ML101690169

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Enclosure 4, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Supporting Engineering Evaluations, EC 16154, Turbine Building Flooding SDP: Cl Turbine Building Seismic Pipe Break Analysis.
ML101690169
Person / Time
Site: Prairie Island  Xcel Energy icon.png
Issue date: 06/10/2010
From:
Northern States Power Co, Xcel Energy
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
EA-10-070, IR-10-010, L-PI-10-060 EC 16154
Download: ML101690169 (19)
v • d • e


Text

ENCLOSURE4 PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT SUPPORTING ENGINEERING EVALAUTIONS EC 16154 (RELEVANT PORTIONS) 18 Pages Follow

'__l XcelEnergy° EC-0441 EC Closeout Package Report (Rev. 3)

Report Date: 0611012010 EC Number: 0000016154 Revision: 000 Engineering Change EC Number 0000016154 000 Facility  : PI Status/Date CLOSED 06/09/2010 Type/Sub-type : EVAL /

EC

Title:

TURBINE BUILDING FLOODING SDP: CL TURBINE BUILDING SEISMIC PIPE BREAK ANALYSIS Mod Nbr: KW1: KW2: KW3: KW4: KW5:

Master EC Work Group Temporary Outage Alert Group  : E-ME/CS DE Aprd Req. Dt. 05/28/2010 WO Required  : N Image Addr Exp Insvc Date Adv Wk Appvd Alt Ref. Expires On Auto-Advance Priority Auto-Asbuild Caveat Outst Resp Engr  : N153927 Units and Systems Facility Unit System System Description PI 0 CL COOLING WATER Attributes Attribute Name Value Updated By Last Updated Notes SCRN NO N/A N153927 06/08/2010 No change is being performed. No 50.59 is required for the evaluation per FP-E-EVL-01.

SIMULATOR SYSTEM HEALTH EVAL NO PORC DTE PRIORITY RANKING Pedigree Information Page 1 of 4

XcelEnergy-EC-0441 EC Closeout Package Report (Rev. 3)

Report Date: 06/10/2010 Topic Notes TECIc Notes DESCRIPTION The purpose of this engineering evaluation is to provide the results and perform the owner's acceptance of Zachry's analysis10-057, Rev A,"CL System Double Seismic Break Analysis." This analysis is being performed in support of the Turbine Building Flooding Significance Determination Process.

The analysis is used to evaluate the flow rates through two seismically induced 14" pipe breaks in each turbine building header. The system is aligned to the expected plant response following a seismic event with subsequent Loss of Offsite Power and a loss of the Condensate Storage Tanks. The break locations analyzed inthis evaluation are two 14" guillotine pipe breaks (14-CL-67, 14-2CL-10) in each turbine building header.

The likelihood of pipe breaks inthese locations are being analyzed independently of this evaluation and may show that these locations are not susceptible to cracking or breaking. This evaluation is used to provide the best estimate of flows out of the listed pipe breaks, and as such is not suitable as a design basis analysis.

JUSTIFICATION See attached evaluation in sharepoint, Zachry Calculation 10-057A.

Zachry analysis10-057, Rev A supports the site's Turbine Building Flooding Significance Determination Process and as such is not a calculation. Per FP-E-EVL-01 this EC-Eval does not require design verification because it is an owner's acceptance of a vendor produced analysis.

NOTES Approver comments:

This Evaluation uses 14.7 psia in lieu of 14.3 psia. This difference is negligible in relation to the NPSH of the pump and the discharge pressures inthe CL system.

This Evaluation states that the pump output flows are 4 and 5% greater than the available pump curve that was provided for the analysis. This provides a conservative flow rate-as it is more than the pump is expected to flow. The flows higher than the end of the pump curve are based on extrapolation of the pump curve. Since the flows are only slightly higher than the pump curve this is acceptable.

End of Approver comments.

REVIEWER COMMENTS The QF-0528 comment form has been completed and is attached to Zachry analysis10-057, Revision A. The QF-0547, "External Design Document Suitability Review Checklist" is scanned in sharepoint.

