Text

Technical Specifications Changes TS-431 and TS-418 - Extended Power Uprate - Response to ACRS Conclusions and Recommendations Regarding Containment Overpressure Credit
	ML081700294
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	06/12/2008
From:	Langley D; Tennessee Valley Authority
To:	; Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	TAC MD5262, TAC MD5263, TAC MD5264, TVA-BFN-TS-418, TVA-BFN-TS-431
	Download: ML081700294 (58)
	v • d • e

Tennessee Valley Authority, Post Office Box 2000, Decatur, Alabama 35609-2000 June 12, 2008 TVA-BFN-TS-418 TVA-BFN-TS-431 10 CFR 50.90 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Stop OWFN, P1-35 Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 Gentlemen:

In the Matter of .) Docket Nos. 50-259 Tennessee Valley Authority ) 50-260 50-296 BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN) - UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 -TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (TS) CHANGES TS-431 AND TS-418 - EXTENDED POWER UPRATE (EPU) - RESPONSE TO ACRS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CONTAINMENT OVERPRESSURE (COP) CREDIT (TAC NOS. MD5262, MD5263, AND MD5264)

By letters dated June 28, 2004 and June 25, 2004 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML041840109 and ML041840301), TVA submitted license amendment requests (LARs) to the NRC for the EPU operation of BFN Unit 1 and BFN Units 2 and 3, respectively. The proposed amendments would change the operating licenses to increase the maximum authorized core thermal power level of each reactor by approximately 14 percent to 3952 megawatts.

In the EPU license applications, additional COP credit was requested for the Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) design basis accident analysis and for three of the special event licensing analyses.

In the ACRS review of the BFN Unit 1 LAR for uprate to 105% of original licensed thermal power, ACRS concluded that the use of COP credit in the EPU licensing analyses for the long-term large LOCA and Appendix R event warranted further consideration, and in particular expressed reservations about the magnitude and duration of COP credit being requested in the Appendix R event analysis. These concerns were documented in the February 16, 2007, ACRS recommendation letter (ML070470314) for the BFN Unit 1 105%

LAR. This submittal provides-an overview of the issue of COP credit for EPU operation and a summary of TVA actions taken in response to the ACRS concems.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2.

June 12, 2008 A meeting was held with NRC on July 18, 2007, to discuss how EPU COP should be addressed with the ACRS. For Appendix R, TVA decided to perform a fire area evaluation to better characterize the likelihood and consequences of realistic fire scenarios in contrast to the licensing basis Appendix R analysis.

The fire area evaluation results and conclusions were submitted on November 15, 2007 (ML073230348). The evaluation was based on more realistic determinations of the likelihood of fire events of the magnitude necessary to cause damage similar to that assumed in worst case Appendix R analyses and included the determination of the plant equipment and procedures that would be available to ensure safe shutdown of the plant in the various fire areas. A summary of the information provided in the November 15, 2007, submittal has been included in Enclosure 1 along with the results of a recently completed Net Positive Suction Head analysis for the limiting fire areas. The fire area evaluation concluded that for realistic fire events, COP is needed in a very limited number of cases, and that the duration and magnitude is greatly reduced. Enclosure 1 also summarizes previously submitted evaluations, which show that with the use of more realistic inputs, credit for COP is not required in many circumstances for the long-term LOCA case.

TVA has determined that the additional information provided by this letter does not affect the no significant hazards considerations associated with the proposed TS changes. The proposed TS changes still qualify for a categorical exclusion from environmental review pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).

No new regulatory commitments are made in this submittal. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (256)729-2636.

sncerel I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 112th day of June, 2008./A T. Langley Manager of Licensing and Industry Affairs

Enclosures:

1. Summary of Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Net Positive Suction Head and Containment Overpressure (COP) Issues

2. Sulzer Report

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 3 June 12, 2008

Enclosures:

cc: State Health Officer Alabama Dept. of Public Health RSA Tower - Administration Suite 1552 P.O. Box 303017 Montgomery, AL 36130-3017 Ms. Eva Brown, Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (MS 08G9)

One White Flint, North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852-2739 Rebecca L. Nease, Branch Chief U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite 23T85 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8931 NRC Resident Inspector Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 10833 Shaw Road Athens, Alabama 35611-6970

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 4 June 12, 2008 DTL:JEE:BCM:BDL cc (w/o Enclosures):

G. P. Arent, EQB 1B-WBN W. R. Campbell, Jr., LP 3R-C S. M. Douglas, POB 2C-BFN R. F. Marks, Jr., PAB 1C-BFN D. C. Matherly, BFT 2A-BFN L. E. Nicholson, LP 4K-C R. G. West, NAB 2A-BFN B. A. Wetzel, LP 4K-C S. A. Vance, WT 6A-K E. J. Vigluicci, ET 11A-K NSRB Support, LP 5M-C EDMS WT CA-K, s:Iic/submit/subs/EPU/TS431 and 418/RESPONSE TO ACRS CONCERNS ON COP

ENCLOSURE1 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN)

UNITS 1,2, AND 3 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (TS) CHANGES TS-431 AND TS-418 EXTENDED POWER UPRATE (EPU)

SUMMARY

OF EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEM (ECCS) NET POSITIVE SUCTION HEAD AND CONTAINMENT OVERPRESSURE (COP) ISSUES Overview of ECCS Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH) and COP for EPU Historically, credit for elevated containment pressure has been required for BFN Units 1, 2, and 3 for a limited period of time in the large pipe break Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) design basis accident analysis and during other low probability special event analyses. In part, these event analyses are performed to demonstrate that the available NPSH (NPSHa) will be greater than the ECCS pump vendor's required NPSH (NPSHr) assuming worst case thermohydraulic conditions and equipment failures specified in licensing basis analyses. If COP is required, the analyses are performed to demonstrate the minimum expected containment pressure exceeds the maximum required to support NPSHr for pump operation. COP is a physical phenomenon linked directly to the increase in suppression pool water temperature and water vapor pressure within the containment.

EPU conditions result in increased core decay heat and thus an increased post-event suppression pool temperature, which is a significant term in determining NPSHa. For the EPU License Amendment Requests (LARs), COP credit is required for the LOCA analysis and the Appendix R, Station Blackout (SBO), and Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS) special event analyses. The degree and rigor to which NPSH and COP have been analyzed and considered in the licensing basis have changed considerably since BFN was originally licensed due to new regulatory requirements. Therefore, a brief history is provided in this enclosure for the use of COP for the LOCA and Appendix R event analyses, which are those most affected by COP considerations.

Containment and ECCS System Description The three BFN units are BWR-4s with Mark I containments. A simplified schematic of primary containment and ECCS pump configuration is shown in the next figure. Four Residual Heat Removal (RHR) pumps and four Core Spray pumps take suction from the suppression pool through a common ring header, which connects to the suppression pool at four locations through a stacked disc strainer mounted on each nozzle. The Core Spray pumps are used exclusively for core cooling and spray into the reactor vessel plenum directly above the reactor core. The RHR pumps are used for core cooling and are also used to provide long-term heat removal from containment after a LOCA and special events. To provide long-term containment cooling, RHR Service Water (RHRSW) pumps are manually started and aligned to the RHR heat exchangers (each RHR pump has its own heat exchanger). RHRSW takes suction from the Tennessee River, which is the Ultimate Heat Sink at BFN.

I

RBRSW Pumps LOCA Event Analysis The LOCA event is analyzed in a short-term (<10 minutes) and a long-term (>10 minutes) time segment based on the point in time when operator action may be credited in the licensing basis analysis.

Short-Term LOCA Analysis (< 10 minutes)

The analyzed design basis LOCA for determining NPSH margin is a double-ended recirculation pump discharge line break. All four RHR pumps and all four Core Spray pumps start automatically and align to inject to the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV). Two RHR pumps inject to the RPV via the intact recirculation loop piping at 10,000 gallons per minute (gpm) each, two RHR pumps inject into containment through the broken recirculation discharge line at 11,000 gpm each (greater than design flow), and four Core Spray pumps inject to the RPV at 4,125 gpm each.

2

Long-Term LOCA Analysis (>10 minutes)

The worst case hypothesized single failure and pipe break location for determining NPSH margin results in two RHR pumps operating in containment cooling mode and two Core Spray pumps operating in one Core Spray loop for core cooling. At 10 minutes, two RHRSW pumps are started and aligned to their respective RHR heat exchangers. Containment spray mode of RHR is chosen to minimize the available containment pressure result.

LOCA COP Credit Prior to EPU COP has been included in the licensing basis for the design basis LOCA analysis since September 1999. The need for analytic COP credit originated from NRC Bulletin 96-03, "Potential Plugging of Emergency Core Cooling Suction Strainers by Debris in Boiling-Water Reactors," which requested licensees take action to minimize the potential for clogging the ECCS suppression pool suction strainers by debris generated during a design basis LOCA.

Generic Letter (GL) 97-04, "Assurance of Sufficient Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH) for Emergency Core Cooling and Containment Heat Removal Pumps" requested additional related actions.

The BFN response to Bulletin 96-03 included the installation of larger capacity passive strainers and in response to the GL, on September 4, 1998 (Reference 1), BFN submitted an LAR to include credit for COP as did many other BWRs. TVA's calculations in support of the COP LAR showed 1.9 pounds per square inch (psi) of COP credit was needed for the short-term LOCA analysis for RHR pump operation and 0.25 psi of COP credit was needed for Core Spray pump operation for the long-term LOCA analysis. NRC approved BFN's LAR on September 3, 1999 (Reference 2) for Units 2 and 3, and granted 3 psi COP credit for the short-term LOCA and 1 psi COP credit for the long-term LOCA analysis. Unit 1 was in an extended shutdown at the time, so a COP LAR was not submitted. Unit 1 subsequently restarted in Summer 2007 at 105% of Original Licensed Thermal Power (OLTP) power level, which is the same current licensed power level as Units 2 and 3. All three BFN units are physically similar with, respect to ECCS pump NPSH requirements so the Unit 1 design and licensing requirements with regard to COP credit are the same as for Units 2 and Unit 3.

LOCA COP Credit Requested for EPU By letters dated June 28, 2004 (Reference 3) and June 25, 2004 (Reference 4), TVA submitted Units 1,2, and 3 LARs for EPU operation at 3952 megawatts-thermal (MWt). This is a 14%

increase over the current licensed power of 3458 MWt. In the EPU licensing basis LOCA analysis, increased core decay heat from the higher power level results in a higher post-LOCA bulk suppression pool peak temperature (approximately 100 F above the current analysis),

which in turn requires increased COP credit for ECCS pump NPSH. The most recent NPSH analysis for EPU LOCA was submitted to NRC on August 31, 2006 (Reference 5). In the calculations, conservative inputs and assumptions were chosen that maximize suppression pool temperature and minimize containment pressure.

The referenced calculations show that for the short-term LOCA analysis, a COP credit of 2 psi is required for Core Spray pump operation for 9 minutes. For the two RHR pumps pumping to the intact recirculation loop, 0.8 psi of COP credit is required for 5 minutes. The two RHR pumps assumed pumping into the broken recirculation discharge loop need COP credit of 3.3 psi, which exceeds the required NPSH for approximately four minutes. However, TVA has 3

previously presented the results of in-situ testing and pump vendor information, which show that this brief period of operation will not affect the capability of the RHR pumps to provide long term containment cooling.

For the long-term LOCA analysis, no COP is required for RHR pump operation. Core Spray pump COP credit is required for 23 hours2.662037e-4 days 0.00639 hours 3.80291e-5 weeks 8.7515e-6 months with a maximum of 3 psi. There is adequate containment pressure available throughout to provide COP margin for Core Spray.

The following two figures are plots of the NPSH parameters for the short- and long-term LOCA analyses. These plots were included in Reference 5 and have been reformatted to improve their readability.

ST LOCA Licensing Basis COP Requirement Maximum RHR and CS Flow Rates 160I

22 Wetwell Pressure Suppression Pool Temperature 150 20 140 18 RHR Pump Broken -- 5 Loop Flow Required Core Spray Pump Required o

130 8" Wetwell Pressure

.---- Wetwell Pressure 16 E 120 , "- Atmospheric Pressure 14 RHR Pump LPCI Loop S Flow Required Wetwell Pressure 110 12 100 *10 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Time (seconds) 4

LT LOCA Licensing Basis COP Requirement 95F Drywell Spray 200- 22 Wetwell Pressure 190 20 180 Suppression Pool Temperature S170 - 18 -

Core Spray Pump Required a

&.S140 P--re--s..... ... - - a 120 10 RHR Pump Required 2

1 130 Wetwell Pressure 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Time (hours)

Conservatisms in Design Basis LOCA Calculation and Sensitivity Analysis The requirement for COP credit is driven by the conservative nature of design basis LOCA calculations. Use of more realistic inputs in such calculations shows that no credit for COP is needed in many cases. The most significant conservatism in the long-term analysis is the assumption of single failures which disable 2 of the 4 RHR pumps/heat exchangers since 3 or more pumps/heat exchangers eliminate the need for COP. In the event of single failures affecting RHR, an additional failure of the redundant containment system would also have to be assumed in order to prevent sufficient containment pressure from being available to support ECCS pumps.

