valves flanges and actuator seals, LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-78 REV. 13 i. Vent and purge isolation valve flanges, and packing
See Table 6.2-21 note 49.
It should be noted that no pipe penetrations are provided with expansion bellows.
The containment penetration is an anchor point in the system, and the thermal movements have been accounted for on this basis. Therefore, no leakage rate testing of expansion bellows penetration assemblies will be required.
Test methods utilized to determine containment penetration leak rates are described as follows:
- a. Equipment Access, CRD Removal, and Suppression Chamber Acess The equipment access hatch has been furnished with a double-gasketed flange and bolted dished door, as shown in Figure 3.8-34. The CRD removal and suppression chamber access hatches have been furnished with a double-gasketed flan ge and bolted door. Provision is made to test pressurize the space between the double gaskets of the door flanges and the doors.
- b. Personnel Air Lock The personnel lock is constructed as a double-door, latched, welded steel vessel, as shown in Figure 3.8-33. The space between the air doors can be pressurized to peak containment pressure through the test connections provided. Each of the doors are provided with a test connection for pressurizing between the seals.
In addition, all four shaft seal assemblies are provided with a test connection to allow for indivi dual shaft seal leak test.
- c. Drywell Head A double-gasketed seal and test tap, as shown in Figure 3.8-5, is provided for leak rate testing of the drywell head.
- d. Electrical Penetrations
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-79 REV. 13 Each electrical penetration, as represented in Figure 3.8-21 and listed in Table 3.8-1 (with an "E" penetr ation number), is provided with a pressure gauge to monitor leakage. The double-gasketed and O-ring
seals are provided with a test connection for leak rate testing.
- e. Tip Penetration Flanges, Clean Co ndensate (MC) and Service Air (SA)
Penetrations Each TIP MC or SA penetration flange is provided with a double-gasketed seal and a test connection for type B leak testing.
- f. Drywell to Suppression Pool Vacuum Breakers Each drywell to suppression pool vacuum breaker has two double-
gasketed flanges and a manual actuator O-ring and shaft seal. These seals are provided with test connections for leak testing. The Vacuum Breaker line manual isolation valves have a double-gasketed flange on the inboard or containment side provid ed with test connections for leak testing. The outboard flanges on the manual isolation valves are leak tested by pressurizing the entire vacuum breaker line and performing
soap bubble test on the outboard flan ge. The stem seal or packing of these valves will be tested either locally or by primary containment
pressurization and subsequent soap bubble inspection.
- g. Vent and Purge Isolation Valves Each inboard vent and purge valve has a double-gasketed flanged seal on its containment side. These seals are provided with test connections for leak testing. The stem packing of these valves is also provided with a test connection for packing leak test. See also Table 6.2-21 Note 41.
- h. HPCS Minimum Flow Line Blind Flanges One double-gasketed blind flange is installed on each of the HPCS
minimum flow line branch connections 1(2)HP20C-2". These flanges are provided with a test connection for type B leak testing.
- i. RCIC Spectacle Flange 1(2)E51-D316 The installed blind flange half of spectacle flange 1(2)E51-D316 is tested by pressurizing with air the upstream RCIC full flow test return line to Condensate Storage Tank and then check for leaks at the flange upstream gasket joint. Done when required per Table 6.2-21 note 49.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-80 REV. 13 j. ECCS Relief Valves' Containment Side Flanges are Type B tested by one of the following methods: Test Port/Testable Gasket; Primary Containment Pressurization and subsequent soap bubble inspection; Special Test Equipment mounted over the flange thus pressurizing against the gasket.
Test pressures are given in Table 6.2-23.
The acceptance criteria for the preoperational containment penetration leakage rate test is in compliance with the criteria given in Appendix J of 10 CFR 50. The periodic test acceptance criteria is established in accordance with the LaSalle
County Station Local Leak Rate Test Program, and also is in agreement with Appendix J Option B of 10 CFR 50, NRC Regulatory Guide 1.163, Nuclear Energy Institute NEI-94-01 Rev. 0, and ANSI/ANS-56.8-1994.
6.2.6.3 Containment Isolation Valve Leakage Rate Test
Those containment isolation valves that are to receive a Type C test are so indicated in Table 6.2-21.
Test taps for leakage rate testing have been provided on the lines associated with the containment isolation valves. These taps are indicated on the valve arrangement drawings associated with Ta ble 6.2-21. The test method is as described in Appendix J of 10 CFR 50. Te st pressures are shown in Table 6.2-23.
The acceptance criteria for the leakage rate testing is given in Table 6.2-23 and the Primary Containment Leak Rate Testing Program.
6.2.6.4 Scheduling and Reporting of Periodic Tests
The periodic leakage test schedule is give n in the LaSalle County Station Leak Rate Test Program.
6.2.6.5 Special Testing Requirements The secondary containment will be tested as required by the Technical Specifications.
6.2.7 References
- 1. F. J. Moody, "Maximum Two-Phase Vessel Blowdown from Pipes," Topical Report APED-4827, General Electric Company, 1965.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-81 REV. 14, APRIL 2002
- 2. A. J. James, "The General Electr ic Pressure Suppression Containment Analytical Model, (NEDO-10320), April 1971.
- 3. A. J. James, "The General Electr ic Pressure Suppression Containment Analytical Model," April 1971, Su pplement 1, (NEDO-10320), May 1971.
- 4. K. V. Moore and W. H. Ratting , "RELAP 4-A Computer Program for Transient Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis, "ANCR-1127, Aerojet Nuclear
Company, December 1973.
- 5. F. J. Moody, "Maximum Rate of a Single Component, Two Phase Mixture," Journal of Heat Transfer, Transactions, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 87, No. 1, February 1965.
- 6. I. E. Idelchik, Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance, AEC-TR-6630, 1966.
- 7. "RELAP 4/MOD5 A Computer Progra m for Transient Thermal- Hydraulic Analysis of Nuclear Reactors and Related Systems," ANCR-NUREG-1335, Aerojet Nuclear Company, September 1976.
- 8. NEI 94-01, Rev. 0, July 26, 1995, Nuclear Energy Institute Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10CFR Part 50
Appendix J.
- 9. ANSI/ANS 56.8-1994, American Nation al Standard for Containment System Leakage Testing Requirements.
- 10. GE Document EAS-49-0888, "Justification of Continued Operation With Increased Suppression Pool Temperature at LaSalle County Station,"
Revision 1, August 1988. (Proprietary)
- 11. Technical Specification Submittal Lette r Sections 3.6.2.1 and 4.6.2.1, dated 10-07-88.
- 12. Amendment 67 for Unit 1 (Facil ity Operating License NFP-11), and Amendment 49 for Unit 2 (Facility Oper ating License NFP-18), dated July 7, 1989.
- 13. Calc. L001799, Rev. 0, "Assessment of Containment Line Base Mat Reactor Pedestal, Downcomer Bracing, Drywell Floor & Suppression Pool Columns for Suppression Pool Temperature Increase." 14. Calc. L001800, Rev. 0, "Assessment of Containment Wall for Suppression Pool Temperature Increase" LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-81a REV. 14, APRIL 2002
- 15. Calc. L001810, Rev. 0, "Impact of Increase in the Suppression Pool Temperature at LaSalle on Design Basis Suppression Pool Dynamic Loads." 16. Letter from ComEd NFS dated 5-07-98, Nuclear Fuel Services Letter, NFS:BSA:98-055, dated 5-08-98, from R.W.
Tsai to G. Campbell, "Impact of Initial Suppression Pool Temperature on Hydrogen Generation" 17. Calc. 3C7-0181-003, Rev. 3, "Suppr ession Pool Temperature Transient Studies" 18. General Electric Letter Repo rt GE-NE-B13-01920-013, January 1998, "Current Suppression Pool Water Temperatures Following a Design Basis Accident for LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2"
- 19. General Electric Report EAS-083-1188, "Elimination of the High Suppression Pool Temperature Limit for LaSalle County Station Units 1 & 2", dated November 1988.
- 20. General Electric Letter Repo rt GE-NE-T23-00762-00-01, July 1998, "Evaluation of Peak Suppression Pool Temperature with Assumption of Feedwater Coastdown and Reduced RHR Flow Rate During Long-Term Containment Cooling" 21. Letter from J. A. Benjamin (ComEd) to U. S. NRC, "Request for a Change to the Technical Specifications, 'Vacuum Relief System'" dated August 6, 1999.
- 22. Letter from J. A. Benjamin (Com Ed) to U. S. NRC, "Supplemental Information to Request for a Change to the Technical Specifications to Vacuum Relief System" dated November 15, 1999.
- 23. Letter dated December 21, 1999 from D.
M. Skay to O. D.
Kingsley, "Issuance of Amendments, approved amendment 138 for LaSalle Unit 1 and amendment 122 for LaSalle Unit 2."
- 24. Licensing Topical Report, "Generic Guidelines for General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Power Uprate," NEDC-31897P-A, May 1992.
- 25. LaSalle County Station Power Uprate Project, Task 400, "Containment System Response," GE-NE-A1300384-02-01R1, Revision 1, October 1999 (and Task Report Changes based on Stea m Plume Analysis, GE-LPUP-332, dated 5/4/2000).
LSCS-UFSAR 6.2-82 REV. 15, APRIL 2004
- 26. General Electric Company, "General Electric Company Analytical Model for Loss-of Coolant Analysis in Accordance with 10CFR50 Appendix K," NEDO-20566A, September 1986.
- 27. ComEd letter to NRC, "Response to Request for Additional Information License Amendment Request for Power Uprate Operation," dated 3/31/2000.
- 28. General Electric Company, NEDO-30832, "Elimination of Limit on Local Suppression Pool Temperature for SRV Discharge with Quenchers," Class I, December 1984, (NRC approved version wi th NRC Safety Evaluation Report issued as NEDO-30832-A, Class I, May 1995).
- 29. General Electric Analysis of LaSalle Steam Plume Ingestion Potential, NSA 00-116, dated 3/29/2000.
- 30. LaSalle County Station Power Uprate Project, Task 401, "Annulus Pressurization," GE-NE-A1300384-06-01, Revision 0, June 1999.
- 31. Design Analysis No. L-002874, Rev. 0, "LaSalle County Station Power Uprate Project Task 400: Containment System Response (GE-NG-A1300384-02-01 R3) Revision 3".
- 32. EC #334017, Rev. 0, "Increased Cooling Water Temperature Evaluation to a new Maximum Allowable of 104
°F."
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-1 (SHEET 1 OF 2) TABLE 6.2-1 REV. 14 - APRIL 2002 CONTAINMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS DRYWELL SUPPRESSION CHAMBER A. Drywell and Suppression Chamber 1. Internal design pressure, psig 45 45 2. External design pressure, psig 5 5 3. Drywell deck design differential pressure, psid a) Downward 25 25 b) Upward 5 5 4. Design temperature, °F 340 275 5. Drywell (including vents) net free volume, ft 3 229,538 6. Design leak ratio, %/day @ 45 psig 0.5 0.5 7. Suppression chamber free volume, ft 3 a) minimum 164,800 b) maximum 168,100 8. Suppression chamber water volume a) Minimum, ft 3 128,800 b) Maximum, ft 3 131,900 9. Pool cross-section area, ft 2 a) Water surface (excluding pedestal and drywell floor support columns) 4999 b) Total 5899 10. Pool depth (normal), ft 26.5
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-1 (SHEET 2 OF 2) TABLE 6.2-1 REV. 0 - APRIL 1984 DRYWELL SUPPRESSION CHAMBER B. Vent System 1. Number of downcomers 98
- 2. Internal downcomer diameter, in. 23.5
- 3. Total vent area, ft 2* 295 4. Downcomer submergence*
12 ft 4 in. (maximum) 5. Downcomer loss factor*
5.2
- The actual limiting area is 232 ft 2 based on the opening size through the downcomer protective covers (top hats). The corresponding loss factor is 3.2.
However, since the analysis requires that the entrance losses, pipe losses and exit losses be based on a single area, the higher loss factor of 5.2 was utilized, resulting in a higher pressure and, th erefore, a more conservative analysis.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-2 (SHEET 1 OF 2) TABLE 6.2-2 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 ENGINEERED SAFETY SYSTEMS INFORMATION FOR CONTAINMENT RESPONSE ANALYSES (AT 3434 MWt)
CONTAINMENT ANALYSIS VALUE* FULL CAPACITY CASE A CASE B CASE CA. Drywell Spray System (RHR system)
- 1. Number of pumps 2 2 1 0 2. Number of lines 2 2 1 0 3. Number of headers 2 2 1 0 4. Spray flow rate, gpm/pump 6700 6700 6700 0 5. Spray thermal efficiency, %
--- --- --- --- B. Suppression Pool Spray (RHR system)
- 1. Number of pumps 2 2 1 0 2. Number of lines 2 2 1 0 3. Number of headers 1 1 1 0 4. Spray flow rate, gpm/pump 450 450 450 0 5. Spray thermal efficiency, %
--- --- --- --- C. Containment Cooling System (RHR system) 1. Number of pumps 2 2 1 1 2. Pump capacity, gpm/pump 7450** 7450 3. Heat exchangers
- a. Type - inverted U-tube, single pass shell, multipass tubes, vertical mounting
- b. Number 2 2 1 1 c. Heat transfer area, ft 2 /unit 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 d. Overall heat transfer coefficient, Btu/hr - ft 2 - °F 215
- Cases A, B, and C defined in Table 6.2-5. ** A supplementary evaluation has been performed for a slightly reduced RHR pump flow rate of 7200 gpm (suppression pool cooling mode); as discussed in Section 6.2.2.3.4 long term suppression pool temperature is not significantly impacted and the peak long term pool temperature does not exceed the 200
°F maximum value given in Table 6.2-5.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-2 (SHEET 2 OF 2)
TABLE 6.2-2 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 FULL CAPACITY CONTAINMENT ANALYSIS VALUE* CASE A CASE B CASE C e. Secondary coolant flow rate per exchanger, lb/hr 3.7x10 6 --- 3.7x10 6 --- f. Design service water temperature (CSCS) Minimum, °F 32 Maximum, °F 100 100 100 100 D. ECCS Systems:
- 1. High-pressure core spray (HPCS)
- a. Number of pumps 1 1 1 1
- b. Number of lines 1 1 1 1
- c. Flow rate, gpm 6200 6200 6200 6200
- 2. Low-pressure core spray (LPCS)
- a. Number of pumps 1 1 0 0
- b. Number of lines 1 1 0 0
- c. Flow rate (rated), gpm/line 6250 6250 0 0
- d. Number of headers 2 2 0 0 3. Low-pressure coolant injection (LCPI) a. Number of pumps 3 3 1 1 b. Number of lines 3 3 1 1
- c. Flow rate, gpm/line 7067 7067 7067 7067
- 4. Residual heat removal (RHR)
- a. Pump flow rate:
Shell side 7450** Tube side 7400 b. Source of cooling water RHR service water c. Flow begins, seconds Manual, approximately 600 *** E. Automatic Depressurization System 1. Total number of safety/relief valves 18 2. Number actuated on ADS 7
- Refer to Section 6.2.2.3.6 for further discussion on the sensitivity of this time period.
- Cases A, B, and C defined in Table 6.2-5.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-3 (SHEET 1 OF 2) TABLE 6.2-3 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 (AT 3434 MWt)
INITIAL CONDITIONS EMPLOYED IN CONTAINMENT RESPONSE ANALYSES A. Reactor Coolant System (at 105% rated steam flow and at normal liquid levels) 1. Reactor power level, MWt 3434 2. Average coolant pressure, psig 1025
- 3. Average coolant temperature, °F 550
- 4. Mass of reactor coolant system liquid, lbm 676,700
- 5. Mass of reactor coolant system steam, lbm 24,900
- 6. Liquid plus steam energy, Btu 380 x 10 6 7. Volume of water in vessel, ft 3 11,175 8. Volume of steam in vessel, ft 3 9,640 9. Volume of water in recirculation loops, ft 3 1,030 10. Volume of steam in steamlines, ft 3 1,030 11. Volume of water in feedwater line, ft 3 20,778* 12. Volume of water in miscellaneous lines, ft 3 191 13. Total reactor coolant volume, ft 3 22,712 14. Stored water
- a. Condensate storage tank, gal 350,000 b. Fuel storage pool, ft 3 50,000
- Does not represent the feedwater vo lume used in post-LOCA feedwater coastdown/injection evaluation. This evaluation is discussed in detail in Section 6.2.1.1.3.1.1 in paragraph titled, "Evaluation of Post-LOCA Feedwater Injection".
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-3 (SHEET 2 OF 2) TABLE 6.2-3 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 B. Containment Drywell Suppression Chamber
- 1. Pressure, psig 0.75 0.75 2. Inside temperature, °F 135 100* 3. Outside temperature, °F 104 104 4. Relative humidity, % 20 100
- 5. Service water temperature (CSCS), °F 100 100 6. Water volume, ft 3 (minimum)
--- 128,800 7. Vent submergence, (maximum)
--- 12 ft 4 in.
- As discussed in Section 6.2.1.8 supplementary evaluations have been satisfactorily completed with a 105
°F initial suppression pool temperature.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-3A TABLE 6.2-3a REV. 17 APRIL 2008 INITIAL CONDITIONS EMPLOYED IN CONTAINMENT RESPONSE ANALYSIS (AT 3559 MWt)
A. Reactor Coolant System 1. Reactor power level, MWt 3559 2. Average coolant pressure, psig 1025
B. Containment Drywell Suppression Chamber
- 1. Pressure, psig 0.75 0.75
- 2. Inside temperature, °F 135 105
- 3. Relative humidity, % 20 100
- 4. Service water temperature (CSCS), °F (1) 100 100
- 5. Water volume, ft 3 (minimum) ---- 128,800* (maximum) 131,900*
- 6. Vent submergence, ft (minimum) ---- 11.7 (maximum) 12.33
- Conservative values used in Reference 22.
(1) Evaluated for post-accident peak of 104
°F in Reference 32.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-4 TABLE 6.2-4 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 MASS AND ENERGY RELEASE DATA FOR ANALYSIS OF WATER POOL PRESSURE-SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT ACCIDENTS (AT 3434 MWt)
A. Effective accident break area (total), ft 2 3.113 Pipe ID, in.
21.686 B. Components of effective break area:
- 1. Recirculation line area, ft 2 2.565 2. Cleanup line area, ft 2 0.080 3. Jet pumps area, ft 2 0.468 C. Break area/vent area ratio 0.010 D. Primary system energy distribution
- 1. Steam energy, 10 6 Btu 29.6 2. Liquid energy, 10 6 Btu 355.3 3. Sensible energy, 10 6 Btu a. Reactor vessel 106.1 b. Reactor internals (less core) 58.6 c. Primary system piping 34.6 d. Fuel** 25.2 E. Assumptions used in pressure transient analysis
- 1. Feedwater valve closure time Instantaneous See Note 1
< 1 4. Liquid carryover, %
100 5. Turbine stop valve closure (sec) 0.2
- All energy values except fuel are based on a 32°F datum.
- Fuel energy is based on a datum of 285°F.
Note 1 This assumption has been supplemented for a conservative evaluation on the peak long term suppression pool temperature. This supplemental evaluation postulates the addition of feedwater mass and energy injected at time t=600 seconds after LOCA. Section 6.2.1.1.3.1.1 in the paragraph titled, "Evaluation of Post-LOCA Feedwater Injection" discusses this in further detail.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-5 TABLE 6.2-5 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 LOSS OF COOLANT ACCIDENT LONG TERM PRIMARY CONTAINMENT RESPONSE
SUMMARY
(AT 3434 MWt)
SERVICE WATER PUMPS CONTAINMENT SPRAY (gal/min)
HPCS (gal/min)
PEAK POOL TEMPERATURE (°F) ** SECONDARY PEAK PRESSURE (psig) A 3/1 4 14,134 6200 21,200/
6,250 168.4 5.3 B 1/0 2 7,067 6200 7067/0 200 9.6 C 1/0 2 0 6200 7067/0 200++ 14.2 ** Supplementary evaluations have been performed, as discussed in Section 6.2.1.8, based on an increase in the initial suppression pool temperature (from 100
°F to 105°F), the peak suppression pool bulk temperature is less than 200
°F. ++ A supplementary evaluation, for the effect on long term peak pool temperature, has been performed for the addition of feedwater mass and energy at t=600 seconds and a reduced RHR pump flow in the suppression pool cooling mode (7200 gpm versus 7450 gpm). The 200
°F peak pool temperature given above is not exceeded.
TABLE 6.2-5a REV. 16, APRIL 2006 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-5A LOSS OF COOLANT ACCIDENT LONG TERM PRIMARY CONTAINMENT RESPONSE
SUMMARY
(AT 3559 MWt)
SERVICE WATER PUMPS
CONTAINMENT SPRAY (gal/min)
HPCS (gal/min)
PEAK POOL TEMPERATURE* (°F) PRIMARY PEAK SUPPRESSION CHAMBER PRESSURE (PSIG) SECONDARY SUPPRESSION CHAMBER PEAK PRESSURE (psig) C 1/0 2 0 6200 7200
- 196.1 27.9 12.4
- See Figures 6.2-5A, 6.2-6A and 6.2-7A fo r long term containment responses vs. time.
- RHR flow through heat exchanger (Reference 20)
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-6 TABLE 6.2-6 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 ENERGY BALANCE FOR DESIGN-BASIS RECIRCULATION LINE BREAK ACCIDENT (AT 3434 MWt)
PRIOR TO DBA (0 sec) AT TIME OF PEAK PRESSURE DIFFERENCE (0.75 at Recirc.)
AT END OF BLOWDOWN
(~53 sec) AT TIME OF PEAK CONTAINMENT PRESSURE (~27009 sec - minimum ECCS available; ~7047 sec - all ECCS Available)
UNIT 1. Reactor coolant (vessel &
pipe inventory) 414.0 x 10 6 400 x 10 6 11.8 x 10 6 45.6 x 10 6 /41.8 x 10 6 Btu 2. Fuel and cladding 34.0 Fuel 34.8 x 10 6 32.3 x 10 6 12.8 x 10 6 4.07 x 10 6 /3.72 x 10 6 Btu Cladding 3.05 x 10 6 3.05 x 10 6 2.99 x 10 6 0.956 x 10 6 /0.904 x 10 6 Btu 3. Core internals, also reactor coolant piping pumps &
valves 91.2 x 10 6 91.2 x 10 6 91.2 x 10 6 31.4 x 10 6 /55.5 x 10 6 Btu 4. Reactor vessel metal 107.0 x 10 6 107.0 x 10 6 107.0 x 10 6 37 x 10 6 /64.4 x 10 6 Btu 5. Reactor coolant piping, pumps and valves Included in (3)
- 6. Blowdown enthalpy NA 546 NA NA Btu/lbm 7. Decay heat 0 .402920 x 10 6 8.802 x 10 6 1020 x 10 6 /383.0 x 10 6 Btu 8. Metal-water reaction heat 0 0 0.02 x 10 6 .471 x 10 6 /.471 x 10 6 Btu 9. Drywell structures Storage Capacitance Neglected Btu 10. Drywell air 1.52 x 10 6 1.73 x 10 6 0 1.77 x 10 6 /158 x 10 6 Btu 11. Drywell steam 0.335 x 10 6 7.41 x 10 6 25.7 x 10 6 7.06 x 10 6 /5.32 x 10 6 Btu 12. Containment air 1.17 x 10 6 1.17 x 10 6 2.77 x 10 6 1.41 x 10 6 /1.49 x 10 6 Btu 13. Containment steam 0.522 x 10 6 0.522 x 10 6 1.29 x 10 6 5.57 x 10 6 /2.86 x 10 6 Btu 14. Suppression pool water 887 x 10 6 887 x 10 6 1300 x 10 6 1770 x 10 6 /1490 x 10 6 Btu 15. Heat transferred by heat exchangers 0 0 0 752 x 10 6 /260 x 10 6 Btu NOTE 1: Results of analysis for MS and recirc line breaks are approximately the same; however, the progress of the events is more rapid for the MS break than for the recirc. Note 2: A supplementary evaluation, for the effect on long term peak pool temperature, has been performed for the addition of feedwater mass and energy injection at t=600 seconds, the total additional energy calculated due to the feedwater volume and the feedwater piping metal sensible heat is 2.07 x E08 Btu. (Ref. 18).
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-7 TABLE 6.2-7 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 ACCIDENT CHRONOLOGY DESIGN-BASIS RECIRCULATION LINE BREAK ACCIDENT (AT 3434 MWt)
TIME (sec) ALL ECCS IN OPERATION MINIMUM ECCS AVAILABLE Vents cleared 0.824 0.824 Drywell reaches peak pressure 20.14 20.14
Maximum positive differential pressure occurs 0.831 0.831 Initiation of the ECCS 30 30 End of blowdown 52.15 52.15 Vessel reflooded ( ) 109.53 Introduction of RHR heat exchanger (approx.) 600* (approx.) 600*
Containment reaches peak secondary pressure 10,915 27,009
- Refer to Section 6.2.2.3.6 for further discussion on the sensitivity of this time period.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-8 TABLE 6.2-8 REV. 14 - APRIL 2002
SUMMARY
OF ACCIDENT RESULTS FOR CONTAINMENT RESPONSE TO RECIRCULATION LINE AND STEAMLINE BREAKS (AT 3434 MWt)
A. Accident Parameters RECIRCULATION LINE BREAK
- STEAMLINE BREAK 1. Peak drywell pressure, psig 39.6 32 2. Peak drywell deck differential pressure, psid 24.2 17.5 3. Time(s) of peak pressures, sec 22 11 4. Peak drywell temperature, °F 286 320 5. Peak suppression chamber pressure, psig 30.6 25 6. Time of peak suppression chamber pressure, sec 144 50 7. Peak suppression pool temperature during blowdown, °F 148** 100** 8. Peak suppression pool temperature, long term, °F 200++ 9. Calculated drywell margin, % 12
- 10. Calculated suppression chamber margin, %
32 11. Calculated deck differential pressure margin, %
3.2
- See Figures 6.2-2 and 6.2-5 for plots of pressures vs time.
See Figures 6.2-3 and 6.2-7 for plots of temperatures vs time.
- As discussed in Section 6.2.1.8 supplementary evaluations have been satisfactorily completed with a 105
°F initial suppression pool temperature. ++ See Notes in Table 6.2-5.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-8A TABLE 6.2-8a REV. 14 - APRIL 2002
SUMMARY
OF ACCIDENT RESULTS FOR SHORT-TERM CONTAINMENT RESPONSE TO RECIRCULATION LINE BREAK (AT 3559 MWt)
A. Accident Parameters RECIRCULATION LINE BREAK
- 1. Peak drywell pressure, psig 39.9 2. Peak drywell deck differential pressure, psid 22.4 3. Peak drywell temperature, °F 286
- See Figure 6.2-2A for short-term pressure response vs time. See Figure 6.2-3A for short-term temperature response vs time.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-9 TABLE 6.2-9 REV. 13 SUBCMPARTMENT NODAL DESCRIPTION RECIRCULATION OUTLET LINE BREAK WITH SHIELDING DOORS NODE NUMBER DESCRIPTION VOLUME (ft 3) HEIGHT (ft) FLOW CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA (ft) BOTTOM ELEVATION (ft) INITIAL CONDITIONS TEMP, (°F) PRESS, (psia) HUMID, *(%) CALC. PEAK
PRESS DIFF, (psid) 1 Lower Reactor Skirt 100.6 5.07 18.40 755.29 550.
15.45 0.1 47.9 2 Lower Reactor Skirt 100.6 5.07 18.40 755.29 550.
15.45 0.1 48.0 3 Lower Reactor Skirt 100.6 5.07 18.40 755.29 550.
15.45 0.1 47.4 4 Lower Reactor Skirt 150.9 5.07 23.36 755.29 550.
15.45 0.1 47.9 5 Lower Reactor Skirt 150.9 5.07 23.36 755.29 550.
15.45 0.1 48.1 6 Upper Reactor Skirt 121.0 7.47 20.98 760.36 550.
15.45 0.1 47.9 7 Upper Reactor Skirt 121.0 7.47 20.98 760.36 550.
15.45 0.1 48.0 8 Upper Reactor Skirt 121.0 7.47 20.98 760.36 550.
15.45 0.1 47.5 9 Upper Reactor Skirt 181.5 7.47 25.64 760.36 550.
15.45 0.1 48.1 10 Upper Reactor Skirt 181.5 7.47 25.64 760.36 550.
15.45 0.1 47.8 11 Lower Recirc. Noz. Sect. 39.87 6.92 10.02 767.83 550.
15.45 0.1 74.2 12 Lower Recirc. Noz. Sect. 54.28 4.90 10.50 767.83 550.
15.45 0.1 47.3 13 Lower Recirc. Noz. Sect. 61.94 4.90 10.50 767.83 550.
15.45 0.1 48.2 14 Lower Recirc. Noz. Sect. 81.43 4.90 13.47 767.83 550.
15.45 0.1 48.2 15 Lower Recirc. Noz. Sect. 80.54 4.90 13.47 767.83 550.
15.45 0.1 46.4 16 Upper Recirc. Noz. Sect. 26.77 2.67 8.43 774.75 550.
15.45 0.1 72.0 17 Upper Recirc. Noz. Sect. 52.18 4.69 10.30 772.73 550.
15.45 0.1 45.2 18 Upper Recirc. Noz. Sect. 52.18 4.69 10.30 772.73 550.
15.45 0.1 40.9 19 Upper Recirc. Noz. Sect. 78.28 4.69 13.27 772.73 550.
15.45 0.1 37.7 20 Upper Recirc. Noz. Sect. 77.39 4.69 13.27 772.73 550.
15.45 0.1 37.2 21 Mid-Section 67.48 6.41 12.44 777.42 550.
15.45 0.1 39.5 22 Mid-Section 67.48 6.41 12.44 777.42 550.
15.45 0.1 39.2 23 Mid-Section 67.48 6.41 12.44 777.42 550.
15.45 0.1 36.7 24 Mid-Section 101.2 6.41 15.52 777.42 550.
15.45 0.1 36.0 25 Mid-Section 101.2 6.41 15.52 777.42 550.
15.45 0.1 35.9 26 LPCI Noz. Sect. 171.1 9.59 18.61 783.83 550.
15.45 0.1 27.6 27 LPCI Noz. Sect. 155.8 9.59 18.61 783.83 550.
15.45 0.1 27.3 28 LPCI Noz. Sect. 155.8 9.59 18.61 783.83 550.
15.45 0.1 26.7 29 LPCI Noz. Sect. 171.1 9.59 18.61 783.83 550.
15.45 0.1 26.5 30 Feedwater Noz. Sect. 155.8 8.81 17.86 793.42 550.
15.45 0.1 19.3 31 Feedwater Noz. Sect. 153.4 8.81 17.86 793.42 550.
15.45 0.1 19.0 32 Feedwater Noz. Sect. 143.9 8.81 17.86 793.42 550.
15.45 0.1 18.9 33 Feedwater Noz. Sect. 164.1 8.81 17.86 793.42 550.
15.45 0.1 19.0 34 Annulus Receiver 19.76 6.92 10.02 767.83 550.
15.45 0.1 115.1 35 Break Node 19.52 4.92 7.04 769.56 550.
15.45 0.1 322.0 36 Upper Drywell 16315. 41.0 400. 793.42 135.
15.45 15.0 -- 37 Mid-Drywell 11665. 12.1 965. 781.32 135.
15.45 15.0 -- 38 Lower Drywell 82775. 44.7 1850. 736.62 135.
15.45 15.0 --
- Relative humidity.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-10 TABLE 6.2-10 REV. 0 - APRIL 1984 SUBCOMPARTMENT NODAL DESCRIPTION FEEDWATER LINE BREAK WITH SHIELDING DOORS NODE NUMBER DESCRIPTION VOLUME (ft 3) HEIGHT (ft) FLOW CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA (ft) BOTTOM ELEVATION (ft) INITIAL CONDITIONS TEMP, (°F) PRESS, (psia) HUMID, *(%) CALC. PEAK PRESS DIFF, (psid) 1 Lower Reactor Skirt 150.9 5.07 23.36 755.29 550. 15.45 0.1 14.0 2 Lower Reactor Skirt 150.9 5.07 23.36 755.29 550. 15.45 0.1 14.0 3 Lower Reactor Skirt 150.9 5.07 23.36 755.29 550. 15.45 0.1 14.0 4 Lower Reactor Skirt 150.9 5.07 23.36 755.29 550. 15.45 0.1 14.1 5 Upper Reactor Skirt 181.5 7.47 23.80 760.36 550.
15.45 0.1 14.0 6 Upper Reactor Skirt 181.5 7.47 23.80 760.36 550.
15.45 0.1 13.9 7 Upper Reactor Skirt 181.5 7.47 23.80 760.36 550.
15.45 0.1 14.0 8 Upper Reactor Skirt 181.5 7.47 23.80 760.36 550.
15.45 0.1 14.1 9 Recirc. Noz. Sect. 159.7 9.59 17.83 767.83 550. 15.45 0.1 14.4 10 Recirc. Noz. Sect. 157.9 9.59 17.83 767.83 550. 15.45 0.1 14.1 11 Recirc. Noz. Sect. 157.9 9.59 17.83 767.83 550. 15.45 0.1 13.6 12 Recirc. Noz. Sect. 167.4 9.59 17.83 767.83 550. 15.45 0.1 13.4 13 Mid-Section 67.48 6.41 12.44 777.42 550. 15.45 0.1 18.2 14 Mid-Section 67.48 6.41 12.44 777.42 550. 15.45 0.1 15.5 15 Mid-Section 67.48 6.41 12.44 777.42 550. 15.45 0.1 14.0 16 Mid-Section 101.2 6.41 15.79 777.42 550. 15.45 0.1 13.5 17 Mid-Section 101.2 6.41 15.79 777.42 550. 15.45 0.1 13.3 18 LPCI Noz. Sect. 100.8 9.59 15.52 783.83 550. 15.45 0.1 17.7 19 LPCI Noz. Sect. 110.0 9.59 15.52 783.83 550. 15.45 0.1 16.1 20 LPCI Noz. Sect. 116.1 9.59 15.52 783.83 550. 15.45 0.1 14.3 21 LPCI Noz. Sect. 171.1 9.59 18.61 783.83 550. 15.45 0.1 13.0 22 LPCI Noz. Sect. 155.8 9.59 18.61 783.83 550. 15.45 0.1 12.6 23 Annulus Receiver 45.22 10.58 13.39 793.42 550.
15.45 0.1 50.8 24 Feedwater Noz. Sect. 55.63 10.58 13.39 793.42 550. 15.45 0.1 36.9 25 Feedwater Noz. Sect. 116.2 10.58 16.48 793.42 550. 15.45 0.1 21.3 26 Feedwater Noz. Sect. 131.5 10.58 16.48 793.42 550. 15.45 0.1 11.5 27 Feedwater Noz. Sect. 176.7 10.58 19.57 793.42 550. 15.45 0.1 10.5 28 Feedwater Noz. Sect. 171.8 10.58 19.57 793.42 550. 15.45 0.1 10.3 29 Break Node 16.12 4.00 5.42 796.75 550. 15.45 0.1 201.6 30 Lower Drywell 16315. 41.00 400. 793.42 135. 15.45 15.0 -- 31 Mid Drywell 11665. 12.10 965. 781.32 135. 15.45 15.0 -- 32 Upper Drywell 82775. 44.70 1850. 736.62 135. 15.45 15.0 --
- Relative humidity.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-11 TABLE 6.2-11 REV. 13 SUBCOMPARTMENT NODAL DESCRIPTION SIMULTANEOUS BREAK OF THE HEAD SPRAY LINE AND RPV HEAD VENT LINE IN THE HEAD CAVITY INITIAL CONDITIONS DBA BREAK CONDITIONS Volume No. Description Height, ft Cross-Sectional Area, ft 2 Volume ft 3 Temp.
°F Press.
psia Humid. *% Break Loc. Vol. No. Break Line Break Area, ft 2 Brea k Type Calc. Peak Press Diff. psid Design Peak Press Diff. psid Design Margin % 1 Head Cavity 15.57 261.5 4072. 135. 15.45 0.1 1 1RI24B
-6 + 1NB13 A-4 .163 Doubl e-ended guillo tine break 7.0 nodes 1 to 2 10.6 150 2 Drywell 79.74 2315.0 184664. 135. 15.45 0.1 3 Wetwell 33.87 5198.0 176085. 100** 15.45 0.1
- Relative humidity The peak differential pressure across the bulkhead plate (Pnode 1 - Pnode 2) for this case = 7.0 psid Design differential pressure across the bulkhead plate = 10.6 psid ** As discussed in Section 6.2.1.8 supplementary evaluations have been satisfactorily completed with a 105ºF initial suppression pool temperature.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-12 TABLE 6.2-12 REV. 13 SUBCOMPARTMENT NODAL DESCRIPTION RECIRCULATION LINE BREAK IN THE DRYWELL INITIAL CONDITIONS DBA BREAK CONDITIONS Volume No. Description Height, ft Cross-Sectional Area, ft 2 Volume ft 3 Temp
. °F Press
. psia Humid.* % Break Loc. Vol. No. Break Line Break Area, ft 2 Break Type Calc.
Peak Press Diff. psid Design Peak Press Diff. psid Design Margin % 1 Head Cavity 15.57 261.5 4072. 135. 15.45 0.1 2 Drywell 79.74 2315.0 177049. 135. 15.45 0.1 2 Recirculation line 3.216 Double-ended guilloti ne 9.0 10.6 118 3 Wetwell 33.87 5198.0 176085. 100** 15.45 0.1
- Relative humidity The peak differential pressure across the bulkhead plate (P node1 - P node 2) for this case = -9.0 psid
The design differential pressure across the bulkhead plate = 10.6 psid
- As discussed in Section 6.2.1.8 supplementary evaluations have been satisfactorily completed with a 105
°F initial suppression pool temperature.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-13 TABLE 6.2-13 REV. 14 - APRIL 2002 SUBCOMPARTMENT VENT PATH DESCRIPTION SIMULTANEOUS BREAK OF THE HEAD SPRAY LINE AND RPV HEAD VENT LINE IN THE HEAD CAVITY VENT PATH NO FROM VOL. NODE NO. TO VOL. NODE NO. DESCRIPTION OF VENT PATH FLOW
HYDRAULIC HEAD LOSS, K CHOKED UNCHOKED AREA**
ft2 LENGTH** ft DIAMETER ft FRICTION K, ft/d TURNING LOSS, K EXPANSION, K CONTRACTION, K TOTAL 1 1 2 HVAC vents through bulkhead plate 6.12 3.76 - - - - 2.62 choked 2* 2 3 98-24 inch downcomers 295.00 70.8 19.38 - - - - 1.90 unchoked 3 0 1 Break of head spray line & RPV head vent line in head cavity 0.163 0.0 0.46 - - - - 0.00 fill
- Opened on a differential pressure of 5.2 psid
- Length/Area is the inertial term input directly into RELAP4 / MOD5
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-14 TABLE 6.2-14 REV. 14 - APRIL 2002 SUBCOMPARTMENT VENT PATH DESCRIPTION RECIRCULATION LINE BREAK IN THE DRYWELL VENT PATH NO FROM VOL. NODE NO. TO VOL. NODE NO. DESCRIPTION OF VENT PATH FLOW
HYDRAULIC HEAD LOSS, K CHOKED UNCHOKED AREA**ft2 LENGTH** ft DIAMETER ft FRICTION K, ft/d TURNING LOSS, K EXPANSION, K CONTRACTION, K TOTAL 1 1 2 HVAC vents without ductwork through bulkhead plate 11.12 6.12 3.76 - - - - 2.62 unchoked 2* 2 3 98-24 inch downcomers 295.00 70.8 19.38 - - - - 1.90 unchoked 3 0 2 Recirculation line break in drywell 1.00 0.00 0.46 - - - - 0.00 fill
- Opened on a differential pressure of 5.2 psid
- Length/Area is the inertial term input directly into RELAP4 / MOD5
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-15 REV. 0 - APRIL 1984 TABLE 6.2-15 SIMULTANEOUS BREAK OF THE HEAD SPRAY LINE AND RPV HEAD VENT LINE IN THE HEAD CAVITY INPUT DATA*
- LASALLE - HEAD CAVITY PRESSURIZATION - 3C7-0476-003 REV 0 4266-00
- PROBLEM DIMENSIONS 010001 -2 9 5 3 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
- PROBLEM CONSTANTS 010002 0.0 1.0
- TIME STEP DATA 030010 1 50 0 0 0.01 0.00005 2.0 030020 1 50 0 0 0.002 0.00005 3.5 030030 1 50 0 0 0.0005 0.00005 3.9 030040 1 50 0 0 0.01 0.00005 8.0 030050 1 50 0 0 0.1 0.00005 30.0
- TRIP CONTROLS 040010 1 1 0 0 20.0 0.0 040020 2 4 2 3 5.2 0.0 040030 3 1 0 0 0.0 0.0
- VOLUME DATA 050011 0 0 15.45 135. .001 4072. 15.57 0. 0 261.5 18.3 819.73 0 050021 0 0 15.45 135. .001 184664. 79.74 0. 0 2315.0 54.3 740.00 0 050031 0 0 15.45 100. .001 176085. 33.87 0. 0 5198.0 81.4 706.14 0
- JUNCTION DATA 080011 1 2 0 0 0. 11.12 819.73 .55 2.62 2.62 0 1 0 3 0. .6 -100 080021 2 3 0 1 0.0 295.000 740.00 .24 1. 9 1. 9 0 1 0 30 .6 -100. 080031 0 1 1 0 357.9 0.16267 827.52 .00 0.0 0.0 0 1 0 30. 1. -100.
- VALVE DATA CARDS 110010 -2 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0.
- FILL TABLE CARDS 130100 3 1 2 3 'LBS/SEC' 550. 1. 0. 130101 0 2200. 30. 2200.
______________________
- RELAP4/MOD5 computer code utilized for analysis.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-16 REV. 0 - APRIL 1984 TABLE 6.2-16 RECIRCULATION LINE BREAK INPUT DATA*
= LASALLE - HEAD CAVITY PRESSURIZATION - 3C7-0476-003 REV 0 4266-00
- RECIRCULATION LINE BREAK
- 4 HVAC INLET VENTS AVAILABLE FOR FLOW INTO HEAD CAVITY
- PROBLEM DIMENSIONS 010001 -2 9 2 3 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
- PROBLEM CONSTANTS 010002 0.0 1.0
- TIME STEP DATA 030010 1 50 0 0 0.005 0.00005 2.0 030020 1 50 0 0 0.01 0.00005 30.0
- TRIP CONTROLS 040010 1 1 0 0 10.0 0.0 040020 2 1 0 0 0.824 0.0 040030 3 1 0 0 0.0 0.0
- VOLUME DATA 050011 0 0 15.45 135. .001 4072. 15.57 0. 0 261.5 18.3 819.73 0 050021 0 0 15.45 135. .001 177049. 79.74 0. 0 2315.0 54.3 740.00 0 050031 0 0 15.45 100. .001 176085. 33.87 0. 0 5198.0 81.4 706.14 0
- JUNCTION DATA 080011 1 2 0 0 0. 4.92 819.73 .83 1.52 1.52 0 1 0 3 0. .6 -100. 080021 2 3 0 1 0.0 295.000 740.00 .24 1. 9 1. 9 0 1 0 3 0. .6 -100. 080031 0 2 1 0 25690. 1. 770. .00 0.0 0.0 0 1 0 3 0. 1. -100.
- VALVE DATA CARDS 110010 -2 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0.
- FILL TABLE CARDS 130100 3 4 9 1 'LBS/SEC'
- TIME FLOW ENTHALPY 130101 0.0000 22710.0 532.0 130102 0.0016 22710.0 532.0 130103 0.0017 34060.0 532.0 130104 1.5500 34060.0 532.0 130105 1.5600 27550.0 532.0 130106 1.7500 27550.0 532.0 130107 1.7600 24840.0 547.0 130108 1.9800 24840.0 547.0 130109 10.1100 24320.0 538.0 _______________________
- RELAP4/MOD5 computer code utilized for analysis.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-17 REV. 0- APRIL 1984 TABLE 6.2-17 MAIN STEAMLINE BREAK INPUT DATA LISTING OF INPUT DATA FOR CASE 1 1 = DATA SET 071576-2RLASALLE STUDY 3C7-0476-003 09.8.026-3.0 RELAP4 - MAIN STEAM 2
- PROBLEM DIMENSIONS 3 010001 -2 9 2 3 3 0 0 7 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0
- PROB-DIM 4
- PROBLEM CONSTANTS 5 010002 0.0 1.0 6
- TIME STEPS 9 030010 1 50 0 0 0.005 0.00005 2.0 10 030020 1 50 0 0 0.01 0.00005 10.0 11
- TRIP CONTROLS 12 040010 1 1 0 0 10.0 0.0 13 040020 2 1 0 0 0.75 0.0 14 040030 3 1 0 0 0.5 0.0 15
- VOLUME DATA CARDS - - 3.7 - P8.9 16 050011 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.556 4077. 15.57 15.57 0 261.5 0. 819.73 17 050021 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.556 177049. 79.74 79.74 0 2315. 0. 740.00 18 050031 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.524 176085. 33.87 33.87 0 5198. 0. 706.14 19
- JUNCTION DATA CARDS 08XXXY - 3.10 - P 91 20 080011 2 1 0 0 0. 6.213 819.73 0.84 1.56 0. 1 0 0 0 0. 0.6 1 0 21 080021 2 3 0 1 0. 295. 740.00 0.24 1.9 0. 1 0 0 0 0 0.6 1.0 22 080031 0 2 1 0 8646.0 1. 770. 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0
- M-STREAM 23 080041 0 2 2 0 0. 1. 770. 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0
- M-STREAM 24 080051 0 2 3 0 0. 1. 770. 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0
- M-STREAM 25 080061 0 2 4 0 0. 1. 770. 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0
- M-STREAM 26 080071 0 2 5 0 0. 1. 770. 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 *M-STREAM 27
- VALVE DATA CARDS 11XXX0 - - 3.16 P97 28 110010 -2 0. 0. 0. 0. 29
- FILL TABLE DATA CARDS - 13XXYY -- 3.18 P.98 30 130100 4 3 0 0 1.0 547.75 0.0 8646. 1.0 8646. 31 130101 1.01 0.0 10.0 0.0 32 130200 6 3 0 0 1.0 547.43 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 33 130201 1.01 920.2 4.39 1319.0 4.4 0.0 10.0 0.0 34 130300 4 3 0 0 1.0 545.55 0.0 0.0 4.39 0.0 35 130301 4.40 1319.0 10.14 2051.00 36 130400 6 3 0 0 0.0 547.67 0.0 0.0 0.99 0.0 37 130401 1.0 28390.0 4.39 27460.0 4.4 0.0 10.0 0.0 38 130500 4 3 0 0 0.0 547.08 0.0 0.0 4.39 0.0 39 130501 4.40 27460.0 10.14 24430.00 40
- LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-18 TABLE 6.2-18 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 REACTOR BLOWDOWN DATA FOR RECIRCULATION LINE BREAK (AT 3434 MWt)
TIME (sec)
STEAM FLOW (lb/sec)
LIQUID FLOW (lb/sec)
STEAM ENTHALPY (Btu/lb) LIQUID ENTHALPY (Btu/lb) 0 0 22710 1195.3 532.0 0.0016 0 22710 1195.3 532.0 0.0017 0 34060 1195.3 532.0 1.55 0 34060 1195.3 532.0 1.56 0 27550 1195.3 532.0 1.75 0 27550 1195.3 532.0 1.76 0 24840 1192.0 547.0 1.98 0 24810 1192.0 547.0 10.11 0 24320 1193.8 538.8 20.61 0 23460 1196.5 526.0 20.64 3084 11930 1196.5 526.3 25.11 2813 8872 1201.6 493.4 30.01 2382 6175 1204.5 456.6 35.01 1844 3934 1204.3 416.3 40.01 1272 2431 1201.0 374.9 46.87 139 2410 1177.4 261.3 46.94 290 0 1177.0 259.9 47.62 44 0 1173.5 248.4 47.69 0 0 1173.3 247.5
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-18A TABLE 6.2-18a REV. 15, APRIL 2004 TABLE 6.2-18A REACTOR BLOWDOWN FOR RECIRCULATION LINE BREAK (AT 3559 MWT)
Time (sec)
Break Flow
Rate (lbm/sec)
Time (sec)
Break Flow
Enthalpy (Btu/lbm) 0 0. 0. 516.8 0.003906 3.698x10 4 5.768 535.8 0.7676 3.558x10 4 8.096 544.6 2.268 3.084x10 4 8.283 544.7 2.768 2.892x10 4 8.689 558.1 3.768 2.653x10 4 10.19 553.4 5.143 2.497x10 4 11.13 550.
8.283 2.549x10 4 11.47 774.2 9.189 2.456 x10 4 11.69 860.4 11.13 2.453 x10 4 11.88 880.6 11.47 1.466 x10 4 11.92 880.
11.6 1.160 x10 4 12.83 818.3 11.84 9.661x10 3 13.08 819.6 12.39 9.116 x10 3 14.08 789.4 12.83 9.808 x10 3 15.27 744.8 13.33 9.702 x10 3 18.27 685.5 16.27 1.071 x10 4 21.58 652.7 18.83 1.027 x10 4 24.45 639.6 24.45 8.853 x10 3 27.2 635.
32 5.568 x10 3 32 635.2
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-19 TABLE 6.2-19 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 REACTOR BLOWDOWN DATA FOR MAIN STEAMLINE BREAK (AT 3434 MWt)
TIME (sec)
STEAM FLOW (lb/sec) LIQUID FLOW (lb/sec)
STEAM ENTHALPY (Btu/lb) LIQUID ENTHALPY (Btu/lb) 0.0 11770 0 1190.9 550.9 0.19 11600 0 1191.3 549.1 0.194 8577 0 1191.3 549.1 0.999 8369 0 1192.3 545.3 1.0 899 28450 1192.3 545.3 4.0 1169 27230 1193.4 540.8 10.1 1248 19050 1195.9 529.2 20.38 1730 14680 1200.6 501.3 30.13 1874 9762 1204.2 462.4 40.0 1545 4932 1204.0 409.6 50.0 552 3058 1192.4 322.0 55.32 8.4 253 1173.4 247.9 55.44 0 0 1173.0 246.7
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-20 TABLE 6.2-20 REV. 14 - APRIL 2002 CORE DECAY HEAT FOLLOWING LOCA FOR CONTAINMENT ANALYSIS (AT 3334 MWT)
TIME (Seconds)
NORMALIZED CORE HEAT*
0 1.0 0.9 0.9330 2.1 0.7662
5.0 0.5005 6.93 0.3850
9.03 0.2955 15.93 0.1491 30.0 0.0471 10 2 0.0381 10 3 0.0223 10 4 0.0119 10 5 0.00668 10 6 0.00267 3 x 10 6 0.00190
- Normalized Power = 3434 MWt Includes fuel relaxation energy
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-20A TABLE 6.2-20a REV. 15 - APRIL 2004 CORE DECAY HEAT FOLLOWING LOCA FOR CONTAINMENT ANALYSIS (AT 3559 MWt)
TIME (Seconds) NORMALIZED CORE HEAT*
0.0 1.0 1.0 0.589 4.0 0.577 10.0 0.377
20.0 0.117 40.0 0.0466 60.0 0.0421 80.0 0.0399 120.0 0.0375 1,000.0 0.0211 10,000.0 0.0108 20,000.0 0.00903 40,000.0 0.00762 80,000.0 0.00634
______________________________
- Normalized Power = 3559 MWt Includes fission energy, decay energy, fuel relaxation energy, and metal-water reaction energy
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 1 OF 49 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER NRC GDC LINE ISOLATED FLUID CONTAINED LINE SIZE (in) ESF SYSTEM (NOTE 21)THROUGH LINE LEAKAGE CLASSIFICATION (NOTE 14,15)
VALVE ARRANGEMENT FIGURE 6.2-31 VALVE NUMBER LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO CONTAINMENT TYPE C TESTLENGTH OF PIPE FROM CONTAINMENT TO OUTERMOST VALVE (ft) M-1 TO M-4 55 Main Steam (includes drain line) Steam 26 26 1 1/2 No No No A (b) A (b) A (b) Detail (a) 1&2B21-F022A,B,C,D 1&2B21-F028A,B,C,D 1&2B21-F067A,B,C,D Inside Outside Outside Yes (Note 30) Yes (Note 30) Yes (Note 30)
N/A 11 N/A M-5 & M-6 55 Reactor Feed (includes connection to RWC) Condensate 24 24 24 4 No No No No AC (b)
AC (b) A (b)
A (b) Detail (b) 1&B21-F010A,B 1&2B21-F032A,B 1&2B21-F065A,B 1&2G33-F040 Inside Outside Outside Outside Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A 43 N/A M-7 55 RHRS/Shutdown Suction Reactor Water 20 20 3/4 No No No A (b)
A (b) A(b) Detail (ah) 1&2E12-F009
1&2E12-F008
1&2E12-F460 Inside Outside Inside Yes Yes Yes N/A 8 N/A M-8 & M-9 55 (Note 28) RHRS/Shutdown Return Reactor Water 12 12 2 No No No AC (a) A (b)
A (a) Detail (d) 1&2E12-F050A,B 1&2E12-F053A,B 1&2E12-F099A,B Inside Outside Inside No (Note 28) Yes No (Note 28) N/A 3 N/A M-10 55 (Note 28) LPCS Injection Suppression Pool Water 12 12 Yes Yes AC (a) A (b) Detail (AJ) 1&2E21-F006
1&2E21-F005 Inside Outside No (Note 28) Yes N/A 3 M-11 55 (Note 28) HPCS Injection Suppression Pool Water 12 12 Yes Yes AC (a) A (b) Detail (AJ) 1&2E22-F005
1&2E22-F004 Inside Outside No (Note 28) Yes N/A 3 M-12 to M-14 55 (Note 28) RHR/LPCI Injection Suppression Pool Water 12 12 Yes Yes AC (a) A (b) Detail (AJ) 1&2E12-F041A,B,C 1&2E12-F042A,B,CInside Outside No (Note 28) Yes N/A 7 M-15 55 Steam to RCIC System (Includes Rhr Supply) Steam 10 1 10 4 Yes Yes No Yes A (b)
A (b)
A (b) A (b) Detail (e) 1&2E51-F063 1&2E51-F076 1(2)E51-D324 1&2E51-F008 Inside Inside Outside Outside Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A 13 max. N/A M-16 56 Cooling Water Supply Demineralized Water 6 6 3/4 No No No A (b)
A (b) A(b) Detail (f) 1&2WR029 1&2WR179
1&2WR225 Outside Inside Inside Yes Yes Yes 4 N/A N/A M-17 56 Cooling Water Return Demineralized Water 6 6 3/4 No No No A (b)
A (b) A(b) Detail (f) 1&2WR040 1&2WR180 1&2WR226 Outside Inside Inside Yes Yes Yes 5 N/A N/A M-18 & M-19 56 RHRS/Containment Spray Suppression Pool Water 16 No No A (b)
A (b) Detail (g) 1&2E12-F017A,B 1&2E12-F016A,B Outside Outside Yes Yes N/A 11 M-20 56 Drywell Purge Air 26 26 1 1/2 1 1/2 8 No No No No No A (b) A (b)
A (b)
A (b) A (b) Detail (s)
Detail (s) Detail (s) Detail (s) 1&2VQ030 1&2VQ029
1&2VQ047
1&2VQ048 1&2VQ042 Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A 10 N/A 10 max. 10 max. Summary of Lines Penetrating the Primary Containment LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 2 OF 49 REV. 16, APRIL 2006 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER VALVE TYPE ASME SECTION III CODE CLASS PRIMARY METHOD OF ACTUATIONSECONDARY METHOD OF ACTUATION NORMAL VALVE POSITIONSHUTDOWN VALVE POSITION POST ACCIDENT POSITION POWER FAILURE VALVE POSITION (6) ISOLATION SIGNAL VALVE CLOSURE TIME (7) POWER SOURCE REMARKS M-1 to M-4 AO Globe AO Globe MO Gate 1 1
O C C
C C C
C C C As is C,D,E,H,P,RM C,D,E,H,P,RM C,D,E,H,P,RM 3 to 5 3 to 5 Standard ESS 2 ESS 1 ESS 1 Note (1,20)
Note (1) Note (48)
M-5 to M-6 Swing Check U1/Swing Check U2 AO No Slam-Check MO Gate MO Gate 1 1 2 2 Process Process RM RM NA RM M M O O O O C C C O C C C C NA NA As is As is Rev. Flow B,F,Rev. FlowRM(Note 34)
RM(Note 34) Instantaneou s Instantaneou s Standard Standard NA ESS 2 ESS 1 ESS 1 Note (17)
Note (20, 53, 54) M-7 MO Gate MO Gate Relief 1 1
2 Auto Auto Process RM RM N/A C C
C O O C C C
C As is As is C A,D,U,RM A,D,U,RM N/A 40 sec 40 sec Instantaneou s ESS 2 ESS 1 N/A Note (51) 1E12-F008M-8 & M-9 No Slam-Check MO Globe MO Globe 1 1 1 Process Auto Auto NA RM RM C C C O O O C C C NA As is As is Rev. Flow A,D,U,RM A,D,F,U,RM Instantaneou s 29 sec Standard ESSA 2 ESS 1 ESS 1 Note (3)
M-10 No Slam-Check MO Gate 1 1 Process Auto NA RM C C C C O O NA As is Rev. Flow RM (Notes 31, 36) Instantaneou s Standard ESS 1 ESS 1 Note (3)
Note (51)
M-11 No Slam-Gate MO Gate 1 1 Process Auto NA RM C C C C O O NA As is Rev. Flow RM (Notes 31, 36) Instantaneou s Standard ESS 3 ESS 3 Note (3)
Note (51)
M-12 to M-14 No Slam-Gate MO Gate 1 1 Process Auto NA RM C C C C O O NA As is Rev. Flow RM (Notes 31, 36) Instantaneou s Standard Note (22)
Note (22) Note (3)
Note (51)
M-15 MO Gate MO Globe NA MO Gate 1 1 1 1 Auto Auto NA Auto RM RM NA RM O C C O O C C O O O C C As is As is NA As is D,RM D,RM NA D,RM 15 sec Standard NA Standard ESS 2 ESS 2 NA ESS 1 Note (20)
Note (20)
Note (60)
M-16 MO Gate MO Gate Relief 2 2 2 Auto Auto Process RM RM N/A O O C O O C C C C As is As is C B,F,RM B,F,RM N/A Standard Standard N/A ESS 1 ESS 2 N/A M-17 MO Gate MO Gate Relief 2 2 2 Auto Auto Process RM RM N/A O O C O O C C C C As is As is C B,F,RM B,F,RM N/A Standard Standard N/A ESS 1 ESS 2 N/A M-18 & M-19 MO Gate MO Gate 2 2 Auto Auto RM RM C C C C C C As is As is G,RM G,RM Standard Standard Note (22)
Note (22) Note (2,20,52,54) Note (2, 51, 52)
M-20 AO Butterfly AO Butterfly MO Globe MO Globe AO Butterfly 2
2 2
2 2 Auto Auto Auto Auto Auto RM RM RM RM RM C C O O C C C
C C O C C
C C C C C As is As is C B,F,Y,Z,RM B,F,Y,Z,RM B,F,Y,Z,RM B,F,Y,Z,RMB,F,Y,Z,RM 10 sec 10 sec 23 sec 23 sec 10 sec ESS 2 ESS 1 ESS 2 ESS 1 ESS 1 Note (8,20,41,46,50,54) Note (8,46)
Note (20,54))
Note (46)
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 3 OF 49 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER NRC GDC LINE ISOLATED FLUID CONTAINED LINE SIZE (in) ESF SYSTEM (NOTE 21)THROUGH LINE LEAKAGE CLASSIFICATION (NOTE 14,15)
VALVE ARRANGEMENT FIGURE 6.2-31 VALVE NUMBER LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO CONTAINMENTTYPE C TEST LENGTH OF PIPE FROM CONTAINMENT TO OUTERMOST VALVE (ft)
M-21 56 56 (Note 32) Vent from Drywell
Drywell Pressure Air
Air 26 2 26 2 3/4 No No No No No A(b) A(b) A(b)
A(b) C Detail (h)
Detail (w) 1&2VQ034 1&2VQ035 1&2VQ036 1&2VQ068 1&2CM102 Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Yes Yes Yes Yes No N/A N/A 23 max N/A 10 max. M-21 55 (Note 33) RPV Level and Pressure Reactor Water 3/4 Yes C Detail (AB) 1B21-F571 Outside No 10 max.