Cross References Affected Documents Milestone Milestone Date ID Name Req By APPROVED BY 06/08/2010 N151816 Ford, Sean I APPROVED Notes:

CLOSE 06/09/2010 LDWHIP01 Whipple, Linda D CLOSED Notes:

Pedigree Information Page 2 of 4

XcelEnergy" EC-0441 EC Closeout Package Report (Rev. 3)

Report Date: 06/10/2010 Milestone Milestone Date D Name Re By PREPARED (EVL) 06/07/2010 N153927 Loeffier, Jason W H/APPR Notes:

Document References FacilP Doc-Type Sub-Type Doc# Sheet Rev Minor Rev Date PI EC 0000016154 000 06/09/2010 Pedigree Information Page 3 of 4

XcelEnergy" EC-0441 EC Closeout Package Report (Rev. 3)

Report Date: 06/10/2010 Pedigree Information Page 4 of 4

QF-0528 (FP-E-MOD-07) Rev. 1 XcelEnergy" Design Review Comment Form Sheet 1 of 1 DOCUMENT NUMBER/ TITLE: 10-057: CL System Double WE:B-Break Analysis REVISION: A DATE: 5/19/10 ITEM REVIEWER'S COMMENTS PREPARER'S REVIEWER'S

  1. RESOLUTION DISPOSITION
0) Calculation 10-057 refers to a postulated double High Energy Line The document has been changed to Acceptable Break (HELB) events that result in a characterize breaks pipe break in the CL system. This as seismically induced calculation is intended to address double pipe breaks, seismically induced pipe breaks of CL with exact wording lines. As the CL lines are not tailored for each considered High Energy the text in instance that the the calculation body and title should change was made.

be changed to reflect that the CL line breaks are not considered to be high energy line breaks (HELB) and they are not specifically considered to be HELB induced. This comment has no impacts on the results of the calculation, but is an editorial change to clarify the intended purpose of this calculation.

Reviewer: Jason Lo=fler Date: 5/19/2010 Preparer: MichaeL-Norwood Date: 6/2/2010 613(Z0'O 6/Vio 0

Page 1 of 1 Zachry Calculation 10-057 Revision A Attachment E Page 2 of 2

QF-0547 (FP-E-MOD-1 1) Rev. 2 Pa~qe 1 of 2 QF04(F--O-1 e.2Pq 1 o Xcel~-

S External Design Document Suitability Review Checklist External Design Document Being Reviewed:Calculation

Title:

CL System Proto-Flo Analysis Number: 10-057 Rev: A Date: 6/4/10 This design document was received from:

Organization Name: Zachry Nuclear PO or DIA

Reference:

EC16154 Engineering The purpose of the suitability review is to ensure that a calculation, analysis or other design document provided by an External Design Organization complies with the conditions of the purchase order and/or Design Interface Agreement (DIA) and is appropriate for its intended use. The suitability review does not serve as an independent verification. Independent verification of the design document supplied by the External Design Organization should be evident in the document, if required.

The reviewer should use the criteria below as a guide to assess the overall quality, completeness and usefulness of the design document. The reviewer is not required to check calculations in detail.

REVIEW Reviewed N/A

1. Design inputs correspond to those that were transmitted to the External Design ED Organization. El
2. Assumptions are described and reasonable. LI
3. Applicable codes, standards and regulations are identified and met. El
4. Applicable construction and operating experience is considered. LI
5. Applicable structure(s), system(s), and component(s) are listed.

D LI

6. Formulae and equations are documented. Unusual symbols are defined. El
7. Acceptance criteria are identified, adequate and satisfied. [] LI
8. Results are reasonable compared to inputs. 1:1 El
9. Source documents are referenced. EL
10. The document is appropriate for its intended use. EL
11. The document complies with the terms of the Purchase Order and/or DIA. Z
12. Inputs, assumptions, outputs, etc. which could affect plant operation are enforced by adequate procedural controls. List any affected procedures.
13. Plant impact has been identified and either implemented or controlled. (e.g., For 1:1 [

piping analyses, the'piping and support database is updated or a tracking item has been initiated.) ELI

14. Design and Operational Margin have been considered and documented.

Completed by: Jason Loeffler Date: 6/4/10 Form retained inaccordance with record r entioVedule identified in FP-G-RM-01.

ZACHRY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING, INC.