A COP risk analysis was performed for the LOCA, ATWS, and SBO events to determine the core damage risk from dependence on COP. The risk analysis results were presented in a TVA submittal dated July 21, 2006 (Reference 6). This effort was performed following ACRS guidance provided in the review of the Vermont Yankee EPU license amendment and included the following; 0 Development of probability distributions for plant parameters which affect NPSH:

o river (RHRSW) temperature o initial suppression pool temperature o initial suppression pool water level

" initial power level 5

Evaluation of sensitivities to the accident calculations to determine under what conditions credit for COP is required to satisfy low pressure ECCS pump NPSH requirements

Revision of accident sequence event trees within the Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) model to make low pressure ECCS pump success dependent upon successful containment isolation when other plant preconditions exist (i.e., RHRSW high temperature, suppression pool high initial temperature, suppression pool low water level)

Modification of the existing containment isolation system fault tree within the PRA model to include the probability of pre-existing containment leakage

" Performance of modeling sensitivity studies and parametric uncertainty analysis to assess the variability of the results This risk analysis shows that an ECCS dependence on COP results in a ACDF/ALERF of 2.4E-8/yr when considering LOCA, ATWS, and SBO events, which is well below the acceptance guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.174. Since BFN does not have a quantitative fire PRA model, this COP sensitivity risk analysis did not include fire events. Therefore, further analysis of Appendix R events was performed as described in the next section.

Appendix R Event Analysis In the licensing basis Appendix R event, fire is assumed to damage all equipment located in a given fire area not meeting the physical separation and protection requirements of the rule. The limiting BFN Appendix R scenario is a fire in a plant area that results in a total loss of high pressure make-up sources (feedwater, High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI), and Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC)). Offsite power is assumed to be lost. The operators are required to manually depressurize the reactor within 20 minutes of the event using three Safety Relief Valves (SRVs) and then initiate vessel injection using 1 RHR pump operating in low pressure coolant injection (LPCI) mode. This provides the core cooling function. In this alignment, the single RHR pump takes suction from the suppression pool, injects to the vessel via the LPCI flow path, and returns water to the suppression pool through the SRV tail pipes.

The RHR heat exchanger for the operating RHR pump is placed in service at two hours by starting an RHRSW pump and aligning the heat exchanger discharge flow path. This action establishes containment cooling. In this alignment, the operating RHR pump provides both core cooling and containment cooling, and the alignment is commonly referred to as the Appendix R Alternate Shutdown Cooling mode. The operators also terminate drywell cooling within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months to preserve containment overpressure.

Analyses show that the use of two RHR pumps and heat exchangers for suppression pool cooling in the Appendix R licensing basis scenario would eliminate the need for Appendix R COP credit because the pool temperature could then be kept sufficiently low. However, in the limiting Appendix R fire scenarios, only a single RHR pump and heat exchanger are available.

The physical locations of key electrical distribution boards and diesel generator capacity limitations make it impractical to ensure that two RHR pumps/heat exchangers are available in the limiting fire scenarios using Appendix R rule criteria. Therefore, the historical, current, and EPU licensing basis Appendix R analyses credit a single RHR pump/heat exchanger combination operating in Alternate Shutdown Cooling mode.

6

Appendix R COP Credit Prior to EPU Credit for COP has been included in the BFN licensing basis for Appendix R compliance since 1988. The original Appendix R analysis was described in References 7 and 8 in 1986.

A maximum ,COP credit of 5.1 psi was required for RHR pump NPSH. These submittals did not specifically discuss the overall duration of the COP credit, but a review of the associated analyses allows the duration to be estimated at approximately 25 hours2.893519e-4 days 0.00694 hours 4.133598e-5 weeks 9.5125e-6 months . On December 8, 1988, (Reference 9), NRC issued the SER on the BFN Appendix R program.

On October 1, 1997 (Reference 10), TVA submitted an LAR to increase the licensed thermal power of Units 2 and 3 by 5% from OLTP (3293 MWt) to 3458 MWt. The associated thermodynamic analyses for this power uprate assumed a 10 psi COP credit and this resulted in NPSH margin of approximately 13 feet (i.e., a maximum COP credit of approximately 4.6 psi was required). This submittal did not specifically discuss COP duration, but a review of the associated analyses allows the duration to be estimated at approximately 25 hours2.893519e-4 days 0.00694 hours 4.133598e-5 weeks 9.5125e-6 months . On September 8, 1998, (Reference 11), NRC issued the SER approving the 5% power uprate request for Units 2 and 3. Because Unit 1 was shutdown during this period of operation, a specific Unit 1 105% Appendix R analysis was not performed. Unit 1 restarted in Summer 2007 at the 105% power level. Since all three BFN units are physically similar with respect to ECCS pump NPSH requirements, the Unit 1 design and licensing bases with regard to COP credit are the same as for Units 2 and Unit 3.

Appendix R COP Credit Requested for EPU By letters dated June 28, 2004 (Reference 3) and June 25, 2004 (Reference 4), TVA submitted LARs to the NRC for EPU (3952 MWt) operation of Units 1, 2, and 3. This is a 14% increase over the current licensed power of 3458 MWt. At EPU conditions for the Appendix R licensing basis analysis, the increased core decay heat increases the suppression pool temperature, which results in the need for added COP credit.

The most recent Appendix R NPSH analysis for EPU was submitted August 31, 2006 (Reference 5). Nominal bounding input assumptions were used rather than TS maxima and no additional single failures were assumed. The subject analysis showed that a maximum of 9.6 psi of COP credit is required for RHR pump NPSH during the Appendix R event and that COP credit is required for approximately 69 hours7.986111e-4 days 0.0192 hours 1.140873e-4 weeks 2.62545e-5 months . There is adequate containment pressure available to provide COP margin for RHR throughout the event.

The initial conditions and parameters used in the licensing basis Appendix R analysis are provided in Table 1 below. Time curves of the suppression pool temperature, wetwell pressure, and the RHR pump required wetwell pressure are provided in the figure following the table.

Initial conditions and parameter values used in the licensing basis analysis are nominal bounding values when they can be justified as being sufficiently conservative. The primary conservatism in the BFN Appendix R licensing basis analysis is the deterministic definition of the scenario itself, which significantly limits the equipment used for mitigation.

7

Table 1 Inputs and Parameters for Appendix R Licensing Basis Analysis

1. reactor power - 100% EPU 3952 MWt

2. reactor steam dome pressure 1055 psia

3. decay heat Nominal ANSI 5.1-1979

4. initial suppression pool volume 122,940 cubic feet (minimum TS level)

5. initial drywell volume 171,000 cubic feet

6. initial wetwell airspace volume 127,860 cubic feet

7. initial drywell pressure 15.5 psia

8. initial drywell temperature 150 OF

9. initial drywell relative humidity 50%

10. initial wetwell pressure 14.4 psia

11. initial wetwell temperature 95 o F

12. initial wetwell relative humidity 100%

13. initial suppression pool temperature 95 OF (maximum TS value)

14. ultimate heat sink temperature 92 OF

15. RHR heat exchanger K value 227 BTU/sec-°F

16. RHR pumps in service 1

17. RHR Mode of Operation 9400 gpm in LPCI mode until RPV depressurization, then 6000 gpm in Alternate Shutdown Cooling mode

18. drywell coolers in service 10 for first 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months , then coolers are isolated

19. drywell heat loads modeled Yes

20. containment heat sinks modeled Yes

21. containment leakage rate 2% volume/day

22. RHR pump heat addition 2,000 horsepower

23. RHR pump required NPSH Time-stepped value (minimum 21 feet, maximum 30 feet)

Appendix R Licensing Basis COP Requirement 240 40__

Suppression Pool Temperature 220 .-.....---..

..... 35 200 30 180 25 160 20 140 AtmosphericPresure- 15 120 10 10O0 5 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 TIME, HOURS 8

ACRS Issues - Appendix R COP In the ACRS review of the BFN Unit 1 LAR for uprate to 105% of OLTP, ACRS concluded that the use of COP credit in the EPU analyses for Appendix R warranted further consideration, and in particular expressed reservations about the magnitude (9.6 psi) and duration (69 hours7.986111e-4 days 0.0192 hours 1.140873e-4 weeks 2.62545e-5 months ) of COP credit being requested. These concerns were documented in the February 16, 2007 ACRS recommendation letter (Reference 12) for the BFN Unit 1 105% LAR. The ACRS issue on COP credit was added to BFN's EPU Project Licensing Status schedule to track as an item of special interest.

A meeting was held with NRC on July 18, 2007, to discuss how EPU COP should be addressed with the ACRS EPU subcommittee. For Appendix R, TVA performed a fire area evaluation to better characterize the likelihood and consequences of realistic fires scenarios in contrast to the licensing basis Appendix R analysis. This involved analyzing actual fire hazards in each of the BFN Appendix R fire areas to determine what plant equipment would be available to safely shutdown the plant in the event of a fire. Then in the fire areas with the least available equipment, NPSH calculations would be performed using licensing basis methods. This evaluation, which is summarized below, demonstrates that although COP may be needed in limited cases, the magnitude and duration are significantly less than that required by the Appendix R licensing basis analysis.

Fire Hazards/Equipment Availability Evaluation The result and conclusions from the fire hazards/equipment availability evaluation was submitted on November 15, 2007 (Reference 13). The evaluation was comprised of a fire hazards analysis, which defined areas in the plant where fires causing widespread equipment damage could occur, and an equipment availability analysis, which determined the complement of equipment that would be available to the operators and identified the operator actions called for in the Emergency Operating Instructions (EOls). This methodology differs from the Appendix R licensing basis analysis in two ways in that: 1) the operators remain in the EOIs rather than the Appendix R Safe Shutdown Instructions (SSIs), and 2) identifies other pumps that are available for RPV water level make-up such that use of a single RHR pump in the Alternate Shutdown Cooling mode is not necessary for reactor core cooling.

Fire Hazards Analysis Description To support the fire evaluation, a fire hazards analysis of the 39 BFN fire areas defined in the BFN Fire Protection Program was performed. This analysis was based on a review of the specific characteristics of each fire area to qualitatively determine where there were sufficient ingredients (high energy ignition sources, in-situ combustible material, and room geometry) to realistically produce a fire which could result in extensive secondary combustible involvement (i.e., spread to other equipment beyond the equipment which was the initial fire source) that could damage equipment and electrical cables needed to cool and shutdown the plant. In performing the fire hazards analysis, guidance provided by NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0609 Appendix F (Fire Protection Significance Determination Process (SDP)), NUREG/CR 6850 (EPRI/NRC-RES Fire PRA Methodology for Nuclear Power Facilities), and NEI-00-01 (Guidance for Post-Fire Safe Shutdown Circuit Analysis) was considered and used as appropriate. Using this approach, 23 areas were screened out from further review. Many of the fire areas that screened out in the fire hazards analysis had been previously reviewed in support of BFN Unit 1 restart with manual operator actions as compensatory measures in Appendix R III.G.2 Fire Areas. The review for Unit 1 restart was performed in accordance with the NRC 9

Inspection Manual Chapter 0609 Appendix F SDP. The SDP concluded that all III.G.2 fire areas at BFN were acceptable. Fire modeling and screening to support the SDP was performed in accordance with NUREG-1805 and NUREG/CR-6850. Thus, the EPU fire hazards analysis reached similar conclusions as the SDP analysis, The fire hazards analysis for each of the 39 fire areas is summarized in Table APLA-35/37.1 of Reference 13, which also identifies the physical location of each of the fire areas. Based on the fire hazards analysis, 23 of the 39 fire areas were judged not to have the potential for the occurrence of a fire which could extensively involve secondary combustibles and fire damage to equipment was limited to individual pieces of equipment. Due to the layered redundancy of plant equipment design, multiple pieces of equipment would remain available for safe shutdown for the 23 fire areas that were screened out. For the remaining 16 fire area plus the fire area that included the three control rooms (net 17 total fire areas), further analyses were performed to determine equipment availability.