M-22 55 Main Stream Drains Stream-WaterMixture 3 3 No No A(b)
A(b) Detail (c) 1&2B21-F016
1&2B21-F019 Inside Outside Yes Yes N/A 6 M-23 Spare (Unit 1) M-23 56 Combustible Gas Control Drywell Suction AIR/Vapor Mixture 4 4 Yes Yes A(b)
A(b) Detail (g) 2HG001B 2HG002B Outside Outside Yes Yes N/A 10 M-24 Spare M-25 & M-26 56 Chilled Water Supply Demineralized Water 8 8 3/4 No No No A(b) A(b) A(b) Detail (AF) 1&2VP063A,B 1&2VP113A,B 1&2VP198A,B Outside Inside Inside Yes Yes Yes 6 N/A N/A M-27 & M-28 55 Chilled Water Return Demineralized Water 8 8 3/4 No No No A(b)
A(b)
A(b) Detail (AF) 1&2VP053A,B 1&2VP114A,B 1&2VP197A,B Outside Inside Inside Yes Yes Yes 6 N/A N/A LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 4 OF 49 REV. 13 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER VALVE TYPE ASME SECTION III CODE CLASS PRIMARY METHOD OF ACTUATIONSECONDAR Y METHOD OF ACTUATION NORMAL VALVE POSITIONSHUTDOWN VALVE POSITION POST ACCIDENT POSITION POWER FAILURE VALVE POSITION (6) ISOLATION SIGNAL VALVE CLOSURE TIME (7) POWER SOURCE REMARKS M-21 AO Butterfly MO Globe AO Butterfly MO Globe Excess Flow Check 2 2 2 2 2 Auto Auto Auto Auto Process RM RM RM RM N/A C C C C O C C C C O C C C C O C As is C As is N/A F,B,Y,Z,RM F,B,Y,Z,RM F,B,Y,Z,RM F,B,Y,Z,RM F,B,Y,Z,RM 10 Sec 5 Sec 10 Sec 5 Sec Instantaneou s ESS 2 ESS 2 ESS 1 ESS 1 NA Note (8,20,41,46,54) Note (8,20)
Note (8,46)
Note (8)
M-21 EFCV 2 Process NA O O O NA Flow Instantaneou s NA Note (23,33)
M-22 MO Gate MO Gate 1 1 Auto Auto RM RM O O C C C C As is As is C,D,E,H,P,RM C,D,E,H,P,RM Standard Standard ESS 2 ESS 1 Note (20),(51)
Note (51) M-23 M-23 MO Gate MO Globe 2 2 RM RM M M C C C C O O As is As is RM(Note 37)
RM(Note 37) Standard Standard Note (23)
Note (23)
Note (20,54)
M-24 M-25 TO M-26 MO Gate MO Butterfly Relief 2 2 2 Auto Auto Process RM RM N/A O O C O O C C C C As is As is N/A B,F,RM B,F,RM Process Standard Standard N/A ESS 1 ESS 2 N/A Note (20)
Note (20) M-27 & M-28 MO Gate MO Butterfly Relief 2 2 2 Auto Auto Process RM RM N/A O O C O O C C C C As is As is N/A B,F,RM B,F,RM Process Standard Standard N/A ESS 1 ESS 2 N/A Note (20)
Note (20)
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 5 OF 49 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 CONTAINMEN T PENETRATION NUMBER NRC GDC LINE ISOLATED FLUID CONTAINED LINE SIZE (in) ESF SYSTEM (NOTE 21)THROUGH LINE LEAKAGE CLASSIFICATION (NOTE 14,15)
VALVE ARRANGEMENT FIGURE 6.2-31 VALVE NUMBER LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO CONTAINMENTTYPE C TEST LENGTH OF PIPE FROM CONTAINMENT TO OUTERMOST VALVE (ft)
M-29 55 (Note 28) RCIC RPV Head Spray (Includes RHR Head Spray) Condensate 6 6 6 6 Yes Yes Yes Yes AC(a) AC(a) A(b)
A(b) Detail (i) 1 &2E51-F066 1 &2E51-F065 1 &2E51-F013 1 &2E12-F023 Inside Outside Outside Outside No (Note 28)
No (Note 28)
Yes Yes N/A N/A 20 Max (Unit 1)10 Max (Unit 2)N/A M-30 55 Reactor Cleanup Reactor Water 6 6 No No A(b)
A(b) Detail (t) 1 &2G33-F001 1 &2G33-F004 Inside Outside Yes Yes N/A 5 M-31& M-32 NA (Note 45) Containment High Rad Detector M-33 56 Combustible Gas Control Drywell Suction Air/Vapor Mixture 4 4 Yes Yes A(b) A(b) Detail (g) 1HG001B 1HG002B Outside Outside Yes Yes N/A 10 M-33 Spare (Unit 2)
M-34 55 Standby Liquid Control Sodium Pentaborate Solution 1 1/2 1 1/2 1 1/2 No No No AC(b) C AD(b) Detail (u)
1&2C41-F007
1&2C41-F006 1&2C41-F004A,B Inside Outside Outside No (Note 62)No No (Note 62) N/A N/A 100 M-35 Spare M-36 55 Recirc. Loop Sampling Reactor Water 3/4 3/4 3/4 No No No A(b)
A(b)
A(b) Detail (ae)
1&2B33-F019
1&2B33-F020
1&2B33-F395 Inside Outside Inside Yes Yes Yes N/A 10 Max N/A M-37 56 Clean Condensate Condensate 3
3 No No A(b)
A(b) Detail (ai) 1&2MC033 1&2MC027 Outside Outside No (Note 43)
No (Note 43) N/A 4 M-38 56 Service Air Air 3 3 No No A(b)
A(b) Detail (v) 1&2SA046 1&2SA042 Outside Outside No (Note 43)
No (Note 43) N/A 4 M-39 Spare M-40A,B,C,D 55 (Note 24)
CRD Insert Condensate 1 No A Note (24) 1&2C11-D001-120 1&2C11-D001-123 Outside Outside No No 45 Max M-41A,B,C,D 55 (Note 24)
CRD Withdrawal Condensate 3/4 No A Note (24) 1&2C11-D001-121 1&2C11-D001-122 Outside Outside No No 45 Max M-42 to M-46 54 TIP Drive NA 3/8 No NA Note (18) 1&2C51-J004 Outside Yes Note (18) 2 M-47 54 Air Supply Air 3/4 No A(b) 1&2IN031 Outside Yes M-48 Spare
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 6 OF 49 REV. 14, ARPIL 2002 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER VALVE TYPE ASME SECTION III CODE CLASS PRIMARY METHOD OF ACTUATIONSECONDARY METHOD OF ACTUATION NORMAL VALVE POSITIONSHUTDOWN VALVE POSITION POST ACCIDENT POSITION POWER FAILURE VALVE POSITION (6) ISOLATION SIGNAL VALVE CLOSURE TIME (7) POWER SOURCE REMARKS M-29 No Slam-Check No Slam-Check MO Gate MO Globe 1 1 1 1 Process Process Auto Auto NA NA RM RM C C C C C C C C C C C C NA NA As is As is Rev. Flow Rev. Flow RM (Note 31) A,D,U,RM(Note
- 31) Instantaneou s Instantaneou s 15 Sec Standard ESS 1 ESS 1 ESS 1 ESS 1 Note (3)
Note (3) Note (51)
M-30 MO Gate MO Gate 1 1 Auto Auto RM RM O O O O C C As is As is B,J,RM B,J,RM < 10 sec < 10 sec ESS 2 ESS 1 Note (61)
M-31 & M-32 M-33 MO Gate MO Globe 2 2 RM RM M M C C C C O O As is As is RM(Note 37)
RM(Note 37) Standard Standard Note (23)
Note (23)
Note (20,54)
M-33
M-34 No Slam-Check No Slam-Check Explosive 1
1 1 Process Process RM NA NA NA C C C C C C C C C NA NA Rev. Flow Rev. Flow NA --
-- NA NA NA M-35 M-36 AO Globe Check AO Globe 2 2 2 Auto Process Auto RM N/A RM O C O O C O C C
C Closed N/A Closed B,C,RM Reverse Flow B,C,RM Standard Instantaneou s Standard ESS 2 N/A ESS 1 Note (9,42)
Note (9,42)
M-37 Gate Gate 2 2 M M NA NA C C C C C C NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Note (43)
Note (43)
M-38 Gate Gate 2 2 M M NA NA C C C C C C NA NA NA NA NA MA NA NA Note (43)
Note (43) M-39 M-40 A, B, C, D SO Gate SO Gate Note (27)
Note (27) Auto Auto RM RM C C C C C C As is As is A,RM A,RM Instantaneou s Instantaneou s Typical of 185 Typical of 185 M-41 A, B, C, D SO Gate SO Gate Note (27)
Note (27) Auto Auto RM RM C C C C C C As is As is A,RM A,RM Instantaneou s Instantaneou s Typical of 185 Typical of 185 M-42 to M-46 Solenoid Ball 2 Auto RM C C C C A,F,RM (note 31) NA NA M-47 SO Globe 2 Auto RM O O C C B,F,RM 5 sec ESS 2 M-48 Spare
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 7 OF 49 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER NRC GDC LINE ISOLATED FLUID CONTAINED LINE SIZE (in) ESF SYSTEM (NOTE 21)THROUGH LINE LEAKAGE CLASSIFICATION (NOTE 14,15)
VALVE ARRANGEMENT FIGURE 6.2-31 VALVE NUMBER LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO CONTAINMENTTYPE C TEST LENGTH OF PIPE FROM CONTAINMENT TO OUTERMOST VALVE (ft) M-49 & M-50 56 Recric. Flow Control Valve Hydraulic Piping Hydraulic Fluid (Fyrquel) 3/4 3/4 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 3/4 3/4 No No No No No No No No Note (19)
Note (19)
Note (19)
Note (19)
Note (19)
Note (19)
Note (19)
Note (19) Detail (c)
Detail (c)
Detail (c)
Detail (c) Detail (c) Detail (c)
Detail (c)
Detail (c) 1&2B33-F338A,B 1&2B33-F339A,B 1&2B33-F340A,B 1&2B33-F341A,B1&2B33-F342A,B1&2B33-F343A,B 1&2B33-F344A,B 1&2B33-F345A,B Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside No (Note 35)
No (Note 35)
No (Note 35)
No (Note 35)No (Note 35)No (Note 35)
No (Note 35)
No (Note 35) N/A N/A N/A N/A M-51 Spare M-52 55 (Note 33) RPV Level Reactor Water 3/4 Yes C Detail (AB) 2B21-F570 Outside No (Note 33) 10 Max M-53 56 Combustible Gas Control Drywell Suction Air/Vapor Mixture 4 4 Yes Yes A(b) A(b) Detail (g) 1&21HG001A 1&21HG002A Outside Outside Yes Yes N/A 10 M-54 (Unit 1) Spare M-54 (Unit 2) 56 56 56 Air Dryer Blowdown Drywell Pneumatic Comp Discharge Drywell Pneumatic Comp Suction Air Air Air 3 3 2 2 2 1/2 2 1/2 No No No No No No A(b) A(b) AC(b) A(b) A(b) A(b) Detail (g)
Detail (AL)
Detail (g) 2IN074 2IN075 2IN018 2IN017 2IN001A 2IN001B Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A 5 N/A 5
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 8 OF 49 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER VALVE TYPE ASME SECTION III CODE CLASS PRIMARY METHOD OF ACTUATIONSECONDARY METHOD OF ACTUATION NORMAL VALVE POSITIONSHUTDOWN VALVE POSITION POST ACCIDENT POSITION POWER FAILURE VALVE POSITION(6) ISOLATION SIGNAL VALVE CLOSURE TIME (7) POWER SOURCE REMARKS M-49 & M-50 SO Globe SO Globe SO Globe SO Globe SO Globe SO Globe SO Globe SO Globe 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 Auto Auto Auto Auto Auto Auto Auto Auto RME RME RME RME RME RME RME RME O O O O
O O O O O O O O
O O O O C C C C
C C C C C C C C
C C C C B,F,RME B,F,RME B,F,RME B,F,RME B,F,RME B,F,RME B,F,RME B,F,RME Instantan.Instantan.Instantan.
Instantan.
Instantan.Instantan.Instantan.
Instantan. ESS 2 ESS 1 ESS 2 ESS 1 ESS 2 ESS 1 ESS 2 ESS 1 Note (35)
Note (35)
Note (35)
Note (35)
Note (35)
Note (35)
Note (35)
Note (35) M-51 M-52 EFCV 2 Process NA O O O NA Flow Instantan. NA M-53 MO Gate MO Globe 2 2 RM RM M M C C C C O O As is As is RM (Note 37)
RM (Note 37) Standard Standard Note (23)
Note (23)
Note (20,54)
M-54 (Unit 1)
M-54 (Unit 2) AO Globe AO Globe No Slam-Check AO Globe AO Globe AO Globe 2 2 2 2 2 2 Auto Auto Process Auto Auto Auto M M NA M RM RM O O O O O O O O O O O O C C C C C C C C NA C C C F,H,RM F,H,RM NA F,H,RM F,H,RM F,H,RM Standard Standard Instantan.Standard Standard Standard ESS 2 ESS 1 ESS 2 ESS 2 ESS 1
Note (28)
Note (20)
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 9 OF 49 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER NRC GDC LINE ISOLATED FLUID CONTAINED LINE SIZE (in) ESF SYSTEM (NOTE 21)THROUGH LINE LEAKAGE CLASSIFICATION (NOTE 14,15)
VALVE ARRANGEMENT FIGURE 6.2-31 VALVE NUMBER LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO CONTAINMENTTYPE C TEST LENGTH OF PIPE FROM CONTAINMENT TO OUTERMOST VALVE (ft)
M-55 57 ADS Pneumatic Supply Nitrogen or Air 1 Yes B Detail (j) 1 & 2IN100 Outside No (Note 38) 5 M-56 55 (Note 33) Reactor Water Level Reactor Water 3/4 Yes C Detail (w) 1 &2B21-F372 Outside No (Note 33) 10 Max M-57 Spare M-58 Deleted M-59 56 (Note 58) Clean Condensate to Refueling Bellows Condensate 2 2 No No A(b)
A(b) Detail (v) 1&2FC113 1&2FC114 Outside Outside Yes Yes N/A 5 M-59 55 (Note 33) RPV Level and Pressure Reactor Water 3/4 Yes C Detail (AB) 1B21-F570 Outside No 10 Max M-60 (Unit 1) 56 Drywell Pneumatic Compressor Discharge Air 2 2 3 3 No No No No AC(b) A(b) A(b)
A(b) Detail (AL)
Detail (g) 1IN018 1IN017 1IN074 1IN075 Outside Outside Outside Outside Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A 5 M-60 (Unit 2) 57 ADS Pneumatic Supply Nitrogen or Air 1 Yes B Detail (j) 2IN101 Outside No (Note 38) 5 M-61 (Unit 1) 57 ADS Pneumatic Supply Nitrogen or Air 1 Yes B Detail (j) 1IN101 Outside No (Note 38) 5 M-61 (Unit 2) Spare M-62 (Unit 1) 56 Drywell Pneumatic Comp Discharge Air 2 1/2 2 1/2 No No A(b)
A(b) Detail (g) 1IN001A 1IN001B Outside Outside Yes Yes N/A 5 M-62 (Unit 2) Spare M-63 & M-64 55 Recirc. Pump Seal Injection Supply Condensate 3/4 3/4 No No A(a) A(a) Detail (h)
Note (25) 1&2B33-F013A,B 1&2B33-F017A,B Inside Outside Yes (Note 25)
Yes (Note 25)
N/A M-65 56 (Note 58) Reactor Well Bulkhead Drain Water 10 10 No No A(b)
A(b) Detail (V) (Unit 1 only) Detail (AD) ( Unit 2 only) 1&2FC115 1&2FC086 Outside Outside Yes Yes N/A 5 M-65 (Unit 2) 55 (Note 33) RPV Level Reactor Water 3/4 Yes C Detail (AB) 2B21-F571 Outside No (Note 33) 10 max LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 10 OF 49 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER VALVE TYPE ASME SECTION III CLASS PRIMARY METHOD OF ACTUATIO N SECONDAR Y METHOD OF ACTUATION NORMAL VALVE POSITIONSHUTDOWN VALVE POSITION POST ACCIDENT POSITIONPOWER FAILURE VALVE POSITION (6)ISOLATION SIGNAL VALVE CLOSURE TIME (7) POWER SOURCE REMARKS M-55 SO Globe 2 RM M O O O O NA InstantaneousESS 2 M-56 Excess Flow check 2 Process NA O O O NA Flow InstantaneousNA M-5 7 M-5 8 M-59 Globe Globe 2 2 M M NA NA L.C.
L.C. C C C C NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Note (20,54)
Note (20) M-59 EFCV 2 Process NA O O O NA Flow InstantaneousNA Note(23,33)
M-60 (Unit 1) Check AO Globe AO Globe AO Globe 2 2
2 2 Process Auto Auto Auto NA M M
M O O
O O O O
O O C C
C C NA C C
C NA B,F,RM B,F,RM B,F,RM InstantaneousStandard Standard Standard ESS 2 ESS 2 ESS 1 Note (28)
Note (28)
M-60 (Unit 2) SO Globe 2 RM M O O FO FO NA InstantaneousESS 2 M-61 (Unit 2) SO Globe 2 RM M O O FO FO NA InstantaneousESS 2 M-61 (Unit 2)
M-62 (Unit 1) AO Globe AO Globe 2 2 Auto Auto RM RM O O O O C C C C B,F,RM B,F,RM Standard Standard ESS 2 ESS 1 Note (20)
M-62 (Unit 2) M-63 & M-64 No Slam-Check No Slam-Check 2 2 Process Process NA NA O O O O C C NA NA Reverse Flow Reverse FlowInstantaneous Instantaneous NA NA M-65 Gate Gate 2 2 M M NA NA C C C C C C NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Note (20 ,54) (Note 20 Unit 1 only) M-65 (Unit 2) EFCV 2 Process NA O O O NA Flow InstantaneousNA
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 11 OF 49 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 CONTAINMEN T PENETRATION NUMBER NRC GDC LINE ISOLATED FLUID CONTAINED LINE SIZE (in) ESF SYSTEM (NOTE 21)THROUGH LINE LEAKAGE CLASSIFICATION (NOTE 14, 15)
VALVE ARRANGEMENT FIGURE 6.2-31 VALVE NUMBER LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO CONTAINMENTTYPE C TEST LENGTH OF PIPE FROM CONTAINMENT TO OUTERMOST VALVE (ft)
M-66 56 Suppression Chamber Purge Line Air 26 26 1 1/2 1 1/2 8 No No No No No A (b) A (b)
A (b)
A (b) A (b) Detail (s)
Detail (s) Detail (s) Detail (s) 1&2VQ027 1&2VQ026 1&2VQ050 1&2VQ051 1&2VQ043 Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A 8 7 Max. M-67 56 Suppression Chamber Vent Line Air 26 26 2 No No No A (b) A (b) A (b) Detail (h) 1&2VQ031 1&2VQ040 1&2VQ032 Outside Outside Outside Yes Yes Yes N/A 17 N/A M-68 56 (Note 28) LPCS Suction from Suppression Pool Suppression Pool Water 24 Yes B Detail (m) 1&2E21-F001 Outside No (Note 39) 2 M-69 56 (Note 28) HPCS Suction from Suppression Pool Suppression Pool Water 24 Yes B Detail (m) 1&2E22-F015 Outside No (Note 39) 5 M-70 56 (Note 28) 56 (Note 32) RHR (LPCI) Suction From Supp. Pool Supp. Pool Water Level Suppression Pool Water Supp. Pool /water 24 3/4 Yes No B C Detail (m)
Detail (w) 1&2E12-F004A
1&2CM002 Outside Outside No (Note 39)
No (Note 32) 2 10 Max. M-71 56 (Note 28) 56 (Note 32) RHR (LPCI) Suction From Supp. Pool Supp. Pool Water Level Suppression Pool Water Supp. Pool Water 24 3/4 Yes No B C Detail (m)
Detail (w) 1&2E12-F004C 1&2CM010 Outside Outside No (Note 39) No (Note 32) 2 10 Max.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 12 OF 49 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER VALVE TYPE ASME SECTION III CLASS PRIMARY METHOD OF ACTUATIONSECONDARY METHOD OF ACTUATION NORMAL VALVE POSITIONSHUTDOWN VALVE POSITION POST ACCIDENT POSITION POWERFAILURE VALVE POSITION (6) ISOLATION SIGNAL VALVE CLOSURE TIME (7) POWER SOURCE REMARKS M-66 AO Butterfly AO Butterfly MO Globe MO Globe AO Butterfly 2
2 2
2 2 Auto Auto Auto Auto Auto RM RM RM RM RM C C O O C C C
C C O C C
C C C C C As is As is C F,B,Y,Z,RM F,B,Y,Z,RM F,B,Y,Z,RM F,B,Y,Z,RMF,B,Y,Z,RM 10 sec. 10 sec.
23 sec.
23 sec. 10 sec. ESS 2 ESS 1 ESS 1 ESS 1 ESS 1 Note(8,20,46,54)Note(8,46) Note(20, 54)
Note (46)
M-67 AO Butterfly AO Butterfly MO Globe 2 2 2 Auto Auto Auto RM RM RM C C C C C C C C C C C As is F,B,Y,Z,RM F,B,Y,Z,RMF,B,Y,Z,RM 10 sec. 10 sec. Standard ESS 2 ESS 1 ESS 2 Note (8,20,41,46, 54) Note (8, 46) Note (8,20)
M-68 MO Gate 2 RM M O O O As is RM (Note 36) Standard ESS 1 Note (20)
M-69 MO Gate 2 Auto RM O O O As is RM (Note 36) Standard ESS 3 Note (20)
M-70 MO Gate EFCV 2 2 RM Process M NA O O O O O O As is NA RM (Note 36)
Flow Standard Instantan.
Note (22)NA Note (20)
M-71 MO Gate EFCV. 2 2 RM Process M NA O O O O O O As is NA RM (Note 36)
Flow Standard Instantan.
Note (22)Na Note (20)
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 13 OF 49 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER NRC GDC LINE ISOLATED FLUID CONTAINED LINE SIZE (in) ESF SYSTEM (NOTE 21)THROUGH LINE LEAKAGE CLASSIFICATION (NOTE 14,15)
VALVE ARRANGEMENT FIGURE 6.2-31 VALVE NUMBER LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO CONTAINMENTTYPE C TEST LENGTH OF PIPE FROM CONTAINMENT TO OUTERMOST VALVE (ft)
M-72 56 (Note 28) RHR (LPCI) Suction From Supp. Pool Suppression Pool Water 24 Yes B Detail (m) 1&2E12-F004B Outside No (Note 39) 2 M-73 & M-74 56 RHR to Suppression Pool Spray Header Suppression Pool Water 4 No B Detail (z) 1&2E12-F027A,B Outside No (Note 29) 23 M-75 56 (Note 28) RCIC Pump Suction From Suppression Pool Suppression Pool Water 8 Yes B Detail (m) 1&2E51-F031 Outside No (Note 39) 2 M-76 56 (Note 28) RCIC Turbine Exhaust Steam 10 Yes Yes A (b)
A (b) Detail (o) 1&2E51-F068
1&2E51-F040 Outside Outside Yes Yes 3 N/A 56 (Note 28) LPCS Test Line Suppression Pool 14 Yes B 1&2E21-F012 Outside No (Note 29) 225 max. LPCS Min. Flow Line Water 4 Yes B 1&2E21-F011 Outside No (Note 29)
M-77 RHR Suction RV 2 Yes B 1&2E12-F088A Outside No (Note 29) 56 (Note 28) RCIC Full Flow Test Return to Supp. Pool
Suppression Pool Water 4
Yes B
Detail (AA)
1(2)E51-F362
1(2)E51-F363
1(2)E51-F022 1(2)E51-F059 Outside Outside Outside Outside Yes (Note 49)Yes (Note 49)
Yes (Note 49)Yes (Note 49) 215 max. 230 max. M-78 Spare M-79 & M-84 56 (Note 28) RHR Min. Flow Line RHR Test Line Supp. Pool Water 18 18 14 8 4 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes B B B B B
C Detail (q),(AG)
1&2E12-F024A,B 1&2E12-F021 1&2E12-F302 1&2E12-F064A,B,C1&2E12-F011A,B 1&2E12-F088B Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside No (Note 29)No (Note 29)No (Note 29)No (Note 29)No (Note 29)No (Note 29) 300 Max. M-80 56 (Note 28) RCIC Pump Min. Flow Line Condensate 2 Yes B Detail (r) 1&2E51-F019 Outside No (Note 29) 40 M-81 56 (Note 28) RCIC Vacuum Pump Discharge Condensate 1 1/4 1 1/4 No No A (b)
A (b) Detail (r) 1&2E51-F069
1&2E51-F028 Outside Outside Yes Yes 3 N/A M-82 56 (Note 28) HPCS Test Line HPCS Min Flow Line Condensate 14 4 Yes Yes B B Detail (l) 1&2E22-F023
1&2E22-F012 Outside Outside No (Note 29)No (Note 29) 29 Max. M-83 & M-93 56 (Note 28) LPCS Safety/Relief Valve Discharge Suppression Pool 4 2 Yes Yes C C Detail (AK) 1&2E21-F018
1&2E21-F031 Outside Outside No (Note 29)No (Note 29) 125 Max. M-85 M-86 M-87 M-90 M-91 M-99 56 (Note 28) RHR Safety/Relief Valve Discharge Suppression Pool Water 2
2 2 2 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes C C C C C Detail (AK) 1&2E12-F025A
1&2E12-F025B 1&2E12-F025C 1&2E12-F088C 1&2E12-F030
1&2E12-F005 Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside No (Note 29)No (Note 29)No (Note 29)No (Note 29)No (Note 29) No (Note 29) 69 Max.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 14 OF 49 REV. 16, APRIL 2006 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER VALVE TYPE ASME SECTION III CLASS PRIMARY METHOD OF ACTUATIONSECONDARY METHOD OF ACTUATION NORMAL VALVE POSITIONSHUTDOWN VALVE POSITION POST ACCIDENT POSITION POWER FAILURE VALVE POSITION (6) ISOLATION SIGNAL VALVE CLOSURE TIME (7) POWER SOURCE REMARKS M-72 MO Gate 2 RM M O O O As is RM (Note 36) Standard Note (22) Note (20) M-73 & M-74 MO Gate 2 Auto RM C C C As is G, RM 30 sec Note (22) Note (2, 20,56) M-75 MO Gate 2 Auto RM C C C As is RM (Note 36) Note (59) ESS 1 (DC)Note (20,57)
M-76 MO Gate Check 2 2 Auto Process RM NA O C O C O C As is As is RM (Note 36)
Reverse Flow Note (59) Instantan. ESS 1 Note (20,54))
M-77 MO Globe MO Gate Relief Gate Gate MO Globe MO Globe 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 RM RM Process Manual Manual Process Process M M NA NA NA RM RM C O C C C C C C O C C C C C C C
C C C C C As is As is NA NA NA As is As is Rm(Notes 31,36)
Rm(Notes 31,36)
RM(Notes 31,36)RM(Notes 31,36)
Note (47) Standard --- --- --- Note (59)
Note (59) ESS 1 ESS 1 --
-- -- ESS 1 ESS 1 Note (20)
Note (20)
Note (20)
-- Note (20,54)
-- M-78 M-79 & M-84 MO Globe MO Globe Gate MO Gate MO Gate Relief 2 2 2
2 2 2 Auto Auto M RM RM Process RM RM NA M M NA C C C O C C C C
C C C C C C
C C C C As is As is NA As is As is NA G,RM G,RM RM(Notes 31,36)
GRM(Notes31,3
- 6) Standard Standard -- Standard Note (50) 22 sec
-- Note (22)ESS 2 -- Note (22)ESS 1 -- Note (2 20)
Note (20)
Note (20)
Note (20)
Note (20)
Note (20) M-80 MO Globe 2 RM M C C C As is RM(Notes 31,36)7 sec ESS 1 (DC)Note (20)
M-81 MO Globe No Slam Check 2 2 RM Process M NA O C O C O C As is NA RM(Notes 31,36)Reverse Flow Note (59) Instantan. ESS 1 NA Note (20,54)
M-82 MO Globe MO Gate 2 2 Auto Auto M M C C C C C C As is As is G,RM G,RM Standard Standard ESS 3 ESS 3 Note (20)
Note (20,56) M-83 & M-93 Relief Relief 2 2 Process Process NA NA C C C C C C NA NA Process Process NA NA NA NA Note (20)
Note (20)
M-85 M-86 M-87 M-90 M-91 M-99 Relief Relief Relief Relief Relief Relief 2 2
2 2 2 2 Process Process Process Process Process Process NA NA NA NA NA NA C C
C C C C C C
C C C C C C
C C C C NA NA NA NA NA NA Process Process Process Process Process Process NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Note (20)
Note (20)
Note (20)
Note (20)
Note (20)
Note (20)
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 15 OF 49 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER NRC GDC LINE ISOLATED FLUID CONTAINED LINE SIZE (in) ESF SYSTEM (NOTE 21)THROUGH LINE LEAKAGE CLASSIFICATION (NOTE 14)
VALVE ARRANGEMENT FIGURE 6.2-31 VALVE NUMBER LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO CONTAINMENTTYPE C TEST LENGTH OF PIPE FROM CONTAINMENT TO OUTERMOST VALVE (ft) M-88 & M-89 56 (Note 28) RHR Safety/Relief Valve Discharge and H x Vent Line Steam 3/4 3/4 6 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes B B
C C Detail (p) 1&2E12-F073A,B 1&2E12-F074A,B 1&2E12-F055A,B 1&2E12-F311A,B Outside Outside Outside Outside No (Note 29)No (Note 29)No (Note 29)No (Note 29) N/A 56 Max. M-92 56 (Note 28) RCIC Safety/Relief Valve Discharge Condensate 4 No C Detail (AK) 1&2E12-F036B Outside No (Note 29) 5 M-94 56 (Note 28) HPCS Safety/Relief Valve Discharge Condensate 2 Yes C Detail (AK) 1&2E22-F014 Outside No (Note 29) 27 M-95 Spare M-96 56 Drywell Equip.
Drains Water 4 4 No No A (b)
A (b) Detail (g) 1&2RE025 1&2RE024 Outside Outside Yes Yes 10 N/A M-97 56 Drywell Equip. Drain Cooling Water 2 2 No No A (b)
A (b) Detail (g) 1&2RE029 1&2RE026 Outside Outside Yes Yes 10 N/A M-98 56 Drywell Floor Drains Water 4 4 No No A (b)
A (b) Detail (g) 1&2RF012 1&2RF013 Outside Outside Yes Yes N/A 10 M-100 56 (Note 28) SUPR CHBR N 2/O 2 1/2 No A (b) Detail (g) 1CM019A 1CM020A Outside Outside Yes Yes 60 60 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 16 OF 49 REV. 13 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER VALVE TYPE ASME SECTION III CLASS PRIMARY METHOD OF ACTUATIONSECONDARY METHOD OF ACTUATION NORMAL VALVE POSITIONSHUTDOWN VALVE POSITION POST ACCIDENT POSITION POWER FAILURE VALVE POSITION (6) ISOLATION SIGNAL VALVE CLOSURE TIME (7) POWER SOURCE REMARKS M-88 & M-89 MO Globe MO Glove Relief Relief 2 2 2 2 RM RM Process Process M M NA NA C C C C C C C C C C C C As is As is NA NA RM (Note 36)RM (Note 36)Process Process Standard Standard NA NA ESS 1 ESS 1 NA NA Note (20)
Note (20)
Note (20)
Note (20) M-92 Relief 2 Process NA C C C NA Process NA NA Note (20) M-94 Relief 2 Process NA C C C NA Process NA NA Note (20) M-95 M-96 AO Globe AO Globe 2 2 Auto Auto RM RM C C C C C C C C B,F,RM B,F,RM Standard Standard ESS 1 ESS 2 Note (20)
M-97 AO Globe AO Globe 2 2 Auto Auto RM RM C C C C C C C C B,F,RM B,F,RM Standard Standard ESS 1 ESS 2 Note (20,42,54)
M-98 AO Glove AO Glove 2 2 Auto Auto RM RM C C C C C C C C B,F,RM B,F,RM Standard Standard ESS 2 ESS 1 Note (20,42)
M-100 SOL Globe SOL Globe 2
2 Auto Auto RM RM O O O O C C C C B, F, RM B, F, RM 5 sec 5 sec ESS 1 ESS 2 Note 20
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 17 OF 49 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER NRC GDC LINE ISOLATED FLUID CONTAINED LINE SIZE (in.) ESF SYSTEM (NOTE 21)THROUGH LINE LEAKAGE CLASSIFICATION (NOTE 14)
VALVE ARRANGEMENT FIGURE 6.2-31 VALVE NUMBER LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO CONTAINMENTTYPE C TEST LENGTH OF PIPE FROM CONTAINMENT TO OUTERMOST VALVE (ft)
M-101 56 56 (Note 28) RCIC Turbine Exhaust Breaker Line RCIC Safety/Relief Valve Discharge Air Condensate 2
2 4 Yes Yes No A (b)
A (b) C Detail (o)
Detail (AK) 1&2E51-F080
1&2E51-F086 1&2E12-F036A Outside Outside Outside Yes Yes No (Note 29) 17 NA 5 M-102 Spare M-103 NA Vacuum Breaker Air 24 Yes Exempt Detail (y) 1&2PC003C Outside No 4 M-104 56 (Note 32) 56 NA Supp. Pool Water Level Combustible Gas Control Return Vacuum Breaker Supp. Pool Water Air Vapor Mixture Air 3/4 6 6 24 No Yes Yes Yes C A (b)
A (b) Exempt Detail (w) Detail (g)
Detail (y) 1&2CM012 1&2HG005A
1&2HG006A 1&2PC003A Outside Outside Outside Outside No (Note 32)Yes Yes No 10 Max. NA 4 M-105 56 (Note 32) NA Supp. Pool Water Level Vacuum Breaker Supp. Pool Water Air 3/4 24 No Yes C Exempt Detail (w)
Detail (y) 1&2CM004 1&2PC003D Outside Outside No (Note 32)
No 10 Max. 4 M-106 NA 56 Vacuum Breaker Combustible Gas Control Return Air Air Vapor Mixture 24 6 6 Yes Yes Yes Exempt A (b)
A (b) Detail (y)
Detail (g) 1&2PC003B 1&2HG005B
1&2HG006B Outside Outside Outside No Yes Yes 4 N/A M-107 NA NA Vacuum Breaker Vacuum Breaker Air Air 24 24 Yes Yes Exempt C Detail (y)
Detail (y) 1&2PC002C
1&2PC001C Outside Outside No No 2 M-108 NA NA Vacuum Breaker Vacuum Breaker Air Air 24 24 Yes Yes Exempt C Detail (y)
Detail (y) 1&2PC002A
1&2PC001A Outside Outside No No 2 M-109 NA NA Vacuum Breaker Vacuum Breaker Air Air 24 24 Yes Yes Exempt C Detail (y)
Detail (y) 1&2PC002D
1&2PC001D Outside Outside No No 2 M-110 NA NA Vacuum Breaker Vacuum Breaker Air Air 24 24 Yes Yes Exempt C Detail (y)
Detail (y) 1&2PC002B
1&2PC001B Outside Outside No No 2 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 18 OF 49 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER VALVE TYPE ASME SECTION III CODE CLASS PRIMARY METHOD OF ACTUATION SECONDARY METHOD OF ACTUATION NORMAL VALVE POSITIONSHUTDOWN VALVE POSITION POST ACCIDENT POSITION POWER FAILURE VALVE POSITION (6) ISOLATION SIGNAL VALVE CLOSURE TIME (7) POWER SOURCE REMARKS M-101 MO Globe MO Globe Relief 2 2
2 RM RM Process M M NA O O C O O C C C
C As is As is NA F,RM (Note 36)
F,RM (Note 36)Process Note (59) Standard NA ESS 1 ESS 2 NA Note (20)
Note (20) M-102 M-103 Butterfly 2 M NA O O O NA NA NA NA Note (4, 55) M-104 EFCV MO Gate MO Gate Butterfly 2
2 2
2 Process RM RM M NA M M NA O C C O O C C O O O
O O NA As is As is NA Flow RM (Note 37)
RM (Note 37)
NA Instantan.Standard Standard NA Note (23)
Note (23)
NA NA Note (20,54)
Note (4,55)
M-105 EFCV Butterfly 2 2 Process M NA NA O O O O O O NA NA Flow NA Instantan.
NA NA NA Note (4,55)
M-106 Butterfly MO Gate MO Gate 2 2 2 M RM RM NA M M O C C O C C O O O NA As is As is NA RM (Note 37)
RM (Note 37)
NA Standard Standard NA Note (23)
Note (23) Note (4,55)
Note (20,54)
M-107 Butterfly Vacuum Breaker 2 2 M Process N/A N/A O C O C O C/O NA NA NA Pressure Differential NA NA NA ESS1 ESS2 Note (4,55)
Note (4) M-108 Butterfly Vacuum Breaker 2 2 M Process NA NA O C O C O C/O NA NA NA Pressure Differential NA NA NA ESS1 ESS2 Note (4,55)
Note (4) M-109 Butterfly Vacuum Breaker 2 2 M Process NA NA O C O C O C/O NA NA NA Pressure Differential NA NA NA ESS1 ESS2 Note (4,55)
Note (4) M-110 Butterfly Vacuum Breaker 2 2 M Process NA NA O C O C O C/O NA NA NA Pressure Differential NA NA NA ESS1 ESS2 Note (4,55)
Note (4)
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 19 OF 49 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER NRC GDC LINE ISOLATED FLUID CONTAINED LINE SIZE (in) ESF SYSTEM (NOTE 21)THROUGH LINE LEAKAGE CLASSIFICATION (NOTE 14)
VALVE ARRANGEMENT FIGURE 6.2-31 VALVE NUMBER LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO CONTAINMENTTYPE C TESTLENGTH OF PIPE FROM CONTAINMENT TO OUTERMOST VALVE (ft) I-1A, B, C, D, E, F ---
--- --- --- ---
--- --- --- --- --- --- I-2 55 (Note 26) RPV Level and Pressure Reactor Water 3/4 Yes C Detail (w) 1&2B21-F374 Outside No (Note 33) 10 max. I-3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 10 max. I-4A 55 (Note 26) 55 (Note 33) RPV Level and Pressure Backfill Reactor Water Reactor Water 3/4 1/2 Yes No C C(b) Detail (w)
Detail (ac) 1&2B21-F376 1&2C11-F423G/
1&2C11-F422G Outside Outside No (Note 33)
Yes (Note 33) 10 max. 10 max I-4B, C, D, E ---
--- --- --- ---
--- --- --- --- --- 10 max. I-4F 56 SUPR CHBR/DW Oxygen Monitor (Unit 1) or Drywell Humidity Monitor (Unit 2) Air 3/4 3/4 No No A (b)
A (b) Detail (g) 1&2CM017A
1&2CM018A Outside Outside Yes Yes 10 max.
10 max. I-5A 55 (Note 26) 55 (Note 33) RPV Level and Pressure Backfill Reactor Water
Reactor Water 3/4 1/2 Yes No C C (b) Detail (w)
Detail (ac) 1&2B21-F359 1&2C11-F423B/
1&2C11-F422B Outside Outside No (Note 33)
Yes (Note 33) 10 max.
18 max. I-5B, C, D, E ---
--- --- --- ---
--- --- --- --- --- 10 max. I-5F 56 Drywell Tritium Grab Sample (Unit 1) or Drywell Humidity Monitor (Unit 2) Air 3/4 3/4 No No A (b)
A (b) Detail (g) 1&2CM017B
1&2CM018B Outside Outside Yes Yes 10 max. 10 max I-6 55 (Note 26) RPV Level and Pressure Reactor Water 3/4 Yes C Detail (w) 1&2B21-F355 Outside No (Note 33) 10 max.
I-7 55 (Note 26) 55 (Note 33) RPV Level and Pressure Backfill Reactor Water Reactor Water 3/4 1/2 Yes No C C (b) Detail (w)
Detail (ac) 1&2B21-F361 1&2C11-F423D/
1&2C11-F422D Outside Outside No (Note 33)
Yes (Note 33) 10 max. 13 max I-8A 55 (Note 26) 55 (Note 33) RPV Level and Pressure Backfill Reactor Water Reactor Water 3/4 1/2 Yes No C C (b) Detail (w)
Detail (ac) 1&2B21-F378 1&2C11-F423F/
1&2C11-F422F Outside Outside No (Note 33)
Yes (Note 33) 10 max. 54 max. I-8B, C, F ---
--- --- --- ---
--- --- --- --- --- --- I-8D 56 Drywell Pressure Air 3/4 No C Detail (w) 1&2VQ061 Outside No (Note 32) 10 max.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 20 OF 49 REV. 13 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER VALVE TYPE ASME SECTION III CLASS PRIMARY METHOD OF ACTUATION SECONDARY METHOD OF ACTUATION NORMAL VALVE POSITIONSHUTDOWN VALVE POSITION POST ACCIDENT POSITION POWER FAILURE VALVE POSITION (6) ISOLATION SIGNAL VALVE CLOSURE TIME (7) POWER SOURCE REMARKS I-1A,B,C,D,E,F -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Spare I-2 Excess Flow Check 2 Process NA O O O NA Flow Instantaneou s NA I-3 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Spare I-4A Excess Flow Check Checks 2 2 Process Process NA NA O O O C O C NA NA Flow Flow Instantaneou s Instantaneou s NA NA Note (33) I-4B,C,D,E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Spare I-4F SO Globe SO Globe 2 2 Auto Auto RM RM O O O O C C C C B,F,RM B,F,RM 5 sec.
5 sec. ESS 2 ESS 1 Note (20)
I-5A Excess Flow Check Checks 2 2 Process Process NA NA O O O C O C NA NA Flow Flow Instantaneou s Instantaneou s NA NA Note (33) I-5B,C,D,E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Spare I-5F SO Globe SO Globe 2 2 Auto Auto RM RM O O O O C C C C B,F,RM B,F,RM 5 sec.
5 sec. ESS 2 ESS 1 Note (20)
I-6 Excess Flow Check 2 Process NA O O O NA Flow Instantaneou s NA I-7 Excess Flow Check Checks 2 2 Process Process NA NA O O O C O C NA NA Flow Flow Instantaneou s Instantaneou s NA NA Note (33) I-8A Excess Flow Chk Checks 2 2 Process Process NA NA O O O C O C NA NA Flow Flow Instantaneou s Instantaneou s NA NA Note (33) I-8B,C,F -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Spare I-8D Excess Flow Check 2 Process NA O O O NA Flow Instantaneou s NA
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 21 OF 49 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER NRC GDC LINE ISOLATED FLUID CONTAINED LINE SIZE (in) ESF SYSTEM (NOTE 21)THROUGH LINE LEAKAGE CLASSIFICATION (NOTE 14, 15)
VALVE ARRANGEMENT FIGURE 6.2-31 VALVE NUMBER LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO CONTAINMENTTYPE C TESTLENGTH OF PIPE FROM CONTAINMENT TO OUTERMOST VALVE (ft) I-8E 57 (Note 44) RPV Head Seal Leak Detection Air 3/4 No --- Detail (j) 1&2E31-F303 Outside No 10 max. I-9a 55 (Note 26) RPV Level and Pressure Reactor Water 3/4 Yes C Detail (w) 1&2B21-F370 Outside No (Note 33) 10 max. I-9B, C ---
--- --- --- ---
--- --- --- --- --- 10 max. I-9D, E, F 57 (Note 44) ADS Accumulator Pressure Air 3/4 Yes B Detail (j) 1&2B21-F342D, V, SOutside No 10 max. I-10A & B 55 (Note 26) RPV Level and Pressure Reactor Water 3/4 3/4 Yes Yes C C Detail (w)
Detail (w) 1&2B21-F363 1&2B21-F353 Outside Outside No (Note 33)
No (Note 33) 10 max.
10 max. I-10C & D 55 (Note 26) RCIC Steam Flow 3/4 3/4 Yes Yes C C Detail (w)
Detail (w) 1&2B21-F415B
1&2B21-F415A Outside Outside No (Note 33)
No (Note 33) 10 max. 10 max I-10E & F ---
--- --- --- ---
--- --- --- --- --- 10 max. I-11A 56 Primary Cont. Air Sample Air Air 1/2 1/2 No No A (b)
A (b) Detail (g) 1&2CM031 1&2CM032 Outside Outside Yes Yes 10 max.
10 max. I-11B 56 (Note 28) Post LOCA Containment Monitoring Air 1/2 1/2 1/2 Yes No No B A (b)
A (b) Detail (k) Detail (g)
Detail (g) 1&2CM022A 1&2CM029 1&2CM030 Outside Outside Outside No (Note 40)Yes Yes 10 max. NA 10 max. I-12A 55 RPV Level and Pressure Reactor Water 3/4 Yes --- Detail (w) 1&2B21-F357 Outside No (Note 33) 10 max.
I-12B, C, E, F 57 (Note 44) ADS Accumulator Pressure Air 3/4 Yes B Detail (j) 1&2B21-E342E, R, U, C Outside No 10 max. I-12D --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
I-13 56 (Note 32) Drywell Pressure Air 3/4 Yes C Detail (w) 1&2B21-F382 Outside No (Note 32) 10 max. I-14A, B, C, D, E, F --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 10 max. I-15A, B, C, D 55 (Note 26) Steam Flow Steam 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 Yes Yes Yes Yes C C C C Detail (w) Detail (w)
Detail (w) Detail (w) 1&2B21-F328B 1&2B21-F327B
1&2B21-F327A 1&2B21-F328A Outside Outside Outside Outside No (Note 33) 10 max.
10 max.
10 max. 10 max. I-15 E & F 55 (Note 26) RWCU Flow Reactor Water 3/4 3/4 No No C C Detail (w)
Detail (w) 1&2G33-F312A
1&2G33-F312B Outside Outside No (Note 33)
No (Note 33) 10 max.
10 max. I-16A 55 (Note 26) RHR Line Integrity Reactor Water 3/4 Yes C Detail (w) 1&2E12-F315 Outside No (Note 33) 10 max. I-16B & C --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 10 max.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 22 OF 49 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER VALVE TYPE ASME SECTION III CLASS PRIMARY METHOD OF ACTUATIONSECONDARY METHOD OF ACTUATION NORMAL VALVE POSITIONSHUTDOWN VALVE POSITION POST ACCIDENT POSITION POWER FAILURE VALVE POSITION (6) ISOLATION SIGNAL VALVE CLOSURE TIME (7) POWER SOURCE REMARKS I-8E Globe 2 Manual NA O O O NA -- -- NA I-9A Excess Flow Check 2 Process NA O O O NA Flow InstantaneousNA I-9B,C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Spare I-9D,E,F Manual 2 Manual NA O O O NA -- -- -- I-10A & B Excess Flow Chk Excess Flow Chk 2 2 Process Process NA NA O O O O O O NAl NA Flow Flow Instantaneous
Instantaneous NA NA I-10C & D Excess Flow Chk Excess FlowChk 2 2 Process Process NA NA O O O O O O NA NA Flow Flow Instantaneous Instantaneous NA NA I-10E & F -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Spare I-11A SO Globe SO Globe 2 2 Auto Auto RM RM O O O O C C C C B,F,RM B,F,RM 5 sec.
5 sec. ESS 2 ESS 1 Note (20)
I-11B SO Globe SO Globe SO Globe 2 2
2 Auto Auto Auto RM RM RM C/O O O C O O O C C O C C RM (Note 37)B,F,RM B,F,RM 5 sec.
5 sec.
5 sec. ESS 1 ESS 2 ESS 1 Note (20)
Note (20)
I-12A Excess Flow Check 2 Process NA O O O NA Flow InstantaneousNA I-12B,C,E,F Manual 2 Manual NA O O O NA -- -- -- I-12D -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Spare I-13 Excess Flow Check 2 Process NA O O O NA Pressure InstantaneousNA I-14A,B,C,D,E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Spare I-15A,B,C,D Excess Flow Chk Excess Flow Chk Excess Flow Chk Excess Flow Chk 2 2 2 2 Process Process Process Process NA NA NA NA O O O O O O O O O O O O NA NA NA NA Flow Flow Flow Flow Instantaneous Instantaneous Instantaneous Instantaneous NA NA NA NA I-15E & F Excess Flow Chk Excess Flow Chk 2 2 Process Process NA NA O O O O O O NA NA Flow Flow Instantaneous Instantaneous NA NA I-16A Excess Flow Check 2 Process NA O O O NA Flow InstantaneousNA I-16B & C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Spare
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 23 OF 49 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER NRC GDC LINE ISOLATED FLUID CONTAINED LINE SIZE (in.) ESF SYSTEM (NOTE 21)THROUGH LINE LEAKAGE CLASSIFICATION (NOTE 14)
VALVE ARRANGEMENT FIGURE 6.2-32 VALVE NUMBER LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO CONTAINMENTTYPE C TEST LENGTH OF PIPE FROM CONTAINMENT TO OUTERMOST VALVE (ft) I-16D & E 55 (Note 26) RCIC Steam Flow Steam 3/4 3/4 Yes Yes C C Detail (w) 1&2B21-F413B
1&2B21-F413A Outside Outside No (Note 33)
No (Note 33) 10 Max.
10 Max. I-16F 55 (Note 26) LPCS/LPCI P Reactor Water 3/4 Yes C Detail (w) 1&2E21-F304 Outside No (Note 33) 10 Max.
I-17A 55 (Note 26) Jet Pump Pressure Reactor Water 3/4 No C Detail (w) 1&2B21-F344 Outside No (Note 33) 10 Max. I-17B,C,D,E,F --- --- --- -- -- --
-- -- -- --- 10 Max.
I-18 56 (Note 32) Drywell Pressure Air 3/4 Yes -- Detail (w) 1&2B21-F365 Outside No (Note 32) 10 Max.
I-19A I-19B I-19C I-19D I-19E I-19F 55 (Note 26) Jet Pump Flow Reactor Water 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 No No No No No No C C
C C C C Detail (w)
Detail (w)
Detail (w)
Detail (w) Detail (w) Detail (w) 1&2B21-F443 1&2B21-F439 1&2B21-F437 1&2B21-F441 1&2B21-F445A 1&2B21-F447 Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside No (Note 33)
No (Note 33)
No (Note 33)
No (Note 33)No (Note 33)No (Note 33) 10 Max.
10 Max.
10 Max.
10 Max. 10 Max. 10 Max. I-20A I-20B I-20C I-20D I-20E I-20F 55 (Note 26) Jet Pump Flow Reactor Water 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 No No No No No No C C C C
C C Detail (w)
Detail (w) Detail (w)
Detail (w)
Detail (w) Detail (w) 1&2B21-F455A 1&2B21-F451 1&2B21-F449 1&2B21-F453 1&2B21-F445B 1&2B21-F455B Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside No (Note 33)
No (Note 33)No (Note 33)
No (Note 33)
No (Note 33)No (Note 33) 10 Max.
10 Max. 10 Max.
10 Max.
10 Max. 10 Max. I-21A,B,C,D,E,F --- --- --- --- -- - --- --- --- --- 10 Max. I-22A & D 55 (Note 26) Recirc. Pump Seal Press. Reactor Water 3/4 3/4 No No C C Detail (w)
Detail (w) 1&2B33-F319A
1&2B33-F317A Outside Outside No (Note 33)
No (Note 33) 10 Max.
10 Max. I-22B & C 55 (Note 26) Recirc. Pump Flow Reactor Water 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 No No No No C C C C Detail (x) Detail (x)
Detail (x) Detail (x) 1&2B33-F313C 1&2B33-F313D 1&2B33-F311C 1&2B33-F311D Outside Outside Outside Outside No (Note 33)No (Note 33)
No (Note 33)No (Note 33) 10 Max. 10 Max.
10 Max. 10 Max.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 24 OF 49 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER VALVE TYPE ASME SECTION III CODE CLASS PRIMARY METHOD OF ACTUATION SECONDARY METHOD OF ACTUATION NORMAL VALVE POSITIONSHUTDOWN VALVE POSITION POST ACCIDENT POSITION POWER FAILURE VALVE POSITION (6) ISOLATION SIGNAL VALVE CLOSURE TIME (7) POWER SOURCE REMARKS I-16D & E Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check 2 2 Process Process NA NA O O O O O O NA NA Flow Flow Instantaneous Instantaneous NA NA I-16F Excess Flow Check 2 Process NA O O O NA Flow InstantaneousNA I-17A Excess Flow Check 2 Process NA O O O NA Flow InstantaneousNA I-17B,C,D,E,F --- -- --- --- --- --- Spare I-18 Excess Flow Check 2 Process NA O O O NA Pressure InstantaneousNA I-19A I-19B I-19C I-19D I-19E I-19F Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check 2 2 2 2 2 2 Process Process Process Process Process Process NA NA NA NA NA NA O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O NA NA NA NA NA NA Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Instantaneous Instantaneous Instantaneous Instantaneous Instantaneous Instantaneous NA NA NA NA NA NA I-20A I-20B I-20C I-20D I-20E I-20F Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check 2 2 2 2 2 2 Process Process Process Process Process Process NA NA NA NA NA NA O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O NA NA NA NA NA NA Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Instantaneous Instantaneous Instantaneous Instantaneous Instantaneous Instantaneous NA NA NA NA NA NA I-21A,B,C,D,E,F --- --- -- -- -- -- -- --- --- -- Spare I-22A & D Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check 2 2 Process Process NA NA O O O O O O NA NA Flow Flow Instantaneous Instantaneous NA NA I-22B & C Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check 2 2 2 2 Process Process Process Process NA NA NA NA O O O O O O O O O O O O NA NA NA NA Flow Flow Flow Flow Instantaneous Instantaneous Instantaneous Instantaneous NA NA NA NA LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 25 OF 49 REV. 13 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER NRC GDC LINE ISOLATED FLUID CONTAINED LINE SIZE (in.) ESF SYSTEM (NOTE 21)THROUGH LINE LEAKAGE CLASSIFICATION (NOTE 14)
VALVE ARRANGEMENT FIGURE 6.2-32 VALVE NUMBER LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO CONTAINMENTTYPE C TEST LENGTH OF PIPE FROM CONTAINMENT TO OUTERMOST VALVE (ft) I-22E & F 55 (Note 26) Recirc. Pump P Reactor Water 3/4 3/4 No No C C Detail (w)
Detail (w) 1&2B33-F315A
1&2B33-F315B Outside Outside No (Note 33)
No (Note 33) 10 Max.
10 Max. I-23A --- --- --- --- -- - --- --- --- --- 10 Max.
I-23B 55 (Note 26) Recirc. Pump Suction Press. Reactor Water 3/4 No C Detail (w) 1&2B33-F301A Outside No (Note 33) 10 Max. I-23C & D 55 (Note 26) Recirc. Pump Flow Reactor Water 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 No No No No C C
C C Detail (x)
Detail (x) 1&2B33-F307C 1&2B33-F307D 1&2B33-F305C 1&2B33-F305D Outside Outside Outside Outside No (Note 33)
No (Note 33)
No (Note 33)
No (Note 33) 10 Max.
10 Max.
10 Max.
10 Max. I-23E & F 55 (Note 26) RHR Shutdown Flow Reactor Water 3/4 3/4 Yes Yes C C Detail (w)
Detail (w) 1&2E12-F359B
1&2E12-F359A Outside Outside No (Note 33)
No (Note 33) 10 Max.
10 Max. I-24A,B,C,D,E,F -- --- --- --- -- --
-- --- --- --- 10 Max. I-25A & B 55 (Note 26) RHR Line Integrity Reactor Water 3/4 3/4 Yes Yes C C Detail (w)
Detail (w) 1&2E12-F319
1&2E12-F317 Outside Outside No (Note 33)
No (Note 33) 10 Max.