CALCULATION TITLE SHEET CLIENT: Xcel Energy PROJECT: CL System PROTO-FLO Analysis CALCULATION TITLE: CL SYSTEM DOUBLE SEISMIC BREAK ANALYSIS CALCULATION NO.: 10-057 JOB NO.: 150PIS/051828 COMPUTER CODE & VERSION (if applicable): PROTO-FLO V4.60 ZACHRY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING, INC. PROPERTY CODE (if applicable): 000520 QA CLASSIFICATION: Non-Safety Related 0

REV TOTAL NO. OF ORIGINATOR/DATE VERIFIER/DATE APPROVAL/DATE PAGES -

ia A.

MPiAcE or6/ood Scotta i 7galls ChristopherM,.D'Angelo

, , ,f/,/c, Pagei of v 01-FormNo.: -P030101sheetlofl Rev. 0-01 Date: 5/09 Ref.: P 3-1

ZACHRY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING, INC. CALC NO.10-057 REv A PAGE ii OF V GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIGINATOR Michael A. Norwood DATE 6/3/2010 VIFIED BY Scott M. Ingalls JOB NO. 051828 cumErr Xcel Energy PROJECT CL System PROTO-FLO Analysis TITLE CL System Double Seismic Break Analysis REVISION HISTORY Revision Revision Description A Original Issue Form No.: P030102 sheet 1 of 1 Rev.: 0-01 Date: 5/09 Ref.: P 3-1

ZACHRY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING, INC. CALCNO.10-057 REV A PAGE iii OF V GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIGINATOR Michael A. Norwood DATE 6/3/2010 VERIFED BY Scott M. Ingalls JoB NO. 0 5 1 8 2 8 CLIENT Xcel Energy PROJECT CL System PROTO-FLO Analysis TITLE CL System Double Seismic Break Analysis CALCULATION VERIFICATION FORM

1. VERIFICATION METHOD: 2. EXTENT OF VERIFICATION:

Yes N/A Complete calculation (including attachments /appendices) has been A. Approach Checked 0 reviewed to determine impact of revision on un-revised areas.

B. Logic Checked 0 A. IDV of Complete calculation (including 0 attachments/appendices).

C. Arithmetic Checked 0] LI B. IDV of revised areas of Calculation only. LI D. Alternate Method []* Z C. Other (describe below): El (Provide documentation)

E. Other "-]* 0

  • Describe below.
3. DOCUMENTATION OF VERIFICATION A. IDV documentation B. IDV documentation C. IDV documentation is this form as attachment with Calc forwarded to QA and any continuation pages only. E]

Errors Detected Error Resolution See Attachment D See Attachment D

  • Verification Method:

All arithmetic within the body was checked by hand. Model inputs were verified against the design inputs and references. Default difference reports were used to verify model configuration changes.

Output was verified to be reasonable and correct for the scenario requested by the client.

Other Comments QA Software used was run on a benchmarked computer.

Extra References Used None (Attach extra sheets if needed (Use Form P030114))

THE APPROACH, LOGIC, AND METHODOLOGY OF THE CALCULATION IS ACCEPTABLE. THE GUIDELINES DEFINED IN PARA. 7.5.4 (AS APPLICABLE) OF P 3-1 HAVE BEEN MET. THE OVERALL CALCULATION IS FOUND TO BE VALID AND CONCLUSY)NS TO BE CORRECT AND REASONABLE:

IDV Signature: * (. _4_/ Printed Name: Scott M. Ingalls Date:

0 (I

Form No.: P030103 sheet 1 of 1 Rev.: 0-01 Date: 5/09 Ref.: P 3-1

ZACHRY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING, INC. CALC NO.10-057 PRv A PAGE iv OF V GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIGINATOR Michael A. Norwood DATE 6/3/2010 VERFIEI By Scott M. Ingalls JOB No .0 5 1 828 CLIENT Xcel Energy PROJECr CL System PROTO-FLO Analysis TITLE CL System Double Seismic Break Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS CALCULATIO N TITLE SH EET............................................................................................................................ ................. i REVISIO N HISTO RY .............................................................................................................................................................. ii CALCULATIO N VERIFICATION FO RM .......................................................................................................................... ii TABLE O F CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................................... I..iv LIST O F ATTACH M ENTS ..................................................................................................................................................... v Total number of pages in Preface of Calc. 5 1.0 PURPO SE .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 BA CK GR O UND ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 APPRO A CH ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 4.0 DESIG N INPUTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 4.1 SYSTEM ALIGNMENT ................................................................................................................................................. 1 4.2 VALVES ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2 4.3 NEW PIPES ................................................................................................................................................................. 2 4.4 N ODE ELEVATIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 3 4.5 Low SUPPLY HEADER PRESSURE ALARMS ............................................................................................................... 3 4.6 HIGH SUPPLY HEADER FLOW ALARM S ..................................................................................................................... 4 5.0 A SSUM PTION S .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 6.0 A NALY SIS ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 6.1 SEISMIC SCENARIO #1 - FULL BREAKS OF 14-CL-67 AND 14-2CL-10 ................................................................ 4 6.2 FLAGGED CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 5 7.0 CO N CLU SIO N ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 8.0 REFEREN CES ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 Total number of pages in Body of Calc. 7 Form No.: P030104 sheet 1 of 1 Rev.: 0-01 Date: 5/09 Ref.: P 3-1