Equipment Availability Analysis The rule-based Appendix R analysis assumes worst case conditions that rely on only a minimum set of shutdown equipment (single RHR pump in Alternate Shutdown Cooling mode).

However, in many areas where fire damage could realistically occur, more equipment would be available and used by the operating crew in accordance with plant operating procedures to cool the reactor core and remove decay heat from containment. Balance of Plant (BOP) equipment such as the condensate/feedwater systems and the main condenser, and the HPCI system would be readily available in many fire events and preferentially used by operators instead of Alternate Shutdown Cooling mode. Therefore, an assessment was performed to determine equipment availability for the remaining 17 fire areas from the fire hazards analysis. Based on the equipment availability, an operational response for each affected fire area was determined.

Response to the fire events considered actions in existing plant procedures such as the EOls.

The results of the equipment availability assessment were provided in Table APLA-35/37.2 of Reference 13. In 15 of the 17 evaluated fire areas, the equipment assessment determined that the use of readily available equipment and systems would avoid the need to provide containment cooling with only one RHR pump. Spurious actuation of equipment affected by the fire would not preclude the remaining available equipment from successfully providing core and containment cooling. For these 15 fire areas, COP credit is not needed for adequate NPSH.

Limitinq Scenario from the Equipment Availability Analysis The equipment availability analysis identified two fire areas that house essential 4kV electrical distribution boards, 480V AC electrical distribution boards, and 250V DC electrical distribution boards (areas 04 and 09 in Reference 13), where the main condenser would not be available as the primary heat sink and only one RHR pump would be available for core cooling or suppression pool cooling service. Therefore, these two fire areas represent the limiting cases, which could require COP. It is noted that fire in these two areas did not affect the functioning of the BOP pumps.

For this scenario in accordance with plant EOIs, operators would depressurize the reactor using SRVs and initially restore vessel level using the single RHR pump, a Core Spray pump, or the condensate system. Subsequently, for core cooling, RPV level would be maintained with condensate or the Control Rod Drive system using water sources from outside the containment, which increases the suppression pool water level and suppression pool net water volume over 10

time. For the containment analysis, a single RHR pump/heat exchanger is assumed to be in suppression pool cooling mode at 7000 gpm RHR flow within 20 minutes to remove decay heat.

The basic sequence of events for this limiting case is provided below:

A serious fire is assumed which causes closure of the main steam isolation valves at time zero

Reactor water level drops with loss of high pressure injection systems

In approximately 15 minutes, the reactor is manually depressurized via SRV actuations to allow low pressure systems to inject and reactor water level is restored to normal

" Suppression pool cooling is commenced with one RHR pump/heat exchanger at 20 minutes

" Reactor water level is maintained by a Control Rod Drive pump and condensate system pumps

Suppression pool temperature peaks after about 10 hours1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months and begins to decrease

At about 27 hours3.125e-4 days 0.0075 hours 4.464286e-5 weeks 1.02735e-5 months , water injection from outside primary containment is terminated to prevent further suppression pool level increase This fire scenario eliminates the defense-in-depth issue associated with the licensing basis Appendix R analysis because core cooling success is being provided by BOP systems that do not take suction from the suppression pool and thus are not dependent on primary containment integrity.

NPSH Analysis for Limiting Fire Areas The fire hazards analysis and the equipment availability analysis were included in the November 15, 2007 submittal (Reference 13). As a continuation of the effort, a NPSH analysis for the two limiting fire areas has subsequently been completed using the same calculation methodology as in the Appendix R licensing basis case analysis. For a few calculation inputs, the initial conditions and certain parameters were slightly relaxed from those shown in Table 1 for the Appendix R licensing basis analysis to remove some excess conservatism. Table 2 shows the changes. The parameter number corresponds to the entry in Table 1.

I1

Table 2 Changes in Inputs and Parameters for Limiting Fire Areas NPSH Basis Analysis Parameter Licensing Basis Value Relaxed Analysis Value

4. initial suppression pool 122,940 cubic feet 123,855 cubic feet (>95%

volume (minimum TS level) confidence from historical data)

7. initial drywell pressure 15.5 psia 15.9 psia

15. RHR heat exchanger K 227 BTU/sec-°F 241 BTU/sec-°F (based value on realistic fouling factor)

17. RHR Mode of Operation 9400 gpm in LPCI mode 7,000 gpm (EOI until RPV depressurization, minimum suppression then 6000 gpm in Alternate pool cooling flow rate for Shutdown Cooling single pump)

18. drywell coolers in 10 for first 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months , then drywell coolers on service coolers isolated throughout the event

22. RHR pump heat addition 2,000 horsepower 1,600 horsepower -

corresponds to above flow rate

23. RHR pump required Time-stepped value 17 feet continuous (1)

NPSH (minimum 21 feet, maximum 30 feet)

(1) Additional review by the pump vendor focused on the short duration Appendix R event and resulted in a revision to NPSHr values. NPSHr for design basis events is based on 8,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months of operation post-event. See Reference 14 for the vendor's report containing this requirement. Based on a more realistic 70 hours8.101852e-4 days 0.0194 hours 1.157407e-4 weeks 2.6635e-5 months of post event operation, the vendor determined the required pump NPSH to be 17 feet. Enclosure 2 includes the vendor's (Sulzer) current report revision.

The next figure shows the COP requirements for the two limiting fire areas for the revised NPSH calculations. The COP credit needed to meet RHR pump NPSH is reduced to a maximum of approximately 1/2 psi with some COP required for approximately 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months .

These calculations used the nominal bounding inputs from Table 1 with the small relaxations shown in Table 2, thus the revised results are still conservative. For instance, the initial suppression temperature was assumed to be at the TS maximum of 95 OF and the river was assumed to be at 92 OF, which represents peak summer temperatures.

12

Fire Analysis COP Requirement for Limiting Areas 240 40 220 35 Suppreamor Pool Temperature 200t 30 U.

S180 25 I 160 20 140 15 120 10 100 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 6(

Time, Hours Conclusion on the Safety Significance of Appendix R COP Credit The BFN licensing basis analysis for the Appendix R event evaluates a highly deterministic scenario, which utilizes a minimal set of plant mitigating equipment. However, in a more realistic fire event, the plant response using existing equipment and emergency procedures will not need COP for the pumps providing core cooling, and in only very limited cases will a small amount of COP be needed for the RHR pump providing suppression pool cooling. This eliminates any defense-in-depth issue associated with the licensing basis Appendix R analysis since core cooling success does not require primary containment integrity.

COP Credit for ATWS and SBO EPU also requires COP credit for the ATWS and SBO event analysis. The magnitude of credit and the period of time for which credit is required are small.

The latest NPSH analysis for ATWS and SBO was submitted on August 31, 2006 (Reference 5). The ATWS and SBO scenarios show a need for overpressure credit of less than 2 psi for a little more than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months . When the ATWS analysis employs a more realistic model, no overpressure is needed. For the SBO scenario, containment overpressure would not be needed for the first 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months of the required 4-hour coping duration. The availability of 4 offsite power lines and 8 onsite diesels with interconnecting capability makes it probable that power can be recovered within the first 3 hours3.472222e-5 days 8.333333e-4 hours 4.960317e-6 weeks 1.1415e-6 months of the event.

As stated above in the Conservatisms in Desion Basis LOCA Calculation and Sensitivity Analysis section, a COP sensitivity risk analysis was performed for the LOCA, ATWS, SBO events which showed the total ACDF/ALERF increase for these three event categories due to COP considerations was 2.4E-08/year.

13

ACRS Concerns In the February 16, 2007, ACRS letter (Reference 12), ACRS commented that aspects of the pending 120% EPU LAR related to the use of COP credit for the long-term large LOCA analysis and the Appendix R event analysis warranted further consideration. TVA has collected the ACRS comments into three topical areas as shown below and a TVA reply is given.

1. For the long-term LOCA analysis, EPU operation needs to be supported by more defensible sensitivity calculations. When realistic analyses are used as an alternative to design basis calculations, explicit consideration of uncertainties should be included in the analysis.

TVA Reply In support of the EPU LAR, calculations were performed using realistic inputs and assumptions as well as those for licensing basis analysis. Realistic assumptions were either assigned a probability distribution based on historical plant operating data or assigned a realistic bounding value. The same conservative analysis methods approved for licensing basis analyses were utilized for the realistic analysis. For these reasons, the realistic analyses remain conservatively biased as are the licensing basis analyses, but to a lesser degree. Sensitivity results were ultimately used to determine the risk of COP for the long-term LOCA event by including them in a PRA model and computing a change in CDF.

2. TVA should consider the feasibility of protecting a second RHR pump for use in Appendix R scenarios to eliminate the need for COP credit TVA Reply In association with restart on BFN 1, consideration was given to protecting a second RHR pump for compliance with the Appendix R rule. Each credited RHR pump requires protection of power and control cabling, additional switchgear, a diesel generator AC power source with battery control power and control cabling as well as an additional RHR Service Water Pump with associated power and control cabling.

The physical locations of key electrical distribution boards in some of the electrical board rooms also make it impractical to ensure that two RHR pumps/heat exchangers are available in the limiting fire areas. For instance, switchgear controlling an RHR pump from one RHR loop is located in the same room as switchgear controlling the valves from the opposite loop and thus 3 RHR pumps could be disabled for the fire affected unit.

For these board rooms and other less limiting fire areas, a significant reanalysis and protracted licensing approval effort would be required to accomplish the availability of the RHR Pumps, RHRSW pumps, and associated equipment needed to operate (i.e. valves, room coolers, etc.) to make a second RHR pump available. Based on these analyses, new or different plant procedures for manual operator actions would be required. Accordingly, the design scoping, the detailed design completion, physical modifications, plant procedures revision, and licensing actions necessary to protect a second RHR pump would require major effort with little additional safety benefit.

3. When using risk-informed arguments to support the Appendix R COP credit, TVA should consider external initiators such as earthquakes and tornadoes.

14

TVA Reply This issue is addressed by the preceding section titled Fire Hazards/EquipmentAvailability Evaluation. The fire hazard/equipment availability analysis provides risk insights by showing that little or no COP will be required in most fire events. A quantitative probabilistic risk analysis was not used to address the Appendix R event because an adequate risk model including external event initiators was not available.

Summary The February 16, 2007, ACRS letter states that the ultimate consideration is the risk significance of granting credit for containment overpressure for EPU. The pre-EPU licensing basis includes COP credit and the licensing basis analyses show adequate COP margin is available for both pre-EPU and EPU conditions. The need for COP credit is primarily driven by the conservative nature of the design and licensing basis event analysis requirements. The analyses referenced in this submittal demonstrate that the duration and magnitude of the COP credit is significantly reduced if more realistic analyses are considered. Hence, the requested increased licensing basis credit for COP is acceptable based on risk insights and analysis.