10 Max. I-25C, D, E, F ---
--- --- --- --- - -- --- --- --- 10 Max. I-26 56 (Note 32) Drywell Press. Air 3/4 Yes C Detail (w) 1&2B21-F367 Outside No (Note 33) 10 Max. I-27A & D 55 (Note 26) Recirc. Pump Flow Reactor Water 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 No C C C C Detail (x)
Detail (x) 1&2B33-F307A 1&2B33-F307B 1&2B33-F305A
1&2B33-F305B Outside Outside Outside Outside No (Note 33)No (Note 33)No (Note 33)
No (Note 33) 10 Max. 10 Max. 10 Max.
10 Max.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 26 OF 49 REV. 13 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER VALVE TYPE ASME SECTION III CODE CLASS PRIMARY METHOD OF ACTUATION SECONDARY METHOD OF ACTUATION NORMAL VALVE POSITIONSHUTDOWN VALVE POSITION POST ACCIDENT POSITION POWER FAILURE VALVE POSITION (6) ISOLATION SIGNAL VALVE CLOSURE TIME (7) POWER SOURCE REMARKS I-22E & F Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check 2 2 Process Process NA NA O O O O O O NA NA Flow Flow Instantaneous Instantaneous NA NA I-23A --- - --- -- - - - -- ---- --- -- Spare I-23B Excess Flow Check 2 Process NA O O O NA Flow Instantaneous NA I-23C & D Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check 2 2 2 2 Process Process Process Process NA NA NA NA O O O O O O O O O O O O NA NA NA NA Flow Flow Flow Flow Instantaneous Instantaneous Instantaneous Instantaneous NA NA NA NA I-23E & F Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check 2 2 Process Process NA NA O O O O O O NA NA Flow Flow Instantaneous Instantaneous NA NA I-24A,B,C,D,E,F --- - --- --- - - - -- ---- --- -- Spare I-25A & B Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check 2 2 Process Process NA NA O O O O O O NA NA Flow Flow Instantaneous Instantaneous NA NA I-25C, D, E, F --- - --- -- - - - -- -- --- -- Spare I-26 Excess Flow Check 2 Process NA O O O NA Pressure Instantaneous NA I-27A & D Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check 2 2 2 2 Process Process Process Process NA NA NA NA O O O O O O O O O O O O NA NA NA NA Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Instantaneous Instantaneous Instantaneous Instantaneous NA NA NA NA
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 27 OF 49 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER NRC GDC LINE ISOLATED FLUID CONTAINED LINE SIZE (in) ESF SYSTEM (NOTE 21)THROUGH LINE LEAKAGE CLASSIFICATION (NOTE 14,15)
VALVE ARRANGEMENT FIGURE 6.2-31 VALVE NUMBER LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO CONTAINMENTTYPE C TESTLENGTH OF PIPE FROM CONTAINMENT TO OUTERMOST VALVE (ft) I-27B & C 55 (Note 26) RHR Shutdown Flow Reactor Water 3/4 3/4 Yes C C Detail (w)
Detail (w) 1&2E12-F360A
1&2E12-F360B Outside Outside No (Note 33)
No (Note 33) 10 Max.
10 Max. I-27E&F 55 (Note 26) Recirc. Pump Seal Press. Reactor Water 3/4 3/4 No No C C Detail (w) 1&2B33-F317B 1&2B33-F319B Outside Outside No (Note 33)
No (Note 33) 10 Max.
10 Max. I-28A 55 (Note 26) Recirc. Pump Suction Press. Reactor Water 3/4 No C Detail (w) 1&2B33-F301B Outside No (Note 33) 10 Max. I-28B & C 55 (Note 26) Recirc. Pump P Reactor Water 3/4 3/4 No No C C Detail (w)
Detail (w) 1&2B33-F315D 1&2B33-F315C Outside Outside No (Note 33)
No (Note 33) 10 Max.
10 Max. I-28D & E 55 (Note 25) Recirc. Pump Flow Reactor Water 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 No No No No C C C C Detail (x)
Detail (x) 1&2B33-F313A 1&2B33-F313B 1&2B33-F311A 1&2B33-F311B Outside Outside Outside Outside No (Note 33)
No (Note 33)No (Note 33)No (Note 33) 10 Max.
10 Max. 10 Max. 10 Max. I-28F 55 (Note 26) RPV Drain Flow Reactor Water 3/4 No C Detail(w) 1&2G33-F309 Outside No (Note 33) 10 Max. I-29A, D, E, F 55 (Note 26) Steam Flow Steam 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 No No No No C C C C Detail(w) Detail(w)
Detail(w) Detail(w) 1&2B21-F326D 1&2B21-F325D 1&2B21-F325C 1&2B21-F326C Outside Outside Outside Outside No (Note 33)No (Note 33)
No (Note 33)No (Note 33) 10 Max. 10 Max.
10 Max. 10 Max. I-29B 55 (Note 26) Core P Reactor Water 3/4 Yes C Detail(w) 1&2B21-F350 Outside No (Note 33) 10 Max.
I-29C 55 (Note 26) RPV Bottom Head Drain Flow Reactor Water 3/4 No C Detail(w) 1&2B21-F346 Outside No (Note 33) 10 Max. I-30A & B 55 (Note 26) RPV/HPCS P Reactor Water 3/4 3/4 No No C C Detail(w)
Detail(w) 1&2B21-F348
1&2E22-F304 Outside Outside No (Note 33)
No (Note 33) 10 Max.
10 Max. I-30C, D, E, F 57 (Note 44) MSIV Accumulator Pressure Air 3/4 No B Detail(j) 1&2B21-F329A,B,C,D Outside No 10 Max.
I-31A I-31B I-31C I-31D I-31E I-31F 55 (Note 26) Jet Pump Flow Reactor Water 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 No No No No No No C C C C
C C Detail(w)
Detail(w) Detail(w)
Detail(w)
Detail(w) Detail(w) 1&2B21-F471 1&2B21-F469 1&2B21-F473 1&2B21-F465B 1&2B21-F475B 1&2B21-F475A Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside No (Note 33)
No (Note 33)No (Note 33)
No (Note 33)
No (Note 33)No (Note 33) 10 Max.
10 Max. 10 Max.
10 Max.
10 Max. 10 Max
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 28 OF 49 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER VALVE TYPE ASME SECTION III CLASS PRIMARY METHOD OF ACTUATIONSECONDARY METHOD OF ACTUATION NORMAL VALVE POSITIONSHUTDOWN VALVE POSITION POST ACCIDENT POSITION POWER FAILURE VALVE POSITION (6) ISOLATION SIGNAL VALVE CLOSURE TIME (7) POWER SOURCE REMARKS I-27B & C EFC EFC 2 2 Process Process NA NA O O O O O O NA NA Flow Flow Instantaneous Instantaneous NA NA I-27E & F EFC EFC 2 Process Process NA NA O O O O O O NA NA Flow Flow Instantaneous Instantaneous NA NA I-28A EFC 2 Process NA O O O NA Flow Instantaneous NA I-28B & C EFC EFC 2 2 Process Process NA NA O O O O O O NA NA Flow Flow Instantaneous Instantaneous NA NA I-28D & E EFC EFC EFC EFC 2 2 2 2 Process Process Process Process NA NA NA NA O O O O O O O O O O O O NA NA NA NA Flow Flow Flow Flow Instantaneous InstantaneousInstantaneousInstantaneous NA NA NA NA I-28F EFC 2 Process NA O O O NA Flow Instantaneous NA I-29A,D,E,F EFC EFC EFC EFC 2 2 2 2 Process Process Process Process NA NA NA NA O O O O O O O O O O O O NA NA NA NA Flow Flow Flow Flow InstantaneousInstantaneous InstantaneousInstantaneous NA NA NA NA I-29B EFC 2 Process NA O O O NA Flow Instantaneous NA I-29C EFC 2 Process NA O O O NA Flow Instantaneous NA I-30A & B EFC EFC 2 2 Process Process NA NA O O O O O O NA NA Flow Flow Instantaneous Instantaneous NA NA I-30C,D,E,F Manual 2 Manual NA O O O NA -- -- --
I-31A I-31B I-31C I-31D I-31E I-31F EFC EFC EFC EFC EFC EFC 2 2
2 2 2 2 Process Process Process Process Process Process NA NA NA NA NA NA O O
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
O O O O NA NA NA NA NA NA Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Instantaneous Instantaneous Instantaneous InstantaneousInstantaneousInstantaneous NA NA NA NA NA NA EFC = Excess Flow Check
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 29 OF 49 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER NRC GDC LINE ISOLATED FLUID CONTAINED LINE SIZE (in) ESF SYSTEM (NOTE 21)THROUGH LINE LEAKAGE CLASSIFICATION (NOTE 14,15)
VALVE ARRANGEMENT FIGURE 6.2-31 VALVE NUMBER LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO CONTAINMENTTYPE C TEST LENGTH OF PIPE FROM CONTAINMENT TO OUTERMOST VALVE (ft)
I-32A I-32B I-32C I-32D I-32E I-32F 55 (Note 26) Jet Pump Flow Reactor Water 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 No No No No No No C C
C C C C Detail (w)
Detail (w)
Detail (w) Detail (w) Detail (w)
Detail (w) 1&2B21-F465A 1&2B21-F467 1&2B21-F463 1&2B21-F459 1&2B21-F457 1&2B21-F461 Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside No (Note 33)
No (Note 33)
No (Note 33)No (Note 33)No (Note 33)
No (Note 33) 10 Max.
10 Max.
10 Max. 10 Max. 10 Max.
10 Max. I-33 56 (Note 32) Drywell Pressure Air 3/4 Yes C Detail (w) 1&2B21-F380 Outside No (Note 33) 10 Max. I-34A, D, E, F 55 (Note 26) Steam Flow Steam 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 Yes Yes Yes Yes C C C C Detail (w)
Detail (w) Detail (w) Detail (w) 1&2B21-F328D 1&2B21-F328C 1&2B21-F327C 1&2B21-F327D Outside Outside Outside Outside No (Note 33)
No (Note 33)No (Note 33)No (Note 33) 10 Max.
10 Max. 10 Max. 10 Max. I-34B & C ---
--- --- --- --- - --- --- --- --- --- I-35 56 (Note 28)
56 Post LOCA Containment Monitoring HRSS Sampling
Air Air 1/2 1/2 Yes No B
A(b) A(b) Detail (k)
Detail (g) Detail (g) 1&2CM023B
1&2CM085 1&2CM086 Outside
Outside Outside No (Note 40)
Yes Yes 10 Max.
10 Max. 10 Max. I-36 56 (Note 28) Post LOCA Containment Monitoring Air 1/2 1/2 1/2 Yes No No B A (b)
A (b) Detail (k) Detail (g)
Detail (g) 1&2CM024A 1&2CM027 1&2CM028 Outside Outside Outside No (Note 40)Yes Yes 10 Max. Not Applicable10 Max. I-37A, B, C, D 55 (Note 26) Steam Flow Steam 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 Yes Yes Yes Yes C C C C Detail (w) Detail (w)
Detail (w) Detail (w) 1&2B21-F325A 1&2B21-F326A
1&2B21-F325B 1&2B21-F326B Outside Outside Outside Outside No (Note 33)No (Note 33)
No (Note 33)No (Note 33) 10 Max. 10 Max.
10 Max. 10 Max. I-37E & F ---
--- --- --- ---
--- --- --- --- --- 10 Max. I-38 & 39 NA Supp. Chamber Air 1 1/4 No
--- --- ---
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
--- 10 Max.
10 Max.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 30 OF 49 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER VALVE TYPE ASME SECTION III CLASS PRIMARY METHOD OF ACTUATIONSECONDARY METHOD OF ACTUATION NORMAL VALVE POSITIONSHUTDOWN VALVE POSITION POST ACCIDENT POSITION POWER FAILURE VALVE POSITION (6) ISOLATION SIGNAL VALVE CLOSURE TIME (7) POWER SOURCE REMARKS I-32A I-32B I-32C I-32D I-32E I-32F EFC EFC EFC EFC EFC EFC 2 2 2 2
2 2 Process Process Process Process Process Process NA NA NA NA NA NA O O O O
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
O O NA NA NA NA NA NA Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Instantaneous InstantaneousInstantaneous Instantaneous InstantaneousInstantaneous NA NA NA NA NA NA I-33 EFC 2 Process NA O O O NA Pressure InstantaneousNA I-34A,D,E,F EFC EFC EFC EFC 2 2 2 2 Process Process Process Process NA NA NA NA O O O O O O O O O O O O NA NA NA NA Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Instantaneous InstantaneousInstantaneousInstantaneous NA NA NA NA I-34B,C -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Spare I-35 SO Globe SO Globe SO Globe 2 2 2 RM Manual Manual N/A N/A N/A C/O C C C C C O C/O C/O O C C RM --- --- 5 sec. --- --- ESS 2 N/A N/A I-36 SO Globe SO Globe SO Globe 2 2
2 RM Auto Auto N/A RM RM C/O O O C O O O C C O C C RM B,F,RM B,F,RM 5 sec.
5 sec.
5 sec. ESS 1 ESS 2 ESS 1 Note (20)
I-37A,B,C,D EFC EFC EFC EFC 2 2 2 2 Process Process Process Process NA NA NA NA O O O O O O O O O O O O NA NA NA NA Flow Flow Flow Flow Instantaneous InstantaneousInstantaneousInstantaneous NA NA NA NA I-37E&F -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Spare I-38 & 39
-- -- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- RTDs are provided through these connections
EFC = Excess Flow Check
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 31 OF 49 REV. 13 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER NRC GDC LINE ISOLATED FLUID CONTAINED LINE SIZE (in.) ESF SYSTEM (NOTE 21)THROUGH LINE LEAKAGE CLASSIFICATION (NOTE 14)
VALVE ARRANGEMENT FIGURE 6.2-32 VALVE NUMBER LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO CONTAINMENTTYPE C TEST LENGTH OF PIPE FROM CONTAINMENT TO OUTERMOST VALVE (ft) I-40,41, 42,43 56 (Note 32) Supp. Pool Water Level Supp. Pool Water 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/4 No No No No No No No No Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Exempt Detail (v) Detail (v)
Detail (v) Detail (v) Detail (v)
Detail (v)
Detail (v) Detail (v) 1&2CM039 1&2CM040 1&2CM041 1&2CM042 1&2CM043 1&2CM044 1&2CM045 1&2CM046 Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside No (Note 32)No (Note 32)
No (Note 32)No (Note 32)No (Note 32)
No (Note 32)
No (Note 32)No (Note 32) 10 Max. 10 Max.
10 Max. 10 Max. 10 Max.
10 Max.
10 Max. 10 Max. I-44 & 46 -- Supp. Pool Water Temp. -- 1 1/4 1 1/4 -- -- -- 10 Max.
10 Max. I-45 56 (Note 28) Drywell Air Sampling Post LOCA Cont. Mont. Drywell Humidity Sampling Air 1 No No Yes No No No No A (b)
A (b) B A(b)
A(b)
A(b)
A(b) Detail (g)
Detail (k) Detail (g)
Detail (g) 1&2CM034 1&2CM033 1&2CM025A 2CM020A 2CM019A 1&2CM020B
1&2CM019B Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Yes Yes No (Note 40)Yes Yes Yes Yes 10 Max.
10 Max.
10 Max. 10 Max. 10 Max.
10 Max.
10 Max. I-47 56(Note 28)
56 Post LOCA Containment Monitoring
HRSS Sampling Air
Air 1 1/4
1/2 Yes
No B
A(b) A(b) Detail (w)
Detail (g) Detail (g) 1&2CM026B
1&2CM089 1&2CM090 Outside
Outside Outside No(Note 40)
Yes Yes 10 Max
10 Max. 10 Max.. I-48 & 49 56 (Note 32) Supp. Pool Water Level Supp. Pool Water 1 1/4 1 1/4 No No C C Detail (w)
Detail (w) 1&2E22-F341
1&2E22-F342 Outside Outside No(Note 32)
No(Note 32) 10 Max.
10 Max. I-50 56 (Note 28) 56 Post LOCA Containment Monitoring HRSS Sampling Air Air 1/2 1/2 Yes No B A(b) A(b) Detail (k)
Detail (g) Detail (g) 1&2CM021B
1&2CM085 1&2CM086 Outside
Outside Outside No (Note 40)
Yes Yes 10 Max.
10 Max. 10 Max.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 32 OF 49 REV. 13 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION NUMBER VALVE TYPE ASME SECTION III CODE CLASS PRIMARY METHOD OF ACTUATIONSECONDARY METHOD OF ACTUATION NORMAL VALVE POSITIONSHUTDOWN VALVE POSITION POST ACCIDENT POSITION POWER FAILURE VALVE POSITION (6) ISOLATION SIGNAL VALVE CLOSURE TIME (7) POWER SOURCE REMARKS I-40,41, 42,43 Globe Globe Globe Globe Globe Globe Globe Globe 2 2
2 2 2 2 2
2 Manual Manual Manual Manual Manual Manual Manual Manual N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A C C
C C C C C
C C C
C C C C C
C C C
C C C C C
C NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Flow Flow Flow Flow ---
---
---
--- ---
---
---
--- --- ---
---
--- NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA I-44 & 46 RTDs are provided through these connecti I-45 SO Globe SO Globe SO Globe SO Globe SO Globe SO Globe SO Globe 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 Auto Auto Auto Auto Auto Auto Auto RM RM RM RM RM RM RM O O C/O O O
O O O O C O O
O O C C O C C
C C C C O C C
C C B,F,RM B,F,RM RM (Note 37)B,F,RM B,F,RM B,F,RM B,F,RM 5 sec. 5 sec. 5 sec. 5 sec.
5 sec.
5 sec. 5 sec. ESS 2 ESS 1 ESS 1 ESS 2 ESS 1 ESS 2 ESS 1 (Note 20)
(Note 20)
(Note 20)
I-47 SO Globe
SO GLOBE
SO GLOBE 2
2 2 Auto
Manual Manual RM
N/A N/A C/O
C C C
C C O
C/O C/O O
C C RM(Note37)
---
--- 5 sec.
---
--- ESS 2
N/A N/A
I-48 & 49 Excess Flow Check Excess Flow Check 2 2 Process Process NA NA O O O O O O NA NA Flow Flow Instantaneou s Instantaneou s NA NA I-50 SO Globe
2 2 Auto
Manual Manual RM
N/A N/A C/O
C C C
C C O
C/O C/O O
C C RM (Note37)
---
--- 5 sec.
---
--- ESS 2
N/A N/A LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 33 OF 49 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 SIGNAL DESCRIPTION A Reactor vessel low water level level 3 - (A scram occurs at this level also. This is the higher of the two low water level signals.)
B Reactor vessel low low water level level 2 - (The RCIC and HPCS systems are initiated at this level also. (This is the lower of the two low water level signals.)
C High radiation - Main steam
D Line break - High area temperat ure or very high system flow.
E Main condenser low vacuum.
F High drywell pressure.
G Reactor vessel low low low water level (Level 1) or high drywell pressure (Emergency Core Cooling System are started).
H Reactor vessel low low low water level (Level 1)
J Line break in cleanup system - high space temperature.
M Line break in RHR shutdown and head cooling (high space temberature).
P Low main steamline pressure at inlet turbine (RUN mode only).
U High reactor vessel pressure - close RHR shutdown cooling valves and head cooling valves.
Y High radiation, fuel pool ventilation exhaust.
Z High radiaion, reactor building ventilation exhaust.
RM Remote manual switch from control room. (All regular Class A and Class B isolation valves are capable of remote manual
operation from the control room.)
RME Remote manual switch from Auxilia ry Electric Equipment Room.
Note - position indication also available in Control Room in group summary position indicator lights.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 34 OF 49 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 These notes are keyed by number to correspond to numbers in parenthesis in Table 6.2-21.
- 1. Main steam isolation valves require that both solenoid pilots be de-energized to close valves. Accu mulator air pressure plus spring force together close valves when both pilots are de-energized. Voltage failure at only one pilot does not cause valve closure. The valves are designed to fully close in less than 5 seconds.
- 2. Suppression pool spray (1(2)E12-F027A/B) and suppression pool cooling valves (1(2)E12-F024A/B) have interlocks that allow them to be manually reopened after automatic closure. This setup permits suppression pool spray, for high drywell pressure conditions, and/or suppression pool water cooling. The drywell spray valves (1(2)E12-F016A/B, 1(2)E12-F017A/B), do not receive any automatic closure signals.
- 3. Testable check valves are provided with an air operator for remote opening with zero differential pre ssure across the valve seat. These valves will close on reverse flow even though the test switches may be positioned for open. The valves open when pump pressure exceeds reactor pressure even though the test switch may be closed. The testable feature has been eliminated from the Division 1, 2, and 3, ECCS testable check valves.
- 4. In the normal configuration the lines are considered to be an extension of primary containment. If a vacuum breaker valve is inoperable, the butterfly valve will be closed to prevent bypass leakage. If a vacuum breaker valve is subsequently removed, a blind flange will be added, and the flang e and butterfly valve will form the containment boundary. The vacuum breaker valves will be leakage tested as part of the periodic low pressure suppression bypass leakage test. The acceptance limits are based on the allowable suppression bypass capability of the containment.
- 5. A-c motor-operated valves required for isolation functions are powered from the a-c standby power buses. D-c operated isolation
valves are powered from the station batteries.
- 6. All motor-operated isolation valves remain in the last position upon failure of valve power. All air-operated valves close on motive air failure except the VQ Butterfly valves which require their solenoid valves to be deenergized.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 35 OF 49 REV. 13 7. The standard operating times for power actuated valves based on actual stem travel shall be less than or equal to 110% of the nominal values below: Motor-operated Air-Operated Gate valves 12 in./min Not applicable Globe valves 4 in./min 4 in./min Butterfly valves 30 - 90 seconds 0 - 10 seconds
- 8. Reactor building vent exhaust high radiation signal "z" and fuel pool ventilation exhaust high radiation signal "Y" are generated by two trip units; this requires one unit at high trip or both units at downscale (instrument failure trip), in order to initiate isolation.
- 9. Valves can be opened or closed by remote manual switch for operating convenience during any mode of reactor operation except when an automatic signal is present.
- 10. Normal status position of valve (open or closed) is the position during normal power operation of the reactor (see "Normal Status" column).
- 11. Deleted.
- 12. Deleted.
- 13. Deleted.
- 14. Categories indicated are in accordance with ASME Section XI Article IWV-2000. The types of leakage tests are as follows: (a) water test and (b) air test. Exempt valves are those used for testing, draining, venting, maintenance or operational convenience.
- 15. The leakage criteria for these valves is specified in 10 CFR 50 Appendix J and the LaSalle Primary Containment Leak Rate Testing Program. 16. Deleted.
- 17. The outboard check valves on the feedwater return lines are provided with an air operator for testing the valves to ensure that the disks are not frozen in the open position. The actuator moves the disk partially into the flow stream, but is not capable of completely closing the valve against flow. The feedwater valve actuator is used to apply seating force to the valve for ensuring leaktightness at low differential pressures. The actuator will be exercised to assure operability prior to leak testing.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 36 OF 49 REV. 14, APRIL 2002
- 18. The TIP drive guide tubes provide a sealed path for the flexible drive cable of the TIP probes. The TIP tubing seals the TIP system from the reactor coolant and forms a leak tight boundary designed for reactor coolant pressure boundary conditions. The shear valve is provided to cut the cable in the event that the drive cable cannot be withdrawn, and the
ball provides the guide tubes with shut-off capability.
The LaSalle TIP system design specifications require that the maximum leakage rate of the ball and shear valves shall be in accordance with the
Manufacturers Standardization Society (Hydrostatic Testing of Valves). The ball valves are 100% leak tested to the following criteria by the manufacturer:
Pressure 0 - 62 psig Temperature 340°F Leak Rate 10-3 cm 3 /s A statistically chosen sample of the shear valves is tested by the manufacturer to the following criteria:
Pressure 0 - 125 psig Temperature 340°F Leak Rate 10
-3 cm 3 /sec STP.
The shear valves have explosive squibs and require testing to destruction. They cannot therefore be 100% tested nor can they be tested in accordance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix J requirements after installation.
Isolation is accomplished by a seis mically qualified solenoid-operated ball valve, which is normally closed. Ball valve position is indicated in the control room. The ball valve is periodically leak tested in accordance with the LaSalle 10 CFR 50 Appendix J Program and the acceptable leakage limits for these valves are in accordance with the Appendix J program.
When the TIP system cable is inserted, the ball valve of the selected tube opens automatically so that the probe and cable may advance. A maximum of four valves may be opened at any one time to conduct calibration, and any one guide tube is used, at most, a few hours per year.
If closure of the line is required during calibration, a signal causes the cable to be retracted and the ball valve to close automatically after completion of cable withdrawal. If a TIP cable fails to withdraw or a ball valve fails to close, each line is equipped with an explosive shear valve.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 37 OF 49 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 If a failure occurs, the shear valve would be manually actuated from the Main Control Room to shear the TIP cable and isolate the penetration.
Because the TIP shear valve requires testing to destruction, it is not tested in accordance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix J, but instead is tested as specified in Technical Specification. The Technical Specification verifies continuity of the explosive charge and batch sampling testing of the explosive squib charges, with replacement of the explosive squib before expiration of the shelf-life and operating life. A statistical sample of the shear valves are leak tested in the manufacturers shop to ensure that the leakage limits conform to the design specification limits of 10-3 cm 3/sec.
- 19. The hydraulic lines are sealed pipe designed for 2000 psig operating pressure.
- 20. Test pressure is not in the same direction as the pressure existing when the valve is required to perform the safety function as required by Appendix J to 10 CFR 50. Either m anufacturers' test data, site test results or justification (e.g., reverse te st pressure tending to lift disk from seat) will be available on site to verify that testing in the reverse direction will provide either equivalent or more conservative results.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 38 OF 49 REV. 14, APRIL 2002
- 21. Although the valves listed may be included in the containment isolation system which is an ESF system, a "yes" designation is given only for those valves in systems where the parent system containing the valve is an ESF system.
- 22. The valves associated with RHR "A" loop are powered from ESS1 sources. The valves associated with RHR "B" and "C" loops are supplied from ESS2 power sources.
- 23. The power source for the valves associated with penetrations M-23 (Unit 2), M-33 (Unit l) and M-106 is ESS1. The power source for the valves associated with penetrations M-53 and M-104 is ESS2. This arrangement was used to maintain redundancy of function for the
combustible gas control system. The valves are closed during normal plant operation, and are open only for periodic testing and following a LOCA. 24. Criterion 55 concerns those lines of the reactor coolant pressure boundary penetrating the primary reactor containment. The control rod drive (CRD) insert and withdraw lines are not part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. The basis to which the CRD lines are designed is commensurate with the safety importance of isolating these lines. Since these lines are vital to the scram function, their operability is of utmost concern. In the design of this system, it has been accepted practice to omit automatic valves for isolation purposes, as this introduces a possible failure mechanism. As a means of providing positive actuation, manual shutoff valves (1&2C11D001-101 and -102) are used. The charging water, drive water and cooling water headers are provided with a check valve (1&2C11D001-115, -137 and -138) within the hydraulic control unit (HCU), a Seismic Category I module, and the normally closed solenoid valves (1&2C11D001-120, -121, -122 and -123). These valves will prevent any direct flow away from containment. These valves are shown on Sheet 3 of Drawing M-100 (Unit 1) and M-146 (Unit 2).
If an insert line fails, a ball check valve provided in each drive is designed to seal off the broken line by using reactor pressure to shift the ball check valve to the upper seat. This feature also prevents any direct flow away from the primary containment.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 39 OF 49 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 When the HCU's are pressurized, leaks resulting from degraded piping integrity would be observed by the Op erators on their daily rounds. In addition, several indicators in the control room, such as temperature and pressure of CRD cooling water or dryw ell sump pump operation, indicates whether leakage is excessive. The maximum leakage expected at this penetration is 3 gpm when the RPV is still pressurized (about 1000 psi). This leakage also assumes a single active failure of a check valve inside the HCU. After the reactor vessel is depressurized, the CRD leakage will decrease to about 0.5 gpm. It may also be said that leakage monitoring of the CRD insert and withdraw lines is provided by the overall type A leakage rate test. Since the RPV and nonseismic portions of the CRD system are vented during the performance of the Type A test, any leakage from these lines would be included in the total Type A test leakage.
The flowout of the CRD is restricted through the HCU performance test requirements to ensure that HCU leak age does not exceed 0.2 gpm. The maximum leakage expected for these penetrations is 0.2 gpm per HCU. If a single failure is assumed, the maximum leakage would be 3 gpm. Seismic tests have demonstrated the seal integrity of the CRD system. Maximum leakage following these tests did not exceed 3 gpm.
The system design criteria are as follows:
Seismic Category Quality Group Classification Quality Assurance Classification Valves; insert and withdraw I B I Insert and withdraw line
piping I B I The CRD insert and withdraw lines are compatible with the criteria intended by 10 CFR 50, Appendix J for Type C testing, since the acceptance criterion for Type C testing allows demonstration of fluid leakage rates by associated bases. The maximum leakage expected has been factored in with the total allowable containment penetration leakage and determined to be acceptabe.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 40 OF 49 REV. 13 25. The recirculation pump seal water line extends from the recirculation pump through the drywell and connects to the CRD supply line outside the primary containment. The seal water line forms a part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary; therefore, the consequences of failing this line have been evaluated. This evaluation shows that the consequences of breaking this line are less severe than failing an instrument line. Therefore, the two check valves in series provide sufficient isolation capability for postulated failure of this line.
These lines are high-pressure lines coming from the discharge of the CRD pumps to the recirculation pump seals. They are provided with a check valve inside the containment and a check valve outside the containment.
The inside and outside check will receive a Type C local leak test with water as the testing mechanism during refueling outages.
- 26. See Note 33.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 41 OF 49 REV. 15, APRIL 2004
- 27. The Hydraulic Control Unit (HCU) is a factory-assembled engineered module of valves, tubing, piping, and stored water which controls a single control rod drive by the application of precisely timed sequences of pressures and flows to accomplish slow insertion or withdrawal of the control rods for power control, and rapid insertion for reactor scram.
Although the hydraulic control unit, as a unit, is field installed and connected to process piping, many of its internal parts differ markedly from process piping components because of the more complex functions they
must provide.
Thus, although the codes and standards invoked by Groups A, B, C and D pressure integrity quality levels clearly apply at all levels to the interfaces between the HCU and the connecting conventional piping components (e.g.,
pipe nipples, fittings, simple hand valves, etc.), it is considered that they do not apply to the specialty parts (e.g., solenoid valves, pneumatic components, and instruments). The HCU shutoff (isolation) valves are
Quality Group B.
The design and construction specifications for the HCU do invoke such codes and standards as can be reasonably applied to individual parts in developing required quality levels, but these codes and standards are supplemented with additional requirements for these parts and for the remaining parts and details. For example, 1) all welds are penetrant tested (PT), 2) all socket welds are inspected for gaps between pipe and socket bottom, 3) all welding is performed by qualified welders, and 4) all work is done per written procedures. Quality Group D is generally applicable because the codes and standards involk ed by that group contain clauses which permit the use of manufacturer's standards and proven design techniques which are not explicitly defined within the codes of Quality Group A, B, or C. This is supplemented by the QC techniques.
- 28. These lines have been evaluated to an acceptable alternative design basis other than that specifically listed in GD C 55 and 56. This alternate basis is found in SRP 6.2.4.II.6, and the
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 42 OF 49 REV. 13 evaluation to the criteria specified therein is as follows:
- a. All lines are in engineered safety feature or engineered safety featured-related systems.
- b. System reliability can readily be seen to be greater when only a single valve is provided, since the addition of another valve in series provides an additional potential point of failure, and, in the case of relief valve discharge lines, the installation of an additional valve is actually prohibited by the ASME Code.
- c. The systems are closed outside containment.
- d. A single active failure of these ESF systems can be accommodated.
- e. The systems outside containment are protected from missiles consistent with their classification as ESF systems.
- f. The systems are designed to Seismic Category I standards.
- g. The systems are classified as Safety Class 2.
- h. The design ratings of these systems meet or exceed those specified for the primary containment.
- i. The leaktightness of these systems is assured by normal surveillance, inservice testing and leak detection monitoring.
- j. The single valve on these lines is located outside containment.
- 29. These lines are always filled with water on the outboard side of the containment thereby forming a water seal. They are maintained at a pressure that is always higher t han primary containment pressure by water leg pumps; thus, precluding any outleakage from primary containment. However, even if outleakage did occur it would be into an ESF system which forms a closed loop outside primary containment. Thus, any leakage from primary containment would return to primary containment through this closed loop.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 43 OF 49 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 These valves are under continuous le akage test because they are always subjected to a differential pressure acting across the seat. Leakage through these valves is continuously monitore d by the pressure switches in the pump discharge lines, which have a low alarm setpoint in the main control room.
Even though a special leakage test is not merited on these valves for the reasons discussed above, a system leakage test will be performed and compared to an acceptance limit based on site boundary dose considerations.
- 30. The leakages through the Main Steamline valves will not be included in establishing the acceptance limits for the combined leakage in accordance with the 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Type B and C tests. The NRC granted exemption to 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, for not including MSIV leakage in the Type A, B, or C acceptance criteria. This exemption is based on the use of the MSIV Isolated Condenser Leakage Treatment Method discussed in Section 6.8, and associated analyses.
- 31. Although only one isolation valve signal is indicated for these valves, the valves also receive automatic signals from various system operational parameters. For example, the ECCS pump minimum flow valves close
automatically when adequate flow is ac hieved in the system; the ECCS test lines close automatically on receipt of an accident signal. Although these signals are not considered isolation signals; and are therefore, excluded from this table, there are other system operation signals that control these valves to ensure their proper position for safe shutdown. Reference to the logic diagrams for these valves indicates which other signals close these valves. 32. To satisfy the requirements of General Design Criterion 56 and to perform their function, these instrument lines have been designed to meet the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.11 (Safety Guide 11).
These lines are Seismic Category I and terminate in instruments that are Seismic Category I. They are provided with manual isolation valves and excess flow check valves.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 44 OF 49 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 The integrity of these lines is to be tested during the Type "A" Test. These lines and their associated instruments are to be pressurized to P
- a. Surveillance inspections are performed to ensure that the leaktight integrity of these lines and their associated instruments. Additional inservice inspection is included in the Technical Specifications. This inservice inspection verifies the function of the excess flow check valves.
Isolation is provided by the excess flow check valve. In the event of a line rupture downstream of the check valv e and a containment pressure above 2 psig this valve would close to limit the amount of leakage.
- 33. To perform their function and to satisfy the requirements of General Design Criterion 55, these instrument lines have been designed to meet the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.11 (Safety Guide 11).
These lines are Seismic Category I and terminate in instruments that are Seismic Category I. They-are provided with flow-restricting orifices, manual isolation valves, and excess flow check valves.
The flow-restricting orifice is sized to assure that in the event of a postulated failure of the piping or component, the potential offsite exposure would be substantially below the guidelines of 10 CFR 100.
Isolation is provided by the excess flow check valve. In the event of a line rupture downstream of the check valves, this valve would close to limit the amount of leakage.
The integrity of these lines are tested during the Type "A" Test. Surveillance inspections are performed to ensure the leaktight integrity of these lines and their associated instruments. Additional inservice testing is included in the Technical Specifications. This inservice inspection verifies the function of the excess flow check valves.
For Unit 1 Penetrations M-21 and M-59, and Unit 2 Penetrations M-52 and M-65 reference leg backfill lines have been installed to comply with NRC
Bulletin 93-03. These lines tap into the reference legs outboard of the excess flow check valves. Two safety related, Seismic Category I, check valves provide the boundary between the non-safety related CRD system and the safety related reference leg. These two check valves also form part of the boundary that will be checked by surveillance inspections in accordance with Check Valve Monitoring and Preventative Maintenance Program.
For Penetrations I-4A, I-5A, I-7 and I-8A, reference leg backfill lines have been installed to comply with NRC Bulletin 93-03. These lines tap into reference lines 1(2)NB10A-3/4", 1(2)NB12A-3/4", 1(2)NB23A-3/4" and 1(2)NB25A-3/4" between the containment penetration and the manual isolation valve/excess flow check valve combination. This makes these lines part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. This location was chosen to prevent the mispositioning of the manual isolation valve (while the injection line is LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 45 OF 49 REV. 13 functioning) from over pressurizing all the instruments on the instrument panel. Two safety related, Seismic Category I, check valves in series act as the outboard containment isolation valves. These two valves also provide the boundary between the non-safety related CRD system and the safety related reference leg as well as form part of the boundary that will be checked by surveillance inspections in accordance with Check Valve Monitoring and Preventative Maintenance Program.
- 34. These valves are provided for long-term leaktightness only. Feedwater check valves in each line provide immediate isolation. These MO valves are remote manually closed from the control room upon indication of loss of feedwater flow. Therefore, no additional isolation signals are required.
- 35. Penetrations M-49 and M-50 contain lines for the hydraulic control of the reactor recirculation flow control valves. The hydraulic fluid in these lines is used to position the flow control valves.
Three of four lines of each penetration in this system are under a constant pressure test during normal plant operations due to its high operating pressure of 1800 psig. The fourth line of each penetration in this system is a seal leakage return line back to the HPU Reservoir. Any leakage from this system would be limited to hydraulic fluid which fills these lines and is independent of the containment atmosphere.
In order to perform Type C leakage tests on the isolation valves associated with this system, the system would have to be disabled and the hydraulic
fluid drained. This is detrimental to the proper operation of the system in that possible damage could occur in establishing the test condition or restoring the system to normal.
Therefore, these hydraulic isolatio n valves are exempted from Type C testing.
- 36. The feedback information available to the plant operator which enables him to determine when the valves with only a "Remote Manual (RM)" closure should be closed is summarized as follows:
- a. Leak detection information, as described in Subsection 7.6.2.2 is available to enable the operator to determine the location of a leak or line failure, and close the isolation valve associated with that line.
- b. RPV level information is available to the operator to ascertain whether the flow is actually reaching the RPV.
- c. Suppression pool water level information would also identify the occurrence of a line failure or leakage.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 46 OF 49 REV. 17, APRIL 2008
- 37. These valves are required to open on signals B and F during the post-LOCA conditions. They remain closed during all other plant operating states, except cold shutdown. Therefore, there is no reason to provide them with any isolation signal other than remote manual.
- 38. The ADS supply lines are maintained at a minimum pressure of 160 psig at all times. Leakage in these lines is monitored by pressure instrumentation which alarms in the main control room on low pressure. Therefore, these lines are always under a continuous leak test, and a specific local leak rate test (Type C) will not be performed. The intent of the requirement is satisfied however, by the system design itself.
- 39. The ECCS and RCIC suction lines are no rmally filled with water on both the inboard and outboard side of containm ent, thereby forming a water seal to the containment environment. The valves are open during post-LOCA conditions to supply a water source for the ECCS pumps. Since a break in an ECCS line need not be considered in conjunction with a DBA, the only possible situation requiring one of these valves to be closed during a DBA is an unacceptable leakage in an ECCS. However, because these ECCS systems are constantly monitored for excessive leakage, this is not a credible event for design.
- 40. These valves are required to open and remain open following a LOCA to allow the containment air to be sampled. They are part of a system which constitutes a closed loop outside of the containment and will be open during Type A testing. Therefore there is no reason to perform a Type C test on these valves.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 47 OF 49 REV. 14, APRIL 2002
- 41. The inboard flange of these butterfly valves has been provided with a double O-ring type gasket with a leakoff test connection provided between the O-rings. This permits the performance of a Type B leak rate test on this non-welded containment boundary, in addition to the Type C leak test on the valve seats.
- 42. These valves are capable of being manually overrided by applying jumpers to the isolation logic when a containment isolation signal is present, in order to
obtain reactor coolant sample at the High Radiation Sample System Panels under post-accident conditions.
- 43. These penetrations are provided with removable spools outboard of the outboard isolation valve. During operation these lines will be blind flanged using a double O-ring and Type B leak tested. In addition, the packing of these isolation valves will be soap-bubble tested to ensure insignificant or no leakage at containment test pressure.
- 44. These lines have been evaluated to an acceptable alternate design basis other than that specifically listed in GDC 57. This alternate basis is found in SRP 6.2.4.II.6.a.
- 45. High Radiation Detectors (1&2 RE-CM011 and 1&2 RE-CM017) have been installed in Containment Penetrations M-31 & M-32. These detectors are mounted in steel sleeves which protrude into the Primary Containment at diverse locations, so as to view a larger segment of the containment atmosphere, maintain accessibility for maintenance and calibration, and to minimize exposure during maintenance and calibration. The Containment Penetration is Seal Welded on the inside of the containment and Blind Flanged on the outside of the Containment.
- 46. These valves are provided with plugged Tees between the solenoid valve and the air cylinder for applying air pressure to the air cylinder using an air bellows hand pump for opening the valve, if instrument air is not available.
- 47. These valves have different closure time.
1E21-F012 Closure time - less than or equal to 40 seconds 2E21-F012 Closure time - sl ower than standard (see below)
- 48. These valves have a slower than standard stem speed, but operate faster than the Tech Spec requirement. The valves' stroke time has been evaluated
and is acceptable.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 48 OF 49 REV. 14, APRIL 2002
- 49. In Test Mode 1 the RCIC System is aligned to take suction from the Condensate Storage Tank (CST) and the full flow test return line is aligned to the CST.
Valves E51-F362 and E51-F363 will become primary containment isolation valves. In Test Mode 2 the RCIC System is aligned to take suction from the Suppression Pool (SP). Valves E51-F362 and E51-F363 will no longer be containment isolation valves. Valves E51-F022, and E51-F059 will become containment isolation valves and spectacle flange E51-D316 (blind side) will be a containment isolation boundary.
- 50. General Electric Specification 22A2817AK Rev. 6 states that the maximum operating time for valves 1(2)E12-F064 A/B/C is eight seconds. The intent is to insure that RHR pump minimum flow requirements are met. The downstream orifice becomes the limiting device before the valve fully opens. An evaluation (NTS 373-201-98-CAQ05833.00) concluded as long as the minimum flow valves pass the required minimum flow in 8 seconds or less, the GE specification
requirements are met.
- 51. These valves are subject to bonnet pressure locking. The reactor side valve discs have vent holes drilled in them to prevent pressure accumulation in the bonnet.
- 52. Exempt Change DCPs 9500254, 255, 256, and 257 change the Valve Closure time for the 1E12-F017B, 17A, 16B, and 16A valves from approximately 75 seconds to approximately 95 seconds. Exempt Change E01-2-94-934A, B, C and D change the Valve Closure time for the 2E12-F016A, B and 2E12-F017A, B valves from approximately 75 seconds to approximately 95 seconds. These are no longer in the standard operating time range for a motor operated gate valve.
- 53. Exempt Changes E01-1-94-433 and E01-2-94-939-E changed the valve closure times for the 1G33-F040 and 2G33-F040 valves, respectively, from approximately 21 seconds to 39 seconds. This is no longer in the standard operating time range for a motor operated gate valve.
54.
The stem packing of these inboard primary containment isolation valves (located outside primary containment) is not tested for leakage during Type C Local Leak Rate Testing. The packing itself is either local leak rate tested via test port or subjected to pressure and subsequent ly soap bubble tested during primary containment pressurization on a periodic basis in accordance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix J and the LaSalle Station Leak Rate Test Program.
- 55. The Vacuum Breaker line manual isolation valves have a double-gasketed flange on the inboard or containment side provided with test connections for leak testing. The outboard flanges on the manual isolation valves are leak tested by pressurizing the entire vacuum breaker line and performing a soap bubble test on the outboard flange. The stem seal or packing of these valves will be tested either locally or by primary containment pressurization and subsequent soap bubble inspection.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-21 SHEET 49 OF 49 REV. 17, APRIL 2008
- 56. This valve is subject to bonnet pressure locking. The non-containment side valve disc has a vent hole drilled in it to prevent pressure accumulation in the bonnet.
- 57. This valve is subject to bonnet pressure locking. The bonnet of this valve has a hole drilled in it discharging th rough piping and isolation valves to allow manual venting of the bonnet.
- 58. These lines have been evaluated to an acceptable alternative design basis other than that specifically listed in GDC 56 and SRP 6.2.4.II. NRC approval of this design is found in the LaSalle Safety Evaluation Report (SER), NUREG 0519 Section 22.2.II.E.4.2.
- 59. These valves are monitored by the IST/MOV program as implemented by Subsection ISTC of ASME OM Code 2001 Edition through 2003 Addenda, and Code Case OMN-1 "Alternative Rules for Pressure and Inservice Testing of Certain Electric Motor Operated Valve Assemblies in Light Water Reactor Power Plants".
- 60. Valves 1(2)E51-F064 have been replaced by spectacle flanges 1(2)E51-D324.
- 61. In response to Generic Letter 96-06, a hole exists in the inboard disc at the inboard containment isolation valve to prevent thermal over-pressurization of the penetration.
- 62. Penetration M-34 contains the Standby Liquid Control System Injection line.
The Standby Liquid Control System (SBLC) Line enters the reactor vessel below the core plate. Under post LOCA conditions, the reflooding capability of the jet pumps will always assure the core to be two-third s covered. This provides assurance that the SBLC line will always be water filled post-LOCA. Thus, the SBLC line is not a potential primary containment atmospheric pathway either during or following a Design Basis Accident (DBA). Type C testing is not required on boundaries that do not constitute potential primary containment atmospheric pathways during and following a DBA. Thus, it is not required to Type C test any of the containment isolation valves in that pathway.
The SBLC line including valves 1&2C41-F007 and 1&2C41-F004A,B will be hydrostatically tested on a periodic basis to insure their leak tight integrity and evaluated against the leakage requirements of Technical Specifications SR 3.6.1.3.11.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-22 (SHEET 1 OF 2) TABLE 6.2-22 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 PARAMETERS USED TO DETERMINE HYDROGEN CONCENTRATION
- 1.
Reactor power 3,559 MWt
- 2.
Number of assemblies 764
- 3.
Total Zr mass in active clad/assembly 101 lb
- 4. Zirconium clad mass 77,187 lb
- 5. Fraction of Zr clad reacted 0.945%
- 6. Drywell free volume 229,538 ft 3 7. Suppression chamber volume 165,100 ft 3 8. Drywell initial temperature 135° F
- 9. Drywell initial pressure 0.75 psig
- 10. Drywell initial relative humidity 20%
- 11. Suppression chamber initial temperature 105° F**
- 12. Suppression chamber initial pressure 0.75 psig
- 13. Suppression chamber initial relative humidity 100%
- 14.
Thermal recombiner capacity 125 scfm
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-22 (SHEET 2 OF 2)
TABLE 6.2-22 REV. 13 15. The guidelines as set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.7 were followed:
a) 50% of the halogens and 1%
of the solids present in the core are intimately mixed with the coolant water.
b) 25% of the halogens plate out on surfaces in the containment.
c) All noble gases and 25% of the halogens are released from the core to the containment atmosphere.
d) All other fission products remain in the fuel rods.
e) G(H 2)*is 0.5 molecules/100eV
f) G(O 2)*is 0.25 molecules/100eV
g) The following percentage of fissio n product radiation energy is absorbed by the coolant:
Percentage Radiation Type Location of Source 0% Beta Fuel Rods 100% Beta Coolant 10% Gamma Fuel Rods 100% Gamma Coolant
- For water, borated water, and borated alkaline solutions. ** As discussed in Section 6.2.1.8 supplementary evaluations have been satisfactorily completed with a 105
°F initial suppression pool temperature. (Reference 14)
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-23 TABLE 6.2-23 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 CONTAINMENT LEAKAGE TESTING LEAK RATES at Pa (%/24 hours)
TYPE OF TEST PER APPENDIX J OF 10 CFR 50 DESCRIPTION OF TEST CALCULATED PEAK PRESSURE Pa (psig) MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE (La) DESIGN (Ld) TEST PRESSURE Pt (psig)
A Integrated Leak Rate 39.9 0.635(3) 0.5 (6)
B Local Penetration Leakage Rate 39.9 (1) (1) (6)
C Local Containment Isolation Valve Leakage Rate 39.9 (1)(2) 0.1 SCFH per inch of
nominal valve size at 50 psig (6) - MSIV Leakage Rate 39.9 (5) 100 scfh 25 (4)
(1) The combined leakage rate of all penetrations and valves exclusive of MSIV leakage subject to Type B and C tests shall be less than 0.60 La, as specified in Appendix J to 10 CFR 50.
(2) See Table 6.2-21, Note 15.
(3) Exclusive of the MSIV leakage rates.
(4) Exemption of 10 CFR 50, as stated in III C.3 of Appendix J.
(5) The sum of all four main steam lines shall be less than 400 SCFH. Any MSIV exceeding the proposed limit will be repaired and retested to meet a leakage rate of less than 25 SCFH.
(6) Test pressure shall be, as a minimum, equal to Pa. Variance in test pressure shall be in accordance with ANSI/ANS 56.8-1994.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-24 (SHEET 1 OF 2) TABLE 6.2-24 REV. 0 SUBCOMPARTMENT VENT PATH DESCRIPTION RECIRCULATION OUTLET LINE BREAK WITH SHIELDING DOORS HEAD LOSS, K VENT PATH NO. FROM VOL. NODE NO. TO VOL. NODE NO. DESCRIPTION OF VENT PATH FLOW AREA*
(ft 2) LENGTH (ft) (L/A) (ft
-1) HYDRAULIC DIAMETER (ft) FRICTION LOSS, K f TURNIN G LOSS, K bl EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION, K g TOTAL 1 1 2 unchoked 14.86 5.98 0.40 4.05 - 0.10 0.14 0.24 2 2 3 unchoked 14.86 5.98 0.40 4.05 - 0.10 0.14 0.24 3 3 4 unchoked 14.86 7.48 0.50 4.05 - 0.12 0.28 0.40 4 4 5 unchoked 14.86 8.97 0.60 4.05 - 0.14 0.28 0.42 5 6 7 choked 20.19 6.04 0.30 4.40 - 0.06 0.16 0.22 6 7 8 choked 20.19 6.04 0.30 4.40 - 0.06 0.16 0.22 7 8 9 choked 20.19 7.55 0.38 4.40 - 0.07 0.32 0.39 8 9 10 unchoked 20.19 9.06 0.45 4.40 - 0.09 0.32 0.41 9 35 34 choked 7.04 2.50 0.30 2.42 - 0.85 0.00 0.85 10 34 11 choked 10.02 3.19 0.32 2.95 - 0.03 0.32 0.35 11 11 12 choked 7.47 4.78 0.64 2.70 - 0.56 0.00 0.56 12 12 13 choked 7.09 6.37 0.90 2.70 - 0.52 0.32 0.84 13 13 14 unchoked 7.09 7.96 1.13 2.70 - 0.53 0.32 0.85 14 14 15 unchoked 7.09 9.55 1.35 2.70 - 1.00 0.64 1.64 15 11 17 choked 2.11 4.78 2.26 2.70 - 0.05 0.00 0.05 16 16 17 choked 3.87 6.37 1.46 2.20 - 0.07 0.31 0.38 17 17 18 unchoked 6.79 6.37 0.94 2.70 - 0.52 0.31 0.83 18 18 19 unchoked 6.79 7.96 1.17 2.70 - 0.54 0.31 0.85 19 19 20 unchoked 6.79 9.55 1.41 2.70 - 1.01 0.62 1.63 20 21 22 unchoked 9.83 6.35 0.65 3.00 - 0.06 0.30 0.36 21 22 23 choked 9.83 6.35 0.65 3.00 - 0.06 0.30 0.36 22 23 24 unchoked 9.83 7.93 0.81 3.00 - 0.07 0.60 0.67 23 24 25 unchoked 9.83 9.52 0.97 3.00 - 0.08 0.60 0.68 24 26 27 unchoked 14.68 9.52 0.65 3.25 - 0.98 0.30 1.28 25 27 28 unchoked 14.68 9.52 0.65 3.25 - 0.08 0.60 0.68 26 28 29 unchoked 14.68 9.52 0.65 3.25 - 0.98 0.30 1.28 27 30 31 unchoked 13.49 9.52 0.71 3.20 - 0.97 0.30 1.27 28 31 32 unchoked 13.49 9.52 0.71 3.20 - 0.53 0.60 1.13 29 32 33 unchoked 13.49 9.52 0.71 3.20 - 0.97 0.30 1.27 30 6 1 unchoked 18.40 6.27 0.33 5.80 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03, 0.03** 31 7 2 unchoked 18.40 6.27 0.33 5.80 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03, 0.03** 32 8 3 unchoked 18.40 6.27 0.33 5.80 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03, 0.03** 33 9 4 unchoked 23.36 6.27 0.22 5.80 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03, 0.03** 34 10 5 unchoked 23.36 6.27 0.22 5.80 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03, 0.03** 35 34 6 choked 3.61 7.20 1.40 3.70 0.01 0.00 1.12 1.13, 0.90** 36 11 6 choked 3.61 7.20 1.40 3.70 0.01 0.00 1.12 1.13, 0.90** 37 12 7 unchoked 7.22 6.19 0.62 3.70 0.01 0.00 1.12 1.13, 0.90** 38 13 8 unchoked 7.22 6.19 0.62 3.70 0.01 0.27 1.12 1.40, 1.17** 39 14 9 unchoked 10.84 6.19 0.41 3.70 0.01 0.00 1.12 1.13, 0.90** 40 15 10 unchoked 10.84 6.19 0.41 3.70 0.01 0.00 1.12 1.13, 0.90** 41 12 17 unchoked 8.56 4.80 0.56 3.70 0.01 0.45 0.00 0.46 42 13 18 unchoked 8.56 4.80 0.56 3.70 0.01 0.45 0.00 0.46 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-24 (SHEET 2 OF 2)
TABLE 6.2-24 REV. 0 HEAD LOSS, K VENT PATH NO. FROM VOL.
NODE NO. TO VOL.