ZACHRY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING, INC. CALCNO. 10 -05 7 REV A PAGE V OF V GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIoINATOR Michael A.Norwood DAT 6/3/2010 VERIFIED BY Scott M. Ingalls JOB NO. 051828 CLIENT Xcel Energy PROJECT CL System PROTO-FLO Analysis TITLE CL System Double Seismic Break Analysis LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment Subject Matter Total Pames A Zachry Nuclear Engineering, Inc. Calculation 10-057, Revision A -Xcel Energy 13 Design Input Transmittal 16154 dated May 12, 2010, DIT No. 01, "Turbine Building Flooding SDP: CL Turbine Building Seismic Pipe Break Analysis" with Attachments and Xcel Energy Design Input Transmittal 06090 dated April 30, 2010, DIT No. 01, "Turbine Building Flooding SDP: CL Turbine Building Pipe Break Analysis" with Attachments B Zachry Nuclear Engineering, Inc. Calculation 10-057, Revision A - Select Input 8+ CD Reports and Optical Disk Containing the CL Model Database and Double Seismic Break Analysis Results C Zachry Nuclear Engineering, Inc. Calculation 10-057, Revision A- CL System 174 Operation for a Double Seismic Break Event, Scenario 1, Full Breaks of 14-CL-67 and 14-2CL-10 D Zachry Nuclear Engineering, Inc. Calculation 10-057, Revision A - IDV 2 Comments for Revision A E Zachry Nuclear Engineering, Inc. Calculation 10-057, Revision A - Client 2 Comments for Revision A F Zachry Nuclear Engineering, Inc. Calculation 10-057, Revision A - Client Emails 2 Total number of pages in Attachments 201 Comnlete Calculation (total number of nages) 213 ForrnNo.: -P030104sheetlofl Rev.: 0-01 Date: 5/09 Ref.: P 3-1

ZACHRY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING, INC. CALCNO.10-057 REV A PAGE 1 OF 7 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIGINATOR Michael A. Norwood DATE 6/3/2010 VER*FED BY Scott M. Ingalls JOB NO. 051828 CLIENT Xcel Energy PROJECT CL System PROTO-FLO Analysis TITLE CL System Double Seismic Break Analysis 1.0 PURPOSE This calculation documents the flow and pressure distribution in the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP) Cooling Water (CL) System during a postulated seismic event that that results in two pipe breaks in the CL System.

This calculation is non-safety related and is not intended to support design basis analysis.

2.0 BACKGROUND

This calculation documents the double seismic break analysis performed per client's instructions submitted via Reference 1 as authorized by Reference 2.

The development of the PROTO-FLO model for the PINGP CL is documented in Reference 3.

System response to a seismic event resulting in a CL pipe is documented in Reference 4. That calculation will serve as the basis for the analysis herein. Minor modifications will be required to the CL system model in order to analyze a new break location. This calculation models a pipe break scenario with a similar system alignment to that found in Reference 4, but with different break locations than is found in Reference 4.

3.0 APPROACH The PROTO-FLO model used for this calculation is based on the model used in Reference 4, using Case 12 with the modifications listed in the Design Inputs and Analysis sections of this calculation. One distinct operating scenario will be considered:

1. Full breaks of 14-CL-67 and 14-2CL-10 Instrument uncertainty is not considered in this calculation consistent with the guidance in Attachment F, and all reported values are nominal values.

4.0 DESIGN INPUTS Based on the client instructions provided in Reference 1, the design inputs for this calculation are as follows 4.1 System Alignment The baseline system alignment shall be that of the Reference 4 Model, 04-109D.DBD dated 3/13/2007, Case Alignment 12 (Seismic - Failure of a Single Pipe LPI).