15

References ID Date Title/subject 1 9/4/98 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) - Units 2 And 3 - License Amendment Regarding Use Of Containment Overpressure For Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) Pump Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH)

Analyses 2 9/3/99 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plants, Units 2 and 3 - Issuance of Amendments Regarding Crediting of Containment Overpressure For Net Positive Suction Head Calculations For Emergency Core Cooling Pumps (ML020090448) 3 6/28/04 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) - Unit 1- Proposed Technical Specifications (TS) Change TS - 431 - Request For License Amendment -

Extended Power Uprate (EPU) Operation (ML041840109) 4 6/25/04 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) - Units 2 And 3 - Proposed Technical Specifications (TS) Change TS - 418 - Request For License Amendment Extended Power Uprate (EPU) Operation (ML041840301) 5 8/31/06 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) - Units 1,2, And 3 - Technical Specifications (TS) Changes TS-431 And TS-418 - Extended Power Uprate (EPU) - Replacement Documentation 6 7/21/06 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) - Units 1,2, And 3 - Technical Specifications (TS) Changes TS-431 And TS-418 - Extended Power Uprate (EPU) - Response To Round 6 Request For Additional Information 7 1/31/86 Letter from TVA (R. Gridley) to NRC (D. R. Muller) Concerning Appendix R 8 11/21/86 Letter from TVA (R. Gridley) to NRC (D. R. Muller) - 10 CFR 50 Appendix R 9 12/8/88 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3 - Appendix R Safe Shutdown Systems Analysis 10 10/1/97 Units 2 and 3 - Technical Specifications (TS) Change TS-384 - Request For License Amendment For Power Uprate Operation 11 9/8/98 Issuance of Amendments Re: Power Uprate - Browns Ferry Plant, Units 2 and 3 (ML020100022) 12 02/16/07 ACRS Letter - Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, 5-percent Power Uprate Letter (ML070470314) 13 11/15/07 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) - Units 1,2, And 3 - Technical Specifications (TS) Changes TS-431 And TS-418 - Extended Power Uprate (EPU) - Response To Round 13 Request For Additional Information (RAI) - Containment Overpressure APLA-35/37 (ML073230348) 14 10/13/06 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) - Units 1,2, And 3 - Technical Specifications (TS) Changes TS-431 And TS-418 - Extended Power Uprate (EPU) - NPSH Requirements - Pump Vendor Report 16

ENCLOSURE 2 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN)

UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (TS) CHANGES TS-431 AND TS-418 EXTENDED POWER UPRATE (EPU)

SULZER REPORT

SULZER QUALITY LEVEL SULZER PUMPS (US) INC. DOCUMENT ASME CODE

[] Direct DOC. NO: E12.5.1296 SECTION: n/a a Indirect ORDER NO: E-001 -21417 (CHA Job No. 08C02429A (BFN NPSH)) CLASS NO. n/a CODE EDITION TITLE: NPSH Transient Study (YEAR) n/a RHR and Core Spray Pumps SEASON YEAR n/a CUSTOMER TVA PROJECT Browns Ferry NPS Power Uprate CUSTOMER P.O. NO. 00002009 Release 00233 CONTRACT NUMBER SPECIFICATION NO. n/a ITEM / TAG NUMBER CUSTOMER APPROVAL NUMBER: CUSTOMER APPROVAL REQUIREMENT

[J Yes 0 No 0 Information Only SPACE FOR CUSTOMER APPROVAL CERTIFIED AS A VALID SULZER PUMPS (US) INC. DOCUMENT STAMP (when applicable/available) o1 For Outside Vendor O Risk Release Inspection Report #

O For Manufacture at Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc. IZ Other (specify)

Technical Reoort E12.5.1296 I Date 1 1/15/08 CERTIFICATION (when applicable) Originating Advance Engineering This Document is certified to be in compliance Dept:

with THE APPLICABLE PURCHASE ORDER, SPECIFICATIONS, PROCEDURES, AND By: J~>IL ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN Steven Schoenbrun THE APPENDICES.

Title:

Project Engineer Initial 9/13/2006 Date:

Professional Engineer APPLICABLE S.O. NUMBERS:

270671/682 State Registration No. 280253/264 Date E12.5.1296 R.

A-DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION

SULZER suie Pmp*s) I. Transient NPSH Study Jan.15,2008 E12.5.1296 Revision 2, 1/15/2008 PURPOSE: To review existing pumps to determine if they are capable of meeting new transient NPSHa conditions and estimate the expected pump life based on 8000 hours0.0926 days 2.222 hours 0.0132 weeks 0.00304 months and limited NPSH values. Minimum flow evaluation is not a requirement of this study.

KNOWN: The existing pumps are RHR [Residual Heat Removal] and CS [Core Spray]

SULZER serial numbers: 50270671/82 and 50280253/64. Pumps were originally supplied to General Electric Company.

RHR pumps [50 270671/82] are SULZER model 18x24x28 CVIC:

o Pumps are single suction vertical inline type with welded inlet and outlet connections; o Units are rated 10000 gpm @ 560 feet on ambient water; o Electric motors are rated 2000 hp @ 1785 rpm on 4000/3/60 Hertz power; o Estimated weight is 20000 lbs with a height of 150 inches from the foundation.

Construction Features are as follows:

o Cross Section 027358 with parts list; o Pump case is carbon steel; o Pump rotor is chrome steel and the impeller has integral wear rings; o Pump shaft is connected to the electric motor via a rigid coupling; o Pump thrust is taken in the driver.

Available information and test data:

o Certified performance tests 27872, 27935, 27811, 27936, 27801-04, 28267 and 28941-43; o Internal SULZER tests for information and development, note these are not available for publication; o Original test records have been lost or archived at a site unknown at present; o Existing records limited to internal hardcopies and microfiche; o One of the original test engineers is still with SULZER in a similar capacity.

Core Spray (CS) pumps [50 280253/64] are SULZER model 12x16x14.5 CVDS:

o Pumps are double suction vertical inline type with welded inlet and outlet connections; o Units are rated 3125 gpm @ 582 feet on 210 degree F water; o Electric motors are rated 600 hp @ 3580 rpm on 4000/3/60 Hertz power; o Estimated weight is 8730 lbs with a height of 112 inches from the foundation.

Construction Features are as follows:

o Cross Section Z6315 and parts list; o Pump case is carbon steel; o Pump rotor assembly is chrome steel and the impeller has integral wear rings; o Pump shaft is connected to the electric motor via a rigid coupling; o Pump thrust is taken in the driver; 2/37

SULZER Jan.15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (us) Inc Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 Available information and test data; o Certified performance tests 27376B-79B, 27970-73 and 28022-25; o Internal SULZER tests for information and development, note these are not available for publication; o Original test records have been lost or archived at a site unknown at present; o Existing records limited to internal hardcopies and microfiche; o One of the original test engineers is still with SULZER in a similar capacity.

Both RHR and CS pumps are being evaluated for their response to potential transient conditions that may occur due to various system scenarios. TVA Browns Ferry has provided system transient scenarios; data includes flows, times and available NPSHa data for both the RHR and Core Spray Pumps, as follows:

Event Duration RHR Pump Flow RHR Min CS Pump CS Min NPSHA Flow NPSHA ST-LOCA <10 min 11500 gpm (broken 26.4 ft 4125 gpm 26.5 ft loop) 10500 gpm (intact loop) 29.4 ft LT-LOCA >10 min to 24 hrs 6500 gpm 38.5 ft 3125 gpm 35.1 ft ATWS 8 hrs 6500 gpm 24.3 ft none none APP R 60 hrs 9000 gpm 26.9 ft none none SBO 24 hrs 6500 gpm 32.2 ft none none Table 1: Potential Transient Events Methodology (RHR d CS Pumps): This study utilizes empirical and theoretical NPSHA/R data and calculations to make NPSHr recommendations for transient responses.

For both RHR & CS pumps test and order related data/information was collected for evaluation:

o All certified tests were collected; o Available development/model test results were located and copied; o Product test records/notes were collected; o Individual Bill of Materials were copied; o Field records were assembled.

As a basis for evaluation, certified witness test performance curves, for both pump sets, were averaged to produce an "average performance" for each pump type. Development test data was used to create NPSHr curves, at 1% and 3% head loss, for both models.

Theoretical NPSHr calculations utilize Sulzer's current standard for recommended (40k hours at BEP) NPSHr and "cavitation free" NPSHr from "Centrifugal Pumps: Design &

Application", 2 nd Edition, Lobanoff & Ross, Gulf Publishing, 1992.

3/37

SULZER Jan.15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulwer Pumps (US) Inc Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 Minimum NPSHa vs. NPSHr evaluation is accomplished by plotting/comparison of calculated and empirical NPSH data to determine hydraulic/mechanical implications of transient events.

Technical Background for Analyzing NPSH test data: To evaluate the response of a pump to a transient event, and make a meaningful prediction for post event operating life, the behavior of the pump in the NPSH "knee" must be thoroughly understood.

NPSH performance assessments are related to the knees of the plotted NPSH data. Plots of NPSH vs. head (from NPSH test data) as the NPSH is reduced incrementally from ample suction pressure, will show that the head responds by staying constant, varying or dropping:

o The "knee" is the area on an NPSH test curve where the head degrades more rapidly before falling off totally.

The shape of an NPSH knee is an important factor in recommending minimum NPSHr values. A knee may have a sharp or more rounded profile, each with its own implications:

o When the knee is sharp, various head drop comparisons (1%, 3%, 6%, etc.) occur at about the same NPSH value.

o Operationnear a sharp knee is not recommended o In a well-rounded knee the various head drop comparisons occur over a wider range of NPSH values. The wider range of response allows operating recommendations with less margin.

NPSH data for both pump models is from development testing. Aspects of data collection include:

o Several test points are required to define a knee.

o Occasionally, test stand limitations do not allow suppression to a low enough NPSH to completely define the knee - i.e. the 3%, 6%, drop-off points may not be captured on test. Under some conditions these tests can still be used to evaluate acceptable operation in response to a transient event.

o If the head remains stable below the minimum proposed transient event NPSHA, the test is still a good validation tool - i.e. while the head may not have degraded enough to define the knee ,in response to a lowering of the NPSH (a true "knee" has not been established), the stable head response shows that the pump is suitable for operation.

Modeling from similar pumps is another long established pump industry method with a basis in ANSI/Hydraulic Institute, ASME and other standards. Size factored NPSHr values (from models of similar pumps) are commonly used to make NPSH recommendations.

o Modeling has not been used in this study.

4/37

SULZER Jan. 15,2008 E12.5.1296 suwr Pumps (US) Inc Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 RHR Pump NPSH Assessment and Analysis: Test and calculated NPSH values are analyzed and compared against the proposed transient events.

Performance curves 27935, 27811, 27936, 27801-04, 28267 and 28941-43 have been averaged relative to head and efficiency vs. flow and plotted as curve RHR I. For the basis of NPSH assessment, test points for NPSHR-3% and NPSHR-1% (4 capacities) have also been plotted on curve RHR I based on development testing (NPSH test data has been tabulated in Appendix A).

Specific speed (N 5) and Suction Specific Speed (N 55 ) for both 3% and 1% head loss are as follows:

o Ns = 1785*86001/2/6563/4= 1277 o N5 5 -3%= 1785*86001/2/163/4 = 20692 o Nss-5o%= 1785*86001/2/29.53/4 = 13077 SULZER STANDIARD CLEARANCES I RH-R I

..... N H

~s

~.........

.... ... I ....

F:

~o................. ... 10-- .......... .......

L-Lij ................. . ................. .ýR

..:z.:.:.

ý.'.

U-61

............. ;ý.............

............. : : ..... ,""-::ýi:i

.. .......... H I.....

200 -

- --- ------ - ...........I

./A 30 30L,

...... --------------- - 20

-20

...... ý

".H .........

200W 6000 W 12000I 140D5 I GALLOI-S PER MINUTE "RO, 13ROW4S ALASAA S

FERY" SU2L.50ZER "R0E 27.,,,10^ CtA-\.*,

26.881 "Y8X 24 X 28 CVIC I STAGE 1785 RPM RRPUM.PS*A2[4 741 .A ... R. _ 1 1 i $-C'"[;O n,* . W.

SQi 270*.7',,2 E.-,41"7-D .- 3G-Cc 1&9.3 AVG PERF RHR I -

Curve 1: RHR Average Performance 5/37

SULZER Jan.15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (us) Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 Results of the "Cavitation Free" NP5HR calculation (based on Lobanoff and Ross) are as per the following table.

Flow NPSH 5000 gpm 96.5 feet 7000 gpm 75.3 feet 9000 gpm 71.2 feet 10500 gpm 74.1 feet 12000 gpm 75.3 feet Table 2: RHR "Cavitation Free" NPSH The calculation set (5000, 7000, 9000, 10500 & 12000 gpm) is collected in Appendix A. A sample calculation follows:

.... AVITATION FREE"~ NPSHr CALMULATIO ......

Q = 00 (GPM) Flow.

N = 5 (rpm)

A-B = 6 (in2) Suction area. Lobanoff & Ross and Sulzer drawing Z06196.

AE = I (in Impeller eye area.

B1 = 1 (deg.) Blade inlet angle.

(A-B)/AE = 1 (%) Area ratio (From Lobanoff and Ross).

K1 = . From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-18.

Dt = . (in.) Impeller eye diameter CM1 = . (ft./sec.) Average meridianal velocity at blade inlet (.321 Q/AE).

UT = I I&T7 (ft./sec.) Peripheral velocity of impeller blade (DTN/229).

Tan(0) = 7 Impeller inlet velocity ratio (CMI/UT).

6 =45 (deg.) Angle of flow approaching blade.

a =64 (deg.) Angle of incidence (B1 -theta).

K2 = F .46 From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-19.

CB = . From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-20.