NODE NO. DESCRIPTION OF VENT PATH FLOW AREA* (ft 2) LENGTH (ft) (L/A) (ft
-1) HYDRAULIC DIAMETER (ft) FRICTION LOSS, K f TURNING LOSS, K bl EXPANSION
AND CONTRACTION, K g TOTAL 43 14 19 unchoked 12.84 4.80 0.37 3.70 0.01 0.45 0.00 0.46 44 15 20 unchoked 11.65 4.80 0.41 3.70 0.01 0.43 0.00 0.44 45 34 16 choked 5.94 4.80 0.94 3.70 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 46 11 16 unchoked 5.94 4.80 0.94 3.70 0.03 0.85 0.00 0.88 47 16 21 choked 7.72 4.54 0.44 3.70 0.01 0.00 0.66 0.67 48 17 22 choked 7.72 5.55 0.59 3.70 0.02 0.00 0.66 0.68 49 18 23 unchoked 7.72 5.55 0.59 3.70 0.02 0.00 0.66 0.68 50 19 24 unchoked 11.57 5.55 0.40 3.70 0.02 0.00 0.66 0.68 51 20 25 unchoked 11.57 5.50 0.40 3.70 0.02 0.00 0.66 0.68 52 21 26 choked 7.72 8.00 0.80 3.90 0.03 0.27 0.66 0.96 53 22 26 choked 3.86 8.00 1.60 3.90 0.03 0.35 0.66 1.04 54 22 27 choked 3.86 8.00 1.60 3.90 0.03 0.35 0.66 1.04 55 23 27 choked 7.72 8.00 0.80 3.90 0.03 0.00 0.66 0.69 56 24 28 unchoked 11.57 8.00 0.54 3.90 0.03 0.27 0.66 0.96 57 25 29 unchoked 11.57 8.00 0.54 3.90 0.03 0.28 0.66 0.97 58 26 30 choked 11.57 9.20 0.60 3.90 0.03 0.31 0.66 1.00 59 27 31 choked 11.57 9.20 0.60 3.90 0.03 0.35 0.66 1.04 60 28 32 choked 11.57 9.20 0.60 3.90 0.03 0.28 0.66 0.97 61 29 33 choked 11.57 9.20 0.60 3.90 0.03 0.31 0.66 1.00 62 30 36 choked 9.27 - 1.05 - 0.01 0.00 0.74 0.75 63 31 36 choked 13.90 - 0.70 - 0.02 0.00 1.67 1.69 64 32 36 choked 13.90 - 0.70 - 0.02 0.00 1.67 1.69 65 33 36 choked 9.27 - 1.05 - 0.01 0.00 0.74 0.75 66 33 36 choked 2.04 - 1.05 - - - - 1.72 67 32 36 choked 0.68 - 3.39 - - - - 1.71 68 31 36 choked 2.10 - 1.11 - - - - 1.71 69 30 36 choked 1.77 - 1.25 - - - - 1.72 70 36 37 unchoked 400. - 0.06 - - - - 0.05 71 29 37 choked 1.39 - 1.50 - - - - 1.73 72 28 37 choked 0.71 - 3.30 - - - - 1.71 73 27 37 choked 0.71 - 3.30 - - - - 1.71 74 26 37 choked 1.39 - 1.50 - - - - 1.71 75 37 38 unchoked 965. - 0.03 - - - - 0.05 76 20 38 choked 1.25 - 1.97 - - - - 1.71 77 19 38 choked 1.07 - 2.20 - - - - 1.71 78 18 38 choked 0.71 - 3.30 - - - - 1.71 79 17 38 choked 0.71 - 3.30 - - - - 1.71 80 15 38 choked 1.25 - 1.97 - - - - 1.71 81 14 38 choked 1.07 - 2.20 - - - - 1.71 82 13 38 choked 1.47 - 1.50 - - - - 1.71 83 12 38 choked 0.71 - 3.30 - - - - 1.71 84 11 38 choked 0.71 - 3.30 - - - - 1.71 85 35 38 choked 1.08 - 2.43 - - - - 1.71 86 0 35 choked 1.00 - 0.00 - - - - 0.00
- Minimum cross-sectional area. **Loss coefficient for reverse flow.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-25 (SHEET 1 OF 2)
TABLE 6.2-25 REV. 0 - APRIL 1984 SUBCOMPARTMENT VENT PATH DESCRIPTION FEEDWATER LINE BREAK WITH SHIELDING DOORS HEAD LOSS, K VENT PATH NO. FROM VOL. NODE NO. TO VOL. NODE NO. DESCRIPTION OF VENT PATH FLOW AREA* (ft 2) LENGTH (ft)
(L/A) (ft
-1) HYDRAULIC DIAMETER (ft)
FRICTION LOSS, K f TURNING LOSS, K bl EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION, K E
TOTAL 1 1 2 unchoked 14.86 8.97 0.60 4.05 - 0.15 0.14 0.29 2 2 3 unchoked 14.86 8.97 0.60 4.05 - 0.15 0.28 0.43 3 3 4 unchoked 14.86 8.97 0.60 4.05 - 0.15 0.14 0.29 4 5 6 unchoked 20.19 9.06 0.45 4.40 - 0.09 0.16 0.25 5 6 7 unchoked 20.19 9.06 0.45 4.40 - 0.09 0.32 0.41 6 7 8 unchoked 20.19 9.06 0.45 4.40 - 0.09 0.16 0.25 7 9 10 unchoked 13.88 9.55 0.69 3.10 - 1.00 0.31 1.31 8 10 11 unchoked 13.88 9.55 0.69 3.10 - 0.65 0.62 1.27 9 11 12 unchoked 13.88 9.55 0.69 3.10 - 1.00 0.31 1.31 10 13 14 unchoked 9.83 6.35 0.65 3.00 - 0.06 0.45 0.51 11 14 15 unchoked 9.83 6.35 0.65 3.00 - 0.06 0.45 0.51 12 15 16 unchoked 9.83 7.80 0.81 3.00 - 0.08 0.30 0.38 13 16 17 unchoked 9.83 9.52 0.97 3.00 - 0.09 0.30 0.39 14 18 19 unchoked 14.68 6.35 0.44 3.25 - 0.49 0.30 0.79 15 19 20 unchoked 14.68 6.35 0.44 3.25 - 0.53 0.30 0.83 16 20 21 unchoked 14.68 6.35 0.54 3.25 - 0.51 0.00 0.51 17 21 22 unchoked 14.68 6.35 0.65 3.25 - 0.55 0.30 0.85 18 29 23 choked 5.42 2.50 0.40 2.52 - 0.85 0.00 0.85 19 23 24 choked 16.19 3.17 0.20 3.20 - 0.03 0.30 0.33 20 24 25 choked 16.19 4.76 0.30 3.20 - 0.05 0.00 0.05 21 25 26 unchoked 16.19 6.35 0.40 3.20 - 0.73 0.60 1.33 22 26 27 unchoked 16.19 7.93 0.50 3.20 - 0.74 0.60 1.34 23 27 28 unchoked 16.19 9.52 0.60 3.20 - 0.09 0.30 0.39 24 5 1 unchoked 23.80 6.27 0.26 5.80 - 0.00 0.00 0.03 25 6 2 unchoked 23.80 6.27 0.26 5.80 - 0.00 0.00 0.03 26 7 3 unchoked 23.80 6.27 0.26 5.80 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 27 8 4 unchoked 23.80 6.27 0.26 5.80 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 28 9 5 unchoked 10.84 8.53 0.54 3.70 0.02 0.26 0.85 1.13, 1.28** 29 10 6 unchoked 10.84 8.53 0.54 3.70 0.02 0.26 0.85 1.13, 1.28** 30 11 7 unchoked 10.84 8.53 0.54 3.70 0.02 0.26 0.85 1.13, 1.28** 31 12 8 unchoked 10.84 8.53 0.54 3.70 0.02 0.26 0.85 1.13, 1.28**
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-25 (SHEET 2 OF 2)
TABLE 6.2-25 REV. 0 - APRIL 1984 HEAD LOSS, K VENT PATH NO. FROM VOL. NODE NO. TO VOL. NODE NO. DESCRIPTION OF VENT PATH FLOW AREA* (ft 2) LENGTH (ft)
(L/A) (ft
-1) HYDRAULIC DIAMETER (ft)
FRICTION LOSS, K f TURNING LOSS, K bl EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION, K E
TOTAL 32 13 9 unchoked 7.22 8.00 0.83 3.70 0.02 0.31 0.63 0.96 33 14 9 unchoked 3.61 8.00 1.66 3.70 0.02 0.31 0.63 0.96 34 14 10 unchoked 3.61 8.00 1.66 3.70 0.02 0.31 0.63 0.96 35 15 10 unchoked 7.22 8.00 0.83 3.70 0.02 0.31 0.63 0.96 36 16 11 unchoked 10.84 8.00 0.56 3.70 0.02 0.31 0.63 0.96 37 17 12 unchoked 10.84 8.00 0.56 3.70 0.02 0.36 0.63 1.01 38 18 13 choked 7.71 8.00 0.80 3.90 0.02 0.00 0.66 0.68 39 19 14 choked 7.71 8.00 0.80 3.90 0.02 0.35 0.66 1.03 40 20 15 unchoked 7.71 8.00 0.80 3.90 0.02 0.28 0.66 0.96 41 21 16 unchoked 11.57 8.00 0.54 3.90 0.02 0.29 0.66 0.97 42 22 17 unchoked 11.57 8.00 0.54 3.90 0.02 0.28 0.66 0.96 43 23 18 choked 3.86 10.08 1.94 3.90 0.04 0.00 0.66 0.70 44 24 18 choked 3.96 10.08 1.94 3.90 0.04 0.00 0.66 0.70 45 25 19 choked 7.71 10.08 0.97 3.90 0.04 0.28 0.66 0.98 46 26 20 choked 7.71 10.08 0.97 3.90 0.04 0.30 0.66 1.00 47 27 21 unchoked 11.57 10.08 0.65 3.90 0.04 0.29 0.66 0.99 48 28 22 unchoked 11.57 10.08 0.65 3.90 0.04 0.27 0.66 0.97 49 23 30 choked 1.54 - 3.60 - 0.01 0.00 1.60 1.61 50 24 30 choked 3.86 - 1.30 - 0.02 0.00 1.05 1.07 51 25 30 choked 7.71 - 1.06 - 0.02 0.00 1.97 1.99 52 26 30 choked 7.71 - 1.06 - 0.02 0.00 1.97 1.99 53 27 30 unchoked 9.27 - 0.79 - 0.01 0.00 2.39 2.40 54 28 30 unchoked 11.57 - 0.65 - 0.02 0.00 1.80 1.82 55 29 30 choked 0.68 - 3.96 - - - - 1.71 56 28 30 choked 0.68 - 3.96 - - - - 1.71 57 27 30 unchoked 1.36 - 1.98 - - - - 1.71 58 26 30 unchoked 1.36 - 1.70 - - - - 1.73 59 25 30 unchoked 0.68 - 3.96 - - - - 1.71 60 30 31 unchoked 400. - 0.06 - - - - 0.05 61 22 31 choked 0.71 - 3.86 - - - - 1.71 62 21 31 unchoked 1.39 - 1.70 - - - - 1.73 63 20 31 unchoked 0.68 - 2.98 - - - - 1.74 64 19 31 unchoked 1.42 - 1.93 - - - - 1.71 65 31 32 unchoked 965. - 0.03 - - - - 0.05 66 12 32 choked 2.89 - 0.90 - - - - 1.71 67 11 32 choked 2.50 - 1.17 - - - - 1.71 68 10 32 unchoked 2.50 - 1.17 - - - - 1.71 69 9 32 unchoked 2.14 - 1.29 - - - - 1.71 70 0 32 choked 1.0 - 0.0 - - - - 0.0
- Minimum cross-sectional area. ** Loss coefficient for reverse flow.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-26 TABLE 6.2-26 REV. 0 - APRIL 1984 MASS AND ENERGY RELEASE RATE DATA RECIRCULATION OUTLET LINE BREAK (For Biological Shield Pressurization Analysis)
BREAK AREA 2.753 ft 2 TIME (sec)
LIQUID MASS FLOW RATE (lb m/sec) STEAM MASS FLOW RATE (lb m/sec) LIQUID ENTHALPY (Btu/lb m) STEAM ENTHALPY (Btu/lb m) TOTAL MASS RELEASE RATE (lb m/sec) TOTAL ENERGY RELEASE RATE (Btu/sec) 0.0 0. 0. 527.4 1195.9 0. 0.
0.0020 742. 0. 527.4 1195.9 742. 3.92 x 10 5 0.0040 2388. 0. 527.4 1195.9 2388. 1.26 x l0 6 0.0060 4958. 0. 527.4 1195.9 4958. 2.62 x 10 6 0.0080 8926. 0. 527.4 1195.9 8926. 4.71 x l0 6 0.0100 14162. 0. 527.4 1195.9 14162. 7.47 x 10 6 0.0173 36184. 0. 527.4 1195.9 36184. l.91 x 10 6 0.0194 36184. 0. 527.4 1195.9 36184. 1.91 x 10 7 0.0194 18324. 0. 527.4 1195.9 18324. 9.67 x 10 6 0.0220 21146. 0. 527.4 1195.9 21146. 1.12 x 10 7 0.0240 22890. 0. 527.4 1195.9 22890. 1.21 x 10 7 0.0260 24294. 0. 527.4 1195.9 24294. l.28 x 10 7 0.0280 25222. 0. 527.4 1195.9 25222. 1.33 x 10 7 0.0300 25730. 0. 527.4 1195.9 25730. 1.36 x 10 7 0.0310 25770. 0. 527.4 1195.9 25770. 1.36 x 10 7 5.0 25770. 0. 527.4 1195.9 25770. 1.36 x 10 7 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-27 TABLE 6.2-27 REV. 0 - APRIL 1984 MASS AND ENERGY RELEASE RATE DATA FEEDWATER LINE BREAK (For biological shield pressurization analysis)
BREAK AREA 1.538 ft TIME (sec)
LIQUID MASS FLOW RATE (lb m/sec) STEAM MASS FLOW RATE (lb m/sec) LIQUID ENTHALPY (Btu/lb m) STEAM ENTHALPY (Btu/lb m) TOTAL MASS RELEASE RATE (lb m/sec) TOTAL ENERGY RELEASE RATE (Btu/sec) 0.0 14,197. 0. 397.8 1190. 14,197. 5.65 x 10 6 0.00105 14,197. 0. 397.8 1190. 14,197. 5.65 x 10 6 0.00106 21,599. 0. 397.8 1190. 21,599. 8.60 x 10 6 1.0 21,599. 0. 397.8 1190. 21,599. 8.60 x 10 6 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-28 (SHEET 1 OF 8) PRIMARY CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES TABLE 6.2-28 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 VALVE FUNCTION AND NUMBER VALVE GROUP(a) MAXIMUM ISOLATION TIME (Seconds) A. AUTOMATIC ISOLATION VALVES 1. Main Steam Is olation Valves 1(2)B21-F022A, B, C, D 1(2)B21-F028A, B, C, D 1 5* 2. Main Steam Line Drain Valves 1(2)B21-F016 1(2)B21-F019 1(2)B21-F067A, B, C, D 1 15 15 23 3. Reactor Coolant System Sample Line Valves (b) 1(2)B33-F019 1(2)B33-F020 3 5 4. Drywell Equipment Drain Valves 1(2)RE024 1(2)RE025 1(2)RE026 1(2)RE029 2 20 20 15 15 5. Drywell Floor Drain Valves 1(2)RF012 1(2)RF013 2 20 6. Reactor Water Cleanup Suction Valves 1(2)G33-F001(c) 1(2)G33-F004 5 10 7. RCIC Steam Line Valves 1(2)E51-F008(d) 1(2)E51-F063 1(2)E51-F076 8 20 15 15 8. Containment Vent and Purge Valves 1(2)VQ026 1(2)VQ027 1(2)VQ029 1(2)VQ030 1(2)VQ031 1(2)VQ032 1(2)VQ034 1(2)VQ035 1(2)VQ036 1(2)VQ040 1(2)VQ042 1(2)VQ043 1(2)VQ047 1(2)VQ048 1(2)VQ050 1(2)VQ051 1(2)VQ068 4 10 10 10 10 10 5 10 5 10 10 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 9. RCIC Turbine Exhaust Vacuum Breaker Line Valves 1(2)E51-F080 1(2)E51-F086 9 N/A LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-28 (SHEET 2 OF 8) PRIMARY CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES TABLE 6.2-28 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 VALVE FUNCTION AND NUMBER VALVE GROUP(a) MAXIMUM ISOLATION TIME (Seconds) A. AUTOMATIC ISOLATION VALVES (CONTINUED) 10. Containment Monitoring Valves 2 5 1(2)CM017A,B 1(2)CM0l8A,B 1(2)CM019A,B 1(2)CM020A,B 1(2)CM021B (f ) 1(2)CM022A (f) 1(2)CM025A (f) 1(2)CM026B(f) 1(2)CM027 1(2)CM028 1(2)CM029 1(2)CM030 1(2)CM031 1(2)CM032 1(2)CM033 1(2)CM034
- 11. Drywell Pneumatic Valves 1(2)IN001A and B 1(2)IN017 1(2)IN074 1(2)IN075 1(2)IN031 10 10 10 10 2 30 22 22 22 5 12. RHR Shutdown Cooling Mode Valves 1(2)E12-F008 1(2)E12-F009 1(2)E12-F023 1(2)E12-F053A and B 6 40 40 90 29 13. Tip Guide Tube Ball Valves (Five Valves) 1(2)C51-J004 7 N/A 14. Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water System Valves 1(2)WR029 1(2)WR040 1(2)WR179 1(2)WR180 2 30 15. Primary Containment Chilled Water Inlet Valves 1(2)VP113A and B 1(2)VP063A and B 2 90 40 16. Primary Containment Chilled Water Outlet Valves 1(2)VP053A and B 1(2)VP114A and B 2 40 90 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-28 (SHEET 3 OF 8) PRIMARY CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES TABLE 6.2-28 REV. 13 88 VALVE FUNCTION AND NUMBER VALVE GROUP(a) MAXIMUM ISOLATION TIME (Seconds) A. AUTOMATIC ISOLATION VALVES (CONTINUED) 17. Recirc. Hydraulic Flow Control Line Valves 1(2)B33-F338 A and B 1(2)B33-F339 A and B 1(2)B33-F340 A and B 1(2)B33-F341 A and B 1(2)B33-F342 A and B 1(2)B33-F343 A and B 1(2)B33-F344 A and B 1(2)B33-F345 A and B 2 5 18. Feedwater Testable Check Valves 1(2)B21-F032 A and B 2 N/A B. MANUAL ISOLATION VALVES
- 1. 1(2)FC086 N/A 2. 1(2)FC113 N/A 3. 1(2)FC114 N/A 4. 1(2)FC115 N/A 5. 1(2)MC027 (h) N/A 6. 1(2)MC033 (h) N/A 7. 1(2)SA042 (h) N/A 8. 1(2)SA046 (h) N/A 9. 1(2)CM039 N/A 10. 1(2)CM040 N/A 11. 1(2)CM041 N/A 12. 1(2)CM042 N/A 13. 1(2)CM043 N/A 14. 1(2)CM044 N/A 15. 1(2)CM045 N/A 16. 1(2)CM046 N/A 17. 1(2)CM085 N/A 18. 1(2)CM086 N/A 19. 1(2)CM089 N/A 20. 1(2)CM090 N/A C. EXCESS FLOW CHECK VALVES
- 1. 1(2)B21-F374
- 2. 1(2)B21-F376
- 3. 1(2)B21-F359
- 4. 1(2)B21-F355
- 5. 1(2)B21-F361
- 6. 1(2)B21-F378
- 7. 1(2)B21-F372
- 8. 1(2)B21-F370
- 9. 1(2)B21-F363
- 10. 1(2)B21-F353
- 11. 1(2)B21-F415A, B
- 12. 1(2)B21-F357
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-28 (SHEET 4 OF 8) PRIMARY CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES TABLE 6.2-28 REV. 13 VALVE FUNCTION AND NUMBER VALVE GROUP(a) MAXIMUM ISOLATION TIME (Seconds) C. EXCESS FLOW CHECK VALVES (CONTINUED) 13. 1(2)B21-F382
- 14. 1(2)B21-F328A, B, C, D
- 15. 1(2)B21-F327A, B, C, D
- 16. 1(2)B21-F413A, B
- 17. 1(2)B21-F344
- 18. 1(2)B21-F365
- 19. 1(2)B21-F443
- 20. 1(2)B21-F439
- 21. 1(2)B21-F437
- 22. 1(2)B21-F441
- 23. 1(2)B21-F445A, B
- 24. 1(2)B21-F453
- 25. 1(2)B21-F447
- 26. 1(2)B21-F455A, B
- 27. 1(2)B21-F451
- 28. 1(2)B21-F449
- 29. 1(2)B21-F367
- 30. 1(2)B21-F326A, B, C, D
- 31. 1(2)B21-F325A, B, C, D
- 32. 1(2)B21-F350
- 33. 1(2)B21-F346
- 34. 1(2)B21-F348
- 35. 1(2)B21-F471
- 36. 1(2)B21-F473
- 37. 1(2)B21-F469
- 38. 1(2)B21-F475A, B
- 39. 1(2)B21-F465A, B
- 40. 1(2)B21-F467
- 41. 1(2)B21-F463
- 42. 1(2)B21-F380
- 43. 1(2)G33-F312A, B
- 44. 1(2)G33-F309
- 45. 1(2)E12-F315
- 46. 1(2)E12-F359A, B
- 47. 1(2)E12-F319
- 48. 1(2)E12-F317
- 49. 1(2)E12-F360A, B
- 50. 1(2)E21-F304
- 51. 1(2)E22-F304
- 52. 1(2)E22-F341
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-28 (SHEET 5 OF 8) PRIMARY CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES TABLE 6.2-28 REV. 13 VALVE FUNCTION AND NUMBER VALVE GROUP(a) MAXIMUM ISOLATION TIME (Seconds) C. EXCESS FLOW CHECK VALVES (CONTINUED) 53. 1(2)E22-F342 54. 1(2)B33-F319A, B 55. 1(2)B33-F317A, B 56. 1(2)B33-F313A, B, C, D
- 57. 1(2)B33-F311A, B, C, D
- 58. 1(2)B33-F315A, B, C, D
- 59. 1(2)B33-F301A, B 60. 1(2)B33-F307A, B, C, D
- 61. 1(2)B33-F305A, B, C, D
- 62. 1(2)CM004 63. 1(2)CM002 64. 1(2)CM012 65. 1(2)CM010 66. 1(2)VQ061 67. 1(2)B21-F457 68. 1(2)B21-F459 69. 1(2)B21-F461 70. 1(2)CM102 71. 1(2)B21-F570 72. 1(2)B21-F571 D. OTHER ISOLATION VALVES 1. Deleted
- 3. Residual Heat Removal/Low Pressure Coolant Injection System 1(2)E12-F042A, B, C 1(2)E12-F016A, B 1(2)E12-F017A, B 1(2)E12-F004A, B, C 1(2)E12-F027A, B 1(2)E12-F024A, B 1(2)E12-F021 1(2)E12-F302 1(2)E12-F064A, B, C 1(2)E12-F011A, B 1(2)E12-F088A, B, C 1(2)E12-F025A, B, C 1(2)E12-F030 1(2)E12-F005
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-28 (SHEET 6 OF 8) PRIMARY CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES TABLE 6.2-28 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 VALVE FUNCTION AND NUMBER VALVE GROUP (a) MAXIMUM ISOLATION TIME (Seconds) D. OTHER ISOLATION VALVES (CONTINUED) 3. Residual Heat Removal/Low Pressure Coolant Injection System (Continued) 1(2)E12-F073A, B 1(2)E12-F074A, B 1(2)E12-F055A, B 1(2)E12-F036A, B 1(2)E12-F311A, B
- 4. Low Pressure Core Spray System 1(2)E21-F005 1(2)E21-F001 1(2)E21-F012 1(2)E21-F011 1(2)E21-F018 1(2)E21-F031
- 5. High Pressure Core Spray System 1(2)E22-F004 1(2)E22-F015 1(2)E22-F023 1(2)E22-F012 1(2)E22-F014
- 6. Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System 1(2)E51-F013 1(2)E51-F069 1(2)E51-F028 1(2)E51-F068 1(2)E51-F040 1(2)E51-F031 1(2)E51-F019 1(2)E51-F059(i) 1(2)E51-F022(i) 1(2)E51-F362(j) 1(2)E51-F363(j)
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-28 (SHEET 7 OF 8) PRIMARY CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES
TABLE 6.2-28 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 VALVE FUNCTION AND NUMBER VALVE GROUP (a) MAXIMUM ISOLATION TIME (Seconds) D. OTHER ISOLATION VALVES (CONTINUED) 8. Standby Liquid Control System 1(2)C41-F004A, B 1(2)C41-F006 1(2)C41-F007
- 9. Reactor Recirculation Seal Injection 1(2)B33-F013A, B 1(2)B33-F017A, B
- 10. Drywell Pneumatic System 1(2)IN018 1(2)IN100 1(2)IN101
- 11. Reference Leg Backfill 1(2)C11-F422B 1(2)C11-F422D 1(2)C11-F422F 1(2)C11-F422G 1(2)C11-F423B 1(2)C11-F423D 1(2)C11-F423F 1(2)C11-F423G
- 12. Control Rod Drive Insert Lines 1(2)C11-D001-120 1(2)C11-D001-123
- 13. Control Rod Drive Withdrawal Lines 1(2)C11-D001-121 1(2)C11-D001-122
- 14. RHR Shutdown Cooling 1(2)E12-F460
- 15. Reactor Coolant System Sample Line Valve 1(2)B33-F395
- 16. Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water 1(2)WR225/226
- 17. Primary Containment Chilled Water Inlet Valve 1(2)VP198A/B
- 18. Primary Containment Chilled Water Outlet Valve 1(2)VP197A/B
- 19. Containment Monitoring System 1(2)CM023B 1(2)CM024A
- But 3 seconds. a) See Technical Specification for isolation signal(s) that operates each valve group. b) May be opened on an intermittent basis under administrative control. c) Not closed by SLCS actuation. d) Deleted.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.2-28 (SHEET 8 OF 8) PRIMARY CONTAINMENT ISOLATION VALVES TABLE 6.2-28 REV. 13 e) Not closed by Trip Functions 4a, c, d, e or f of Technical Specification 3.3.2, Table 3.3.2-1. f) Opens on an isolation signal.
g) Also closed by drywell pressure-high signal h) These penetrations are provided with removable spools outboard of the outboard isolation valve. During operation, these lines will be blind flanged using a double O-ring. i) If valves 1(2)E51-F362 and 1(2)E51-F363 are lock ed closed and acceptably leak rate tested, then valves 1(2)E51-F059 and 1(2)E51-F022 are not considered to be primary containment isolation valves and are not required to be leak rate tested. j) Either the 1(2)E51-F362 or the 1(2)E51-F363 valve may be open when the RCIC system is in the standby mode of operation, and both valves may be open during operation of the RCIC system in the full flow test mode, providing that:
(1) valve 1(2)E51-F022 is acceptably leak rate tested, and (2) valve 1(2)E51-F059 is deactivated, locked closed and acceptably leak rate tested, and (3) the spectacle flange, installed immediately downstream of the 1(2)E51-F059 valve, is closed and acceptably leak rate tested.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-1 REV. 13 6.3 EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEMS 6.3.1 Design Bases
The objective of the emergency core coolin g systems (ECCS), in conjunction with the containment, is to limit the release of radioactive materials following a loss-of-coolant accident so that resulting radiation exposures are within the guideline values given in published regulations.
Safety design bases for the emergency core cooling systems are given in the following subsections.
6.3.1.1 Summary Description of the Emergency Core Cooling System The emergency core cooling system (ECCS) consists of a high-pressure core spray (HPCS) system, a low-pressure core spray (LPCS) system, a low-pressure coolant injection (LPCI) system, and an automatic depressurization system (ADS).
The HPCS consists of a single, motor-driven pump and associated piping, valves, controls and instrumentation. The system is designed to pump water over the entire range of operating pressures, and thus can spray water into the reactor vessel even if the reactor pressure remains near normal operating levels. For small breaks which do not result in rapid vessel depressurization, the HPCS maintains the proper reactor water level and depressurizes the vessel.
The HPCS sprays the top surface of the core until sufficient water accumulates in the vessel to reflood the core. Water is in jected into the vessel through nozzles in a circular sparger above and around the periphery of the core.
The LPCS is a loop similar to, but independent of, the HPCS. The low pressure system is designed to provide protection in case of larger breaks which would rapidly depressurize the reactor vessel. Like the HPCS, water from the LPCS enters the vessel through nozzles in a circu lar sparger located above and around the core periphery. The LPCS limits the maximu m cladding temperature and cools it to saturation upon flooding the core. This system acts to protect the core for intermediate and large breaks, and is a ssisted by the HPCS and ADS for small breaks. The LPCI is capable of delivering a large flood of water into the core to refill the vessel once it depressurizes. It consists of three residual heat removal subsystem pumps, each of which injects water into the vessel through its own separate piping and penetrations. The function of this system is to cool the core by flooding, thereby cooling the cladding to saturation after a LOCA. The LPCI acts to protect the core for intermediate or large breaks, and is assisted by the HPCS and ADS for small breaks.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-2 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 Because the spraying and flooding systems can draw water from the suppression pool, they have a continuous supply of water. Water and steam from the vessel which would be lost through a postulated pipe break are collected in the suppression pool. Likewise, water pumped by the ECCS and lost through a break would also accumulate in the suppression pool.
The ADS utilizes 7 of the 13 safety/relief va lves (Unit 2 has a total of 13 valves). These are activated as a backup to the HPCS to reduce vessel pressure in case of breaks for which depressurization is required, so that flow from the LPCI and LPCS can enter the vessel in time to cool th e core and limit cladding temperature.
6.3.1.1.1 Range of Cool ant Ruptures and Leaks The emergency core cooling systems provide adequate core cooling in the event of any size break or leak in the nuclear system process barrier up to and including the design-basis break and the double-ended recirculation line break.
6.3.1.1.2 Fission Product Decay Heat In the event of a loss-of-coolant accide nt, the emergency core cooling systems remove both residual stored heat and radioactive decay heat from the reactor core at a rate that limits the maximum fuel cl adding temperature to a value less than the 10 CFR 50 limit of acceptability of 2200
° F. The amount of heat to be removed is discussed in Section 6.2.
6.3.1.1.3 Reactivity Required for Cold Shutdown The reactor is designed to be in the cold shutdown condition with the control rod of highest reactivity worth fully withdrawn and all other control rods fully inserted.
Refer to Subsection 4.3.2 for a complete discussion.
6.3.1.2 Functional Requirement Design Bases
- a. Emergency core cooling systems are provided with sufficient capacity, diversity, reliability, and redundancy to cool the reactor core under all design-basis accident conditions.
- b. Emergency core cooling systems are initiated automatically by conditions that sense the potential inadequacy of the normal core cooling.
- c. The emergency core cooling sy stems are capable of startup and operation regardless of the avail ability of offsite power supplies and the normal generating system of the plant.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-3 REV. 13
- d. Action taken to effect containment integrity does not negate the ability to achieve core cooling. All ECCS pumps are designed to operate without benefit of containment back pressure.
- e. The components of the emergency core cooling systems within the reactor vessel are designed to withstand the transient mechanical loadings during a loss-of-coolant accident so that the required core cooling flow is not restricted.
- f. The equipment of the emergency core cooling systems can withstand the physical effects of a loss-of-coolant accident so that the core can be effectively cooled. Such effects considered are missiles, fluid jets, pipe whip, high temperature, pressure, humidity, and seismic acceleration.
- g. To provide a reliable supply of water for the emergency core cooling systems, the prime source of liquid for cooling the reactor core after a loss-of-coolant accident is a stored source located within the containment. The source is located so that a closed cooling water path is established during emergency core cooling systems operation.
6.3.1.3 Reliability Requirements Design Bases
The flow rate and sensing networks of each emergency core cooling system are testable during reactor shutdown. All active components are testable during normal operation of the nuclear system.
6.3.2 System Design
The ECCS, containing four separate subsyste ms, is designed to satisfy the following performance objectives:
- a. to prevent fuel cladding fragmentation for any mechanical failure of the nuclear boiler system up to, and including, a break equivalent to the largest nuclear boiler system pipe;
- b. to provide this protection by at least two independent, automatically actuated cooling systems;
- c. to function with or without external (offsite) power sources; and
- d. to permit testing of all ECCS by acceptable methods including, wherever practical, testing during power plant operations.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-4 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 The aggregate of these emergency core cooling systems is designed to protect the reactor core against fuel cladding dama ge (fragmentation) across the entire spectrum of line break accidents.
The power for operation of the ECCS is from regular a-c power sources. Upon loss of the regular power, operation is from onsite standby a-c power sources. Standby sources have sufficient diversity and capacity so that all ECCS requirements are satisfied. The HPCS is powered from one a-c supply bus. The LPCS and one LPCI are powered from a second a-c supply bus and the two remaining LPCI are powered from a third and separate a-c supply bus. The HPCS has its own diesel generator as its alternate power supply. The LPCS and one LPCI loops switch to one site backup power supply and the other two LPCI loops switch to a second site backup power supply.
All systems start automatically. The star ting signal comes from at least two independent and redundant sensors of drywell pressure and low reactor vessel water level. Refer to Subsection 7.3.1.
2 for a complete discussion of the ECCS instrumentation and starting and control logic.
Further discussion of the integrated performance of the ECCS is presented in Subsection 6.3.3.7. The bounds within which system parameters must be maintained and the acceptable inoperable components are discussed in the Technical Specifications.
6.3.2.1 Schematic Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams Piping and instrumentation diagrams fo r the subsystems and components which constitute the ECCS are provided and are re ferenced under the discussion of that subsystem or component.
6.3.2.2 Equipment and Component Descriptions
6.3.2.2.1 High-Pressure Core Spray (HPCS) System The high-pressure core spray (HPCS) system consists of a single motor-driven pump located outside the primary containment and associated system piping, valves, controls and instrumentation. The system is designed to operate from normal offsite auxiliary power or from a standby diesel-generator supply if offsite power is not available. The piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) for the HPCS is shown in Drawing Nos. M-95 and M-141. The HPCS system process diagram is shown in Figure 6.3-1.
The principal HPCS equipment is located outside the primary containment. Suction piping is provided from the suppression pool. The suppression pool water LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-5 REV. 13 source assures a closed cooling water supply for extended operation of the HPCS system. After the HPCS injection piping enters the vessel, it divides and enters the shroud at two points near the top of the shroud. A semicircular sparger is attached to each outlet. Nozzles are spaced around the spargers to spray the water radially over the core and into the fuel assemblies. The HPCS in jection piping is provided with an isolation valve on each side of the containment barrier. Remote controls for operating the valves and diesel generator are provided in the plant control room.
The controls and instrumentation of the HPCS system are described, illustrated, and evaluated in detail in Chapter 7.0.
The HPCS system is designed to cool the reactor core sufficiently to prevent fuel cladding temperatures from exceeding the 10 CFR 50 limit of 2200
° F following any break in the nuclear system piping. The system is designed to pump water into the reactor vessel over a wide range of pressures.
For small breaks that do not result in rapid reactor depressurization, the syst em maintains reactor water level and depressurizes the vessel. For large breaks the HPCS system cools the core by a spray. If a loss-of-coolant accident should occur, a low water level signal or a high drywell pressure signal initiates a reactor scram, the HPCS and its support equipment. The HPCS flow automatically stops when a high water level in the reactor vessel is signaled. The HPCS system also serves as a backup to the RCIC system in the event the reactor becomes isolated from the main condenser during operation and feedwater flow is lost.
If normal auxiliary power is not available, the HPCS pump motor is driven by its own onsite power source. The HPCS standby power source is discussed in Section 8.3.
The HPCS system vessel pressure versus flow characteristic assumed in LOCA analyses is shown in Figure 6.3-2.
Figure 6.3-10 shows the minimum required pump head for HPCS system in order to meet the LOCA analyses assumptions. When the system is started, initial flow rate is established by primary system pressure. As vessel pressure decreases, flow will increase. When vessel pressure reaches 200 psid (differential pressure between the reactor vessel and the suction source) the system reaches rated core spray flow. The HPCS motor size is based on peak horsepower requirements.
The elevation of the HPCS pump is below the water level of the suppression pool. This assures a flooded pump suction. Pu mp NPSH requirements are met even with the containment at atmospheric pressure by providing adequate suction head and suction line size. The HPCS pump characteristics, head, flow, horsepower, and required NPSH are shown in Figure 6.3-3.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-6 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 If the HPCS line should break outside th e containment, a check valve in the line inside the drywell will prevent loss of reactor water outside the containment. The HPCS pump and piping are positioned to av oid damage from the physical effects of design-basis accidents, such as pipe whip, missiles, high temperature, pressure, and humidity.
To assure continuous core cooling, signal s to isolate the containment do not operate any HPCS valves which could affect flow to the reactor pressure vessel.
The HPCS equipment and support structures are designed in accordance with Seismic Category I criteria (Chapter 3.0). The system is assumed to be filled with water for seismic analysis.
6.3.2.2.2 Automatic Depressurization System (ADS)
If the RCIC and HPCS cannot maintain the reactor water level, the automatic depressurization system, which is independent of any other ECCS, reduces the reactor pressure so that flow from LPCI and LPCS systems enters the reactor vessel in time to cool the core and limit fuel cladding temperature.
The automatic depressurization system employs nuclear system pressure relief valves to relieve high-pressure steam to the suppression pool. The design, number, location, description, and evaluation of the pressure relief valves are discussed in detail in Subsection 5.2.2.
4.1. The operation of the ADS is discussed in Subsection 7.3.1.2.2. The piping and instrument diagram (P&ID) for the ADS is shown in Drawings M-55 and M-116.
6.3.2.2.3 Low-Pressure Core Spray (LPCS) System
The low-pressure core spray system consists of a centrifugal pump that can be powered by normal auxiliary power or the standby a-c power system; a spray sparger in the reactor vessel above the co re (separate from the HPCS sparger);
piping and valves to convey water from the suppression pool to the sparger; and associated controls and instrumentation.
Drawing Nos. M-94 and M-140 show the P&ID for the low-pressure core spray system, and Figure 6.3-4 shows the process diagram for the low-pressure core spray system.
When low water level in the reactor vessel or high pressure in the drywell is sensed, with reactor vessel pressure low enough, the low-pressure core spray system automatically sprays water into the top of th e fuel assemblies to cool the core. This action is initiated in conjunction with other ECCS subsystems soon enough, and at a sufficient flow rate to maintain the fuel cladding temperature below 2200
° F. (The low-pressure coolant injection system starts from the same signals and operates independently to achieve the same objective by flooding the reactor vessel.)
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-7 REV. 13 The low-pressure core spray system protects the core in the event of a large break in the nuclear system and when the HPCS is unable to maintain reactor vessel water level. Such protection extends to a small break in which the ADS or HPCS has operated to lower the reactor vessel pressu re to the operating range of the LPCS. The system vessel pressure versus flow characteristic assumed for LOCA analyses is shown in Figure 6.3-5. Figure 6.3-11 shows the minimum required pump head for the LPCS system in order to m eet the LOCA analyses assumption.
The LPCS pump receives power from an a-c power bus having standby power source backup supply. The pump motor and associ ated automatic motor-operated valves for the LPCS and one LPCI loop receive a-c power from the same bus, while another bus provides a-c power for equipment on the other two LPCI loops (Section 8.3).
The low-pressure core spray pump and all motor-operated valves can be operated individually by manual switches located in the control room. Operating indication is provided in the control room by a flowmeter and valve indicator lights.
To assure continuity of core cooling, signals to isolate the containment do not operate any low-pressure core spray system valves which could affect flow to the reactor pressure vessel.
The LPCS injection check valve is the only low-pressure core spray equipment in the containment required during a loss-of-coolant accident that requires consideration for the high temperature and humidity environment in the drywell resulting from the accident. The valve actuates on flow through the pipeline, independent of any external signal. The actuator is provided only for local repositioning. Thus, neither the normal nor accident environment in the drywell affects the operability of the low-pressure core spray equipment for the accident.
The LPCS system piping and support structures are designed in accordance with Seismic Category I criteria (Chapter 3.0). The system is assumed to be filled with water for seismic analysis.
LPCS flow passes through a motor-operated pump suction valve that is normally open. This valve can be closed by a remote manual switch (located in the control room) to isolate the LPCS system from the suppression pool should a leak develop in that system. This valve is located in the core spray pump suction line as close to the suppression pool penetration as practical. Because the LPCS conveys water from the suppression pool, a closed loop is established for the spray water escaping from the break.
The LPCS pump is located in the reacto r building below the water level in the suppression pool to assure positive pump suction. Pump NPSH requirements are met with the containment at atmospheric pressure. A pressure gauge is provided to indicate the suction head. The LPCS pump characteristics are shown in Figure 6.3-6.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-8 REV. 13 6.3.2.2.4 Low-Pressure Coolant Injection (LPCI) Subsystem
The low-pressure coolant injection subsys tem is one of the independent operating subsystems of the RHR system. The LPCI su bsystem is actuated by low water level in the reactor or high pressure in the drywell. The subsystem, in conjunction with other ECC subsystems, is required to flood the core before fuel cladding temperature reaches 2200
° F and then to maintain water level.
LPCI operation provides protection to the core for a large break in the nuclear system in addition to the LPCS and HPCS. Protection provided by LPCI also extends to a small break in which the ADS or HPCS have reduced the reactor vessel pressure to the LPCI operating range. The vessel pressure versus flow characteristic assumed in the LOCA anal yses for the LPCI pumps is shown in Figure 6.3-7. Figure 6.3-12 shows the minimum required pump head for the LPCI system in order to meet the LOCA analyses assumptions.
Figure 6.3-8 shows the schematic process diagram (and process data) of the RHR system. The LPCI subsystem uses the three RHR motor-driven centrifugal pumps to convey water from the suppression pool to the reactor vessel through three separate nozzles. The RHR pumps receiv e power from a-c power buses having standby power source backup supply. Tw o RHR pump motors and the associated automatic motor-operated valves receive a-c power from one bus, while the LPCS
pump and the other RHR pump motor and valves receive power from another bus (Section 8.3).
The pump, piping, control and instrumentation of the LPCI loops are separated and protected so that any single physical event, or missiles generated by rupture of any pipe in any system within the drywell, cannot make all loops inoperable.
To assure continuity of core cooling, signals to isolate the primary containment do not operate any RHR system valves which interfere with the LPCI mode of operation.
The LPCI injection check valves on each LPCI line are the only LPCI components in the drywell required to actuate during a loss-of-coolant accident that require consideration for the high temperature and humidity environment in the drywell resulting from the accident. The valves actuate on flow through the pipeline, independent of any external signal. The actuator is provided only for local repositioning. Thus, neither the normal nor accident environment in the containment affects the operability of the low-pressure coolant injection equipment for the accident.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-9 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 Using the suppression pool as the source of water for LPCI establishes a closed loop for recirculation of LPCI water escaping from the break. LPCI pumps and equipment are described in detail in Subsecti on 5.4.7, which also describes the other functions served by the same pumps if not needed for the LPCI function. The portions of the RHR required for accident protection are designed in accordance with Seismic Category I criteria (Chapter 3.0). The piping and instrument diagram (P&ID) for the LPCI is shown in Drawings M-96 and M-142.
6.3.2.2.5 ECCS Discharge Line Fill System
One design requirement of any core cooling system is that cooling water flow to the reactor vessel be initiated rapidly when the system is called on to perform its function. This quick start system characteristic is provided by quick opening valves, quick start pumps, and standby a-c power source. The lag between the signal pump start and the initiation of flow into the RPV can be minimized by always keeping the core cooling pump discharge lines full. If these lines were empty when the systems were called for, the large momentum forces associated with accelerating fluid into a dry pipe could ca use physical damage to the piping. The ECCS discharge line fill system maintains the pump discharge lines in a filled condition.
Since the ECCS discharge lines are elevated above the suppression pool, check valves are provided near the pumps to prevent back flow from emptying the lines into the suppression pool. Past experience has shown that these valves will leak slightly, producing a small back flow that will eventually empty the discharge piping. To ensure that this leakage from the discharge lines is replaced and the lines are always kept filled, a water leg pump is provided for each ECCS division.
The power supply to these pumps is classi fied as essential when the main ECCS pumps are deactivated. Indication is provided in the control room as to whether these pumps are operating, and ESF system status lights indicate low discharge lines pressure. The piping and instrume nt diagram (P&ID) for the ECCS is shown on the P&IDs for HPCS, LPCS, and LPCI.
6.3.2.2.6 ECCS Pumps NPSH The ECCS pump specifications are such th at the NPSH requirements for HPCS, LPCS and LPCI are met with the containment at atmospheric pressure and the suppression pool at saturation temperature. Calculations were performed to evaluate ECCS NPSH requirements post DBA-LOCA. The calculations used the
following conservative inputs:
- 1. Maximum ECCS pump flow - unthrottled system, reactor pressure at 0 psid, maximizing suction friction losses and NPSH required.
LPCI pump - 8100 gpm LPCS pump - 8100 gpm HPCS pump - 7000 gpm LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-10 REV. 13
- 2. Increased clean, commercial steel piping friction losses to account for potential aging effects, thus maximizing suction losses. An absolute roughness of
0.0005 ft was used (vs. 0.00015 ft. for clea n pipe), resulting in an increase in calculated head loss of about 22 percent.
- 3. To account for strainer plugging, the he ad loss across the debris bed formed on the stacked disk replacem ent strainers installed at the suction of the ECCS pumps due to accumulation of insulation debris and miscellaneous fibrous and particulate matter debris produced as a result of a LOCA is determined. This head loss is added to the head loss associated with a clean strainer.
- 4. Containment conditions used in the analysis are containment at atmospheric pressure and the suppression pool at saturation temperature (212F).
- 5. A minimum suppression pool elevation of 695' 11-1/2" is used. This includes a worst-case post-LOCA drawdown of 43 inches.
- 6. NPSH Required values for the ECCS pumps are taken from the vendor pump curves. With respect to the pump suction inlet centerline, the NPSH Required is: LPCI pump - 14.0 ft. @8100 gpm LPCS pump - 2.0 ft. @8100 gpm HPCS pump - 5.0 ft. @7000 gpm The calculations determined that adequate NPSH exists to meet ECCS pump requirements post LOCA for all ECCS pumps.
Additionally, adequate margin exists to ensure that flashing does not occur in any of the ECCS pump suction lines post-LOCA.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-11 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 ECCS PUMP NPSH AND FLASHING M ARGINS FOR LIMITING SUPPRESSION POOL CONDITIONS Pump Pump Flow Rate (gpm) Strainer Margin for NPSH (ft.) Strainer Margin for Flashing (ft.) Clean Strainer Head Loss 1 (ft.) Head Loss due to post-LOCA debris 2 (ft.) NPSH Margin (ft.) RHR/LPCI 8100 5.4 12.4 0.71 3.6 1.1 LPCS 8100 17.6 12.6 0.71 3.6 8.3 HPCS 7000 14.0 11.6 0.53 3.6 7.4 1 0.76 feet @8400 gpm 2 Maximum value (@8100 gpm, Unit 2) 6.3.2.2.7 Design Pre ssures and Temperatures The design pressures and temperatures at various points in the system, during each of the several modes of operation of the ECC subsystems, can be obtained from the miscellaneous information blocks on the fo llowing process diagrams: Figure 6.3-1 for the HPCS, Figure 6.3-4 for the LPCS, and Figure 6.3-8 for the LPCI.
The operational characteristics of the ADS valves are presented in Subsection 5.2.2.
6.3.2.2.8 Coolant Quantity
With reference to the Mark II containment at LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2, the HPCS system normally takes suction from the suppression pool which contains a minimum of 128,800 cubic feet of water.
The LPCS and LPCI systems also take suction from the suppression pool for their source of water.
The CSCS equipment cooling water system source (cooling lake) which provides the ultimate heat sink for cooling the suppression pool during the recovery from a DBA has sufficient capacity to accept heat from the suppression pool and prevent it from exceeding 200
° F.
6.3.2.2.9 Pump Characteristics Pump characteristic curves and the pump power requirements for all ECCS pump are shown in Figures 6.3-3, 6.3-6, and 6.3-9. Pump power requirements are given in Chapter 8.0.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-12 REV. 13 6.3.2.2.10 Heat Exchanger Characteristics
There are no heat exchangers in the closed cooling water path associated with the emergency core cooling subsystems. The heat exchangers in the RHR system are discussed in Section 6.2.
6.3.2.2.11 ECCS Flow Diagrams
A schematic diagram and the flow rates and pressures of the various ECCS subsystems can be obtained from the follo wing process diagrams: Figure 6.3-1, High-Pressure Core Spray System; Figure 6.3-4, Low-Pressure Core Spray System; and Figure 6.3-8, Residual Heat Removal System. (The RHR process diagrams show the low-pressure coolant injection system.) These parameters are presented for several modes of operation, including loss-of-coolant accident and test conditions.
6.3.2.2.12 Relief Valves and Vents
The ECC subsystems contain relief valves to protect the components and piping from inadvertent overpressure conditions.
The HPCS system has one relief valve on the discharge side of the pump downstream of the check valve to relieve thermally expanded fluid:
Nominal relief setting: 1500 psig.
HPCS suction side relief valve:
Nominal relief setting: 100 psig Capacity: > 10 gpm, 10% Accumulation.
The LPCS system pump discharge relief valve:
Nominal relief setting: 550 psig Capacity: 100 gpm, 10% Accumulation.
LPCS suction side relief valve:
Nominal relief setting: 100 psig Capacity: > 10 gpm, 10% Accumulation.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-13 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 The LPCI system pump discharge relief valve (one for each of three pumps):
Nominal relief setting: 500 psig.
6.3.2.2.13 Motor-Operated Va lves and Controls (General)
Motor-operated valves are used in the RHR, HPCS, and LPCS emergency core cooling (ECC) systems; they are also used in the RCIC, feedwater, recirculation, reactor water cleanup (RWCU), standby gas treatment, standby liquid control, main
steam, and hydrogen recombiner systems.
In addition, motor-operated valves are installed on various primary and secondary containment isolation lines, certain sample lines for containment sampling in the post-LOCA condition, and other lines as indicated in Table 6.3-9.
Valve motor operators in these safety systems are provided with thermal overload protection devices. To ensure that the thermal overloads will not prevent the motor-operated valves from performing their safety-related functions under emergency conditions, the thermal overload protection devices are either bypassed under accident conditions or have sufficiently high trip setpoints to prevent inadvertent trips during valve operatio n per Regulatory Guide 1.106, Rev. 1. Thermal overload bypass circuits are normally installed on the safety-related motor-operated valves that are required to operate during or immediately following an accident such as the primary containment automatic isolation, emergency core
cooling, and RCIC system valves. Ther mal overload bypass circuits are not installed on the hydrogen recombiner valves since these valves are not required to be operated until several hours after the accident has occurred. In addition, these valves are normally closed and are prov ided with only a remote manual control system. For the valves equipped with thermal overlo ad bypass circuits, the thermal overload protection is either (1) normally in the circuit but automatically bypassed whenever
any safety-related use of the valve is initiated, or (2) continuously bypassed and temporarily placed in the circuit via a test switch when the motors are undergoing periodic surveillance or maintenance testing.
To prevent the valve motors from bein g damaged during normal operation or surveillance testing when the thermal overloads are not bypassed, the thermal overloads are set to trip the valve motor operators during locked rotor conditions. A schematic or typical thermal overload bypass arrangement is shown in Figure 6.3-47 and a list of motor-operated valves which have their thermal overload protection bypassed during an accident condition is given in Table 6.3-9.
For the hydrogen recombiner motor-operated valves, the thermal overloads are always in the circuit. However, setting calculations based on IEEE-741-1990 demonstrate that the thermal overloads for these valves will not inadvertently trip LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-14 REV. 13 during required valve operation. The trip setpoints of these thermal overloads have been verified to account for the uncertainti es due to the ambient temperature at the location of the overload device following an accident and the inaccuracies in the device trip characteristics.
Further information on motor-operated valves and controls is provided in Subsection 6.2.4.
6.3.2.2.14 Process Instrumentation
Multiple instrumentation is available to th e operator in the control room to assist him in assessing the post-LOCA conditions.
Basically, these indications are two varieties: those which indicate the pressures, temperatures and level in the reactor vessel and in the containment; and those that
provide indication of operation of the ECCS, position of valves and circuit breakers and flows of ECCS systems.
The most significant instruments in the first category would be:
- a. reactor vessel level, b. reactor vessel pressure, c. containment pressure, d. containment temperature, e. suppression pool level, and
- f. suppression pool temperature, and in the category of ECCS:
of the above system in Chapters 5.0 and 6.
- 0. Discussion of instrumentation also appears in some detail in Chapter 7.0.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-14a REV. 14, APRIL 2002 6.3.2.2.15 Scram Discharge System Pipe Break In August 1981, the U. S. Nuclear Regu latory Commission published NUREG-0803, "Generic Safety Evaluation Report regarding integrity of BWR Scram System Piping". This document addressed the possibility of Scram Sy stem pipe breaks outside the primary containment. Specifically, a generic BWR probabilistic risk assessment in that document indicated that the postulated Scram Discharge Volume (SDV) event is not a dominant contributor to the probability of core damage. However, NRC guidance in Chapter 5 of NUREG-0803 required that certain plant specific issues be addressed by BWR owners. These plant specific issues included (1) Piping Integrity, (2) Mitigation Capability, and (3) Environmental Qualification.
LaSalle Station has addressed the plant-specific recommendations of NUREG-0803 in the response to NRC per Reference 34. The plant-specific evaluation established that even with the postulated break in the Scram Discharge System piping, the LaSalle leak detection equipment and the Station Operating Procedures will guide the Reactor Operators to prompt and successful mitigation of the event with equipment that is qualified for safe shutdown, adequate core cooling, and capable of maintaining secondary containment integrity.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-15 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 6.3.2.3 Applicable Codes and Classification All piping systems and components (pumps , valves, etc.) for the ECCS comply with the applicable codes, addenda, code cases, and errata in effect at the time the equipment is procured. See Tables 3.
2-1, 3.2-2, 3.2-3 and 3.2-4 for code requirements pertaining to components and systems. Tables 3.2-1, 3.2-2, and 3.2-3 list code editions in effect at the ti me of original equipment procurement.
The piping and components of the ECCS subsystems within the containment and out to and including the pressure retainin g injection valve are Class I. All other piping and components are Class 2, 3, or non-Code as indicated on the system P&ID. Subsection NA, NB, NC and ND of the Code apply to the ECCS.
The equipment and piping of the ECCS, in order to meet specified seismic capabilities, are designed to the requirements of Seismic Category I. This class includes all structures and equipments essential to the safe shutdown and isolation of the reactor, or the failure or damage of which could result in undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
6.3.2.4 Materials Specif ications and Compatibility Refer to Table 5.2-7, Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Materials (Section 5.2) for a presentation of the specifications which generally apply to the selection of materials used in the emergency core cooling system. Nonmetallic materials such as lubricants, seals, packings, paints and primers, insulation, as well as metallic materials, etc., are selected as a result of an engineering review and evaluation for compatibility with other materials in the system and the surroundings with concern for chemical, radiolytic, mechanical, and nuclear effects.
Materials used in or on the emergency core cooling system are reviewed and evaluated with regard to radiolytic and pyrolytic composition and attendant effects
on safe operation of the ECCS. For example, guidance on the use of fluoro carbon plastic (Teflon) is provided to address IGSCC and FME concerns associated with use of Teflon. Only inorganic thermal in sulation, which does not decompose due to radiation or temperature, is used in these environments. All paints used are suitable for the temperature conditions anticipated for their service. Additional information is presented in Section 6.1.
6.3.2.5 System Reliability As applied to the ECCS, availability is defi ned as the probability that the system is operable when required. The ECCS avail ability is a function of the component system test intervals and the failure ra tes of the component parts used in the systems. The component parts used in the ECCS have low failure rates, as evidenced by historical field operating ex perience. The ECCS availability required
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-16 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 to assure adequate plant safety is established as a system design requirement. System availability is evaluated to assure adherence to the availability design requirement, the periodic surveillance test intervals, and allowable repair times for inoperable systems. When applicable, analyses are performed by the methods outlined in Reference 1. The levels of redundancy, diversity, and surveillance requirements combine to yield a high order of system availability.
ECCS analyses to determine peak core temp eratures are based on the most limiting single failures, assuming no offsite power is available. The analyses demonstrate that the ECCS function is sufficient to meet the Appendix K criteria. The analyses do not consider various minimum combinations of the remaining systems, following a postulated single failure, which are suff icient to meet the Appendix K criteria.
6.3.2.6 Protection Provisions
The emergency core cooling system piping and components are protected against damage from movement, from thermal stre sses, from the effects of the LOCA and the safe shutdown earthquake.
The component supports which protect agai nst damage from movement and from seismic events are discussed in Subsection 5.4.14. The methods used to provide assurance that thermal stresses do not cause damage to the ECCS are described in Subsection 3.9.1.
The ECCS are protected against the effects of pipe whip, which might result from piping failures up to and including the LO CA. This protection is provided by separation, pipe whip restra ints, or energy absorbing materials if required. One of these three methods will be applied to prov ide protection against damage to piping and components of the ECCS which otherwis e could result in a reduction of ECCS effectiveness to an unacceptable level.
The ECCS piping and components located ou tside the reactor building are protected from internally and externally generated missiles by the reinforced concrete structure of the ECCS pump rooms. In addi tion, the watertight construction of the ECCS pump rooms, when required, protects against mass flooding.
6.3.2.7 Provisions for Performance Testing
High-Pressure Core Spray System
- a. A full flow test line is provided to route water from and to the suppression pool without entering the reactor pressure vessel.
- b. Instrumentation is provided to indicate system performance during normal test operations.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-17 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 c. All motor-operated valves are capable of manual operation either local or remote for test purposes with the exception of valves E22-F010 and E22-F011. Valves E22-F001, E22-F010, and E22-F011 are no longer consid ered part of the design basis for the HPCS System.
- d. System relief valves are re movable for bench testing during plant shutdown.
- e. Drains are provided to leak test the major system valves.
Low-Pressure Core Spray System
- a. A full flow test line is provided to route water from and to the suppression pool without entering the reactor pressure vessel.
- b. A provision exists to crosstie to the RHR Shutdown Cooling suction line to utilize reactor quality water when testing the pump discharge into the reactor pressure vessel during normal plant shutdown. Utilization of this crosstie is optional as testing can be performed with suction from the Suppression Pool.
- c. Instrumentation is provided to indicate system performance during normal and test operations.
- d. All motor-operated valves and check valves are capable of operation for test purposes.
- e. Relief valves are removable for bench testing during plant shutdown.
Low-Pressure Coolant Injection System
- a. A discharge test line is provided for each of the three pump loops to route suppression pool water back to the suppression pool without entering the reactor pressure vessel.
- b. A suction test line supplying re actor grade water, is provided to test loop "C" discharge into the reactor pressure vessel during normal plant shutdown.
- c. Instrumentation is provided to indicate system performance during normal and test operations.
- d. All motor-operated valves, air-operated valves, and check valves are capable of manual operation for test purposes.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-18 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 e. Shutdown lines taking suction from the reactor system water are provided for loops "A" and "B" to test pump discharge into the reactor pressure vessel during normal plant shutdown and to provide for shutdown cooling.
- f. All relief valves are removable for bench testing during plant shutdown.
6.3.2.8 Manual Actions
The initiation of the ECCS is completely au tomatic. No operator action is assumed for at least 10 minutes after initiation.
As shown elsewhere in this section, something less than 4 minutes is required to reflood the core following the design-basis accident. The length of time required is a function of the size and location of the break and the location of the postulated single failure, if any. A time sequence of events for these oper ations is given in Table 6.3-3.
The design evaluations are all based on these rather long operator delays, and indicate considerable safety margin is still available.
6.3.3 ECCS Performance Evaluation
The performance of the ECCS is evaluated through application of the 10 CFR 50 Appendix K evaluation models and then showing conformance to the acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.46 (References 1, 19, 20, 40 and 41 for GE fuel and References 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 46 for FANP fuel) provide a complete description of the methods used to perform the calculations. These methods are summarized herein. A summary description of the loss-of-coolant accident results are also provided herein. LOCA Analysis for Power Up rate to 3489 MWt was performed in References 18, 20, 33, and 42 for GE fuel and References 16 and 47 for FANP fuels.
The information provided herein is applicable to the current licensing basis LOCA analyses from References 18, 33, 16, 42 and 47.
The information provided herein is applicable to the initial LOCA analysis, unless
otherwise noted.
The ECCS performance is evaluated for th e entire spectrum of break sizes for postulated LOCA's. The accidents, as listed in Chapter 15.0, for which ECCS operation is required are:
- a. 15.2.8 feedwater piping break; LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-19 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 b. 15.6.4 spectrum of BWR steam system piping failures outside of containment; and
- c. 15.6.5 loss-of-coolant accidents.
Chapter 15.0 provides the radiological consequences of the above listed events.
6.3.3.1 ECCS Bases for Technical Specifications
The maximum average planar linear heat generation rates calculated in this performance analysis provide the basis fo r technical specifications designed to ensure conformance with the acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50
.46. Minimum ECCS functional requirements are specified in Su bsections 6.3.3.4 and 6.3.3.5, and testing requirements are discussed in Subsection 6.3.4. Limits on minimum suppression pool water level are discussed in Section 6.2.
6.3.3.2 Acceptance Criteria for ECCS Performance
The applicable acceptance criteria, extracted from 10 CFR 50.46, "Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Sy stems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors," are listed, and for each criterion applicable parts of Subsection 6.3.3, where conformance is demonstrated, are indicated. A detailed description of the methods used to show compliance are shown in References 11, 19, 20 and 46.
Criterion 1; Peak Cladding Temperature
"The calculated maximum fuel element cladding temperature shall not exceed 2200°F." Conformance to Criterion 1 is shown in Tables 6.3-6a, 6.3-6i and 6.3-8.