Form No.: P0301 05 sheet 1 of I Rev.: 0-01 Date: 5/09 Ref.: P 3-1

ZACHRY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING, INC. CALC NO.10-057 P VA PAGE 2 OF 7 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIGINATOR Michael A. Norwood DATE 6/3/2010 VERIFIED "Y Scott M. Ingalls JOB NO. 051828 CLIENT Xcel Energy PROJECT CL System PROTO-FLO Analysis TITLE CL System Double Seismic Break Analysis 4.2 Valves The following valves were closed to isolate CL flow to the ZX chillers (model heat exchangers 11CHLDWTRCND and 12 CHLDWTRCND:

9 MV-32144 9 MV-32159 The following valves were closed or throttled in the Reference 4 analysis to maintain a system pressure near vapor pressure, and have been modeled as 100% open in this analysis because the different alignment and break locations result in nodal pressures above vapor pressure for nodes associated with those valves:

  • ICW-030-001

" MV-32153 For completeness, the following check valves were initially assumed as open for Scenarios 1. If there is reverse flow in these lines, PROTO-FLO will automatically close the valves to isolate the reverse flow:

  • ICW-031-001
  • 2CL-43-2 4.3 New Pipes The following CL System model pipe was segmented in order to analyze the postulated pipe break:

. Pipe 129.00 (from Node 11 IA to 11 1C) was segmented into Pipes 129.00, 129.10, and 129.20. New nodes 11 lAbreak and 11 lCbreak were added.

  • Pipe 394.00 (from Node 11 B to 112B) was segmented into Pipes 394.00, 394.10, and 394.20. New nodes 111 Bbreak and 11 2Bbreak were added.

This pipe was segmented as directed by Reference 1. The middle segments (129.10 and 394.10) each have no hydraulic resistance and a dummy valve. This is to give the ability to model a guillotine pipe break by closing the dummy valve and setting the associated nodes as pressure discharge flowing nodes with static pressures of 14.7 psia (See Figure below for Pipe 129). Exit losses are not included in the pipe sections as a separate loss because exit losses are included when a node is modeled as a pressure discharge flowing node.

Form No.: P030105 sheet 1 of 1 Rev.: 0-01 Date: 5/09 Ref.: P 3-1

ZACHRY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING, INC. CALc NO.10-057 R-v A PAGE 3 OF 7 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIGINATOR Michael A. Norwood DATE 6/3/2010 VERIFIED BY Scott M. Ingalls JOB NO. 051828 CLIENT Xcel Energy PROJECT CL System PROTO-FLO Analysis TITLE CL System Double Seismic Break Analysis Free/Flow Free/Flow Valve Open PDisch-Flowing PDisch-Flowing Z IIA illAbreak lllCbreak llC 129. 00 129.20 .

Valve Shut The Pipe Section Data Report for the new pipe segments is included in Attachment B.

The updated PROTO-FLO model is also provided on the optical disk included in Attachment B.

4.4 Node Elevations Some break nodes are modeled as flow or free rather than pressure discharge flowing because the static pressure in that part of the system is lower than atmospheric during break conditions; modeling a node in that part of the system as pressure discharge flowing would result in the erroneous calculation of flow into the break. The model elevation of select break nodes and nodes adjacent to those break nodes is reported below, to aide in the qualitative justification that those nodes be modeled as free or flow as found in Section 6.1.

0 Node 112Bbreak, 708.50 ft

  • Node 144A, 702.50 ft
  • Node 11lCbreak, 708.5 ft
  • Node 144B, 702.50 ft 4.5 Low Supply Header Pressure Alarms PS-16001 and PS-16008 are adjacent to model nodes 022A and 022B, respectively.