2 2 NPSHr = . (ft.) Lobanoff&Ross equation 8-2 {[(K 1+K2)CM 1 /2g + K2UT/2g]C8 }

References:

Lobanofi &Ross, Centifugal Pumps: Design & Application" 2nd Edition, Gulf Publishing, 1992 6/37

SULZER Jan. 15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 "NPSH-Recommended" calculation results are tabulated below. The calculation set (5000, 7000, 9000, 10500 & 12000 gpm) is collected in Appendix A.

Flow NPSH 5000 gpm 45.6 feet 7000 9pm 31.9 feet 9000 9pm 33.5 feet 10500 gpm 42.9 feet 12000 9pm 99.8 feet Table 3: RHR "Recommended NPSH" A sample "NPSH-Recommended calculation follows:

.NPSH RECOMMENDED....... CLCU LATION ...

(GPM) From performance curve QBEP = (GPM) From performance curve Q/QBEP =

SN = . {NPSHR - 0% / NPSHR-3°/o} = Function of Q,'OEP SEN = Function of pumpage and NPSHR(3%)

Function of temperature and NPSHR(3%/o)

ST =*

Function of impeller material and pumpage SLG = (deg.) SLG = 1.2 Guarantee of 40,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months impeller life at BEP flow SLG = 1.0 at min. flow and runoul flow (40,000 hour0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months are not required)

Nss(3 %) = 139 Suction specific speed at 3%

Nss(REF) = Suction specific speed at reference Fs = 19 {sqrI(N.(3%) / N.(REF))} for water if N,(3°/o) > 9300 = NS(REF)

NPSHR(3%) = (ft) From performance curve FCT = Fcr ? 1.0 ;avoids adding margin on to margin iftested NPSH curve has Been increased by 1/FcT to allow for Casting and measuring Tolerances.

FcT = 1.0 In this study NPSHREC = (ft) NPSHREc = SN X SEN X ST X Sm x SLG X F. X NPSHR(3% ) x FCT

References:

Hydraulic Review: E12.5.522 page 7 Hydraulics 1.008.002 pages 1 - 5 7/37

SULZER Transient NPSH Study Jan. 15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc Revision 2, 1/15/2008 Results of both the "NPSH-Recommended" and "Cavitation Free" calculations, as well as the test curves for 1%and 30% head and drop, are plotted on Curve RHR II:

SULZER STANDARD CLEAR.A-NCEI RHR 1 F. 7:T7r X

.......... ... d4

...... ... X.

X. ......

.... - 140

-120 r

1: M-M Z W R-1:1

...... X

........... ...... 4. .. . ...

.......................... .......... 4 0

......................... A .... ..........

..... 2C 0 2{)Q- 4000 FI000 P-0-0 10JD I1200 MAO 14U 1400-3 IGALLONS PER MINUTE

'*YSULZER o~o*-*

BRO--WNS FERRY TVA~~~

I7F 27,W*

?AELe IM ..,: o,,.

X 24 IX28 CVIC I STAGE T ALAAMA, 275 .. , 1.785 RPM RHfR PILWT~S USA 241471` 1 IBla mqc S-0 ~-

N227W1 E-.4-21417-DW S3SCM~ VI-SO.3 AV PERF JRHR 11 Curve 2: RHR Test and Calculated NPSH Please see Appendix C for the Sulzer certification statement endorsing limited time low NPSH operation of the RHR pumps. The statement addresses the special case Appendix R fire where the NPSH to the RHR pump must be 17 feet at 9000 gpm for the 70 hour8.101852e-4 days 0.0194 hours 1.157407e-4 weeks 2.6635e-5 months event duration.

"Recommended" NPSH (as plotted) is Sulzer's theoretical recommendation for 40,000 hour0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months life, based on limited cavitation damage to the impeller.

o Comparison to the "cavitation free" curve (Lobanoff & Ross) shows that some cavitation occurs at the "recommended" NPSHr. The slight erosion damage that occurs at this level is the basis for 40,000 hour0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months criterion.

NPSHr curves based on 1%and 3% head loss are from development tests of these impellers, and represent the standard (Hydraulic Institute) method for determining NPSH; 8/37

SULZER Jan. 15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 o The same comparison as above demonstrates that slight cavitation will occur at these NPSH values.

When the previously tabulated transient NPSHa cases are compared to the plots of RHR II, it is seen that the minimum NPSHa value from each event, except for the ST-LOCA-BL is equal, or greater, than the (standard) 3% curve at the same flow:

o LT-LOCA is above the "Recommended" NPSHr curve; o APP R, ATWS and SBO are between the 1% and 3% head loss curves; o ST-LOCA-IL (10500 gpm) is above the 3% head loss curve; o ST-LOCA-BL (11500 gpm) is below the 3% head loss curve.

Since some cavitation exists at reduced NPSHa scenarios, a graph defining NPSHr vs.

Operating Life (Curve 3 - as follows) based on mechanical damage (erosion) estimates has been developed in addition to the preceding NPSH analysis.

8000 hours0.0926 days 2.222 hours 0.0132 weeks 0.00304 months (-1 year) has been selected as an adequate post transient event operational life. This is an estimate of the minimum life expectancy that will produce similar damage (during low NPSHa events) as that expected from an impeller operating with NPSHa above the "recommended" (40,000 hour0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months ) NPSHr curve:

o At the graphical NPSHr values for the origin (.01 hours1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months ) these are high suction energy pumps. The resulting lack of sufficient NP5H margin would result in life reduction (due to cavitation damage) if operated continually in the suppressed state; o Sulzer's graph provides a guideline for operating at the lowest possible NPSHa, while requiring an increase, over time, adequately removing enough energy from the pump to prevent catastrophic failure; o The recommended minimum NPSHr (time .01 hours1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months ), at all flows, range from slightly above 3% up to 6% head loss.

o Based on post-test inspection of the tested pumps the graph is conservative since the inspected impellers showed no damage; o Pumps were run for extended periods (2-3 hours) at 1% to 6% head loss without- losing suction, despite surging, noise and increased vibration; o Several tests included NPSHa reduction to initiate loss of suction.

Pumps recovered, with no visible damage, after NPSH was restored; o NPSHa increase over time, as dictated by the graph at a given flow, insures that recommended NPSH levels/duration will be less severe than that experienced during testing.

9/37

SULZER Jan.15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (US) Im Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 hours 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 8000 LI J.

z 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 8000 Operational Hours Curve 3: RHR NPSHr vs. Operating Life 10/37

SULZER Jan.15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (US)Inc Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 RHR Results and

Conclusions:

The subject pumps have been analyzed and found to be suitable for reduced NPSHa operation, as described above, with equipment in "as new" condition, with exceptions as noted.

Curve 3 provides a guideline for operational life vs. NPSHa as a general recommendation for operation when the pumps may be subject to transient events outside of their original scope.

Recommendations are also provided specifically to address the potential transient events provided by TVA Browns Ferry:

o Transient events identified as LT-LOCA, ATWS, SBO, APPR, ST-LOCA-IP all provide NPSHA values above the minimum established NPSHr, as established in the operating life graph (curve 3). They meet the criteria for determining operational life vs. NP5Ha from the graph.

o The ST-LOCA-BL event provides NPSHA values below the required NPSH1 shown on the graph.

Analysis methodology compared test derived NP5Hr values with those predicted theoretically. The pumps were evaluated against this comparative basis in order to predict the remaining operational life of a pump in the aftermath of a transient event; o An 8000 hour0.0926 days 2.222 hours 0.0132 weeks 0.00304 months post-transient operational lifetime was developed, based on similar cavitation damage to the 40,000 hour0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months "recommended" NPSHr curve; the curve is well supported by the NPSH analysis and mechanical response on the test stand; o Graphical NPSHa levels and duration are less severe than that actually experienced on the test stand; o Empirical test information has been verified by one of the original test Engineers; o Despite NPSH testing that was more severe than the "recommended" curve, post-test inspection revealed no damage.

When pumps are in an "undamaged" condition they can be operated in accordance within the NPSHA guidelines provided with the expectation of the 8000 hour0.0926 days 2.222 hours 0.0132 weeks 0.00304 months life described.

LT-LOCA, ATWS, SBO, APPR and ST-LOCA-IP transient scenarios are within the operating recommendations established in curve 3:

o Although Vibration and noise may increase as a result of the transient events the units should continue pumping; o Any non-detrimental impeller wear will be in accordance with the operational life graph.

11/37

SULZER Jan.15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 The ST-LOCA-BL scenario falls outside of the established operating recommendations:

o Although vibration and noise should increase due to surging and cavitation from the transient event, the units should continue operation; o 5ome detrimental damage is likely, due to the transient event, but should not be catastrophic. After 10 minutes, if the operational life graph is followed the pumps will continue to function.

12/37

SULZER Jan. 15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pimps (US) Inc Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 CS Pump NPSH Assessment and Analysis: Test and calculated NPSH values are analyzed and compared against the proposed transient events.

Performance curves 27376B-79B, 27970-73 and 28022-25 have been averaged relative to head and efficiency vs. flow and plotted as curve CS I. For the basis of NPSH assessment, test points for NPSHR-3% and NPSHR-1% (3 capacities) have also been plotted on curve CS I based on development testing (NPSH test data has been tabulated in Appendix A).

Specific speed (N5 ) and Suction Specific Speed (N 55 ) for both 3% and 1%head loss are as follows:

o N5 = 3580*30251/2/6273/4 = 1571 o N.5 5 -3%= 3580*((3025/2)1/2)/213/4= 14193 o Nss-5 *o = 3580*((3025/2)1/2)/223/4= 13706 SULZER STANDARD CLEARANCES I CS I U3 fro 0 I

2-

.1 1 --- .....

-X X 300 ....

I 00>- 40 E0 130 I I 2IXK3 3000 4M. 1 G3ALLONS PER MINUTE

-IV Nqsý2X 1:6X'1.4CIVDS I STAGE BROWNS FERRY SU ZE 14. W-- RSLE P M%

P ALASAMA mIK~ lS1 0 OCRESPRAY PUMPS ~USA21417-F1 nrmn 1 $q AGPR 2~~-~-~E~-W r S Curve 4: CS Pump Average Performance 13/37

SULZER Jan.15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (US) IW Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 Results of the "Cavitation Free" NP5HR calculation (based on Lobanoff and Ross) are as per the following table.

Flow NPSH 2000 gpm 159 feet 3000 gpm 126.3 feet 3750 gpm 87.6 feet 4500 9pm 76.7 feet Table 4: CS "Cavitation Free" NPSH The calculation set (2000, 3000, 3750 & 4500 gpm) is collected in Appendix A. A sample calculation follows:

.ITAT .ION.: FREE"::: MS r.CA CULATION ....

Q = 0 (GPM) Flow.

N = 3 (rpm)

A-B = 22 (in2) Suction area. Lobanoff & Ross and Sulzer drawing Z06196.

AE = 1 (in2) Impeller eye area.

B1 = 16 (deg.) Blade inlet angle.

(A-B)/AE = 200-52 (%) Area ratio (From Lobanoff and Ross).

K1 = 14 From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-18.

Dt = 7 (in.) Impeller eye diameter CM1 = 1 (ft/sec.) Average meridianal velocity at blade inlet (.321Q/AE).

LT 1= .2 (ft./sec.) Peripheral velocity of impeller blade (DTN/229).

Tan(0) = 9 Impeller inlet velocity ratio (CM1/UT).

e = 5 (deg.) Angle of flow approaching blade.

a = . (deg.) Angle of incidence (B1 -theta).

K2 = 0. From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-19.

C = 0 From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-20.

NPSHr = (ft.) Lobanoff&Ross equation 8-2 {[(K,+K 2)CM12/2g + K2UT2/2g]CB)

References:

Lobanoff & Ross, "Centifugal Pumps: Design & Application" 2nd Edition, Gulf Publishing, 1992 14 / 37

SULZER Jan.15,2008 E12.5.1296 suze Pumps (US) Inc Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 "NPSH-Recommended" calculation results are tabulated below. The calculation set (2000, 3000, 3750 & 4500 gpm) is collected in Appendix A.