Compliance with criterion 1 for GE fuels is demonstrated in References 18, 33 and
- 42. Criterion 2: Maximum Cladding Oxidation
"The calculated total local oxidation of the cladding shall nowhere exceed 0.17 times the total cladding thickness before oxidatio n." Conformance to Criterion 2 is shown in Tables 6.3-6a, 6.3-6i and 6.3-8. Compliance with criterion 2 for GE fuels is demonstrated in References 18,33 and 42.
Criterion 3: Maximum Hydrogen Generation
"The calculated total amount of hydrogen generated from the chemical reaction of the cladding with water or steam shall not exceed 0.01 times the hypothetical LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-20 REV. 16, APRIL 2006 amount that would be generated if all the metal in the cladding cylinder surrounding the fuel, excluding the cladding surrounding the plenum volume, were to react." Conformance to Criterion 3 is shown in Tables 6.3-6a, 6.3-6i, an d 6.3-8. Compliance with criterion 3 for GE fuels is demo nstrated in References 18,33 and 42.
Criterion 4: Coolable Geometry "Calculated changes in core geometry shall be such that the core remains amenable to cooling." As described in Reference 1, Se ction III, conformance to Criterion 4 is demonstrated by conformance to Criteria 1 and 2. Compliance with criterion 4 for GE fuels is demonstrated in References 18,33 and 42.
Criterion 5: Long-Term Cooling "After any calculated successful initial op eration of the ECCS, the calculated core temperature shall be maintained at an acceptably low value; and decay heat shall be removed for the extended period of time required by the long-lived radioactivity remaining in the core." Conformance to Criterion 5 is demonstrated generically for General Electric BWR's in Reference 20,Section III.A. Briefly summarized, when the core refloods shortly following the postulated LOCA, the fuel rods will return quickly to saturation temperature over their entire length. For large pipe breaks the heat flux in the core will eventually be inadequate to maintain a two-phase water flow over the entire length of the core. The static water level inside the core shroud is approximately that of the jet pump suctions.
When at least one spray system is available long-term, the upper third of the core will remain wetted by the core spray water as in non-jet pump BWRs, and there will be no further perforation or metal-water reaction.
6.3.3.3 Single-Failure Considerations
The functional consequences of potential operator errors and single failures, (including those which might cause any manually controlled electrically operated valve in the
ECCS to move to a position which could adversely affect the ECCS) and the potential for submergence of valve motors in the ECCS are discussed in Subsection 6.3.2.5 and Tables 6.3-5, 6.3-6. Tabl e 6.3-6 shows that all potential single failures can be identified as no more severe than one of the following failures:
- a. Low-pressure coolant injection (LPCI), emergency diesel-generator, which powers two LPCI pumps. Fo r example, failure of one LPCI pump or one LPCI injection valve is less severe than the diesel-generator failure which disables two LPCI pumps.
- b. Low-pressure core spray (LPCS) emergency diesel-generator, which powers one LPCI pump and one LPCS pump.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-21 REV. 16, APRIL 2006 c. High-pressure core spray (HPCS).
- d. One automatic depressuri zation system (ADS) valve.
It is, therefore, only necessary to consider each of the above single failures in the emergency core cooling system performance analyses. For large breaks, failure of one of the diesel generators is, in general, the most severe failure. For small breaks, the HPCS is the most severe failure. The systems of the ECCS which remain operational after these fa ilures are shown in Table 6.3-6.
For the LOCA evaluation model which covers the entire spectrum of break sizes (large breaks to small breaks), failure of the HPCS ECCS subsystem in Division 3 due to failure of its associated diesel generator is, in general, the most severe failure. The remaining operable ECCS subsystems, which include one spray subsystem, provide the capability to adequately cool the core, under near-term and long-term conditions, and prevent excessive fuel damage. For all LOCA analyses, only six ADS valves are assumed to functi on. An additional analysis has been performed which assumes five ADS valves function, however, in this analysis all
low pressure and high pressu re ECCS subsystems are also assumed to be available.
A single failure in the ADS (one ADS valve) has no effect in larg e breaks. Only six of the seven available ADS valves were assumed operable in the LOCA analyses to support one safety/relief valve out-of-servi ce operation. One ADS valve from the 6 valves modeled in the LOCA analyses was assumed to fail for the single failure evaluation as shown in Table 6.3-6.
6.3.3.4 System Performance During the Accident In general, the system response to an accident can be described as follows:
- a. receiving an initiation signal;
- b. a small lag time (to open all valves and have the pumps up to rated speed); and
- c. finally, the ECCS flow entering the vessel.
Key ECCS actuation setpoints and time delays for all the emergency core cooling systems are provided in Table 6.3-2 for the GE LOCA analysis and in Table 6.3-2a for the FANP LOCA analysis.
The flow delivery rates analyzed in Subsec tion 6.3.4 can be determined from the head-flow curves and the pressure versus time plots discussed in Subsection 6.3.3.7. Simplified piping and instrumentation and functional control diagrams for the LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-21a REV. 17, APRIL 2008 ECCS are provided in Subsection 6.3.2.
The operational sequence of ECCS for the DBA is shown in Table 6.3-3 for the GE LOCA analysis. T able 6.3-7a shows the operational sequence of ECCS for the Reference 17 ATRIUM-9B DBA analysis.
Table 6.3-7b shows the operational sequence for the limiting recirculation break from the FANP ATRIUM- 9B LOCA analysis.
Operator action is not required for ECCS operation, except as a monitoring function, during the short-term cooling period following the LOCA. During the short-term cooling period, the operator will take action as specified in Subsection 6.2.2.3 to place the containment cooling system into operation.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-22 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 6.3.3.5 Use of Dual F unction Components for ECCS With the exception of the LPCI system, th e systems of the ECCS are designed to accomplish only one function: to cool the reactor core following a loss of reactor coolant. To this extent, components or portions of these systems (except for pressure relief) are not required for operation of other systems which have emergency core cooling functions, or vice versa. Because either the ADS initiating signal or the overpressure signal opens th e safety-relief valve, no conflict exists.
The LPCI subsystem is configured from the RHR pumps and some of the RHR valves and piping. When th e reactor water level is low, the LPCI subsystem (line up) has priority through the valve control logic over the other RHR subsystems for containment cooling. Immediately following a LOCA, the RHR system is directed to the LPCI mode. When the RHR shutdown cooling mode is utilized, the transfer to the LPCI mode must be remote manually initiated.
6.3.3.6 Limits on ECC System Parameters
The limits on the ECC system parameters ar e identified in Subsections 6.3.3.2, 6.3.3.7.3 and 6.3.3.7.4.
Any number of components in any given syst em may be out of service, up to and including the entire system. The maximu m allowable out-of-service time is a function of the level of redundance and the specified test intervals.
6.3.3.7 ECCS Analysis for LOCA 6.3.3.7.1 GE LOCA Analysis Procedures and Input Variables
The procedures approved for LOCA analysis conformance calculations are described in detail in References 1, 19 and 40. These procedures were used in the calculations enumerated in Subsection 6.3.3. For co nvenience, the four computer codes are briefly described below. The interfaces between the codes are shown schematically in Figures II-2a, II-2b, and II-2c in the "Documentation of Evaluation Models,"Section II.A of Reference 1. The majo r interfaces are briefly noted below.
Short-Term Thermal-Hydraulic Model (LAMB)
The LAMB code is a model which is used to analyze the short-term thermodynamic and thermal-hydraulic behavior of the coolant in the vessel during a postulated LOCA. In particular, LAMB predicts the core flow, core inlet enthalpy and core pressure during the early stages of the reactor vessel blowdown. For a detailed description of the model and a discussion regarding sources of input to the model, refer to the "LAMB Code Documentation,"Section II.A.3 of Reference 1.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-23 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 Transient Critical Power Model (SCAT)
The SCAT code is used to evaluate the short-term thermal-hydraulic response of the coolant in the core during a postulated LOCA. SCAT receives input from LAMB and analyzes the convective heat transfer process in the thermally limited fuel bundle. For a detailed description of the model and a discussion regarding sources of input to the model, refer to the "SCAT Code Documentation,"Section II.A.4 of Reference 1.
Long-Term Thermal-Hydraulic Model and Refill/Reflood Model (SAFE/REFLOOD)
The SAFE/REFLOOD code is a model which is used to analyze the long-term thermodynamic behavior of the coolant in the vessel. The SAFE/REFLOOD code calculates the uncovery and reflooding of the core and the duration of spray cooling and (for small breaks) the peak cladding temperature.
For a detailed description of the model and a discussion regarding sources of input to the model, refer to the "SAFE code and REFLOOD code documentation," Sections II.A.1 and II.A.2 of Reference 1.
Core Heatup Model (CHASTE)
The CHASTE code solves the transient heat transfer equations for specific axial planes of each fuel bundle type for la rge breaks. CHASTE receives input from SCAT, SAFE and REFLOOD and calculates cladding temperatures and local cladding oxidation during the entire LOCA transient. For a detailed description of the CHASTE model and a discussion regarding sources of input, refer to the "CHASTE code documentation,"Section II.A.5 of Reference 1.
The significant input variables used by the Initial LOCA codes are listed in Table 6.3-2.
Core Heatup Model (GESTR-LOCA)
The GESTR-LOCA code is used to initialize the fuel stored energy and fuel rod fission gas inventory at the onset of a postulated LOCA for input to SAFER. GESTR-LOCA also initializes the transient pellet-cladding gap conductance for input to both SAFER and SCAT.
Long-term System Response (SAFER)
This code is used to calculate the long-term system response of the reactor for reactor transients over a complete spectrum of hypothetical break sizes and
locations. SAFER is compatible with the GESTR-LOCA fuel rod model for gap LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-24 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 conductance and fission gas release. SAFER tracks, as a function of time, the core water level, system pressure response , ECCS performance, and other primary thermal-hydraulic phenomena occurring in th e reactor. SAFER realistically models all regimes of heat transfer which occur inside the core during the event, and it provides the outputs as a function of time for heat transfer coefficients and PCT.
The significant input variables used by GESTR-LOCA and SAFER are presented in Table 4-1 and Figure 3-1 in Reference 8.
SAFER/GESTR LOCA Model Code Descriptions Results of extensive LOCA experiment al programs since 1974 have clearly demonstrated the large conservatisms th at the SAFE/RELOAD LOCA models have with respect to modeling the vessel inventor y, inventory distribution and core heat transfer. A new thermal-hydraulic model (SAFER) and a new fuel rod thermal-mechanical model (GESTR-LOCA) have been developed to provide more realistic calculations for LOCA analyses. The SAFER and GESTR-LOCA models are summarized below and discussed in detail in References 19, 40, 43 and 44. As with the SAFE/REFLOOD LOCA models (des cribed above for initial core), SAFER/GESTR-LOCA is applicable to prepressurized fuel. Non-pressurized fuel calculations results in conservative limits with respect to pressured fuel.
Realistic Thermal-Hydraulics Model (SAFER)
SAFER replaces the combination of the SAFE and REFLOOD ECCS performance evaluation models discussed above for initial cores.
The SAFER code employs a heatup model with a simplified radiation heat transfer correlation to calculate PCT and local maximum oxidation, which CHASTE heatup calculation discussed above. The PCT and local maximum oxidation fraction from SAFER can be used directly.
Best Estimate fuel Rod Thermal Mechanical Model (GESTR-LOCA)
The GESTR-LOCA model has been developed to provide best-estimate predictions of the thermal performance of GE nuclear fuel rods experiencing variable power histories. For ECCS analyses, the GESTR-LO CA model is used to initialize the fuel stored energy and fuel rod fission gas invent ory at the onset of a postulated LOCA.
Details of the GESTR-LOCA models are provided in Reference 19.
Transition Boiling Transition Model (TASC)
TASC replaces the SCAT boiling transition model discussed above. The TASC model is used to evaluate the short-term thermal-hydraulic response of the coolant LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-24a REV. 17, APRIL 2008 in the core during a postulated loss-of-coolant accident. In particular, the convective heat transfer response in the thermally limiting fuel bundle is analyzed during the transient. For a detailed description of the model and a discussion regarding sources of input to the model refer to Reference 45.
SAFER/GESTR-LOCA Model Application Methodology
Using the SAFER/GESTR-LOCA models, the LOCA events are analyzed with nominal values of inputs and correlations. A calculation is performed in conformance to Appendix K and checked for consistency with generic statistical upper bound analyses that encompass modeling uncertainties in SAFER/GESTR-LOCA and uncertainties
related to plant parameters.
6.3.3.7.1.2 FANP LOCA Analysis Procedures and Input Variables
The procedures approved for LOCA analysis conformance calculations are described in detail in References 11 and 46. These proc edures were used in the calculations enumerated in Section 6.3.3. The EXEM BWR as described in Reference 11 employs four major computer codes to evaluate the system and fuel response during all phases of a LOCA. For convenience thes e four computer codes are br iefly described below. The interface between the codes are shown sche matically in References 11 and 46. The major interfaces are briefly noted below.
Blowdown Analysis (RELAX)
The RELAX code is a model which is used to calculate the system thermal-hydraulic response during the blowdown phase of the LOCA. In RELAX the core is represented by an average core channel to determine the properties of the coolant in the vessel. In
particular, RELAX predicts the upper and lo wer plenum boundary conditions for the hot channel analysis along with the core average conditions at the time of rated spray for initialization of the FLEX analysis. For a detailed discussion regarding sources of input to the model refer to the References 12 and 46.
Refill/Reflood Analysis (FLEX) (Reference 16, ATRIUM-9B and Reference 37 ATRIUM-10 Analysis)
The FLEX code is a model used to analyze the system hydraulic response during a postulated LOCA from the time of rated spray to the time of hot node reflood. The
principal result of FLEX is the prediction of time for hot node reflood. FLEX also provides a prediction of reactor vessel c oolant inventory during the ECCS injection period. FLEX provides the time of hot node re flood and the time of bypass reflood to the HUXY analysis. For a detailed description of the model and a discussion regarding sources of input to the model, refer to Reference 12.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-24b REV. 16, APRIL 2006 Heatup Analysis (HUXY)
The HUXY code is a model used to perfor m the heatup calculations for the entire postulated LOCA accident. HUXY predicts the thermal response of each fuel rod in one LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-25 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 axial plane of the hot channel assembly. Until time of rated spray HUXY uses RELAX calculated hot channel heat transfer coefficients. After the time of rated spray and prior to hot node reflood, HUXY uses Appendix K spray heat transfer coefficients for the fuel rods and the water canister. After the time of hot node reflood, HUXY uses Appendix K reflood heat transfer coefficients. The principal results of the HUXY heatup analysis are the peak clad temperature and the percent local oxidation of the fuel cladding. For a detailed description of the model and a discussion regarding sources of input to the model, refer to References 13 and 14.
Fuel Parameters (RODEX2)
The RODEX2 code is a model which predicts fuel parameters used as input to the blowdown and heatup analysis both for the system and hot channel analyses.
RODEX2 predicts the fuel stored energy, the pellet-clad gap, the pellet-clad gap heat transfer coefficient, and fission gas invent ory. These calculations are based on the initial conditions of the system at the onset of a postulated LOCA event. For a detailed description of the model and a discussion regarding sources of input to the model, refer to Reference 15.
6.3.3.7.2 Accident Description A detailed description of the Initial LOCA calculation methodology is provided in References 1, 19 and 40. The SAFER/GE STR LOCA analysis is summarized in Reference 18, 33, 35 and 42. The FANP LOCA analysis is summarized in Reference 16, 17, 37, 47 and 48. For convenience, a short description of the major events during a design-basis accident (DBA) is included here.
Immediately after the postulated double-ended recirculation line break, vessel pressure and core flow begin to decrease. The initial pressure response is governed by the closure of the main steam isolation valves and the relative values of energy added to the system by decay heat and energy removed from the system by the initial blowdown of fluid from the downcomer. The initial core flow decrease is rapid because the recirculation pump in the broken loop ceas es to pump almost immediately because it has lost suction. The pump in the intact loop coasts down relatively slow. This pump coastdown governs the core flow response for the next several seconds. When the jet pump suctions uncover, calculated core flow decreases to near zero. When the recirculation pump suction nozzle uncovers, the energy release rate from the break increases significantly and the pressure begins to decay more rapidly. As a result of the increased rate of vessel pressure loss, the initially subcooled water in the lower plenum saturates and flashes up through the core, increasing the core flow. This low plenum flashing continues at a reduced rate for the next several seconds.
Heat transfer rates on the fuel cladding (Figure 6.3-20) during the early stages of the blowdown are governed primarily by the core flow response. Nucleate boiling continues in the high power plane until shortly after jet pump uncovery. Boiling transition follows shortly after the core flow loss that results from jet pump LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-26 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 uncovery. Film boiling heat transfer rates then apply, with increasing heat transfer resulting from the core flow increase during the lower plenum flashing period. Heat transfer then slowly decreases until the high power axial plane uncovers. At that time, convective heat transfer is assumed to cease.
Water level inside the shroud (Figure 6.3-17) remains high during the early stages of the blowdown because of flashing of the water in the core. After a short time, the level inside the shroud has decreased to uncover the core. Several seconds later the ECCS is actuated. As a result the vessel wa ter level begins to increase. Some time later, the lower plenum is filled, and the core is subsequently rapidly recovered.
The cladding temperature at the high power plane (Figure 6.3-29) increases initially because nucleate boiling is not maintained even though, the heat input decreases and the sink temperature decreases. A rapid, short duration cladding heatup follows the time of boiling transition when film boiling occurs and the cladding temperature approaches that of the fuel.
The subsequent heatup is slower, being governed by decay heat and core spray heat transfer. Finally, the heatup is
terminated when the core is recovere d by the accumulation of ECCS water.
6.3.3.7.3 Break Spectrum Calculations A complete spectrum of postulated break sizes and location is considered in the evaluation of ECCS performance. The gene ral analytical procedures for conducting break spectrum calculations are discusse d in References 11 and 46 for the FANP fuel and Reference 19 for GE fuel. For ease of reference, a summary of all figures and tables presented in subsection 6.3.3 is shown in Table 6.3-4. All figures and tables for the LaSalle specific SAFER/
GESTR-LOCA analysis are presented in References 18, 33 and 42. All figures and tables for the LaSalle specific FANP-LOCA analysis are presented in References 17, 36 and 48.
A complete break spectrum for GE fuel wa s evaluated in Reference 8. However, with the relaxation of certain ECCS parameters (i.e. HPCS injection valve stroke time increased from 14 to 28 seconds; LPC I and LPCS injection valve stroke time increased from 20 to 40 seconds), parts of the break spectrum calculations were repeated in Reference 18 to confirm the limiting case. The LOCA analysis for
Power Uprate to 3489 MWt was performed in Reference 35. A summary of the current SAFER/GESTR-LOCA results of the break spectrum calculations is shown in tabular form in Table 6.3-8. A summa ry of the FANP LOCA results for the break spectrum calculations for ATRIUM-9B fuel is shown in tabular form in Tables 6.3-8a and 6.3-8b. Results for ATRIUM-10 fuel are given in References 36 and 48. Conformance to the acceptance criteria (PCT < 2200 oF, local clad oxidation < 17% and a core wide metal water reaction < 1%) is demonstrated. Details of calculations for specific breaks are included in subs equent paragraphs. The LOCA analysis for GE14 fuel was performed in Reference 42.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-27 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 6.3.3.7.4 Large Recirculation Line Break Calculations 6.3.3.7.4.1 GE Fuel LOCA Analysis Larg e Recirculation Line Break Calculations Important results from the GE LOCA analyses of the DBA (double ended guillotine break of the recirculation suction line with a single failure of the HPCS diesel generator) are shown in Figures C-3a, C-3b, C-3c, and C-3d of Reference 18. These figures are not included in this section because GE considers this information proprietary and will not release them for use in a public domain document. The following results are shown in Reference 18 for the DBA LOCA:
a) Water level as a function of time from SAFER. (Figure C-3a) b) Reactor vessel pressure as a function of time from SAFER. (Figure C-3b) c) Fuel rod convective heat transfer coefficient as a function of time from SAFER. (Figure C-3d) d) Peak cladding temperature as a functi on of time from SAFER. (Figure C-3c)
This case is the limiting break from the break spectrum calculations and defines the licensing basis PCT for the GE 8x8 NB fuel.
The maximum local oxidation and peak cl adding temperature from the GE LOCA (SAFER/GESTR) analysis of the DBA as well as other break sizes, single failures and break locations are shown in Table 6.3-8. Figures identified above are shown in Reference 18 (3323 MWs), they are not show n in the UFSAR because GE considers this information proprietary and will not re lease them for use in a public domain document. Power uprate results are shown in Reference 33 and the GE 14 Results are shown in Reference 42.
A "Unit Status Sheet", which tracks the changes in PCT after each 10CFR50.46 submittal is maintained by Nuclear Fuels.FANP Fuel LOCA Analysis Large Recirculation Line Break Calculations FANP performed LOCA break spectrum analyses for ATRIUM-9B and ATRIUM-10 fuel types (References 17 and 36). In addition, the Reference 48 ATRIUM-10 analysis is being applied to both Unit 1 and Unit 2. The limiting large break for ATRIUM-9B fuel is the 1.0 double-ended guillotine break of the recirculation suction piping with a single failure of th e LPCS diesel generator. The limiting large break for the ATRIUM-10 fuel analysis of Reference 36 is the 2.0 square feet split break of the recirculation suction piping with a single failure of the LPCS diesel generator. For the Reference 48, EXEM BWR-2000 analysis for ATRIUM-10, the limiting case is the double-ended guillotine break with 0.8 discharge co-efficient with the LPCI diesel generator single failure.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-27a REV. 17, APRIL 2008 Important results from the FANP fuel LO CA analyses of the limiting large break (1.0 double ended guillotine break of the recirculation suction piping with a single failure of the LPCS diesel generator) for ATRIUM-9B fuel are shown in Figures 6.3-13 through 6.3-29. Similar plots for ATRIUM-10 fuel can be found in References 36 and 48. These results from Reference 17 are:
a) Upper plenum pressure as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-28 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 b) Total Break Flow as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX.
c) Core inlet flow as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX.
d) Core outlet flow as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX.
e) Lower downcomer mixture level as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX. f) Lower plenum liquid mass as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX.
g) Hot channel high power node quality as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX.
h) Hot channel high power node heat transfer coefficient as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX.
i) System pressure as a function of time from FLEX.
j) Lower plenum mixture level as a function of time during refill/reflood from FLEX. k) Relative entrainment as a function of time during refill/reflood from FLEX.
l) Core entrained liquid flow as a function of time during refill/reflood from FLEX.
m) ADS flow as a function of ti me during blowdown from RELAX.
n) LPCI flow as a function of ti me during blowdown from RELAX.
o) LPCS flow as a function of ti me during blowdown from RELAX.
p) HPCS flow as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX.
q) Peak cladding temperature as a function of time from HUXY.
The limiting large break for FANP ATRIUM-9B fuel is not the overall limiting break from the break spectrum analysis.
The small break case as described in Section 6.3.3.7.6.2 is the lim iting case for the licensing basis for FANP ATRIUM-9B fuel. Therefore, the large break results are not the basis for the ATRIUM-9B MAPLHGR limits. The ATRIUM-9B MAPLHGR limits are determined from small break analysis and they are given in Section 6.3.3.7.6.2.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-29 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 The MAPLHGR limits currently in the LaSalle Station's COLR for ATRIUM-9B fuel remain valid because they were the bo unding MAPLHGR values used in the SPC LOCA analysis and are conservative. The bundle specific, exposure dependent MAPLHGR limits for LaSalle Station's current fuel cycle are presented in the COLR. (Reference 21) 6.3.3.7.5 Deleted.
6.3.3.7.6 Small Recirculation Line Break Calculations 6.3.3.7.6.1 GE Fuel LOCA Analysis Small Recirculation Line Break Calculations Important results from the GE LOCA analysis of the small break (0.08 recirculation piping suction break with a single failure of the HPCS diesel generator) are shown in Figures B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4 of Reference 42, for GE 14 fuel. These figures are not included in this section because GE considers this information proprietary and will not release them for use in a public domain document. The following results are shown in Reference 42 for the 0.08 small break LOCA:
a) Water level as a function of time from SAFER. (Figure B-1) b) Reactor vessel pressure as a function of time from SAFER. (Figure B-2) c) Fuel rod convective heat transfer coefficient as a function of time from SAFER. (Figure B-4) d) Peak cladding temperature as a functi on of time from SAFER. (Figure B-3)
The limiting large break GE 14 fuel is not the overall limiting break from the break spectrum analysis. The small break case is described in Section 6.3.3.7.6.1 is the limiting case for the licensing Basis for GE 14 fuel.
6.3.3.7.6.2 FANP Fuel LOCA Analysis Small Recirculation Line Break Calculations FANP performed LOCA break spectrum analyses for ATRIUM-9B and ATRIUM-10 fuel types (References 17, 36 and 48). The limiting small break for ATRIUM-9B fuel is the 1.1 square feet break of the re circulation discharge piping with a single failure of the HPCS diesel generator. The limiting small break for the Reference 36 ATRIUM-10 fuel analysis is the 1.0 square feet break of the recirculation suction piping with a single failure of the HPCS diesel generator.
The PCT for the limiting small break for each fuel type bounds the PCT for the large breaks for the Reference 17 analysis of ATRIUM-9B and the Reference 36 analysis of ATRIUM-10. Therefore, th e MAPLHGR limits were determined from LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-29a REV. 17, APRIL 2008 the limiting small break analysis. The MAPLHGR limits for each fuel type were determined in References 16 and 37 and are given in Tables 6.3-6a and 6.3-6i. For the Reference 48 EXEM BWR-2000 break spectrum analysis for ATRIUM-10 fuel, the small break results are less limiting than those of the large break case identified in Section 6.3.3.7.4.2. For the limiting large break/single failure combination, the ATRIUM-10 EXEM BWR-2000 heatup analysis (Reference 47) yielded lower PCT and oxidation faction results than the ATRIUM-10 results of Reference 37. Table 6.3-6j summarizes the licensing basis results from the Reference 47 ATRIUM-10 analysis, which is being applied to both Unit 1 and Unit 2. The bundle specific, exposure dependent MAPLHGR limits for LaSalle Station's current fuel cycle are presented in the COLR (Reference 21).
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-30 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 Important results from the FANP LOCA analysis of the small break yielding the highest cladding temperature for ATRIUM
-9B fuel are shown in Figures 6.3-30 through 6.3-46. Similar plots for ATRIUM-10 fuel can be found in References 37 and 48. These results from Reference 16 are as follows:
a) Upper plenum pressure as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX.
b) Total Break Flow as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX.
c) Core inlet flow as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX.
d) Core outlet flow as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX.
e) Lower downcomer mixture level as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX. f) Lower downcomer liquid mass as a func tion of time during blowdown from RELAX. g) Hot channel high power node quality as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX.
h) Hot channel high power node heat transfer coefficient as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX.
i) System pressure as a function of time from FLEX.
j) Lower plenum mixture level as a function of time during refill/reflood from FLEX. k) Relative entrainment as a function of time during refill/reflood from FLEX.
l) Core entrained liquid flow as a function of time during refill/reflood from FLEX.
m) ADS flow as a function of ti me during blowdown from RELAX.
n) LPCI flow as a function of ti me during blowdown from RELAX.
o) LPCS flow as a function of ti me during blowdown from RELAX.
p) HPCS flow as a function of time during blowdown from RELAX.
q) Peak cladding temperature as a function of time from HUXY.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-31 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 6.3.3.7.7 Calculations For Other Break Locations 6.3.3.7.7.1 GE Fuel LOCA Analysis Ca lculations for Other Break Locations
GE analyzed four non-recirculation break locations to determine the limiting non-recirculation line break and whether or not the results of this break were bound by the limiting recirculation line break. Th ese breaks are the HPCS line break, the feedline break, the main steamline break inside containment, and the steamline break outside of containment. The main steamline break outside containment (see Section 6.3.3.7.8.1) was determined to be the limiting non-recirculation line break in Reference 8. Reference 8 also shows that the HPCS line break, the feedline break, and the main steamline break inside cont ainment result in no cladding heatup beyond the initial cladding temperatur
- e. For these reasons no other non-recirculation line breaks needed to be examined in References 18, 33, and 42.
6.3.3.7.7.2 FANP Fuel LOCA Analysis Calculations for Other Break Locations
FANP also analyzed non-recirculation line breaks in References 17 and 36. These included breaks in HPCS and LPCI. Addi tional breaks (main steamline, feedwater line, reactor water cleanup line and shutdown cooling lines) were dispositioned in References 17 and 36 as non-limiting. Refe rences 17 and 36 show that breaks inside containment are less limiting than breaks outside containment. The most limiting
non-recirculation line breaks are the HPCS and the LPCI line breaks, of which the HPCS line break with a single failure of the LPCI diesel generator is the most limiting. See Table 6.3-8b for a summary of the non-recirculation line break results for ATRIUM-9B fuel. Results for ATRIUM-10 fuel are given in Reference 36.
For the Reference 48 EXEM BWR-2000 brea k spectrum analysis for ATRIUM-10 fuel, the limiting case of the HPCS line break was analyzed. The worst single failure for this case is the LPCS diesel generator. The ECCS line brea ks are nonlimiting.
6.3.3.7.8 Steamline Br eak Outside Containment
Any break outside the primary containment in a line which connects directly to the reactor pressure vessel will initiate ADS action if conditions as described in subsection 7.3.1.2.2.3 are met. Therefore, given th e LOCA assumptions of no feedwater or RCIC, and assuming the failure of HPCS if the main steamline isolation valves (MSIV) close and the break becomes is olated or is too small to depressurize the vessel to below the shutoff head of th e low-pressure ECC systems, then actuation of the ADS is necessary to reduce the ve ssel pressure so that the low-pressure ECC systems can terminate the transient. This will occur automatically after the time delay bypass of high drywell pressure.
The outside steamline break is a representative analysis of this class of breaks, since a large amount of vessel inventory is lost through the broken steamline before the MSIV's can isolate the break. All these type s of breaks have the same characteristic LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-32 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 sequence of events once the MSIV's close culminating in automatic ADS actuation and subsequent vessel reflooding by the low-pressure ECC systems.
6.3.3.7.8.1 GE Fuel Steamline Break Outside Containment Analysis A GE outside steamline break analysis was investigated assuming automatic ADS
action 12 minutes after RPV level reaches level 1. A complete set of results using the small-break method is provided in Fi gures D-5a through D-5d of Reference 18. These figures are not included in this section because GE considers this information proprietary and will not release them for use in a public domain document. The steamline break outside containment anal ysis for Power Uprate to 3489 MWt was performed in Reference 33. The peak cladding temperature predicted is far below the 2200 o F limit. Table 6.3.7 lists the sequen ce of events associated with this break. 6.3.3.7.8.2 FANP Fuel Steamline Break Outside Containment Analysis Main Steam Line Breaks outside containment are inherently less challenging to fuel limits than MSLB inside containm ent. For MSLB outside containment, isolation valve closure will terminate break flow prior to the loss of significant inventory and the core will remain covered. The FANP analysis (References 17, 36 and 48) dispositions the steamline break inside containment by showing that the consequences of the steamline break on the core are bound by the recirculation line break analyses. The consequences of the steamline break are far from limiting with respect to 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria. The accident does not result in a significant challenge to the fuel limits.
The high heat transfer during blowdown period and the rapid initiation of the low pressure ECCS lead to the predicted PCT hundreds of degrees less than the limiting re circulation line break. In many cases there is no heatup of the fuel during a steamline break. Although a steamline break may be limiting with respect to reactor vess el, containment, or radiological limits, these analyses are not significantly impacted by fuel or core design characteristics.
6.3.3.8 LOCA Analysis Conclusions 6.3.3.8.1 Errors and Changes Affecting The LOCA Analyses A new LOCA analysis (Reference 42) was performed for GE Fuel to support the introduction of GE 14 fuel for LaSalle Units 1 and 2 . There is no other type of GE fuel in the LaSalle Unit 1 and 2 core.
The GE LOCA analysis in support of GE 14 fuel incorporated all known errors and the licensing basis PCT for the GE 14 fuel is 1460 °F. All known errors and issues have been incorporated in the GE LOCA analysis (Reference 42).
The analysis of record for FANP ATRIUM-9B fuel (Reference 16) was performed in March 1999 to support the introduction of ATRIUM-9B fuel into the Unit 2 Cycle 8 core. The PCT is 1807
°F and it was reported in th e May 1999 10 CFR50.46 letter.
The subsequent letter in February 2002 report ed changes to PCT due to code errors, which increased PCT by 18
°F. The June 2000 10CFR50.46 annual letter reported LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-32a REV. 17, APRIL 2008 no assessments due to errors or plant changes. The June 2001 10CFR 50.46 annual letter reported assessments due to FANP code errors, Unit 2 Cycle 9 reload fuel and Unit 2 LPCS riser leakage. The June 2002 10CFR 50.46 annual letter reported assessments due to incorrect pellet dish volume terms in RDX2LSE fuel swelling calculation, reconciliation of RODEX2-2A numerical iteration scheme, incorrect HUXY gadolinia conductivity model, incorrect calculation start time for the BULGEX code, incorrect constant used in the rupture temperature calculation, incorrect Zircaloy heat of reaction, Unit 1 Cycle 10 reload fuel and the ATRIUM-9B exposure extension. These assessments resulted in a net PTC change of 2
°F. The June 2003 10CFR 50.46 annual letter report ed assessments due to incorrect calculation of inertia terms for recirculation pump discharge break junctions, Unit 2 Cycle 10 reload fuel, Unit 2 jet pump riser leakage and Unit 1 mid-cycle reload that resulted in a net PCT increase of 5
°F. For the March 2004 10CFR 50.46 report several assessment and error were reported but there was no net change in the PCT. Therefore, the PCT for ATRIUM-9B is 1832
°F. For the March 2006 10CFR 50.46 annual report there was no assessment nor any error reported for the GE14 and ATRIUM-9B or ATRIUM-10 fuel and hence there was no impact on the PCT.
Reference 37 shows that the PCT for ATRI UM-10 fuel is 1807 F. The ATRIUM-10 fuel LOCA analysis were reanalyzed in Refe rence 47. The Reference 47 analysis is applicable to all ATRIUM-10 fuel in both Un it 1 and 2, and thus the licensing basis PCT is 1729 F. For Unit 1 Cycle 12, there will be no ATRIUM-9B fuel, and the Reference 47 analysis for ATRIUM-10 fuel is being applied. That analysis shows the PCT to be 1729
°F, which is therefore the licensing basis PCT for FANP fuel in Unit 1.
A "Unit Status Sheet", which tracks the changes in PCT after each 10CFR50.46 submittal is maintained by Nuclear Fuels.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-33 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 This page is intentionally blank due to information deleted as a result of Revision 15, April 2004.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-34 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 6.3.3.9.1 GE Fuel LOCA Analysis Conclusions Having shown compliance with the applicable acceptance criteria of Subsection 6.3.3.2, it is concluded that the ECCS equipment will perform its function in an acceptable manner and meet all of the 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria, given operation at or below the maximum average planar linear heat generation rates for GE fuels given in the COLR. The licensing basis PCT is in the most recent 10CFR50.46 report on each unit's NRC dock et. As stated in Reference 42, the licensing basis PCT for the GE 14 fuel is 1460
°F.
A "Unit Status Sheet", which tracks the errors or changes which affect any of the LOCA analyses and the current licensing basis PCT is maintained by Nuclear Fuels.
6.3.3.9.2 AREVA Fuel LOCA Analysis Conclusions
Having shown compliance with the applicable acceptance criteria of Subsection 6.3.3.2, it is concluded that the ECCS equipment w ill perform its function in an acceptable manner and meet all of the 10 CFR 50.46 acce ptance criteria, given operation at or below the maximum average planar linear he at generation rates for AREVA fuels given in the COLR, Reference 21. The licensing basis PCT for AREVA ATRIUM-9B fuel is 1832 °F. This number is based upon the ATRIUM-9B LOCA analysis (Reference 16) plus the arithmetic sum of all PCT changes due to errors or changes to the ATRIUM-9B LOCA analysis. Further details on the PCT changes due to errors or changes to the ATRIUM-9B LOCA analysis may be found in section 6.3.3.8.1.
The licensing basis PCT for AREVA ATRIUM-10 fuel from Reference 37 is 1807 F.
The Reference 47 analysis being applied to the Unit 1 Cycle 12 shows the ATRIUM-10 fuel licensing bases PCT is 1729
°F. Further details on the PCT changes due to errors or changes to the ATRIUM-10 LOCA analysis may be found in section 6.3.3.8.1. The ATRIUM-10 fuel LOCA analysis were reanalyzed in Reference 47. The licensing basis PCT for AREVA ATRIUM-10 fuel from Reference 47 is 1729 F.
Since there is no ATRIUM-9B fuel in either Unit 1 or Unit 2, the current licensing basis PCT is 1729 F, and is applicabl e to both Unit 1 and Unit 2.
A "Unit Status Sheet", which tracks the errors or changes which affect any of the LOCA analyses and the current licensing basis PCT, is maintained by Nuclear Fuels.
6.3.3.10 MSIV Closure Change from Reactor Water Level 2 to Level 1
By letter dated March 6, 1987 (Referen ce 7), CECo submitted a LOCA safety evaluation to justify changing the MSIV water level isolation setpoint. Previously, the most limiting LOCA, the one that results in the highest peak cladding temperature and determines the maximum average planar linear heat generation LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-35 REV. 16, APRIL 2006 rate (MAPLHGR) limit, wa s the recirculation suction line break DBA. ECCS calculations were performed using the NRC staff approved codes, SAFE, REFLOOD and CHASTE. The effects of the proposed lower setpoint for large, intermediate and small break LOCAs were considered.
CECo stated that large and intermediate LOCA events would not be affected by the setpoint change. For these events, there would be a rapid depressurization and inventory loss within the reactor vessel result ing in a fast actuation of the MSIVs. It was concluded that the lower MSIV setpoint would not significantly increase the reactor core inventory loss, the total core uncovery time or subsequent fuel heatup, or the radiation release to the environment. Thus, the setpoint change would not affect the consequences of design basis accidents. The NRC Staff accepted the findings.
For a small break LOCA there is a potential of initiation of MSIV closure at the proposed lower level setpoint which results in raising the peak cladding temperature (PCT). This event was analyzed. The results show that increase in PCT is less than 30
°F. The highest small break LOCA PCT would be substantially less than 2200
°F limit. The results of the LOCA analyses show that the DBA remains unchanged. Therefore, the MAPLHGR will not be changed. The NRC found this acceptable.
6.3.4 Tests and Inspections
Each active component of the emergency core cooling systems that is provided to operate in a design-basis accident is designed to be tested during normal operation of the nuclear system.
The HPCS, ADS, LPCI, and LPCS loops are tested periodically to assure that the emergency core cooling systems will operate.
Preoperational tests of the emergency core cooling systems were conducted during the final stages of plant construction prio r to initial startup (Chapter 14.0 of the FSAR). These tests assure correct functioning of all controls, instrumentation, pumps, piping, and valves. System reference characteristics, such as pressure differentials and flow rates, are documented following the preoperational tests and are used to establish the limits of acceptability for measurements obtained in subsequent operational tests.
During plant operations, the pumps valves, piping, instrumentation, wiring, and other components outside the drywell can be inspected visually at any time.
Components inside the drywell can be inspected when the drywell is open for access. When the reactor vessel is open, the spargers and other internals can be inspected.
Testing frequencies of most ECCS components are correlated with testing frequencies of the associated controls and instrumentation. When a pump or valve LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-36 REV. 16, APRIL 2006 control is tested, the operability of that pump or valve and its associated instrumentation is tested by the same action. The portions of the emergency core cooling systems requiring primary system pressure integrity are designed to specifications for in-service inspection.
A design flow functional test of the HPCS over the operating pressure and flow range is performed during normal plant operation by pumping water from the suppression pool and back through the full flow test return line to the suppression pool. The suction valve from the suppression pool is normally open and the discharge valve to the reactor remains closed.
The HPCS test conditions are tabulate d on the HPCS process flow diagram, Figure 6.3-1. If an initiation signal occurs while the HPCS is being tested, the system returns to the operating mode.
The HPCS can be tested at full flow with suppression pool water at any time except when the reactor vessel water level is low.
Each LPCI loop can be tested during reactor operation. The test conditions are tabulated in Figure 6.3-8. This test does not inject cold water into the reactor because the injection line valves are closed.
To test an LPCI pump at rated flow, the test line valve to the suppression pool is opened, the pump suction valve from the suppression pool is opened (this valve is
normally open), and the pumps are started using the remote/manual switches in the control room. Correct operation is determined by observing the instruments in the control room.
The LPCI injection check valve inside the drywell is tested by monitoring flow into the reactor vessel during surveillance testing.
If an initiation signal occurs during the test, the LPCI system returns to the operating mode. The valves in the test bypass lines are closed automatically to assure that the LPCI pump discharge is correctly routed to the reactor vessel.
Similarly, the LPCS pump and valves are tested periodically during reactor operations. With the injection valve closed and the return line open to the suppression pool, full flowing pump capability is demonstrated. The injection valve and the LPCS injection check valve are tested in a manner similar to that
previously discussed for the LPCI valves. The system test conditions during reactor shutdown are shown on the LPCS system process diagram, Fi gure 6.3-4. The portion of the LPCS outside the drywell is inspected for leaks during tests. Controls and instrumentation tests are described in Subsection 7.3.1.2.3.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-37 REV. 13 6.3.5 Instrumentation Requirements Design details, including redundancy and logic, of the instrumentation of the ECCS are discussed in Subsection 7.3.1.
6.3.5.1 HPCS Actuation Instrumentation The HPCS is automatically actuated by the following sensed variables: reactor vessel low water level, or drywell high pressure.
In addition, the HPCS can be manually actuated from the control room.
6.3.5.2 ADS Actuation Instrumentation The ADS is automatically actuated by the fo llowing sensed variables: reactor vessel low water level and drywell high pressures. The drywell high pressure signal is not required for auto initiation if the drywell pressure bypass timer (DPBT) times out. Another time delay allows the logic to reset or the operator to bypass automatic blowdown if conditions have corrected themselves or the signals are erroneous. A manual switch may be used to inhibit ADS action if necessary. For further discussion see subsecti on 7.3.1.2.2.3.
In addition, the ADS can be manually actuated from the control room.
6.3.5.3 LPCS Actuation Instrumentation
The LPCS is automatically actuated by the following sensed variables: reactor vessel low water level, or drywell high pressure.
In addition the LPCS can be manually actuated from the control room.
6.3.5.4 LPCI Actuation Instrumentation
The LPCI is automatically actuated by th e following sensed variables: reactor vessel low water level, or drywell high pressure. Reactor vessel low water level or drywell high pressure also stops other modes of RHR system operation so that LPCI
is not inhibited.
In addition, the LPCI can be manually actuat ed from the control room. Subsection 7.3.1.3.2.3 discusses conformance to IEEE-279 and other applicable regulatory
requirements for the ECCS instrumentation and controls.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-38 REV. 17, APRIL 2008
6.3.6 References
- 1. "Analytical Model for Loss-of-Coolant Analysis in Accordance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix K," NEDO
-20566-A, September 1986.
- 2. "Documentation of the Reanalys is Results for the Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) of Lead and Non-Lead Plants," letter from Darrell G.
Eisenhut (NRC) to E. D. Fuller (GE) June 30, 1977.
- 3. "Safety Evaluation for General Electric ECCS Evaluation Model Modifications," letter from K. R. Goller (NRC) to G. G. Sherwood (GE), April 12, 1977.
- 4. "Request for Approval for Use of Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) Evaluations Model Code REFLOOD05," letter from A. J. Levine (GE) to D. B. Vassalo (NRC), March 14, 1977.
- 5. "General Electric (GE) Loss-o f-Coolant Accident (LOCA) Analysis Model Revisions - Core Heatup Co de CHASTE05," letter from A. J.
Levine (GE) to D. F.
Ross (NRC), January 27, 1977.
- 6. Quadrex Document QUAD-1-83-008 Analysis reported MSIV Design Modification for LaSalle County Station, prepared by Quadrex
Corporation, August 24, 1983.
- 7. Letter dated March 6, 1987 from C.
M. Allen (CECo NLA) to H. R. Denton (NRC) concerning MSIV Level Setpoint Change from Level 2 to Level 1.
- 8. GE Document, "SAFER/GESTR-LOCA, Loss-of-Coolant Accident Analysis, LaSalle County Statio n Units 1 & 2," NEDC-31510P, December 1987.
- 9. Errata and Addenda Sheet No. 2, dated January 1989, for GE Document NEDC-31510P.
- 10. LaSalle Administrative Technical Requirements
- 11. "Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors EXEM BWR Evaluation Model," ANF-91-048(P)(A) and Supplement 1, Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation, January 1993.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-39 REV. 16, APRIL 2006
- 12. "Exxon Nuclear Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors: EXEM BWR ECCS Evaluation Model," XN-NF 19(P)(A) Volumes 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc., September 1982.
- 13. "HUXY: A Generalized Multirod Heatup Code with 10 CFR 50 Appendix K Heatup Option - User's Manual," XN-CC-33(A) Revision 1, Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc., November 1975.
- 14. "BULGEX: A Computer Code to Determine the Deformation and the Onset of Bulging of Zircaloy Fuel Rod Cladding," XN-74-21 Revision 2, and XN-NF-27 Revision 2, Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc., December 1974.
- 15. "RODEX2 Fuel Rod Thermal Mechanical Response Evaluation Model," XN-NF-81-58(P)(A) Revision 2 Supplements 1 and 2, Exxon Nuclear
Company, Inc., March 1984.
EMF-2175(P), Siemens Power Corpor ation, Revision 0, March 1999.
- 17. "LOCA Break Spectrum Analysis for Lasalle Units 1 and 2," EMF-2174(P), Siemens Power Corporation, Revision 0, March 1999.
- 18. GE Document, "LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 SAFER/GESTR-LOCA Loss-Of-Coolant Accident Analysis," NEDC-32258P, General
Electric Company, October 1993.
- 19. "The GESTR-LOCA and SAFER Models for the Evaluation of the Loss-Of-Coolant Accident, Volume I, GESTR-LOCA - A Model for the
Prediction of Fuel and Thermal Perf ormance, Volume II, SAFER - Long Term Inventory Model for BWR Loss-Of-Coolant Analysis, Volume III, SAFER/GESTR Application Methodol ogy, NEDE-23785-1-P-A, February 1985 and Volume III, Supplement 1, Revision 1, "Additional Information for Upper Bound PCT Calculation," March 2002.
- 20. "General Electric Company Analytical Model For Loss-Of-Coolant Analysis in Accordance With 10CFR50 Appendix K," NEDO-20566A, General Electric Company, September 1986.
- 21. Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) for LaSalle County Station, Latest Revision.
Knecht (GE) to Robert Tsai (ComEd) dated March 13, 1994.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-40 REV. 15, APRIL 2004
- 23. "Reporting of Changes and Errors in ECCS Evaluation Models," Letter R. J. Reda (GE) to R. C. Jo nes Jr. (NRC) dated June 28, 1996.
- 24. "Reporting of Changes and Errors in ECCS Evaluation Models," Letter R. J. Reda (GE) to R. C. Jone s Jr. (NRC) dated February 20, 1996.
- 25. "Reporting of Changes and Errors in ECCS Evaluation Models," Letter R. J. Reda (GE) to R. C. Jones Jr. (NRC) dated December 15, 1995.
- 26. "LaSalle County Nuclear Station Unit 1 ECCS Flow Uncertainty Evaluation," NEDC-32835P, Dated June 1998.
- 27. "LaSalle County Nuclear Power Station Jet Pump Riser Safety Evaluation, Evaluation of Rise r Leakage Impact," GENE-A1300439-00-02P, Dated March 1999.
- 28. "LaSalle Units 1 and 2 Principal LOCA Analysis Parameters," EMF-95-041, Revision 2, Siemens Power Corporation, Dated April 2001.
- 29. Letter, D. C. Serell (GE) to R. E. Parr, "Revised LaSalle 1 and 2 OPL-4 Form," Dated August 27, 1987.
- 30. "LaSalle County Nuclear Power Station Jet Pump Riser Safety Evaluation, Evaluation of Surveilla nce Monitoring Parameters," GE-NE-A13-00439-00-01P, Dated February 1999.
- 31. Letter, D. Garber (SPC) to R.J.
Chin (ComEd) "10CFR50.46 Reporting for the LaSalle Units", DE6:99:129, May 6, 1999.
- 32. "LaSalle Unit 1 Cycle 9 Relo ad Analysis", EM F-2276, Rev. 1, October, 1999.
- 33. GE document GE-NE-208-21-1093, "Engineering Evaluation Requirements for the LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 SAFER-GESTR Loss of Coolant Accident Analysis with ECCS Relaxations," dated November 1993.
- 34. Letter, C. E. Sargent (ComEd) to A. Schwencer (NRC) "LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 Response to NUREG-0803, NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374", January 21, 1982 (SEAG Number 00-000505).
- 35. "LaSalle County Station Power Uprate Project, Task 407, ECCS Performance," GE-NE-A1300384-39-01, Revision 1, September 1999.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-40a REV. 17, APRIL 2008
- 36. "LaSalle Units 1 and 2 LOCA Brea k Spectrum Analysis for ATRIUM-10 Fuel", EMF-2639(P), Revision 0, Framatome ANP, November 2001.
- 37. "LaSalle Units 1 and 2 LOCA-ECCS Analysis MAPLHGR Limit for ATRIUM-10 Fuel", EMF-2641(P), Revision 0, Framatome ANP, November 2001.
- 38. "Responses to Exelon Comments - Extended Exposure for ATRIUM-9B Fuel", Framatome ANP Letter DEG:01:
136, D. Garber to F. Trikur, September 6, 2001.
- 39. "ATRIUM-9B Exposure Extension MAPLHGR Analysis Results for LaSalle Units 1 and 2," Framatome ANP Letter DEG:02:024, D.
Garber to F. Trikur, January 22, 2002.
- 40. The GESTR-LOCA and SAFER Models for the Evaluation of Loss-of-Coolant Accident: Volume III, Supplement I, Additional Information for Upper Bound PCT, and NEDE-23785P-A March 2002.
- 41. Compilation of Improvements to GENE's SAFER ECCS-LOCA Evaluation Models, NEDC-32950P January 2000.
- 42. GE Document GE-NE-0000-0022-8684-R2, Exelon LaSalle Units 1 and 2 SAFER/GESTR Loss-of-Coolant Acci dent Analyses for GE14 Fuel, November 2006.
- 43. SAFER Model for Evaluation of Loss-of-Coolant Accidents for Jet Pump and Non-Jet Pump Plants, Volumes I and II, NEDC-30996P-A, October 1987.
- 44. Compliance of Improvements to GENE's SAFER ECCS-LOCA Evaluation Model, NEDC-32950P, January 2000 as reviewed by letter
from S.A. Richards (NRC) to J.F.
Klapproth (GE), "General Electric Nuclear Energy (GENE) Topical Reports NEDC-32950P and NEDC-32084P Acceptability Review," May 24, 2000.
- 45. NEDC-32084 P-A, Revision 2, "TASC-03A A Computer Program For Transient Analysis of a Single Channel," July 2002.
- 47. EMF-3231(P) Revision 0, "LaS alle Units 1 and 2 EXEM-BWR-2000 LOCA-ECCS Analysis MAPLHER Limit for ATRIUM-10 Fuel," November 2005.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.3-40b REV. 17, APRIL 2008
- 48. EMF-3230(P) Revision 0, "LaS alle Units 1 and 2 EXEM-BWR-2000 LOCA Break Spectrum Analysis for Analysis for ATRIUM-10 Fuel," November 2005.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-1 TABLE 6.3-1 REV. 13
This page intentionally left blank
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-2 (SHEET 1 of 5)
Significant Input Variables Used In the GE Loss-Of-Coolant Accident Analyses TABLE 6.3-2 REV. 16, APRIL 2006 A. Plant Parameters Units Nominal Analysis Value Core Thermal Power MWt 3722 3797 % of Rated Core Thermal Power
% 106.7 108.8 Core Flow lbm/hr 108.5 x 10 6 108.5x10 6 Vessel Steam Dome
Pressure psia 1050 1053 Source of Information: Reference 42.
- Based on licensed power of 3489 Mwt.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-2 (SHEET 2 of 5)
Significant Input Variables Used In the GE Loss-Of-Coolant Accident Analyses TABLE 6.3-2 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 B. Emergency Core Cooling System Parameters Low Pressure Coolant Injection System Initiating Signals Units Analysis Value Vessel pressure at which flow may commence psid (vessel to drywell) 200 Minimum rated flow at vessel pressure gpm (3 pumps, 2 pumps, 1 pump) psid (vessel to drywell) 17961, 11974, 5987 20 System Head-flow
Delivery characteristics (3 pumps) psid/gpm 200/0 20/17961 Low water level
or High drywell pressure Inches referenced to instrument zero psig -161.5 (Level 1)*
2.5 Maximum allowable time
delay from initiating signal to pump capable of speed and injection valve full open (assuming vessel pressure permissive is satisfied) sec 60.0 Maximum Allowable
Injection Valve Stroke Time ** sec 40.0 Pressure at which
injection valve may open psig 435.0 Source of Information: Reference 36 and used only in that analysis. See Reference 42 for GE14 LOCA analysis
- Analytical Setpoint is approximately equal to top of active fuel ** No flow is assumed until the injection valve is full open
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-2 (SHEET 3 of 5)
Significant Input Variables Used In the GE Loss-Of-Coolant Accident Analyses TABLE 6.3-2 REV. 16, APRIL 2006 Low Pressure Core Spray System Vessel pressure at which flow may commence psid (vessel to drywell) 255 Minimum rated flow at vessel pressure gpm psid (vessel to drywell) 5600 122 System Head-flow Delivery characteristics psid/gpm 255/0 122/5600 0/7000 Initiating Signals Units Analysis Value Low water level or High drywell pressure Inches referenced to instrument zero psig -161.5 (Level 1)*
2.5 Maximum allowed (runout) flow gpm 7000 Maximum allowable time delay from initiating signal to pump capable of speed and injection valve
full open (assuming vessel pressure permissive is satisfied) sec 60.0 Maximum Allowable
Injection Valve Stroke Time ** sec 40.0 Pressure at which injection valve may open psig 435.0 Source of Information: Reference 33 and used only in that analysis. See Reference 42 for GE14 LOCA analysis
- Analytical Setpoint is approximately equal to top of active fuel ** No flow is assumed until the injection valve is full open LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-2 (SHEET 4 of 5)
Significant Input Variables Used In the GE Loss-Of-Coolant Accident Analyses TABLE 6.3-2 REV. 16, APRIL 2006 High Pressure Core Spray System Vessel pressure at which flow may commence psid (vessel drywell) 1160 Minimum flow at vessel
pressure gpm psid (vessel drywell) 750 @ 1130
5400 @ 200 System Head-flow Delivery characteristics psid/gpm 1160/0 1130/750 200/5400 0/5400 Initiating Signals Units Analysis Value Low water level
or High drywell pressure Inches referenced to instrument zero psig -97.9 (Level 2)*
2.5 Maximum Allowable
Injection Valve Stroke Time ** sec 28.0 Maximum allowable time
delay from initiating signal to rated flow available and injection valve full open**
sec 41 Source of Information: Reference 33 and used only in that analysis. See Reference 42 for GE14 LOCA analysis
- Analytical Setpoint is approximately equal to 5.3 feet above top of active fuel ** No flow is assumed until the injection valve is full open LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-2 (SHEET 5 of 5)
Significant Input Variables Used In the GE Loss-Of-Coolant Accident Analyses TABLE 6.3-2 REV. 16, APRIL 2006 Automatic Depressurization System Total Number of valves installed 7 Number of valves used in
analysis 6 Minimum flow capacity of any six valves at vessel pressure lb/hr psig (at vessel pressure) 5.17 x 10 6 1146 Initiating Signals Units Analysis Value Low water level
and High drywell pressure Inches referenced to instrument zero psig -161.5 (Level 1)*
2.5 Delay time from all
initiating signals completed to the time valves are open sec 120 Low water level
and Maximum Time Delay Inches referenced to instrument zero sec -161.5 (Level 1)*
720 Source of Information: Reference 33, and used only in that analysis. See Reference 42 for GE14 LOCA analysis C. Fuel Parameters Fuel Type GE14 GE8x8NB (GE9B) Fuel Bundle Geometry 10x10 8 x 8 Number of Fuel Rods 92 60 Source of Information: Reference 33 and 42
- Analytical Setpoint is approximately equal to top of active fuel
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-2a (SHEET 1 of 5)
Significant Input Variables Used In the FANP Loss-Of-Coolant Accident Analyses TABLE 6.3-2a REV. 17, APRIL 2008 A. Plant Parameters Units Analysis Value Core Thermal Power MWt 3796.44 % of Rated Core Thermal Power
% 102* Vessel Steam Output LBm/hr 16.57 x 10 6 Corresponding Percent
of Rated Steam Flow percent 102*
Core Flow lbm/hr 113.9x10 6 Corresponding Percent of Rated Core Flow percent 105 Vessel Steam Dome
Pressure psia 1050 Maximum Recirculation Line Break Area for
DEG ft 2 5.072 Source of Information: References 28, 16, 37 and 47
- Based on an uprated power of 112%
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-2a (SHEET 2 of 5)
Significant Input Variables Used In the FANP Loss-Of-Coolant Accident Analyses TABLE 6.3-2a REV. 17, APRIL 2008 B. Emergency Core Cooling System Parameters Low Pressure Coolant Injection System Vessel pressure at which flow may commence psid (vessel to drywell) 200 Minimum rated flow at vessel pressure gpm (3 pumps, 2 pumps, 1 pump) psid (vessel to drywell) 17961, 11974, 5987 20 System Head-flow
Delivery characteristics (3 pumps) psid/gpm 200/0 20/17961 Initiating Signals Units Analysis Value Low-Low-Low water level or High drywell pressure Inches referenced to instrument zero psig -161.5 (Level 1)**
2.5 Low Pressure System response time from detection of LOOP sec 60.0 Maximum Allowable
Injection Valve Stroke Time *** sec 40.0 Pressure at which
injection valve may open psig 435.0 Minimum Flow Valve Opening Time Closing Time Max Bypass Line Flow per Pump Closure Setpoint sec sec gpm gpm 15.0 15.0 870.0 2463.0 Source of Information: References 28
- Analytical Setpoint is approximately equal to top of active fuel *** Flow is assumed to increase linearly over the entire valve stroke LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-2a (SHEET 3 of 5)
Significant Input Variables Used In the FANP Loss-Of-Coolant Accident Analyses TABLE 6.3-2a REV. 17, APRIL 2008 Low Pressure Core Spray System Vessel pressure at which flow may commence psid (vessel to drywell) 255 Minimum rated flow at vessel pressure gpm psid (vessel to drywell) 5600 122 System Head-flow Delivery characteristics psid/gpm 255/0 122/5600 0/7000 Initiating Signals Units Analysis Value Low-Low-Low water level or High drywell pressure Inches referenced to instrument zero psig -161.5 (Level 1)**
2.5 Maximum (runout) flow gpm 7000 Low Pressure System response time from detection of LOOP sec 60.0 Maximum Allowable
Injection Valve Stroke Time *** sec 40.0 Pressure at which
injection valve may open psig 435.0 Minimum Flow Valve Opening Time Closing Time Max Bypass Line Flow per Pump Closure Setpoint sec sec gpm gpm 7.0**** 7.0**** 950.0 2121.0 Source of Information: References 28
- Analytical Setpoint is approximately equal to top of active fuel *** Flow is assumed to increase linearly over the entire valve stroke
- For Unit 2 Minimum Flow Valve opening and closing time. For Unit 1 there is no requirement LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-2a (SHEET 4 of 5)
Significant Input Variables Used In the FANP Loss-Of-Coolant Accident Analyses TABLE 6.3-2a REV. 16, APRIL 2006 High Pressure Core Spray System Vessel pressure at which flow may commence psid (vessel to pump
suction) 1160 Minimum rated flow at vessel pressure gpm psid (vessel to pump suction) 750 @ 1130 5400 @ 200 System Head-flow
Delivery characteristics psid/gpm 1160/0 1130/750 200/5400 0/5400 Initiating Signals Units Analysis Value Low water level or High drywell pressure Inches referenced to instrument zero psig -97.9 (Level 2)**
2.5 Maximum Allowable
Injection Valve Stroke Time *** sec 28.0 Maximum allowable time delay from LOOP to pumps capable of rated flow available and injection valve full open sec 46 Minimum Flow Valve
Max Bypass Line Flow per Pump
Closing Setpoint
gpm gpm 1350.0 1948.0 Source of Information: References 28
- Analytical Setpoint is approximately equal to 5.3 feet above top of active fuel *** Flow is assumed to increase linearly over the entire valve stroke LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-2a (SHEET 5 of 5)
Significant Input Variables Used In the FANP Loss-Of-Coolant Accident Analyses TABLE 6.3-2a REV. 15, APRIL 2004 Automatic Depressurization System Total Number of valves installed 7 Number of valves used in
analysis 6 Minimum flow capacity of any six valves at vessel pressure lb/hr psig (vessel pressure) 5.17 x 10 6 1150 Initiating Signals Units Analysis Value Low-Low-Low water level and High drywell pressure Inches referenced to instrument zero psig -161.5 (Level 1)**
2.5 Delay time from all
initiating signals completed to the time valves are open sec 120 Low-Low-Low water
level and Maximum Time Delay ft above Top of Active Fuel sec -161.5 (Level 1)**
720 C. Fuel Parameters
Fuel Type ATRIUM-9B Fuel Bundle Geometry 9 x 9 Number of Fuel Rods 72 Fuel Type ATRIUM-10 Fuel Bundle Geometry 10 x 10 Number of Fuel Rods 83 full length rods 8 part length rods Source of Information: References 28, 16 and 37
- Analytical Setpoint is approximately equal to top of active fuel LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-3 (SHEET 1 of 2) TABLE 6.3-3 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE OF EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEMS FOR DESIGN-BASIS ACCIDENT ANALYSIS 1 (The information in this table is historical; please refer to Appendix A of Reference 33 and Reference 42 for GE14 Fuel.) The sequence of events for the limiting small break is provided in Appendix B of Reference 42.