These low pressure alarms have setpoints of 75 psig per Reference 6. The difference between the height of pressure instruments and the height of the model nodes is used in Form No.: P030105 sheet 1 of 1 Rev.: 0-01 Date: 5/09 Ref.: P 3-1

ZACHRY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING, INC. CALC NO.10-057 REV A PAGE 4 OF 7 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIGINATOR Michael A. Norwood DATE 6/3/2010 VERIFIED BY Scott M. Ingalls JOBNO. 051828 CLIENT Xcel Energy PROJECT CL System PROTO-FLO Analysis TITLE CL System Double Seismic Break Analysis conjunction with the density of water at 85F to determine the model node pressure corresponding to a pressure instrument pressure of 75 psig, as shown below:

Pressure Instrument/ PS-16001/ PS-16008/

Associated Node 2 Node 022A Node 022B Pressure 2 Instrument 701 ft 701 ft Elevation Node Elevation 3 686.5 ft 686.5 ft Elevation Delta 14.5 ft 14.5 ft Pressure delta I 6.26 psi 6.26 psi Nodal Pressure 95.96 psia/ 81.26 psig 95.96 psia! 81.26 psig Corresponding to a Pressure Instrument pressure of 75 psig Note 1: Based on a water temperature of 85F and a corresponding water density of 62.168 lbm/ft3 .

Note 2: Reference 6 Note 3: Model Database.

4.6 High Supply Header Flow Alarms FE-27185 and FE-27186 are high flow alarms in model pipes 43 and 55, respectively.

These high flow alarms have setpoints of 18,000 gpm per Reference 6.

5.0 ASSUMPTIONS None 6.0 ANALYSIS 6.1 Seismic Break Scenario #1 - Full Breaks of 14-CL-67 and 14-2CL-10 Scenario #1 represents a full break of pipes 14-CL-67 and 14-2CL-10. The system configuration is as described in Section 4.0. The break locations for this scenario are in the 14-inch turbine building headers immediately before valves 1CW-032-001 and 2CL-032-001. A guillotine break in each location was modeled by closing the dummy valve "Pipe129Break" and "Pipe394break" and setting nodes 111 Abreak and 111 Bbreak as pressure discharge flowing nodes with static pressures of 14.7 psia. Nodes 111 Cbreak in pipe 129.2 and 112Bbreak in pipe 394.2 remained modeled as a flow or free nodes to prevent the erroneous modeling of water flowing into the break; this is evident as described below:

Form No.: P030105 sheet 1 of 1 Rev.: 0-01 Date: 5/09 Ref.: P 3-1

ZACIIRY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING, INC. CALC NO.10-057 REV A PAGE 5 OF 7 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIGINATOR Michael A. Norwood DATE 6/3/2010 VERPFIED By Scott M. Ingalls JOB NO. 051828 CLIENT Xcel Energy PROJECT CL System PROTO-FLO Analysis CL TITLE System Double Seismic Break Analysis

" The Node Summary report in Attachment C showsNode 144A, which is the node closest to Node 111 Cbreak without being isolated from it and also in the flow path, is 6 feet lower than Node 111 Cbreak and has a static pressure of 14.84 psia.

The pressure at Node 11 Cbreak will be 14.84-(6 ft

  • 62.168 lbm/ftA3/144 inA2/ftA2) = 12.25 psia, which is below atmospheric pressure. It is concluded that modeling Node 111 Cbreak as a flow or free node is appropriate because it will prevent the modeling of flow into the break.

" The Node Summary report in Attachment C shows Node 144B, which is the node closest to Node 11 2Bbreak without being isolated from it and also in the flow path, is 6 feet lower than Node 11 2Bbreak and has a static pressure of 14.60 psia.

The pressure at Node 111 Cbreak will be 14.60-(6 ft

  • 62.168 lbm/ftA3/144 inA2/ftA2) = 12.01 psia, which is below atmospheric pressure. It is concluded that modeling Node 112Bbreak as a flow or free node is appropriate because it will prevent the modeling of flow into the break.

The resultant PROTO-FLO output reports for this scenario with two pumps running are provided in Attachment C.

6.2 Flagged Conditions The calculation summary report in Attachment C contains flagged conditions. Typical flagged conditions include

" "Closed due to Reverse Flow Thru Check Valve CL-084-005", which is a notification that the PROTO-FLO model detected reverse flow in a pipe containing a check valve and closed the check valve accordingly.

" "Reverse Flow Through Check Valve 2CL-03 1-001", which is a notification that the subject check valve is modeled with a reverse flow valve coefficient (CV) to simulate a leaking check valve and fluid is flowing backwards through the check valve.

" "Control Valve Position 8.81% Full Open", which is a notification of the status of control valves in the model.