Flow NPSH 2000 gpm 64.1 feet 3000 gpm 41.9 feet 3750 gpm 43.4 feet 4500 9pm 85.9 feet Table 3: "Recommended NPSH" A sample "NP5H-Recommended calculation follows:

Q = 20 (GPM) From performance curve QBEP = 30 (GPM) From performance curve C/)BEP 01 0 SN {NPSHR - 09/ / NPSHR-3% } = Function of BEP SEN Function of pumpage and NPSHR(3% )

ST = - (9-162Function of temperature and NPSHR(3%)

SM Function of impeller material and pumpage SLG -~(deg.) SLG = 1.2 Guarantee of 40,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months impeller life at BEP flow SLG = 1.0 at min. flow and runout flow (40,000 hour0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months are not required)

Nss( 3%) - 13890 Suction specific speed at 3%

Nss(REF) - 9300 Suction specific speed at reference Fs - 1.2221 {sqrt(N4(3% ) / Nss(REF))) for water if N.(30/6)> 9300 = NS(REF)

NPSHR(3%) - 28.5 (N) From performance curve FCT Fcr ? 1.0; avoids adding margin on to margin if tested NPSH curve has Been increased by 1/FCT to allow for Casting and measuring Tolerances.

FcT = 1.0 In this study NPSHREC = (ft) NPSHREc = SNX SEN X STX Sr X SLG X F. x NPSHR(3% ) x FCT

References:

Hydraulic Review: E12.5.522 page 7 Hydraulics 1.008.002 pages 1 - 5 15/37

SULZER Jan. 15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 Results of both the "NPSH-Recommended" and "Cavitation Free" calculations, as well as the test curves for 1%and 3% head and drop, are plotted on Curve CS II:

SULZER STANDARD CLEARArCES ICS I

....-- .1.......

........... ....... ... F...............

.. ......... -140 I 120 4-

.. ~ ~ ....... ~ H T

--- ~~~~ -- ---. ~ A

........... 40 G

1-090 2900 3000 4fl0; 5000 0,90 7000 GALLQOS PER MINUTE TVA SULZER 2.,LFF_m,. 12, X 12 X 1:6 X 1,4..5 'CVDS I[ STAGE ALA"AAA 4 "13:P1 P P" CORESPIR.Y DUMPS U.-A.2W.NFl. 213GV'3-54

&0 NO 2709-7i8g' E-47 AJG-12e 5 AVG PIERFCSI Curve 5: CS Test and Calculated NPSH "Recommended" NPSH (as plotted) is Sulzer's theoretical recommendation for 40,000 hour0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months life, based on limited cavitation damage to the impeller.

o Comparison to the "cavitation free" curve (Lobanoff & Ross) shows that some cavitation occurs at the "recommended" NPSHr. The slight erosion damage that occurs at this level is the basis for 40,000 hour0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months criterion.

NPSHr curves based on 1%and 3% head loss are from development tests of these impellers, and represent the standard (Hydraulic Institute) method for determining NPSH; o The same comparison as above demonstrates that slight cavitation will occur at these NPSH values.

16/37

SULZER Jan. 15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (us) IMP Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 When the previously tabulated transient NPSHa cases are compared to the plots of CS II, it is seen that the minimum NPSHa value both events are equal, or greater, than the (standard) 3% curve at the same flow:

o The LOCA for 3125 gpm is above the 1% head loss curve; o The LOCA for 4125 gpm is just above the 3% head loss curve Since some cavitation exists at reduced NPSHa scenarios, a graph defining NPSHr vs.

Operating Life (Curve 6 - as follows) based on mechanical damage (erosion) estimates has been developed in addition to the preceding NPSH analysis.

8000 hours0.0926 days 2.222 hours 0.0132 weeks 0.00304 months (-1 year) has been selected as an adequate post transient event operational life. This is an estimate of the minimum life expectancy that will produce similar damage (during low NPSHa events) as that expected from an impeller operating with NPSHa above the "recommended" (40,000 hour0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months ) NPSHr curve:

o At the graphical NPSHr values for the origin (.01 hours1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months ) these are high suction energy pumps. The resulting lack of sufficient NPSH margin would result in life reduction (due to cavitation damage) if operated continually in the suppressed state; o Sulzer's graph provides a guideline for operating at the lowest possible NPSHa, while requiring an increase, over time, adequately removing enough energy from the pump to prevent catastrophic failure; o The recommended minimum NPSHr (time .01 hours1.157407e-5 days 2.777778e-4 hours 1.653439e-6 weeks 3.805e-7 months ), at all flows, range from slightly above 3% up to 6% head loss.

o Based on post-test inspection of the tested pumps the graph is conservative since the inspected impellers showed no damage; o Pumps were run for extended periods (2-3 hours) at 1% to 6% head loss without losing suction, despite surging, noise and increased vibration; o Several tests included NPSHa reduction to initiate loss of suction. Pump recovered, with no damage, after NPSH was restored; o NPSHa increase over time, as dictated by the graph at a given flow, insures that recommended NPSH levels/duration will be less severe than that experienced during testing.

17/37

SULZER Jan. 15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (US) In& Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 hours 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 8000 ci, cl) 0-Z 0.01 0.1 10 100 1000 8000 Operating Hours Curve 6: CS NPSHr vs. Operating Life 18/37

SULZER Jan.15,2008 E12.5.1296 suizef Pumps (US) ,. Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 CS Results and

Conclusions:

The subject pumps have been analyzed and found to be suitable for reduced NPSHa operation, as described above, with equipment in "as new" condition.

Curve 6 provides a guideline for operational life vs. NPSHa as a general recommendation for operation when the pumps may be subject to transient events outside of their original scope.

Recommendations are also provided specifically to address the potential transient events provided by TVA Browns Ferry:

o Both potential LOCA events (as tabulated) provide NPSHA values above the minimum established NPSHr (as established in the operating life graph) and are acceptable - i.e. they meet the criteria for determining operational life vs.

NP5Ha from the graph (curve 6).

Analysis methodology compared test derived NPSHr values with those predicted theoretically. The pumps were evaluated against this comparative basis in order to predict the remaining operational life of a pump in the aftermath of a transient event; o An 8000 hour0.0926 days 2.222 hours 0.0132 weeks 0.00304 months post-transient operational lifetime was developed, based on similar cavitation damage to the 40,000 hour0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months "recommended" NPSHr curve; the curve is well supported by the NPSH analysis and mechanical response on the test stand; o Graphical NPSHa levels and duration are less severe than that actually experienced on the test stand; o Empirical test information has been verified by one of the original test Engineers; o Despite NPSH testing that was more severe than the "recommended" curve, post-test inspection revealed no damage.

When pumps are in an "undamaged" condition they can be operated in accordance within the NP5HA guidelines provided with the expectation of the 8000 hour0.0926 days 2.222 hours 0.0132 weeks 0.00304 months life described.

The tabulated transients are acceptable scenarios within the operating recommendations established in curve 6:

o Although vibration and noise may increase as a result of the transients, the units should continue pumping; o Any non-detrimental impeller Wear will be in accordance with the operational life graph.

19/37

SULZER Jan.15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pwups (US) Im Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 APPENDIX A - TEST DATA AND CALCULATIONS 20/ 37

SULZER Jan. 15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 RHR Performance Curve:

. 1.4 Customer Curve 27872: Typical RHR Witness Test Performance Curve RHR NPSH TEST bata:

RHR NPSH test data is tabulated as follows:

Test Flow NPSH For Various Head Losses Comments 1% Loss 3% Loss 6% Loss 270685-A 7,512 30.0 ft. 15.6 ft. Untested Test stopped at 15.6 feet NPSH-10,015 30.3 ft. 23.4 ft. 23.2 ft. 7512 gpm drop still only 2.3%.

270685-B 5,004 34.0 ft. 19 ft. Untested Test stopped at 19 feet NPSH -

10,009 37.0 ft. 28.5 ft. 20.8 ft. 5004 gpm drop still only at 2.7%.

270685 5,000 34.2 ft. 19.5 Untested 5000 - 2.5% drop at 19.5 feet.

7,505 31.0 ft. 15.9 ft. Untested 10,000 31.5 ft. 20.8 ft. 20 ft.

12,000 47.5 ft. 40.7 ft. 36.2 ft.

21/37

SULZER Jan.15,2008 E12.5.1296 Suzeer Pumps (US) Inc Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008

`

Customer Curve 27379-B: Typical CS Witness Test Performance Curve CS NPSH TEST Data:

CS NPSH test data is tabulated as follows:

Test Flow NPSH For Various Head Losses Comments 1%Loss 3% Loss 6% Loss 270427 3,110 21.3 ft. 21.2 ft. 21.0 ft. Sharp knee @ 3110. NPSHr must 4,510 43.0 ft. 31.5 ft. 26.0 ft. be above knee.

270427 2,013 30.0 ft. 23.0 ft. Untested Test stopped -1.6% @ 23 feet.

22/ 37

SULZER Jan.15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (US) I.r Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 RHR Cavitation Free NPSH Calculations:

AIAII ~ N RE 't PH ALCULATIN oQ 0 (GPM) Flow.

N - 1 (rpm) 2 A-B - 3 (in " Suction area. Lobanoff & Ross and Sulzer drawing Z06196.

2 Ar - (in " Impeller eye area.

B, = 1 (deg.) Blade inlet angle.

(A-B)/AE = 1 (%) Area ratio (From Lobanoff and Ross K, - . From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-18.

D, = 5- (in.) Impeller eye diameter CMa - 9 (ft./sec.) Average meridianal velocity at blade inlet (.321Q/An).

U, - 1 (ft./sec.) Peripheral velocity of impeller blade (DTN/229).

Tan(O) - 0 Impeller inlet velocity ratio (Ca/Ur),

8 - 4 (deg.) Angle of flow approaching blade.

a - , (deg.) Angle of incidence (Br-theta).

K2 - From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-19.

Ca - 0 From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-20.

2 NPSHr - (ft.) Lobanoff&Ross equation 8-2 ([(K,+K 2)CMer/2g + K 2Ur /2g]Cs)

eferences: Lobanoff & Ross, "Centifugal Pumps: Design & Application" 2nd Edition, Gulf Publishing, 1992 RHR PUMP @5000 GPM

-CA VITA.T.J.ON: FR E E N PSHr CA LCGULATIO.. N..

a - (GPM) Flow.

N - 1 (rpm) 2 A-B - 3 (in ) Suction area. Lobanoff & Ross and Sulzer drawing Z06196.

AE - . (in"i Impeller eye area.

Br - ( (deg.) Blade inlet angle.

(A-B)/AE - 1 (%) Area ratio (From Lobanoff and Ross ).

Kr - ( From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-18.

D, - (in.) Impeller eye diameter Car - 3 (ft./sec.) Average meridianal velocity at blade inlet (.321Q/Ar).

U, - 1 (ft./sec.) Peripheral velocity of impeller blade (DTN/229).

Tan(G) - 0 Impeller inlet velocity ratio (CI =/UT).

8 - 7 (deg.) Angle of flow approaching blade.

o - 4 (deg.) Angle of incidence (Br-theta).

K, - 6349 From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-19.

ca - F 93 From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-20.

2 NPSHr - = (ft.) Lobanoff&Ross equation 8-2 {[(Kr+K()CMr /2g + K2 UTr/2g]Ca)

References:

Lobanoff & Ross, "Centifugal Pumps: Design & Application*

2nd Edition, Gulf Publishing, 1992 RHR PUMP @ 7000 GPM 23/37

SULZER Jan. 15,2008 E12.5.1296 suier Pumps (US) Inc Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008

...... ..... I......

"CAVITAXIMUFRE: E " NPSH*:. *X ALCULAV . ......................

a - 0 (GPM) Flow.

N - 1 (rpm)

A-B - 3 (in2) Suction area. Lobanoff & Ross and Sulzer drawing Z06196.

A0 - 16 93 (in"t Impeller eye area.

B, - ((deg.) Blade inlet angle.

(A-B)/A, - ((%) Area ratio (From Lobanoff and Ross ).

K, - From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-18.

D, - 2 (in.) Impeller eye diameter C --1 7 (ft/sec.) Average meridianal velocity at blade inlet (.321 Q/Ac).

Ur - (ft./sec.) Peripheral velocity of impeller blade (DTN/229).

Tan()) - I Impeller inlet velocity ratio (Car/UA)

B - ((deg.) Angle of flow approaching blade.

o - 2 (deg.) Angle of incidence (Bl-theta).

K2 - . From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-19.

CB - 3 From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-20.

2 NPSHr - : (ft.) Lobanoff&Ross equation 8-2 {[(K,+K2)CM,2/2g + K2 Ur /2g]CB}

References:

Lobanoff & Ross, "Centifugal Pumps: Design & Application" 2nd Edition, Gulf Publishing, 1992 RHR PUMP @ 9000 GPM CAVITATIOU` KEE::Src~cLTO Q - 0 (GPM) Flow.

N - f 765 (rpm)

A-B - (in0

0. Suction area. Lobanoff & Ross and Sulzer drawing Z06196.

Aý - 3 (in2} Impeller eye area.