TIME(sec) EVENTS 0 Design-basis loss-of-coolant accide nt assumed to start; normal auxiliary power assumed to be lost.
0 Drywell high pressure 2 and reactor low water level reached. All diesel generators signaled to start; scram; HPCS, LPCS, LPCI signaled to start on high drywell pressure.
t 16 Reactor low-low water level reached. HPCS receives second signal to start.
t 27 Reactor low-low-low water level reached. Main steam isolation valve close. Second signal to start LPCI and LPCS; auto-depressurization sequence begins.
(t 1+13) HPCS diesel generators ready to load; energize HPCS pump motor, open HPCS injection valve.
(t 2+13) Division 1 and 2 diesel generators ready to load; start to close containment isolation valves.
(t 1+41) HPCS injection valve open and pump at design flow, which completes HPCS startup; LPCS and LPCI (RHR "C") pumps at
rated speed.
t 3 28 Low pressure permissive fo r LPCS & LPCI injection valve (t 3+40) 68 LPCI and LPCS pumps at rated flow, LPCS and LPCI injection valves open, which completes the LPCI and LPCS startups.
~150 Core effectively reflooded assuming worst single failure; heatup terminated.
>10 min. Operator shifts to containment cooling.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-3 (SHEET 2 of 2)
TABLE 6.3-3 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 NOTES: 1. For the purpose of all but the next to last entry on this table, all ECCS equipment is assumed to function as designed. Performance analysis calculations consider the effects of single equipment failures. (See Subsections 6.3.2.5 and 6.3.3.3.) The re circulation suction line break DBA with limiting HPCS EDG failure case, using Appendix K assumptions, is used.
Source of information: Refere nce 33 analysis results from GE.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-4 (SHEET 1 of 2)
KEY TO FIGURES AND TABLES IN SECTION 6.3 TABLE 6.3-4 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 Figures Applicable to Specific Breaks Large Recirculation Line Breaks Small Recirculation Line Breaks Other Break Locations GE 1.0 DEG Suction SF-HPCS/DG 6.3.3.7.4.1 AREVA 1.0 DEG Suction SF-LPCS/DG 6.3.3.7.4.2 GE 0.08 ft 2 Suction SF-HPCS/DG 6.3.3.7.6.1 AREVA 1.1 ft 2 Discharge SF-HPCS/DG 6.3.3.7.6.2 GE MSLB Outside Containment 6.3.3.7.7 Reactor Vessel Pressure C-3b* N/A B-2 N/A D-5b* Water Level C-3a* N/A B-1 N/A D-5a* Heat Transfer Coefficient C-3d* N/A B-4 N/A D-5d* Peak Cladding Temperature C-3c* 6.3-29 B-3 6.3-46 D-5c* Upper Plenum Pressure N/A 6.3-13 N/A 6.3-30 N/A Total Break Flow N/A 6.3-14 N/A 6.3-31 Core Inlet Flow N/A 6.3-15 N/A 6.3-32 N/A Core Outlet Flow N/A 6.3-16 N/A 6.3-33 N/A Lower Downcomer Mixture Level N/A 6.3-17 N/A 6.3-34 N/A Lower Downcomer Liquid Mass N/A 6.3-18 N/A 6.3-35 N/A Hot Channel High Power Node
Quality N/A 6.3-19 N/A 6.3-36 N/A Hot Channel High Power Node Heat Transfer Coefficient N/A 6.3-20 N/A 6.3-37 N/A System Pressure N/A 6.3-21 N/A 6.3-38 N/A Lower Plenum Mixture Level N/A 6.3-22 N/A 6.3-39 N/A Relative Entrainment N/A 6.3-23 N/A 6.3-40 N/A Core Entrained Liquid Flow N/A 6.3-24 N/A 6.3-41 N/A ADS Flow N/A 6.3-25 N/A 6.3-42 N/A LPCI Flow N/A 6.3-26 N/A 6.3-43 N/A LPCS Flow N/A 6.3-27 N/A 6.3-44 N/A HPCS Flow N/A 6.3-28 N/A 6.3-45 N/A
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-4 (SHEET 2 of 2)
KEY TO FIGURES AND TABLES IN SECTION 6.3 TABLE 6.3-4 REV. 17, APRIL 2008
- These figures are shown in Reference 18 (3323 MWs), they are not shown in the UFSAR because GE considers this information proprietary and will not release them for use in a public domain document. Power uprate results are shown in Reference 33 an d the GE14 results in Reference 42.
Input Variables - Tabl es 6.3-2 and 6.3-2a Operation Sequence of ECCS for GE DBA - Table 6.3-3 Peak Cladding Temperature, Maximum Local Oxidation, and MAPLHGR vs. Exposure for FANP fuel - Table 6.3-6a, Table 6.3-6i and Table 6.3-6j Summary of GE LOCA Analys is Results - Table 6.3-8 Summary of SPC LOCA Analysis Resu lts - Table 6.3-8a and Table 6.3-8b Single Failure Analysis - Table 6.3-1
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-5 (SHEET 1 of 6) TABLE 6.3-5 REV. 16, APRIL 2006 ECCS SINGLE VALVE FAILURE ANALYSIS SYSTEM VALVE POSITION FOR NORMAL PLANT OPERATION CLOSED OPEN CONSEQUENCES OF VALVE FAILURE ASSUMED TOGETHER WITH DESIGN-BASIS (DBA) LOCA REMAINING ECCS COOLANT DELIVERY SYSTEMS High-pressure core spray (HPCS)
Suppression pool suction E22-F015 X If MO valve fails to remain open during system operation, HPCS will no longer function. LPCS + 3 LPC1 loops Drains and pressure test connections on suction line E22-F019 E22-F017/E22-F308 E22-F339/E22-F340
X X X If these manual valves are placed in the incorrect open position, part of the flow could be diverted to locations other than the RPV. However, since all connections, except that for E22-F019, have two valves that must be left open before flow is diverted, and the leak detection system would alarm, three failures would be required for this improper position to result and go undetected. In the case of E22-F019, two failures would be required. LPCS + 3 LPCI loops +
partial HPCS Minimum flow E22-F012 X If MO valve fails to open, HPCS pump may overheat and fail. If valve fails to reclose, approximately 10% of system flow returns to suppression pool LPCS + 3 LPCI loops 90% HPCS + LPCS +3 LPCI loops Condensate tank suction to HP Core Spray E22-F001 (MO) E22-F302 (Manual)
E22-F030/E22-F309 (Pressure test connection)
X X X Valves are isolated from HPCS System by means of blind flange. Failure will have no effect on HPCS operation. HPCS + LPCS + 3 LPCI loops Test return to suppression pool E22-F023 X If MO valve is open on start of LOCA, auto close signal recloses valve. If valve fails to remain closed during system operation, approximately 90% of HPCS flow returns to suppression poo1. HPCS will no longer function.
HPCS + LPCS + 3 LPCI loops. LPCS + 3 LPCI loops Abandoned test return to condensate tank E22-F010 E22-F011
X X If these valves are placed in the incorrect open position, part of flow could be diverted to other locations than RPV. However, valves are closed and handwheels are removed. LPCS +3 LPCI loops + partial
HPCS LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-5 (SHEET 2 of 6) TABLE 6.3-5 REV. 13 SYSTEM VALVE POSITION FOR NORMAL PLANT OPERATION CLOSED OPEN CONSEQUENCES OF VALVE FAILURE ASSUMED TOGETHER WITH DESIGN-BASIS (DBA) LOCA REMAINING ECCS COOLANT DELIVERY SYSTEMS Injection valve E22-F004 X If MO valve fails to remain open, HPCS will no longer function. LPCS + 3 LPCI loops Maintenance valve E22-F038 X This manual valve is located in the discharge line inside the drywell, and if closed, would result in blocking system injection. Since the valve has position (open/closed) indication in the control room, two error/failures would be required for blockage of system flow to result (i.e., valve is placed in wrong position and operator fails to take corrective action, or position indicating lights do not properly function. LPCS + 3 LPCI loops Water leg valves E22-F026 E22-F034 E22-F006 E22-F033 X X X X These manual valves must be in the position shown to ensure that the discharge line remain filled, thus avoiding water hammer on pump start. Improper positioning would result in a pressure switch/alarm indicating the discharge line is not filled.
Therefore, two failures (valve in improper position and switch/alarm failure) must occur before the error goes undetected. LPCS + 3 LPCI loops Drains, vents and pressure test connections on discharge lines E22-F003/E22-F031 E22-F021/E22-F022 E22-F348/E22-F347 E22-F349/E22-F350 X
X X X These manual valves are normally closed, connected in series, and located on the pump discharge line. Both valves in each group must be open before water is diverted from the normal discharge path. Also, as in the case of valves F030 and F033 above, improper position would be detected by the Leak Detection System(i.e., 3 failures required for improper position to result and go undetected. LPCS + 3 LPCI loops +
partial HPCS Low-pressure core spray (LPCS)
Suppression pool suction E21-F001 X If valve fails to remain open during system operation, LPCS will no longer function.
HPCS + LPCS + 3LPCI loops. HPCS + 3 LPCI loops
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-5 (SHEET 3 of 6) TABLE 6.3-5 REV. 13 SYSTEM VALVE POSITION FOR NORMAL PLANT OPERATION CLOSED OPEN CONSEQUENCES OF VALVE FAILURE ASSUMED TOGETHER WITH DESIGN-BASIS (DBA) LOCA REMAINING ECCS COOLANT DELIVERY SYSTEMS Drains, vents and pressure test connections on suction line E21-F008 E21-F327/E21-F328 E21-F334/E21-F335 E21-F329/E21-F330 E21-F331/E21-F332
X X X X X If these manual valves are incorrectly placed in the open position, the leak detection system would alarm. In addition, all connections except E21-F008 require that two valves in series be left in an incorrect position before suction flow is affected. Thus, three failures would be required for the improper valve positions to result in flow loss, except in the case of E21-F008 which requires two failures. HPCS + 3 LPCI loops +
partial LPCS Test return line E21-F012 X If MO valve is open on start of LOCA, auto close signal recloses valve.
If valve fails to remain closed during system operation, approximately 90% of LPCS flow returns to suppression pool. LPCS will no longer function.
HPCS + 3 LPCI loops Injection valve E21-F005 X If MO valve fails to remain open, LPCS will no longer function. HPCS + 3 LPCI loops Maintenance Valve E21-F051 X Since this manual valve has position indication in the control room, the valve would have to be in the wrong position (closed) and the position indication fail in order for injection blockage to occur; a malfunction requires 2 failures. HPCS + 3 LPCI loops Minimum flow E21-F011 (MO)
E21-F052 (Manual)
X X If valves are not open, LPCS pump may overheat and fail. If valve E21-F011 fails to close approximately 10% of system flow returns to suppression pool. HPCS + 3 LPCI loops For E21-F011 failure to close, HPCS + 90% LPCS + 3 LPCI loops. Drain, vent and pressure test connections on discharge line E21-F325/E21-F326 E21-F025/E21-F305 E21-F013/E21-F014 E21-F321/E21-F322 X
X X X Incorrect position could degrade injection flow. Since both manual valves are in the same drain line, both valves would have to be in the wrong position in order for injection flow to degrade; a malfunction requires 2 failures. HPCS + 3 LPCI loops +
partial LPCS
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-5 (SHEET 4 of 6) TABLE 6.3-5 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 SYSTEM VALVE POSITION FOR NORMAL PLANT OPERATION CLOSED OPEN CONSEQUENCES OF VALVE FAILURE ASSUMED TOGETHER WITH DESIGN-BASIS (DBA) LOCA REMAINING ECCS COOLANT DELIVERY SYSTEMS Water leg Valves E21-F004 E21-F032 E21-F034 E21-F035 X X X X These manual valves must be in the indicated position to ensure discharge line remains filled. Since a low pressure alarm indicates a fill system failure, both sensor and valve position would have to be incorrect in order for the failure to go undetected. Two failures would be required HPCS + 3 LPCI loops Low-pressure coolant injection (LPCI) LPCI loop A Suppression pool suction E12-F004A X If valve fails to remain open during system operation, LPCI loop will no longer function HPCS + LPCS + 3 LPCI loops. HPCS + LPCS + 2 LPCI loops.
Minimum flow E12-F064A (MO)
E12-F018A (Manual)
X X If valves are not open, LPCI pump may overheat and fail. If valves E12-F064A fails to close approximately 10% of loop, flow returns to suppression pool HPCS + LPCS + 2 LPCI loops. HPCS + LPCS + 2 For E12-F064A failure to close. LPCI loops + 90%
LPCI loop. Test return line E12-F024A X If MO valve is open on start of LOCA, auto close signal recloses valve. If valve fails to remain closed during system operation approximately 90% of loop flow returns to suppression pool. LPCI loop will no longer function.
HPCS + LPCS + 3 LPCI loops. HPCS + LPCS + 2 LPCI loops. Drain, vent and pressure test connections on the suction line E12-F370A/E12-F369A E12-F397/E12-F398 E12-F356A/E12-F379A
E12-F071A/E12-F070 X
X X X If these manual valves are in the incorrect position, part of the flow could be diverted. However, all connections are provided with two valves in series, and the leak detection system would alarm. Thus, three failures must be postulated for the incorrect condition to go undetected. HPCS + LPCS + 2 LPCI loops + partial LPCIA LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-5 (SHEET 5 of 6) TABLE 6.3-5 REV. 13 SYSTEM VALVE POSITION FOR NORMAL PLANT OPERATION CLOSED OPEN CONSEQUENCES OF VALVE FAILURE ASSUMED TOGETHER WITH DESIGN-BASIS (DBA) LOCA REMAINING ECCS COOLANT DELIVERY SYSTEMS Low-pressure coolant injection (LPCI) (cont'd)
LPCI loop A
Heat exchanger bypass E12-F048A X
No effect. LPCI flow will be through heat exchanger. Heat exchanger pressure drop will not degrade loop flow.
HPCS + LPCS + 3 LPCI loops. Injection valve(s) E12-F042A X If MO valve fails to remain open, LPCI loop will no longer function. HPCS + LPCS + 2 LPCI loops. Maintenance valve E12-F092A (Manual) E12-F098A (Manual)
X X The valve E12-F092A with position indication in the main control room. Therefore, for this valve to be incorrectly positioned (closed), a failure of this indication as well as incorrect valve positioning (two failures) must be assumed. Valve E12-F098A could block LPCI flow if left in the incorrect (closed) position. HPCS + LPCS + 2 LPCI loops. Water leg valves E12-F085A X This manual valve must be open to ensure a filled discharge line. Incorrect positioning would be detected and alarmed in the control room by a pressure switch signal on low pressure. Thus, two failures would be required in order for valve to be incorrectly positioned.
HPCS + LPCS + 2 LPCI Drains, vents and pressure test connections on discharge line E12-F361A/E12-F362A E12-F363A/E12-F364A E12-F385A/E12-F386A E12-F080A/E12-F081A E12-F060A/E12-F075A E12-F367/E12-F368 E12-F372A/E12-F371A E12-F056A/E12-F057A E12-F321A/E12-F322A E12-F086/E12-F389 E12-F063A/E12-F388A X
X X X X X X X X X X All connections are double valved; therefore, two valves in series would have to be in an incorrect position before any flow would be diverted. In addition, the low pressure alarm would be sounded in the control room since the water leg pump would not maintain the line filled, and leak detection alarms would also be triggered by leakage into the areas.
Therefore, four failures must be postulated before any adverse effects on the system could go undetected. HPCS + LPCS + 2 LPCI +
Partial LPCI A
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-5 (SHEET 6 of 6) TABLE 6.3-5 REV. 13 SYSTEM VALVE POSITION FOR NORMAL PLANT OPERATION CLOSED OPEN CONSEQUENCES OF VALVE FAILURE ASSUMED TOGETHER WITH DESIGN-BASIS (DBA) LOCA REMAINING ECCS COOLANT DELIVERY SYSTEMS LPCI (Cont'd)
Combustible gas control cooling water supply E12-F312A X This MO valve, if left in the incorrect position, could divert flow away from LPCI. However, position indication is provided in the main control room. HPCS + LPCS + 2 LPCI + partial LPCI A LPCI Loop A Head spray E12-F023 X This MO valve in an incorrect position (open) would be closed by an isolation signal if LPCI were activated. In addition, position indication is provided in the main control room, and the flow diverted would be sprayed into the RPV head. HPCS + LPCS + 2 LPCI +
partial LPCI A Loops B and C are identical to Loop A except for the following instances: 1) No heat exchanger bypass valve (E12-F048) exists for Loop C; however, it is provided for Loop B. 2) No combustible gas control cooling water cross-tie exists for Loop C. 3) No head spray line exists for either Loop B or C.
- 4) The following additional connections and valves exist on Loop C and not on Loops A or B Suppression pool cleanup suction lines E12-F303 E12-F402
X X These manual valves located in branch lines off the LPCI suction are also provided with a normally blind flanged connection. A spool piece can be added during plant shutdown to clean-up the suppression pool. Therefore, both the valve and blind flange would have to be incorrect before flow could be diverted.
HPCS + LPCS + LPCI A&B Water leg valves E12-F082
E12-F380 X
X Pressure switches are provided to alarm at low pressure if the water leg pumps are not maintaining the proper fill in the
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-6 TABLE 6.3-6 REV. 13 SINGLE FAILURES CONSIDERED FOR ECCS ANALYSIS
Assumed Failure (1) Remaining ECCS (2)
HPCS D/G LPCS + 3 LPCI + ADS (3)
LPCS D/G HPCS + 2 LPCI + ADS (3)
LPCI D/G HPCS + LPCS + LPCI + ADS(3) ADS HPCS + LPCS + 3 LPCI + 5 ADS valves
(1) Other postulated failures are not specifically considered because they result in at least as much ECCS capacity as one of the above assumed failures. (2) Systems remaining, as identified in th is table, are applicable to all non-ECCS line breaks. For a LOCA from an ECCS line break, the remaining systems are those listed for the recirculation line break, less the ECCS in which the break is assumed. (3) The analysis was performed assuming only 6 of the 7 ADS Valves were functional. This was done to support operation with one SRV out-of-service.
In the case of a single failure of the ADS, only 5 ADS valves were assumed.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-6a TABLE 6.3-6a REV. 17, APRIL 2008 ATRIUM-9B MAPLHGR Analysis Results Average Planar Exposure (GWd/MTU)
MAPLHGR (kW/ft) PCT (F)1 Local Cladding Oxidation (%)
2 0 13.5 1807 0.68 5 13.5 1792 0.63 10 13.5 1758 0.55 15 13.5 1709 0.47 20 13.5 1726 0.72 25 13.0 1686 0.59 30 12.5 1652 0.45 35 12.0 1640 0.45 40 11.5 1592 0.31 45 11.0 1557 0.24 50 10.5 1520 0.19 55 10.0 1474 0.15 60 9.5 1412 0.11 61.1 3 9.39 1396 0.10 64.3 9.07 -- -- 65 9.0 1384 0.16 Core average metal-water reaction is <0.16% at all exposures.
Source: EMF-2175(P) (Reference 16)
Footnotes:
1 All LOCA PCT evaluations are tracked by Nuclear Fuels and reported to the NRC. 2 Reference 32 documents that the peak lo cal cladding oxidation is changed to 0.79% due to limiting PCT change.
3 The exposure limit has been extend ed to 64.3 GWd/MTU with a MAPLHGR limit of 9.07 kW/ft (Reference 38). Note that the analyses that support the ATRIUM-9B exposure extension were actually performed for 65 GWd/MTU. However, the ATRIUM-9B fuel cannot be operated past 64.3 GWd/MTU (Reference 39).
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-6i TABLE 6.3-6i REV. 17, APRIL 2008 ATRIUM-10 MAPLHGR Analysis Results Average Planar Exposure (GWd/MTU)
MAPLHGR (kW/ft) PCT (F) Local Cladding Oxidation
(%) 0 12.5 1729 0.48 5 12.5 1648 0.33 10 12.5 1567 0.21 15 12.5 1578 0.22 20 12.1 1546 0.19 25 11.7 1519 0.16 30 11.2 1493 0.14 35 10.8 1464 0.11 40 10.4 1428 0.09 45 9.9 1399 0.08 50 9.5 1365 0.07 55 9.1 1327 0.05 60 8.3 1243 0.03 65 7.4 1163 0.02 67 7.1 1130 0.02 Core average metal-water reaction is <<0.16% at all exposures.
Source: EMF-3231(P) (Reference 47)
Note:
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-6j TABLE 6.3-6j REV. 17, APRIL 2008 Limiting ATRIUM-10 LOCA Analysis Break Characteristics and Results (Applied to Unit 1 and Unit 2)
Location Recirculation suction pipe Type / size Double-ended guillotine / 0.8 discharge coefficient Single failure Low-pressure coolant injection diesel generator Maximum MAPLHGR 12.5 (kW/ft) Peak cladding temperature 1729
(°F) Local cladding oxidation 0.48 (max %) Total hydrogen generated <<0.16
- (% of total hydrogen possible)
Source: EMF-3231(P) (Reference 47)
- Planar average MWR for the peak power plane is < 16% which indicates a CMWR significantly less than 0.16%.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-7 TABLE 6.3-7 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 SEQUENCE OF EVENTS FOR STEAMLINE BREAK OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT (The information in this table is historical; please refer to Appendix A from GE proprietary document GE-NE-208-21-1093, "Engineering Evaluation Requirements for the LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 SAFER-GESTR Loss of Coolant Accident Analysis with ECCS Relaxations," dated November 1993.)
TIME (sec) EVENT 0 Guillotine break of one main steamline outside primary containment.
~0.5 High steamline flow signal initiates closure of main
steamline isolation valve.
<1.0 Reactor begins scram.
5.5 Main steamline isolation valves fully closed.
~60 RCIC and HPCS would initiate on low water level (RCIC considered unavailable, HPCS assumed single failure, and therefore, may not be available).
~6 Safety relief valves open high vessel pressure. The valves open and close to maintain vessel pressure at approximately 1100 psi.
~300 Reactor water level above core begins to drop slowly due to loss of steam through the safety valves. Reactor
pressure still at approximately 1100 psi.
~1150 ADS auto initiates after 10 minute drywell pressure bypass timer plus the existing 2 minute initiation delay. Vessel depressurizes rapidly.
~1350 Low-pressure ECC systems initiated. Reactor fuel uncovered partially.
~1400 Core effectively reflooded and cladding temperature heatup terminated. No fuel rod failure.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-7a TABLE 6.3-7a REV. 15, APRIL 2004 Event Times for FANP Limiting Large Break LOCA 1.0 DEG Pump Suction SF-LPCS/DG for ATRIUM-9B Fuel Event Time (Seconds)
Initiate Break 0.0 Initiate Scram 0.6 Feedwater Flow Stops 0.5 MSIV Fully Closed 5.0 Low-Low Water Level 8.3 Low-Low-Low Water Level 9.5 Jet Pump Uncovers 10.8 Recirculation Suction Uncovers 14.7 Lower Plenum Flashes 17.1 HPCS Valve Starts to Open 13.0 HPCS Pump at Rated Speed 41.0 HPCS Flow Starts 41.0 LPCS Valve Starts to Open NA LPCS Pump at Rated Speed NA LPCS Flow Starts NA LPCI Valve Starts to Open 46.6 LPCI Pump at Rated Speed 60.0 LPCI Flow Starts 63.5 End of Blowdown (Rated Spray) 80.4 ADS Valve Opens 129.5 Start of Reflood 116.6 Core Reflood 125.2 Depressurization Ends
>150.0 Peak Cladding Temperature Occurs 125.2 Source: EMF-2174(P)
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-7b TABLE 6.3-7b REV. 15, APRIL 2004 Event Times for FANP Limiting LOCA 1.1 ft 2 Pump Discharge SF-HPCS/DG for ATRIUM-9B Fuel Event Time (Seconds)
Initiate Break 0.0 Initiate Scram 0.6 Feedwater Flow Stops 0.5 MSIV Fully Closed 5.0 Low-Low Water Level 13.0 Low-Low-Low Water Level 15.4 Jet Pump Uncovers 18.4 Recirculation Suction Uncovers 28.9 Lower Plenum Flashes 34.3 HPCS Valve Starts to Open NA HPCS Pump at Rated Speed NA HPCS Flow Starts NA LPCS Valve Starts to Open 97.9 LPCS Pump at Rated Speed 65.0 LPCS Flow Starts 133.6 LPCS MFV Closed 147.2 LPCI Valve Starts to Open 97.9 LPCI Pump at Rated Speed 65.0 LPCI Flow Starts 144.0 LPCI MFV Closed (End of RELAX Calculation) 183.5 End of Blowdown (Rated Spray) 160.5 ADS Valve Opens 135.4 Start of Reflood 196.2 Core Reflood 203.1 Depressurization Ends
>250.0 Peak Cladding Temperature Occurs 203.1 Source: EMF-2175(P)
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-8
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS OF SAFER/GESTR-LOCA ANALYSIS (10CFR50 Appendix K)
TABLE 6.3-8 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 LASALLE 1 & 2 SPECIFIC BREAK SPECTRUM Fuel Type: GE14 Break Size Break Location Single Failure 1st PCT 2nd PCT DBA Suction HPCS/DG 1019 / 1009 1258 / 1394 Suction LPCS/DG 1019 / 1009 1210 / 1301 Suction LPCI/DG 1019 / 1009 1214 / 1231 0.08 ft 2 Suction HPCS/DG 1032 993 0.1 ft 2 Suction HPCS/DG N/A 1446 MSLB Outside Containment HPCS/DG N/A 659 Limiting Break 0.08ft 2 Recirculation Suction Line Break Limiting ECCS Failure HPCS Diesel Generator Failure Peak Cladding Temperature (Licensing
Basis) 1460°F Maximum Local Oxidation
< 1.0% Core-Wide Metal-Water Reaction <0.1%
____________________________________ Notes: (1) First PCT is the PCT due to early boiling transition and lowering of water level before lower plenum flashing, and the second PCT is the
PCT after ECC systems inject. (2) Deleted (3) Core-Wide Metal-Water Reaction <0.1% for all cases.
(4) There is no early boiling transition for break areas less than 1.0 ft
- 2. Therefore, N/A is used for the first PCT and the value in the second PCT column is the peak PCT for the entire transient. (5) Based on Reference 42 for GE14 Fuel (6) The licensing basis PCT is in the most recent 10 CFR 50.46 report on each unit's NRC docket.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-8a Summary of Results of FANP Fuel (HUXY) LOCA Analysis*
(Sheet 1 of 2)
LaSalle 1 & 2 Specific Break Spectrum (Recirculation Line Break)
TABLE 6.3-8a REV. 15, APRIL 2004 Fuel Type: ATRIUM-9B Break Size Break Location Break Type ** Single Failure PCT (°F)* DBA Suction DEG LPCS/DG 1669 Suction DEG LPCI/DG 1661 Suction DEG HPCS/DG 1648 Discharge DEG LPCS/DG 1494 Discharge DEG LPCI/DG 1452 Discharge DEG HPCS/DG 1567 Suction DES LPCS/DG 1644 Suction DES LPCI/DG 1643 Suction DES HPCS/DG 1625 Discharge DES LPCS/DG 1505 Discharge DES LPCI/DG 1466 Discharge DES HPCS/DG 1567 80% DBA Suction DEG HPCS/DG 1636 Suction DES HPCS/DG 1621 Discharge DEG HPCS/DG 1565 Discharge DES HPCS/DG 1567 60% DBA Suction DEG LPCS/DG 1580 Suction DEG HPCS/DG 1582 Discharge DEG LPCS/DG 1474 Discharge DEG HPCS/DG 1562 Suction DES LPCS/DG 1625 Suction DES HPCS/DG 1615 Discharge DES LPCS/DG 1490 Discharge DES HPCS/DG 1564 ________________________
- Source EMF-2174(P)(Reference 17) ** For DEG breaks, the discharge coefficient and full break area are used in the analyses. For split breaks (DES), size is the fraction of twice pipe cross-section area.
The licensing basis PCT is in the most recent 10CFR 50.46 report on each unit's NRC docket.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-8a Summary of Results of FANP Fuel (HUXY) LOCA Analysis*
(Sheet 2 of 2)
LaSalle 1 & 2 Specific Break Spectrum (Recirculation Line Break)
TABLE 6.3-8a REV. 15, APRIL 2004 Break Size Break Location Break Type ** Single Failure PCT (°F)* 40% DBA Suction DEG HPCS/DG 1561 Suction DES HPCS/DG 1475 Discharge DEG HPCS/DG 1563 Discharge DES HPCS/DG 1567 1.6 ft 2 Suction N/A LPCS/DG 1491 Suction N/A HPCS/DG 1479 Discharge N/A LPCS/DG 1461 Discharge N/A HPCS/DG 1573 1.0 ft 2 Suction N/A LPCS/DG 1396 Suction N/A LPCI/DG 1431 Suction N/A HPCS/DG 1594 Discharge N/A LPCS/DG 1404 Discharge N/A LPCI/DG 1432 Discharge N/A HPCS/DG 1728 1.1 ft 2 Discharge N/A HPCS/DG 1737 1.2 ft 2 Discharge N/A HPCS/DG 1717 0.4 ft 2 Suction N/A LPCS/DG 1251 Suction N/A HPCS/DG 1387 Discharge N/A LPCS/DG 1363 Discharge N/A HPCS/DG 1611 0.1 ft 2 Suction N/A LPCS/DG 716 Suction N/A HPCS/DG 1317 Discharge N/A LPCS/DG 1035 Discharge N/A HPCS/DG 1429 ________________________
- Source EMF-2174(P)(Reference 17) ** For DEG breaks, the discharge coefficient and full break area are used in the analyses. For split breaks (DES), size is the fraction of twice pipe cross-section area.
The licensing basis PCT is in the most recent 10CFR 50.46 report on each unit's NRC docket.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-8b Summary of Results of FANP Fuel (HUXY) LOCA Analysis*
LaSalle 1 & 2 Specific Break Spectrum (Non-Recirculation Line Break)
TABLE 6.3-8b REV. 15, APRIL 2004 ATRIUM-9B Break Location Single Failure PCT (oF)Maximum Local Metal Water Reaction (%)
Core Average Metal Water Reaction (%) HPCS Line LPCS DG 1386 0.06
<1.0 HPCS Line ADS Valve 1019 0.00
<1.0 LPCI Line HPCS DG 1263 0.03
<1.0 LPCI Line LPCS DG 1188 0.02
<1.0 _______________________________
- Source EMF-2174(P) (Reference 17)
The licensing basis PCT is in the most recent 10CFR 50.46 report on each unit's NRC docket.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-9 (Sheet 1 of 4) TABLE 6.3-9 REV. 13 MOTOR-OPERATED VALVES THERMAL OVERLOAD PROTECTION VALVE NUMBER BYPASS DEVICE (Continuous, Accident Conditions, or None) SYSTEM(S) AFFECTED a. 1VG001 Accident Conditions 1VG003 Accident Conditions 2VG001 Accident Conditions 2VG003 Accident Conditions SBGTS b. 1(2)VP113A Accident Conditions 1(2)VP113B Accident Conditions 1(2)VP114A Accident Conditions 1(2)VP114B Accident Conditions 1(2)VP053A Accident Conditions 1(2)VP053B Accident Conditions 1(2)VP063A Accident Conditions 1(2)VP063B Accident Conditions Primary containment chilled water coolers c. 1VQ038* Accident Conditions 1(2)VQ032 Accident Conditions 1(2)VQ035 Accident Conditions 1(2)VQ047 Accident Conditions 1(2)VQ048 Accident Conditions 1(2)VQ050 Accident Conditions 1(2)VQ051 Accident Conditions 1(2)VQ068 Accident Conditions 1VQ037* Accident Conditions 2VQ037* Accident Conditions 2VQ038* Accident Conditions Primary containment vent and purge system
- d. 1(2)WR179 Accident Conditions 1(2)WR180 Accident Conditions 1(2)WR040 Accident Conditions 1(2)WR029 Accident Conditions RBCCW system
- e. 1(2)B21 - F067A Accident Conditions 1(2)B21 - F067B Accident Conditions 1(2)B21 - F067C Accident Conditions 1(2)B21 - F067D Accident Conditions 1(2)B21 - F019 Accident Conditions 1(2)B21 - F016 Accident Conditions 1(2)B21 - F020 Continuous 1(2)B21 - F068 Continuous 1(2)B21 - F070 Continuous 1(2)B21 - F069 Continuous 1(2)B21 - F071 Continuous 1(2)B21 - F072 Continuous 1(2)B21 - F073 Continuous 1(2)B21 - F418A Continuous 1(2)B21 - F418B Continuous Main steam system
- These valves have thermal overload bypass for accident conditions from both Unit 1 and Unit 2 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-9 (Sheet 2 of 4) TABLE 6.3-9 REV. 13
VALVE NUMBER BYPASS DEVICE (Continuous, Accident Conditions, or None) SYSTEM(S) AFFECTED
- f. 1(2)B21 - F065A Continuous 1(2)B21 - F065B Continuous Main feedwater system
- g. 1(2)E21 - F001 Continuous 1(2)E21 - F005 Accident Conditions 1(2)E21 - F011 Accident Conditions 1(2)E21 - F012 Accident Conditions LPCS system
- h. 1(2)C41 - F001A Accident Conditions 1(2)C41 - F001B Accident Conditions SBLCS i. 1(2)G33 - F001 Accident Conditions 1(2)G33 - F004 Accident Conditions 1(2)G33 - F040 Continuous RWCU j. 1(2)E12 - F052A Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F064A Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F087A Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F004A Continuous 1(2)E12 - F047A Continuous 1(2)E12 - F048A Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F003A Continuous 1(2)E12 - F026A Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F068A Continuous 1(2)E12 - F073A Continuous 1(2)E12 - F074A Continuous 1(2)E12 - F011A Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F024A Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F016A Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F017A Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F027A Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F004B Continuous 1(2)E12 - F047B Continuous 1(2)E12 - F048B Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F003B Continuous 1(2)E12 - F068B Continuous 1(2)E12 - F073B Continuous 1(2)E12 - F074B Continuous 1(2)E12 - F026B Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F011B Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F024B Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F006B Continuous 1(2)E12 - F016B Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F017B Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F042B Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F064B Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F093 Continuous 1(2)E12 - F021 Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F004C Continuous RHR system
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-9 (Sheet 3 of 4) TABLE 6.3-9 REV. 14, APRIL 2002
VALVE NUMBER BYPASS DEVICE (Continuous, Accident Conditions, or None) SYSTEM(S) AFFECTED 1(2)E12 - F052B Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F087B Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F099B Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F099A Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F008 Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F009 Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F040A Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F040B Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F049A Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F049B Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F053A Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F053B Accident Conditions
- j. (cont'd) 1(2)E12 - F006A Continuous 1(2)E12 - F023 Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F027B Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F042A Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F042C Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F064C Accident Conditions 1(2)E12 - F094 Continuous RHR system
- k. 1(2)E51 - F086 Accident Conditions 1(2)E51 - F022 Accident Conditions 1(2)E51 - F068 Continuous 1(2)E51 - F069 Continuous 1(2)E51 - F080 Accident Conditions 1(2)E51 - F046 Accident Conditions 1(2)E51 - F059 Accident Conditions 1(2)E51 - F063 Accident Conditions 1(2)E51 - F019 Accident Conditions 1(2)E51 - F031 Continuous 1(2)E51 - F045 Accident Conditions 1(2)E51 - F008 Accident Conditions 1(2)E51 - F010 Accident Conditions 1(2)E51 - F013 Accident Conditions 1(2)E51 - F076 Accident Conditions 1(2)E51 - F360 Accident Conditions RCIC system
- l. 1(2)E22 - F004 Accident Conditions 1(2)E22 - F012 Accident Conditions 1(2)E22 - F015 Continuous 1(2)E22 - F023 Accident Conditions HPCS system
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.3-9 (Sheet 4 of 4)
TABLE 6.3-9 REV. 13 VALVE NUMBER BYPASS DEVICE (Continuous, Accident Conditions, or None) SYSTEM(S) AFFECTED
- m. 1(2)HG001A None 1(2)HG001B None 1(2)HG002A None 1(2)HG002B None 1(2)HG005A None 1(2)HG005B None 1(2)HG006A None 1(2)HG006B None 1(2)HG003 None 2(1)HG009 None 2(1)HG018 None 1(2)HG025 None 1(2)HG026 None 1(2)HG027 None 1(2)E12-F312A None 1(2)E12-F312B None Hydrogen recombiner system
LSCS-UFSAR 6.4-1 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 6.4 HABITABILITY SYSTEMS Habitability systems are designed to ensure habitability inside the control and the auxiliary electric equipment (AEE) rooms for both Units 1 and 2 during all normal and abnormal station operating conditions including the post-LOCA requirements, in compliance with Criterion 19 of 10 CFR 50, Appendix A. The habitability systems cover all the equipment, supplies, and procedures related to the control and auxiliary electric equipment so that control room operators are safe against postulated releases of radioactive materials, noxious gases, smoke, and steam.
Adequate sanitary facilities and medica l supplies are provided to meet the requirements of operating personnel during and after the accident. Adequate food and water storage in the control room are also provided for operators during the accident. In addition, the environment of the control and auxiliary electric equipment rooms is maintained in order to ensure the integrity of the contained safety-related controls and equipment, during all the station operating conditions.
6.4.1 Design Bases The design bases of the habitability systems upon which the functional design is established, are summarized as follows:
- a. Independent HVAC systems are provid ed for the control room envelope and the auxiliary electric equipment room envelope which contains the remote shutdown panels and consists of auxiliary electric equipment room Unit 1 and Unit 2.
- b. The control and auxiliary electric equipment rooms are occupied continuously on a year-round basis. The occupancy of the operating personnel is assured for a minimum period of 30 days, after a design-basis accident (DBA).
- c. The habitability systems are designed to support a minimum of 5 people during normal and abnormal station operating conditions. The control room is supplied by three separate and independent breathing
air subsystems which are each comp rised of three 300 cubic foot air cylinders with appropriate pressure regulators, low pressure alarms and face masks. Two of these subsystems are for the Unit 1 and Unit 2 control room operators, while the third system supplies a manifold in the control room which can support the senior reactor operator, the control room technical adviser, and a third user as de emed necessary. All three subsystems are designed to provide a minimum of 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> of
breathing air for each user.
- d. Sanitary facilities and medical supplies for minor injuries are provided for the control room. In addition, food and bottled water for a day (at least three meals) are stored in th e control room for a minimum of 10 people. This food is for use in accident conditions when access to the control room with food and water would be limited by dose rates.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.4-2 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 e. The radiological effects on the control and auxiliary electric equipment rooms that could exist as a conseque nce of any accident described in Chapter 15.0 are considered in the design of the habitability system.
- f. The design includes provisions to preclude the effect of noxious gas and smoke from inside or outside the plant.
- g. In addition to the subsystems me ntioned in (c) above, carts containing self-contained breathing air syst ems, e.g., Air-Paks, are located immediately outside the control room. These portable carts are intended for emergency use.
Each Air-Pak has a nominal 1/2 hour air breathing bottle which is rechargeable. These carts contai n adequate spares to provide necessary replacement bottles. A self-contained recharging system is provided for refilling expended air bo ttles on a timely basis to assure
an adequate air supply to emergency personnel.
At least ten total air paks are dedi cated for fire brigade use and are located where brigade members can readily obtain them. These air
packs are also rechargeable to assure adequate air supply to the fire brigade. h. The habitability systems are designed to operate effectively during and after a DBA such as a LOCA with the simultaneous loss of offsite power, design-basis earthquake, or failure of any one of the HVAC system components.
- i. Radiation monitors, ammonia, and ionization detectors continuously monitor the air supply from the control room and AEE room outside
air inlets (see Figure 6.4-2). The detection of high radiation, ammonia, or smoke is alarmed in the control room. Related protection functions are simultaneously initiated for high radiation or smoke. Pressure differential indicators are provided in the control room and AEE room to monitor the pressure differential between control/AEE room and surrounding areas respectively.
Outdoor air and individual room temperature indicators are provided
for the control room HVAC system and the AEE room HVAC system.
unit that contains a charcoal filter unit, called the recirculation filter. Each filter unit consists of a pr e-filter and a normally bypassed charcoal filter. Upon detection of smoke in the return ductwork, the LSCS-UFSAR 6.4-3 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 charcoal filter is automatically placed in service. After validation of a high ammonia concentration in the air intake, the charcoal filter will be manually placed on line. Upon detection of high radiation, the Operator must manually place the charcoal filter on-line within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of detection to maintain the control room and AEER doses to within GDC 19 limits.
6.4.2 System Design 6.4.2.1 Definition of Control Room Envelope Habitability systems on LaSalle County Station consist of the control room envelope and the AEE room envelope. A ventilation barrier is provided between the two envelopes by supplying independent HVAC systems as described in Subsection
9.4.1.
6.4.2.2 Ventilation System Design
The detailed ventilation system design is presented in Subsection 9.4.1.
All the components are designed to perform their function during and after the design basis earthquake except for the electric heating equipment, which is supported to stay in position, but may not function.
All components are protected from internally and externally generated missiles. A layout diagram of the control and AEE room s, showing doors, corridors, stairways, shield walls and the equipment layout is given in Figure 6.4-1.
The description of controls, instruments, radiation, smoke, and ammonia monitors for the control/AEE room HVAC systems is incl uded in Subsections 7.2. and 7.3.4.3. The locations of outside air intakes and potential sources of radioactive and toxic
gas releases are indicated in Figure 6.4-2.
A detailed description of the emergency makeup air filter trains is presented in Subsection 6.5.1.
6.4.2.3 Leaktightness
The control room ductwork was leak te sted during start-up and the leakage through the isolation dampers was determined from vendor data. All cable pans and duct LSCS-UFSAR 6.4-4 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 penetrations are sealed. Approximately 1500 cfm of outside air is introduced in the control room envelope to maintain approximately 1/8 in. H 20 positive pressure with respect to adjacent areas and approximatel y 2500 cfm of outside air is introduced in the AEE room envelope to maintain approximately 1/8 in. H 20 positive pressure.
During isolation of the control room or AEE room, due to the pres ence of toxic gases in the intake stream, the outside air dampers are shut.
6.4.2.4 Interaction with Other Zones and Pressure-Containing Equipment The control room envelope is surrounded by the auxiliary building offices (elevation 768 feet). These offices are served by an independent HVAC system as described in Subsection 9.4.3. There is a ventilati on barrier between the control room and auxiliary building office HVAC systems th rough concrete wall construction and leaktight doors.
The control room envelope is isolated fr om the turbine building through leaktight double doors.
6.4.2.5 Shielding Design
The shielding for the control and AEE r ooms is designed so that the doses experienced by control room personnel during normal operation and during design-basis accidents are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). However, the main function of the shielding is to protect occu pants from the radiation associated with a LOCA.
During normal operation the control an d AEE rooms are shielded from radiation sources in reactor water, steam processing equipment, station vent stack, and in the calibration facility. The sources, shielding, areas affected, and the dose rates
are given in Table 6.4-1.
The design-basis accident which requires excessive radiation protection for the
control and AEE rooms is the LOCA. Th e radiation sources due to a LOCA are distributed throughout the containment and the environment surrounding the control and AEE rooms as specified in Chapter 15.0. The shielding design and doses are based on airborne, cloud, and plate out sources given in Table 6.4-2. The location of the sources is shown in Figure 6.4-3.
The shielding reduces the radiation dose ra tes inside the control room (from outside sources) to levels where the accumulated dose is a small fraction of the limit specified in Criterion 19 of 10 CFR 50 Appendix A.
The shielding arrangement for the contro l and AEE rooms is presented in Figure 6.4-1, the sources and accident doses are given in Table 6.4-2, and the LOCA LSCS-UFSAR 6.4-5 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 shielding model is shown in Figure 6.4-3. Exposure of control room personnel due to airborne radiation inside the contro l room is discussed in Chapter 15.0.
The shielding which protects the control and AEE rooms during normal operation is directly associated with the radiation sources, i.e is not part of the control and AEE rooms shielding, which provides additional radiation protection. Table 6.4-1 lists the sources, total shielding thickness, and calculated dose rates during normal
operation.
6.4.3 System Operational Procedures
During normal plant operation, the mixture of recirculated air and outside air for the control room HVAC system is filtered by high-e fficiency, water and fire resistant glass fiber filters. The contro l room HVAC system is started through a remote control switch located in the control room. The sequence of operation is given in Chapter 7.0.
To remove any noxious gases, odors, and smoke from the control room environs, a bank of charcoal absorber beds is provided with each control room air handling
equipment train. These charcoal beds, located downstream of high-efficiency filters, are normally bypassed. If noxious gases are detected in the control room environs (outside air intake), the control room HVAC system is manually put in the recirculation mode, by which the outside air intake dampers are closed and the recirculation air from the control room system is routed through the charcoal absorber banks by operation of the handswitch controls provided on the main control board.
On the smoke detection signal in the return duct, the supply air to the control room HVAC system is automatically routed through the charcoal absorber and annunciated on the main control board.
The operator may continue to route the system supply air through the charcoal abs orber for smoke removal, or depending on the condition of the outside air, may manually bypass the charcoal absorber and
purge the system with outside air. Prio r to manually placing the HVAC systems in purge, e.g., maximum outside and exhaust air, the operator shall align the supply air through the charcoal absorber.
In the event of high radiation detection fr om the outside air intake of the control room HVAC system, the radiation monito ring system automatically shuts off normal and maximum outside air supply, and maximum exhaust air to the system. The minimum outside air requirement is routed through the emergency makeup air filter train and fan (for removal of radioact ive particulates and iodine), before being supplied to the system.
Two emergency makeup air filter trains and fans are provided, each capable of handling minimum requirements of outside ai r for the system. In the event of high LSCS-UFSAR 6.4-5a REV. 13 radiation levels, each train is sized to process 4000 cfm of outside air, providing 1500 cfm to the control room HVAC system and 2500 cfm to the auxiliary electric equipment room HVAC system. Each train contains a supply air filter, which must LSCS-UFSAR 6.4-6 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 be placed on-line within the first four hours of an accident to maintain CR doses within GDC 19 values. The emergency make up air filter units are described in detail in Subsection 6.5.1.
6.4.4 Design Evaluation The control room HVAC system is designed to maintain a habitable environment and to ensure the operability of all the components in the control
room under all the station operating cond itions. The system is provided with redundant equipment to meet the single failure criteria. The redundant equipment is supplied with separate essential power sources and is operable during loss of offsite power. The power supply and control and instrumentation meet IEEE-279 and IEEE-308 criteria. All the HVAC equipment except heating
are designed for Seismic Category I.
The likelihood of an equipment fire affecting control room habitability is minimized because early ionization detection is assured, fire fighting apparatus is available, and filtration and purging capability are provided.
The following provisions are made to minimize fire and smoke hazards inside the control room and damage to nuclear safety- related circuits:
- a. Most electrical wiring and equi pment are surrounded by, or mounted in metal enclosures.
- b. The nuclear safety-related circuit s for redundant divisions (including wiring) are physically segregated by space or fire part itions to allow only isolated damage to electrical equipment.
- c. Cables used throughout the co ntrol room are flame retardant.
- d. Structural and finish materials (i ncluding furniture) for the control room and interconnecting areas have been selected on the basis of fire resistant characteristics. Structur al floors and interior walls are of reinforced concrete. Interior partitions incorporate metal, masonry, or
gypsum dry walls on metal joists. The control room ceiling, door frames, and doors are metallic. Wood trim is not used.
The air distribution in the control room is designed to supply air into the occupied area and exhaust through the cont rol panels. In the event of smoke or products of combustion in the control panels, the ionization detection system alerts the operator and automatically positions dampers to pass all the supply air delivered to the conditioned spaces through a normally bypassed absorber for smoke and odor absorption. A manual override is also provided for this function as well as the ability to introduce 100% ou tside air to purge the control room as may be necessary.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.4-7 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 Two redundant ammonia detectors are provided at each outside air intake duct to the control room HVAC system. Upon dete ction of ammonia in the outside air, a control room annunciator alarms. The intake dampers can be manually closed, and the control room HVAC system operated in 100% recirculation mode, thus routing the recirculating air through its charcoal absorbers.
Four radiation monitor channels (A, B, C, and D) are provided to detect high
radiation at each outside air intake to the control room HVAC system. These monitor channels alarm the control room upon detection of high radiation. The emergency makeup air filter trains, designed to remove radioactive particulates and absorb radioactive iodine from the minimum quantity of outside air, are automatically started upon high radiation signals from two-out-of-four radiation monitor channels. The four monitor channels are divided into two trip systems.
High radiation signals from Monitor channels A and B or C and D will start the emergency makeup filter train for each intake.
The emergency makeup air filter trains, recirculation filters, and control room shielding are designed to limit the occupational dose below levels required by
Criterion 19 of 10 CFR 50 Appendix A.
The introduction of the minimum quantity of outside air to maintain the control room and other areas served by the co ntrol room HVAC system at a positive pressure with respect to surrounding potentially contaminated areas, at all the station operating conditions except when the system is in recirculation mode, precludes infiltration of unfiltered air into the control room.
The physical location of two redundant outside air intakes provides the option of drawing makeup air to the control room HYAC system from either of them depending upon the lesser contamination level, during and after a LOCA. It is possible that due to outside wind direction after a LOCA, one of the air intakes may
not have any contaminants, while the othe r intake may have contaminants. The former may be utilized for makeup air in th e control room. This provides additional security towards maintaining the habitabilit y of the control room. The radiological
consequences due to radioactivity drawn into the control room or AEER are provided in section 15.6.5.5.
6.4.5 Testing and Inspection The control room HVAC system and its co mponents are thoroughly tested in a program consisting of the following:
- a. factory and component qualification tests, b. onsite preoperational testing, and LSCS-UFSAR 6.4-8 REV. 13
- c. onsite subsequent periodic testing.
Written test procedures establish minimum acceptable values for all tests. Test results are recorded as a matter of performance record, thus enabling early detection of faulty performance.
All equipment is factory inspected and tested in accordance with the applicable equipment specifications, codes, and qu ality assurance requ irements. System ductwork and erection of equipment is insp ected during various construction stages for quality assurance. Construction tests are performed on all mechanical components and the system is balanced for the design airflows and system operating pressures. Controls, interlocks , and safety devices on each system are cold checked, adjusted, and tested to ensure the proper sequence of operation.
The inplace HEPA and Charcoal filter testing acceptance criteria, and the decontamination efficiency for the emergency makeup unit comply with the values listed in Reg. Guide 1.52, Revision 2.
6.4.6 Instrumentation Requirements All the instruments and contro ls for the control room H VAC system are electric or pneumatic.
- a. Each redundant control room H VAC system has a local control panel and each is independently controlled. Important operating functions are controlled and monitored from the main control room.
- b. Instrumentation is provided to monitor important variables associated with normal operation. Instrument s to alarm abnormal conditions are provided in the control room.
- c. A radiation detection system (instrument range 0.10 to 10,000 mr/hr.)
is provided to monitor the radiatio n levels at the system outside air intakes and inside the control room. A high radiation signal is
alarmed on the main control board.
- d. The ammonia detection system is pr ovided to detect the presence of ammonia at outside air intakes. Ammonia detection is annunciated locally and in the main control room.
- e. The ionization detection is provided in the outside and return air path from associated areas. Ionization detection is annunciated locally and on the main control board via the fire detection control panel.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.4-9 REV. 13
- f. The control room HVAC system is designed for automatic environmental control with the manual starting of fans. The refrigeration equipment has a manual auto switch.
- g. A fire protection water spray system is provided to each charcoal adsorber / absorber bed.
- h. The various instruments of the co ntrol system are described in detail in Chapter 7.0.
- i. The emergency makeup air filter train airflow rate and upstream HEPA filter differential pressure is transmitted to the main control board, recorded, and alarmed.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.4-1 TABLE 6.4-1 REV. 0 - APRIL 1984 DOSE RATES IN THE CONTROL AND AUXILIARY ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT (AEE) ROOMS DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS COMPONENT SOURCE RADIATION AREAS AFFECTED TOTAL SHIELD THICKNESS (INCHES)* CALCULATED DOSE RATE (mr/hr) RWCU pump Reactor water Direct gamma Control room AEE room 56 42 <0.1
<0.2 Skyshine Reactor steam Scattered gamma Control room Computer room 30 12 <0.1
<0.5 Main steam tunnel Reactor steam Direct gamma Control room AEE room 56 56 <0.5
<0.5 Station vent stack Off-gas Direct gamma Control room 40 <0.1 Feedwater pump Reactor steam Direct gamma Computer room 48 <0.1 Calibration facility C S-137 Direct gamma AEE room 24 <0.1
___________________________
- Thickness is given in inches of ordinary concrete with density of 140 pounds per cubic foot LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.4-2 TABLE 6.4-2 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 SHINE DOSE EXPERIENCED BY CONTROL ROOM PERSONNEL FOLLOWING LOSS-OF-COOLANT ACCIDENT
- SOURCE SOURCE DISTRIBUTION
SHIELD MODEL
ACTUAL SHIELD***
MAXIMUM DOSE RATE (R/hr) ACCUMULATED**
DOSE (rem)
- 1. Primary Containment a. Airborne b. Plate out 100% Nobles, 50% Halogens, 1% Particulates evenly distributed 100% on west side f 72 in. R.B. + 56 in. wall 72 in. R.B. + 56 in. wall
.6 x 10 -7 4 x 10-1 4 x 10-6 2 x 10-8 2. Reactor Building a. Airborne b. Plate out A c. Refueling floor plate out B 0.5% per day from 1 above evenly distributed 87% on west side f 13% on west side f 56 in. wall, 36 in. ceiling 56 in. wall, 48 in. ceiling 2 x 10-5 1 x 10-5 1.2 x 10-3 2.2 x 10-3 <1 x 10-2 7.3 x 10-1 3. SGTS Filter Unit 100% Halogens, particulates from 2a 36 in. R.B. +
56 in. wall 124 in. R.B. +
56 in. wall 2 x 10-9 8 x 10-6 4. Exhaust Clouds
- a. External to stations
- b. Airborne adjacent to control room Exhaust from 3, 100% Nobles, 10% Halogens 40 in. wall
24 in. wall
40 in. wall
24 in. wall 2 x 10-4 <1 x 10-7 8 x 10-3 <1 x 10-5 5. Control Room Air Intake Filter Unit Exhaust from 3 100% Nobles, 10% Halogens 24 in. ceiling 36 in. ceiling 2 x 10
-2 1.5 x 10-1 Total(rem):<9.4 X 10-1 leak rate of a 0.005/day <1 2 leak rate of 0.00635/day
- Due to sources outside the control room an average /Q was used to calculate the sources on the control room intake filter; more than 2/3 of this value is due to fumigation.