  • "DP > 50% of Inlet Pressure Cavitation Flow Possible", which is a notification that there is potential for cavitation if, for example, the entire pressure drop exists in a single component such as a valve or orifice.
  • "Pump Flow Past End of Curve (18971.06 > 18000.00)", which is a notification that the pump is operating outside the range of input data and is potentially operating in an unstable region of the pump performance curve. The run out point for pumps CLWP-012 and CLWP-022 is 18,000 gpm per the calculation summary report included on Page 8 of Attachment C. The flow rate of CLWP-012 is 18971.06 and the flow rate of CLWP-022 is 18,780.82. The percent runout of pump CLWP-012 is 5% and the percent runout for pump CLWP-022 is 4%.

Form No.: P030105 sheet I of 1 Rev.: 0-01 Date: 5/09 Ref.: P 3-1

ZACHRY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING, INC. CALCNO.10-057 VA PAGE 6 OF 7 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIGINATOR Michael A. Norwood DATE 6/3/2010 VERIFIED BY Scott M. Ingalls JOB NO. 051828 CLIENT Xcel Energy PROJECT CL System PROTO-FLO Analysis TITLE CL System Double Seismic Break Analysis

7.0 CONCLUSION

Flow out of the break for the double-break scenario is as follows:

The readings of the header flow instruments, which alarm at a high flow of 18,000, are as follows:

I Scenario FE-27185 I FE-27186 I 1 1: Full Break of 14-CL-67 and 14-2CL-10 1 20,026.28 1 17,040.41 I The reading of the header pressure alarm instruments, which alarm at a low pressure of 95.96 psia at model Nodes 022A and 022B as noted in Section 4.5, are as follows:

Scenario I PS-16001 I PS-16008 1 1: Full Break of 14-CL-67 and 14-2CL-10 1 45.97 psia 1 49.25 psia I It is noted that pump CLWP-012 is 5% beyond its niodeled pump curve and pump CLWP-022 is 4% beyond its modeled pump curve, and both the low pressure supply header alarm and the high flow supply header alarm will actuate.

The model used for this analysis, 10-057A.DBD (Size 5,748 KB, dated 5/14/2010 10:41 AM EDST) is included on the optical disk provided in Attachment B. The resultant CL system conditions are provided in Attachments C.

8.0 REFERENCES

1. Xcel Energy Design Input Transmittal 16154 dated May 12, 2010, DIT No. 01, "Turbine Building Flooding SDP: CL Turbine Building Seismic Pipe Break Analysis." (Included in Attachment A)

DIT References andAttachments 1.1. Xcel Energy Drawing X-HIAW-106-124, Revision C, 1.2. Xcel Energy Drawing X-HIAW- 1106-468, Revision C 1.3. Proto-Power Calc 04-109D

2. Xcel Energy Contract 1757 Release 22 dated December 23, 2009, "Zachry Cooling Water System PROTO-FLO Analysis."

Form No.: P030105 sheet 1 of 1 Rev.: 0-01 Date: 5/09 Ref.: P 3-1

ZACHRY NUCLEAR ENGINEERING, INC. CALCNO.10-057 REV A PAGE 7 OF 7 GROTON, CONNECTICUT ORIGINATOR Michael A. Norwood DATE 6/3/2010 VERIFIED BY Scott M. Ingalls 1o0 NO. 051828 CLIENT Xcel Energy PROJECT CL System PROTO-FLO Analysis TITLE CL System Double Seismic Break Analysis

3. Proto-Power Calculation 07-013, Revision A, "Revision F of PINGP CL System Model Database."
4. Proto-Power Calculation 04-109 Revision D, " SEISMIC - FAILURE OF A SINGLE PIPE"
5. Proto-Power Corporation User Documentation for Thermal-Hydraulic Modeling Software PROTO-FLO - Steady State Module, UD-93948-01, Version 4.6
6. Xcel Energy Design Input Transmittal 06090 dated April 30, 2010, DIT No. 01, "Turbine Building Flooding SDP: CL Turbine Building Pipe Break Analysis." (Included in Attachment A)

DITReferences and Attachments 6.1. Xcel Energy Drawing X-HIAW-106-124, Revision C 6.2. Proto-Power Calc 04-109D 6.3. Proto-Power Calc 09-045A Form No.: P030105 sheet 1 of 1 Rev.: 0-01 Date: 5/09 Ref.: P 3-1

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML101690169&oldid=2244194"