Br - I (deg.) Blade inlet angle.

lA-B)/A, - 2 (%) Area ratio (From Lobanoff and Ross ).

K, - 5 From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-18.

Dt - 2 (in.) Impeller eye diameter Ca, - 9 (ft./sec.) Average meridianal velocity at blade inlet (.321Q/A0 ).

U, - 1 (ft./sac.) Peripheral velocity of impeller blade (DTN/229).

Tan(8) - 0 Impeller inlet velocity ratio (Cvr/Ur) 8 - 9 (deg.) Angle of flow approaching blade.

o - 4 (deg.) Angle of incidence (Br-theta).

K0 - 0 From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-19.

Ce- 0 From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-20.

NPSHr - * (ft.) Lobanoff&Ross equation 8-2 {[(K,+Ko)CeM,/2g + K2U:2/2g]C.}

References:

Lobanoff & Ross, "Centifugal Pumps: Design & Application" 2nd Edition, Gulf Publishing, 1992 RHR PUMP @ 10500 GPM 24/37

SULZER Jan.15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008

..... .CAVITA. I N0 1. EE S...C.....T... ..

O-20 (GPM) Flow.

N - 7 (rpm)

A-B - . (in"i Suction area. Lobanoff & Ross and Sulzer drawing Z06196.

AE - . (in' Impeller eye area.

B, -= (deg.) Blade inlet angle.

(A-B)/Au - 2 (%) Area ratio (From Lobanoff and Ross).

K,1 - . From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-18.

D, - 5 (in.) Impeller eye diameter CMi - (It/sec.) Average meridianal velocity at blade inlet (.321Q/An).

i.

Ur - 11 (ft./sec.) Peripheral velocity of impeller blade (DTN/229).

Tan(O) - 0 Impeller inlet velocity ratio (CMr/Ur) o - 0 (deg.) Angle of flow approaching blade.

a - . (deg.) Angle of incidence (Br-theta).

K, - 0 From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-19.

Ce - . From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-20.

2 NPSHr - i (ft.) Lobanoff&Ross equation 8-2 )[(K÷K 2 ()CWr/2g + KUrT/2g]CB)

References:

Lobanoff & Ross, "Centifugal Pumps: Design & Application" 2nd Edition, Gulf Publishing, 1992 RHR PUMP @12000 GPM 25 /37

SULZER Jan. 15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 CS Cavitation Free NPSH Calculations:

i, "CP'A .VITATIO:N :F:R:EIEý.' N*P*SHr CALC :LATIO 0 - 2 (GPM) Flow.

N - 0 (rpm) 21 A-B - 2 (in Suction area. Lobanoff & Ross and Sulzer drawing Z06196.

2 A, 1 (in " Impeller eye area.

Br - ((deg.) Blade inlet angla.

(A-B)/A, - 2 (%) Area ratio (From Lobanoff and Ross ).

Kr - 4 From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-18.

D - 6 (in.) Impeller eye diameter CM - -i (ft./sec.) Average meridianal velocity at blade inlet (.321Q/A,).

U, - . (ft./sec.) Peripheral velocity of impeller blade (DTN/229).

Tan(e) - Iimpeller inlet velocity ratio (CMI/UT).

8 - S (deg.) Angle of flow approaching blade.

a - 0 (dog.) Angle of incidence (BI-theta).

K, - 0 From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-19.

C8 - : From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8.20.

t T NPSHr - . (ft.) Lobanoff&Ross equation 8-2 {[(K,+K,)C 1 2/2g + KU /2g]Ce(

References:

Lobanoff & Ross, "Centifugal Pumps: Design & Application" 2nd Edition, Gulf Publishing, 1992 CS PUMP @ 2000 GPM I ATI N FREE"' UPS:r CfiALCULATIO a - 0 (GPM) Flow.

N - 0 (rpm)

A-B - 2. (in* Suction area. Lobanoff & Ross and Sulzer drawing Z06196.

2 AE - 0 (in 1 Impeller eye area.

B, - . 6 (deg.) Blade inlet angle.

(A-B)/AE - a (%) Area ratio (From Lobanoff and Ross).

K, - . From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-18.

D, - 7 (in.) Impeller eye diameter Cm, - S (ft./sec.) Average meridianal velocity at blade inlet (.3210/AE).

UT - (ft./sac.) Peripheral velocity of impeller blade (DN/229).

Tan(6) - 0 Impeller inlet velocity ratio (CM1/UT).

e - 8 (deg.) Angle of flow approaching blade.

o - 3 (deg.) Angle of incidence (B,-theta).

K, - 7 From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-19.

Ca - . From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-20.

NPSHr - > (ft.) Lobanoff&Ross equation 8-2 1[(K,+K()Cmli/2g + K2 UTr/2g]CB(

References:

Lobanoff & Ross, "Centifugal Pumps: Design & Application" 2nd Edition, Gulf Publishing, 1992 CS PUMP @ 3000 GPM 26 / 37

SULZER Transient NPSH Study Jan. 15,2008 E12.5.1296 sumr Pumps (US) Inc Revision 2, 1/15/2008 t

CA....T.-T:V1 :.F:REE9-:N PS CA CULA TION 0 - (GPM) Flow, N - 3 (rpm) 21 A-B - 2 (in Suction area. Lobanoff & Ross and Sulzer drawing Z06196.

1 An - . (in" Impeller eye area.

B, - 6 (deg.) Blade inlet angle.

(A-B)/AE - I(%) Area ratio (From Lobanoff and Ross).

K, - 4 From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-18.

D,- 6 (in.) Impeller eye diameter CM, - 9 (ft./sec.) Average meridianal velocity at blade inlet (.32 1O/AE).

UT - . (ft./sec.) Peripheral velocity of impeller blade (DrN/229).

Tan(e) - 0 Impeller inlet velocity ratio (CMr/Ur).

e - 1 (deg.) Angle of flow approaching blade.

ao - (deg.) Angle of incidence (B,-theta).

K, - 3 From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-19.

Ca - . From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-20.

2 2 NPSHr - 1 (ft.) Lobanoff&Ross equation 8-2 {[(Kr+K 2 )CM1 /2g + K 2UT /2g]CB(

leferences: Lobanoff & Ross, "Centifugal Pumps: Design & Application" 2nd Edition, Gulf Publishing, 1992 CS PUMP@ 3750 GPM

-CAVITATION FREE" NPSHr CALCULATION a - 4 (GPM) Flow.

N - 5 (rpm) 21 A-B - 2 (in Suction area. Lobanoff & Ross and Sulzer drawing Z06196.

2 AE - (in " Impeller eye area.

B, - lB (deg.) Blade inlet angle.

(A-B)/AE - l(%). Area ratio (From Lobanoff and Ross (.

K, - 4 From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-18.

D, - 6 (in.) Impeller eye diameter CM, - 3 (ft./sac.) Average meridianal velocity at blade inlet (.3210/AE).

UT - 7 (It./sec.) Peripheral velocity of impeller blade (DrN/229).

Tan(9) - 0 Impeller inlet velocity ratio (Cr/UT).

e - (Ideg.) Angle of flow approaching blade.

o - 3 (deg.) Angle of incidence (B,-theta).

K, - 3 From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-19.

Ca - 0 From Lobanoff & Ross Figure 8-20.

2 NPSHr - - (ft.) Lobanoff&Ross equation 8-2 {[(K,+K.)CMh2 /2g + K2 UT /2g]CB]

leferences: Lobanoff & Ross, "Centifugal Pumps: Design & Application" 2nd Edition, Gulf Publishing, 1992 CS PUMP @ 4500 GPM 27 / 37

SULZER Transient NPSH Study Jan.15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc Revision 2, 1/15/2008 RHR Recommended NPSH Calculations: ..........

"N:P$H RECOMMEN :D.:E.D C AVOU LATION ... .......

a - 50 (GPM) From performance curve QBEP F-8600 (GPM) From performance curve Q/0...

SN - -7 (1 e {NPSHR - 0% / NPSHn-3%) - Function of Q/QIu SEN Function of pumpage and NPSHe(3%)

Sr Function of temperature and NPSHp(3%)

S. Function of impeller material and pumpage SLG -(deg.) SLG - 1.2; Guarantee of 40,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months impeller life at BEP flow SLO - 1.0 at min. flow and runout flow (40,000 hour0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months are not required)

Nss(3%) - Suction specific speed at 3%

Nss(REF) - Suction specific speed at reference Fs - {sqrt(N,,(3%) / N,.(REF))) for water if N,,(3%) > 9300 - NS,(REF)

N PSH.(3%) - (ft) From performance curve FCT - FCT? 1.0 ; avoids adding margin on to margin if tested NPSH curve has Been increased by t/FcU to allow for Casting and measuring Tolerances.

FCT- 1.0 In this study NPSHREc . (ft) NPSHREc - SN X SENX SST X X SLGx FP x NPSHR(3%) x Fcr

References:

Hydraulic Review: ES 2.5.522 page 7 Hydraulics 1.008.002 pages 1 - 5 RHR PUMP @5000 GPM

.,,NPSH i:R:EC.0. .. ENDED CALCU ATI.

S- 70 (GPM) From performance curve QBEp - r (GPM) From performance curve Q/QBEP - 14 SN - f{NPSHR - 0% / NPSHm-3%) - Function of Q/QBEP SEN - F 1.I Function of pumpage and NPSHe(3%)

ST - F 07 Function of temperature and NPSHR(3%)

S. - Function of impeller material and pumpage SLG - ((deg.) SLG- 1.2; Guarantee of 40,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months impeller life at BEP flow SEG- 1.0 ; at min. flow and runout flow (40,000 hour0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months are not required)

Nss(3%) - 3 Suction specific speed at 3%

Nss(REF) - 0 Suction specific speed at reference F, - 9 {sqrt(N,,(3%) / N,,(REF))) for water if N,ý(3%) > 9300 - N,.(REF)

NPSHR(3%) - f83 (ft) From performance curve FuT - F* ? 1.0 ; avoids adding margin on to margin if tested NPSH curve has Been increased by 1/FcP to allow for Casting and measuring Tolerances.

FcT - 1.0 In this study NPSHRcc - (it) NPSH,,c -SN SEN X SnX Sm X S, X F. a NPSHu(3%) x Fcu

References:

Hydraulic Review: E12.5.522 page 7 Hydraulics 1.008.002 pages 1 - 5 RHR PUMP @ 7000 GPM 28 / 37

SULZER Transient NPSH Study Jan15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (US) Ing Revision 2, 1/15/2008 a - 9 (GPM) From performance curve QBEP - 6 (GPM) From performance curve Q/QBEP SN t2 f{NPSHe - 0% / NPSHR-3%} - Function of Q/QBEP SEN - 1 Function of pumpage and NPSHR(3%)

Sr - 0 Function of temperature and NPSH-(3%)

SM. y Function of impeller material and pumpage SLG - (deg.) SLG - 1.2 Guarantee of 40,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months impeller life at BEP flow SLo - 1.0 ;at min. flow and runout flow (40,000 hour0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months are not required)

Nss(3%) - 9 Suction specific speed at 3%

Nss(REF) - 9 Suction specific speed at reference Fs - 1 {sqrt(N.(3%) / N,,(REF))) for water if N,,(3%) > 9300 - N%,(REF)

NPSHR(3%) - i i lt) From performance curve Fcr - Fcr ? 1.0 ; avoids adding margin on to margin if tested NPSH curve has Been increased by t/Fcr to allow for Casting and measuring Tolerances.

FcT - t .0 In this study NPSHREc - (Ift) NPSHAEc - SN X SEN X ST X S X SLG x F, x NPSH-(3%) x Fcr

References:

Hydraulic Review: Et 2.5.522 page 7 Hydraulics 1.008.002 pages 1 - 5 RHR PUMP @ 9000 GPM S"NPSH RECOMMENDED ALCULAT 0 .................

Q - 5 (GPM) From performance curve QBEE - 600 (GPM) From performance curve a/Q8EP -

SN - . (NPSHn - 0% / NPSHS-3%i - Function of Q/QnEP SEN - Function of pumpage and NPSHR(3%)

ST - Function of temperature and NPSHR(3%)

S. - E Function of impeller material and pumpage SL6 - (deg.) SLG - 1.2 Guarantee of 40,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months impeller life at BEP flow SLG- 1.0 at min. flow and runout flow (40,000 hour0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months are not required)

Nss(3%) - 1 Suction specific speed at 3%

Nss(REF) - 935-D Suction specific speed at reference F, - : (sqrt(N)(3%) / N,,(REF))) for water if N,,(3%) > 9300 - N%(REF)

NPSHR(3%) - (ft) t From performance curve FCr - FC r? 1.0 ; avoids adding margin on to margin if tested NPSH curve has Been increased by t/Fcr to allow for Casting and measuring Tolerances.