- For calculation purposes, the duration of the LOCA was chosen to be 30 days. No credit was taken for containment spray or mixing in the secondary containment. The filter efficiency for the SGTS filter units is 99% for halogens and 99.95%, including filter bank bypass for particulates.
- Thickness of ordinary concrete with density of 140 pounds per cubic foot.
f 50% of the available halogens particulates are plated out as indicated.
Note 1: The doses due to radioactivity drawn into the Control Room and Auxiliary Electric Equipment Room are given in section 15.6.5.5. Note 2: This table was developed based upon the original source term used in the DBA LOCA analysis. The source term has been r evised, but this table is conservative; and the resultant dose is negligible compared to the GDC 19 limits.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.5-1 REV. 13 6.5 FISSION PRODUCT REMOVAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 6.5.1 Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) Filter Systems
The following filtration systems which ar e required to perf orm safety-related functions are provided:
- a. Standby gas treatment system: Th is system is utilized to reduce halogen and particulate concentrations in gases leaking from the primary containment and which are potentially present in the secondary containment (reactor building) following the accident.
- b. Control room and Auxiliary Electric Equipment Room (AEE Room)
HVAC emergency makeup air filter uni ts and recirculation filters: These systems are utilized to clean the outside air of halogen and
particulates, which are potentially present in outside air following an accident, before introducing air into the control room or AEER HVAC system.
6.5.1.1 Design Bases 6.5.1.1.1 Standby Gas Treatment System
- a. The standby gas treatment system is designed to automatically start in response to any one of the following signals:
- 1. high pressure in Unit 1 or Unit 2 drywell,
- 2. low-water level in Unit 1 or Unit 2 reactor,
- 3. high radiation in exhaust air from over the fuel handling pools in the reactor building for either Unit 1 or Unit 2, 4. high radiation in the ventila tion exhaust plenum for reactor building for either Unit 1 or Unit 2, and
- 5. manual activation from the main control room.
- b. The radioactive gases leaking from the primary containment and which are potentially present in the secondary containment after a LOCA are treated in order to remove particulate and radioactive and nonradioactive forms of iodine to limit the offsite dose to the guidelines of 10 CFR 100.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.5-2 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 c. The capability of one SGTS train to draw down the pressure in the secondary containment to -0.25 in. H 2O, and to maintain that secondary containment pressure, is verified on a staggered basis in accordance with Technical Specifications.
- d. Any primary containment leakage (except that which is treated by the MSIV-ICLTM) will be contained within the secondary containment free air volume and will only reach the outside after passing through the SGTS. The secondary containm ent inleakage is determined by utilizing published leakage data for applicable building construction and incorporating known leakage values for piping, electrical, and duct penetrations at pressure control bo undaries. The SGTS flow rate is approximately equal to the total free air volume of the reactor buildings for both Units 1 and 2 evac uated at a rate of one per day.
The design flow rate through the SGTS also accounts for volumetric expansion of both reactor building air volumes due to temperature rises as equipment residual heat is released after ventilation and process system shutdown.
- e. The secondary containment leakage is calculated in the following manner: 1. Assume laminar flow through small cracks, thus Q = K P where: P is the pressure differential across the secondary containment boundary; Q is the airflow rate (leakage); and K is the loss coefficient.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.5-3 REV. 13 2. Take a secondary containment leak rate of 4000 ft 3/min at still wind conditions with -0.25 inch (H 2O) differential pressure between the outdoor ambient condition and the in-containment pressure.
- 3. Assume the manufacturer's certified leak test results on the siding for the reactor building.
- 4. Accept the air leakage test results contained in "Conventional Building for Reactor Containment," NAA-SR-10100.
- f. Two full-capacity standby gas treatment system equipment trains and associated dampers, ducts, instruments, and controls are provided.
- g. Each train is sized and specified for the worst conditions, treating incoming air-steam mixtures saturated at 150° F containing fission products and incoming particulates released from primary containment at the Tech. Spec. le akage rate as determined in accordance with Regulatory Guid e 1.3 and T1D-14844. The design
nominal volume rate for each train was established at 4000 cfm.
- h. Each equipment train contains the amount of charcoal required to absorb the inventory of fission pr oducts leaking from the primary containment, based on a one unit LOCA.
- i. Each train is designed with the proper air heaters, demister, and prefilters needed to assure the optimum gas conditions entering the high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) and charcoal filters. The air heater is sized to reduce air entering at 150° F, 100% relative humidity to a maximum 70% relative humidity. The demister is specified to remove any entrained moisture in the airstream.
- j. A standby cooling air fan is provided for each equipment train to remove heat generated by fission product decay on the HEPA filters and charcoal adsorbers afte r shutdown of the train.
The standby cooling air fan is conservatively sized to remove approximately 7700 Btu/hr of heat (generated by instantaneous deposition of iodine, on a HEPA filter bank and charcoal adsorbers) with less than a 50° F rise in cooling air temperature. This will limit the air temperature in the SGTS to 200° F maximum to prevent possible desorption and fire. Charcoal desorption temperature is given in ORNL-NSIC-65. No credit is taken for equipment or environment heat sink. Reactor building cooling air is routed through the shutdown train and exhausted to the atmosphere via the plant vent stack.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.5-4 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 k. The SGTS exhibits a removal effi ciency of no less than 99% on radioactive and nonradioactive forms of iodine and no less than 99.95%, including filter bank bypa ss on all particulate matter 0.3 micron and larger in size. The particulate removal efficiency is predicated on the use of 99% particulate removal efficiency. The physical property of new charcoal purchased shall meet requirements specified in Table 5-1 of AN SI/ASME N509-1980. Performance requirement shall be as specified in Table 5-1 of ANSI/ASME N509-1980 with penetration less than 0.5% as tested per ASTM D3803-1989. The charcoal is cont ained in gasketless, all welded construction adsorbers to preclude bypass of the charcoal and to ensure the highest removal efficiencies on methyl iodine.
The exhaust air from each SGTS is routed through a seismically supported duct and is an elevated release at an elevation of 1080 feet
above mean sea level, approximately 186 feet 8 inches above the highest structure. The discharge air velocity from the SGTS vent exhaust pipe is approximately 1270 fpm. This high point release provides effluent dispersion ratios sufficient to meet this requirement of 10 CFR 100.
- l. The SGTS is designed with redundancy to meet single failure criteria.
- m. The power supplies meet IEEE 308 criteria and ensure uninterrupted operation in the event of loss of no rmal a-c power. The controls meet IEEE 279.
- n. The SGTS is designed to Seismic Category I requirements.
- o. The SGTS is designed to permit pe riodic testing and inspection of the principal system components described in the following subsections.
6.5.1.1.2 Emergency Ma keup Air Filter Units:
- a. The emergency makeup air filter unit is designed to start automatically and provide outside air to the control room and auxiliary electric equipment room HVAC system s in response to any one of the following signals:
- 1. high radiation signal from the radiation monitors installed in outside air intake louvers for the control room and auxiliary
electric equipment room HVAC systems; and
- 2. manual activation from the main control room.
- b. The T1D-14844 source model in conjunction with approved methods is used to calculate the quantity of activity released as a result of an LSCS-UFSAR 6.5-5 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 accident and to determine inlet concentrations to the emergency makeup air filter train. See section 15.6.5.5 for additional details.
- c. The capacity of the emergency makeup air filter units is based on the air quantity required to maintain th e rooms served by the control room HVAC and auxiliary electric equipment room HVAC systems at a minimum of 1/8 inch H2O positive pressure with respect to adjacent areas. d. Two full capacity emergency makeup air filter units and associated dampers, ducts, and co ntrols are provided.
- e. Each unit is designed with the proper air heaters, demister, and prefilters needed to assure the optimum air conditions entering the high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) and charcoal filters.
- f. The emergency makeup air filter unit exhibits a removal efficiency of no less than 95% on radioactive and nonradioactive forms of iodine and no less than 99.95%, including filter bank bypass on all particulate matter 0.3 micron and larger in size.
- g. The emergency makeup air filter unit is designed to meet single failure criteria.
- h. The power supplies meet IEEE 308 criteria and ensure uninterrupted operation in the event of loss of no rmal a-c power. The controls meet IEEE 279.
- i. The emergency makeup air filter units are designed to Seismic Category I requirements.
- j. The emergency makeup air filter units are designed to permit periodic testing and inspection of principal system components described in the following subsections.
- k. Each control room and AEER HVAC subsystem has a supply air filter unit that contains a charcoal filter unit, called the recirculation filter. Each filter unit consists of a pr e-filter and a normally bypassed charcoal filter. Upon detection of smoke in the return ductwork, the charcoal filter is automatically placed in service. After validation of a high ammonia concentration in the air intake, the charcoal filter will be manually placed on line. Upon detection of high radiation, the Operator must manually place the charcoal filter on-line within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of detection to maintain the control room and AEER doses to
within GDC 19 limits.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.5-6 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 6.5.1.2 System Design
6.5.1.2.1 Standby Gas Treatment System
- a. The schematic design of the SGTS is shown in Drawing No. M-89. Nominal size of principal system components are listed in the Table 6.5-1.
- b. The SGTS is automatically or ma nually started to treat air exhausted from either reactor building. Two completely redundant parallel process systems are provided, each having a nominal capacity of 4000 ft3/min (at 150° F).
As indicated on the schematic in Drawing No. M-89, each process system may be considered as an installed spare. The process systems have separate equipment trains, isolation valves, power feeds, controls, and instrumentation. Two full capacity redundant standby gas treatment system equipment trains are provided. One equipment train is located in the Unit 1 reactor building and the other equipment train is located in the Unit 2 reactor building. The suction and discharge side of both trains are headered together so that either of the trains can treat the air from both reactor buildings. Each SGTS equipment train and damper on the suction and discharge side of corresponding trains are powered by electrical essential Division 2 of the related unit. Either secondary containment isolation power signal starts both equipment trains and activates both alarms in the main control room. The operator then shuts down one of the standby gas treatment system equipment trains af ter ensuring that at least one of the two redundant trains is operating.
The intake connections used for the standby gas treatment system are located on reactor building Units 1 and 2 floor elevation 820 feet 0 in. No redundant duct system component is located within 20 feet of its counterpart in areas where credible internal missiles or pipe whips might compromise redundancy.
- c. Each SGTS has the following components:
- 1. A primary fan for inducing the air from the spaces listed previously and discharging it through the filter train and common discharge pipe for elevated release to atmosphere. The fan performance and motor selection are based on the worst
environmental conditions inside the reactor building. The flow and pressures are listed in Table 6.5-1.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.5-6a REV. 15, APRIL 2004
- 2. A standby cooling air fan is sized to dissipate heat generated by fission product decay on the filters. The 200 ft 3 /min flow capacity limits the maximum temperature in the train to 200° F
for 150° F entering air temperature.
The fan is used only after train shutdown and when the electric heater and primary fan are not operating.
- 3. A demister which removes any entrained water droplets and moisture to minimize water loading on the prefilter. The LSCS-UFSAR 6.5-7 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 demister meets qualification requirements similar to those in MSAR 71-45 and is in UL Class I.
- 4. A single stage electric heater is sized to reduce the humidity of the airstream to at least 70% relative humidity for the worst inlet conditions. An analysis of heater capabilities for various
entering saturated air conditions ranging from 65° F to 150° F yields a peak heating requirement of 47,000 Btu/hr at 95° F entering air temperature. A 23-kW heater is provided.
- 5. A prefilter, UL listed, all-gla ss media, exhibiting no less than 85% efficiency based on ASHRAE atmospheric dust spot test.
- 6. A high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter, water resistant, capable of removing 99.95% minimum of particulate matter
which is 0.3 micron or larger in size. The filter is designed to be fire resistant. Four, 1000-ft /min elements are provided. All elements are fabricated in accordance with Military Specification MIL-F-51068, MI L-F-51079 and UL-586. The elements are size 5 with IIB element frame material. Gasket material will be SCE 43 per ASTM D1056. Testing of the HEPA filter banks is described in Subsection 6.5.1.4.
- 7. A charcoal adsorber capable of removing not less than 99% of radioactive and nonradioactive forms of iodine. The charcoal
adsorber is a gasketless, welded seam type, filled with impregnated coconut shell charcoal. The bank holds a total of approximately 5800 pounds of charcoal.
The charcoal specification requires an ignition temperature test
and a methyl iodide test on each batch of charcoal supplied. In addition, model tests or previous qualification test data were required to demonstrate the e ffectiveness of the bed design before construction of the actual beds. Test data proving uniform packing density of charcoal in beds was also required.
Ten test canisters are provided for each adsorber. These canisters contain the same depth of the same charcoal as is in the adsorber. The canisters are mounted, so that a parallel flow path is created between each canister and the adsorber. Periodically one of the canisters is removed and laboratory LSCS-UFSAR 6.5-8 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 tested to reverify the adsorbent efficiency. Two deluge valves in parallel connected to the station fire protection system are mounted outside of the charcoal adsorber. The charcoal bed is provided with a high temperature detector. The detector sensing high adsorber temperature will actuate an alarm in the main control room. High temperature alarms are nominally set
at 310 °F. Manual charcoal deluge valves are operated locally and then solenoid operated valves are operated from the control room. The normally manual closed isolation valves upstream of the deluge valve in all cases require local actions to initiate water flow.
- 8. A high efficiency particulate filter identical to the one described in item 6 previously is provided to trap charcoal fines which may be entrained by the airstream.
- d. Flow control valves are utilized upstream to regulate flow through the train. The train upstream static pressure will fluctuate between +1 and -1 inches water gauge.
- e. Full-size access doors to each filter compartment are provided in the equipment train housing. Access d oors are provided with transparent portholes to allow inspection of components without violating the train integrity.
- f. The housing is of all welded construction, heavily reinforced.
- g. Interior lights with external light switches, are provided between all train components to facilitate inspec tion, testing, and replacement of components.
- h. Filter frames are in accordance with recommendations of Section 4.3 of ORNL-NSIC-65.
- i. The height of release of the standby gas treatment system vent to the atmosphere is at elevation 1080 f eet (186 feet 8 inches above the highest structure on the station).
6.5.1.2.2 Emergency Ma keup Air Filter Units
- a. The emergency makeup air filter units work in conjunction with the control room and auxiliary electric equipment room HVAC system as described in Subsection 9.4.1. The nominal size of principal system components is listed in Table 9.4-1.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.5-9 REV. 14, APRIL 2002
- b. In the event of high radiation detection in the outside air intakes of the control room HVAC system, the radiation monitoring system automatically shuts off normal outside air supply to the system and routes the outside air through the emergency makeup air filter train and fan (for removal of radioactive particulates and iodine), before
being supplied to the control room and auxiliary electric equipment room HVAC systems.
- c. Two emergency makeup air filter trains and fans are provided, each capable of handling 4000 cfm nomi nal of outside air, providing approximately 1500 cfm to the control room HVAC system and approximately 2500 cfm to the auxiliary electric equipment room
HVAC system.
- d. Each emergency makeup air filter unit is comprised of the following components in sequence:
- 1. A demister which removes any entrained water droplets and moisture to minimize water drop lets and water loading of the prefilter. The demister will me et qualification requirements similar to those in Mine Safe ty Appliance Research (MSAR) report 71-45 and will be UL Class I.
- 2. A single stage electric heater, sized to reduce the humidity of the airstream to at least 70% relati ve humidity for the worst inlet conditions. An analysis of heater capacities for various entering saturated air conditions ranging from - 10° F to 95° F yields a peak heating requirement of 60, 000 Btu/hr at 95° F. A 20-kW heater is provided.
- 3. A prefilter, UL listed, all gla ss media, exhibiting no less than 85% efficiency based on ASHRAE Standard 52.2 method of testing.
- 4. A high-efficiency particulate (HEPA) filter, water resistant, capable of removing 99.97% minimum of particulate matter which is 0.3 micron or larger in size. The filter is designed to be fire resistant, as may be required after consideration of heat generation from postulated deposit of fission products. Four 1000 cfm elements are provided. A ll elements are fabricated in accordance with Military Sp ecification MIL-F-51068, MIL-F-51079, and UL-586.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.5-10 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 5. A charcoal adsorber capable of removing not less than 95% of radioactive forms of iodine is provided. The charcoal absorber is an all welded gasketless type fi lled with impregnated coconut shell charcoal. The charcoal adsorber beds hold approximately 650 pounds of charcoal.
The bed dimensions are so designed that the air has at least 0.25 seconds of residence time through the charcoal. The physical property of new charcoal purchased shall meet requirements specified in Tabl e 5-1 of ANSI/ASME N509-1980. Performance requirement shall be as specified in Table 5-1 of ANSI/ASME N509-1980 with penetration less than 0.5% as tested per ASTM D3803-1989.
The charcoal specification requires an ignition temperature test and a methyl iodine test on each batch of charcoal supplied.
Ten test canisters are provided for the charcoal adsorber. These canisters contain the same depth of the same charcoal as in the charcoal adsorber. The canisters are so mounted that a parallel flow path is created between each canister and the charcoal adsorber. Thus, the charcoal in the canisters is subjected to the same contaminants as the charcoal in the bed. Periodically, one of the canisters is removed and laboratory tested to reverify the absorbent efficiency.
Two deluge valves connected to the station fire water system are mounted adjacent to each charcoal adsorber. Manual charcoal deluge valves are operated locally. The normally closed manual isolation valves upstream of the solenoid deluge valve, in all cases, require local actions to in itiate water flow. The deluge system will spray the adsorber compartment and thereby
precluding the chance of an adsorber fire.
- 6. A high-efficiency particulate filter identical to the one described in item 4 is provided to trap charcoal fines which are entrained by the airstream.
- 7. A fan induces the air from the intake louvers and the makeup air filter train and discharges it to the suction side of the control room air handling equipment train. The fan performance is
based on the maximum density and worst pressure condition, when it is inducing -10° F air from the outdoors and the makeup air filter train, containing filters which operate at no less than LSCS-UFSAR 6.5-11 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 twice their clean pressure drop.
- 8. Full size access doors adjacent to each filter are provided in the equipment train housing. Access doors are provided with transparent portholes to allow inspection and maintenance of components without violating the train integrity. Spacing between filter sections is bas ed on ease of maintenance considerations.
- 9. The housing is an all welded construction, heavily reinforced, and built to tight leakage requirements.
- 10. Interior lights with external light switches are provided between all train components to facilit ate inspection, testing, and replacement of components.
6.5.1.2.3 Supply Air Filter Unit Recirculation Filter Each control room and AEER HVAC subsyste m has a supply air filter unit that contains a charcoal filter unit, called the recirculation filter. Each filter unit consists of a pre-filter and a normally bypassed cha rcoal filter. Upon detection of smoke in the return ductwork, the charcoal filter is automatically placed in service. After validation of a high ammonia concentration in the air intake, the charcoal filter will be manually placed on line. Upon detectio n of high radiation, the Operator must manually place the charcoal filter on-line within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of detection to maintain the control room and AEER doses to within GDC 19 limits.
6.5.1.3 Design Evaluation
6.5.1.3.1 Standby Gas Treatment System
The Standby Gas Treatment System (SGTS) is designed to preclude direct exfiltration of contaminated air from either reactor building following an accident or abnormal occurrence which could result in abnormally high airborne radiation in the
secondary containment. Equipment is powered from essential buses and all power circuits will meet IEEE 279 and IEEE 308. Redundant components are provided
where necessary to ensure that a single failure will not impair or preclude system operation. A standby gas treatment system failure analysis is presented in Table 6.5-2. An analysis was performed to determine the SGTS equipment capacity, based on the total inleakages to the secondary containm ent for both Units 1 and 2, while all the areas in the secondary containment are maintained at 0.25-inch water gauge negative. The secondary containment ai r pressure will begin to increase and approach 0 in. H 2O (i.e., rises from initial -0.25 in. H 2O to 0 in. H 2O) due to LSCS-UFSAR 6.5-11a REV. 15, APRIL 2004 inleakage into the secondary containment during post-LOCA and at times when SGTS is started. The secondary containment air pressure begins to decrease exponentially at the time the SGTS reaches its full capacity. As required by the Technical Specifications, within 300 seco nds the secondary containment pressure will be reduced to -0.25 in. H 2O with the SGTS at full ca pacity (see Figure 6.3-80). During this time period, the pressure di fference is always negative (assuming 0 wind speed); therefore, only inleakage from the outside atmosphere can occur.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.5-12 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 6.5.1.3.2 Emergency Ma keup Air Filter Units
The emergency makeup air filter units work in conjunction with the control room and auxiliary electric equipment room HVAC systems to maintain habitability in the control room and auxiliary equipment rooms. The design evaluation is given in Subsection 6.4.4.
6.5.1.4 Tests and Inspections
6.5.1.4.1 Standby Gas Treatment System
- a. The SGTS and its components are thoroughly tested in a program consisting of the following:
- 1. factory and component qualification tests,
- 2. onsite preoperational testing, and
- 3. onsite periodic testing.
Written test procedures establish minimum acceptable values for all tests. Test results are recorded as a matter of performance record, thus enabling early detection of depleted performance.
- b. The factory and component qualification tests consist of the following:
- 1. equipment train housing - a leak test +2.0 psig internal pressure, and magnetic particle or liquid penetrant testing per Section III of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code of all welds which could cause bypass le akage around HEPA filters or adsorber beds;
- 2. demister - qualification test or objective evidence to demonstrate compliance with specified design criteria;
- 3. HEPA filters - elements tested individually by applicable inspection and testing methods;
- 4. HEPA filter frames - liquid penetrant test per ASME B&PV Code Section III of all welds which could cause bypass leakage around HEPA filters.
- 5. adsorbent beds - model test of bed or objective evidence to demonstrate flow pressure characteristics, channeling effects; LSCS-UFSAR 6.5-13 REV. 15, APRIL 2004
- 6. adsorbent - qualification test s for ignition temperature and methyl iodine removal efficiency test;
- 7. fans - tested in accordance with the latest revision of AMCA Standard 210 "Air Moving and Conditioning Association Test Code for Air Moving Devices," to establish characteristic curves, etc.; 8. heater - uniform temperature test, high temperature cutout test, and adjacent equipment temperature test;
- 9. prefilter - objective evidence or certification that ASHRAE efficiency specified is attained; and
- 10. valves - shop tests demonstrating leaktightness, closure times.
- c. The onsite preoperational tests are discussed in Section 14.1 of the FSAR. d. Onsite periodic testing - Operating personnel are trained and required to make surveillance checks. Th ese checks shall include visual inspection and periodically running the equipment trains for performance testing as outlined in the Technical Specifications.
6.5.1.4.2 Emergency Ma keup Air Filter Units
- a. The emergency makeup air filter unit and its components were thoroughly tested in a program consisting of the following:
- 1. factory and component qualification tests, 2. onsite preoperational testing, and
- 3. onsite subsequent periodic testing.
Written test procedures establish minimum acceptable values for all tests. Test results are recorded as a matter of performance record, thus enabling early detection of faulty performance.
- b. The factory and component qualification tests consisted of the following:
- 1. Filter Train Housing LSCS-UFSAR 6.5-14 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 a) leak test at design internal pressure, and b) magnetic particle or liquid penetrant testing per Section III of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code of all welds which could cause bypass leakage around HEPA filters or
absorber bed.
- 2. Demister qualification test or objective evidence to demonstrate compliance with specified design criteria.
- 3. Prefilter objective evidence or certification that ASHRAE efficiency
specified were attained.
- 4. HEPA Filters elements tested individually in accordance with applicable inspection and testing methods.
- 5. HEPA Filter Frames liquid penetrant testing per ASME B&PV Code Section III of all welds which could cause bypass le akage around HEPA filters or adsorber bed.
- 6. Adsorbent Beds model test of bed or objective evidence to demonstrate flow pressure characteristics, channeling effects.
- 7. Adsorbent qualification tests for ignition temperature and methyl iodine removal efficiency test.
- 8. Fans were tested in accordance with the latest revision of AMCA Standard 210 "Air Moving and Conditioning Association Test Code for Air Moving Devices," to establish characteristic curves, etc.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.5-15 REV. 14, APRIL 2002
- 9. Heater a) uniform temperature test, b) high-temperature cutout test, and c) adjacent equipment temperature test.
- 11. Onsite subsequent periodic testing as described in the Technical Specifications.
6.5.1.5 Instrumentation Requirements
- a. Differential pressure indicators are provided to measure the pressure drop across each filter. Pressure differential across the upstream HEPA filter is transmitted to the main control board, recorded, and alarmed on high-pressure differential.
- b. Each adsorber bed is provided with high-temperature detectors. The temperature detector actuates an alarm in the control room when the increase in adsorber temperature is beyond a preset value.
- c. Manual charcoal deluge valves ar e operated locally. The normally closed manual isolation valves upstre am of the solenoid deluge valve, in all cases, require local actions to initiate water flow. The deluge system will spray the adsorber compartment and thereby precluding the chance of an adsorber fire.
- d. All power-operated isolation valves are supplied with position switches to provide positive indication on the main control board.
- e. High-temperature cutouts are prov ided as an integral part of the single stage electric heaters. Loca l temperature indication is provided upstream and downstream of the electric heaters.
- f. Flow signals are transmitted to the main control board for indication recording and are used as an input to a flow control valve provided upstream of each equipment train.
- g. Remote manual operation is provided on the main control board for each fan, and each deluge valve.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.5-16 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 6.5.1.6 Materials
- a. All component material is capable of a service life of 40 years normal operation plus 6 months post-LOCA at the maximum cumulative radiation exposure without any adverse effects on service, performance, or operation. A ll materials of construction are compatible with the radiation exposure set forth. This includes but is not limited to all metal components , seals, gaskets, lubricants, and finishes, such as paints, etc. The integrated dose following the once-in-a-lifetime post-LOCA, uses the valu es given in UFSAR Section 3.11.
- b. Care is taken to avoid the use of any compounds or other chemicals during fabrication or production that contain chlorides or other constituents capable of inducing stress corrosion in stainless steels which are used in the adsorber bed.
- c. Pressure and temperature - All components, including the housings, shall be designed in accordance with the applicable pressure and temperature conditions.
- d. All filter unit gaskets and seal pads are closed-cell, ozone resistant, oil-resistant neoprene or silicone-rubber sponge, Grade SCE-43 in accordance with ASTM D1056.
- e. Only adhesives as listed and approved under AEC Health and Safety Bulletin 306, dated March 31, 1971, covering Military Specification MIL-F-51068C, dated June 8, 1970, an d all the latest amendments and modifications are used.
- f. The organic compounds included in the filter train are as follows:
- 1. charcoal;
- 2. the binder in the HEPA filter media (the total weight of media per filter element is approximat ely 4 pounds, or a total of 32 pounds per equipment train);
- 3. adhesive used in HEPA filter s - approximately 1 liquid quart of fire-retardant neoprene adhesive is used to manufacture each HEPA filter;
- 4. neoprene gaskets used on HEPA filters and o-rings are used on the charcoal filter sample canisters; and LSCS-UFSAR 6.5-17 REV. 13
- 5. the binder in the glass pads used in the demister section (this is a phenolic compound).
6.5.2 Containment Spray Systems The containment spray systems are descri bed in Section 6.3. The containment spray systems are not required for fissions product removal.
6.5.3 Fission Product Control System
The standby gas treatment system (SGTS) is used to control the cleanup of fission products from the containment following an accident and is described in detail in Subsection 6.5.1.
6.5.4 Ice Condenser as a Fi ssion Product Cleanup System
Not applicable.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.5-1 (SHEET 1 OF 4) TABLE 6.5-1 REV. 13 STANDBY GAS TREATMENT SYSTEM COMPONENTS
NAME OF EQUIPMENT TYPE, QUANTITY AND NOMINAL
CAPACITY (per component)
A. Filter Unit
- 1. Equipment Numbers 1VG01S, 2VG01S
- 2. Type Package
- 3. Quantity 2
- 4. Components of Each Unit
- a. Fan
Type Centrifugal
Quantity 1 Drive Direct Capacity (ft 3/min) 4000 (nominal)
Static Pressure (in. H 2O) 14.8 b. Demister
Type Impingement Quantity 1 Bank with 4 elements Static resistance
clean (in. H 2 O) 0.95 dirty (in. H 2 O) 1.7
- c. Heater
Type Electric, sheathed, single stage
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.5-1 (SHEET 2 OF 4) TABLE 6.5-1 REV. 17, APRIL 2008 NAME OF EQUIPMENT TYPE, QUANTITY AND NOMINAL
CAPACITY (per component)
Quantity 1 Capacity (kW) 23
Accessories Overload cutout
- d. Prefilter
Type High Efficiency Quantity 1 Bank With 4 Elements Efficiency (per ASHRAE) Dust Spot Test) 90%
Static resistance clean (in. H 2 O) 0.35 dirty (in. H 2 O) 1 e. HEPA Filters Type Absolute High Efficiency
Quantity 4 Elements per Bank. Two Banks per Train Media Glass Fiber, Waterproof, Fire Resistant
Bank Efficiency (% with 0.3 micron particles) 99.97 (Purchased) 99.95 (Operational Requirement)
Static Resistance clean (in. H 2 O) 0.7 dirty (in. H 2 O) 2 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.5-1 (SHEET 3 OF 4) TABLE 6.5-1 REV. 15, APRIL 2004 NAME OF EQUIPMENT TYPE, QUANTITY AND NOMINAL
CAPACITY (per component)
- f. Charcoal Adsorber Bed Type Vertical gasketless
Quantity 8 - 8 in. thick Media Impregnated Charcoal
Iodine Removal Efficiency (%) 99 (Operational Requirement) 99 (Operational Requirement)
Quantity of Media (lb) 5800
Depth of Bed (in.) 8 Residence Time for 8 in. bed (sec) 2.0
Static Resistance (in. H 2O) 4.6 g. Standby Cooling Air Fan Type Centrifugal Quantity 1
Drive Direct Capacity (ft 3/min) 200 Static Pressure (in. H 2O) 5 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.5-1 (SHEET 4 OF 4) TABLE 6.5-1 REV. 13
NAME OF EQUIPMENT TYPE, QUANTITY AND NOMINAL
CAPACITY (per component)
B. Secondary Containment Isolation
- 1. Equipment Numbers 1VQ037, 1VQ038 2VQ037, 2VQ038 1VR04YA&B, 1VR05YA&B 2VR04YA&B, 2VR05YA&B
- 2. Type Special
- 3. Quantity 8
- 4. Operator Air Cylinder
- 5. Diameter (in.) 72 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.5-2 TABLE 6.5-2 REV. 0 - APRIL 1984 STANDBY GAS TREATMENT SYSTEM EQU1PMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS COMPONENT FAILURE FAILURE DETECTED BY ACTION Primary Fan Motor Burnout, Drive Shaft Break, etc. Flow Monitor - Low-Flow Switch Main Control Board Alarm. Redundant train started after its isolation valves are positioned properly. Operating train is then shut down. Electric Heating Coil Element Overheat High Temperature
Protection Circuit on Coil Main Control Board Indication. Redundant train started after its isolation valves are positioned properly. Operating train is then shut down.
Standby Cooling
Fan No Startup Results In High Charcoal Adsorber Temperature Temperature Switch If temperature switch trips, then alarm sounds in main
control room (Station operator manually actuates deluge valves). Redundant train started after its isolation valves are positioned properly. Operating train is then shut down.
Flow Control
Valve Fails Open Flow Monitor -
High-Flow Switch Main Control Board Alarm. Redundant train started after its isolation valves are positioned properly. Operating train is then shut down.
Flow Control
Valve Fails Shut Flow Monitor - Low-Flow Switch Main Control Board Alarm. Redundant train started after its isolation valves are positioned properly. Operating train is then shut down. Isolation Valve Fails Open None - Redundant valves or backflow dampers provided as
required.
Fails Shut Flow Monitor - Low-
Pressure Switch Main Control Board Alarm. Redundant train started after its isolation valves are positioned properly. Operating train is then shut down. HEPA Filter High Particulate
Loading High P Alarms Main Control Board Alarm. Redundant train started after its isolation valves are positioned properly. Operating train is then shut down.
Duct Destruction by
Equipment Missile or Flailing Pipe Flow Monitor - High-Flow Switch Main Control Board Alarm. Redundant train started after its isolation valves are positioned properly. Operating train is then shut down. Deluge Valve Fails Closed No Detection None required, two valves provided to flood bed.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.6-1 REV. 17 APRIL 2008 6.6 INSERVICE INSPECTION OF ASME CODE CLASS 2 AND 3 COMPONENTS 6.6.1 Components Subject to Examination
All ASME Class 2 components (pressure vessels, piping, pumps, and valves) are inservice inspected according to ASME, B&PVC,Section XI, Subsection IWC, with appropriate addendum(s). The main steamlines (four) are inspected from the first outside containment isolation valve to the turbine stop valves. Inspection requirements are the same as for ASME Class 2 components.
All ASME Class 3 components (pressure vessels, piping, and valves) are inservice inspected according to ASME, B&PVC,Section XI, Subsection IWD, with appropriate addendum(s).
6.6.2 Accessibility
The design and arrangement of the ASME Class 2 and ASME Class 3 piping, pump, and valve components have been made acce ssible for inspection and examination as follows: Pipe and Equipment Welds Location and clearance envelopes have been established for inspection and examination. Co ntours and surface finish are acceptable for inspection and examination.
Insulation Removal Piping or components to be inspected according to the Section XI code which are insulated, have been designed with removable numbered insulation panels.
Shielding Piping or components to be inspected according to the Section XI code and are radiologically shielded have been designed with removable or accessible shields.
6.6.3 Examination Techniques and Procedures Inservice inspection will be in acco rdance with ASME, B&PV Section XI.
6.6.4 Inspection Intervals The initial 10-year inspection program for LaSalle units 1 and 2 was submitted to the NRC on July 13, 1982 and December 21, 1982, respectively. The inservice LSCS-UFSAR 6.6-2 REV. 17 APRIL 2008 inspection program for both units 1 and 2 are based on the requirements of the ASME,Section XI 1980 edition including addenda through winter 1980. The inservice examinations conducted during the second 120 month Inspection Interval will comply with the 1989 Edition of ASME Section XI, except in cases where relief has been granted by the NRC. The inservice examinations conducted during the third 120 month Inspection Interval will comply with the 2001 Edition through the 2003 addenda, including the December of 2003 Erratum of ASME Section XI, except in cases where relief has been granted by the NRC.
6.6.5 Examination Categories and Requirements
The inservice inspection categories and requirements for Class 2, and Class 3 components are in agreement with ASME Section XI.
Specific written requests for relief from ASME code requirements determined to be impractical were contained in the initial in service inspection program. Relief from those requirements was granted by the NRC, detailed evaluation is included in Appendix C of NUREG-0519, Supplement No. 5, Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2.
6.6.6 Evaluation of Examination Results
The evaluation of Class 2 components ex amination results will comply with the requirements of Section XI.
The repair procedures for Class 2 and 3 components comply with the requirements of Section XI.
6.6.7 System Pressure Tests
All Class 2 system pressure testing complies with the criteria of Code Section XI, Article IWC-5000. All Class 3 system pres sure tests comply with the criteria of Article IWD-5000.
6.6.8 Augmented Inservice Inspection to Protect Against Postulated Piping Failures This inspection has been adequately cove red by the requirements of Section XI already adhered to previously.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.7-1 REV. 13 6.7 MAIN STEAM ISOLATION VALVE LEAKAGE CONTROL SYSTEM (MSIV-LCS)
Unit 2 deleted, Unit 1 abandoned in place The Main Steam Isolation Valve Leakage Control System provided originally has been deleted. The valve leakag es are processed by the Isolated Condenser Leakage Treatment Method as discussed in Section 6.8.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.8-1 REV. 13 6.8 Main Steam Isolation Valve - Isolated Condenser Leakage Treatment Method The Main Steam Isolation Valve - Isolated Condenser Leakage Treatment Method (MSIV - ICLTM) (Also called the MSIV Al ternate Treatments Leakage Paths) controls and minimizes the release of fiss ion products which could leak through the closed main steam isolation valves (MSIV's) after a LOCA. The system provides this control by processing valve leakage through the main steamlines, main steamline drains, and the main condenser.
6.8.1 Design Bases
6.8.1.1 Safety Criteria The following general and specific design criteria represent system design, safety, and performance requirements imposed upon the MSIV-ICLTM:
- a. The safety function of the main steamlines and main steamline drains are described in LSCS-UFSAR Section 10.3.
- b. The safety function of the main condenser is described in LSCS-UFSAR Section 10.4.1.
6.8.1.2 Regulatory Acceptance Criteria
The classification of the components and piping of the main steam supply system is listed in Table 3.2-1. All components and piping for the main steam supply system are designed in accordance with the code s and standards listed in Table 3.2-2 for the applicable classification.
The classification of the main condenser is described in LSCS-UFSAR Section 10.4.1.3.
6.8.1.3 Leakage Rate Requirements The MSIV-ICLTM has been incorporated as an integral part of the BWR plant design. The design features employed with this systems are established to reduce the leakage rate of radioactive materials to the environment during a postulated LOCA. Leakage control requirements are imposed upon the MSIV-ICLTM in order to:
- a. eliminate the possibility of secondary containment bypass leakage of accident induced radioactive releases, b. allow for higher MSIV leakage limits, and LSCS-UFSAR 6.8-2 REV. 15, APRIL 2004
- c. assure reasonable leakage verification test frequencies (once per fuel cycle).
The design and operational requirements imposed upon the MSIV-ICLTM relative to the foregoing criteria are established to:
- a. allow MSIV leakage rates up to a total of 400 scfh for all MSIV valves, b. allow a MSIV leakage rate verification testing frequency compatible with the requirements of plant operating technical specifications, and
- c. assure and restrict total plant dose impacts below 10 CFR 100 guidelines.
6.8.2 System Description
6.8.2.1 General Description The system provides this control by pr ocessing valve leakage through the main steamlines, main steamline drains, and the main condenser.
6.8.2.2 System Operation (U2 MSIV LCS delete, U1 Abandon-in-place)
With the deletion of the MSIV-LCS, MSIV leakage will pass from the outboard MSIV, through the main steamlines, main steamline drains and into the condenser. The large wetted volume in the main cond enser plates out inorganic iodine and holds up other fission products that esca pe through the MSIVs, limiting release to the environment. This alternate pathwa y is more reliable than the MSIV-LCS since less equipment is employed. The alternate pathway also has a much higher capacity for processing leakage than does the MSIV-LCS, with a capacity of only 100 scfh. In addition, the MSIV-LCS will on ly operate at less than 35 psig reactor vessel steam dome pressure, whereas the alternate pathway is independent of reactor pressure.
To properly align the pathway, in addition to closing the MSIVs and the containment isolation valves, operators will close valves to isolate the leakage pathway from the auxiliary steam supplies. The operating drains will also be closed and the shutdown drains will be opened. All of the remote manually operated valves that need to be moved are powered from Class 1E power supplies. Although these valves and their power supplies (with the exception of the MSIVs) are not maintained as safety-related, design contro l for all of these valves is maintained with respect to their importance to sa fety. Appropriate changes to station LSCS-UFSAR 6.8-3 REV. 13 procedures have been made to reflect deletion of the MSIV-LCS and use of the alternate leakage treatment method.
6.8.2.3 Equipment Required
The following equipment components are pr ovided to facilitate system operation:
- a. piping - process piping is carbon steel throughout;
- b. valves - motor-operated, standard closing speeds;
6.8.3 System Evaluation
An evaluation of the capability of the MSIV-ICLTM to prevent or control the release of radioactivity from the main steamlin es during and following a LOCA has been
conducted. The results of this evaluation are presented in LaSalle County Nuclear Power Stations Units 1 and 2 Applicatio n for Amendment of Facility Operating Licenses NPF-11 and NPF-18, Appendix A, Technical Specifications, and Exemption to Appendix J of 10CFR50 Regarding Elimin ation of MSIV Leakage Control System and Increased MSIV Leakage Limits , NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374. Additionally, Sargent & Lundy performed an evaluation on the piping, condenser and turbine building, to assure they would remain functional during a seismic event to mitigate the radiologically consequenc es of MSIV leakage (Reference Sargent & Lundy Calculation 068078 (EMD), Rev. 2, dated 8/9/95 for Unit 1 and 067927 (EMD), Rev. 2 dated 8/10/95 for Unit 2).
See Section 15.6.5.5 for more informat ion in the dose analysis and dose consequences.
6.8.4 Instrumentation Requirements The instrumentation necessary for contro l and status indication of the MSIV-ICLTM is designed to function under Seis mic Category I and environmental loading conditions appropriate to its installation with the control circuits designed to satisfy separation criteria. MSIV closed indication is powered from Class 1E power and is maintained as safety-related.
6.8.5 Inspection and Testing Preoperational tests for the main steamlines, main steamline drains, and the main condenser are discussed in LSCS-UFSAR Sections 10.3.4 and 10.4.1.4. No additional testing is required to support this operating mode.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.8-1 REV. 13 TABLE 6.8-1 DOSE CONSEQUENCES OF MSIV LEAKAGE LEAKAGE 30 DAYS FO LLOWING LOCA-UNIT 1 (100 SCFH per line)
WHOLE BODY DOSE (rem) THYROID DOSE (rem)
Exclusion Area (509 meters) 1.451E-3 3.14E-2 Low Population Zone (6400 meters) 3.3E-2 10.47 LSCS-UFSAR REV. 13
ATTACHMENT 6.A ANNULUS PRESSURIZATION
LSCS-UFSAR 6.A-i REV. 13 ATTACHMENT 6.A TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 6.A ANNULUS PRESSURIZATION 6.A-1 6.A.1 INTRODUCTION 6.A-1 6.A.2 SHORT-TERM MASS ENERGY RELEASE 6.A-2 6.A.2.1 Instantaneous Guillotine Break 6.A-3 6.A.2.2 Break Opening Flow Rate 6.A-4 6.A.2.3 Combined Break Flow 6.A-5 6.A.2.4 Determination of the Mass Flux, G 6.A-5 6.A.2.5 Biological Shield Wall 6.A-5 6.A.2.6 Comparison of the GE Model with the Henry/Fauske Correlation 6.A-6
6.A.3 LOAD DETERMINATION 6.A-11 6.A.3.1 Acoustic Loads 6.A-11 6.A.3.2 Pressure Loads 6.A-11 6.A.3.3 Jet Loads 6.A-11 6.A.3.4 Dynamic and Seismic Analysis (DYSEA) Computer Program 6.A-12
6.A.4 PRESSURE TO FORCE CONVERSION 6.A-15
6.A.5 SACRIFICIAL SHIELD ANNULUS PRESSURIZATION AND RPV LOADING DATA 6.A-17 6.A.6 JET LOAD FORCES 6.A-20
6.A.7 RECIRCULATION AND FEEDWATER LINE BREAK FORCING FUNCTION 6.A-21
LSCS-UFSAR 6.A-ii REV. 13 ATTACHMENT 6.A LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER TITLE 6.A-1 Time History for Postulated Recirculation Suction Pipe Rupture 6.A-2 Acoustic Loading on Reactor Pressure Vessel Shroud 6.A-3 RPV Coordinates of Nodal Points 6.A-4 Maximum Member Forces Due to Annulus Pressurization 6.A-5 Maximum Acceleration Due to Annulus Pressurization 6.A-6 RELAP4 Input Data, Recirculation Line Outlet Break 6.A-7 RELAP4 Input Data, Feedwater Line Break 6.A-8 Force Constants and Load Centers For Recirculation Line Outlet Break 6.A-9 Force Constants and Load Centers For Feedwater Line Break 6.A-10 DYSEA01 Program Input For Jet Load Forces 6.A-11 Time Force Histories - Recirculation Line Break 6.A-12 Time Force Histories - Feedwater Line Break LSCS-UFSAR 6.A-iii REV. 13 ATTACHMENT 6.A LIST OF FIGURES
NUMBER TITLE 6.A-1 Safe End Break Location 6.A-2 Break Flow Vs. Time - Feedwater Line Break 6.A-3 Geometry 6.A-4 Wave Speed 6.A-5 Mass Flux, Moody Steady Slip Flow 6.A-6 Break Flow Vs. Time 6.A-7 Nomenclature for Time History Computer Printout 6.A-8 Feedwater Line System Nodalization - Leg EA 6.A-9 Feedwater Line System Nodalization - Leg EB 6.A-10 Recirculation Line System Nodalization 6.A-11 Comparison of the GE and RELAP4/MOD5 Methods -
Feedwater Line Break, Leg EA 6.A-12 Comparison of the GE and RELAP4/MOD5 Methods -
Feedwater Line Break, Leg EB 6.A-13 Comparison of the GE and RELAP4/MOD5 Methods -
Recirculation Line Break, Finite Opening Time 6.A-14 Horizontal Model for Annulus Pressurization 6.A-15 Annulus Pressurization Loading Description 6.A-16 Annular Space Nodalization For Recirculation Line Break 6.A-17 Annular Space Nodalization For Feedwater Line Break
LSCS-UFSAR 6.A-1 REV. 13 6.A ANNULUS PRESSURIZATION 6.A.1 INTRODUCTION
Annulus pressurization refers to the load ing on the shield wall and reactor vessel caused by a postulated pipe rupture at the reactor pressure vessel nozzle safe-end to pipe weld. The pipe break assumed is an instantaneous guillotine rupture which allows mass/energy release into the drywell and annular region between the biological shield wall and the reactor pressure vessel (RPV).
The mass and energy released during the postulated pipe rupture cause:
- a. A rapid asymmetric decomp ression acoustic loading of the annular region between the vessel and shroud from the pipe break at or beyond the vessel nozzle safe-end weld.
- b. A transient asymmetric differential pressure within the annular region between the biological shield wall and the reactor
pressure vessel (annulus pressurization).
- c. A jet-stream release of the reactor pressure vessel inventory and the impact of the ruptured pipe against the whip restraint
attached to the biological shield wall.
The results of the mass and energy release evaluation are then used to produce a dynamic structural analysis (force-time history) of the RPV and shield wall. The force time history output from the dyna mic analysis is subsequently used to compute loads on the reactor components. The following is a more detailed description of the annulus pressurization calculation performed for the LaSalle County Station.
6.A.2 SHORT-TERM MASS ENERGY RELEASE
The postulated pipe rupture at the weld between recirculation or feedwater piping and the reactor nozzle safe end leads to a high rate of water and steam mixture into the annulus between the RPV and the shie ld wall. Figure 6.A-1 illustrates the location of this break. Calculation of the mass/energy release is performed using the generic method for short-term mass releases. This method and a sample calculation are described below. Figure 6.A-2 illustrates a typical mass flux vs. time for a feedwater line break.
The purpose of this procedure is to document the method by which short-term mass release rates are calculated. The flow ra tes which could be produced by a primary system line break for the first 5 seconds include the effects of inventory and subcooling. Optionally, credit may be taken for a finite break opening time.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.A-2 REV. 13 ASSUMPTIONS
The assumptions are as follows:
- a. The initial velocity of the fluid in the pipe is zero. When considering both sides of the break, the effects of initial velocities would tend to cancel out.
- b. Constant reservoir pressure.
- c. Initial fluid conditions inside the pipe on both sides of the break are similar.
- d. Wall thickness of the pipe is small compared to the diameter.
- e. Subcompartment pressure
~ 0. f. Mass flux is calculated using the Moody steady slip flow model with subcooling.
- g. For steamline breaks, level swell occurs at 1 second after the break with a quality of 7%.
NOMENCLATURE (See Figure 6.A-3)
A BR - Break area.
A L - Minimum cross-sectional area between the vessel and the break. This can be the sum of the areas of parallel flow paths.
C - Sonic velocity (see Figure 6.A-4).
D - Pipe inside diameter at the break location.
F I - Inventory flow multiplier.
F I = 0.75 for saturated steam.
FI = 0.50 for liquid and saturated steam-liquid mixtures.
g c - Proportionality constant (=32.17 2 lbm-ft/lbf-sec 2).
G - Mass flux.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.A-3 REV. 13 G C - Maximum mass flux (see Figure 6.A-5).
h O - Reservoir or vessel enthalpy.
h P - Initial enthalpy of the fluid in the pipe.
h 7 - Enthalpy at P O and a quality of 7%.
L I - Inventory length. The distance between the break and the nearest area increase of A L whichever is less.
M - Mass flow rate.
I M - Mass flow rate during the inventory period.
P O - Reservoir or vessel pressure.
PSAT - Saturation pressure for liquid with an enthalpy of h P.
t - Time.
t I - Length of the inventory period.
v - Specific volume of the fluid initially in the pipe.
V I - Volume of the pipe between the break and A L .
X - Separation distance of the break.
6.A.2.1 Instantaneous Guillotine Break The following method should be applied to each side of the break and the results summed to determine the total flow.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.A-4 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 cL2 tFAA If I I' I BR L=> vFG A V tFAA If I BR I I' I BR L=<Inventory Period Prior to a pipe break, the fluid in the pipe is moving at a relatively low velocity. After the break occurs, a finite time is required to accelerate the fluid to steady-state velocities. The length of this time period is conservatively estimated as follows: a. (6.A-1) b. (6.A-2) where G is calculated as shown in Subsecti on 6.A.2.4 for a large separation distance and t < t I.
During this time period, the mass flow rate is calculated as Steady-State Period
Following the inventory period, the flow is assumed to be choked at the limiting cross-sectional flow area. For t I < t < 5.0 seconds, (6.A-4) 6.A.2.2 Break Opening Flow Rate
See Table 6.A-1 for the pipe displacement time history for postulated recirculation suction pipe rupture and Figure 6.A-7 for the nomenclature used.
Inventory Period
The inventory period is determined as des cribed in Subsection 6.A.2.1. The flow rate as a function of pipe separation distance is given by where G is obtained by using the methods of Subsection 6.A.2.4 (a or b).
IF BRAG I M= G LA M=XDG M=(6.A-3) (6.A-5)
LSCS-UFSAR 6.A-5 REV. 13 Determining Flow Rate
Following the inventory period, equation 6.A-5 is used to deter mine the flow rate where the mass flux, G, is determined from Subsection 6.A.2.4 (a, c, or d).
6.A.2.3 Combined Break Flow
To determine the total flow rate released from the break, the results of Subsections 6.A.2.1 and 6.A.2.2 are compared and whichever produces the smallest flow rate at any time is used (see Figure 6.A-6). Both methods produce maximum flow rates based on different limiting areas. The transfer from one curve to the other represents a change in the point where the flow is choked.
6.A.2.4 Determination of the Mass Flux, G
Depending on the time period, fluid conditions, and break separation distance, the mass flux is determined as follows:
- a. If X < X B ,
- b. If X > X B and t < t I G = G c (P o , h p) from Figure 6.A-5
- c. If X > X B and t > t I G = G c (P o , h o) from Figure 6.A-5
- d. If the break is a steamline and T > 1.0, level swell occurs.
G = G c (P o , h 7) from Figure 6.A-5
Note that for complete break separation (Subsection 6.A.2.1), X is always greater than X B, and for saturated water, X B is equal to zero.
6.A.2.5 Biological Shield Wall
For the purpose of analyzing the biological shield wall pressurization, credit may be taken for flow which escapes through the wall penetration. If the initial break location is in the annulus region between the wall and the vessel, no flow is assumed to escape through the penetration. If, however, it is located within the penetration itself, some of the flow may be assumed to escape. It is recommended
()()2D o P SATP1 B X= vo P c2gG= (6.A-6)
LSCS-UFSAR 6.A-6 REV. 13 that the fraction of the flow which escapes be calculated based on the ratio of the minimum annular flow area between the pe netration and pipe surface and between the penetration and pipe surface and between the penetration and the safe-end nozzle. 6.A.2.6 Comparison of the GE model with the Henry/Fauske Correlation The GE methodology for calculating the mass energy release from a recirculation line break which results in an annulus pressurization event was provided the NRC's Mr. Denwood F. Ross, Assistant Director for Reactor Safety, via GE letter dated May 2, 1978, from Mr. E. D. Fuller of BWR Licensing. This methodology was used in the adequacy assessment made for LSCS.
The definition of the annulus pressurization is given in the introduction (Subsection 6.A.1). A description of the time aspect s of the calculated mass and energy flow rates followed by a description of the modeling for the feedwater line and separately for the recirculation line is provided below. A comparison is then made between GE's analytical method and the method used in RELAP4/MOD5. Finally, both
graphical and numerical results of this comp arison are provided to substantiate the conclusion that the resulting break flows using the GE methods are much more conservative than those predicted by the use of RELAP for the LaSalle plant.
Timing Aspects of Mass and Energy Flow Rates
The GE method for calculating the short-term mass/energy release assumes that the overall time for mass release may be divided into two periods, the inventory period and the quasi-steady period. The inventory period is defined as the time required to accelerate the pipe fluid to steady-state velocities, at which time the flow is assumed to choke at minimum flow cross sections. During this time, the mass flux is based on initial thermodynamic conditions exis ting within the pipe. In the quasi-steady period, during which the flow is choked, the mass flux is based on thermodynamic conditions upstream from th e choke points. For both time periods the mass flux is determined from a graph of critical mass flux versus enthalpy, as calculated by the Moody Slip Flow Method. Each side of the break is analyzed separately and the results summed to give the total mass release rate.
Method for Feedwater Line Modeling
The feedwater system for LaSalle County St ation consists of the pumps, heaters, valves, and piping necessary for the tran smission of hotwell condensate to the reactor vessel as part of the closed cycl e cooling loop. LSCS has three feedwater pumps, two steam- driven and one electric-driven. During normal operation, the electric pump is in standby. The flow passes through a complex series of pipes and components from the feedwater pumps to the reactor vessel.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.A-7 REV. 13 The break location for the feedwater line break is the safe-end to the pipe weld housed within the vessel to shield wa ll subcompartment. For the feedwater line break, instantaneous break opening is assumed. Flow for the vessel side passes through the feedwater nozzles of the broken line and out the break. Flow from the system side passes through the feedwater piping network and out the break.
The nodalization of the feedwater system is shown in Figures 6.A-8 and 6.A-9. A series of 24 modes was selected after sensitivity studies were completed which demonstrated that a 24-node model was conservative relative to higher-noded systems.
The broken feedwater leg to be analyzed was chosen by multiple RELAP runs to determine the limiting break location. The critical assumptions in the analysis are as follows:
- a. The feedwater pumps are simulated as (constant) mass flow sources. b. The reactor pressure vessel (RPV) is an infinite reservoir at constant temperature and pressure.
- c. The temperature of the pump-side hydraulic network remains constant.
- d. Appropriate sections of the hydraulic network are combined by means of "Ohm's Law" expressions for series and parallel circuits, assuming constant fanning friction actions.
- e. The RPV thermodynamics stat e is subcooled at the prevailing temperature in the lower plenum (532
° F).
The break is modeled as an instantaneous guillotine pipe break with complete pipe offset. Before the break occurs, a fully open valve connects, Volumes 18 and 19. Closed valves connect those volumes to Volume 1, an infinite sink at constant pressure and temperature (atm ospheric conditions). The break is initiated at time zero by closure of the valve between Volumes 18 and 19 simultaneous opening of the valves to Volume 1.
Method of Recirculation Line Modeling
The recirculation system for LaSalle County Station is similar to the recirculation system of other BWR's. Flow is taken from the lower jet pump diffuser region, passed through 21-inch lines to a constant-speed pump, and then through a flow control valve to a header which feeds flow to five risers which provide flow to two jet pump nozzles each.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.A-8 REV. 13 The nodalization for the recirculation line leak is shown in Fi gure 6.A-10. The system has been modeled using 21 nodes. The break is located at the vessel nozzle safe-end to pipe weld on the recirculation pump suction side. The type of break considered here has a finite break opening time. For this case the break opening is complete after 30 milliseconds, at which time the pipe offset longitudinal distance is 5.8 inches. The break area is modeled as the surface area of an imaginary volume having a length of 5.8 inches and a diameter equal to that of the recirculation pipe ID. This volume (#18) is connected by a valve (Type 3) to an infinite reservoir (volume #19), and also by valves (Type 2) to the vessel side volume (#27) and pump side volume (#21). Both valves (Type 1) also connect Volumes 17 and 21. It is normally open before the break, and at the initiation of the break, closes at the same rate as the other valves open. The sum of the areas of the Type 2 valves equals the pipe area.
This network of valves best represents the break with finite opening time. Valves of Type 2 are opened at the same rate as Type 3 to ensure that choking occurs at Junctions 21 and/or 22. Junction 23 (having valve Type 3) is in reality a fluid surface, and choking cannot physically occur there. Choking must at least occur at Junctions 21 and/or 22, where the fluid is constrained by the pipe diameter.
Other assumptions in th e analysis include:
- a. Negligible effects of core reactor kinetics on rated heat transfer to the core volume (Volume 2).
- b. Constant flow of steam from the steam dome (Vol ume 5) at rated conditions.
- c. Constant flow of feedwater at rated conditions.
- d. Recirculation pumps trip at the time zero and are modeled via pump characteristic curves for coastdown.
- e. Jet pump hydraulics were modeled as one equivalent pump per recirculation loop.
Comparison of General Electr ic Analysis to RELAP4/MOD5
For the annulus pressurization event, th e NRC has questioned General Electric's method for computing mass and energy flow rates following a postulated LOCA from long lines containing subcooled fluid. A program was developed to expedite the licensing of the LaSalle County Station to perform RELAP analyses using appropriate assumptions and to compare the results with those obtained using General Electric's method.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.A-9 REV. 13 RELAP4/MOD5 is a general computer prog ram which can be used to analyze the thermal hydraulic transient behavior of a water- cooled nuclear reactor subjected to postulated accidents such as loss-of-coolant accidents. The program simultaneously solves the fluid flow, heat transfer, the reactor kinetics equations describing the behavior of the reactor.
Numerical input data is utilized to describe the initial conditions and geometry of the system being analyzed. This data includes fluid volume, geometry, pump characteristics, power generation, heat exchanger properties, and nodalization of fluid flow paths. Once the system has been described with initial flow, pressure, temperature, and power level boundary co nditions, transients such as loss-of-coolant accident can be simulated by control action inputs. RELAP then computes
fluid conditions such as flow, pressure, mass inventory an d quality as a function of time. For the brief transients considered here (t 0.5 seconds), appreciable simplification of the overall thermal-hydraulic system, including the reactor pressure vessel, is justified owing to the relatively longer time constants which apply for heat transfer.
Brief summaries of the modeling approaches for feedwater and recirculation line breaks are given below.
The assumptions applied to th ese analyses are as follows:
- a. Feedwater line:
- 1. LaSalle RELAP deck as basis.
- 2. Henry-Fauske-Moody flow model is used.
- 3. Instant break opening.
- 4. Mass flux terms between ve ssel and break (short side) are eliminated.
- b. Recirculation line:
- 1. LaSalle RELAP deck as basis.
- 2. Finite break opening time is allowed for.
- 3. Henry-Fauske-Moody flow model is used.
- 4. Momentum flux terms in RELAP between vessel and break (short side) are eliminated.
Results of the Analysis
LSCS-UFSAR 6.A-10 REV. 13 The resulting break flows using the GE methods are much more conservative than those obtained by the use of RELAP. This is indicated graphically in Figures 6.A-11 through 6.A-13.
Conclusions The mass release result for the GE mass energy release method and the RELAP4/Mod 5 calculations are compared in Figures 6.A-11 through 6.A-13 for the postulated feedwater line break and reci rculation line break respectively. The analyses show that the GE method is conservative relative to RELAP 4/Mod 5 for both cases. The ration (r) of the GE method flow rates to those from RELAP/MOD5 is as follows:
Break Location r(t = 0.1 sec) r(t = 0.5 sec)
Feedwater (Leg EA) 2.300 1.70 Feedwater (Leg EB) 2.200 1.60 Recirculation Line 1.065 1.21 6.A.3 LOAD DETERMINATION 6.A.3.1 Acoustic Loads
Because the boiling water reactor (BWR) is a two-phase system that operates at or close to saturation pressure (1000 psi), th e differential pressure across the reactor shroud is of short duration, and the BWR system is not subjected to a significant shock-type load with respect to structural supports. This short- duration acoustic load is confined to a bending moment and shear force on the reactor pressure vessel and reactor shroud support. Typical results of the integrated force acting on the reactor pressure vessel shroud are given in Table 6.A-2.
6.A.3.2 Pressure Loads The pressure responses of the RPV-shield wall annulus for a recirculation suction line and a feedwater line were investigated using the RELAP4 computer code. An asymmetric model using several nodes and flow paths was developed for the analysis of the recirculation and feedwater line breaks. Further description of these analytical models and detailed discussion of the analyses may be found in Section 6.2.
The pressure histories generated by the RELAP4 code were in turn used to calculate the loads on the sacrificial wall and the reactor pressure vessel. The
annulus was divided into seven zones and an eighth-order Fourier fit to the output LSCS-UFSAR 6.A-11 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 pressure histories made for each zone to produce the Fourier coefficients required for the structural analysis of the shield wall. The specific loading data consisted of the time-pressure (psia) hist ories for each node within the annulus. Time-force histories representing the resultant loads on the RPV for each node through its geometric center were generated by taking the product of the node pressure and its "effective" surface area.
A sample pressure-to-force ca lculation is shown in Subsection 6.A.4. Subsection 6.A.5 shows the nodalization schemes and pressure areas used in this calculation. The time-force histories (forcing functions) calculated at each nodal point for both a recirculation and a feedwater line break are shown in Subsection 6.A.7. The nodal points are illustrated in Figure 6.A-14.
6.A.3.3 Jet Loads To address structural loads on the vessel and internals completely, jet thrust, jet impingement, and pipe whip restraint loads must be considered in conjunction with the above mentioned pressure loads. Jet thrust refers to the vessel reaction force with results as the jet stream of liquid is released from the break. Jet impingement refers to the jet stream force which leaves the broken pipe and impacts the vessel.
The pipe whip restraint load is the force which results when the energy-absorbing pipe whip restraint restricts the pipe separation to less than one full pipe diameter. This restricted separation is accounted for as a finite break opening time in the mass/energy release calculation. These je t loads are calculated as described in
ANSI 176 (draft), "Design Ba sis For Protection Of Nuclear Power Plants Against Effects Of Postulated Pipe Ruptures", January 1977.
The jet load forces used in this analysis are shown in Subsection 6.A.6. Although these values have been calculated for a re circulation line break only, they are also conservatively used for the feedwater load evaluation. This is conservative because the calculation of these jet effects depends largely on the area of the break, and the recirculation line is about 2.5 times larger in area. Figure 6.A-15 illustrates the location of the pressure loads and jet loads with respect to the RPV and shield wall.
The pressure loads and jet loads describe d above are then combined to perform a structural dynamic analysis. Both of these loads are appropriately distributed
along a horizontal beam model, which is shown in Figure 6.A-14. The vessel coordinates of these nodal points are described in Table 6.A-3.
The force time histories are then applied to a composite lumped- mass model of the pedestal, shield wall, and a detailed repres entation of the reactor pressure vessel
and internals. The DYSEA01 computer program is used for this analysis. This computer program is described in Subsec tion 6.A.3.4. The analysis produces acceleration time histories at all nodes for use in evaluating the reactor pressure vessel and internal components. Response spectra at all nodes are also computed.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.A-12 REV. 13 The peak loading on the major components used to establish the adequacy of the component design is shown in Tables 6.A-4 and 6.A-5.
6.A.3.4 Dynamic and Seismic Anal ysis (DYSEA) Computer Program
The DYSEA (Dynamic and Seismic Analysis) program is a GE proprietary program developed specifically for seismic and dynamic analysis of RPV and internals/building systems. It calculates the dynamic response of linear structural systems by either temporal modal superposition or response spectrum method. Fluid- structure interaction effect in the RPV is taken into account by way of hydrodynamic mass.
The DYSEA program was based on the program SAP-IV with added capability to
handle the hydrodynamic mass effect. St ructural stiffness and mass matrices are formulated similar to SAP-IV. Solution is obtained in the time domain by calculating the dynamic response mode by mode. Time integration is performed by using Newmark's -method. Response spectrum solution is also available as an option.
Program Version and Computer The DYSEA version now operating on the Honeywell 6000 computer of GE, Nuclear Energy Systems Division, was developed at GE by modifying the SAP-IV program.
Capability was added to handle the hydrodyn amic mass effect due to fluid-structure interaction in the reactor. The progra m can handle three-dimensional dynamic problems with beam, trusses, and springs. Both acceleration time histories and response spectra may be used as input.
History of Use
The DYSEA program was developed in the su mmer of 1976. It has been adopted as a standard production program since 1977 an d it has been used extensively in all dynamic and seismic analysis of the RPV and internals/building systems.
Extent of Application The current version of DYSEA has been used in all dynamic and seismic analysis since its development. Results from test problems were found to be in close agreement with those obtained from either verified programs or analytic solutions.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.A-13 REV. 13 Test Problems Problem 1:
The first test problem involves finding the eigenvalues and eigenvectors from the following characteristic equation:
(2 [M]-[K]) {x} = 0 where is the circular frequency, x is th e eigenvector, and [K] and [M] are the stiffness and the mass matrices given by:
(6.A-8) The analytical solution and the solution from DYSEA are:
a) Eigenvalues i: i DYSEA SOLUTION ANALYTIC SOLUTION 1 5.7835 5.7837 2 30.4889 30.4878 3 75.0493 75.0751 []
=2 25 4-1 Symmetric 2 4 2 q 4 1 2 q 4 2 4 2 4 1 M[]
+++=4 2 251 Symmetric15 4 2 g1 q 5 3 4 2 1 K (6.A-7)
LSCS-UFSAR 6.A-14 REV. 13 b) Eigenvectors i: 1.
DYSEA SOLUTION ANALYTIC SOLUTION
0.0319
0271.20666.00072.02105.15536.10319.0000.1000.1000.1 027.20666.00072.0211.1554.10319.0000.1000.1000.1 Problem 2: The second test problem compares the dynamic responses of the reactor pressure vessel, internals and reactor building subjected to earthquake ground motion.
The mathematical model of the reactor pressure vessel, internals and reactor building is given in Figure B-1. The inputs in the form of ground spectra are applied at the basement level. Response spectr um analysis was used in the analysis.
Natural frequencies of the system and the maximum responses at key locations have been calculated by both DYSEA and SAMIS. Result comparison are given in
B-1 and B-2. It can be seen that the results calculated by DYSEA agree closely with those obtained by SAMIS.
6.A.4 PRESSURE TO FORCE CONVERSION The RELAP4 pressure distribution output is converted to equivalent forces which are input into the DYSEA01 computer progra
- m. Each pressure is represented by a force acting normal to the RPV or shield wall at the center of the given pressure surface area. These forces are then converte d into resulting forces (x component) acting on the respective DYSEA01 RPV beam nodal points. Mathematically, this is described as:
F R = PA cos where: F R = resultant force (lb), P = RELAP4 node pressure (psia), A = RELAP4 node surface area (in 2 ), and = Component angle.
LSCS-UFSAR 6.A-15 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 The results of these calculations are summarized in Table 6.A-4.
As an example, the pressure to force conv ersion at DYSEA01 node points 31 and 32 is shown below:
Time = 0.0800 seconds NODE ELEV (inches) PRESSURE (lb/in 2) AREA* (in 2) ANGLE (degrees) FORCE (lb) 6 1089.14 43.61 5828.44 15 245516 7 1089.14 35.34 5828.44 45 145660 8 1089.14 39.24 5828.44 75 59188 9 1089.14 41.40 8617.79 112.5
-136539 10 1089.14 39.99 8617.79 157.5
-318367
- 4543
- See Table 6.A-8 For 360°, the resultant force is 2 times 4543 lb or an inward (positive) force of 9086 lb.
Since DYSEA nodal points 31 and 32 are at Elevations 1065.2 inches and 1125.7 inches respectively, the RELAP4 pressure
/force at Elevation 1089.14 inches is distributed accordingly.
Consequently:
F 31 = 1125.7 - 1089.14 (9086) = 5491 lb, and 1125.7 - 1065.2 F 32 = 1065.2 - 1089.14 (9086) = 3595 lb.
1065.2 - 1125.7 These values can be compared to the co mputer-calculated DYSEA01 results, which are 5832.6 lb and 3252.7 lb respectively.
In the matrix displacement method of stru ctural analysis, externally applied nodal forces and moments are required to produce nodal displacements equivalent to
those that would be produced by forces or pressures applied between nodes. GE LSCS-UFSAR 6.A-16 REV. 13 considers the external moment effects for La Salle AP to be negligible because of the close nodal spacing of the LaSalle RPV mathematical model.
6.A.5 SACRIFICIAL SHIELD, ANNULUS PRESSURIZATION, AND RPV LOADING DATA
This subsection provides a brief descri ption of the analyses performed and the nodalization schemes, force constants, and load centers for the recirculation and feedwater line breaks. These data are used as input to the pressure to force conversion calculation.
The pressure responses of the RPV-sacrificial shield wall annulus to postulated pipe breaks at the RPV nozzle safe-end to pipe weld in a recirculation outlet line and a feedwater line were investigated using th e RELAP4 computer code. Throughout the analyses the following assumptions were made:
- a. RPV thermal insulation displaces to the shield wall while retaining its original volume and leaving its support structure in
place. b. Insulation above the shield wall yields to elevated pressures and blows out into the drywell allowing venting of annulus at the
summit of the shield wall.
- c. sacrificial shield penetration doors remain closed, allowing for limited venting of the annulus through all nozzle penetrations.
The nodalization schemes for both studies remain consistent with the guidelines cited above, with the exception of the region directly above the break, where it was
anticipated that a finer mesh would be necessary to properly account for the highly localized pressure gradients expected there (see Figures 6.A-16 and 6.A-17). The final nodalization was determined on the ba sis of available sensitivity studies for similar analyses.
The mass and energy release rates were derived with the methods outlined in Subsection 6.A.2. The blowdown rates for the recirculation outlet line break analysis account for actual pipe displa cement, while those for the feedwater line reflect an assumption of instantaneous pipe displacement (see RELAP4 input listings, Tables 6.A-6 and 6.A-7).
The specific loading data compiled for th e NSSS adequacy evaluation for postulated pipe breaks within the annulus consists of the time-pressure history (psia) and two time-force (lbf) histories for each node within the annulus. The latter two histories represent integrated forces acting through the center of each node on the RPV and the sacrificial shield wall respectively. The time-force histories were generated by LSCS-UFSAR 6.A-17 REV. 13 taking the product of the node pressure and a predetermined constant, or ss, which accounts for the curved surface of the RPV and the sacrificial shield respectively (see Tables 6.A-8 and 6.A-9). The two loadin g histories, one for the RPV and one for the shield wall, are defined below.
(6.A-9) = P i v Where: F v i nodal resultant force on RPV (lbf), P i node absolute pressure (psia), i node height (inches), R v RPV radius (inches), azimuthal width of node (degrees), and D p j pipe OD (in.). 4 2 j p D i P j - 0d cos 2 2 vR i iP i v F+=4 2 j p D j () iP - 2sin vR i2 iP =
LSCS-UFSAR 6.A-18 REV. 14, APRIL 2002 (6.A-10) = P i ss Where: F ss i nodal resultant force on shield wall (lbf), P i node absolute pressure (psia), i node height (inches), R ss shield wall inner radius (inches), azimuthal width of node (degrees), D ss j penetration ID (inches), and proportionality factor
6.A.6 JET LOAD FORCES This subsection provides the jet load forces which result from pipe separation during the postulated accident. The pipe whip schematic is shown in Figure 6.A-7, and the resulting loads are listed in Table 6.A-1.
These loads are applied to the appropriate nodal points for input to the DYSEA01 computer program. The DYSEA01 progra m input is provided in Table 6.A-10.
4 j ss 2 D P - d cos R P i j 2 2ssii i s F=+ s () u iP - 2sin ssR i2 iP = 4 j ss 2D j ()2 2 sin=
2 360 LSCS-UFSAR 6.A-19 REV. 13 6.A.7 RECIRCULATION AND FEEDWATER LINE BREAK FORCING FUNCTION The time force histories provided in T ables 6.A-11 and 6.A-12 are those values converted from the time-pressure histories which were calculated with the RELAP4 computer program. These ti me forces histories are used as input to the DYSEA01 computer program.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.A-1 (SHEET 1 OF 5) TABLE 6.A-1 REV. 0 - APRIL 1984 TIME HISTORY FOR POSTULATED RECIRCULATION SUCTION PIPE RUPTURE*, ** Time (sec) Pipe Displ. At Restraint (in.) Pipe Velocity At Restraint (ft/sec) Pipe Acceler. At Restraint (ft/sec 2) Rel. Displ.
Of End (in.) Total Displ. Of End (in.) Restr. Load Comp. PD1 (lb) Restr. Load Comp. PD2 (lb) Blowdown Force (lb) 0.00153 4.147E-02 3.547E 00 1.679E 03 0. 4.648E-02 0. 0. 346919.
0.00233 8.294E-02 4.889E 00 1.655E 03 0. 9.295E-02 0. 0. 346919. 0.00297 1.244E-01 5.932E 00 1.645E 03 0. 1.394E-01 0. 0. 346919. 0.00351 1.659E-01 6.816E 00 1.640E 03 0. 1.859E-01 0. 0. 346919.
0.00398 2.074E-01 7.597E 00 1.635E 03 0. 2.324E-01 0. 0. 346919.
0.00441 2.488E-01 8.304E 00 1.632E 03 0. 2.789E-01 0. 0. 346919. 0.00481 2.903E-01 8.955E 00 1.630E 03 0. 3.253E-01 0. 0. 346919. 0.00519 3.318E-01 9.561E 00 1.628E 03 0. 3.718E-01 0. 0. 346919.
0.00554 3.732E-01 1.013E 01 1.626E 03 0. 4.183E-01 0. 0. 346919. 0.00587 4.147E-01 1.067E 01 1.624E 03 0. 4.648E-01 0. 0. 346919. 0.00687 5.427E-01 1.077E 01 3.194E 02 2.689E-02 6.351E-01 50588. 0. 346919.
0.00787 6.742E-01 1.117E 01 4.350E 02 9.147E-02 8.471E-01 108204. 0. 346919.
0.00887 8.108E-01 1.159E 01 3.863E 02 1.808E-01 1.089E 00 168037. 0. 346919. 0.00987 9.519E-01 1.190E 01 2.419E 02 2.875E-01 1.354E 00 229892. 0. 346919. 0.01087 1.096E 00 1.203E 01 3.532E 01 4.076E-01 1.636E 00 293042. 0. 346919.
0.01187 1.240E 00 1.194E 01 -2.099E 02 5.388E-01 1.928E 00 356421. 0. 346919.
- Output parameters are listed at the end of this table. ** Except for the restraint load components PD1 and PD2, all variables below are in a direction parallel to the blowdown force.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.A-1 (SHEET 2 OF 5) TABLE 6.A-1 REV. 0 - APRIL 1984
Time (sec)
Pipe Displ.
At Restraint (in.) Pipe Velocity At Restraint (ft/sec) Pipe Acceler. At Restraint (ft/sec 2) Rel. Displ.
Of End (in.)
Total Displ.
Of End (in.)
Restr. Load Comp. PD1 (lb) Restr. Load Comp. PD2 (lb) Blowdown Force (lb) 0.01287 1.381E 00 1.158E 01-4.744E 026.802E-01 2.228E 00418752. 0. 346919. 0.01387 1.517E 00 1.096E 01-7.414E 028.316E-01 2.531E 00478650. 0. 346919. 0.01487 1.643E 00 1.007E 01-1.027E 039.934E-01 2.835E 00538908. 0. 346919. 0.01587 1.757E 00 8.948E 00-1.197E 031.166E 00 3.136E 00581800. 0. 346919.
0.01687 1.857E 00 7.672E 00-1.335E 031.350E 00 3.431E 00618871. 0. 346919. 0.01787 1.941E 00 6.278E 00-1.438E 031.543E 00 3.719E 00649762. 0. 346919. 0.01887 2.008E 00 4.801E 00-1.504E 031.746E 00 3.996E 00674226. 0. 346919.
0.01987 2.056E 00 3.279E 00-1.531E 031.956E 00 4.261E 00692131. 0. 346919.
0.02087 2.086E 00 1.751E 00-1.519E 032.172E 00 4.510E 00703465. 0. 346919. 0.02187 2.098E 00 2.567E-01-1.469E 032.392E 00 4.744E 00708338. 0. 346919. 0.02222 2.098E 00 0. 0. 2.470E 00 4.822E 00708572. 0. 346919. 0.02242 2.098E 00 0. 0. 2.513E 00 4.865E 00708572. 0. 346919. 0.02262 2.098E 00 0. 0. 2.555E 00 4.907E 00708572. 0. 346919. 0.02283 2.098E 00 0. 0. 2.598E 00 4.950E 00708572. 0. 346919. 0.02304 2.098E 00 0. 0. 2.640E 00 4.992E 00708572. 0. 346919. 0.02325 2.098E 00 0. 0. 2.683E 00 5.035E 00708572. 0. 346919. 0.02347 2.098E 00 0. 0. 2.725E 00 5.077E 00708572. 0. 346919. 0.02370 2.098E 00 0. 0. 2.768E 00 5.120E 00708572. 0. 346919. 0.02393 2.098E 00 0. 0. 2.810E 00 5.162E 00708572. 0. 346919.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.A-1 (SHEET 3 OF 5) TABLE 6.A-1 REV. 0 - APRIL 1984
Time (sec)
Pipe Displ.
At Restraint (in.) Pipe Velocity At Restraint (ft/sec) Pipe Acceler. At Restraint (ft/sec 2) Rel. Displ.
Of End (in.)
Total Displ.
Of End (in.)
Restr. Load Comp. PD1 (lb) Restr. Load Comp. PD2 (lb) Blowdown Force (lb) 0.02417 2.098E 00 0. 0. 2.853E 00 5.2O5E 00 708572. 0. 346919. 0.02442 2.098E 00 0. 0. 2.895E 005.247E 00708572. 0. 346919. 0.02467 2.098E 00 0. 0. 2.938E 005.290E 00708572. 0. 346919. 0.02494 2.098E 00 0. 0. 2.980E 005.332E 00708572. 0. 346919. 0.02522 2.098E 00 0. 0. 3.023E 005.375E 00708572. 0. 346919. 0.02551 2.098E 00 0. 0. 3.065E 005.417E 00708572. 0. 346919. 0.02582 2.098E 00 0. 0. 3.108E 005.460E 00708572. 0. 346919. 0.02614 2.098E 00 0. 0. 3.150E 005.502E 00708572. 0. 3469l9. 0.02649 2.098E 00 0. 0. 3.193E 005.545E 00708572. 0. 346919. 0.02687 2.098E 00 0. 0. 3.235E 005.587E 00708572. 0. 346919. 0.02728 2.098E 00 0. 0. 3.278E 005.630E 00708572. 0. 346919. 0.02774 2.098E 00 0. 0. 3.320E 005.672E 00708572. 0. 346919. 0.02827 2.098E 00 0. 0. 3.363E 005.715E 00708572. 0. 346919. 0.02893 2.098E 00 0. 0. 3.405E 005.757E 00708572. 0. 346919. 0.02992 2.098E 00 0. 0. 3.448E 005.800E 00708572. 0. 346919.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.A-1 (SHEET 4 OF 5) TABLE 6.A-1 REV. 0 - APRIL 1984 Output Parameters Summary Effective clearance (inches) Length from restraint to break (ft)
Restraint loading direction 0.415 3.542 0 degrees Pipe bending strain limit (in/in) Pipe rotation stability limit (degr.)
Max. allowable bending moment (ft-lbs) 9.054E-02 7.7815 1417307 Impact Velocity = 10.67 ft/sec Impact Time = 0.0059 seconds Number of bars composing the restraint Defl. of struc. in direction of thrust (in.) Defl. of restr. in direction of thrust (in.) 2 0.7086 0.9754 Force on restr. in direction of thrust (lb) Force on struc. in direction of thrust (lb)
Time at peak dynamic load (seconds) 708572 708572 0.0221 Total energy absorbed by the restraint (ft-lb)
`Energy absorbed by the structure (ft-lb)
Energy absorbed by the bottom hinge (ft-lb) 30522 20920 1956 Energy absorbed by the top top hinge (ft-lb) Restraint load (peak) components (lb) PD1 PD2 Restraint load (static) components (lb) PS1 PS2 0. 708572 0. 138258 0.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.A-1 (SHEET 5 OF 5)
TABLE 6.A-1 REV. 0 - APRIL 1984 Relative defl. of pipe end in the direction of the thrust (in.)
Total defl. of the pipe end 3.4649 5.8168 Defl. time for pipe end (seconds after impact)
Total time of movement 0.0250 0 0309 Energy absorbed by the restraint hinge (ft-lb)
Total absorbed energy (ft-lb) 115445 168843 Pipe defl. at restraint components (in.) XR1 XR2 Pipe defl. at the break components (in.) XP1 XP2 2.0986 0. 5.8168 0.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.A-2 TABLE 6.A-2 REV. 0 - APRIL 1984 ACOUSTIC LOADING ON REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL SHROUD TIME (msec) ACOUSTIC LOAD (kips) 0 0 1.2 0 1.6 150 2.0 320 2.5 650 2.8 250 3.0 100 3.2 0 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.A-3 (SHEET 1 OF 2) TABLE 6.A-3 REV. 0 - APRIL 1984 RPV COORDINATES OF NODAL POINTS NODAL COORDINATES NODE NUMBER X-ORDINATE Y- ORDINATE Z-ORDINATE 1 -912.000 774.000 1563.000 2 -912.000 774.000 1556.000 3 -912.000 774.000 981.200 4 -912.000 774.000 740.000 5 -912.000 774.000 1356.000 6 -912.000 774.000 1316.000 7 -912.000 774.000 1279.200 8 -912.000 774.000 1240.400 9 -912.000 774.000 1201.600 10 -912.000 774.000 1163.600 11 -912.000 774.000 1141.700 12 -912.000 774.000 1125.700 13 -912.000 774.000 1065.200 14 -912.000 774.000 1035.200 15 -912.000 774.000 1021.300 16 -912.000 774.000 994.200 17 -912.000 774.000 1601.700 18 -912.000 774.000 1559.700 19 -912.000 774.000 1499.700 20 -912.000 774.000 1436.900 21 -912.000 774.000 1398.500 22 -912.000 774.000 1318.000 23 -912.000 774.000 1279.200 24 -912.000 774.000 1240.400 25 -912.000 774.000 1201.600 26 -912.000 774.000 1163.600 27 -912.000 774.000 1141.700 28 -912.000 774.000 1125.700 29 -912.000 774.000 1021.300 30 -912.000 774.000 1035.200 31 -912.000 774.000 1065.200 32 -912.000 774.000 1125.700 33 -912.000 774.000 1141.700 34 -912.000 774.000 1163.600 35 -912.000 774.000 1201.600 36 -912.000 774.000 1240.400 37 -912.000 774.000 1279.200 38 -912.000 774.000 1318.000 39 -912.000 774.000 1356.600 40 -912.000 774.000 1398.500 41 -912.000 774.000 1436.900 42 -912.000 774.000 1499.700 43 -912.000 774.000 1559.700 44 -912.000 774.000 1563.600 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.A-3 (SHEET 2 OF 2)
TABLE 6.A-3 REV. 0 - APRIL 1984 NODAL COORDINATES NODE NUMBER X-ORDINATE Y- ORDINATE Z-ORDINATE 45 -912.000 774.000 1601.700 46 -912.000 774.000 1619.800 47 -912.000 774.000 1724.200 48 -912.000 774.000 1743.600 49 -912.000 774.000 1768.200 50 -912.000 774.000 1817.100 51 -912.000 774.000 1866.000 52 -912.000 774.000 1563.000 53 300.000 774.000 886.000 54 -912.000 774.000 446.000 55 -912.000 774.000 318.000 56 -912.000 774.000 0. 57 -912.000 774.000 740.000
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.A-4 TABLE 6.A-4 REV. 0 - APRIL 1984 MAXIMUM MEMBER FORCES DUE TO ANNULUS PRESSURIZATION COMPONENT DESCRIPTION ELEMENT NUMBER FEEDWATER RECIRC. JET REACTION Top guide (L)
- 4 22.20 38.00 29.0 Core plate (L) 7 20.80 42.00 30.0 Fuel support (L) 8 19.00 69.00 74.0 CRD housing (L) 9.10 22.00 70.0 CRD housing (M)
.24 .56 1.9 Shroud head (L) 19 59.80 78.00 133.0 Shroud head (M) 19 6.40 5.90 6.1 Shroud support (L) 26 184.00 296.00 246.0 Shroud support (M) 26 19.80 40.00 22.0 Vessel skirt (L) 50 1220.00 3204.00 1858.0 Vessel skirt (M) 50 216.00 221.00 130.0 Pedestal cont. (L) 3 486.00 2325.00 859.0 Pedestal cont. (M) 3 326.00 680.00 206.0 Stabilizer (L)
III 1722.00 1949.00 746.0 CRD support beam (L) 4.50 27.00 50.0
- *(L) Load - 10 3 x lb (M) Moment - 10 6 x in. x lb All loads incorporate appropriate fact or to account for shell behavior
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.A-5 TABLE 6.A-5 REV. 0 - APRIL 1984 MAXIMUM ACCELERATION
- DUE TO ANNULUS PRESSURIZATION (in./sec 2) COMPONENT DESCRIPTION NODE NUMBER FEEDWATER RECIRC. LINE BREAK JET LOAD P line 9 80 283 675 CRD guide tube 11 86 298 309 Separators 17 155 306 342 Head spray 51 178 416 898 Steam dryer 46 118 200 451 Feedwater sparger 43 109 157 538 Jet pump 38 133 362 406 RPV 30 62 253 514 RPV (bottom) 16 61 254 598 Shield wall 2 282 398 229 Top of shield wall 1 190 326 254 Fuel 5 74 198 394 Fuel 7 27 51 77 Fuel 9 80 283 675
- *All accelerations incorpor ate a factor to accoun t for shell behavior.
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.A-6 REV.0 - APRIL 1984 TABLE 6.A-6 (SHEET 1 OF 3)
RELAP 4 INPUT DATA, RECIRCULATION LINE OUTLET BREAK 1 = LASALLE RPV-SHIELD ANNULUS PRESSURIZATION STUDY - NSLD CALC NO 3C7-0976-001 2
- PROJECT NO 4266-00 R.M. HOGAN - D.L. ROBINSON - NUCLEAR ANALYSTS 3
- RECIRCULATION OUTLET LINE BREAK 4
- 5
- CASE "A" BASE LISTING 12/27/76 6
- 7 *2345678901234567890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890 8
- PROBLEM DIMENSIONS 9
- CARD LDMP-NEDI-NTC-NTR P-NVOL-NBUB-NTDV-NJUN-NONE-NFLL-NONE 10 010001 -2 0 3 6 38 0 0 86 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 11
- 12 *PROBLEM CONSTANTS 13 010002 0.0 1.0 14
- 15
- TIME STEPS 16 030010 1 1 10 0 0.0001 1E-06 0.025 17 030020 1 1 5 0 0.001 1E-06 0.2 18 030030 1 1 1 0 0.01 1E-06 1.0 19
- 20
- TRIP CONTROLS 21 040010 1 1 0 0 0.2 0.0 *END PROBLEM ON ELAPSED TIME 22 040020 2 1 0 0 0.0 0.0
- ACTION #2 ON ELAPSED TIME (FILL) 23 040030 3 4 30 36 3.0 0.0
- ACTION #3 ON DP (OPEN VALVE) 24 040040 4 4 31 36 3.0 0.0
- ACTION #4 ON DP (OPEN VALVE) 25 040050 5 4 32 36 3.0 0.0
- ACTION #5 ON DP (OPEN VALVE) 26 040060 6 4 33 36 3.0 0.0
- ACTION #6 ON DP (OPEN VALVE) 27
- 28
- BEGIN VOLUME DATA 29
- 2345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 30 VOLUME B R PRESS TEMP QUAL VOLUME MT MIX TP FLOWA DIAMV ELEV 31 050011 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 100.6 5.07 5.07 0 18.40 0.0 755.29 32 050021 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 100.6 5.07 5.07 0 18.40 0.0 755.29 33 050031 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 100.6 5.07 5.07 0 18.40 0.0 755.29 34 050041 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 150.9 5.07 5.07 0 23.36 0.0 755.29 35 050051 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 150.9 5.07 5.07 0 23.36 0.0 755.29 36 050061 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 121.0 7.47 7.47 0 20.98 0.0 760.36 37 050071 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 121.0 7.47 7.47 0 20.98 0.0 760.36 38 050081 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 121.0 7.47 7.47 0 20.98 0.0 760.36 39 050091 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 181.5 7.47 7.47 0 25.64 0.0 760.36 40 050101 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 181.5 7.47 7.47 0 25.64 0.0 760.36 41 050111 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 39.87 6.92 6.92 0 10.02 0.0 767.83 42 050121 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 54.28 4.90 4.90 0 10.50 0.0 767.83 43 050131 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 61.94 4.90 4.90 0 10.50 0.0 767.83 44 050141 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 81.43 4.90 4.90 0 13.47 0.0 767.83 45 050151 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 80.54 4.90 4.90 0 13.47 0.0 767.83 46 050161 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 26.77 2.67 2.67 0 8.43 0.0 774.75 47 050171 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 52.18 4.69 4.69 0 10.30 0.0 772.73 48 050181 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 52.18 4.69 4.69 0 10.30 0.0 772.73 49 050191 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 78.28 4.69 4.69 0 13.27 0.0 772.73 50 050201 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 77.39 4.69 4.69 0 13.27 0.0 773.73 51 050211 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 67.48 6.41 6.41 0 12.44 0.0 777.42 52 050221 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 67.48 6.41 6.41 0 12.44 0.0 777.42 53 050231 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 67.48 6.41 6.41 0 12.44 0.0 777.42 54 050241 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 101.2 6.41 6.41 0 15.52 0.0 777.42 55 050251 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 101.2 6.41 6.41 0 15.52 0.0 777.42 56 050261 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 171.1 9.59 9.59 0 18.61 0.0 783.83 57 050271 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 155.8 9.59 9.59 0 18.61 0.0 783.83 58 050281 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 155.8 9.59 9.59 0 18.61 0.0 783.83 59 050291 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 171.1 9.59 9.59 0 18.61 0.0 783.83 60 050301 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 155.8 8.81 8.81 0 17.86 0.0 793.42 61 050311 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 153.4 8.81 8.81 0 17.86 0.0 793.42 62 050321 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 143.9 8.81 8.81 0 17.86 0.0 793.42 63 050331 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 164.1 8.81 8.81 0 17.86 0.0 793.42 64 050341 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 19.76 6.92 6.92 0 10.02 0.0 767.83 65 050351 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 19.52 4.92 4.92 0 7.04 0.0 769.56 66 050361 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.557 16315. 41.0 41.0 0 400. 0.0 793.42 67 050371 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.557 11665. 12.1 12.1 0 965. 0.0 781.32 68 050381 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.557 82775. 44.7 44.7 0 1850. 0.0 736.62 69 VOLUME B R PRESS TEMP QUAL VOLUME MT MIX TP FLOWA DIAMV ELEV 70
- 2345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 71
- END VOLUME DATA 72
- 73
- BEGIN HORIZONTAL FLOW PATHS WITHIN S.S. ANNULUS 74
- 2345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.A-6 REV.0 - APRIL 1984 TABLE 6.A-6 (SHEET 2 OF 3)
RELAP 4 INPUT DATA, RECIRCULATION LINE OUTLET BREAK 75 JUNCT IN OT P V FLO AJUN ZJUN IN FJUF FJUR V C 1 EQ DM CC C E 76 080011 1 2 0 0 0.0 14.86 757.82 0.40 0.24 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 77 080021 2 3 0 0 0.0 14.86 757.82 0.40 0.24 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 78 080031 3 4 0 0 0.0 14.86 757.82 0.50 0.40 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 79 080041 4 5 0 0 0.0 14.86 757.82 0.60 0.42 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 80 080051 6 7 0 0 0.0 20.19 764.10 0.30 0.22 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 81 080061 7 8 0 0 0.0 20.19 764.10 0.30 0.22 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 82 080071 8 9 0 0 0.0 20.19 764.10 0.38 0.39 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 83 080081 9 10 0 0 0.0 20.19 764.10 0.45 0.41 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 84 080091 35 34 0 0 0.0 7.04 772.02 0.30 0.85 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 85 080101 34 11 0 0 0.0 10.02 771.29 0.32 0.35 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 86 080111 11 12 0 0 0.0 7.47 770.28 0.64 0.56 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 87 080121 12 13 0 0 0.0 7.09 770.28 0.90 0.84 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 88 080131 13 14 0 0 0.0 7.09 770.28 1.13 0.85 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 89 080141 14 15 0 0 0.0 7.09 770.28 1.35 1.64 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 90 080151 11 17 0 0 0.0 2.11 773.74 2.26 0.05 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 91 080161 16 17 0 0 0.0 3.87 776.09 1.46 0.38 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 92 080171 17 18 0 0 0.0 6.79 775.07 0.94 0.83 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 93 080181 18 19 0 0 0.0 6.79 775.07 1.17 0.85 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 94 080191 19 20 0 0 0.0 6.79 775.07 1.41 1.63 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 95 080201 21 22 0 0 0.0 9.83 780.62 0.65 0.36 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 96 080211 22 23 0 0 0.0 9.83 780.62 0.65 0.36 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 97 080221 23 24 0 0 0.0 9.83 780.62 0.81 0.67 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 98 080231 24 25 0 0 0.0 9.83 780.62 0.97 0.68 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 99 080241 26 27 0 0 0.0 14.68 788.62 0.65 1.28 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 100 080251 27 28 0 0 0.0 14.68 788.62 0.65 0.68 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 101 080261 28 29 0 0 0.0 14.68 788.62 0.65 1.28 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 102 080271 30 31 0 0 0.0 13.49 797.83 0.71 1.27 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 103 080281 31 32 0 0 0.0 13.49 797.83 0.71 1.13 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 104 080291 32 33 0 0 0.0 13.49 797.83 0.71 1.27 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 105 JUNCT IN OT P V FLO AJUN ZJUN IN FJUF FJUR V C 1 EQ DM CC C E 106
- 2345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 107
- END HORIZONTAL FLOW PATHS WITHIN 5.5. ANNULUS 108
- 109
- BEGIN VERTICAL FLOW PATHS WITHIN S.S. ANNULUS 110
- 2345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 111 JUNCT IN OT P V FLO AJUN ZJUN IN FJUF FJUR V C I EQ DM CC C E 112 080301 6 1 0 0 0.0 18.40 760.36 0.33 0.03 0.03 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 113 080311 7 2 0 0 0.0 18.40 760.36 0.33 0.03 0.03 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 114 080321 8 3 0 0 0.0 18.40 760.36 0.33 0.03 0.03 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 115 080331 9 4 0 0 0.0 23.36 760.36 0.22 0.03 0.03 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 116 080341 10 5 0 0 0.0 23.36 760.36 0.22 0.03 0.03 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 117 080351 34 6 0 0 0.0 3.61 767.83 1.40 1.13 0.90 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 118 080361 11 6 0 0 0.0 3.61 767.83 1.40 1.13 0.90 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 119 080371 12 7 0 0 0.0 7.22 767.83 0.62 1.13 0.90 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 120 080381 13 8 0 0 0.0 7.22 767.83 0.62 1.40 1.17 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 121 080391 14 9 0 0 0.0 10.84 767.83 0.41 1.13 0.90 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 122 080401 15 10 0 0 0.0 10.84 767.83 0.41 1.13 0.90 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 123 080411 12 17 0 0 0.0 8.56 772.73 0.56 0.46 0.00 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 124 080421 13 18 0 0 0.0 8.56 772.73 0.56 0.46 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 125 080431 14 19 0 0 0.0 14.50 772.73 0.33 0.59 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 126 080441 15 20 0 0 0.0 14.50 772.73 0.33 0.68 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 127 080451 34 16 0 0 0.0 5.94 774.75 0.94 0.03 0.00 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 128 080461 11 16 0 0 0.0 5.94 774.75 0.94 0.88 0.00 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 129 080471 16 21 0 0 0.0 7.72 777.42 0.44 0.67 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 130 080481 17 22 0 0 0.0 7.72 777.42 0.59 0.68 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 131 080491 18 23 0 0 0.0 7.72 777.42 0.59 0.68 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 132 080501 19 24 0 0 0.0 11.57 777.42 0.40 0.68 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 133 080511 20 25 0 0 0.0 11.57 777.42 0.40 0.68 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 134 080521 21 26 0 0 0.0 7.72 783.83 0.80 0.96 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 135 080531 22 26 0 0 0.0 3.86 783.83 1.60 1.04 0.00 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 136 080541 22 27 0 0 0.0 3.86 783.83 1.60 1.04 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 137 080551 23 27 0 0 0.0 7.72 783.83 0.80 0.69 0.00 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 138 080561 24 28 0 0 0.0 11.57 783.83 0.54 0.96 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 139 080571 25 29 0 0 0.0 11.57 783.83 0.54 0.97 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 140 080581 26 30 0 0 0.0 11.57 793.42 0.60 1.00 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 141 080591 27 31 0 0 0.0 11.57 793.42 0.60 1.04 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 142 080601 28 32 0 0 0.0 11.57 793.42 0.60 0.97 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 143 080611 29 33 0 0 0.0 11.57 793.42 0.60 1.00 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 144 JUNCT IN OT P V FLO AJUN ZJUN IN FJUF FJUR V C I EQ DM CC C E 145 *2345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 146 *END VERTICAL FLOW PATHS WITHIN S.S. ANNULUS 147
- 148
- BEGIN FLOW PATHS TO CONTAINMENT - PENETRATIONS WITH SHIELDING DOORS 149 *2345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 150 JUNCT IN OT P V FLO AJUN ZJUN IN FJUF FJUR V C I EQ DM CC C E 151 080621 30 36 0 1 0.0 9.27 797.83 1.05 0.75 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 152 080631 31 36 0 2 0.0 13.90 797.83 0.70 1.69 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.A-6 REV.0 - APRIL 1984 TABLE 6.A-6 (SHEET 3 OF 3)
RELAP 4 INPUT DATA, RECIRCULATION LINE OUTLET BREAK 153 080641 32 36 0 3 0.0 13.90 797.83 0.70 1.69 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 154 080651 33 36 0 4 0.0 9.27 797.83 1.05 0.75 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 155 080661 33 36 0 0 0.0 2.04 797.83 1.05 1.72 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 156 080671 32 36 0 0 0.0 0.68 797.83 3.39 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 157 080681 31 36 0 0 0.0 2.10 797.83 1.11 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 158 080691 30 36 0 0 0.0 1.77 797.83 1.25 1.72 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 159 080701 36 37 0 0 0.0 400. 793.42 0.06 0.05 0.00 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 160 080711 29 37 0 0 0.0 1.39 788.62 1.50 1.73 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 161 080721 28 37 0 0 0.0 0.71 788.62 3.30 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 162 080731 27 37 0 0 0.0 0.71 788.62 3.30 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 163 080741 26 37 0 0 0.0 1.39 788.62 1.50 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 164 080751 37 38 0 0 0.0 965. 781.32 0.03 0.05 0.00 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 165 080761 20 38 0 0 0.0 1.25 775.07 1.97 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 166 080771 19 38 0 0 0.0 1.07 775.07 2.20 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 167 080781 18 38 0 0 0.0 0.71 775.07 3.30 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 168 080791 17 38 0 0 0.0 0.71 775.07 3.30 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 169 080801 15 38 0 0 0.0 1.25 770.28 1.97 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 170 080811 14 38 0 0 0.0 1.07 770.28 2.20 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 171 080821 13 38 0 0 0.0 1.47 770.28 1.50 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 172 080831 12 38 0 0 0.0 0.71 770.28 3.30 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 173 080841 11 38 0 0 0.0 0.71 772.02 3.30 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 174 080851 35 38 0 0 0.0 1.08 772.02 2.43 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 175 JUNCT IN OT P V FLO AJUN ZJUN IN FJUF FJUR V C I EQ DM CC C E 176 *2345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 177 *END FLOW PATHS TO CONTAINMENT - PENETRATIONS WITH SHIELDING DOORS 178
- 179 *BEGIN FILL PATH 180 *2345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 181 JUNCT IN OT P V FLO AJUN ZJUN IN FJUF FJUR V C I EQ DM CC C E 182 080861 0 35 1 0 0.0 1.00 772.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 1.0 1 0 183 JUNCT IN OT P V FLO AJUN ZJUN IN FJUF FJUR V C I EQ DM CC C E 184 *2345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 185
- END FILL PATH 186
- 187
- VALVE DATA CARDS 188 110010 -3 0.0 0.0 0.0 189 110020 -4 0.0 0.0 0.0 190 110030 -5 0.0 0.0 0.0 191 110040 -6 0.0 0.0 0.0 192
- 193
- FILL TABLE DATA CARDS 194
- FILL CONTROL 195 130100 16 2 0 0 1060. 533.
196
- CARD TIME FLOW TIME FLOW TIME FLOW 197 130101 0.0 0.0 0.002 371. 0.004 1194. 198 130102 0.006 2476. 0.008 4463. 0.010 7081.
199 130103 0.0173 18092. 0.019395 18092. 0.019405 9162.
200 130104 0.022 10573. 0.024 11445. 0.026 12147.
201 130105 0.028 12611. 0.030 12865. 0.031 12885.
202 130106 5.0 12885.
203
- 204 *2345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 205 *******************************************************************************
206
- MODEL REVISIONS 207 *******************************************************************************
208 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.A-7 REV.0 - APRIL 1984
- TABLE 6.A-7 (SHEET 1 OF 3)
RELAP 4 INPUT DATA, FEEDWATER LINE BREAK 29 = LASALLE RPV-SHIELD ANNULUS PRESSURIZATION STUDY - NSLD CALC NO 3C7-0976-001 30
- PROJECT NO 4266-00 R.M. HOGAN - D.L. ROBINSON - NUCLEAR ANALYSTS 31
- FEEDWATER LINE BREAK 32
- 33
- CASE "C" BASE LISTING 1/3/77 34
- 35 *2345678901234567890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890 36
- PROBLEM DIMENSIONS 37
- CARD LDMP----NEDI---------NTS--------NTRP---------NVOL------NBUB--------NTDV-------NJUN-------NONE--------NFLL---------NO NE 38 010001 -2 0 3 8 32 0 0 70 060 1 00000 39
- 40 *PROBLEM CONSTANTS 41 010002 0.0 1.0 42
- 43
- TIME STEPS 44 030010 1 1 50 0 0.0001 1E-06 0.025 45 030020 1 1 25 0 0.001 1E-06 0.2 46 030030 1 1 1 0 0.01 1E-06 1.0 47
- 48
- TRIP CONTROLS 49 040010 1 1 0 0 0.2 0.0 *END PROBLEM ON ELAPSED TIME 50 040020 2 1 0 0 0.0 0.0
- ACTION #2 ON ELAPSED TIME (FILL) 51 040030 3 4 23 30 3.0 0.0
- ACTION #3 ON DP (OPEN VALVE) 52 040040 4 4 24 30 3.0 0.0
- ACTION #4 ON DP (OPEN VALVE) 53 040050 5 4 25 30 3.0 0.0
- ACTION #5 ON DP (OPEN VALVE) 54 040060 6 4 26 30 3.0 0.0
- ACTION #6 ON DP (OPEN VALVE) 27 040070 7 4 27 30 3.0 0.0 *ACTION #7 ON DP (OPEN VALVE) 28 040080 8 4 28 30 3.0 0.0
- ACTION #8 ON DP (OPEN VALVE) 29
- 30
- BEGIN VOLUME DATA 31
- 2345678901234567890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890 32 VOLUME B R PRESS TEMP QUAL VOLUME HT MIX TP FLOWA DIAMV ELEV 33 050011 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 150.9 5.07 5.07 0 23.36 0.0 755.29 34 050021 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 150.9 5.07 5.07 0 23.36 0.0 755.29 35 050031 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 150.9 5.07 5.07 0 23.36 0.0 755.29 36 050041 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 150.9 5.07 5.07 0 23.36 0.0 755.29 37 050051 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 181.5 7.47 7.47 0 23.80 0.0 760.36 38 050061 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 181.5 7.47 7.47 0 23.80 0.0 760.36 39 050071 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 181.5 7.47 7.47 0 23.80 0.0 760.36 40 050081 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 181.5 7.47 7.47 0 23.80 0.0 760.36 41 050091 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 159.7 9.59 9.59 0 17.83 0.0 767.83 42 050101 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 157.9 9.59 9.59 0 17.83 0.0 767.83 43 050111 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 157.9 9.59 9.59 0 17.83 0.0 767.83 44 050121 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 167.4 9.59 9.59 0 17.83 0.0 767.83 45 050131 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 67.48 6.41 6.41 0 12.44 0.0 777.42 46 050141 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 67.48 6.41 6.41 0 12.44 0.0 777.42 47 050151 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 67.48 6.41 6.41 0 12.44 0.0 777.42 48 050161 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 101.2 6.41 6.41 0 15.79 0.0 777.42 49 050171 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 101.2 6.41 6.41 0 15.79 0.0 777.42 50 050181 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 100.8 9.59 9.59 0 15.52 0.0 783.83 51 050191 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 110.0 9.59 9.59 0 15.52 0.0 783.83 52 050201 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 116.1 9.59 9.59 0 15.52 0.0 783.83 53 050211 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 171.1 9.59 9.59 0 18.61 0.0 783.83 54 050221 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 155.8 9.59 9.59 0 18.61 0.0 783.83 55 050231 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 45.22 10.58 10.58 0 13.39 0.0 793.42 56 050241 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 55.63 10.58 10.58 0 13.39 0.0 793.42 57 050251 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 116.2 10.58 10.58 0 16.48 0.0 793.42 58 050261 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 131.5 10.58 10.58 0 16.48 0.0 793.42 59 050271 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 176.7 10.58 10.58 0 19.57 0.0 793.42 60 050281 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 171.8 10.58 10.58 0 19.57 0.0 793.42 61 050291 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.946 16.12 4.00 4.00 0 5.42 0.0 796.75 62 050301 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.557 16315. 41.00 41.00 0 400. 0.0 793.42 63 050311 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.557 11665. 12.10 12.10 0 965. 00 781.32 64 050321 0 0 15.45 -1. 0.557 82775. 44.70 44.70 0 1850. 00 736.62 65 VOLUME B R PRESS TEMP QUAL VOLUME HT MIX TP FLOWA DIAMV ELEV 65 *2345678901234567890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890 66
- END VOLUME DATA 67
- 68
- BEGIN HORIZONTAL FLOW PATHS WITHIN S.S. ANNULUS 69
- 2345678901234567890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890123457890 70
- JUNCT----IN----------0T-----------P-------------V--------------FLO---------AJUN--------ZJUN---------IN-----------FJUF-------FJUR------V -C-I-EQ---DM----------CC------------C-E 72 080011 1 2 0 0 0.0 14.86 757.82 0.60 0.29 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 73 080021 2 3 0 0 0.0 14.86 757.82 0.60 0.43 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 74 080031 3 4 0 0 0.0 14.86 757.82 0.60 0.29 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 75 080041 5 6 0 0 0.0 20.19 764.10 0.45 0.25 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.A-7 REV.0 - APRIL 1984 TABLE 6.A-7 (SHEET 2 OF 3)
RELAP 4 INPUT DATA, FEEDWATER LINE BREAK 76 080051 6 7 0 0 0.0 20.19 764.10 0.45 0.41 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 77 080061 7 8 0 0 0.0 20.19 764.10 0.45 0.25 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 78 080071 9 10 0 0 0.0 13.88 772.63 0.69 1.31 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 79 080081 10 11 0 0 0.0 13.88 772.63 0.69 1.27 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 80 080091 11 12 0 0 0.0 13.88 772.63 0.69 1.31 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 81 080101 13 14 0 0 0.0 9.83 780.62 0.65 0.51 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 82 080111 14 15 0 0 0.0 9.83 780.62 0.65 0.51 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 83 080121 15 16 0 0 0.0 9.83 780.62 0.81 0.38 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 84 080131 16 17 0 0 0.0 9.83 780.62 0.97 0.39 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 85 080141 18 19 0 0 0.0 14.68 788.62 0.44 0.79 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 86 080151 19 20 0 0 0.0 14.68 788.62 0.44 0.83 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 87 080161 20 21 0 0 0.0 14.68 788.62 0.54 0.51 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 88 080171 21 22 0 0 0.0 14.68 788.62 0.65 0.85 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 89 080181 29 23 0 0 0.0 5.42 798.75 0.40 0.85 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 90 080191 23 24 0 0 0.0 16.19 798.75 0.20 0.33 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 91 080201 24 25 0 0 0.0 16.19 798.75 0.30 0.05 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 92 080211 25 26 0 0 0.0 16.19 798.75 0.40 1.33 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 93 080221 26 27 0 0 0.0 16.19 798.75 0.50 1.34 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 94 080231 27 28 0 0 0.0 16.19 798.75 0.60 0.39 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 95
- JUNCT----IN----------0T-----------P-------------V--------------FLO---------AJUN--------ZJUN---------IN-----------FJUF-------FJUR------V C-I-EQ---DM----------CC----------C-E 96 *2345678901234567890123456789012345678900123456789012345678900123456789012345678901234567890 97
- END HORIZONTAL FLOW PATHS WITHIN 5*5* ANNULUS 98
- 99
- BEGIN VERTICAL FLOW PATHS WITHIN S*S* ANNULUS 100 *0123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 101
- JUNCT----IN----------0T-----------P-------------V--------------FLO---------AJUN--------ZJUN---------IN-----------FJUF-------FJUR------V -C-I-EQ---DM----------CC---------C-E 102 080241 5 1 0 0 0.0 23.80 760.36 0.26 0.03 0.00 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 103 080251 6 2 0 0 0.0 23.80 760.36 0.26 0.03 0.00 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 104 080261 7 3 0 0 0.0 23.80 760.36 0.26 0.03 0.00 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 105 080271 8 4 0 0 0.0 23.80 760.36 0.26 0.03 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 106 080281 9 5 0 0 0.0 10.84 767.83 0.54 1.13 1.28 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 107 080291 10 6 0 0 0.0 10.84 767.83 0.54 1.13 1.28 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 108 080301 11 7 0 0 0.0 10.84 767.83 0.54 1.13 1.28 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 109 080311 12 8 0 0 0.0 10.84 767.83 .054 1.13 1.28 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 110 080321 13 9 0 0 0.0 7.22 777.42 0.83 0.96 0.00 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 111 080331 14 9 0 0 0.0 3.61 777.42 1.66 0.96 0.00 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 112 080341 14 10 0 0 0.0 3.61 777.42 1.66 0.96 0.00 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 113 080351 15 10 0 0 0.0 7.22 777.42 0.83 0.96 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 114 080361 16 11 0 0 0.0 10.84 777.42 0.56 0.96 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 115 080371 17 12 0 0 0.0 10.84 777.42 0.56 1.01 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 116 080381 18 13 0 0 0.0 7.71 783.83 0.80 0.68 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 117 080391 19 14 0 0 0.0 7.71 783.83 0.80 1.03 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 118 080401 20 15 0 0 0.0 7.71 783.83 0.80 0.96 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 119 080411 21 16 0 0 0.0 11.57 783.83 0.54 0.97 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 120 080421 22 17 0 0 0.0 11.57 783.83 0.54 0.96 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 121 080431 23 18 0 0 0.0 3.86 793.42 1.94 0.70 0.00 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 122 080441 24 18 0 0 0.0 3.86 793.42 1.94 0.70 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 123 080451 25 19 0 0 0.0 7.71 793.42 0.97 0.98 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 124 080461 26 20 0 0 0.0 7.71 793.42 0.97 1.00 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 125 080471 27 21 0 0 0.0 11.57 793.42 0.65 0.99 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 126 080481 28 22 0 0 0.0 11.57 793.42 0.65 0.97 0.00 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 127
- JUNCT----IN----------0T-----------P-------------V--------------FLO---------AJUN--------ZJUN---------IN-----------FJUF-------FJUR------V -C-I-EQ---DM----------CC---------C-E 128 *23457789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 129
- END VERTICAL FLOW PATHS WITHIN S*S*ANNULUS 130
- 131
- BEGIN FLOW PATHS TO CONTAINMENT - PENETRATIONS WITH SHIELDING DOORS 132
- 23457789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 133
- JUNCT----IN----------0T-----------P-------------V--------------FLO---------AJUN--------ZJUN---------IN-----------FJUF-------FJUR------V -C-I-EQ---DM----------CC---------C-E 134 080491 23 30 0 1 0.0 1.54 798.75 3.60 1.61 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 135 080501 24 30 0 2 0.0 3.86 798.75 1.30 1.07 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 136 080511 25 30 0 3 0.0 7.71 798.75 1.06 1.99 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 137 080521 26 30 0 4 0.0 7.71 798.75 1.06 1.99 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1. 0 138 080531 27 30 0 5 0.0 9.27 798.75 0.79 2.40 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 .0 139 080541 28 30 0 6 0.0 11.57 798.75 0.65 1.82 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 140 080551 29 30 0 0 0.0 0.68 798.75 3.96 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 1 0 141 080561 28 30 0 0 0.0 0.68 798.75 3.96 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 142 080571 27 30 0 0 0.0 1.36 798.75 1.98 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 143 080581 26 30 0 0 0.0 1.36 798.75 1.70 1.73 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 144 080591 25 30 0 0 0.0 0.68 798.75 3.96 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 145 080601 30 31 0 0 0.0 400. 793.42 0.06 0.05 0.00 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 146 080611 22 31 0 0 0.0 0.71 788.62 3.86 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 147 080621 21 31 0 0 0.0 1.39 788.62 1.70 1.73 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 148 080631 20 31 0 0 0.0 0.68 788.62 2.98 1.74 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 149 080641 19 31 0 0 0.0 1.42 788.62 1.93 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 150 080651 31 32 0 0 0.0 965. 781.32 0.03 0.05 0.00 1 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 151 080661 12 32 0 0 0.0 2.89 772.63 0.90 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 152 080671 11 32 0 0 0.0 2.50 772.63 1.17 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0
LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 6.A-7 REV.0 - APRIL 1984 TABLE 6.A-7 (SHEET 3 OF 3)
RELAP 4 INPUT DATA, FEEDWATER LINE BREAK 153 080681 10 32 0 0 0.0 2.50 772.63 1.17 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 154 080691 9 32 0 0 0.0 2.14 772.63 1.29 1.71 0.00 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.6 1 0 155
- JUNCT----IN----------0T-----------P-------------V--------------FLO---------AJUN--------ZJUN---------IN-----------FJUF-------FJUR------V -C-I-EQ---DM----------CC-----
---C-E 156
- 23457789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 157
- END FLOW PATHS TO CONTAINMENT - PENETRATIONS WITH SHIELDING DOORS 158
- 159
- BEGIN FILL PATH 160
- 23457789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 161
- JUNCT----IN----------0T-----------P-------------V--------------FLO---------AJUN--------ZJUN---------IN-----------FJUF-------FJUR------V -C-I-EQ---DM----------CC----
C-E 162 080701 0 29 1 0 0.0 1.0 789.75 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 3 0.0 1.0 1 0 163
- JUNCT----IN----------0T-----------P-------------V--------------FLO---------AJUN--------ZJUN---------IN-----------FJUF-------FJUR------V -C-I-EQ---DM----------CC-----
---C-E 164
- 23457789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 165
- END FILL PATH 166
- 167
- VALVE DATA CARDS 168 110010 -3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 169 110020 -4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 170 110030 -5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 171 110040 -6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 172 110050 -7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 173 110060 -8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 174
- 175
- FILL TABLE DATA CARDS 176
- FILL CONTROL 177 130100 4 2 0 0 1045. 420.
178
- CARD TIME FLOW TIME FLOW 179 1030101 0.0 14200. 0.001050 14200.
180 1030102 0.001060 21600. 1.00 21600. 181
- 182
- 23457789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 183