Fcr - 1 .0 In this study NPSHREc - (ft) NPSHREc - SN X SEN X ST X Sn,S SL x F, x NPSHR(3%) x FCT

References:

Hydraulic Review: E12.5.522 page 7 Hydraulics 1.008.002 pages 1 - 5 RHR PUMP @ 10500 GPM 29 / 37

SULZER Jan.15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 WAPS ECOMMENV~ :1CA L CULATTION'**"..

Q - * (GPM) From performance curse QBEP- 0 (

(GPM) From performance curve 01 0

/ EP -

S - 7 {NPSHR - 0% / NPSHR-3%) - Function of Q/QBEP SEN - . Function of pumpage and NPSHR(3%)

Sr - 7 Function of temperature and NPSHA(3%)

s. - Function of impeller material and pumpage SLG - F 1l (deg.) SLG - 1.2; Guarantee of 40,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months impeller life at BEP flow SLG - 1.0 : at min. flow and runout flow (40,000 hour0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months are not required)

Nss(3%) - f Suction specific speed at 3%

Nss(REF) - .3TE Suction specific speed at reference Fs - i{sqrt(N.(3%) / N,,(REF))} for water if N,(3%) v 9300 - Nýý(REF)

NPSHR(3%) -. 4 (ft) From performance curve FCT - . FcT ? 1.0 ; avoids adding margin on to margin if tested NPSH curve has Been increased by t/Fcr to allow for Casting and measuring Tolerances.

FcT - 1.0 In this study NPSHREc - (ft) NPSHREc - SN X SEN X STX SXSLG XFs X NPSHR(3%) x FcT

References:

Hydraulic Review: E12.5.522 page 7 Hydraulics 1.008.002 pages 1 - 5 RHR PUMP @ 11500 GPM 30/37

SULZER Jan.15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 CS Recommended NPSH Calculations:

0 - 200 fGPM) From performance curve

... , - 3000...PM) From performance curve Q.Q.Ep - 0.....

S - 1-62 {NPSHR -0% / NPSHR-3%} - Function of Q/QBEP SEN - Function of ....

pumpage and NPSHR.3%)

SB - 0 Function of temperarure and NPSHR(3%)

S. - F Function of impeller material and pumpage SLG - (deg.) Sf G - 1.2; Guarantee of 40,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months impeller life at BEP flow SLG - 1.0 ; at min. flow and runout flow (40,000 hour0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months are not required)

Nss(3%) - FREI Suction specific speed at 3%

Nss(REF) - F-5300 Suction specific speed at reference Fu - {sqrt(N,,(3%)

s / N,,(REF))) for water if N,,(3%) > 9300 - N,,(REF)

NPSHR(3%) - 27.5 (ff) From performance curve FCT - FGT ? 1.0 ; avoids adding margin on to margin if tested NPSH curve has Been increased by 1/Fcr to allow for Casting and measuring Tolerances.

Fun - 1.0 In this study NPSHaEc - (ft) NPSHaEc - SNX SEN X STx S, u S.G a Fx NPSHR(3%)X FuT

References:

Hydraulic Review: El12.5.522 page 7 Hydraulics 1.008.002 pages I - 5 CS PUMP@2000 GPM

- 3000 (GPM) From performance curve QBEP - 3 (GPM) From performance curve Q/Qac -

SN - {NPSHR - 0% / NPSHR-3%) - Function of Q/QBEP SEN - > Function of pumpage and NPSHv(3%)

Sr- : Function of temperature and NPSHR(3%)

S. IZ i Function of impeller material and pumpage SLG- (deg.) SLG - 1.2; Guarantee of 40,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months impeller life at BEP flow SLG - 1.0 ; at win. flow and runout flow (40,000 hour0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months are not required)

N66(3%) - 0 Suction specific speed at 3%

Nss(REF) - 9 Suction specific speed at reference FP. 2 {sqrt(N,,(3%) / N,,(REF))} for water if N,(3%) v 9300 - N,,(REF)

NPSHn(3%) - 5 (ft) From performance curve Fcu - FcT ? 1.0 ; avoids adding margin on to margin if tested NPSH curve has Been increased by I/FcT to allow for Casting and measuring Tolerances.

Fcr - 1.0 In this study NPSHnEc - (ft) NPSHREc - SN X SEN XSTX S.x S x F, x NPSHR(3%) X Fcr

References:

Hydraulic Review: E1 2.5.522 page 7 Hydraulics 1.008.002 pages 1 - 5 CS PUMP @3000 GPM 31/37

SULZER Jan.15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (US) In& Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 SH REC 0MMENDEO'.ý CA,-L*VCLAT[ION .......

N

... ... ) Fro m pe rfo. rm a nc e c urve

..PM QBEu- (GPM) From performance curve

/

Q QREP -

Sn - . {NPSHR - 0% / NPSHe-3%( - Function of Q/QBEP SEN - 1 Function of pumpage and NPSHr(3%)

ST - 0 Function of temperature and NPSHf(3%)

s. - Function of impeller material and pumpage SLG - f (deg.) SLO - 1.2; Guarantee of 40,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months impeller life at BEP flow SEe- 1.0 ; at min. flow and runout flow (40,000 hour0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months are not required)

Nus(3%) - 1 Suction specific speed at 3%

Nss(REF) - 3 Suction specific speed at reference Fs - . (sqrt(N=,(3%) / N.,(REF))) for water if N,.(3%) a 9300 - N=,(REF)

NPSHR(3%) - (ft) From performance curve Pcr -

FcT ? 1.0 ; avoids adding margin on to margin if tested NPSH curve has Been increased by 1/Fcr to allow for Casting and measuring Tolerances.

FCT- 1.0 In this study NPSHREc - (ft) NPSHREc - SN X SEN X STX 5, X SLr x F, x NPSHR(3%) x FCT qeferences: Hydraulic Review: E 12.5.522 page 7 Hydraulics 1.008.002 pages 1 - 5 CS PUMP @ 3750 GPM R E.ME N E Q - 5 (GPM) From performance curve QBE? - 3 (GPM) From performance curve Q/QBEP .

s. - E 93 {NPSHe - 0% / NPSH,-3%} - Function of Q/QBEP SEN - f Function of pumpage and NPSHe(3%)

ST - . Function of temperature and NPSHe(3%)

S. - 1 Function of impeller material and pumpage SLe - F 11(deg.) SL - 1.2 ; Guarantee of 40,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months impeller life at BEP flow SLG- 1.0 ; at min. flow and runout flow (40,000 hour0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months are not required)

Nss(3%) - 3 Suction specific speed at 3%

Nss(REF) - 9 Suction specific speed at reference F, - i{sqrt(N,,(3%) / Ns,(REF))) for water if N,,(3%) > 9300 - N,,(REF)

NPSHR(3%) - . (ft) From performance curve FcT- Fcr ? 1.0 ; avoids adding margin on to margin if tested NPSH curve has Been increased by 1/FcT to allow for Casting and measuring Tolerances.

Fcr - 11.0In this study NPSHREc - (It) NPSHREc - SN XSEN X STX 5, a SG xa F, x NPSHR(3%) x FcT

References:

Hydraulic Review: E12.5.522 page 7 Hydraulics 1.008.002 pages 1 - 5 CS PUMP @ 4500 GPM 32/37

SULZER Jan.15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 APPENDIX B - PUMP CROSS SECTIONS 33/37

U, U'

0 (a -a CA

(- 'C C

B r (A

C N

In N m 3.

A' 0

p-I 5.

-.I at

-0.

°°1 9

I lb wJ z

Ca Ca tIJ C "C

'C 0

.. ......6'..

00 0 i* : i** ...........

. .............. !* * } . .............

i~

00 000 C-A C:)

0n

'i j I'-)

If)

I-0 I-0 N

U U S FA) 1-s C9 N U

0. 0 z

i ........ ......

SULZER Transient NPSH Study Jan.15,2008 E12.5.1296 Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc Revision 2, 1/15/2008 Rev. Issue ECR No. Date No. Location Description (Field Engineering Assistance Request No.)

(Parts / Repair Order No.)

By/Appr.

1 10/05/2006 140535 pp. 11/12 RHR

Conclusion:

Distinguished between "non-detrimental impeller wear" and "detrimental damage". SJS/DS 1 10/05/2006 140535 Page 19 CS

Conclusion:

changed "damage" to "non-detrimental impeller wear". SJS/DS 2 1/15/08 140535 Page 8 Added Appendix R fire Statement reference Appendix C Added new Appendix C SJS/DBS t 4 4 +

4 4 4 t I I -f 4 4 4 1 I I 1 I I L £ L J.

36/37

SULZER Jan. 15,2008 E12.5.1296 sulzrPWRPS (US) Inc Transient NPSH Study Revision 2, 1/15/2008 Appendix C Certification Statement for Limited Time Low NPSH Operation The subject RHR pumps are Sulzer model 18x24x28 CVIC furnished under (Sulzer) serial numbers 270671 / 682. As supported by the analysis in the body of this report, Sulzer has evaluated the RHR pump NPSH requirements to identify the lowest NPSHR that can be certified to support successful operation through the duration of an Appendix R fire event at a flow rate of 9000 gpm.

The constraints of certification are as follows:

Duration of the Appendix R fire event is 70 hours8.101852e-4 days 0.0194 hours 1.157407e-4 weeks 2.6635e-5 months for the purposes of this certification.

"Successful operation" is defined as a pump continuing to pump for the duration of the event.

Cavitation, vibration and noise may occur but are not factors in obtaining a successful outcome.

The pump does not need to be operational following the event.

The NPSH value for the "lowest possible NPSHr value..." will likely be a level which will subject the pump to some cavitation. For the pump to operate as required the following requirements must be met:

The pump subject to an Appendix R event must be in operational condition at the event onset.

" Cavitation can cause a pump's output flow to pull back somewhat (decreasing head, due to suppression, causes operation to pull back on the system curve). The pump flow at very low NPSHa conditions may be slightly less than 9000 gpm if it was at 9000 gpm pre-event.

In consideration of the aforementioned constraints and requirements, Sulzer Pumps certifies to the following limited NPSHa operation:

The minimum required NPSH value that will allow the subject pumps to successfully operate at 9000 gpm for 70 hours8.101852e-4 days 0.0194 hours 1.157407e-4 weeks 2.6635e-5 months is 17 feet. At this NPSHa level there is little to no theoretical NPSH margin remaining. The RHR pump subject to these conditions will likely exhibit signs of cavitation; however it will continue to function throughout the event.

GM, Nuclear Services Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc.

12/20/2007 37/37

v t e Letter Sequence Other
TAC:MD5262, (Approved, Closed) TAC:MD5263, (Approved, Closed) TAC:MD5264, (Approved, Closed)
Initiation Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request Acceptance... Supplement, Supplement, Supplement, Supplement, Supplement, Supplement Administration Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting Questions 16 May 2007 5 July 2007 9 October 2007 18 October 2007 29 February 2008 2 May 2008 2 May 2008 17 July 2008 12 August 2008 12 August 2008 16 September 2008 16 September 2008 9 October 2008 12 November 2008 23 March 2009 22 April 2009 9 June 2009 15 July 2009 28 August 2009 29 December 2009 Answers 8 December 2008 27 March 2009 29 April 2009 28 September 2009 Results Approval Other: ML070370281, ML073100027, ML073510180, ML080360067, ML080430700, ML080500171, ML080530256, ML081010450, ML081010451, ML081120502, ML081700294, ML081720078, ML081760295, ML082040065, ML082050462, ML082100425, ML082810470, ML083120308, ML083240224, ML083250083, ML090130718, ML090340528, ML090720951, ML090760630, ML091320366, ML092020345, ML092430520, ML092440518, ML092460495, ML092460496, ML092460497, ML092460498, ML092460500, ML092540483, ML092680057, ML12319A076, ML13044A498
MONTHYEAR2008-01-30 [Table View]

ML081700294

Text

Enclosures:

Enclosures:

SUMMARY

Title:

References:

References:

Conclusions:

References:

References:

Conclusions:

References:

References:

References:

References:

References:

References:

References:

References:

References:

References:

References:

References:

References:

References:

Conclusion:

Conclusion:

Navigation menu

Search